Reviewer 2 -...
Transcript of Reviewer 2 -...
LEMBAR
HASIL PENILAIAN SEJAWAT SEBIDANG ATAU PEER REVIEW
KARYA ILMIAH : JURNAL ILMIAH
..............................
Judul Jurnal Ilmiah (Artikel) : Governance structure choice in the supply chain of broiler chickens: an
empirical study in Central Java, Indonesia
Jumlah Penulis : 4 orang
Status Pengusul : penulis pertama/utama
Identitas Jurnal Ilmiah : a. Nama Jurnal : International Journal of Services,
Technology and Management,
b. Nomor ISSN : 1741525X, 14606720
c. Volume, nomor, bulan tahun : 24 (5/6), .414–444. Agustus 2018
d. Penerbit : Inderscience Publishers.
e. DOI artikel (jika ada) : DOI: 10.1504/IJSTM.2018.10014971
f. Alamat web jurnal :
JURNAL : http://www.inderscience.com/info/inarticle.php?artid=94442 ARTIKEL: http://eprints.undip.ac.id/64774/ .
g. Terindeks di Scopus/Scimagojr/SJR=0,14 (2017) dan Q4.
Kategori Publikasi Jurnal Ilmiah : Jurnal Ilmiah Internasional
(beri pada kategori yang tepat) Jurnal Ilmiah Nasional Terakreditasi
Jurnal Ilmiah Nasional Tidak Terakreditasi
Hasil Penilaian Peer Review :
Komponen
Yang Dinilai
Nilai Maksimal Jurnal Ilmiah
Nilai Yang
Diperoleh Reviewer 1 Reviewer 2
a. Kelengkapan unsur isi jurnal(10%) 2,35 2,50 2,43
b. Ruang lingkup dan kedalaman
pembahasan (30%) 5,88 6,25
6,07
c. Kecukupan dan kemutahiran
data/informasi dan metodologi
(30%) 7,06
6,25
6,65
d. Kelengkapan unsur dan kualitas
penerbit (30%) 4,71 5,00
4,85
Total = (100%) 20,00 20,00 20,00
Nilai Pengusul = (60%)*20,00 = 12,00
Semarang,
Reviewer 1
Prof.Ir. Togar M. Simatupang, M.Tech.,Ph.D.
NIP. 196812311993031015
Unit kerja: Sekolah Bisnis dan Manajemen
(SBM) Insititut Teknologi Bandung
Reviewer 2
Prof. Ir. I Nyoman M.Eng.Ph.D.
NIP. 196912311994121076
Unit kerja :Teknik Industri ITS
LEMBAR
HASIL PENILAIAN SEJAWAT SEBIDANG ATAU PEER REVIEW
KARYA ILMIAH : JURNAL ILMIAH
..............................
Judul Jurnal Ilmiah (Artikel) : “Governance structure choice in the supply chain of broiler chickens: an
empirical study in Central Java, Indonesia”
Jumlah Penulis : 4 orang
Status Pengusul : penulis pertama/utama
Identitas Jurnal Ilmiah : a. Nama Jurnal : International Journal of Services
Technology and Management
b. Nomor ISSN : 1741525X, 14606720
c. Volume, nomor, bulan tahun : 24 (5/6), .414–444. Agustus 2018
d. Penerbit : Inderscience Publishers.
e. DOI artikel (jika ada) : DOI: 10.1504/IJSTM.2018.10014971
f. Alamat web jurnal :
JURNAL : http://www.inderscience.com/info/inarticle.php?artid=94442
ARTIKEL: http://eprints.undip.ac.id/64774/
g. Terindeks di Scopus/Scimagojr/SJR=0,14 (2017) dan Q4.
Kategori Publikasi Jurnal Ilmiah : Jurnal Ilmiah Internasional
(beri pada kategori yang tepat) Jurnal Ilmiah Nasional Terakreditasi
Jurnal Ilmiah Nasional Tidak Terakreditasi
Hasil Penilaian Peer Review :
Komponen
Yang Dinilai
Nilai Maksimal Jurnal Ilmiah
Nilai Akhir
Yang
Diperoleh
Internasional
Nasional
Terakreditasi
Nasional
Tidak
Terakreditasi
a. Kelengkapan unsur isi jurnal (10%) 4,00 2,35
b. Ruang lingkup dan kedalaman
pembahasan (30%)
12,00 5,88
c. Kecukupan dan kemutahiran
data/informasi dan metodologi (30%)
12,00 7,06
d. Kelengkapan unsur dan kualitas
terbitan/jurnal (30%)
12,00 4,71
Total = (100%) 40,00 20,00
Nilai Pengusul = 60%*20,00 = 12,00
Catatan Penilaian artikel oleh Reviewer : 1. Kesesuaian dan kelengkapan unsur isi jurnal: Susunan paper telah memuat abstract, introduction, literature review, methods of the research,
results, and conclusions. Unsur paper sudah lengkap dan sesuai dengan petunjuk penulisan jurnal.2. Ruang lingkup dan kedalaman pembahasan: Ruang linkup paper termasuk dalam bidang Teknik Industri yang membahas tentang pilihan tata
kelola pada industri produksi ayam pedaging. Penulis telah berhasil dengan baik menurunkan hipotesis tentang pilihan tata kelola. Ada baiknya
model konseptual ditempatkan di awab sebelum menjelaskan hipotesis untuk memudahkan pembaca melihat gambaran besar dan alur penalaran dari model.
3. Kecukupan dan kemutakhiran data/informasi dan metodologi: Data yang dikumpulkan sejumlah 125 responden. Metode analisis yang
digunakan adalah Structural Equation Modelling (SEM) dengan prosedur yang lengkap. Referensi terbaru sudah memadai.4. Kelengkapan unsur dan kualitas terbitan: Paper telah diterbitkan baik dalam bentuk daring dan cetakan. Jurnal merupakan terindeks di SCOPUS
dengan kategori Q4. Penerbit inderscience termasuk yang diragukan oleh DIKTI
Bandung, 19 September 2018
Reviewer 1
Prof. Ir. Togar M. Simatupang, Ph.D.
NIP. 196812311993031015
Unit kerja : Sekolah Bisnis dan Manajemen (SBM)
Insititut Teknologi Bandung (ITB)
LEMBAR
HASIL PENILAIAN SEJAWAT SEBIDANG ATAU PEER REVIEW
KARYA ILMIAH : JURNAL ILMIAH
..............................
Judul Jurnal Ilmiah (Artikel) : Governance structure choice in the supply chain of broiler chickens: an
empirical study in Central Java, Indonesia
Jumlah Penulis : 4 orang
Status Pengusul : penulis pertama/utama
Identitas Jurnal Ilmiah : a. Nama Jurnal : International Journal of Services,
Technology and Management
b. Nomor ISSN : 1741525X, 14606720
c. Volume, nomor, bulan tahun : 24 (5/6), .414–444. Agustus 2018d. Penerbit : Inderscience Publishers.
e. DOI artikel (jika ada) : DOI: 10.1504/IJSTM.2018.10014971
f. Alamat web jurnal :
JURNAL : http://www.inderscience.com/info/inarticle.php?artid=94442 ARTIKEL : http://eprints.undip.ac.id/64774/
g. Terindeks di Scopus/Scimagojr/SJR=0,14 (2017) dan Q4.
Kategori Publikasi Jurnal Ilmiah : Jurnal Ilmiah Internasional
(beri pada kategori yang tepat) Jurnal Ilmiah Nasional TerakreditasiJurnal Ilmiah Nasional Tidak Terakreditasi
Hasil Penilaian Peer Review :
Komponen
Yang Dinilai
Nilai Maksimal Jurnal Ilmiah
Nilai Akhir
Yang
Diperoleh
Internasional
Nasional
Terakreditasi
Nasional
Tidak
Terakreditasi
a. Kelengkapan unsur isi jurnal (10%) 4,00 2,50
b. Ruang lingkup dan kedalaman
pembahasan (30%)
12,00 6,25
c. Kecukupan dan kemutahiran
data/informasi dan metodologi (30%)
12,00 6,25
d. Kelengkapan unsur dan kualitas
terbitan/jurnal (30%)
12,00 5,00
Total = (100%) 40,00 20,00
Nilai Pengusul = 60%* 20,00= 12
Catatan Penilaian artikel oleh Reviewer : 1. Kesesuaian dan kelengkapan unsur isi jurnal: Cukup lengkap dan bidangnya sesuai dengan bidang yang diklaim penulis di deskripsi tentang penulis.2. Ruang lingkup dan kedalaman pembahasan: Cukup baik, ada hypothesis yang diusulkan dan ada testing hypothesis secara statistik.. 3. Kecukupan dan kemutakhiran data/informasi dan metodologi: Menggunakan metode standard dan cukup, walaupun mungkin bisa ditambahkan beberapa analisis yang lumrah dilakukan untuk penelitian dengan metodologi survey seperti ini untuk menjaga rigors.
4. Kelengkapan unsur dan kualutas terbitan: Cukup baik, jurnal melalui proses review yang baik, walaupun reputasi jurnal maupun penerbitnya masih relatif rendah.
Surabaya, 23 September 2018
Reviewer 2
Prof. Ir. I Nyoman M.Eng.Ph.D.NIP. 196912311994121076 Unit kerja : Teknik Industri ITS
Scopus
Document details
16 of 38
Governance structure choice in the supply chain of broiler chickens: Anempirical study in Central Java, Indonesia (Article)
, , ,
Department of Industrial Engineering, Diponegoro University Prof Soedarto, Campus Tembalang, Semarang,IndonesiaBina Nusantara University, Jakarta, Indonesia
AbstractThis study aims to clarify the dominant factors (which can be defined as antecedent factors) influencing the structurechoice in the supply chain governance of traders and middlemen of broiler chickens. This study has utilised closed-ended questionnaires with a five-point Likert scale distributed to several traders and middlemen of broiler chickens inthe traditional town market in Semarang City of Central Java Province. One hundred and twenty-five copies of thequestionnaire were administered to the traders of broiler chickens in these marketplaces: North Johar, Central Johar,South Johar, Bulu, Karangayu, Peterongan, and Jatingaleh. Additional information was collected through follow-uptelephone interviews and archive records. Data acquired from the questionnaire were processed using structuralequation modelling (SEM). The findings indicate that the transaction cost economy and the collaborative advantagehave a significant positive effect on the level of integration; in this case, the effect of the transaction cost economics isstronger than that of collaboration advantages. The findings also suggest that the transaction cost economicssignificantly depends on uncertain conditions between traders and the middlemen; whereas, the collaborativeadvantage significantly depends on uncertain conditions and collaboration capability. Copyright © 2018 InderscienceEnterprises Ltd.
SciVal Topic Prominence
Topic:
Prominence percentile: 96.509
Author keywordsBroiler chicken Indonesia Level of integration Semarang Supply chain TCE collaborative advantage
Transaction cost economics
Funding details
Funding textBiographical notes: Aries Susanty is a Permanent Lecturer in the Department of Industrial Engineering, DiponegoroUniversity, Indonesia. Additionally, she is also a Lecturer in Operations Management at Mercu Buana University and aLecturer in International Classes at Telkom University. She received her Bachelor, Master, and PhD degrees all inIndustrial Engineering from Bandung Institute of Technology, Indonesia. She has published and presented herresearches nationally and internationally in the areas of industrial engineering, organisation performance, operationsand supply chain management, and corporate governance. Her researches have been funded by the IndonesianMinistry of Industry, Indonesian Institute of Corporate Governance (IICG), the Indonesian Ministry of Education, theRegional Planning Board of West Java Province, and the Indonesian Ministry of Energy and Mineral Resources.
◅ Back to results ◅ Previous ▻Next
Export Download Print E-mail Save to PDF ⋆ Add to List ▻More...
View at Publisher
International Journal of Services, Technology and ManagementVolume 24, Issue 5-6, 2018, Pages 414-444
Susanty, A.a Suliantoro, H.a Siburian, E.a Syamil, A.b
a
b
View references (114)
Factor Analysis, Statistical | Measurement | Factorial invariance
ISSN: 14606720Source Type: JournalOriginal language: English
DOI: 10.1504/IJSTM.2018.094442Document Type: ArticlePublisher: Inderscience Enterprises Ltd.
PlumX MetricsUsage, Captures, Mentions,Social Media and Citationsbeyond Scopus.
Metrics
0 Citations in Scopus
0 Field-Weighted
Citation Impact
Cited by 0 documents
Inform me when this documentis cited in Scopus:
Related documents
, (2008) Agricultural Economics
(2013) International Journal ofEmergency Services
, ,
(2008) Electronic Journal ofBusiness Research Methods
Find more related documents inScopus based on:
Set citation alert ▻
▻Set citation feed
The impact of supply chaingovernance structures on theinter-firm relationshipperformance in agribusiness
Gyau, A. Spiller, A.
An introduction to structuralequation modelling foremergency services and disasterresearch
Cruddas, S.
Structural equation modelling:Guidelines for determiningmodel fit
Hooper, D. Coughlan, J.Mullen, M.R.
View all related documents basedon references
▻Authors ▻Keywords
References (114)
Anderson, C.M.Willingness to collaborate as a new communication trait: Scale development and a predictive model ofrelated communication traits(1993) Joint Meeting of The Southern States Communication Association and The Central StatesCommunication Association. .Paper 14-18 April, Lexington, Kentucky
Aubert, B.A., Rivard, S., Patry, M.
(1996) Information and Management, 30 (2), pp. 51-64. .doi: 10.1016/0378-7206(95)00045-3
Barkema, A., Drabenstott, M.
(1995) Agribusiness, 11 (5), pp. 483-492. .doi: 10.1002/1520-6297(199509/10)11:5<483::AID-AGR2720110511>3.0.CO;2-Q
Barrett, P.
(2007) Personality and Individual Differences, 42 (5), pp. 815-824. .doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2006.09.018
Barringer, B.R., Harrison, J.S.
(2000) Journal of Management, 26 (3), pp. 367-403. .
doi: 10.1177/014920630002600302
Bentler, P.M.
(1990) Psychological Bulletin, 107 (2), pp. 238-246. .
doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.107.2.238
Bentler, P.M., Bonett, D.G.
(1980) Psychological Bulletin, 88 (3), pp. 588-606. .doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.88.3.588
▻View in search results format
All Export Print E-mail Save to PDF Create bibliography
View all 114 references
1
Cited 3 times
2
A transaction cost approach to outsourcing behavior: Some empirical evidence
Cited 165 times
View at Publisher
3
The many paths of vertical coordination: Structural implications for the us foodsystem
Cited 24 times
View at Publisher
4
Structural equation modelling: Adjudging model fit
Cited 899 times
View at Publisher
5
Walking a tightrope: Creating value through interorganizational relationships
Cited 597 timeshttp://www.sagepub.com/journal.aspx?pid=10604
View at Publisher
6
Comparative fit indexes in structural models
Cited 12808 timeswww.apa.org/journals/bul.html
View at Publisher
7
Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance structures
Cited 9052 times
View at Publisher
Blomqvist, K., Levy, J.Collaboration capability-a focal concept in knowledge creation and collaborative innovation in networks(2006) International Journal of Management Concepts and Philosophy, 2 (1), pp. 31-48. .
Bramwell, B., Sharman, A.
(1999) Annals of Tourism Research, 26 (2), pp. 392-415. .doi: 10.1016/S0160-7383(98)00105-4
Browne, M.W., Cudeck, R.Alternative ways of assessing model fit(1993) Testing Structural Equation Models, pp. 136-162. .Bollen, K.A. and Long, J.S. Eds: Sage, Newbury Park, CA
Byrne, B.M.(2013) Structural Equation Modeling with LISREL, PRELIS and SIMPLIS: Basic Concepts, Applications andProgramming. .Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ
Caglio, A., Ditillo, A.
(2008) Accounting, Organizations and Society, 33 (7-8), pp. 865-898. .doi: 10.1016/j.aos.2008.08.001
Rosas, J., Camarinha-Matos, L.M.
(Open Access)
(2010) IFIP Advances in Information and Communication Technology, 314, pp. 14-23. .
ISBN: 978-364211627-8doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-11628-5_2
Cao, M., Zhang, Q.
(2010) International Journal of Production Economics, 128 (1), pp. 358-367. .doi: 10.1016/j.ijpe.2010.07.037
Cao, M., Zhang, Q.
(2011) Journal of Operations Management, 29 (3), pp. 163-180. .doi: 10.1016/j.jom.2010.12.008
Chang, H.H., Di Caprio, A., Sahara, S.Global agrifood value chains and local poverty reduction: What happens to those who don't plug in?(2015) Asian Development Bank Economics Working Paper Series, p. 453.
8
Cited 83 times
9
Collaboration in local tourism policymaking
Cited 343 times
View at Publisher
10
Cited 13056 times
11
Cited 2521 times
12
A review and discussion of management control in inter-firm relationships:Achievements and future directions
Cited 141 times
View at Publisher
13
Assessment of the willingness to collaborate in enterprise networks
Cited 2 timeshttp://www.springer.com/series/6102
View at Publisher
14
Supply chain collaborative advantage: A firm's perspective
Cited 72 times
View at Publisher
15
Supply chain collaboration: Impact on collaborative advantage and firm performance
Cited 615 times
View at Publisher
16
Chen, G., Zhang, G., Xie, Y.M.
(2015) Journal of Management in Engineering, 31 (4), art. no. 4014054. .doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479.0000259
Chen, I.J., Paulraj, A.
(2004) Journal of Operations Management, 22 (2), pp. 119-150. .doi: 10.1016/j.jom.2003.12.007
Cooper, M.C., Ellram, L.M.
(1993) The International Journal of Logistics Management, 4 (2), pp. 13-24. .doi: 10.1108/09574099310804957
Crisan, E., Parpucea, I., Ilies, L.The relation between supply chain governance and supply chain performance(2011) Journal of Management & Marketing Challenges for The Knowledge Society, 6 (4), pp. 637-644.
.
Croom, S.
(2001) International Journal of Operations and Production Management, 21 (4), pp. 504-515. .
doi: 10.1108/01443570110381408
Dhanaraj, C., Parkhe, A.
(2006) Academy of Management Review, 31 (3), pp. 659-669. .
Cunha, D.P., Gastaud, M.A.C., George, G.G.
(2013) ECIS 2013 - Proceedings of the 21st European Conference on Information Systems
Drost, E.A.Validity and reliability in social science research(2011) Education Research and Perspectives, 38 (1), p. 105. .
17
Impact of transaction attributes on transaction costs in project alliances:Disaggregated analysis
Cited 10 times
View at Publisher
18
Towards a theory of supply chain management: The constructs and measurements
Cited 1072 times
View at Publisher
19
Characteristics of Supply Chain Management and the Implications for Purchasing andLogistics Strategy
Cited 455 times
View at Publisher
20
Cited4 times
21
Restructuring supply chains through information channel innovation
Cited 79 timeshttp://www.emeraldinsight.com/journals.htm?issn=0144-3577
View at Publisher
22
Orchestrating innovation networks
Cited 639 times
View at Publisher
23
Information technology and supply chain governance: A conceptual model
24
Cited 116 times
Duval, Y., Feyler, E.
(2016) ASEAN Economic Community: A Model for Asia-wide Regional Integration?, pp. 153-172. .
ISBN: 978-113753508-5; 978-134955385-3doi: 10.1057/9781137535085_8
Dyer, J.H.
(1996) Organization Science, 7 (6), pp. 649-666. .
doi: 10.1287/orsc.7.6.649
Dyer, J.H.(2000) Collaborative Advantage: Winning Through Extended Enterprise Supplier Networks. .Oxford University Press, Oxford
Dyer, J.H., Singh, H.
(1998) Academy of Management Review, 23 (4), pp. 660-679. .
doi: 10.5465/AMR.1998.1255632
Eichhorn, B.R.(2014) Common Method Variance Techniques. .Cleveland State University, Department of Operations & Supply Chain Management, SAS Institute Inc.,Cleveland, OH
Erramilli, M.K., Rao, C.P.Service firms' international entry-mode choice: A modified transaction-cost analysis approach(1993) The Journal of Marketing, 57 (3), pp. 19-38. .
Ferguson, S.M.(2004) The Economics of Vertical Coordination in The Organic Wheat Supply Chain. .Unpublished thesis, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Canada
Foss, N.J., Nielsen, B.B.Researching multilevel phenomena: The case of collaborative advantage in strategic management(2012) Journal of CENTRUM Cathedra: The Business and Economics Research Journal, 5 (1), pp. 11-23. .
25
Intra- and Extraregional Trade Costs of Asean Economies: Implications for AsianRegional Integration
Cited 5timeshttp://www.palgrave.com/in/book/9781137537102
View at Publisher
26
Does Governance Matter? Keiretsu Alliances and Asset Specificity as Sources ofJapanese Competitive Advantage
Cited 321 timeshttp://orgsci.journal.informs.org
View at Publisher
27Cited 320 times
28
The relational view: Cooperative strategy and sources of interorganizationalcompetitive advantage
Cited 5547 timeshttp://amr.aom.org/content/by/year
View at Publisher
29Cited 39 times
30
Cited 768 times
31Cited 4 times
32
Cited 4 times
Frank, S.D., Henderson, D.R.
(1992) American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 74 (4), pp. 942-950. .doi: 10.2307/1243192
Geyskens, I., Steenkamp, J.-B.E.M., Kumar, N.
(2006) Academy of Management Journal, 49 (3), pp. 519-543. .
doi: 10.5465/AMJ.2006.21794670
Ghozali, I.(2011) Model Persamaan Struktural: Konsep Aplikasi Dengan Amos 19.0. .Badan Penerbit Undip, Semarang
Grover, V., Malhotra, M.K.
(2003) Journal of Operations Management, 21 (4), pp. 457-473. .doi: 10.1016/S0272-6963(03)00040-8
Guo, B., Perron, B.E., Gillespie, D.F.
(2009) British Journal of Social Work, 39 (8), pp. 1556-1574. .doi: 10.1093/bjsw/bcn101
Hair, J.F., Black, W.C., Babin, B.J., Anderson, R.E., Tatham, R.L.(2006) Multivariate Data Analysis, 6. .Pearson Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ
Heide, J.B.Inter-organizational governance in marketing channels(1994) The Journal of Marketing, 58 (1), pp. 71-85. .
Hobbs, J.E.
(1996) Supply Chain Management, 1 (2), pp. 15-27. .doi: 10.1108/13598549610155260
Hobbs, J.E., Young, L.M.
(2000) Supply Chain Management, 5 (3), pp. 131-142. .doi: 10.1108/13598540010338884
33
Transaction costs as determinants of vertical coordination in the u.S. food industries
Cited 82 times
View at Publisher
34
Make, buy, or ally: A transaction cost theory meta-analysis
Cited 421 timeshttp://amj.aom.org/content/by/year
View at Publisher
35Cited 23 times
36
Transaction cost framework in operations and supply chain management research:Theory and measurement
Cited 258 times
View at Publisher
37
A systematic review of structural equation modelling in social work research
Cited 27 times
View at Publisher
38Cited 887 times
39
Cited 1225 times
40
A transaction cost approach to supply chain management
Cited 208 times
View at Publisher
41
Closer vertical co-ordination in agri-food supply chains: A conceptual framework andsome preliminary evidence
Cited 124 times
View at Publisher
Hu, L.-T., Bentler, P.M.
(1999) Structural Equation Modeling, 6 (1), pp. 1-55. .doi: 10.1080/10705519909540118
Huxham, C., Vangen, S.(2005) Managing to Collaborate: The Theory and Practice of Collaborative Advantage. .Routled, London
Jap, S.D.
(1999) Journal of Marketing Research, 36 (4), pp. 461-475. .
doi: 10.2307/3152000
Jap, S.D.
(2001) International Journal of Research in Marketing, 18 (1-2), pp. 19-35. .doi: 10.1016/S0167-8116(01)00028-3
Ji, C., de Felipe, I., Briz, J., Trienekens, J.H.
(2012) International Food and Agribusiness Management Review, 15 (2), pp. 121-152. .
Jöreskog, K.G.(1999) How Large Can A Standardized Coefficient Be. .Unpublished Technical Report online accessed 15 July 2016
Jöreskog, K.G., Sörbom, D.(1993) LISREL 8: Structural Equation Modeling with The SIMPLIS Command Language, ScientificSoftware. .International, Chicago, Illinois
Kaufman, A., Wood, C.H., Theyel, G.
(2000) Strategic Management Journal, 21 (6), pp. 649-663. .
doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1097-0266(200006)21:6<649::AID-SMJ108>3.0.CO;2-U
Keen, P.G.W.(1991) Shaping The Future: Business Design Through Information Technology. .Harvard Business School Press, Massachusetts, Boston
42
Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteriaversus new alternatives
Cited 35183 times
View at Publisher
43Cited 633 times
44
Pie-expansion efforts: Collaboration processes in buyer-supplier relationships
Cited 610 timeshttp://www.journals.marketingpower.com/loi/jmkr
View at Publisher
45
Perspectives on joint competitive advantages in buyer-supplier relationships
Cited 141 times
View at Publisher
46
An empirical study on governance structure choices in chinás pork supply chain
Cited 11 timeshttps://www.ifama.org/publications/journal/vol15/cmsdocs/20110019_Formatted.pdf
47Cited 123 times
http://www.ssicentral.com/lisrel/techdocs/HowLargeCanaStandardizedCoefficientbe.pdf
48
Cited 5169 times
49
Collaboration and technology linkages: A strategic supplier typology
Cited 194 timeshttp://www.interscience.wiley.com/jpages/0143-2095
View at Publisher
50Cited 529 times
Kenny, D.A., McCoach, D.B.
(2003) Structural Equation Modeling, 10 (3), pp. 333-351. .doi: 10.1207/S15328007SEM1003_1
Ketchen Jr., D.J., Hult, G.T.M.
(2007) Journal of Operations Management, 25 (2), pp. 573-580. .doi: 10.1016/j.jom.2006.05.010
Khan, S., Khalid, M.M.Multi choice for precision in multivariate stratified surveys: A compromise solution(2013) International Journal of Operations Research, 10 (4), pp. 171-181.
Kim, Y.Distribution channel decisions in import consumer goods markets(1998) Logistics Information Management, 11 (3), pp. 178-187. .
Kinsey, J.(2002) The Supply Chain of Pork: US and China, 2 (1).Food Industry Center, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota
Klein, B.
(2007) International Journal of the Economics of Business, 14 (1), pp. 1-36. .doi: 10.1080/13571510601141112
Kline, R.B.(2005) Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling. .2nd ed., The Guilford Press, New York
Koh, J., Venkatraman, N.Joint venture formations and stock market reactions: An assessment in the information technology sector(1991) Academy of Management Journal, 34 (4), pp. 869-892. .
Kumar, N., Scheer, L.K., Steenkamp, J.B.E.The effects of supplier fairness on vulnerable resellers(1995) Journal of Marketing Research, 32 (1), pp. 54-65. .
Lambert, D.M., Cooper, M.C., Pagh, J.D.
(1998) The International Journal of Logistics Management, 9 (2), pp. 1-20. .doi: 10.1108/09574099810805807
51
Effect of the Number of Variables on Measures of Fit in Structural Equation Modeling
Cited 453 times
View at Publisher
52
Bridging organization theory and supply chain management: The case of best valuesupply chains
Cited 370 times
View at Publisher
53
54
Cited 4 times
55
56
The economic lessons of fisher body-general motors
Cited 30 times
View at Publisher
57Cited 23871 times
58
Cited 288 times
59
Cited 1023 times
60
Supply Chain Management: Implementation Issues and Research Opportunities
Cited 1002 times
View at Publisher
Lambert, D.M., Knemeyer, A.M., Gardner, J.T.Supply chain partnerships: Model validation and implementation(2004) Journal of Business Logistics, 25 (2), pp. 21-42. .
Lank, E.
(2005) Collaborative Advantage: How Organisations Win by Working Together, pp. 1-176. .
ISBN: 978-023051139-2; 978-140399345-8doi: 10.1057/9780230511392
Lei, P.-W., Wu, Q.
(2007) Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 26 (3), pp. 33-43. .doi: 10.1111/j.1745-3992.2007.00099.x
Lietke, B., Boslau, M.
(2007) International Journal of Networking and Virtual Organisations, 4 (2), pp. 163-179.doi: 10.1504/IJNVO.2007.013541
Malhotra, A., Gosain, S., El Sawy, O.A.
(2005) MIS Quarterly: Management Information Systems, 29 (1), pp. 145-187. .
Marsh, H.W., Hau, K.-T., Wen, Z.
(2004) Structural Equation Modeling, 11 (3), pp. 320-341. .
doi: 10.1207/s15328007sem1103_2
McIntosh, C.N.
(2007) Personality and Individual Differences, 42 (5), pp. 859-867. .doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2006.09.020
Mighell, R.L., Jones, L.A.(1963) Vertical Coordination in Agriculture, Agricultural Economic Report No.19Economic Division of Economic Research Service, USDA, Washington, DC
61
Cited 96 times
62
Collaborative advantage: How organisations win by working together
Cited 6 timeshttp://www.palgrave.com/us/book/9781403993458
View at Publisher
63
An NCME instructional module on: Introduction to structural equation modeling:Issues and practical considerations
Cited 249 times
View at Publisher
64
Exploring the transaction dimensions of supply chain management
View at Publisher
65
Absorptive capacity configurations in supply chains: Gearing for partner-enabledmarket knowledge creation
Cited 545 times
View at Publisher
66
In search of golden rules: Comment on hypothesis-testing approaches to settingcutoff values for fit indexes and dangers in overgeneralizing Hu and Bentler's (1999)findings
Cited 2429 timeshttp://www.tandf.co.uk/journals/titles/10705511.asp
View at Publisher
67
Rethinking fit assessment in structural equation modelling: A commentary andelaboration on Barrett (2007)
Cited 96 times
View at Publisher
68
Mudambi, R., Mudambi, S.M.
(1995) International Business Review, 4 (4), pp. 419-433. .doi: 10.1016/0969-5931(95)00017-8
Muladno(2008) Local Chicken Genetic Resources and Production Systems in IndonesiaGCP/RAS/228/GER Working Paper 6, Animal Production and Health Division, Indonesia
Mulaik, S.A., James, L.R., Van Alstine, J., Bennett, N., Lind, S., Stilwell, C.D.
(1989) Psychological Bulletin, 105 (3), pp. 430-445. .doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.105.3.430
Naslund, D., Williamson, S.What is management in supply chain management? A critical review of definitions, frameworks andterminology(2010) Journal of Management Policy and Practice, 11 (4), pp. 11-28. .
Natawidjaja, R., Reardon, T., Shetty, S., Noor, T.I., Perdana, T., Rasmikayati, E., Bachri, S., (...), Hernandez, R.(2007) Horticultural Producers and Supermarket Development in Indonesia. .June, UNPAD/MSU Report published by the World Bank/Indonesia
Nicholson, C., Young, B.The relationship between supermarkets and suppliers: What are the implications for consumers?(2012) Summary of The Main Report, Consumers International and Europe Economics
Noordewier, T.G., John, G., Nevin, J.R.Performance outcomes of purchasing arrangements in industrial buyer-vendor relationships(1990) The Journal of Marketing, 54 (4), pp. 80-93. .
Nunnally, J.(1978) Psychometric Theory. .2nd ed., McGraw-Hill, New York
Nyaga, G.N., Whipple, J.M., Lynch, D.F.
(2010) Journal of Operations Management, 28 (2), pp. 101-114. .doi: 10.1016/j.jom.2009.07.005
Oittinen, J.(2015) Outsourcing at The Edge of Chaos: Why Transaction Cost Economics Fails Under ComplexityUnpublished Master thesis, Aato University, Greater Helsinki, Finland
69
From transaction cost economics to relationship marketing: a model of buyer-supplierrelations
Cited 15 times
View at Publisher
70
71
Evaluation of Goodness-of-Fit Indices for Structural Equation Models
Cited 1212 times
View at Publisher
72
Cited 39 times
73Cited 37 times
74
75
Cited 946 times
76Cited 52503 times
77
Examining supply chain relationships: Do buyer and supplier perspectives oncollaborative relationships differ?
Cited 392 times
View at Publisher
78
16 of 38
Oktavera, R., Andajani, E.Implementation of value chain analysis in the broiler supply chain agribusiness(2013) Proceedings of The 10th International Annual Symposium on Management, pp. 1268-1279.Surabaya University, Surabaya, Indonesia
Peterson, H.C., Wysocki, A.F.(1997) The Vertical Coordination Continuum and The Determinants of Firm-Level CoordinationStrategy. .Staff Paper 11817, Michigan State University, Department of Agricultural, Food, and Resource Economics,USA
Susanty, A.; Department of Industrial Engineering, Diponegoro University Prof Soedarto, Campus Tembalang,Semarang, Indonesia; email: © Copyright 2018 Elsevier B.V., All rights reserved.
79
80
Cited 6 times
◅ Back to results ◅ Previous ▻Next Top of page
About Scopus
What is Scopus
Content coverage
Scopus blog
Scopus API
Privacy matters
Language
⽇本語に切り替える切换到简体中文
切換到繁體中文
Русский язык
Customer Service
Help
Contact us
Copyright © 2019 . All rights reserved. Scopus® is a registered trademark of Elsevier B.V. We use cookies to help provide and enhance our service and tailor content. By continuing, you agree to the
.
↗Terms and conditions ↗Privacy policy
↗Elsevier B.V
use of cookies
Scopus
Source details
International Journal of Services, Technology and ManagementScopus coverage years: from 2000 to PresentPublisher: InderscienceISSN: 1460-6720 E-ISSN: 1741-525XSubject area: Engineering: General Engineering Business, Management and Accounting: Marketing
Business, Management and Accounting: Strategy and Management
View all
View all documents ▻ Set document alert Journal Homepage
CiteScore 2018
0.28
SJR 2018
0.117
SNIP 2018
0.088
CiteScore CiteScore rank & trend CiteScore presets Scopus content coverage
Calculated using data from 30 April, 2019CiteScore
*CiteScore includes all available document types
0.28 =
Citation Count 2018
Documents 2015 -2017*
=
Metrics displaying this icon are compiled according to , a collaboration betweenindustry and academia.
2018
▻23 Citations
▻83 Documents
▻View CiteScore methodology ▻CiteScore FAQ
Last updated on 10 June, 2019CiteScoreTracker 2019
0.11 = Citation Count 2019
Documents 2016 - 2018 =
Updated monthly
▻10 Citations to date
▻88 Documents to date
↗ Snowball Metrics
CiteScore rank
Category Rank Percentile
Engineering #223/275 18th
Business,Managementand Accounting
#140/162 13th
GeneralEngineering
Marketing
▻View CiteScore trends
🔗Add CiteScore to your site
About Scopus
What is Scopus
Content coverage
Scopus blog
Scopus API
Privacy matters
Language
⽇本語に切り替える切换到简体中文
切換到繁體中文
Русский язык
Customer Service
Help
Contact us
Copyright © 2019 . All rights reserved. Scopus® is a registered trademark of Elsevier B.V. We use cookies to help provide and enhance our service and tailor content. By continuing, you agree to the
.
↗Terms and conditions ↗Privacy policy
↗Elsevier B.V
use of cookies
18/10/2018 International Journal of Services Technology and Management (IJSTM) - Inderscience Publishers
http://www.inderscience.com/info/inarticletoc.php?jcode=ijstm&year=2018&vol=24&issue=5/6 1/2
Help Sitemap
LOG INFor Authors, Editors, Board Members Username
Browse issues Vol. 24 Vol. 23 Vol. 22 Vol. 21 Vol. 20 Vol. 19 Vol. 18 Vol. 17 Vol. 16 Vol. 15 Vol. 14 Vol. 13 Vol. 12 Vol. 11 Vol. 10 Vol. 9 Vol. 8 Vol. 7 Vol. 6 Vol. 5 Vol. 4 Vol. 3 Vol. 2 Vol. 1
International Journal of Services Technologyand Management
2018 Vol. 24 No. 5/6
Special Issue on: Embracing the Asean Economic Community inIndonesia: The Convergence of Management and Technology
Guest Editors: Prof. Benny Tjahjono, Dr. Dessy Irawati-Rutten andProf. Nyoman Pujawan
Editorial
Pages Title and authors
394-413
A case study of Indonesian SMEs: an empirical evidence of SCMpractices and their impact on firm performance Bertha Maya Sopha; Aprilia Hestiani DOI: 10.1504/IJSTM.2018.10014963
414-444
Governance structure choice in the supply chain of broilerchickens: an empirical study in Central Java, Indonesia Aries Susanty; Hery Suliantoro; Eveline Siburian; Ahmad Syamil DOI: 10.1504/IJSTM.2018.10014971
445-462
The challenge of e-money adoption for transportation in Indonesia Amalia E. Maulana; Nova Aryanti DOI: 10.1504/IJSTM.2018.10014968
463-479
Monetary integration in the ASEAN Economic Communitychallenge: the role of the exchange rate on inflation in Indonesia Heru Rahadyan; Alexander Lubis DOI: 10.1504/IJSTM.2018.10014966
480- Assessing an information system in a mandatory environment: a
Sign up for new issue alertsSubscribe/buy articles/issuesView sample issueLatest issue contents as RSS feed Forthcoming articlesJournal information in easy print format (PDF)
Publishing with Inderscience: ethical guidelines (pdf)View all calls for papersRecommend to a librarianFeedback to Editor
Find related journalsFind articles and other searches
Keep up-to-dateOur Blog
Follow us on Twitter
Visit us on Facebook
Join us on Google+
Article search Go
Home > International Journal of Services Technology and Management > 2018 Vol. 24 No. 5/6
Remember me Forgotten?
Home For Authors For Librarians Orders Inderscience Online News
18/10/2018 International Journal of Services Technology and Management (IJSTM) - Inderscience Publishers
http://www.inderscience.com/info/inarticletoc.php?jcode=ijstm&year=2018&vol=24&issue=5/6 2/2
502 case of a government agency in Indonesia Siti Mardiana; Jann H. Tjakraatmadja; Atik Aprianingsih DOI: 10.1504/IJSTM.2018.10014970
503-521
R&D intensity and allocation: empirical evidence from Indonesia inAEC integration Akbar Adhiutama; Nurbudi Mulyono; Sita Deliyana Firmialy; LayungAnindya Prasetyanti DOI: 10.1504/IJSTM.2018.10014972
522-544
Marine renewable energy: opportunities and challenges forcommunity development in coastal area of Indonesia Agung Iswadi; Alan Owen; Leuserina Garniati; Jito Sugardjito DOI: 10.1504/IJSTM.2018.10014969
Our Newsletter (subscribe for
free)
RSS feed
New issue alerts
Contact us | About Inderscience | OAI Repository | Privacy and Cookies Statement | Terms and Conditions | © 2018 Inderscience Enterprises Ltd.
REVIEW PROCESS
RESUME KRONOLOGIS KORESPONDENSI DARI EMPIRICAL MODEL OF TRUST, LOYALTY, AND BUSINESS PERFORMANCE OF THE DAIRY MILK SUPPLY CHAIN:A COMPARATIVE STUDY
Email tangal 11 Oktober 2016, pengelola jurnal mengirimkan pemberitahuan bahwa artikel telah berhasil terkirim melalui sistem dan akan diproses lebih lanjut. Pengelola jurnal juga menyampaikan
url untuk melakukan proses editing pada artikel yang telah dikirim, http://www.inderscience.com/ospeers/login.php (email ke-1)
Email tanggal 6 Februari 2017, pengelola jurnal mengirimkan pemberitahuan hasil review. Pengelola jurnal minta agar artikel segera diperbaiki dengan memperhatikan hasil review (email ke-2)
Penulis melakukan perbaikan atas artikel dan mengirimkannya kembali melalui sistem
Email tanggal 10 Maret 2017, pengelola jurnal mengirimkan pemberitahuan hasil review yang
kedua. Pengelola jurnal minta agar artikel segera diperbaiki dengan memperhatikan hasil review yang kedua (email ke-3)
Penulis melkukan perbaikan atas artikel dan mengirimkanya kembali melaui sistem
Email tanggal 25 Mei 2017, pengelola jurnal mengirimkan pemberitahuan bahwa artikel telah diterima dan penulis diminta untuk mengirimkan copyright agreement melalui sistem (email ke-4).
Terjadi bolak balik email antara penulis dan pengelola jurnal karena copyright agreemen tidak dapa diupload melalui sistem
Pengelola jurnal mengirimkan artikel yang telah mereka format dan meminta agar penulis melakkan perbaikan sesuai dengan komentar yang mereka berikan
Penulis melakukan perbaikan dan mengirimkan kembali melalui sistem
Email ke-1
Email ke -2
Perbaikan pertama
Email ke-3
Perbaikan ke-2
Email ke-4
Pengelola jurnal mengirimkan artikel yang telah di format (lay out) dan meminta agar penulis melakukan perbaikan sesuai dengan komentar mereka
Penulis melakukan perbaikan dan mengirimkan melalui sistem
18/06/2019 Gmail - Ganti password (IJSTM_157912 Submission Acknowledgement.
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0?ik=1b72e64c13&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-f%3A1547892292294538393&simpl=msg-f%3A1547892… 1/2
aries susanty <[email protected]>
Ganti password (IJSTM_157912 Submission Acknowledgement.1 message
Ahmad Syamil asyamil gmail com <[email protected]> Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 6:25 PMTo: aries susanty <[email protected]>
AsSalaamu alaikum waRahmatuLlaahi waBarakatuh.
Trims.Alhamdulillah saya juga dapat langsung dari Inderscience.PS: Sebaiknya password di bawah digani karena sudah disebarkan ke orang lain :-)
WaSsalaamu alaikum waRahmatuLlaahi waBarakatuh
Ahmad SyamilBinus Business SchoolBina Nusantara (Binus) University Hang Lekir 1/ 6, SenayanJakarta 10170, Indonesia
http://www.linkedin.com/in/asyamil2
On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 4:51 PM, aries susanty <[email protected]> wrote: ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: "Online Submissions" <[email protected]> Date: Oct 11, 2016 3:28 PM Subject: IJSTM_157912 Submission Acknowledgement To: "Dr. Aries Susanty" <[email protected]> Cc:
Dear Dr. Aries Susanty,
Thank you for submitting your article entitled "AN EMPIRICAL STUDY OF THE ANTECEDENT FACTORSAFFECTING GOVERNANCE STRUCTURE CHOICE IN THE SUPPLY CHAIN OF BROILER CHICKENS INCENTRAL JAVA, INDONESIA" (Submission code: IJSTM-157912) for the International Journal of ServicesTechnology and Management (IJSTM).
Your article has been processed to be refereed.
You can track the progress of your article by logging in at the following Web page:
URL: http://www.inderscience.com/ospeers/login.php Username: ariessusanty Password: aries2703
How long will take to review your article? This depends on the journal. You should directly contact the editor of the journal if you haven't received anycommunication from the editor after six months of submission. If you do not receive a satisfactory reply from thejournal editor, please contact [email protected]
Thank you for your interest in our journal.
Best regards,
pp. IJSTM Editor
Email secara lebih detil
18/06/2019 Gmail - Ganti password (IJSTM_157912 Submission Acknowledgement.
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0?ik=1b72e64c13&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-f%3A1547892292294538393&simpl=msg-f%3A1547892… 2/2
Inderscience Publishers Ltd. [email protected]
18/06/2019 Gmail - Refereeing Process: Editor comments IJSTM-157912
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0?ik=1b72e64c13&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-f%3A1558555304887647619&simpl=msg-f%3A1558555… 1/5
aries susanty <[email protected]>
Refereeing Process: Editor comments IJSTM-157912 6 messages
Inderscience Online <[email protected]> Mon, Feb 6, 2017 at 11:09 AMReply-To: Inderscience Online <[email protected]>, Submissions Manager<[email protected]>To: "Dr. Aries Susanty" <[email protected]>, Dr Ahmad Syamil <[email protected]>, Dr Hery Suliantoro<[email protected]>, Mrs Evelin Siburian <[email protected]>, Benny Tjahjono<[email protected]>
Dear Author(s), We have received the review reports for your paper "AN EMPIRICAL STUDY OF THE ANTECEDENT FACTORSAFFECTING GOVERNANCE STRUCTURE CHOICE IN THE SUPPLY CHAIN OF BROILER CHICKENS INCENTRAL JAVA, INDONESIA". We require now that you implement in your submission the following recommendations made by the reviewers, by nolater than 1 March 2017: Reviewer A Comments: ================== Changes which must be made before publication: The paper presents a study on the factors affecting governance structure of chicken supply chain. The study wasconducted in Central Java with data collected from chicken traders that supply middlemen for ultimate supply totraditional markets. Overall the paper is quite well written and the analysis looks sound. However, I have fewconcerns: 1. The sample is taken from chicken traders only while other supply chain players are not involved. In addition, therelationships addressed is only between chicken traders and the middlemen. It seems to me that this study deals witha dyadic relationships, but from the perspective of chicken traders. I think this has to be mentioned somewhere in thepaper. 2. The title should be revised. It is too long. In addition, if "broiler chicken" is important to be mentioned in the title thanone would expect the results are for broiler chicken only. But the author used the framework of pork supply chain.Wouldn't this mean that the framework and determining factors could well apply for different commodities? The sameapplies for Central Java. The introduction does not mention anything specific about Central Java. Are the resultsintended to be specific for Central Java or Central Java is just a place to take the sample (and the results may begeneralize-able for Indonesia or wider population)? 3. Introduction is too wordy but not quite effective in convincing the readers why this research is important? Fromknowledge point of view, what new knowledge that this paper may contribute? Why the current papers are not able toanswer the factors affecting the choice of supply chain governance in chicken supply chain? 4. I think Table 2 should be improved. It appears in the table that CC has only one item (but I think it actually has 4items). It also applies for WC. 5. The respondents are mostly the owner of very small enterprises. How would you ensure that they understand thequestions? 6. Some paragraphs are too long (example page 20, page 23, etc.). There are some language problems. Here are some that I noticed: Page 1: "... in literature" should be "in the literature" Page 4: "... be more prefer..." (grammatically wrong) Page 4: ".... which is remove.." Page 4: ".... would be make a cost..." Page 4: ".... could be more higher..." Page 15: "This study was conducted by using SEM..". I think this statement should be revised. SEM is only formodelling / data analysis. Page 16: "...the researcher measuring..." ==> should be "...the researcher is measuring..." Page 16: "...to measures how well the authors...." ==> should be "....to measure how well the authors..." Page 16: "...were deemed to be invalid..." ==> should be "..were deemed invalid..." Reviewer B Comments: ==================
18/06/2019 Gmail - Refereeing Process: Editor comments IJSTM-157912
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0?ik=1b72e64c13&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-f%3A1558555304887647619&simpl=msg-f%3A1558555… 2/5
Suggestions which would improve the quality of the paper but are not essential for publication: REVIEW: Abstract: • The methodology part of this paper and the analysis are mainly based on the survey data (from questionnaire).However, the abstract stated that semi-structured interviews were also used to draw the conclusion. I cannot find inthe paper how the interviews data were used to complement the study. Please be consistent whether both interviewsand surveys were used or not in this study. • I think, it is not appropriate to state the name of the software (AMOS 22) in the abstract. • The last sentence of the abstract has no context with previous sentences. CONTENT: • Paragraph 2 states: “According to Cooper and Ellram (1993), the scope of integration in SCM (from internal to external coordination) isrelated to supply chain governance structure. There were two extreme conditions in the supply chain governancestructure, i.e. spot market and integral integration……. Does it mean “external integration”? I think the spectrum of supply chain governance structure is from arm-lengthtransaction (spot market) to external integration. • There have been many study on TCE (transaction cost economics) and supply chain. Please clarify how thisresearch this research differs with the previous works. In other words, strong argument on the significant of thisresearch is required. • It is obvious that this manuscript used the conceptual model developed by Ji, Felipe, Briz, and Trienekens (2012).The only difference of this study with Ji et al (2012) is the object of the study. Therefore, the authors need to clarifyWhy Ji et al.’s framework was used? • Please explain why this manuscript uses the level of integration to measure the governance structure. • AEC stands for ASEAN Economic Community. It is not ASEAN Economic Development. Moreover, the paragraphdiscussing AEC is unclear and confusing. • Literature Review: o As this study use the conceptual framework from Ji et al (2012), in which all hypotheses are essentially the same, Ido not see urgency to establish other arguments for hypotheses development. • Section 3.2 The Sample of Study o The first sentence of this section mentioned that “….with help from LISREL software” while other parts of the paperstated that this research used AMOS 22 software. Please be consistent. • Section 3.4 o What is the purpose of semi-structured interviews (see previous comments) • Section 3.3 Instruments and Measures o Please make sure which instruments were derived from Ji et al (2012) and which were developed from Grover andMaholtra (2003) o Some of instruments used in this study are questionable. The instruments for The level of integration is notconvincing, please clarify this by referring to the established instruments for measuring the level of integrations suchas: ♣ Flynn, B.B., Huo, B., Zhao, X., 2010. The impact of supply chain integration on per- formance: a contingency andconfiguration approach. Journal of Operations Management 28, 58–71. ♣ Narasimhan, R., Kim, S.W., 2002. Effect of supply chain integration on the rela- tionship between diversification andperformance: evidence from Japanese and Korean firms. Journal of Operations Management 20, 303–323. o Instruments to measure “collaborative advantage” differ with Ji et al’ (2012), and those used by this paper aremisleading. Please elaborate this. • Section 4.1 Validy and Reliablity: o Please provide strong arguments why Spearmen correlation was used to measure construct validity. As thisresearch used SEM, why this paper did not use the validity test provided by SEM (please see Anderson & Gerbing,1982 or Ahire and Devaraj, 2001) • Figure 2 does not give any meaning. • Figure 3. All R values in this Figure are above 1. Please use standardize value of SEM. • The paragraph after Figure 3 is well too long. Please summarize it. • Please provide Bi-variate relationship amongst variables (both latent and observed variables) • Section 4.4 Hypotheses Test o The paragraph and bullet points below Table 5 are useless as they are similar with Table 5. Authors should focusmore on discussing what do the results mean to the theory as well as to the practice. o The discussion below the bullet points are also unclear. The unsupported relationship between asset specify andTCE might be caused by the fact that asset specify in the trader-middleman transaction is very low. The SEM used in this study are merely explaining the relationship between latent variables, explaining the cause ofunsupported hypothesis using the item level i.e. mean of AS1, AS2 etc. (instead of latent variable level) is notappropriate. Please provide better arguments Reviewer's annotated version file: http://www.inderscience.com/revFile.php?id=1365536 NOTE: Please send an email to the editor to acknowledge the reception of this email notification. The editor needs tomake sure that messages reach the authors and don't delay the review process.
18/06/2019 Gmail - Refereeing Process: Editor comments IJSTM-157912
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0?ik=1b72e64c13&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-f%3A1558555304887647619&simpl=msg-f%3A1558555… 3/5
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Instructions 1) To help the reviewer(s) verify that you have made the required corrections, please append a point-by-point reportdetailing how the changes have been made in line with each reviewer's comments at the beginning of your revisedmanuscript. 2) Responses to reviewers' comments and the revised manuscript must go together in the same single MS Word orPDF file, without revealing authors' identifications. 3) Append figures, images and tables at the end of your revised manuscript. 4) To upload your revised manuscript, please: Login via http://www.inderscience.com/ospeers/login.php (if you do not remember your username or password, you can recover it via http://www.inderscience.com/forgotpw.php) Then point your browser to http://www.inderscience.com/ospeers/admin/author/articlestatus.php?id=157912 andscroll-down to find the input box "Author's revised version of file". Click on 'Browse...' to select the revised document to be submitted and click 'Upload'. 5) Click on "Editor/Author Comments" to access the referee(s) comments and possible annotated files. 6) We advise you to use MS Word to edit your submission and make sure that the revisions within the document arepresented as "tracked changes" so they would be more easily seen by the editor and the reviewers. It is preferablethat you upload your revised manuscript using a MS Word file. If you have problems uploading the file with your revised manuscript please contact [email protected] the submission ID of your article. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Your prompt attention is much appreciated. Benny Tjahjono Int. J. of Services Technology and Management (IJSTM) [email protected]
aries susanty <[email protected]> Tue, Feb 7, 2017 at 4:16 AMTo: Inderscience Online <[email protected]>, Submissions Manager <[email protected]>
Dear Dr. Benny Tjahjono Thank you for your email I will try my best to finish revise my paper before your deadline. Best regards[Quoted text hidden]
Submissions <[email protected]> Tue, Feb 7, 2017 at 4:24 PMTo: Benny Tjahjono <[email protected]>Cc: aries susanty <[email protected]>
Dear Benny Tjahjono,
FW for your information.
18/06/2019 Gmail - Refereeing Process: Editor comments IJSTM-157912
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0?ik=1b72e64c13&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-f%3A1558555304887647619&simpl=msg-f%3A1558555… 4/5
Best regards,
Joane
[Quoted text hidden]
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast an�virus so�ware. www.avast.com
Tjahjono, Benny <[email protected]> Mon, Feb 20, 2017 at 5:04 PMTo: "Dr. Aries Susanty" <[email protected]>, Dr Ahmad Syamil <[email protected]>, Dr Hery Suliantoro<[email protected]>, Mrs Evelin Siburian <[email protected]>
Dear Authors,
This is just a gentle reminder of the deadline for the revised manuscript on 1 March 2017.
As the Special Issue editor, I once again ask you to align your manuscript with the theme of the specialissue, i.e. how this paper can possibly support the ASEAN Economic Community (AEC). This needs tobe clearly indicated in the Introduction section.
Should you require further clarification about the requested modifications, please do not hesitate tocontact me. I will try my best to support.
Best regards,
Benny Tjahjono
On behalf of the Special Issue Editors
[Quoted text hidden]
aries susanty <[email protected]> Mon, Feb 20, 2017 at 5:07 PMTo: "Tjahjono, Benny" <[email protected]>
Dear Dr Benny..Thank you for your emailNoted...I will send my revised paper in this weekend Regards Aries[Quoted text hidden]
Tjahjono, Benny <[email protected]> Mon, Feb 20, 2017 at 5:16 PMTo: aries susanty <[email protected]>
Dear Aries,
18/06/2019 Gmail - Refereeing Process: Editor comments IJSTM-157912
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0?ik=1b72e64c13&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-f%3A1558555304887647619&simpl=msg-f%3A1558555… 5/5
Take your time, it was just a reminder.
Regards,
Benny
[Quoted text hidden]
1
ANSWERS FOR REVIEWER A Comment Answer Changes which must be made before publication: The paper presents a study on the factors affecting governance structure of chicken supply chain. The study was conducted in Central Java with data collected from chicken traders that supply middlemen for ultimate supply to traditional markets. Overall the paper is quite well written and the analysis looks sound. However, I have few concerns:
1. The sample is taken from chicken traders only while other
supply chain players are not involved. In addition, the relationships addressed is only between chicken traders and the middlemen. It seems to me that this study deals with a
dyadic relationships, but from the perspective of chicken traders. I think this has to be mentioned somewhere in the paper.
1.1. Following your suggestions, we have added additional statements. Please see the blue color text in Section 3.2. “The Sample of Study” on page 15.
2. The title should be revised. It is too long. In addition, if
"broiler chicken" is important to be mentioned in the title than one would expect the results are for broiler chicken only. But the author used the framework of pork supply chain.
Wouldn't this mean that the framework and determining factors could well apply for different commodities? The same applies for Central Java. The introduction does not mention anything specific about Central Java. Are the results intended to be specific for c (and the results may be generalize-able for Indonesia or wider population)?
2.1. We have revised the tittle
2.2. We have added the explanation why this study uses the pork supply chain framework on page 3:
“The conceptual model is used because there are some commonalities between the pork supply chain in China and the broiler chicken supply
chain in Indonesia. For example, actors of the broiler chicken supply chain consist of suppliers
of raw materials (day old chicks/DOCs, feeds, medicines and vaccines, as well as livestock equipment), the farmers, the middlemen
(collectors), the processors (slaughterhouses), the retailers and traders in the traditional market
(Oktavera and Andajani, 2013). On the other hand, the pork supply chain in China also consists of breeders, farmers (producers),
slaughterers, processors, middlemen, wet market, and supermarkets or grocery stores
(Kinsey, 2002). Furthermore, the issue addressed by Ji et al (2012) is quite similar to
this study, i.e., ensuring the quantity and quality of pork/broiler chicken through supply chain governance structure.”
2.3. The explanation about Central Java as the location of study has been added to the introduction section. Please check the text with blue color in the introduction section on page 5.
“In this research, the choice of supply chain
2
Comment Answer governance structure between traders and
middlemen is represented by the relationship between traders and middlemen in several traditional markets in Semarang City, Central
Java Province. Chicken business activities are dominant on Java Island especially in Central
Java Province (Muladno, 2008). Furthermore, the development of the chicken business follows the development of the wet markets around the
large populations of West, East, and Central Java. This has been supported by the
development of feed factories close to the ports of major population centers such as Jakarta and
Surabaya. Furthermore, the broiler chicken production in Central Java Province in 2011 was 105.839 metric tons, which was a huge number
compared with that of in other Indonesian provinces (United States Agency for
International Development, 2013). Furthermore, Semarang was chosen as a specific location for this study since most broiler meats are
consumed by people living in the big cities (Soedjana, 1999), such as Semarang”
2.4. The result of this study may not be generalized because of limited sample locations. We have added this explanation on page 28. Please check the text with blue color.
3. Introduction is too wordy but not quite effective in convincing the readers why this research is important? From knowledge point of view, what new knowledge that this paper may contribute? Why the current papers are not able to
answer the factors affecting the choice of supply chain governance in chicken supply chain?
3. Thank you very much for your suggestions. We have mentioned those issues in the previous version of this paper. However, we made some modifications to highlight those issues in this latest version. Please refer to page 3 onward.
“This research aims to make an empirical model for supply chain governance structure in the
broiler chickens supply chain. The previous studies have been mainly focused on
establishing the relationship between TCE and the choice of supply chain governance structure. This study will expand that relationship by
adding one important factor that should be considered when choosing the supply chain
governance structure. We argue that the choice of supply chain governance structure depends on not only TCE but also on collaborative
advantage between two actors in the supply chain. Moreover, we explore the factors that
influence transaction cost and collaboration advantages. “
3
Comment Answer
4. I think Table 2 should be improved. It appears in the table
that CC has only one item (but I think it actually has 4 items). It also applies for WC
4. Following your suggestions, we have revised Table 2.
5. The respondents are mostly the owner of very small enterprises. How would you ensure that they understand the questions?
5. The explanation about how to ensure that the respondents understand the questions has been added. Please check the text with blue color in Section 3.4. “Data Collection Procedure” on page 16. “Because the respondents are mostly the owners of very small enterprises, we accompanied the
respondents when they filled the questionnaire to make sure that they understood the questions.
We also gave the respondents some real-world examples when they could not understand the
meaning of questions. Sometimes, we help the respondents by translating the questionnaire into local Javanese language.”
6. Some paragraphs are too long (example page 20, page 23,
etc.). There are some language problems. Here are some that I noticed:
Page 1: "... in literature" should be "in the literature" Page 4: "... be more prefer..." (grammatically wrong) Page 4: ".... which is remove...” Page 4: ".... would be make a cost..."
Page 4: ".... could be more higher..." Page 15: "This study was conducted by using SEM...”. I think this statement should be revised. SEM is only for modelling / data analysis. Page 16: "...the researcher measuring..." ==> should be "...the
researcher is measuring..." Page 16: "...to measures how well the authors...." ==> should be "....to measure how well the authors..." Page 16: "...were deemed to be invalid..." ==> should be "...were deemed invalid..."
6. 6.1. We have separated some individual paragraphs into two or more paragraphs. 6.2. We have fixed the language problems.
ANSWERS FOR REVIEWER B Comment Answer ABSTRACT:
The methodology part of this paper and the analysis are mainly based on the survey data (from questionnaire). However, the abstract stated that semi-structured interviews were also used to draw the conclusion. I cannot find in the paper how the interviews data were used to
This study only used questionnaire to collect the data
although we also used interview to validate the result of questionnaires. However, following your suggestions, we deleted “semi-structured interviews were also used to draw the conclusion” from the abstract and also from the paper to reduce the
4
Comment Answer complement the study. Please be consistent whether both interviews and surveys were used or not in this study.
I think, it is not appropriate to state the name of the software (AMOS 22) in the abstract.
The last sentence of the abstract has no context with previous sentences.
confusion. The name of the software (AMOS 22) in the abstract
has been deleted
The last sentence of the abstract has been deleted CONTENT
Paragraph 2 states: “According to Cooper and Ellram (1993), the scope of
integration in SCM (from internal to external coordination) is related to supply chain governance
structure. There were two extreme conditions in the supply chain governance structure, i.e. spot market
and integral integration…….
Does it mean “external integration”? I think the spectrum of supply chain governance structure is from arm-length transaction (spot market) to external
integration.
It should have been vertical integration We have changed the sentences. Please see the text
with red color in the introduction section:
“According to Cooper and Ellram (1993), the scope of integration in SCM (from external to internal
coordination) is related to supply chain governance structure. There are two extreme conditions in the
supply chain governance structure, i.e. spot market and vertical integration…”
There have been many study on TCE (transaction cost economics) and supply chain. Please clarify how this research this research differs with the previous works. In other words, strong argument on the significant of this research is required.
The argument about the significance of the research has been added. Please see the text with red color in the introduction section as we mentioned earlier in our response to the first reviewer.
“This research aims to make an empirical model for
supply chain governance structure in the broiler chickens supply chain. The previous studies have been mainly focused on establishing the relationship
between TCE and the choice of supply chain governance structure. This study will expand that
relationship by adding one important factor that should be considered when choosing the supply chain governance structure. We argue that the choice
of supply chain governance structure depends on not only TCE but also on collaborative advantage
between two actors in the supply chain. Moreover, we explore the factors that influence transaction cost and collaboration advantages. “
The reason Ji et al. framework is used in this study has been added similar to our response to the first reviewer. Please see the text with red color in the
5
Comment Answer It is obvious that this manuscript used the conceptual
model developed by Ji, Felipe, Briz, and Trienekens (2012). The only difference of this study with Ji et al (2012) is the object of the study. Therefore, the authors need to clarify why Ji et al.’s framework was used?
Please explain why this manuscript uses the level of integration to measure the governance structure.
introduction section.
“The conceptual model is used because there are some commonalities between the pork supply chain in China and the broiler chicken supply chain in Indonesia. For example, actors of the broiler chicken supply chain consist of suppliers of raw materials (day old chicks/DOCs, feeds, medicines and vaccines, as well as livestock equipment), the farmers, the middlemen (collectors), the processors (slaughterhouses), the retailers and traders in the traditional market (Oktavera and Andajani, 2013). On the other hand, the pork supply chain in China also consists of breeders, farmers (producers), slaughterers, processors, middlemen, wet market, and supermarkets or grocery stores (Kinsey, 2002). Furthermore, the issue addressed by Ji et al (2012) is quite similar to this study, i.e., ensuring the quantity and quality of pork/broiler chicken through supply
chain governance structure..”
This manuscript uses the level of integration to measure the governance structure because there are different typologies in governance structure which depend on the level of integration, i.e., from the spot market, short-term contract, long-term contract, joint venture, strategic alliance, and vertical integration. The explanation about the different typologies in governance structure can be seen in the introduction section (the text with red color).
We have fixed it. Furthermore, we made several changes to discuss AEC more clearly.
“Regarding with the ASEAN Economic Community (AEC), the choice of supply chain governance structure between traders and middlemen of broiler chicken might be different before and after the AEC implementation. Because AEC will raise the trade and economic development among AEC countries, the traders of broiler chicken may prefer to choose transactions with the middlemen in spot market because AEC will enable easier movement of goods, services, investment, capital, and people including the increasing number of middlemen. Ultimately, AEC will offer new ways of coordinating supply chains, or access to new markets for established products. AEC will improve the scale efficiencies, dynamism, and competitiveness of ASEAN members (Sujatanond, et al 2013). In this case, “a single market and production base” by 2015, which means removing trade barriers and impediments, would make the costs of internal
6
Comment Answer
AEC stands for ASEAN Economic Community. It is
not ASEAN Economic Development. Moreover, the paragraph discussing AEC is unclear and confusing.
coordination (such as the costs of employees and managers) could be higher than the costs of using independent market such as external providers (Duval and Feyler, 2016). There will be the free flow of goods, services, investment capital and skilled labor following the liberalization. These will include tariff reductions and streamlining of certain administrative procedures (Sujatanond, et al 2013). However, their propositions must be proven by further research.
Literature Review: o As this study use the conceptual framework from
Ji et al (2012), in which all hypotheses are essentially the same, I do not see urgency to establish other arguments for hypotheses development.
We still put some hypothesis arguments. Although this study uses the conceptual framework from Ji et al (2012), we support each hypothesis using different literatures.
Section 3.2 The Sample of Study o The first sentence of this section mentioned that
“….with help from LISREL software” while other parts of the paper stated that this research used AMOS 22 software. Please be consistent.
We used AMOS and have changed several mistakes.
Section 3.4 o What is the purpose of semi-structured interviews
(see previous comments)
As we mentioned earlier in our response to the first reviewer, this study only used questionnaire to collect the data although we also used interview to validate the result of questionnaires. However, following your suggestions, we deleted “semi-structured interviews were also used to draw the conclusion” from the abstract and also from the paper to reduce the confusion.
Section 3.3 Instruments and Measures o Please make sure which instruments were derived
from Ji et al (2012) and which were developed from Grover and Maholtra (2003)
o Some of instruments used in this study are questionable. The instruments for The level of integration is not convincing, please clarify this by referring to the established instruments for measuring the level of integrations such as:
Flynn, B.B., Huo, B., Zhao, X., 2010. The impact of supply chain integration on performance: a contingency and configuration approach. Journal of Operations Management 28, 58–71.
Narasimhan, R., Kim, S.W., 2002. Effect of supply chain integration on the relationship between diversification and performance: evidence from Japanese and Korean firms. Journal of Operations Management 20, 303–323.
To make it easier to understand which instrument is derived from Ji et al (2012) and which one is derived from Grover and Maholtra (2003), we have added the source of each instrument in Table 2.
Thank you very much for your suggestion. Flynn et al (2010), Narasimhan and Kim (2002) and this paper capture supply chain integration. However this paper is little bit different. For example, the study conducted by Flynn et al focused more on the degree of information sharing between an organization and its partners or suppliers. Furthermore, this study does not focus on information sharing but how far the traders have the relationship with the middlemen by focusing on the level of governance stability and level of the governance intensity.
7
Comment Answer
o Instruments to measure “collaborative advantage” differ with Ji et al’ (2012), and those used by this paper are misleading. Please elaborate this.
Regarding with the measurement items in the
questionnaire, an answer above 3, such as 4 (agree) and 5 (strongly agree), indicates a high collaboration or a high stability/intensity of the governance between traders of broiler chicken and middlemen; whereas, an answer below 3, such as 1 (strongly disagree) and 2 (disagree), indicate a low collaboration or low stability/intensity of the governance. In this case, traders of broiler chicken prefer to use spot market than making long term commitment with the middlemen.
The instrument to measure “collaborative advantage”
is not different from Ji et al (2012). Please refer to a screen shoot bellow. In this case, Collaboration Advantages measure : Logistics Advantages (LGA) Cash Response Advantages (CRA) Information Use and Exchange Advantages
(IEA) Technology Advantages (TEA) Innovation Advantages (INA) Quality Management Advantages (QMA)
Section 4.1 Validity and Reliability: o Please provide strong arguments why Spearmen
correlation was used to measure construct validity. As this research used SEM, why this paper did not use the validity test provided by SEM (please see Anderson & Gerbing, 1982 or Ahire and Devaraj, 2001)
Please refer to section 4.1. “Validity and reliability.”
This research uses validity and reliability tests for several purposes. First, this study uses validity and reliability tests for the initial questionnaire which was distributed to 30 respondents and too small for SEM. The initial construct validity test was used to measure the intended construct. The initial construct validity was associated with convergent validity and was calculated using the Spearman correlation coefficient.
8
Comment Answer After removing all items which were invalid, then we had a new set of questionnaire as the final questionnaire. The final questionnaire was then distributed to 125 traders of boiler chicken and the validity and reliability of the data collected from this questionnaire were tested using SEM technique. For example, the convergent validity was verified using the Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) approach.
Figure 2 does not give any meaning Thank you for your suggestion. We have deleted Figure 2
Figure 3. All R values in this Figure are above 1. Please use standardize value of SEM.
We have changed the R values with standardized values of SEM.
The paragraph after Figure 3 is well too long. Please summarize it.
We have separated this paragraph into two paragraphs.
Please provide Bi-variate relationship amongst variables (both latent and observed variables)
We have added bivariate analysis. Please refer to Table 5.
Section 4.4 Hypotheses Test o The paragraph and bullet points below Table 5 are
useless as they are similar with Table 5. Authors should focus more on discussing what the results mean to the theory as well as to the practice.
o The discussion below the bullet points are also unclear. The unsupported relationship between asset specify and TCE might be caused by the fact that asset specify in the trader-middleman transaction is very low. The SEM used in this study are merely explaining the relationship between latent variables, explaining the cause of unsupported hypothesis using the item level i.e. mean of AS1, AS2 etc. (instead of latent variable level) is not appropriate. Please provide better arguments
We have changed the explanation below Table 5 (now becomes Table 6) and followed your suggestions.
We have added a simple discussion regarding the
unsupported relationship between asset specify and TCE. Please see the text with red color in the discussion section.
9
An Empirical Study Governance Structure Choice in the Supply Chain of Broiler Chickens in Central Java, Indonesia
Abstract. This study aims to clarify the dominant factors (which can be defined as antecedent factors) influencing the supply chain governance structure choice between traders and middlemen of broiler chickens. The investigation will represent several traders and middlemen of broiler chickens in the traditional town market of Semarang district, central Java. This study utilized closed questionnaires with 5-Likert Scale. One hundred and twenty-five copies of the questionnaire were administered to the traders of broiler chickens in North Johar market, Central Johar market, South Johar market, Bulu Market, Karangayu market, Peterongan market, and Jatingaleh market. Additional information was collected through follow-up telephone interviews and archive records. Data acquired from the questionnaire were processed using Structural Equation Modelling (SEM). The findings of this study indicate that the transaction cost of economics and collaborative advantage have a positive significant effect on the level of integration; in this case, the effect of transaction cost economics on the level of integration is stronger than collaboration advantages. The findings of this study also indicate that transaction cost economics significantly depend on uncertain conditions between traders and the middlemen of broiler chickens; whereas, the collaborative advantage significantly depends on uncertain conditions and collaboration capability. Keywords: Transaction cost economics; collaborative advantage; level of integration; broiler chicken supply chain; Semarang
1. Introduction
Nowadays Supply Chain Management (SCM) has become an important concept. There are many definitions of
SCM in the literature. According to the Council of Supply Chain Management Professionals (CSCMP), SCM is
related to the planning and management of all actions involved in sourcing and procurement, conversion, and all
logistics management actions. Notably, it also consists of coordination and collaboration with suppliers,
intermediaries, third-party service providers, and customers. It can be said that SCM incorporates supply and
demand management within and across companies (Naslund and Williamson, 2010). Lambert et al (1998) stated
that SCM can be defined as the integration of the main business processes from end-users through to the original
suppliers of products, services, and information that add value for customers and other stakeholders. According to
Stock and Boyer (2009), SCM can be defined as the management of a network of relationships within a firm and
between interdependent organizations and business units consisting of material suppliers, purchasing, production
facilities, logistics, marketing, and related systems that facilitate the forward and reverse flow of materials,
services, finances and information from the original producer to final customer with the benefits of adding value,
maximizing profitability through efficiencies, and achieving customer satisfaction. For those definitions of SCM,
we can see that the concept of SCM is related to material and information flow from one company to others or the
concept of SCM starts when the integration scope is extended from internal to external coordination.
According to Cooper and Ellram (1993), the scope of integration in SCM (from external to internal coordination)
is related to supply chain governance structure. There are two extreme conditions in the supply chain governance
structure, i.e. spot market and vertical integration. The spot market is at zero level of integration. The spot market
usually has a short-term focus and relations in the spot market are usually based on the mechanism of price. In
the spot market, the composition of the actors involved changes frequently. Different from the spot market, in
terms of vertical integration, there was one actor involved in the supply chain that held different stages of the
10
supply chain (Wever et al, 2010; Williamson, 1991). Thus, between those two extremes (the spot market and
vertical integration), there were different kinds of collaborations, from short-term contracts, long-term contracts,
and joint venture. Particularly, collaboration allows for an intermediate form of hybrid governance (Cao and
Zhang, 2010). According to Nyaga et al (2010), collaboration puts more emphasis on governance through
relational strategies in addition to governance through contract definition. It seems that collaboration emerges as
the alternative to avoid the problems arising from both hierarchies and markets (Koh and Venkatraman, 1991) by
decreasing: a) the costs of opportunism and monitoring related to market transactions through mutual trust; b) and
increasing the partner’s interest in the partnership (Croom, 2001).
Previous studies on supply chain governance have mainly been concerned with establishing the relationship
between Transaction Cost Economics (TCE) theory and choice of supply chain governance structure. The TCE
theory is often linked with the work of Williamson (1975). According to Barringer and Harrison (2000), TCE
provides an important analytical framework explaining the firms’ organization and their relationships along the
supply chains. According to TCE, the decision to use either the spot market or vertical integration depends on the
relative monitoring costs that arise from bounded rationality and uncertainties due to partners’ self-interest and
opportunism (Kaufman et al., 2000). Specifically, within the framework of TCE, the level of vertical integration
is determined by the relative costs of using markers or employing resources within the firm and the supplier-
buyer relationships should structure themselves in such a way to minimize transaction costs (Williamson, 1993).
In other words, TCE assumes that the market will always be the lowest-cost producer of certain goods or services
because of economies of scale and scope. Alternatively, the specific level of integration is preferred when
transaction costs are high because opportunistic behaviors lead to the risk of one-time transactions (Ji et al,
2012).
This research aims to make an empirical model for supply chain governance structure in the broiler chickens
supply chain. The previous studies have been mainly focused on establishing the relationship between TCE and
the choice of supply chain governance structure. This study will expand that relationship by adding one
important factor that should be considered when choosing the supply chain governance structure. We argue that
the choice of supply chain governance structure depends on not only TCE but also on collaborative advantage
between two actors in the supply chain. Moreover, we explore the factors that influence transaction cost and
collaboration advantages. This study uses the conceptual model of supply chain governance structure choice in
the pork supply chain in China which was developed by Ji et al. (2012). The conceptual model is used because
there are some commonalities between the pork supply chain in China and the broiler chicken supply chain in
Indonesia. For example, actors of the broiler chicken supply chain consist of suppliers of raw materials (day old
chicks/DOCs, feeds, medicines and vaccines, as well as livestock equipment), the farmers, the middlemen
(collectors), the processors (slaughterhouses), the retailers and traders in the traditional market (Oktavera and
Andajani, 2013). On the other hand, the pork supply chain in China also consists of breeders, farmers
(producers), slaughterers, processors, middlemen, wet market, and supermarkets or grocery stores (Kinsey, 2002).
Furthermore, the issue addressed by Ji et al (2012) is quite similar to this study, i.e., ensuring the quantity and
quality of pork/broiler chicken through supply chain governance structure.”
11
This study does not encompass the supply chain governance structure choices between all actors in the supply
chain of broiler chicken; this study is limited to the supply chain governance structure choices between two actors
in the broiler chicken supply chain, e.g. the small middlemen (collectors) and the traders of broiler chicken in the
traditional market. In this case, small middlemen act as the collectors of the broiler chicken from the farmers, and
then deliver the broiler chicken to the traders in the traditional market. The middlemen may sell directly to the
traditional market after slaughtering the birds in simple facilities before trucking them to the traditional market.
In Indonesia´s broiler chicken chains, the middlemen and the traders of broiler chicken in traditional market are
two of the important agents of the chain as they drive the chains´ governance structure development through
connecting the farmers to the consumer of broiler chicken in the urban area. The traders rarely make direct
contact with the farmers without the middlemen.
According to the preliminary interviews with 15 traders of broiler chicken in three traditional town markets in the
Semarang district (Damar traditional market, Jatingaleh traditional market, and Johar traditional market),
sometimes the relationship between the traders and middlemen in the traditional market faces a number of
uncertainties. In general, there are three sources of uncertainty in the supply chain of broiler chicken, i.e.
customer demand, a price of broiler chicken, and supply of broiler chicken. The quality of broiler chicken, lead
times, and transportation are several examples of uncertainty that belong to the supply side. The quality of broiler
chickens from the middlemen varies. The middlemen cannot guarantee the same level of quality. All those
uncertainties can affect the performance of the supply chain, both in terms of service levels in the order
fulfillment processes, and cost levels.
High uncertainty levels in demand information have an unfavorable impact on supply chain performance,
resulting in lost sales or obsolete inventories and inefficient utilization of resources. To overcome those
uncertainties, some of the traders must expend extra costs to monitor the performance of their middlemen.
Whenever the cost of monitoring is becoming higher, some traders start to offer the higher level of collaboration
with their middlemen using mechanisms such as long-term contracts. Moreover, some of the traders start to make
vertical integrations when the demand, the price and the external supply of broiler chicken could not be
controlled. Conversely, when the demand, price, and external supply of broiler chicken could be controlled, the
traders preferred to continue transactions with the middlemen in spot market relationships or did not want to offer
a higher level of collaboration.
In fact, the decision to carry out higher levels of collaboration does not only depend on the uncontrolled
conditions described above but also depends on the ability and the willingness of the middlemen to collaborate.
So, based on the condition encountered by middlemen and the traders of broiler chicken in the traditional market,
the empirical model resulted from this research can be used by the traders to choose the supplier strategy, create
supplier portfolio, and supplier negotiation and contract to award. In this case, all of that choice will depend on
the on the asset used in transaction, level of certainty of the environment faced by the traders, and the willingness
and capability to collaborate.
12
Regarding with the ASEAN Economic Community (AEC), the choice of supply chain governance structure
between traders and middlemen of broiler chicken might be different before and after the AEC implementation.
Because AEC will raise the trade and economic development among AEC countries, the traders of broiler chicken
may prefer to choose transactions with the middlemen in spot market because AEC will enable easier movement
of goods, services, investment, capital, and people including the increasing number of middlemen. Ultimately,
AEC will offer new ways of coordinating supply chains, or access to new markets for established products. AEC
will improve the scale efficiencies, dynamism, and competitiveness of ASEAN members (Sujatanond, et al
2013). In this case, “a single market and production base” by 2015, which means removing trade barriers and
impediments, would make the costs of internal coordination (such as the costs of employees and managers) could
be higher than the costs of using independent market such as external providers (Duval and Feyler, 2016). There
will be the free flow of goods, services, investment capital and skilled labor following the liberalization. These
will include tariff reductions and streamlining of certain administrative procedures (Sujatanond, et al 2013).
However, their propositions must be proven by further research.
In this research, the choice of supply chain governance structure between traders and middlemen is represented
by the relationship between traders and middlemen in several traditional markets in Semarang City, Central Java
Province. Chicken business activities are dominant on Java Island especially in Central Java Province (Muladno,
2008). Furthermore, the development of the chicken business follows the development of the wet markets around
the large populations of West, East, and Central Java. This has been supported by the development of feed
factories close to the ports of major population centers such as Jakarta and Surabaya. Furthermore, the broiler
chicken production in Central Java Province in 2011 was 105.839 metric tons, which was a huge number
compared with that of in other Indonesian provinces (United States Agency for International Development,
2013). Furthermore, Semarang was chosen as a specific location for this study since most broiler meats are
consumed by people living in the big cities (Soedjana, 1999), such as Semarang.
So, in order to clarify the dominant factors (which can be defined as antecedent factors) influencing the supply
chain governance structure choice between traders and middlemen, the paper is organized as follows. Section 2
will present the main findings from the review of the previous work on antecedent factors influencing supply
chain governance structure choice and then develop the main hypothesis and conceptual model for testing.
Section 3 will explain the methodological approach and the development of the questionnaire. Section 4 will
present the findings and discuss these findings relating them to the theoretical background. The last section will
present the main conclusions along with suggestions for further research.
2. Literature Review
The literature review will consist of previous work on antecedent factors influencing supply chain governance,
and then develop the main hypothesis and conceptual model for testing.
2.1. Transaction cost economics and the choice of supply chain governance structure
Governance become a new subject in scientific area for the last period. It was dominated by corporate governance
concept. The corporate governance concept refers to the organizations as single entities and in the beginning, the
13
corporate governance concept talk about the relationship between shareholders and managers which is called the
shareholder’s perspective (Thomson and Jain, 2006). The problem arising between shareholders and manager is
called the principal–agent problem (Ruuska, et al, 2010). A more advanced view of corporate governance refers
to the relation between organizations and stakeholders, called the stakeholder perspective (Ruuska, et al, 2010).
In detail, Ruuska et al. define governance as the mechanisms or processes that affect how either a single
transaction or recurrent transactions are organized ex-ante and carried out ex-post between two or more actors,
either within the boundaries of a single organization or between two or more organizations. Specifically, the
governance involving two or more organizations is known as supply chain governance (Crisan et al., 2011).
It is essential to differentiate supply chain management and supply chain governance. Supply chain management
denotes the integration of all activities associated with the control, planning, processing and flow of goods and
services from companies that supply raw material to the end user, including the flow of information internally
and externally (Chen and Paulraj, 2004). Besides the focus on integration and flow between the companies and
the end customers, supply chain management focuses on operations and on efficiency related to the final
customer (Ketchen and Hult 2007). Supply chain governance, on the other hand, focuses on understanding
different aspects of supply chain engagement while giving less importance to the end customers and the material
flow itself (Dolci et al, 2013). The main question in governance is whether the coordinator or the coordinators of
the chain have the possibility to influence partners’ actions and how this influence happens (Crisan et al., 2011).
According to literature, there were six governance structure type in the agribusiness contexts, i.e. spot markets,
long-term relationships, marketing contracts, production contracts, contract farming, and vertical integration (e.g.
Ferguson, 2004; Kim, 1998; Mighell and Jones, 1963; Barkema and Drabenstott, 1995; Hobbs, 1996; Peterson
and Wysocki, 1997). In the sport market (SM), price is the main factor for closing the transaction and goods are
traded between numerous seller and buyer in the current time (Hobbs, 1996). In the long-term relationships (L-
TR), there were long-term non-contractual relationship that bounded two parties (buyer and seller) which are
independent each other. Thus, in the marketing contract (MC), there were agreement from the buyer to the seller
to provide a market for their output. In production contracts (PC), buyer was the party that supply and manages
the farm, whereas the famers was the party that provide their land and labor. In the contract farming (CF),
farmers conduct a production system and supply the product to the buyer under forward contract. The last, in the
vertical integration (VI), products passage between numerous stages of production, processing and distribution as
a result of within-the-firm managerial orders rather than due to the direction of prices
As we mentioned in the previous explanation, the decision about supply chain governance structure type is
mainly determined by the Transaction Cost of Economics (TCE). Several results of studies concerned with the
relationship between choice of the supply chain structure and TCE theory can be explained as follows. According
to a study conducted by Frank and Henderson (1992), TCE are a primary motivation to vertically coordinate.
Weleschuk and Kerr (1995) said that the TCE approach can be used by sellers to make a choice between signing
production contracts with buyers or selling their product on the spot market. Mudambi and Mudambi (1995)
introduced a model of the buyer's switching decision that integrates the tenets of both TCE and relationship
marketing. The model analyzes how the switching decision is affected by parameters such as: transaction-specific
14
assets, information quality and time. Hobbs and Young (2000) presents a framework which links the product
characteristics with transaction characteristics and transaction costs and changes in vertical coordination. More
recently, a study conducted by Ji et al (2012) proves the positive relationship between TCE and the level of
integration; a higher transaction cost will encourage the chain actors to increase the level of integration.
Therefore, based on the relationship between the choice of supply chain governance structure and TCE from the
previous literature (Frank and Henderson, 1992; Weleschuk and Kerr, 1995; Mudambi and Mudambi. 1995;
Hobbs and Young 2000;, and Ji et al., 2012), this study proposes that:
H1: The transaction cost economics between the traders and middlemen of broiler chicken have a significant
positive effect on the choice of supply chain governance structure which is represented by the level of integration
between them.
2.2. Asset specificity, uncertainty and transaction cost economies
According, to Williamson (1979, 1981, and 1985), there were three antecedent factors of TCE, i.e. asset
specificity, uncertainty, and transaction frequency. In line with the study conducted by Ji et al (2012), this
research only uses two instead of three factors as antecedent factors that influence the transaction cost economics
between traders and middlemen of broiler chicken. Those two factors were asset specification and uncertainty.
According to Williamson (1985), asset specificity can be defined as long-lasting investments that needed to
support the particular transactions. Asset specificity can also define as an investment in physic or human that are
committed to a particular partner in the business and the redeployment of this asset needs to consider the
switching cost (Erramilli and Rao, 1993; Heide, 1994). From another approach, according to Klein (2007), asset
specificity is an asset that has a significantly higher value within a particular transacting relationship than outside
the relationship. Usually, when the asset specificity is high, the firm favor in-house production than making the
relationship with another because the high asset specificity will make the costs of the transaction increasing. In
this case, the positive relationship between asset specificity and transaction cost economics have been proven by
Ji et al (2012). This positive relationship can be explained by two reasons. The first reason, usually, the risk of
opportunism is significant in the transactions that need highly particular asset investment (Rindfleisch and Heide,
1997). High specificity will create sunk cost and the party who undertakes an asset is vulnerable to the risks of
the opportunism of the trading partner who may intimidate to finish the project too early and cause the investor to
lose the assets (Vining and Globerman, 1999). Based on this condition, to protect the investor, the transactions
with significant particular investments will request a contract or mechanism. In order to avoid being placed in an
unfavorable condition, the investor will request for a longer period of the contract or the investor will build
bilateral adjustment mechanisms into the contract (Aubert, et al. 1996). This contract and bilateral adjustment
mechanisms will make the costs of the transaction increasing. The second reason, high asset specificity leads to a
decrease in market production cost advantage (Williamson, 1981), and thus, the relative governance costs of
markets will increase as the assets needed for the transaction become more specific progressively. The highly
specific asset is categorized as totally specified to a particular use or user only. This asset will have a low
15
transferability to another user. So, based on the relationship between asset specificity and transaction cost
economics from the previous literature this study proposes that:
H2: The asset specificity between the traders and middlemen of broiler chicken has a significant positive
effect on the transaction cost economics, which in turn will affect the choice of supply chain governance structure
between them.
Uncertainty can be defined as the cost related with the unpredicted outcome and asymmetry of information
(Williamson, 1985). Uncertainty can also be viewed as a level of unpredicted changes in the circumstances
surrounding the transaction (Grover and Malhotra, 2003) and thus indicates a shortage of information (Aubert et
al., 1996). According to Williamson (1979), there were two categories of uncertainty, i.e. behavioral uncertainty
and environmental. Behavioral uncertainty is talking about the problems in performance assessment or in
checking whether both of the parties have been compliance with established contracts has been prepared. Indeed,
it is usually challenging and costly to assess the real performance of the suppliers, especially in the case of
services. Behavioral uncertainty is determined by the degree of intangibility, customization and professionalism
of the service tasks. Service transactions that possess a high degree of intangibility and little tangible components
imply that they are dominated by performance and procedures. As intangibility increases, transaction complexity
rises, and then, the companies have less evidence available to assess the supplier's performance both before and
during the contract (Promsivapallop, 2009). Different with behavioral uncertainty, environmental uncertainty is
talking about the unpredictability of the environment and the volume of products or services. Environmental
uncertainty can also be seen as the changes of the external environment which are unaffected by the actions of
economic. Environmental uncertainty surrounding the basic transaction that arises from altering conditions in
random acts of nature and/or the economic environment in competition, technology, and regulations.
Since long time ago, uncertainty has been viewed as dominant contingency and uncertainty is one of the
underlying determinants of high transaction costs (Williamson, 1975). More explicitly, the relationship between
uncertainty and transaction cost can be explained as below. According to Williamson (1979), transaction costs
will increase as the environment in which an exchange takes place more unpredictable. In this case, transaction
cost which an exchange takes place are the impact of the complexity and the uncertainty of the system of
economic system related to the nature of human beings and differences in the character of the exchange level.
The higher level of uncertainty usually implies a higher transaction cost because each of the parties in the
transaction will expend extra time and effort in watching the process of transaction. Opportunistic behavior is
likely and difficult to avoid when several aspects of the transaction are highly uncertain and a market transaction
is unlikely to offer sufficient control mechanisms to manage this transaction. (Lietke and Boslau, 2007).
Sometimes, contracts can be used to resolve the uncertainty to some degree, but they are however costly and
incomplete. There is no clear consensus in the literature whether a market or hierarchy is the best response to
environmental uncertainty. Thus, the positive relationship between the level of uncertainty and transaction cost
economics can be seen in Noordewier et al.(1990), Teo et al (2004), Geyskens et al (2006), Lietke and Boslau
(2007), Promsivapallop (2009), Ji et al. (2012) and Chen et al. (2013).
16
So based on the theoretical background discussed above (e.g., Williamson, 1979; Williamson, 1985) and the
result of previous research (including research conducted by Ji et al, 2012), the current study proposes that:
H3: The uncertain conditions between the traders and middlemen of broiler chicken has a significant positive
effect on the transaction cost economics, which in turn will affect the choice of supply chain governance structure
between them.
2.3. Collaborative advantage and the choice of supply chain governance structure
Collaboration is an important part of every operating market economy, and businesses tend to look for
collaboration because it can provide the relative advantage to the firms rather than not collaborating. According
to Jap (1999), there were some advantages of collaboration. Collaboration can broaden the size of the joint
benefits and collaboration can give each participant a share of a greater gain that could not be created by each
participant by its own. Collaboration can make several supply chain partners work together as if they were a
portion of a single enterprise (Lambert et al., 2004). Collaboration can also increase the joint competitive
advantage (Jap, 2001). Thus, to capture all of the rewards from collaboration, some researchers have proffered
the notion of collaborative advantage (Dyer, 2000; Huxham and Vangen, 2005; Lank, 2005). Specifically,
according to Kanter (1994) (as cited in Foss and Nielsen, 2012), collaborative advantage can be defined as the
particular advantages that may accumulate in firms that built a strategic partnership with other firms (e.g. joint
ventures) by virtue of such cooperation. According to Ferratt et al. (1996) (as cited in Cao and Zhang, 2010)
collaborative advantage can be seen as the benefit gained by a group of firms as the result of their cooperation
rather than their competition. Collaborative advantage relates to the desired synergistic outcome of the
collaborative activity that could not have been achieved by any firm acting individually (Vangen and Huxham,
2003). The collaborative advantage permits partners to appreciate the opportunities afforded by working together
as an alternative to the destructive forces of working individually against the purpose of the collaboration (Cao
and Zhang, 2011). Thus, supply chain collaborative advantage can also be seen as synergistic benefits gained by
the firms more than their competitor in a marketplace because those firms make partnership in supply chain and
partner-enabled knowledge creation, and such synergistic benefits could not be achieved by acting individually
(Jap, 2001; Vangen and Huxham, 2003; Malhotra et al.. 2005). In this case, partnership in supply chain involves
several of collaborative activities such as synchronizing decisions, sharing information and complementary
resources, and aligning incentives with partner’s risks and costs. The collaborative advantage resides not within
the single firm but across the boundaries of a firm through its relationship with their partners in the supply chain
(Dyer, 1996; Dyer and Singh, 1998; Jap, 2001). In the research conducted by Ji, et al. (2012), collaborative
advantages have a positive impact on choice of supply chain governance structure; in this case, to maintain or to
increase the collaborative advantage, exchanging partners in supply chain be likely to apply more intensity in the
level of integration and built a stable governance structure.
Based on the theoretical background discussed above and the results of previous research, this study proposes
that:
17
H4: The collaborative advantage between traders and middlemen of broiler chickens have a significant
positive effect on the choice of supply chain governance structure which is represented by the level of integration
between them.
2.4. Uncertainty, capability to collaborate, willingness to collaborate and collaborative
advantage
Uncertainty was seen as a primary driver of collaboration. In this case, uncertainty can have a negative effect on
the relationship quality (Kumar et al, 1995). Under conditions of uncertainty, the partner may not be sure that the
counterpart seeks the interests of the collaboration (Caglio and Ditillo, 2008). In their research, Ji et al. (2012)
proved the negative effect of uncertainty on the collaborative advantage. So based on the theoretical background
discussed above (e.g., Kumar et al., 1995; Caglio and Ditillo, 2008) and the result of previous research conducted
by Ji et al. (2012), the current study proposes that:
H5: The uncertainty between traders and middlemen of broiler chickens has a significant negative effect on
the collaborative advantage between them.
Collaboration capability is one of the important factors for managing collaboration between firms. Collaboration
capability has been defined as the firm’s ability to build and manage relationships based on mutual trust,
communication, and commitment (Blomqvist and Levy 2006). In this case, the trust will increase network
members’ commitment and make the cooperation more straightforward and efficient (Dhanaraj and Parkhe,
2006). Collaboration capability also can improve group working and knowledge sharing. Keen (1991) explained
this concept as linking people and allowing collaboration beyond spatial barriers. Based on the previous
theoretical background about collaborative advantage (i.e. Vangen and Huxham, 2003; Cao and Zhang, 2011) and
collaboration capability (i.e. Keen, 1991; Blomqvist and Levy, 2006) and the result of the research conducted by
Ji et al (2012) which can prove a positive effect of collaboration capability to collaborative advantage, this study
proposes that:
H6: The collaboration capability of traders and middlemen of broiler chicken has a significant positive effect
on the collaborative advantage between them.
The willingness to collaborate is conceived as active communication, involvement with others during the process
of decision-making. Conceptually, this means a willingness to participate in decision-making but also includes a
willingness to negotiate and be assertive (Anderson, 1993). Willingness to collaborate shows the commitment
from supplier to sustain the relationship (Zineldin, 1998). Willingness to collaborate in a networked organization
is associated with the attitude and intentions of the partners towards real collaboration circumstances
(Camarinha-Maltos and Rosas, 2010). In the context of relationship and inter-organizational collaboration
success, willingness to collaborate is one of the factors that have the significant contribution (Raišienė, 2011).
Related to those contributions, Ji et al (2012) are one of the researchers that can prove a positive relationship
between willingness to collaborate with collaboration advantage. In this case, willingness to collaborate can
improve the coordination of policies and related activities (Bramwell and Sharman, 1999). On the other side,
18
there were some aspects which account for willingness to collaborate, among others the external incentives, the
perceived risks, or the existence of a fierce competition (Camarinha-Maltos and Rosas, 2010).
Based on the previous theoretical background about willingness to collaborate (i.e. Anderson, 1993; Zineldin,
1998; Camarinha-Maltos and Rosas, 2010; Raišienė, 2011; Bramwell and Sharman, 1999), this study proposes
that:
H7: The willingness to collaborate between traders and middlemen of broiler chickens has a significant positive
effect on their collaborative advantage.
Based on these hypotheses, the conceptual model of this study can be seen in Figure 1.
Fig. 1. The conceptual model of antecedent factors influencing supply chain governance structure choice between traders and middlemen of broiler chickens
3. Method of Research
The method of research consists of an explanation about the population and sample of the study, instrument and
measures, and data analysis tools.
3.1. The Population of Study
This study was conducted in Semarang, Central Java. This study chose the traders of broiler chicken in traditional
markets as a target population. The reason for this choice can be seen in the following explanation. There was
some characteristic of modern markets. First, the modern market (e.g. supermarket) have the buying power that
permits them to control their suppliers to an extent which would not be possible if there were the equitable
balance of bargaining power between them (Nicholson and Young, 2012). Second, modern market has a tendency
to supply their commodity from larger and more established suppliers (Reardon, et al 2007; Natawidjaja et al.,
2007; Reardon and Berdegué, 2002). Third, in the procurement system, the modern market implements private
standards results that scan the high-quality products from traditional wholesale value chains (Chang, et al, 2015).
Compared with the modern market, a trader of broiler chicken usually has poor bargaining power with their
supplier and they tend to source from small and non-established suppliers. It is not always easy for them to
The uncertainty condition between the trader and middleman of broiler
chicken
The asset specificity between the trader and middleman of broiler
chicken
The collaboration capability of the trader and middleman of broiler
chicken
The transaction cost economics between the trader and middleman of
broiler chicken
The collaborative advantage between the trader and middleman of broiler
chicken
The level of integration between the trader and middleman of broiler
chicken
H1+
H2 +H3 +
H4 +H5
-
The willingness to collaborate from the trader and middleman of broiler
chicken
H6
H7
+
+
19
determine the price or specify the quality of their supplier. This condition makes some traders in the traditional
market face problems, such as sudden cancellation of sourcing from suppliers, or the uncertainty of the
advantages of collaboration due to the prices offered by suppliers.
Traditional markets are places that offer numerous commodities for daily needs, including live birds. In the
traditional markets, the poultry section usually consists of live bird selling, slaughtering, and carcass selling
activities with insufficient hygienic and sanitary situations. Often small slaughter places are found in these
markets. The traditional market operates every day. Then, a traditional market can be categorized as modern
based on the condition of the physical aspects of the building, the human resources, and the trading system
(Sumiarto and Arifin, 2008). There are 51 traditional markets in Semarang which can be grouped into two
categories according to their size, i.e. traditional town market and traditional district market. The traditional town
market was bigger than the traditional market. There were 7 traditional town markets (such as North Johar
market, Central Johar market, South Johar market, Bulu market, Karangayu market, Peterongan market, and
Jatingaleh market) and 44 traditional district markets (such as Dargo market, Tanah Mas market, Damar market,
Jangli market, and so on). In comparison to the traditional town market and traditional district market, more
specifically, this study chooses the traders of broiler chicken in the traditional town market as the target
population. This is because the traditional town market was larger than the traditional district market and there
were more traders of broiler chicken in the traditional town market than in the traditional district market. In total,
there were 555 traders of broiler chicken in the traditional town market.
3.2. The Sample of Study
In this study, the sample is taken from chicken traders only while other supply chain players are not involved. In
addition, the relationships addressed is only between chicken traders and the middlemen. Then, in order to meet
the prerequisites of variance-based Structural Equation Modeling (SEM), as much as one hundred and twenty-
five broiler chicken traders were chosen as the sample of this study. The samples with SEM using the Maximum
Likelihood method require a minimum sample size as much as 5 times the items in the questionnaire and the
recommended sample size range is 100 to 200 (Ghozali, 2011; Hair et al.. 2006). The sampling technique used in
this study was a proportional stratified random sampling. Stratification is a means of sample design by which the
population of interest is divided into groups, called strata, according to the known characteristic(s) (Khan and
Khalid, 2013). The population of interest was divided proportionally into 7 groups, according to the traditional
town market the traders came from. This study used stratified random sampling because the population frame
could be properly defined in each traditional town market during the period of collection of data with regard to
the actual number of traders of broiler chicken in each traditional town market. Besides that, stratified sampling
was performed in this study to ensure that all the important views from traders are represented in the samples.
The traders of broiler chicken as the sample of this study as can be seen in Table 1.
Table 1. Sample of study from each traditional town market. No. Name of market Number of traders of
broiler chicken Number of
samples 1 North Johar 3 2 2 Central Johar 80 15 3 South Johar 1 3 4 Bulu 119 34 5 Karangayu 217 43
20
6 Peterongan 106 21 7 Jatingaleh 29 7
Total 555 125
3.4. Data Collection Procedure
This study utilized closed questionnaires for data collection. The 125 questionnaires were administered to traders
of broiler chicken in North Johar market, Central Johar market, South Johar market, Bulu market, Karangayu
market, Peterongan market, and Jatingaleh market. Additional information needed for this study was collected
through follow-up telephone interviews and archival records. Because the respondents are mostly the owners of
very small enterprises, we accompanied the respondents when they filled the questionnaire to make sure that they
understood the questions. We also gave the respondents some real-world examples when they could not
understand the meaning of questions. Sometimes, we help the respondents by translating the questionnaire into
local Javanese language.
3.3. Instrument and Measures
In the beginning of the research, thirty-one items were selected to test the relationship between asset specificity,
uncertainty condition, collaboration capability, willingness to collaborate, transaction cost economics,
collaborative advantage, and level of integration between the traders and middlemen of broiler chicken in the
traditional town markets. After considering the result of the validity and reliability test from the initial and final
questionnaire, twenty-three items passed the test and could be used to test the relationship between asset
specificity, uncertainty condition, collaboration capability, willingness to collaborate, transaction cost economics,
collaborative advantage and level of integration. In this case, twenty-five items passed the validity and reliability
test for initial questionnaire and then, twenty-three items passed the validity and reliability test for final
questionnaire. Out of these thirty-one items, four items were used to measure asset specificity, four items were
used to measure uncertainty condition, five items were used to measure collaborative capability, two items were
used to measure willingness to collaborate, seven items were used to measure transaction cost economics, five
items were used to measure collaborative advantage, and four items were used to measure the level of integration.
Most of those items were developed from Ji et al. (2012) and only items used to measure transaction cost
economics were developed from Grover and Malhotra (2003). In detail, all of the items used to measure asset
specificity, uncertainty condition, collaboration capability, and willingness to collaborate, transaction cost
economics, collaborative advantage and level of integration and the source of each item are described in Table 2.
This study used a 5-point Likert scale (1= strongly disagree, 2=disagree, 3=neither agree nor disagree, 4=agree,
and 5= strongly agree) to measure the condition of all of the items.
3.5. Data Analysis Tools
The data was analyzed through SEM which was run through an Analysis of Moment Structure (AMOS) 22
program. The SEM is a second generation data analysis technique for estimating complex relationships among
multiple constructs (Byrne, 2013). There are significant differences between SEM and traditional statistic
methods such as regression, regression, analysis of variance, and logit. SEM have advantages compared to
21
traditional statistic methods. SEM can construct latent variable and then, measure a complex causal path (e.g.,
recursive, hierarchical) among latent variables, whereas, traditional statistic methods can only check pairwise
relationships between observed variables. A latent variable is abstract concepts that cannot be measured directly.
Therefore, the SEM technique is becoming more widely used in social work research, behavioral science, and
management science, for modeling complex and multivariate relationships. With the availability of user-friendly
statistical software, such as LISREL, AMOS and EQS, SEM has become more widely used and reported in social
work journals (Guo et al., 2009)
4. Result
This section consists of the explanation about the result of the validity and reliability tests, the characteristics of
the respondents, the results of the model of fitness test, and the results of the hypothesis testing.
4.1. Validity and Reliability
Validity and Reliability for Initial Questionnaire
Validity is concerned with the significance of research instrument. Validity test is intended to ensure that the
researcher is measuring what they proposed to measure, especially when they are measuring behaviors. There
were four types of validity test, i.e. statistical conclusion validity, internal validity, construct validity, and
external validity (Drost, 2011). This study uses construct validity to measure how well the authors converted or
transformed a construct (concept, idea, or behavior) into a functioning and operating reality, the
operationalization (Trochim, 2006).
The initial construct validity test was conducted before the final questionnaire distributed to the 125 traders of
broiler chicken. The initial construct validity was used to anticipate the differences between the issue and sector
addressed by the original questionnaires with the current condition of broiler chicken supply chain in Indonesia
It was no simple metric can be used to quantify the extent to which a measure can be described as construct valid.
Researchers typically establish construct validity by presenting correlations between a measure of a construct and
a number of other measures that should, theoretically, be associated with it (convergent validity) or vary
independently of it (discriminant validity) (Westen and Rosenthal, 2003). For initial questionnaire which was
tested on 30 traders as respondents, the initial construct validity was associated with convergent validity and was
quantified by using the Spearman correlation coefficient. The items of the questionnaire were deemed invalid if
that item has a Spearman correlation coefficient of less than 0.361 (1-tailed test; α=0.05; n=30, respondent for the
preliminary survey). Otherwise, the items of the questionnaire are said to be valid. The results of the validity test
indicated that six items have a value of the Spearman correlation coefficient less than 0.361, i.e. one item in asset
specificity, one item in uncertainty condition, one item in collaboration capability, one item in transaction cost of
economics, one item in collaborative advantage, and one item in level of integration.
After removing all of the items which have a value of the Spearman correlation coefficient less than 0.361, the
internal reliability was verified by computing the Cronbach’s alpha. Internal reliability is intended to measure the
internal consistency of the individual indicators that belong to one construct. A higher value of internal reliability
22
provides greater confidence to the researcher that individual indicators of one construct can use to measure a
particular situation consistently. Nunnally (1978) suggested that a minimum Cronbach’s alpha of 0.6 sufficed for
the early stages of research. After removing all the items which are invalid, the asset specificity, uncertainty
condition, collaboration capability, willingness to collaborate, transaction cost economics, collaborative
advantage and level of integration have a Cronbach’s alpha above 0.60, ranging from 0.618 to 0.832. This
condition demonstrates an acceptable level of internal consistency of each of the construct indicators. The final
items used for the questionnaire for this study (after removing the items which have a value less than 0.361) and
the results of the validity and reliability test for initial questionnaire can be seen in Table 2.
Validity and Reliability for Final Questionnaire
After removing all the items which are invalid, this study have a new questionnaire which called final
questionnaire. The final questionnaire is distributed to 125 traders of boiler chicken and the validity and
reliability of the data collected from this questionnaire is tested using SEM technique. Under this technique, the
convergent validity is verified using the Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) approach. The CFA analysis
provides standardized loading factor of each indicator where the research variable is quantified from a series of
statement known as manifest variable. The convergent validity was assessed by means of factor loadings (given
as Regression Weights in the AMOS), Average Variance Extracted (AVE), and Composite Reliability (CR). With
regard to Factor Loadings, Hair et al. (2006) recommend that Standardized Regression Weights obtained through
the AMOS should be 0.5 or higher, ideally 0.7 or higher and at a minimum statistically significant. As noted by
Hair et al. (2006), AVE value should be above 0.5; whereas, CR values should be greater than 0.6. The value of
VE that is smaller than 0.5 indicates that more error remains in the items than variance explained by the latent
factor structure imposed on the measure and the CR value lower than 0.6 indicates that the items do not
consistently measure the hypothesized latent construct and (Hair et al., 2006). The result of convergent validity
and discriminant validity from final questionnaire which was distributed to 125 traders of broiler chicken can also
be seen in Table 2.
Table 2. Results of convergent and reliability test for initial and final questionnaire
Construct Items
Initial questionnaire Final questionnaire Spearman correlation coefficient
Cronbach’s Alpha
Standardized Regression
Weights
AVE CR
Asset specificity (AS)
The traders of broiler chicken will lose all physical asset (facilities and tools) have been invested, if they switch to the others product (AS1)*
0.399 0.618
dropped 0.635
0.670
The traders of broiler chicken will lose the time have been invested in building the good collaboration with former middlemen, if they switch to the new middlemen (AS2)*
0.452 1.023
The traders of broiler chicken will lose the effort have been invested in building the good collaboration with former middlemen, if they switch to the new middlemen (AS3)*
0.579 0.543
The traders of broiler chicken will lose a lot of investment If they switch to other products (AS4)*
dropped
Uncertainty condition (UN)
Demand for broiler chicken is uncertain (UN1)* 0.482 0.775
0.787 0.620
0.676 I and my middlemen cannot exchange business information well (UN2)*
0.536 0.766
My middlemen is not reliable for anything that has 0.379 0.793
23
Construct Items
Initial questionnaire Final questionnaire Spearman correlation coefficient
Cronbach’s Alpha
Standardized Regression
Weights
AVE CR
relationship with partnership (UN3)* Regulations of the market of broiler chicken change frequently (UN4)*
dropped
Collaboration capability (CC)
Between me and my middlemen, at least one has capital to enhance your collaboration (CC1*
0.657 0.800
0.799 0.661
0.733
Between me and my middlemen, at least one has strategic logistics systems to support the supply of broiler chicken (CC2)*
0.647 0.658
Between me and my middlemen, at least one has good business reputation in the supply chain of broiler chicken (CC3)*
0.726 0.719
Between me and my middlemen, at least one has good managerial skills to manage the relationship (CC4)*
0.824 0.677
Between me and my middlemen, at least one holds key technology to support the logistic activity of broiler chicken (CC5)*
dropped
Willingness to collaborate (WC)
As a trader of broiler chicken, I have great willingness to know my middlemen' s preference (WC1)*
0.574 0.727 0.680 0.619 0.678
I have great willingness to make a great effort to maximize the joint value between me and my middlemen (WC2)
0.574 0.845
Transaction cost economics (TC)
It is very difficult to get the information about the condition of my middlemen when I try to make collaboration with my middlemen (TC1)**
0.603 0.821
0.744 0.629
0.688
It is very difficult to exchange information with my middlemen about the performance of this collaboration (TC2)**
0.369 dropped
It is very difficult to identify root causes of each problem between me and my middlemen (TC3)**
0.386 0.784
It is very difficult to solve each problem between me and my middlemen (TC4)**
0.395 0.782
It is very difficult for my middlemen to give me the correct information about the quality of broiler chicken (TC5)**
0.483 0.758
In my opinion, there is a great tendency for my middlemen to get benefit for themselves (TC6)**
0.384 0.739
I need significantly effort to explain the role of each individual to support this collaboration (TC7)**
dropped
Collaborative advantage (CA)
Logistics system that exists between me and my middlemen can ensure the availability of broiler chicken (CA1)*
0.563 0.832
0.782 0.616
0.670
Payment between me and my middlemen could be realized quickly (CA2)*
0.591 0.800
Cost between me and my middlemen is lower than that of between me and another processor (CA3)*
0.75 0.764
Communication system between me and my middlemen can facilitate us to share all information that important for the successful of the broiler chicken supply (e.g. quality, price) (CA4)*
0.77 0.808
I and my middlemen can share information about cost, price, product safety, quality, and quantity etc. (CA5)*
dropped
Level of Integration (LI)
Frequency of transactions between me and my middlemen is higher than that between me and a common upstream chain agent (LI1)*
0.66 0.749
0.758 0.647
0.713
I and my middlemen have a long time of cooperation, at least more than 6 months (LI3)*
0.674 0.731
Either me and my middlemen gives up to the cooperative relationship easily (LI3)*
0.363 0.726
Both I and middlemen rarely betray the contract dropped
24
Construct Items
Initial questionnaire Final questionnaire Spearman correlation coefficient
Cronbach’s Alpha
Standardized Regression
Weights
AVE CR
(LI4)*
* Ji et al. (2012); ** Grover and Malhotra (2003).
The result of convergent validity test for final questionnaire indicated that there were two items must be removed
from final questionnaire because those items have Standardized Regression Weights less than minimum or less
than 0.5. The first item, the traders of broiler chicken will lose all physical asset (facilities and tools) have been
invested, if they switch to the others product (AS1) and the second item was, it is very difficult to exchange
information with my partner about the performance of this collaboration(TC2). Among valid items, there was 1
items have Standardized Regression Weights above 1. However, according to Jöreskog (1999), the standardized
coefficient of 1.04, 1.40 or even 2.80 does not necessary imply that something is wrong, although, it might
suggest that there is a high degree of multicollinearity in a data. The multicollinearity is a phenomenon in which
two or more predictor variables in multiple regression models are highly correlated, meaning that one can be
linearly predicted from the others with a substantial degree of accuracy. That is, a model with correlated
predictors can indicate how well the entire bundle of predictors predicts the outcome variable, but it may not give
valid results about any individual predictor, or about which predictors are redundant with respect to others. Then,
after removing two non-valid items, the AVE value in the range of 0.619 and 0.661 and the CR value in the range
0.676 and 0.733, indicated the satisfactory convergent validity of each construct.
4.2. Profile of Respondents
The characteristics of the 125 respondents who completed a questionnaire in this study (not including the 30
preliminary respondents) can be seen in Table 3. Most of the respondents are female with less than 2 employees.
Only thirty percent of the respondents have five or more employees. In terms of duration of working as traders of
broiler chickens, most of the respondents have become a traders broiler chickens for 15 years or more, followed
by 5 years to less than 10 years, 10 years to less than 15 years, and less than 5 years. Then, in terms of average of
broiler chicken that can be sold, most respondent can sell an average of 100 to 300 kilograms of broiler chicken
in one day, followed by less than 100 kilograms, 300 kilograms to less than 500 kilograms, and 500 kilograms
and more.
Table 3. Characteristics of respondents Characteristics Category Percentages
Gender Male 46%
Female 54%
The number of employees
0 – 2 employees 85%
3 – 5 employees 12%
5 or more employees 3%
Duration of working as a trader of broiler chickens
Less than 5 years 6%
5 - 10 years 26%
10 – 15 years 17%
15 or more years 52%
Average number of broiler chickens that can be sold in one day
0 – 100 kg 22% 100 – 300 kg 50% 300 – 500 kg 22%
25
Characteristics Category Percentages
500 or more kg 6%
4.3. Model Fitness Test
The hypothesized model of the antecedent factor affecting governance structure choices in the supply chain of a
broiler chicken is presented in Figure 2 with seven latent constructs. Figure 2 shows the finalized model of the
antecedent factor affecting governance structure choices in the supply chain of broiler chicken after considering
all statistical fit index tests and modification index.
Fig 2. The finalized model of the antecedent factor affecting governance structure choices in the supply chain of
broiler chicken
This study did not use the value of chi-square (χ2) as statistical fit indices to assess the fitness of the model. The
Chi-Square value is the traditional measure for assessing the overall model fit and assessing the magnitude of the
discrepancy between the sample and fitted covariance matrices (Hu and Bentler, 1999). A good model fit would
provide an insignificant result at a 0.05 threshold (Barrett, 2007), thus the Chi-Square statistic is often referred to
as either a ‘badness of fit’ (Kline, 2005) or a ‘lack of fit’ (Mulaik et al., 1989) measure. Although the Chi-
Squared test is one of the popular statistical fit indices, there were a number of limitations when researchers using
chi-square test. Firstly, the chi-Square test assumes severe deviations from normality and multivariate normality
can result in model rejections even when the model is appropriately specified (McIntosh, 2007). Secondly, the
Chi-Square test is sensitive to sample size, which means that the Chi-Square statistic nearly always rejects the
model when the researcher using large samples (Bentler and Bonett, 1980; Jöreskog and Sörbom, 1993). On the
other hand, when a researcher using a small sample, the Chi-Square statistic lacks power and because of this
condition, the chi-square may not be able to discriminate between good and poor fitting models (Kenny and
McCoach, 2003). Due to the restrictiveness of the Model Chi-Square, researchers (including this study) have
sought alternative indices to assess model fit. One example of a statistic that minimizes the impact of sample size
on the Model Chi-Square is Wheaton et al. (1977) relative/normed chi-square (Relative Chi-square (CMIN/DF:
the chi-square/degree of freedom; χ2/df). Although there is no consensus regarding an acceptable ratio for this
statistic, recommendations range from as high as 5.0 (Wheaton et al., 1977) to as low as 2.0 (Tabachnick and
Fidell, 2007).
26
Besides CMIN/DF, this study also used five other measures to test of model fitness, i.e.: Goodness-of-Fit Index
(GFI), Adjusted Goodness-of-Fit Index (AGFI), Tucker-Lewis index (TLI), Normed Fit Index (NFI), Root Mean
Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA). GFI, AGFI, TLI, and NFI are incremental fit indexes. Incremental fit
measures assess how well the estimated model fits relative to some alternative baseline model. Values for GFI,
AGFI, TLI, and NFI range between 0.0 and 1.0 with values closer to 1.0 indicating a good fit. A value of GFI,
AGFI, TLI, and NFI ≥0. 95 is indicative of good fit (Browne and Cudeck, 1993; Verschuren, 1991; Bentler,
1990; Hu and Bentler, 1999), although the conventional cut-off of this indicator is about 0.90 (Russell, 2002).
According to Ghozali (2011), the value of GFI, AGFI, TLI, and NFI from 0.0 to 0.50 are presently recognized
as indicative of marginal fit; the value of the value of GFI, AGFI, TLI, and NFI from 0.5 to 0.80 are presently
recognized as indicative of adequate fit; the value of the value of GFI, AGFI, TLI, and NFI from 0.80 to 0.90 are
presently recognized as indicative of good fit; and the value of the value of GFI, AGFI, TLI, and NFI from 0.9 to
1.00 are presently recognized as indicative of very good fit. According to Browne and Cudeck (1993), RMSEA
values ≤ 0.05 can be considered as a good fit, values between 0.05 and 0.08 as an adequate fit, and values
between 0.08 and 0.10 as a mediocre fit, whereas values > 0.10 are not acceptable. Marsh et al. (2004) suggest
that 0.08 should be acceptable in most circumstances (see also Wijayanto, 2008). The final results of the six
statistical fit index to measure of model fit can be seen in Table 4. To increase the statistical fit index according
to their cut-off value, items of AS1 and TC1 have to be deleted from the hypothesized model.
Table 4. Statistical fit indices to measure of model fit Statistical fit index to measure of model fit
Result Cut off value Meaning
CMIN/DF 3.009 2 ≤CMIN/DF ≤ 5 Good Fit GFI 0.773 0≤GFI, AGFI, TLI, and NFI < 0.5 marginal fit
0.5≤GFI, AGFI, TLI, and NFI < 0.8adequate fit 0.8 ≤GFI, AGFI, TLI, and NFI < 0.9 good fit
0.9≤GFI, AGFI, TLI, and NFI ≤1. 0 very good fit
Adequate fit AGFI 0.714 Adequate fit TLI 0.762 Adequate fit NFI 0.726 Adequate fit RMSEA 0.052 RMSEA ≤ 0.05 (good fit
0.05 < RMSEA ≤ 0.08 adequate fit 0.08 < RMSEA ≤ 0.10 mediocre fit,
Adequate fit
4.3. Bivariate Analysis among Variables
The bivariate analysis aims to analyze the relationship between two variables. The result of
bivariate analysis between latent and predictor variables can be seen in Table 5
Table 5. Result of Bivariate Analysis between Latent and Predictor Variables
AS AS1 AS2 AS3 AS 1 0.676** 0.802** 0.785** AS1 0.676** 1 0.255** 0.250** AS2 0.802** 0.255** 1 0.556** AS3 0.785** 0.250** 0.556** 1
UN UN1 UN2 UN3 UN 1 0.860** 0.816** 0.817** UN1 0.860** 1 0.568** 0.581** UN2 0.816** 0.568** 1 0.458** UN3 0.817** 0.581** 0.458** 1
27
WC WC1 WC2 WC 1 0.899** 0.874** WC1 0.899** 1 0.574** WC2 0.874** 0.574** 1
CC CC1 CC2 CC3 CC4 CC 1 .843** .761** .779** .778** CC1 .843** 1 .634** .526** .495** CC2 .761** .634** 1 .359** .422** CC3 .779** .526** .359** 1 .564** CC4 .778** .495** .422** .564** 1
TC TC1 TC2 TC3 TC4 TC5 TC 1 .762** .473** .794** .793** .760** TC1 .762** 1 .150 .640** .547** .469** TC2 .473** .150 1 .284** .260** .276** TC3 .794** .640** .284** 1 .499** .518** TC4 .793** .547** .260** .499** 1 .478** TC5 .760** .469** .276** .518** .478** 1 TC6 .756** .448** .151 .475** .647** .570**
CA CA1 CA2 CA3 CA 1 .820** .808** .824** CA1 .820** 1 .598** .497** CA2 .808** .598** 1 .566** CA3 .824** .497** .566** 1
LI LI1 LI2 LI3 LI 1 .808** .827** .814** LI1 .808** 1 .489** .471** LI2 .827** .489** 1 .540** LI3 .814** .471** .540** 1
The result of bivariate analysis between the latent variable, it turned out that all of the predictor variables show a
statistically significant relationship with latent variable. It can be said that the entire bundle of predictors predicts
the outcome latent variable.
4.4. Hypothesis Test
The results of the hypothesis testing are presented in Table 6. Hypothesis testing is done by testing the direct
influence of Critical Ratio (CR) on each line direct effect partially. If the value of CR> 1.96 and the p-value is
less than 5% (p < 0.05), we accept the hypothesis (it means we reject the null hypothesis - there is no effect).
Table 6. Result of hypothesis testing Hypothesis Relationship Critical Ratio p-value Result
H1 Transaction cost of economics Level of integration (+) 9.180 < 0.05 Accepted
H2 Asset specificity Transaction cost of economics (+) 1.125 > 0.05 (0.260) Rejected
H3 Uncertainty condition Transaction cost of economics (+) 10.286 < 0.05 Accepted
H4 Collaborative advantage Level of integration (+) 10.129 < 0.05 Accepted
H5 Uncertainty condition Collaborative advantage (-) -6.884 < 0.05 Accepted
H6 Collaboration capability Collaborative advantage (+) 5.262 < 0.05 Accepted
H7 Willingness to collaborate Collaborative advantage (+) 1.626 > 0.05 (0.104) Rejected
It can be seen that not all the hypotheses given by the study are proven by the model in the case of the supply
chain of broiler chicken. Although this study refers to the conceptual model of a previous study belonging to Ji et
al. (2012), the results of this study are slightly different. Ji et al. (2012) found that all the hypotheses given by the
study are proven by the model in the case of China´s pork chain, but could not be proven in the case of broiler
28
chicken chain. Both studies could prove the significant effect of the transaction cost of economics and
collaborative advantage on the level of integration. This study also found that the effect of transaction costs is
stronger than collaboration advantages on the level of integration. However, this study only can prove the effect
of uncertain conditions on the transaction cost of economics between traders and the middlemen. At the level of
significance of 0.05, this study failed to prove that asset specificity between the traders and the middlemen has a
positive significant effect on the transaction cost economics. According to Williamson (1981), high asset
specificity leads to increases on the transaction cost economics because the asset is fully specialized to a single
use or user only. This asset, therefore, assumes low transferability to another use or user. The broad advice is that
when assets are not specific to an exchange the market may be the most efficient way (or the best way for
minimizing costs) to organize it (Williamson, 1989). The degree of asset specificity ranges from nonspecific to
mixed to idiosyncratic (Williamson, 1979, 1985). The asset specificity assumption might be called the locomotive
or driving assumption of TCE as Williamson himself states the importance of asset specificity to transaction cost
economics is difficult to exaggerate (Williamson, 1985). So based on the statement from Williamson (1981,
1985, 1989), we argue that the unsupported relationship between asset specify and TCE might be caused by the
fact that asset specify in the trader-middleman transaction is very low. In this case, most of our sample are small
traders of broiler chicken, which did not need assets that are specially designed for the use of just one particular
transaction with one broiler chicken middlemen. This asset can be used for other broiler chicken’s processors (or
middlemen) without huge adaptation. It is the reason, why in the broiler chicken chain, this study could not prove
the significant effect of asset specificity on the transaction cost economics. The hesitancy of the existence of
asset specifications could also be seen from the mean of item AS2 (mean=3.128) and AS3 (mean=3.224); which
is the traders of broiler chicken will lose the time and effort have been invested in building the good collaboration
with a former middleman, if they switch to the new middleman. The mean of those items closes in 3 rather than
4. This condition indicates that, on average, traders of broiler chickens were not sure of the existence of asset
specifications between them and their broiler chicken middlemen. The traders were not sure about losing all
physical assets (facilities and tools) that had been invested if they switched to another product. The traders were
also not sure about losing the time and effort that had been invested in building good collaboration if they
switched to a new middleman. Moreover, asset specificity could be claimed to be the most important construct of
the transaction cost paradigm because of opportunism (Jaakko, 2015). So, since our sample consists of small
traders of broiler chicken with very low asset specify, the asset specificity could not be claimed as an important
factor for transaction cost because no threat of opportunism or no beneficial for the middlemen to behave
opportunistically.
The other difference of this study with Ji et al. (2012), is that this study only can prove the effect of uncertainty
conditions and collaboration capability on the collaborative advantage. At the level significance of 0.05, this
study also failed to prove that willingness to collaborate from the traders and the middlemen has a positive
significance effect of the collaborative advantage between them. According to Camarinha-Maltos and Rosas
(2010), willingness to collaborate depends on a variety of aspects, including the perceived risks, external
incentives, or the presence of a fierce competition. Related to the previously rejected hypothesis (hypothesis 2),
the insignificance of the effect of willingness to collaborate on the collaborative advantage could be happening
because the traders do not perceive a significant risk or incentive or fierce competition in making relationships
29
with their middlemen due to the absence of specific assets between traders and middlemen. The hesitancy of
willingness for the traders to collaborate with their middlemen could also be seen from the mean of item WC1
(mean=3.208) and item WC2 (mean=3.368). This condition indicates that, on average, the traders were not sure
about their willingness to collaborate with the middlemen by knowing better their middlemen preference and
giving greater effort to maximize the joint value between them.
Related to the past study about transaction cost economics, asset specificity, and uncertain condition, the findings
of this study suggest that, for transactions which do not involve a fully specialized asset to a single use or user
only, transaction cost economics are less influenced by the asset specificity. Then, relating to the past study about
collaborative advantage, uncertainty condition, collaboration capability, and willingness to collaborate, the
findings of this study suggest that, for the condition of market, which is perceived as low risk, low incentive, and
low competition, the collaborative advantage is less influenced by the willingness to collaborate.
5. Conclusion
This study aims to investigate the relationship between asset specificity, uncertainty condition, collaboration
capability, willingness to collaborate, transaction cost economics, collaborative advantage, and the level of
integration between traders and middlemen of broiler chicken. Specifically, the investigation took place at seven
traditional town markets in Semarang, Central Java province (North Johar market, Central Johar market, South
Johar market, Bulu market, Karangayu market, Peterongan market, and Jatingaleh market). Based on the results
of data processing, this study found that not all the hypotheses given by the study are proven by the model. This
study could prove the significant effect of transaction cost of economics and collaborative advantage on the level
of integration and the effect of transaction cost is stronger than collaboration advantages on the level of
integration. This study also found that the effect of transaction cost is stronger than collaboration advantages on
the level of integration. Transaction cost economics significantly depend on uncertainty condition between
traders and the middlemen of broiler chicken; whereas, the collaborative advantage significantly depends on
uncertainty condition and collaboration capability. This study failed to prove that asset specificity between the
traders and the middlemen of broiler chicken has a significant effect on the transaction cost economics. This
study also failed to prove that willingness to collaborate from the traders and middlemen has a significant effect
on the collaborative advantage between them. The authors argue this condition could be happening because this
study uses small traders and middlemen, which did not use fully specialized assets for a single use or user only.
This condition meant the traders did not perceive a significant risk or incentive or fierce competition in making
relationship with their middlemen; on average, the traders were not sure about their willingness to collaborate
with the middlemen by knowing their middlemen preference better and making a greater effort to maximize the
joint value between them.
This study has some limitations. The first limitation relates to the sample size. The sample size of the current
study was 125 traders. Although this sample size met the minimum requirement, this sample study only came
from traders of broiler chicken of 7 traditional town markets in Semarang, Central Java and most of our sample
consisted of small traders with average sales of broiler chicken from 100 kg to 300 kg a day. Therefore, the
results of the study may not be generalized to the entire population or to another object in the supply chain. It is
30
possible that the results of the study may be subject to the characteristics of the object of the supply chain. Thus,
future research should attempt to examine the relationship between asset specificity, uncertainty condition,
collaboration capability, willingness to collaborate, transaction cost economics, collaborative advantage, and the
level of integration between the traders and middlemen of broiler chickens across many different markets
(traditional market, modern market) and with samples from other geographical areas. This will give the
opportunity to make comparisons between different markets and between different geographical areas.
The second limitation related to the size of the trader of broiler chicken, which became a sample of this study.
Although we argue that hypothesis 2 is rejected, perhaps due to size of the traders; in fact, this study did not
include the size of the traders and middlemen as a variable to differentiate the effects of asset specificity,
uncertainty condition, collaboration capability, willingness to collaborate, transaction cost economics, and
collaborative advantage. The third limitation of this study is related to performance measurement. This study did
not conduct any performance measurements due to inability to gather the required financial data. Based on the
second and the third limitations of this study, future research should attempt to include the size of the object and
performance measurement as variables to strengthen this study.
In terms of theoretical implication and practical implication, this study has concluded as follows. This study
contributes to the existing body of knowledge by examining the effect of asset specificity, uncertainty condition,
collaboration capability, willingness to collaborate, transaction cost economics, collaborative advantage, and the
level of integration. Although previous studies in the pork supply chain from Ji et al. (2012) suggest that asset
specificity and uncertain conditions have a significant effect on transaction cost economics and uncertainty
condition, collaboration capability, willingness to collaborate have a significant effect on collaborative
advantage, this empirical study in the broiler chicken supply chain shows different results. So, in terms of
theoretical implication, the characteristics of the supply chain may give a different result for the factors which
can influence transaction cost economics and collaborative advantage. In other words, it can be said that the
factors which are influencing the transaction cost economics and the factors which are influencing the
collaborative advantage may be slightly different due to the characteristics of the supply chain. In terms of
practical implications, the outcome of this research has given valuable feedback which can be used for designing
the supply chain governance structure in the broiler chicken supply chain. This feedback is important since there
were several types of supply chain governance structure in use for agribusiness, from spot markets until vertical
integration (e.g. Ferguson, 2004; Kim 1998; Mighell and Jones 1963; Barkema & Drabenstott 1995; Hobbs 1996;
Peterson and Wysocki 1997). The actors (traders) in the broiler chicken supply chain should remember that some
factors have a more significant effect on building levels of integration, i.e. transaction cost economics, uncertain
conditions, collaboration capability, and collaborative advantage. Traders of broiler chicken should ensure that
their business has the high transaction cost economics and uncertain condition, their partner has high
collaboration capability and the relationship has the high collaborative advantage before they decide to design
integration with their partner.
6. References
31
Anderson, C. M. (1993). Willingness to Collaborate as a New Communication Trait: Scale Development and a Predictive Model of Related Communication Traits.
Aubert, B. A., Rivard, S., & Patry, M. (1996). A transaction cost approach to outsourcing behavior: Some empirical evidence. Information & management, 30(2), 51-64.
Bagozzi, R.P. and Yi, Y. (1988). “On the evaluation of structural equation models”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol.16 No.1, 74-94.
Barkema A., Drabenstott M. (1995 INDUSTRY NOTE: The Many Paths of Vertical Coordination: Structural Implications for the US Food System. Agribusiness, 11 (5): 483–492
Barrett, P. (2007). Structural equation modelling: Adjudging model fit. Personality and Individual differences, 42(5), 815-824. Barringer, B. R., & Harrison, J. S. (2000). Walking a Tightrope: Creating Value through Interorganizational Relationships. Journal
of Management, 26(3), 367–403 Bentler, P. M. (1990). Comparative fit indices in structural models. Psychological Bulletin, 107, 238-246. Doi: 10.1037/0033-
2909.107.2.238. Bentler, P. M., & Bonett, D. G. (1980). Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance structures. Psychological
bulletin, 88(3), 588. Blomqvist, K., & Levy, J. (2006). Collaboration capability–a focal concept in knowledge creation and collaborative innovation in
networks. International Journal of Management Concepts and Philosophy, 2(1), 31-48. Bramwell, B., & Sharman, A. (1999). Collaboration in local tourism policymaking. Annals of tourism research, 26(2), 392-415. Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In K. A. Bollen and J. S. Long (Ed.). Testing
structural equation models (pp. 136-162). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Byrne, B. M. (2013). Structural Equation Modeling with LISREL, PRELIS and SIMPLIS: Basic Concepts, Applications and
Programming. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Caglio, A., & Ditillo, A. (2008). A review and discussion of management control in inter-firm relationships: Achievements and
future directions. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 33(7), 865-898. Camarinha-Matos, L. M. & Rosas, J. (2010). Assessment of the Willingness to Collaborate in Enterprise Networks. In Emerging
Trends in Technological Innovation (pp. 14-23). Springer Berlin Heidelberg. Cao, M., & Zhang, Q. (2010). Supply chain collaborative advantage: a firm’s perspective. International Journal of Production
Economics, 128(1), 358-367 Cao, M., & Zhang, Q. (2011). Supply chain collaboration: Impact on collaborative advantage and firm performance. Journal of
Operations Management, 29(3), 163-180. Chang, H. H., Di Caprio, A., & Sahara, S. (2015). Global Agrifood Value Chains and Local Poverty Reduction: What Happens to
Those Who Don't Plug In? Asian Development Bank Economics Working Paper Series, (453). Chen, G., Zhang, G., & Xie, Y. M. (2013). Impact of transaction attributes on transaction costs in project alliances: Disaggregated
analysis. Journal of Management in Engineering, 31(4), 04014054. Chen, I. J., & Paulraj, A. (2004). Towards a theory of supply chain management: the constructs and measurements. Journal of
operations management, 22(2), 119-150. Cooper, M. C., & Ellram, L. M. (1993). Characteristics of supply chain management and the implications for purchasing and
logistics strategy. The International Journal of Logistics Management, 4(2), 13-24. Costales, A., & Catelo, M. A. O. (2008). Contract farming as an institution for integrating rural smallholders in markets for livestock
products in developing countries :( I) Framework and applications. Pro-Poor Livestock Policy Initiative (PPLPI) Research Report (FAO).
Crisan, E., Parpucea, I., & Ilies, L., 2011. The Relation between Supply Chain Governance and Supply Chain Performance. Journal of Management & Marketing Challenges for the Knowledge Society, 6(4), 637-644
Croom, S. (2001). Restructuring supply chains through information channel innovation. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 21(4), 504-515.
Denolf, J. M., Trienekens, J. H., van der Vorst, J. G. A. J., & Omta, S. W. F. (2015). The role of governance structures in supply chain information sharing. Journal on Chain and Network Science, 15(1), 83-99.
Dhanaraj, C., & Parkhe, A. (2006). Orchestrating innovation networks. Academy of management review, 31(3), 659-669. Dolci, P. C., Maçada, A. C. G. C., & Grant, G. G. (2013). Information Technology and Supply Chain Governance: A Conceptual
Model. Information Technology, 7, 1-2013. Drost, E. A. (2011). Validity and reliability in social science research. Education Research and Perspectives, 38(1), 105. Duval, Y., & Feyler, E. (2016). Intra-and Extraregional Trade Costs of ASEAN Economies: Implications for Asian Regional
Integration. In ASEAN Economic Community (pp.153-172). US: Palgrave Macmillan US Dyer, J. H. (1996). Does governance matter? Keiretsu alliances and asset specificity as sources of Japanese competitive
advantage. Organization Science, 7(6), 649-666. Dyer, J. H. (2000). Collaborative advantage: Winning through extended enterprise supplier networks. Oxford University Press. Dyer, J. H., & Singh, H. (1998). The relational view: Cooperative strategy and sources of Interorganizational competitive
advantage. Academy of management review, 23(4), 660-679 Erramilli, M. K., & Rao, C. P. (1993). Service firms' international entry-mode choice: A modified transaction-cost analysis
approach. The Journal of Marketing, 19-38.
32
Ferguson, S. M. (2004). The economics of vertical coordination in the organic wheat supply chain (Doctoral dissertation, University of Saskatchewan).
Foss, N. J., & Nielsen, B. B. (2012). Researching multilevel phenomena: The case of collaborative advantage in strategic management. Journal of CENTRUM Cathedra: The Business and Economics Research Journal, 5(1), 11-23.
Frank, S. D., & Henderson, D. R. (1992). Transaction costs as determinants of vertical coordination in the US food industries. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 74(4), 941-950.
Garson, G. D. (2013). Generalized Linear Models / Generalized Estimating Equations, 2013 Edition . Asheboro, NC: Statistical Associates Publishers.
Gefen, D., Straub, D., & Boudreau, M. C. (2000). Structural equation modeling and regression: Guidelines for research practice. Communications of the association for information systems, 4(1), 7.
Geyskens, I., Steenkamp, J. B. E., & Kumar, N. (2006). Make, buy, or ally: A transaction cost theory meta-analysis. Academy of management journal, 49(3), 519-543.
Ghozali, I. (2011). Model Persamaan Struktural: Konsep Aplikasi dengan Amos 19.0. Semarang: Badan Penerbit Undip. Grover, V., & Malhotra, M. K. (2003). Transaction cost framework in operations and supply chain management research: theory
and measurement. Journal of Operations management, 21(4), 457-473. Guo, B., Perron, B. E., & Gillespie, D. F. (2009). A systematic review of structural equation modelling in social work
research. British Journal of Social Work, 39(8), 1556-1574. Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., Anderson, R. E., & Tatham, R. L. (2006). Multivariate data analysis (Vol. 6). Upper Saddle
River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall. Hair.Jr., J. F., Black., W. C., Babin., B. J., Anderson., R. E., & L.Tatham., R. (2006). Multivariant Data Analysis. New Jersey:
Pearson International Edition Heide, J.B. (1994).Inter-organizational Governance in Marketing Channels. The Journal of Marketing 58 (1), 71-85 Hobbs, J. E. (1996). A transaction cost approach to supply chain management. Supply Chain Management: An International
Journal, 1(2), 15-27. Hobbs, J.E. & Young, L.M. (2000) Closer vertical co‐ordination in agri‐food supply chains: a conceptual framework and some
preliminary evidence. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, Vol.5 Issue 3, 131-143 Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new
alternatives. Structural equation modeling: a multidisciplinary journal, 6(1), 1-55. Huxham, C., & Vangen, S. (2005). Managing to collaborate: the theory and practice of collaborative advantage. London: Routled Jap, S. D. (1999). Pie-expansion efforts: collaboration processes in buyer-supplier relationships. Journal of marketing Research,
461-475. Jap, S. D. (2001). Perspectives on joint competitive advantages in buyer–supplier relationships. International Journal of Research in
Marketing, 18(1), 19-35. Ji, C., de Felipe, I., Briz, J., & Trienekens, J. H. (2012). An Empirical Study on Governance Structure Choices in Chinas Pork
Supply Chain. Int. Food Agribus. Manag. Rev, 15, 121-152. Jöreskog, K. G. (1999). How large can a standardized coefficient be. Unpublished Technical Report. Retrieved from: http://www.
ssicentral. com/lisrel/techdocs/HowLargeCanaStandardizedCoefficientbe. pdf. Jöreskog, K. G., & Sörbom, D. (1993). LISREL 8: Structural equation modeling with the SIMPLIS command language. Scientific
Software International. Kaufman, A., Wood, C. H., & Theyel, G. (2000). Collaboration and technology linkages: A strategic supplier typology. Strategic
Management Journal, 21(6), 649–663. Keen, P.G.W. (1991). Shaping the Future: Business Design through Information Technology, Harvard Business School Press,
Boston; Massachusetts. Kenny, D. A., & McCoach, D. B. (2003). Effect of the number of variables on measures of fit in structural equation
modeling. Structural equation modeling, 10(3), 333-351. Ketchen, D. J., & Hult, G. T. M. (2007). Bridging organization theory and supply chain management: The case of best value supply
chains. Journal of Operations Management, 25(2), 573-580. Khan, S., & Khalid, M. M. (2013). Multi Choice for Precision in Multivariate Stratified Surveys: A Compromise
Solution. International Journal of Operations Research, 10(4), 171-181. Kim, Y. (1998). Distribution channel decisions in import consumer goods markets. Logistics Information Management, 11(3), 178-
187. Kinsey, J. (2002). The Supply Chain of Pork: US and China (Vol. 2, No. 1). Food Industry Center, University of Minnesota. Klein, B. (2007). The Economic Lessons of Fisher Body–General Motors. International Journal of the Economics of
Business, 14(1), 1-36. Kline, R.B. (2005), Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling (2nd Edition Ed.). New York: The Guilford Press. Koh, J., & Venkatraman, N. (1991). Joint venture formations and stock market reactions: An assessment in the information
technology sector. Academy of management journal, 34(4), 869-892. Kumar, N., Scheer, L. K., & Steenkamp, J. B. E. (1995). The effects of supplier fairness on vulnerable resellers. Journal of
marketing research, 54-65.
33
Lambert, D. M., Cooper, M. C., & Pagh, J. D. (1998). Supply chain management: implementation issues and research opportunities. The international journal of logistics management, 9(2), 1-20.
Lambert, D. M., Knemeyer, A. M., & Gardner, J. T. (2004). Supply chain partnerships: model validation and implementation. Journal of business Logistics, 25(2), 21-42.
Lank, E. (2005). Collaborative advantage: how organizations win by working together. London, UK: Palgrave Macmillan Lietke, B., & Boslau, M. (2007). Exploring the transaction dimensions of supply chain management. International journal of
networking and virtual organisations, 4(2), 163-179. Malhotra, A., Gasain, S., El Sawy, O.A., 2005. Absorptive capacity configurations in supply chains: gearing for partner-enabled
market knowledge creation. MIS Quarterly 29 (1), 145–187. Marsh, H.W., Hau, K.T., & Wen, Z. (2004) In search of golden rules: Comment on hypothesis-testing approaches to setting cutoff
values for fit indexes and dangers in overgeneralizing Hu and Bentler's (1999) findings. Structural Equation Modeling, 11, 320-341.
McIntosh, C. N. (2007). Rethinking fit assessment in structural equation modelling: A commentary and elaboration on Barrett (2007). Personality and Individual Differences, 42(5), 859-867
Mighell, R. L., & Jones, L. A. (1963). Vertical coordination in agriculture. Vertical coordination in agriculture. Mudambi R., Mudambi M.S. (1995): From transaction cost economics to relationship marketing. A model of buyer- supplier
relations. International Business Review, 4(4): 419–433 Muladno (2008). Local chicken genetic resources and production systems in Indonesia, GCP/RAS/228/GER Working Paper No.6.
Animal Production and Health Division, Indonesia Mulaik, S. A., James, L. R., Van Alstine, J., Bennett, N., Lind, S., & Stilwell, C. D. (1989). Evaluation of goodness-of-fit indices for
structural equation models. Psychological bulletin, 105(3), 430. Mulaik, S.A., James, L.R., Van Alstine, J., Bennet, N., Lind, S., & Stilwell, C.D. (1989). Evaluation of goodness-of-fit indices for
Structural Equation Models. Psychological Bulletin, 105 (3), 430-45. Naslund, D., & Williamson, S. (2010). What is management in supply chain management?-a critical review of definitions,
frameworks and terminology. Journal of Management Policy and Practice, 11(4), 11-28. Natawidjaja, R., T. Reardon, S. Shetty, T. I. Noor, T. Perdana, E. Rasmikayati, S. Bachri, and R. Hernandez. (2007). Horticultural
Producers and Supermarket Development in Indonesia. UNPAD/MSU Report published by the World Bank/Indonesia. June. Nicholson, C., & Young, B. (2012). The relationship between supermarkets and suppliers: What are the implications for
consumers? Consumers International, 1, 7 Noordewier, T. G., John, G., & Nevin, J. R. (1990). Performance outcomes of purchasing arrangements in industrial buyer-vendor
relationships. The Journal of Marketing, 80-93. Nunnally, J. (1978). Psychometric Theory (2nd eel.). New York, McGraw-Hill. Nyaga, G. N., Whipple, J. M., & Lynch, D. F. (2010). Examining supply chain relationships: do buyer and supplier perspectives on
collaborative relationships differ? Journal of Operations Management, 28(2), 101-114. Oktavera, R., & Andajani, E. (2013). Implementation of Value Chain Analysis in the Broiler Supply Chain Agribusiness. Peterson, H. C., & Wysocki, A. F. (1997). The vertical coordination continuum and the determinants of firm-level coordination
strategy (No. 11817). Michigan State University, Department of Agricultural, Food, and Resource Economics Promsivapallop, P. (2009). A Critical Evaluation of Transaction Cost Economics Applied to Outsourcing in the Hotel Industry in
Thailand (Doctoral dissertation, University of Surrey). Raišienė, A. G. (2011). Public Servants' Approach to Success Factors of Partnership in Local Government. Viesoji Politika ir
Administravimas, 10(4), 659–667 Reardon, T. and J. A. Berdegué. 2002. The Rapid Rise of Supermarkets in Latin America: Challenges and Opportunities for
Development. Development Policy Review. 20 (4). pp. 317–34. Reardon, T., S. Henson, and J. A. Berdegué. (2007). Proactive Fast-Tracking’ Diffusion of Supermarkets in Developing Countries:
Implications for Market Institutions and Trade. Journal of Economic Geography. 7(4). pp. 399–431. Rindfleisch, A., & Heide, J. B. (1997). Transaction cost analysis: Past, present, and future applications. the Journal of Marketing,
30-54. Russell, D. W. (2002). In search of underlying dimensions: the use (and abuse) of factor analysis in personality and social
psychology. Bulletin Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 1629–1646. doi: 10.1177/014616702237645 Ruuska, I., Ahola, T., Artto, K., Locatelli, G., and Mancini, M. 2010. A new governance approach for multi-firm projects: Lessons
from Olkiluoto 3 and Flamanville 3 nuclear power plant projects. International Journal of Project Management 29 (6), 647-660 Stock, J. R., & Boyer, S. L. (2009). Developing a consensus definition of supply chain management: a qualitative
study. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, 39(8), 690-711. Suh, T., & Kwon, I. W. G. (2006). Matter over mind: When specific asset investment affects calculative trust in supply chain
partnership. Industrial Marketing Management, 35(2), 191-201. Sujatanond, S. Tibkaew, A.P., & Pramojanee, P. (2013). Consequences of the Asean Economic Community (AEC) on Thailand
Agricultural situation and food security of Southern Thailand, GMSARN International Journal, 7, 139-144 Sumiarto, B., & Arifin, B. (2008). Overview on poultry sector and HPAI situation for Indonesia with special emphasis on the Island
of Java. Background Paper Africa/Indonesia, Team Working Paper No, 3.
34
Sumiarto, B., & Arifin, B. (2008). Overview on Poultry Sector and HPAI Situation for Indonesia with Special Emphasis on the Island of Java-Background Paper. Manuscript submitted for publication, Royal Veterinary College. Retrieved from http://www. ifpri. org/publication/overview-poultry-sector-and-hpai-situationindonesia-special-emphasis-island-java.
Tabachnick, B.G. and Fidell, L.S. (2007), Using Multivariate Statistics (5th Ed.). New York: Allyn and Bacon. Teo, T. S., Wang, P., & Leong, C. H. (2004). Understanding online shopping behaviour using a transaction cost economics
approach. International Journal of Internet Marketing and Advertising, 1(1), 62-84. Thompson, L., & Hastie, R. (1990). Social perception in negotiation. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes, 47(1), 98-123 Thomson, D. & Jain, A. (2006), “Corporate governance failure and its impact on National Australia Bank's performance”, Journal
of business case studies, 2(1), 41-56 Trochim, W. M. K. (2006). Introduction to Validity. Social Research Methods, retrieved from
www.socialresearchmethods.net/kb/introval.php, September 9, 2010. United States Agency for International Development (USAID) (2013). Indonesia s Poultry Value Chain, Nathan Associates Inc. Vangen, S., Huxham, C., 2003. Enacting leadership for collaborative advantage: dilemmas of ideology and pragmatism in the
activities of partnership managers. British Journal of Management 14 (Suppl. 1), S61–S76 Verschuren, P. J. M. (1991). Structurele modellen tussen theorie en praktijk (structural models between theory and practice),
Meppel: Het Spectrum Vining, A. & Globerman, S. (1999), A conceptual framework for understanding the outsourcing decision. European Management
Journal, 17(6), 645-754. Weleschuk, I.T. and Kerr, W.A. (1995). The Sharing of Risks and Returns in Prairie Special Crops: A Transaction Cost Approach.
Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics, 43, 237- 258 Westen, D., & Rosenthal, R. (2003). Quantifying construct validity: two simple measures. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 84(3), 608-618. Westen, D., & Rosenthal, R. (2003). Quantifying construct validity: two simple measures. Journal of personality and social
psychology, 84(3), 608. Wever, M., Wognum, N., Trienekens, J., & Omta, O. (2010). Alignment between chain quality management and chain governance
in EU pork supply chains: A Transaction-Cost-Economics perspective. Meat science, 84(2), 228-237. Wheaton, B., Muthen, B., Alwin, D. F., & Summers, G. F. (1977). Assessing reliability and stability in panel models. Sociological
methodology, 8(1), 84-136 Wijayanto, S. H. (2008). Structural equation modelling dengan LISREL 8.8: konsep dan tutorial, Yogyakarta, Indonesia: Graha
Ilmu, Yogyakarta. Williamson, O. E. (1975). Markets and Hierarchies: Analysis and Antitrust Implications. New York: Free Press Williamson, O.E. (1979). Transaction-cost economics: the governance of contractual relations. The journal of law &
economics, 22(2), 233-261. Williamson, O.E. (1981). The economics of organization: the transaction cost approach. American Journal of Sociology, 87, 548–
577. Williamson, O.E. (1985). The economic institutions of capitalism: Firms, markets, relational contracting. New York: Free Press. Williamson, O.E. (1989). Transaction cost economics. In: R. Schmanlensee & R. Willig (eds.), Handbook of Industrial
Organization, Vol. 1, 136-82, Amsterdam: Elsevier Science. Williamson, O.E. (1991). Comparative economic organization: The analysis of discrete structural alternatives. Administrative
science quarterly, 269-296. Williamson, O.E. (1993). Transaction cost economics and organization theory. Industrial and corporate change, 2(2), 107-156. Williamson, O.E. (1994). Transaction cost economics and organization theory. Organization theory: from Chester Barnard to the
present and beyond, 207-256. Williamson, O.E. (1996). Economics and organization: A primer. California Management Review, 38(2), 131-146. Zineldin, M. A. (1998). Towards an ecological collaborative relationship management A. European Journal of Marketing, 32(11-
12), 1138-1164.
18/06/2019 Gmail - Refereeing Process: Editor comments IJSTM-157912
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0?ik=1b72e64c13&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-f%3A1561495157257964475&simpl=msg-f%3A1561495… 1/4
aries susanty <[email protected]>
Refereeing Process: Editor comments IJSTM-157912 6 messages
Inderscience Online <[email protected]> Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 9:57 PMReply-To: Inderscience Online <[email protected]>, Submissions Manager<[email protected]>To: "Dr. Aries Susanty" <[email protected]>, Dr Ahmad Syamil <[email protected]>, Dr Hery Suliantoro<[email protected]>, Mrs Evelin Siburian <[email protected]>, Benny Tjahjono<[email protected]>
Dear Author(s), We have received further comments from the Panel of Reviewers for your paper "AN EMPIRICAL STUDY OF THEANTECEDENT FACTORS AFFECTING GOVERNANCE STRUCTURE CHOICE IN THE SUPPLY CHAIN OFBROILER CHICKENS IN CENTRAL JAVA, INDONESIA" We request you to implement in your latest author's revised version (AV) file the following new recommendationsmade by the reviewers, no later than 20 March 2017: Reviewer A Comments: ================== Basically I think the author has addressed all my comments in the revised version of the paper. However, there arefew minor points that require further revisions, including: 1. The revised title "An Empirical Study Governance Structure Choice in the Supply Chain of Broiler Chickens inCentral Java, Indonesia" is a bit too long and has a grammatical problem. It would be better to start with .."Governance Structure Choice in the Supply Chain:........" where the sub-title come after : 2. The language needs attention. Few examples in the revised parts: Governance become a new subject ..... (page 12) the relationships addressed is only ....... (page 19) this study have a new questionnaire ....... (page 22) there was 1 items have Standardized Regression ...... (page 24) The use of professional proofreader is recommended. Reviewer B Comments: ================== I have seen some improvement on the revised submission, however there are still several areas that require authorattention to be improved: - There are many language errors, please proof read the final version. - The paragraph discussing AEC in the introduction has been revised, however I don't see strong relevant with thepaper. - Data collection: -what is the response rate of the survey? -As the researcher helped the respondents in answering questionnaire, how to ensure there is no bias? It mightuseful to consider common method variance. - Fig 2: Please do not screen-shot from AMOS. RESULTS: - The structure of this section need to be revised. 4.1 should be respondent profile, followed by validity and reliabilitytest and bi-variate correlation. However bi-variate correlation should be amongst latent variable ONLY. - As most of the fit-indices are below requirement, author need to argue how to ensure the robustness of the modelas well as the results. Hypotheses tests: The sentence in the paragraph: ...... The hesitancy of the existence of asset specifications could also be seen from the mean of item AS2(mean=3.128) and AS3 (mean=3.224); which is the traders of broiler chicken will lose the time and effort have beeninvested in building the good collaboration with a former middleman, if they switch to the new middleman. The mean
18/06/2019 Gmail - Refereeing Process: Editor comments IJSTM-157912
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0?ik=1b72e64c13&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-f%3A1561495157257964475&simpl=msg-f%3A1561495… 2/4
of those items closes in 3 rather than 4. ..... All hypotheses in this study were essentially testing the relationship amongst LATENT variable. Analyzing the resultson the item level is in-appropriate. CONCLUSION: _ please do not just summarize, instead DRAW a conclusion. The last sentence in the conclusion: "Traders of broiler chicken should ensure that their business has the high transaction cost economics and uncertaincondition, their partner has high collaboration capability and the relationship has the high collaborative advantagebefore they decide to design integration with their partner." - This is contain logical fallacy. Transaction cost comes from the type of product, and other factor of the business. Canwe raise the transaction cost? please have a look again the TCE theory. - As TCE states, when transaction cost is hight then long-term collaboration should be sought in order or achieve totaloptimal condition. Collaboration and integration should not be sought in supply chain. There are ample of literaturediscussing this. Reviewer's annotated version file: http://www.inderscience.com/revFile.php?id=1365536 Instructions: ------------ 1. To help reviewers to verify that you have made the required corrections, you must append the summary ofmodifications made to the paper at the beginning of your revised manuscript. 2. To upload your revised version, please login at: http://www.inderscience.com/ospeers/login.php (if you do not remember your Username/Password, visit http://www.inderscience.com/forgotpw.php) 3. After login, point your browser to http://www.inderscience.com/ospeers/admin/author/articlestatus.php?id=157912 here you should scroll-down to find the input box "Author's revised version of file:". Please click on "Browse…" to findyour revised version and then click on "Upload" to include your revised version in our databases. 4. Click on "Editor/Author Comments" to see all the recommendations made by the reviewers. Your prompt attention is much appreciated. Benny Tjahjono Int. J. of Services Technology and Management (IJSTM) [email protected]
aries susanty <[email protected]> Sat, Mar 11, 2017 at 12:47 AMTo: Inderscience Online <[email protected]>, Submissions Manager <[email protected]>
Dear Dr BennyCan I submit the revision paper at 25 March, because I will go to Europe in this weekend until 18 March 2017? Best regardsaries[Quoted text hidden]
aries susanty <[email protected]> Sat, Mar 11, 2017 at 12:50 AMTo: Ahmad Syamil <[email protected]>
Assalamualakukum wr wb Pak seminggu ini saya mau pergi ke Eropa (insyalloh)untuk menghemat waktu, bapak check grammarnya aja lagi...terus beri warna beda untuk grammar yang sudahdiperbaiki (kasih warna ijo deh). Jadi kita sama-sama kerja. Saya dah minta reschedule ama Dr, Benny agar bisadiberi kelonggaran waktu sampe tanggal 25 maret.
18/06/2019 Gmail - Refereeing Process: Editor comments IJSTM-157912
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0?ik=1b72e64c13&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-f%3A1561495157257964475&simpl=msg-f%3A1561495… 3/4
Best regardsaries[Quoted text hidden]
Submissions <[email protected]> Sat, Mar 11, 2017 at 2:32 PMTo: Benny Tjahjono <[email protected]>Cc: aries susanty <[email protected]>
Dear Benny Tjahjono,
FW for your kind attention.
Best regards,
Joane
[Quoted text hidden]
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast an�virus so�ware. www.avast.com
Tjahjono, Benny <[email protected]> Sat, Mar 11, 2017 at 2:39 PMTo: aries susanty <[email protected]>
Dear Aries, Yes that's fine, I am looking forward to receiving it on 25th March 2017. Regards, Benny Dr Benny Tjahjono Senior Lecturer in Supply Chain Operations Building 32, Cranfield University, Cranfield, Bedfordshire MK43 0AL T: +44 (0) 1234 750111 x2852 E: [email protected]
From: Submissions <[email protected]> Sent: 11 March 2017 07:32:29 To: Tjahjono, Benny Cc: 'aries susanty' Subject: FW: Refereeing Process: Editor comments IJSTM-157912 [Quoted text hidden]
aries susanty <[email protected]> Sat, Mar 25, 2017 at 9:08 PM
18/06/2019 Gmail - Refereeing Process: Editor comments IJSTM-157912
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0?ik=1b72e64c13&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-f%3A1561495157257964475&simpl=msg-f%3A1561495… 4/4
To: aries susanty <[email protected]>
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Inderscience Online <[email protected]> Date: Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 9:57 PM Subject: Refereeing Process: Editor comments IJSTM-157912 To: "Dr. Aries Susanty" <[email protected]>, Dr Ahmad Syamil <[email protected]>, Dr Hery Suliantoro<[email protected]>, Mrs Evelin Siburian <[email protected]>, Benny Tjahjono<[email protected]> [Quoted text hidden]
1
ANSWER FOR REVIEWER
Reviewer A Comments:
Comment Answer Basically I think the author has addressed all my comments in the revised version of the paper. However, there are few minor points that require further revisions, including: 1. The revised title "An Empirical Study
Governance Structure Choice in the Supply Chain of Broiler Chickens in Central Java, Indonesia" is a bit too long and has a grammatical problem. It would be better to start with .. "Governance Structure Choice in the Supply Chain:........" where the sub-title come after :
Following your suggestions, we have revised the title of this paper. New title: “Governance Structure Choice in the Supply Chain of Broiler Chickens: An Empirical Study in Central Java, Indonesia”
2. The language needs attention. Few examples in the revised parts: Governance become a new subject ..... (page 12) the relationships addressed is only ....... (page 19) this study have a new questionnaire....... (page 22) there was 1 items have Standardized Regression ...... (page 24) The use of professional proofreader is recommended.
Following your suggestions, a native and professional proofreader has revised our paper.
Reviewer B Comments:
Comment Answer I have seen some improvement on the revised submission, however there are still several areas that require author attention to be improved: 1. There are many language errors, please proof
read the final version A native and professional proofreader has revised our paper.
2. The paragraph discussing AEC in the introduction has been revised, however I don't see strong relevant with the paper.
We have revised the paragraph discussing the AEC.
3. Data collection: What is the response rate of the survey?
This study utilized closed-ended questionnaires
for data collection. To ensure that the final number of collected data met the prerequisites of SEM, the 157 closed questionnaires were administered to the broiler chicken in North Johar market, Central Johar market, South
2
Comment Answer
As the researcher helped the respondents in
answering questionnaire, how to ensure there is no bias? It might useful to consider common method variance.
Johar market, Bulu market, Karangayu market, Peterongan market, and Jatingaleh market. We have received 125 valid responses out of 157 closed-ended questionnaire, which represent a response rate of more than 80%
Following your suggestions, we have added the result of testing for CMV in the Data Collection Procedure section and in the section The Result of Common Method Variance Test for Final Questionnaire section. We also added some paragraphs below:
We also gave the respondents some real-world examples when they could not understand the meaning of questions. Sometimes, we helped the respondents by translating the questionnaire into local Javanese language. However, because of this study used a single survey respondent as the source for both the independent and dependent data in one instrument, there were the possibility of bias in answering the questionnaires. Additionally, the design of the survey instrument itself can cause raters to bias their responses. In this case, Common Method Variance (CMV) is used to test the observation of such bias The goal of testing for CMV is to determine to what degree any such biases exist. There were three different methods or techniques that can be used to test the CMV or to estimate the degree to which the data may be influenced by biases caused by the survey method or tool, namely Harman Single Factor, Common Latent Factor, and Common Marker Variable (Eichhorn, 2014). In this study, we used the Common Latent Factor Method as method to test the CMV The Common Latent Factor Method is used to test the CMV. In this method, a common latent variable was added and regressed to every observed item to determine the common variance among all observed items. Then, the standardized regression weights from common latent factor model should be compared to the standardized regression weights of a model without the common latent factor (Shu et al, 2015). The result in Table 2 indicated that the difference of standardized regression weights of all observed items was less than 0.2, suggesting that no CMV was found or no bias was found (see Podsakoff et al. 2003).
3
Comment Answer
Fig 2: Please do not screen-shot from AMOS. RESULTS:
The structure of this section need to be revised. 4.1 should be respondent profile, followed by validity and reliability test and bi-variate correlation. However bi-variate correlation should be amongst latent variable ONLY.
As most of the fit-indices are below requirement, author need to argue how to ensure the robustness of the model as well as the results.
We have fixed the Figure 2
We have fixed the structure of this section and conduct bi-variate test among latent variable only
We have added some arguments related with
the robustness of the model as well as the results “Basically, a variety of alternative goodness-of-fit indices (such as GFI, AGFI, TLI, NFI, and RMSEA) have been developed to supplement the chi-square statistic. All of these alternative indices attempt to adjust for the effect of sample size, and many of them also take into account model degrees of freedom, which is a proxy for model size. SEM software programs routinely report a handful of goodness-of-fit indices. Some of these indices work better than others under certain conditions. It is generally recommended that multiple indices be considered simultaneously when the overall model fit is evaluated. Despite the sample size sensitivity problem with the chi-square test, it is also recommended for reporting the model chi-square value with its degrees of freedom in addition to the other fit indices. Moreover, when the hypothesized model is rejected based on goodness of-fit statistics, SEM researchers are often interested in finding an alternative model that fits the data until the model is accepted based on goodness of-fit statistics (Lei and Wu, 2007).
The final hypothesized model in this study was found after some modifications to increase the statistical fit indices and the model was measured using the chi-square value with its degrees of freedom and other goodness-of-fit indices. All of indices used to measure the model have values within the acceptable ranges, i.e., the chi-square value with its degrees of freedom was belonging to good fit criteria and the
4
Comment Answer
values of other fit indices were belonging to adequate fit criteria. Therefore, we could say that final hypothesized model was robust enough to explain the antecedent factors affecting governance structure choices in the supply chain of broiler chicken.
4. Hypotheses tests: The sentence in the paragraph: ...... The hesitancy of the existence of asset specifications could also be seen from the mean of item AS2 (mean=3.128) and AS3 (mean=3.224); which is the traders of broiler chicken will lose the time and effort have been invested in building the good collaboration with a former middleman, if they switch to the new middleman. The mean of those items closes in 3 rather than 4. ..... All hypotheses in this study were essentially testing the relationship amongst LATENT variable. Analyzing the results on the item level is in-appropriate.
We have deleted the item-level results.
Furthermore, we have added some analyses related to the relationships among latent variables: “…..asset specificity could be claimed to be the most important construct of the transaction cost paradigm because of opportunism (Jaakko, 2015). So, since our sample consists of small traders with very low asset specificity, the asset specificity could not be claimed as an important factor for transaction cost because no threat of opportunism or no beneficial for the middlemen to behave opportunistically” “…..willingness to collaborate depends on a variety of aspects, including the perceived risks, external incentives, or the presence of fierce competition. This insignificance, which is related to the previously rejected hypothesis (hypothesis 2), could be happening because the traders do not perceive a significant risk or incentive or fierce competition in making relationships with their middlemen due to the absence of specific assets between traders and middlemen”
5. CONCLUSION: Please do not just summarize, instead
DRAW a conclusion. The last sentence in the conclusion: "Traders of broiler chicken should ensure that their business has the high transaction cost economics and uncertain condition, their partner has high collaboration capability and the relationship has the high collaborative advantage before they decide to design integration with their partner."
Following your suggestions, we have revised the conclusion and the last sentence in the conclusion.
5
Comment Answer This is contain logical fallacy. Transaction cost comes from the type of product, and other factor of the business. Can we raise the transaction cost? please have a look again the TCE theory. As TCE states, when transaction cost is hight then long-term collaboration should be sought in order or achieve total optimal condition. Collaboration and integration should not be sought in supply chain. There are ample of literature discussing this.
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0?ik=1b72e64c13&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-f%3A1567840879177063964&simpl=msg-f%3A1567840… 3/3
Tjahjono, Benny <[email protected]> Sat, May 20, 2017 at 3:44 PMTo: aries susanty <[email protected]>Cc: pak hery <[email protected]>, Mrs Evelin Siburian <[email protected]>, Dr Ahmad Syamil<[email protected]>
Dear Aries, Sorry for the inconvenience. This matter has now been resolved. Pls wait for the decision, and thanks for yourpatience.
All the best, Benny
Dr Benny Tjahjono Senior Lecturer in Supply Chain Operations Building 32, Cranfield University, Cranfield, Bedfordshire MK43 0AL
T: +44 (0) 1234 750111 x2852 E: [email protected]
From: aries susanty <[email protected]> Sent: 20 May 2017 00:09:57 To: Submissions Manager; Inderscience Online Cc: pak hery; Tjahjono, Benny; Mrs Evelin Siburian; Dr Ahmad Syamil Subject: Re: Refereeing Process: Editor comments IJSTM-157912
[Quoted text hidden]
aries susanty <[email protected]> Sat, May 20, 2017 at 6:58 PMTo: "Tjahjono, Benny" <[email protected]>
Thanks for your emailRegardsAries[Quoted text hidden]
08/03/2019 Gmail - Final Refereeing Decision IJSTM_157912
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0?ik=1b72e64c13&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-f%3A1568363183399065379&simpl=msg-f%3A1568363… 1/3
aries susanty <[email protected]>
Final Refereeing Decision IJSTM_157912 6 messages
Inderscience Online <[email protected]> Thu, May 25, 2017 at 5:21 PMReply-To: Inderscience Online <[email protected]>, Submissions Manager<[email protected]>To: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], Editor<[email protected]>, Handling Editor <[email protected]>
Dear Aries Susanty, Ahmad Syamil, Hery Suliantoro, Evelin Siburian, Ref: IJSTM-157912 Submission "AN EMPIRICAL STUDY OF THE ANTECEDENT FACTORS AFFECTINGGOVERNANCE STRUCTURE CHOICE IN THE SUPPLY CHAIN OF BROILER CHICKENS IN CENTRAL JAVA,INDONESIA" Congratulations, your above mentioned submitted article has been refereed and accepted for publication in theInternational Journal of Services Technology and Management. The paper is accepted providing that the text andEnglish language in the revised paper must be checked, edited and corrected by authors preferably by a nativeEnglish speaker. The acceptance of your article for publication in the journal reflects the high status of your work byyour fellow professionals in the field. You need now to login at http://www.inderscience.com/login.php and go to http://www.inderscience.com/ospeers/admin/author/articlelist.php to find your submission and complete the following tasks: 1. Save the "Editor's post-review version" on your local disk so you can edit it. If the file is in PDF format and youcannot edit it, use instead your last MS Word revised version, making sure to include there all the reviewrecommendations made during the review process. Rename the new file to "authorFinalVersion." 2. Open the "authorFinalVersion" file and remove your reply or any response to reviewers that you might have in thefront of your article. 3. Restore the author's identification, such as names, email addresses, mailing addresses and biographicalstatements in the first page of your local file "authorFinalVersion." 4. IMPORTANT: The paper is accepted providing that you, the author, check, edit and correct the English language inthe paper. Please proofread all the text and make sure to correct any grammar and spelling mistakes. 5. Save your changes in the file "authorFinalVersion" and use the "Browse…" and "Upload" buttons to upload the fileon our online system. 6. Click on "Update Metadata" to correct the title, abstract and keywords according the recommendations receivedfrom the Editor. You must make sure that the title, abstract and keywords are totally free of English Spelling andGrammar errors. Do not forget to click the "Update" button to save your changes. 7. Once you have updated the metadata, check the box "Yes." 8. Upload a zipped file with the Copyright Agreement forms signed by each author. We need a signed authoragreement form for every author and every co-author. Please insert the full names of all authors, reflecting the nameorder given in the article. 9. To see a sample of real articles that have been published in the International Journal of Services Technology andManagement visit http://www.inderscience.com/info/ingeneral/sample.php?jcode=ijstm. Finally click on the "Notify Editor" button to let the editor know that you have completed the six tasks. Your continuing help and cooperation is most appreciated. Best regards, Dr. Benny Tjahjono, Guest Editor International Journal of Services Technology and Management [email protected]
08/03/2019 Gmail - Final Refereeing Decision IJSTM_157912
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0?ik=1b72e64c13&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-f%3A1568363183399065379&simpl=msg-f%3A1568363… 2/3
aries susanty <[email protected]> Thu, Jun 1, 2017 at 9:33 AMTo: Inderscience Online <[email protected]>, Submissions Manager <[email protected]>,[email protected], "Tjahjono, Benny" <[email protected]>, Ahmad Syamil <[email protected]>
Dear Dr. Benny Tjahono I try to upload the copyright in compressed file (zip file) but always fails.Maybe you give me any suggestion? Thank you very much for your kindness and attention best regardsAries [Quoted text hidden]
Copyright Agreement forms.zip 14565K
aries susanty <[email protected]> Thu, Jun 1, 2017 at 9:36 AMTo: Ahmad Syamil <[email protected]>
Assalamualaikum wr wb mungkin bisa bantu untuk upload yang copyrightgagal melulu neh username ariessusantypassword safira1004[Quoted text hidden]
Copyright Agreement forms.zip 14565K
Tjahjono, Benny <[email protected]> Thu, Jun 1, 2017 at 9:03 PMTo: aries susanty <[email protected]>Cc: Ahmad Syamil <[email protected]>
Dear Aries,
Have you considered reducing the resolution of the scanned files hence the zip file?
Regards,
Benny
From: aries susanty [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 01 June 2017 03:34 To: Inderscience Online; Submissions Manager; [email protected]; Tjahjono, Benny; Ahmad Syamil Subject: Re: Final Refereeing Decision IJSTM_157912
Dear Dr. Benny Tjahono
[Quoted text hidden][Quoted text hidden]
aries susanty <[email protected]> Thu, Jun 1, 2017 at 9:46 PMTo: "Tjahjono, Benny" <[email protected]>
Ok..
08/03/2019 Gmail - Final Refereeing Decision IJSTM_157912
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0?ik=1b72e64c13&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-f%3A1568363183399065379&simpl=msg-f%3A1568363… 3/3
I will try it and let you the result Thanks for attentionRegardsAries[Quoted text hidden]
aries susanty <[email protected]> Fri, Jun 2, 2017 at 8:17 AMTo: "Tjahjono, Benny" <[email protected]>
Dear Dr Benny As your suggestion, I try to compress in the smaller size But, it does not work. Can I submit the copyright form manually. By email? regards aries [Quoted text hidden]
Int. J. Services Technology and Management, Vol. X, No. Y, xxxx 1
Copyright © 20XX Inderscience Enterprises Ltd.
Governance structure choice in the supply chain of broiler chickens: an empirical study in Central Java, Indonesia
Aries Susanty*, Hery Suliantoro, and Eveline Siburian Department of Industrial Engineering, Diponegoro University, Prof Soedarto, Campus Tembalang, Semarang, Indonesia Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected] *Corresponding author
Ahmad Syamil Bina Nusantara University, Jakarta, Indonesia Email: [email protected]
Abstract: This study aims to clarify the dominant factors (which can be defined as antecedent factors) influencing the structure choice in the supply chain governance of traders and middlemen of broiler chickens. This study has utilised closed-ended questionnaires with 5-Likert Scale distributed to several traders and middlemen of broiler chickens in the traditional town market in Semarang City of Central Java Province. One hundred and twenty-five copies of the questionnaire were administered to the traders of broiler chickens in these marketplaces: North Johar, Central Johar, South Johar, Bulu, Karangayu, Peterongan, and Jatingaleh. Additional information was collected through follow-up telephone interviews and archive records. Data acquired from the questionnaire were processed using structural equation modelling (SEM). The findings indicate that the transaction cost economy and the collaborative advantage have a significant positive effect on the level of integration; in this case, the effect of the transaction cost economics stronger than that of collaboration advantages. The findings also suggest that the transaction cost economics significantly depends on uncertain conditions between traders and the middlemen; whereas, the collaborative advantage significantly depends on uncertain conditions and collaboration capability.
Keywords: transaction cost economics; TCE’ collaborative advantage; level of integration; broiler chicken; supply chain; Semarang; Indonesia.
Reference to this paper should be made as follows: Susanty, A., Suliantoro, H., Siburian, E. and Syamil, A. (xxxx) ‘Governance structure choice in the supply chain of broiler chickens: an empirical study in Central Java, Indonesia’, Int. J. Services Technology and Management, Vol. X, No. Y, pp.000–000.
2 A. Susanty et al.
Biographical notes: Aries Susanty is a Permanent Lecturer in the Department of Industrial Engineering, Diponegoro University, Indonesia. Additionally, she is also a Lecturer in Operations Management at Mercu Buana University and a Lecturer in International Classes at Telkom University. She received her Bachelor, Master, and PhD degrees all in Industrial Engineering from Bandung Institute of Technology, Indonesia. She published and presented her researches nationally and internationally in the areas of industrial engineering, organisation performance, operations and supply chain management, and corporate governance. Her researches have been funded by the Indonesian Ministry of Industry, Indonesian Institute of Corporate Governance (IICG), the Indonesian Ministry of Education, the Regional Planning Board of West Java Province, and the Indonesian Ministry of Energy and Mineral Resources.
Hery Suliantoro is a Permanent Lecturer in the Department of Industrial Engineering, Diponegoro University, Indonesia. He received his Bachelor’s degree in Mechanical Engineering from Sepuluh November Institute of Technology, Master’s degree in Industrial Engineering from Bandung Institute of Technology, and Doctoral degree in Economics from Diponegoro University. He published and presented his researches nationally and internationally in the areas of industrial engineering, organisation performance, and procurement system.
Eveline Siburian is a full-time student who is completing her Master’s degree in the School of Economic and Business, University of Indonesia. Her major is Financial Management. She is active in the Master of Management Student Committee, i.e., a post-graduate student association in her university. She received her Bachelor’s degree from Industrial Engineering majoring in Supply Chain Management from the Department of Industrial Engineering, Diponegoro University. Her interests are global supply chain management, strategic management, and financial management.
Ahmad Syamil is the Dean of Master of Management Programs, Bina Nusantara University, Jakarta, Indonesia. Previously, he was an Associate Professor at College of Business, Arkansas State University, State University, Arkansas, USA. He received his Bachelor’s degree in Mechanical Engineering from Bandung Institute of Technology, Indonesia, MBA from the University of Houston, USA and PhD in Manufacturing Management from the University of Toledo, Ohio, USA. He received three professional certifications, including a certified fellow from the Association of Operations Management (APICS) and another three certifications from the American Society or Quality (ASQ). He has presented his papers nationally and internationally as well as published extensively in various journals such as Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing, Journal of Business and Information Technology, European Journal of Innovation Management, Journal of Supply Chain Management, Marketing Education Review, International Journal of Logistic Systems and Management, and others. His Doctoral dissertation on Product Development in the US and German Auto Industry Supply Chain was a finalist of the Richard N. Farmer Award for the best dissertation in international business by the Academy of International Business.
This paper is a revised and expanded version of a paper entitled [title] presented at [name, location and date of conference].
Comment [N1]: Author: Please reduce biographical details of Ahmad Syamil to no more than 100 words.
Comment [t2]: Author: If a previous version of your paper has originally been presented at a conference please complete the statement to this effect or delete if not applicable.
16 A. Susanty et al.
demonstrates an acceptable level of internal consistency of each of the construct indicators. The final items used for the questionnaire and the results of the validity and reliability test for initial questionnaire can be seen in Table 3.
4.2.2 CMV test The Common Latent Factor Method is used to test the CMV. In this method, a common latent variable was added and regressed to every observed item to determine the common variance among all observed items. Then, the standardised regression weights from common latent factor model should be compared to the standardised regression weights of a model without the common latent factor (Shu et al., 2015). The result in Table 3 indicated that the difference of standardised regression weights of all valid observed items (after removing the non-valid items from initial questionnaire) was less than 0.2, suggesting that no CMV was found or no bias was found (see Podsakoff et al., 2003). Table 3 The results of CMV test with common latent factor method
Standardised regression weights: with CLF
Standardised regression weights: without CLF Differences
UN1 <--- UN 0.719 0.719 0.000 UN2 <--- UN 0.737 0.738 0.001 UN3 <--- UN 0.734 0.734 0.000 AS1 <--- AS 0.348 0.349 0.001 AS2 <--- AS 0.795 0.793 (0.002) AS3 <--- AS 0.693 0.694 0.001 WC1 <--- WC 0.736 0.736 0.000 WC2 <--- WC 0.779 0.780 0.001 CC1 <--- CC 0.700 0.700 0.000 CC2 <--- CC 0.670 0.670 0.000 CC3 <--- CC 0.747 0.747 0.000 CC4 <--- CC 0.704 0.704 0.000 CA1 <--- CA 0.752 0.752 0.000 CA2 <--- CA 0.743 0.743 0.000 CA3 <--- CA 0.734 0.734 0.000 CA4 <--- CA 0.750 0.750 0.000 TC1 <--- TC 0.728 0.728 0.000 TC2 <--- TC 0.310 0.311 0.001 TC3 <--- TC 0.737 0.737 0.000 TC4 <--- TC 0.720 0.720 0.000 TC5 <--- TC 0.735 0.735 0.000 TC6 <--- TC 0.714 0.714 0.000 LI1 <--- LI 0.719 0.723 0.004 LI2 <--- LI 0.709 0.708 (0.001) LI3 <--- LI 0.689 0.688 (0.001)
Comment [N4]: Author: Please confirm if this should be Shu and Quynh (2015). Reference entry: Shu, C.Y. and Quynh, N.T.N. (2015) ‘Guan-Xi, loyalty, contribution and ‘speak-up behavior: the role of leader-member exchange (LMX) as mediator and political skill as moderator’, Eurasian Journal of Business and Management, Vol. 3, No. 2, pp.54–73.
Governance structure choice in the supply chain of broiler chickens 23
traders and the middlemen has a significant positive effect on the TCE. According to Williamson (1981), high asset specificity leads to increases on the TCE because the asset is fully specialised to a single use or user only. This asset, therefore, assumes low transferability to another use or user. The broad advice is that when assets are not specific to an exchange in the market may be the most efficient way (or the best way for minimising costs) to organise it (Williamson, 1989). The degree of asset specificity ranges from non-specific to mixed to idiosyncratic (Williamson, 1979, 1985). The asset specificity assumption might be called the locomotive or driving assumption of TCE as Williamson himself states the importance of asset specificity to TCE is hard to exaggerate (Williamson, 1985).
So based on the statement from Williamson (1981, 1985, 1989), we argue that the unsupported relationship between asset specificity and TCE might be caused by the fact that asset specificity in the trader-middleman transaction is very low. In this case, many of our sample members are small traders, who did not need assets that are specially designed for the use of just one particular transaction with one broiler chicken intermediary. This asset can be used for other broiler chicken’s processors (or middlemen) without huge adaptation. It is the reason why this study could not prove the significant effect of asset specificity on the TCE.
Moreover, asset specificity could be claimed to be the most important construct of the transaction cost paradigm because of opportunism (Jaakko, 2015). So, since our sample consists of small traders with very low asset specificity, the asset specificity could not be claimed as an important factor for transaction cost because no threat of opportunism or no beneficial for the middlemen to behave opportunistically.
The other difference of this study compared to that of Ji et al. (2012) is that it could only prove the effect of uncertainty conditions and collaboration capability on the collaborative advantage. At the level of significance of 0.05, this study also failed to prove that the willingness to collaborate from the traders and the middlemen has a significant positive effect on the collaborative advantage between them. According to Camarinha-Maltos and Rosas (2010), willingness to collaborate depends on a variety of aspects, including the perceived risks, external incentives, or the presence of fierce competition. This insignificance, which is related to the previously rejected hypothesis (Hypothesis 2), could be happening because the traders do not perceive a significant risk or incentive or fierce competition in making relationships with their middlemen due to the absence of specific assets between traders and middlemen.
Related to the past studies about TCE, asset specificity, and uncertain condition, the findings of this study suggest that, for transactions which do not involve a fully specialised asset to a single use or user only, TCE are less influenced by the asset specificity. As for regarding collaborative advantage, uncertainty condition, collaboration capability, and willingness to collaborate, the findings suggest that, for the condition of the market, which is perceived as low risk, low incentive, and low competition, the collaborative advantage is less influenced by the willingness to collaborate.
5 Conclusions
This study aims to investigate the relationships between asset specificity, uncertainty condition, collaboration capability, willingness to collaborate, TCE, collaborative advantage, and the level of integration between traders and middlemen of broiler
Comment [N5]: Author: Please provide full reference or delete from the text if not required.
Governance structure choice in the supply chain of broiler chickens 25
results. So, in terms of theoretical implication, the characteristics of the supply chain may give a different result for the factors that can influence TCE and collaborative advantage. In other words, the factors influencing the TCE and those influencing the collaborative advantage may be slightly different due to the characteristics of the supply chain. Regarding the practical implications, the outcome of this research has given valuable feedback that can be used for designing the supply chain governance structure in the broiler chicken supply chain. This feedback is important since there are several types of supply chain governance structure in use for agribusiness, from spot markets to vertical integration (e.g., Ferguson, 2004; Kim, 1998; Mighell and Jones, 1963; Barkema and Drabenstott, 1995; Hobbs, 1996; Peterson and Wysocki 1997). The actors (traders) in the broiler chicken supply chain should remember that some factors have a more significant effect on building levels of integration, i.e. TCE, uncertain conditions, collaboration capability, and collaborative advantage. As TCE states, when transaction cost is high then long-term collaboration should be sought in order or achieve total optimal condition. In this case, when the transaction cost is high, the actors in the broiler chicken supply chain may prefer to collaborate since they anticipate greater benefits such as better quality and certainty of order fulfilment as well as customer service level or customer satisfaction improvement.
References Anderson, C.M. (1993) Willingness to Collaborate as a New Communication Trait: Scale
Development and a Predictive Model of Related Communication Traits. Aubert, B.A., Rivard, S. and Patry, M. (1996) ‘A transaction cost approach to outsourcing
behavior: Some empirical evidence’, Information & Management, Vol. 30, No. 2, pp.51–64. Bagozzi, R.P. and Yi, Y. (1988) ‘On the evaluation of structural equation models’, Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 16, No. 1, pp.74–94. Barkema, A. and Drabenstott, M. (1995) ‘INDUSTRY NOTE: the many paths of vertical
coordination: structural implications for the US food system’, Agribusiness, Vol. 11, No. 5, pp.483–492.
Barrett, P. (2007) ‘Structural equation modelling: adjudging model fit’, Personality and Individual Differences, Vol. 42, No. 5, pp.815–824.
Barringer, B.R. and Harrison, J.S. (2000) ‘Walking a tightrope: creating value through interorganizational relationships’, Journal of Management, Vol. 26, No. 3, pp.367–403.
Bentler, P.M. (1990) ‘Comparative fit indices in structural models’, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 107, pp.238–246, Doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.107.2.238.
Bentler, P.M. and Bonett, D.G. (1980) ‘Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance structures’, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 88, No. 3, p.588.
Blomqvist, K. and Levy, J. (2006) ‘Collaboration capability–a focal concept in knowledge creation and collaborative innovation in networks’, International Journal of Management Concepts and Philosophy, Vol. 2, No. 1, pp.31–48.
Bramwell, B. and Sharman, A. (1999) ‘Collaboration in local tourism policymaking’, Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 26, No. 2, pp.392–415.
Browne, M.W. and Cudeck, R. (1993) ‘Alternative ways of assessing model fit’, in Bollen, K.A. and Long, J.S. (Eds.): Testing Structural Equation Models, pp.136–162, Sage, Newbury Park, CA.
Byrne, B.M. (2013) Structural Equation Modeling with LISREL, PRELIS and SIMPLIS: Basic Concepts, Applications and Programming, Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ.
Comment [N6]: Author: Please provide the publisher and place of publication.
Comment [N7]: Author: Please cite the reference in the text or delete from the list if not required.
Comment [N8]: Author: Please provide the issue number.
26 A. Susanty et al.
Caglio, A. and Ditillo, A. (2008) ‘A review and discussion of management control in inter-firm relationships: achievements and future directions’, Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol. 33, No. 7, pp.865–898.
Camarinha-Maltos, L.M. and Rosas, J. (2010) ‘Assessment of the willingness to collaborate in enterprise networks’, Emerging Trends in Technological Innovation, pp.14–23, Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
Cao, M. and Zhang, Q. (2010) ‘Supply chain collaborative advantage: a firm’s perspective’, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 128, No. 1, pp.358–367.
Cao, M. and Zhang, Q. (2011) ‘Supply chain collaboration: Impact on collaborative advantage and firm performance’, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 29, No. 3, pp.163–180.
Chang, H.H., Di Caprio, A. and Sahara, S. (2015) ‘Global agrifood value chains and local poverty reduction: what happens to those who don’t plug in?’, Asian Development Bank Economics Working Paper Series, p.453.
Chen, G., Zhang, G. and Xie, Y.M. (2013) ‘Impact of transaction attributes on transaction costs in project alliances: disaggregated analysis’, Journal of Management in Engineering, Vol. 31, No. 4, p.04014054.
Chen, I.J. and Paulraj, A. (2004) ‘Towards a theory of supply chain management: the constructs and measurements’, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 22, No. 2, pp.119–150.
Cooper, M.C. and Ellram, L.M. (1993) ‘Characteristics of supply chain management and the implications for purchasing and logistics strategy’, The International Journal of Logistics Management, Vol. 4, No. 2, pp.13–24.
Costales, A. and Catelo, M.A.O. (2008) Contract Farming as an Institution for Integrating Rural Smallholders in Markets for Livestock Products in Developing Countries: (I) Framework and Applications, Pro-Poor Livestock Policy Initiative (PPLPI) Research Report (FAO).
Crisan, E., Parpucea, I. and Ilies, L. (2011) ‘The relation between supply chain governance and supply chain performance’, Journal of Management & Marketing Challenges for the Knowledge Society, Vol. 6, No. 4, pp.637–644.
Croom, S. (2001) ‘Restructuring supply chains through information channel innovation’, International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 21, No. 4, pp.504–515.
Denolf, J.M., Trienekens, J.H., Van der Vorst, J.G.A.J. and Omta, S.W.F. (2015) ‘The role of governance structures in supply chain information sharing’, Journal on Chain and Network Science, Vol. 15, No. 1, pp.83–99.
Dhanaraj, C. and Parkhe, A. (2006) ‘Orchestrating innovation networks’, Academy of management Review, Vol. 31, No. 3, pp.659–669.
Dolci, P.C., Maçada, A.C.G.C. and Grant, G.G. (2013) ‘Information technology and supply chain governance: a conceptual model’, Information Technology, Vol. 7, pp.1–2013.
Drost, E.A. (2011) ‘Validity and reliability in social science research’, Education Research and Perspectives, Vol. 38, No. 1, p.105.
Duval, Y. and Feyler, E. (2016) ‘Intra-and extraregional trade costs of ASEAN economies: implications for Asian regional integration’, ASEAN Economic Community, pp.153–172, Palgrave Macmillan US, US.
Dyer, J.H. (1996) ‘Does governance matter? Keiretsu alliances and asset specificity as sources of Japanese competitive advantage’, Organization Science, Vol. 7, No. 6, pp.649–666.
Dyer, J.H. (2000) Collaborative Advantage: Winning through Extended Enterprise Supplier Networks, Oxford University Press.
Dyer, J.H. and Singh, H. (1998) ‘The relational view: cooperative strategy and sources of interorganizational competitive advantage’, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 23, No. 4, pp.660–679.
Eichhorn, B.R. (2014) Common Method Variance Techniques, Cleveland State University, Department of Operations & Supply Chain Management, SAS Institute Inc., Cleveland, OH.
Comment [N9]: (1) Author: Please cite the reference in the text or delete from the list if not required. (2) Author: Please provide the place of publication.
Comment [N10]: Author: Please cite the reference in the text or delete from the list if not required.
Comment [N11]: Author: Please provide the issue number.
Comment [N12]: Author: Please provide the place of publication.
Governance structure choice in the supply chain of broiler chickens 27
Erramilli, M.K. and Rao, C.P. (1993) ‘Service firms’ international entry-mode choice: a modified transaction-cost analysis approach’, The Journal of Marketing, pp.19–38.
Ferguson, S.M. (2004) The Economics of Vertical Coordination in the Organic Wheat Supply Chain, Doctoral dissertation, University of Saskatchewan.
Foss, N.J. and Nielsen, B.B. (2012) ‘Researching multilevel phenomena: the case of collaborative advantage in strategic management’, Journal of CENTRUM Cathedra: The Business and Economics Research Journal, Vol. 5, No. 1, pp.11–23.
Frank, S.D. and Henderson, D.R. (1992) ‘Transaction costs as determinants of vertical coordination in the US food industries’, American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Vol. 74, No. 4, pp.941–950.
Garson, G.D. (2013) Generalized Linear Models/Generalized Estimating Equations, 2013 ed., Statistical Associates Publishers, Asheboro, NC.
Gefen, D., Straub, D. and Boudreau, M.C. (2000) ‘Structural equation modeling and regression: guidelines for research practice’, Communications of the Association for Information Systems, Vol. 4, No. 1, p.7.
Geyskens, I., Steenkamp, J.B.E. and Kumar, N. (2006) ‘Make, buy, or ally: a transaction cost theory meta-analysis\, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 49, No. 3, pp.519–543.
Ghozali, I. (2011) Model Persamaan Struktural: Konsep Aplikasi dengan Amos 19.0, Badan Penerbit Undip, Semarang.
Grover, V. and Malhotra, M.K. (2003) ‘Transaction cost framework in operations and supply chain management research: theory and measurement’, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 21, No. 4, pp.457–473.
Guo, B., Perron, B.E. and Gillespie, D.F. (2009) ‘A systematic review of structural equation modelling in social work research’, British Journal of Social Work, Vol. 39, No. 8, pp.1556–1574.
Hair, J.F., Black, W.C., Babin, B.J., Anderson, R.E. and Tatham, R.L. (2006) Multivariate Data Analysis, Vol. 6, Pearson Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Heide, J.B. (1994) ‘Inter-organizational governance in marketing channels’, The Journal of Marketing, Vol. 58, No. 1, pp.71–85.
Hobbs, J.E. (1996) ‘A transaction cost approach to supply chain management’, Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, Vol. 1, No. 2, pp.15–27.
Hobbs, J.E. and Young, L.M. (2000) ‘Closer vertical co-ordination in agri-food supply chains: a conceptual framework and some preliminary evidence’, Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, Vol. 5, No. 3, pp.131–143.
Hu, L.T. and Bentler, P.M. (1999) ‘Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives’, Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, Vol. 6, No. 1, pp.1–55.
Huxham, C. and Vangen, S. (2005) Managing to Collaborate: The Theory and Practice of Collaborative Advantage. Routled, London.
Jap, S.D. (1999) ‘Pie-expansion efforts: collaboration processes in buyer-supplier relationships’, Journal of Marketing Research, pp.461–475.
Jap, S.D. (2001) ‘Perspectives on joint competitive advantages in buyer–supplier relationships’, International Journal of Research in Marketing, Vol. 18, No. 1, pp.19–35.
Ji, C., de Felipe, I., Briz, J. and Trienekens, J.H. (2012) ‘An empirical study on governance structure choices in Chinas pork supply chain’, Int. Food Agribus. Manag. Rev., Vol. 15, pp.121–152.
Jöreskog, K.G. (1999) How Large Can a Standardized Coefficient Be, Unpublished Technical Report [online] http://www.ssicentral.com/lisrel/techdocs/HowLargeCanaStandardizedCoefficientbe.pdf.
Jöreskog, K.G. and Sörbom, D. (1993) LISREL 8: Structural Equation Modeling with the SIMPLIS Command Language, Scientific Software International.
Comment [N13]: Author: Please provide the volume number and issue number.
Comment [N14]: Author: Please provide the place of publication.
Comment [N15]: Author: Please cite the reference in the text or delete from the list if not required.
Comment [N16]: Author: Please cite the reference in the text or delete from the list if not required.
Comment [N17]: Author: Please provide the volume number and issue number.
Comment [N18]: Author: Please provide the issue number.
Comment [N19]: Author: Please provide the access details (date when the site was accessed/visited).
Comment [N20]: Author: Please provide the place of publication.
28 A. Susanty et al.
Kaufman, A., Wood, C.H. and Theyel, G. (2000) ‘Collaboration and technology linkages: a strategic supplier typology’, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 21, No. 6, pp.649–663.
Keen, P.G.W. (1991) Shaping the Future: Business Design through Information Technology, Harvard Business School Press, Massachusetts, Boston.
Kenny, D.A. and McCoach, D.B. (2003) ‘Effect of the number of variables on measures of fit in structural equation modeling’, Structural Equation Modeling, Vol. 10, No. 3, pp.333–351.
Ketchen, D.J. and Hult, G.T.M. (2007) ‘Bridging organization theory and supply chain management: the case of best value supply chains’, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 25, No. 2, pp.573–580.
Khan, S. and Khalid, M.M. (2013) ‘Multi choice for precision in multivariate stratified surveys: a compromise solution’, International Journal of Operations Research, Vol. 10, No. 4, pp.171–181.
Kim, Y. (1998) ‘Distribution channel decisions in import consumer goods markets’, Logistics Information Management, Vol. 11, No. 3, pp.178–187.
Kinsey, J. (2002) The Supply Chain of Pork: US and China, Vol. 2, No. 1, Food Industry Center, University of Minnesota.
Klein, B. (2007) ‘The economic lessons of fisher body–general motors’, International Journal of the Economics of Business, Vol. 14, No. 1, pp.1–36.
Kline, R.B. (2005) Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling, 2nd ed., The Guilford Press, New York.
Koh, J. and Venkatraman, N. (1991) ‘Joint venture formations and stock market reactions: an assessment in the information technology sector’, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 34, No. 4, pp.869–892.
Kumar, N., Scheer, L.K. and Steenkamp, J.B.E. (1995) ‘The effects of supplier fairness on vulnerable resellers’, Journal of Marketing Research, pp.54–65.
Lambert, D.M., Cooper, M.C. and Pagh, J.D. (1998) ‘Supply chain management: implementation issues and research opportunities’, The International Journal of Logistics Management, Vol. 9, No. 2, pp.1–20.
Lambert, D.M., Knemeyer, A.M. and Gardner, J.T. (2004) ‘Supply chain partnerships: model validation and implementation’, Journal of business Logistics, Vol. 25, No. 2, pp.21–42.
Lank, E. (2005) Collaborative Advantage: How Organizations Win by Working Together, Palgrave Macmillan, London, UK.
Lei, P.W. and Wu, Q. (2007) ‘Introduction to structural equation modeling: issues and practical considerations’, Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, Vol. 26, No. 3, pp.33–43.
Lietke, B. and Boslau, M. (2007) ‘Exploring the transaction dimensions of supply chain management’, International Journal of Networking and Virtual Organisations, Vol. 4, No. 2, pp.163–179.
Malhotra, A., Gasain, S. and El Sawy, O.A. (2005) ‘Absorptive capacity configurations in supply chains: gearing for partner-enabled market knowledge creation’, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 29, No. 1, pp.145–187.
Marsh, H.W., Hau, K.T. and Wen, Z. (2004) ‘In search of golden rules: comment on hypothesis-testing approaches to setting cutoff values for fit indexes and dangers in overgeneralizing Hu and Bentler’s (1999) findings’, Structural Equation Modeling, Vol. 11, pp.320–341.
McIntosh, C.N. (2007) ‘Rethinking fit assessment in structural equation modelling: a commentary and elaboration on Barrett (2007)’, Personality and Individual Differences, Vol. 42, No. 5, pp.859–867.
Mighell, R.L. and Jones, L.A. (1963) Vertical Coordination in Agriculture. Mudambi, R. and Mudambi, M.S. (1995) ‘From transaction cost economics to relationship
marketing. A model of buyer- supplier relations’, International Business Review, Vol. 4, No. 4, pp.419–433.
Comment [N21]: Author: Please provide the place of publication.
Comment [N22]: Author: Please provide the volume number and issue number.
Comment [N23]: Author: Please provide the issue number.
Comment [N24]: Author: Please provide the publisher and place of publication.
Governance structure choice in the supply chain of broiler chickens 29
Muladno (2008) Local Chicken Genetic Resources and Production Systems in Indonesia, GCP/RAS/228/GER Working Paper No. 6, Animal Production and Health Division, Indonesia.
Mulaik, S.A., James, L.R., Van Alstine, J., Bennet, N., Lind, S. and Stilwell, C.D. (1989) ‘Evaluation of goodness-of-fit indices for structural equation models’, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 105, No. 3, pp.430–445.
Naslund, D. and Williamson, S. (2010) ‘What is management in supply chain management? A critical review of definitions, frameworks and terminology’, Journal of Management Policy and Practice, Vol. 11, No. 4, pp.11–28.
Natawidjaja, R., Reardon, T., Shetty, S., Noor, T.I., Perdana, T., Rasmikayati, E., Bachri, S. and Hernandez, R. (2007) Horticultural Producers and Supermarket Development in Indonesia, June, UNPAD/MSU Report published by the World Bank/Indonesia.
Nicholson, C. and Young, B. (2012) ‘The relationship between supermarkets and suppliers: what are the implications for consumers?’, Consumers International, Vol. 1, p.7.
Noordewier, T.G., John, G. and Nevin, J.R. (1990) ‘Performance outcomes of purchasing arrangements in industrial buyer-vendor relationships’, The Journal of Marketing, pp.80–93.
Nunnally, J. (1978) Psychometric Theory, 2nd ed., McGraw-Hill, New York. Nyaga, G.N., Whipple, J.M. and Lynch, D.F. (2010) ‘Examining supply chain relationships: do
buyer and supplier perspectives on collaborative relationships differ?’, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 28, No. 2, pp.101–114.
Oktavera, R. and Andajani, E. (2013) Implementation of Value Chain Analysis in the Broiler Supply Chain Agribusiness.
Peterson, H.C. and Wysocki, A.F. (1997) The Vertical Coordination Continuum and the Determinants of Firm-Level Coordination Strategy, No. 11817, Michigan State University, Department of Agricultural, Food, and Resource Economics.
Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.M., Lee, J. and Podsakoff, N.P. (2003) ‘Common method variance in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies’, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 88, No. 5, pp.879–903.
Promsivapallop, P. (2009) A Critical Evaluation of Transaction Cost Economics Applied to Outsourcing in the Hotel Industry in Thailand, Doctoral dissertation, University of Surrey.
Raišienė, A.G. (2011) ‘Public servants’ approach to success factors of partnership in local government’, Viesoji Politika ir Administravimas, Vol. 10, No. 4, pp.659–667.
Reardon, T. and Berdegué, J.A. (2002) ‘The rapid rise of supermarkets in Latin America: challenges and opportunities for development’, Development Policy Review, Vol. 20, No. 4, pp.317–334.
Reardon, T., Henson, S. and Berdegué, J.A. (2007) ‘Proactive fast-tracking’ diffusion of supermarkets in developing countries: implications for market institutions and trade’, Journal of Economic Geography, Vol. 7, No. 4, pp.399–431.
Rindfleisch, A. and Heide, J.B. (1997) ‘Transaction cost analysis: past, present, and future applications’, The Journal of Marketing, pp.30–54.
Russell, D.W. (2002) ‘In search of underlying dimensions: the use (and abuse) of factor analysis in personality and social psychology’, Bulletin Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, Vol. 28, pp.1629–1646, doi: 10.1177/014616702237645.
Ruuska, I., Ahola, T., Artto, K., Locatelli, G. and Mancini, M. (2010) ‘A new governance approach for multi-firm projects: Lessons from Olkiluoto 3 and Flamanville 3 nuclear power plant projects’, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 29, No. 6, pp.647–660.
Shu, C.Y. and Quynh, N.T.N. (2015) ‘Guan-Xi, loyalty, contribution and ‘speak-up behavior: the role of leader-member exchange (LMX) as mediator and political skill as moderator’, Eurasian Journal of Business and Management, Vol. 3, No. 2, pp.54–73.
Stock, J.R. and Boyer, S.L. (2009) ‘Developing a consensus definition of supply chain management: a qualitative study’, International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, Vol. 39, No. 8, pp.690–711.
Comment [N25]: Author: Please provide the issue number.
Comment [N26]: Author: Please provide the volume number and issue number.
Comment [N27]: Author: Please provide the publisher and place of publication.
Comment [N28]: Author: Please provide the place of publication.
Comment [N29]: Author: Please provide the place of publication.
Comment [N30]: Author: Please provide the volume number and issue number.
Comment [N31]: Author: Please cite the reference in the text or delete from the list if not required.
30 A. Susanty et al.
Suh, T. and Kwon, I.W.G. (2006) ‘Matter over mind: When specific asset investment affects calculative trust in supply chain partnership’, Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 35, No. 2, pp.191–201.
Sujatanond, S. Tibkaew, A.P. and Pramojanee, P. (2013) ‘Consequences of the ASEAN Economic Community (AEC) on Thailand Agricultural situation and food security of Southern Thailand’, GMSARN International Journal, Vol. 7, pp.139–144.
Sumiarto, B. and Arifin, B. (2008) Overview on Poultry Sector and HPAI Situation for Indonesia with Special Emphasis on the Island of Java-Background Paper, Manuscript submitted for publication, Royal Veterinary College [online] http://www.ifpri. org/publication/overview-poultry-sector-and-hpai-situationindonesia-special-emphasis-island-java.
Tabachnick, B.G. and Fidell, L.S. (2007) Using Multivariate Statistics, 5th ed., Allyn and Bacon, New York.
Teo, T.S., Wang, P. and Leong, C.H. (2004) ‘Understanding online shopping behaviour using a transaction cost economics approach’, International Journal of Internet Marketing and Advertising, Vol. 1, No. 1, pp.62–84.
Thompson, L. and Hastie, R. (1990) ‘Social perception in negotiation’, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 47, No. 1, pp.98–123.
Thomson, D. and Jain, A. (2006) ‘Corporate governance failure and its impact on National Australia Bank’s performance’, Journal of Business Case Studies, Vol. 2, No. 1, pp.41–56.
Trochim, W.M.K. (2006) Introduction to Validity. Social Research Methods [online] http://www.socialresearchmethods.net/kb/introval.php (accessed 9 September 2010).
United States Agency for International Development (USAID) (2013) Indonesia s Poultry Value Chain, Nathan Associates Inc.
Vangen, S. and Huxham, C. (2003) ‘Enacting leadership for collaborative advantage: dilemmas of ideology and pragmatism in the activities of partnership managers’, British Journal of Management, Vol. 14, Suppl. 1, pp.S61–S76.
Verschuren, P.J.M. (1991) Structurele modellen tussen theorie en praktijk (structural models between theory and practice), Het Spectrum, Meppel.
Vining, A. and Globerman, S. (1999) ‘A conceptual framework for understanding the outsourcing decision’, European Management Journal, Vol. 17, No. 6, pp.645–754.
Weleschuk, I.T. and Kerr, W.A. (1995) ‘The sharing of risks and returns in prairie special crops: a transaction cost approach’, Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics, Vol. 43, pp.237–258.
Westen, D. and Rosenthal, R. (2003) ‘Quantifying construct validity: two simple measures’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 84, No. 3, pp.608–618.
Wever, M., Wognum, N., Trienekens, J. and Omta, O. (2010) ‘Alignment between chain quality management and chain governance in EU pork supply chains: a transaction-cost-economics perspective’, Meat Science, Vol. 84, No. 2, pp.228–237.
Wheaton, B., Muthen, B., Alwin, D.F. and Summers, G.F. (1977) ‘Assessing reliability and stability in panel models’, Sociological Methodology, Vol. 8, No. 1, pp.84–136.
Wijayanto, S.H. (2008) Structural Equation Modelling Dengan LISREL 8.8: konsep dan tutorial, Graha Ilmu, Yogyakarta, Yogyakarta, Indonesia.
Williamson, O.E. (1975) Markets and Hierarchies: Analysis and Antitrust Implications, Free Press, New York.
Williamson, O.E. (1979) ‘Transaction-cost economics: the governance of contractual relations’, The Journal of Law & Economics, Vol. 22, No. 2, pp.233–261.
Williamson, O.E. (1981) ‘The economics of organization: the transaction cost approach’, American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 87, pp.548–577.
Williamson, O.E. (1985) The Economic Institutions of Capitalism: Firms, Markets, Relational Contracting, Free Press, New York.
Comment [N32]: Author: Please cite the reference in the text or delete from the list if not required.
Comment [N33]: Author: Please provide the issue number.
Comment [N34]: Author: Please provide the access details (date when the site was accessed/visited).
Comment [N35]: Author: Please cite the reference in the text or delete from the list if not required.
Comment [N36]: Author: Please provide the publisher and place of publication.
Comment [N37]: Author: Please provide the issue number.
Comment [N38]: Author: Please provide the issue number.
Governance structure choice in the supply chain of broiler chickens 31
Williamson, O.E. (1989) ‘Transaction cost economics’, in Schmanlensee, R. and Willig, R. (Eds.): Handbook of Industrial Organization, Vol. 1, pp.136–182, Elsevier Science, Amsterdam.
Williamson, O.E. (1991) ‘Comparative economic organization: the analysis of discrete structural alternatives’, Administrative Science Quarterly, pp.269–296.
Williamson, O.E. (1993) ‘Transaction cost economics and organization theory’, Industrial and Corporate Change, Vol. 2, No. 2, pp.107–156.
Williamson, O.E. (1994) ‘Transaction cost economics and organization theory’, Organization Theory: From Chester Barnard to the Present and Beyond, pp.207–256.
Williamson, O.E. (1996) ‘Economics and organization: a primer’, California Management Review, Vol. 38, No. 2, pp.131–146.
Zineldin, M.A. (1998) ‘Towards an ecological collaborative relationship management A’, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 32, Nos. 11–12, pp.1138–1164.
Comment [N39]: Author: Please provide the volume number and issue number.
Comment [N40]: (1) Author: Please cite the reference in the text or delete from the list if not required. (2) Author: Please provide the volume number and issue number.
Comment [N41]: Author: Please cite the reference in the text or delete from the list if not required.
AMENDMENTS TO PROOF JOURNAL: Int. J. Services Technology and Management AUTHORS NAME: Aries Susanty, Hery Suliantoro, Eveline Siburian, Ahmad Syamil PAPER TITLE: Governance structure choice in the supply chain of broiler chickens: an empirical study in Central Java, Indonesia
Page No.
Section Paragraph Line No.
Delete Add/amend
2 Biographical notes Ahmad Syamil is the Dean of Master of Management Programs, Bina Nusantara University, Jakarta, Indonesia. Previously, he was an Associate Professor at College of Business, Arkansas State University, State University, Arkansas, USA. He received his bachelor degree in mechanical engineering from Bandung Institute of Technology, Indonesia, MBA from the University of Houston, USA and PhD in Manufacturing Management from the University of Toledo, Ohio, USA. Dr. Syamil has presented his papers nationally and internationally as well as published extensively in various journals.
2 Previous version of the paper
This paper is a revised and expanded version of a paper entitled [title] presented at [name, location and date of conference]. (no previous version of the paper, please deleted)
6 1. Introduction Add in reference Soedjana, T.D. (1999) ‘International trade in livestock, livestock products and livestock inputs’, in Riethmuller, P. et al (Eds.), Livestock Industries of Indonesia prior to the Asian Financial Crisis, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific, Bangkok, Thailand, pp.99–114
16 4.2.2.CMV test (Shu et al., 2015). Shu and Quynh (2015).
23 4.5 Hypothesis test 3 (Jaakko, 2015). (Oittinen,2015)
Reference Add in reference Oittinen, J. (2015) Outsourcing at the edge of chaos: why transaction cost economics fails under complexity. Unpublished Master thesis, Aato University, Greater Helsinki, Finland.
25 Reference 1 Anderson, C.M. (1993) Willingness to Collaborate as a New Communication Trait: Scale Development and a Predictive Model of Related Communication Traits
Anderson, C.M. (1993). (2000) ‘Willingness to Collaborate as a New Communication Trait: Scale Development and a Predictive Model of Related Communication Traits’. Paper Presented at the Joint Meeting of the Southern States Communication Association and the Central States Communication Association. 14-18 April 1993. Lexington, Kentucky
25 Reference 3 Bagozzi, R.P. and Yi, Y. (1988) ‘On the evaluation of structural equation models’, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 16, No. 1, pp.74–94.
25 Reference 7 Bentler, P.M. (1990) ‘Comparative fit indices in structural models’, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 107, No.2, pp.238–246, Doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.107.2.238.
26 Reference 9 Costales, A. and Catelo, M.A.O. (2008) Contract Farming as an Institution for Integrating Rural Smallholders in Markets for Livestock Products in Developing Countries: (I) Framework and Applications, Pro-Poor Livestock Policy Initiative
Page No.
Section Paragraph Line No.
Delete Add/amend
(PPLPI) Research Report (FAO).
26 Reference 12 Denolf, J.M., Trienekens, J.H., Van der Vorst, J.G.A.J. and Omta, S.W.F. (2015) ‘The role of governance structures in supply chain information sharing’, Journal on Chain and Network Science, Vol. 15, No. 1, pp.83–99.
26 Reference 14 Dolci, P.C., Maçada, A.C.G.C. and Grant, G.G. (2013) ‘Information technology and supply chain governance: a conceptual model’, Information Technology, Vol. 7, pp.1–2013
Dolci, P.C., Maçada, A.C.G.C. and Grant, G.G. (2013), ‘Information technology and supply chain governance: a conceptual mode’ in ECIS 2013: Proceedings of the 21st European Conference on Information Systems, Utrecht University, Utrecht, Netherland, pp. 1-12.
26 Reference 18 Dyer, J.H. (2000) Collaborative Advantage: Winning through Extended Enterprise Supplier Networks, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
27 Reference 1 Erramilli, M.K. and Rao, C.P. (1993) ‘Service firms’ international entry-mode choice: a modified transaction-cost analysis approach’, The Journal of Marketing, Vol.57, No.3, pp.19–38.
27 Reference 2 Ferguson, S.M. (2004) The Economics of Vertical Coordination in the Organic Wheat Supply Chain, Doctoral dissertation, University of Saskatchewan
Ferguson, S. (2004). The Economics of Vertical Coordination in the Organic Wheat Supply Chain. Unpublished thesis. University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Canada
27 Reference 5 Garson, G.D. (2013) Generalized Linear Models/Generalized Estimating Equations, 2013 ed., Statistical Associates Publishers, Asheboro, NC
27 Reference 6 Gefen, D., Straub, D. and Boudreau, M.C. (2000) ‘Structural equation modeling and regression: guidelines for research practice’, Communications of the Association for Information Systems, Vol. 4, No. 1, p.7.
27 Reference 17 Jap, S.D. (1999) ‘Pie-expansion efforts: collaboration processes in buyer-supplier relationships’, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 36, No. 4, pp.461–475
27 Reference 19 Ji, C., de Felipe, I., Briz, J. and Trienekens, J.H. (2012) ‘An empirical study on governance structure choices in Chinas pork supply chain’, International Food and Agribusiness Management Review., Vol. 15, No.2, pp.121–152.
27 Reference 20 Jöreskog, K.G. (1999) How Large Can a Standardized Coefficient Be, Unpublished Technical Report [online] http://www.ssicentral.com/lisrel/techdocs/ HowLargeCanaStandardizedCoefficientbe.pdf. (Accessed 15 July 2016).
27 Reference 21 Jöreskog, K.G. and Sörbom, D. (1993) LISREL 8: Structural Equation Modeling with the SIMPLIS Command Language, Scientific Software International, Chicago, Illinois
28 Reference 7 Kinsey, J. (2002) The Supply Chain of Pork: US and China, Vol. 2, No. 1, Food Industry Center, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota
28 Reference 11 Kumar, N., Scheer, L.K. and Steenkamp, J.B.E. (1995) ‘The effects of supplier fairness on vulnerable resellers’, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 32, No. 1, pp.54–65.
28 Reference 18 Marsh, H.W., Hau, K.T. and Wen, Z. (2004) ‘In search of golden rules: comment on hypothesis-testing approaches to setting cutoff values for fit indexes and
Page No.
Section Paragraph Line No.
Delete Add/amend
dangers in overgeneralizing Hu and Bentler’s (1999) findings’, Structural Equation Modeling, Vol. 11,No.3,
pp.320–341. 28 Reference 20 Mighell, R.L. and Jones,
L.A. (1963) Vertical Coordination in Agriculture.
Mighell, R.L. and Jones, L.A. (1963) Vertical Coordination in Agriculture, Agricultural Economic
Report No.19, Economic Division of Economic Research Service, USDA, Washington, DC.
29 Reference 5 Nicholson, C. and Young, B. (2012) ‘The relationship between supermarkets and suppliers: what are the implications for consumers?’, Consumers International, Vol. 1, p.7.
Nicholson, C. and Young, B. (2012) The relationship between supermarkets and suppliers: what are the implications for consumers?, Summary of the Main Report, Consumers International and Europe Economics.
29 Reference 6 Noordewier, T.G., John, G. and Nevin, J.R. (1990) ‘Performance outcomes of purchasing arrangements in industrial buyer-vendor relationships’, The Journal of Marketing, Vol. 54, No. 4, pp.80–93.
29 Reference 9 Oktavera, R. and Andajani, E. (2013) Implementation of Value Chain Analysis in the Broiler Supply Chain Agribusiness.
Oktavera, R. and Andajani, E. (2013), ‘Implementation of Value Chain Analysis in the Broiler Supply Chain Agribusiness’ in Proceedings of the 10th International Annual Symposium On Management, Surabaya University, Surabaya, Indonesia, pp. 1268-1279.
29 Reference 10 Peterson, H.C. and Wysocki, A.F. (1997) The Vertical Coordination Continuum and the Determinants of Firm-Level Coordination Strategy, No. 11817, Michigan State University, Department of Agricultural, Food, and Resource Economics
Peterson, H.C. and Wysocki, A.F. (1997) The Vertical Coordination Continuum and the Determinants of Firm-Level Coordination Strategy, Staff Paper, No. 11817, Department of Agricultural, Food, and Resource Economics, Michigan State University, Michigan, United States
29 Reference 12 Promsivapallop, P. (2009) A Critical Evaluation of Transaction Cost Economics Applied to Outsourcing in the Hotel Industry in Thailand, Doctoral dissertation, University of Surrey, United Kingdom
29 Reference 16 Rindfleisch, A. and Heide, J.B. (1997) ‘Transaction cost analysis: past, present, and future applications’, The Journal of Marketing, Vol. 61, No.4, pp.30–54.
30 Reference 1 Suh, T. and Kwon, I.W.G. (2006) ‘Matter over mind: When specific asset investment affects calculative trust in supply chain partnership’, Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 35, No. 2, pp.191–201.
30 Reference 2 Sujatanond, S. Tibkaew, A.P. and Pramojanee, P. (2013) ‘Consequences of the ASEAN Economic Community (AEC) on Thailand Agricultural situation and food security of Southern Thailand’, GMSARN International Journal, Vol. 7, No. 4, pp.139–144.
30 Reference 3 Sumiarto, B. and Arifin, B. (2008) Overview on Poultry Sector and HPAI Situation for Indonesia with Special Emphasis on the Island of Java-Background Paper, Manuscript submitted for publication, Royal Veterinary College [online] http://www.ifpri.org/publication/ overviewpoultry-sector-and-hpai-situationindonesia-
special-emphasis-island-java. (Accessed 15 July 2016).
30 Reference 6 Thompson, L. and Hastie, R. (1990) ‘Social perception in negotiation’, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 47, No. 1, pp.98–123.
30 Reference 9 United States Agency for International Development (USAID) (2013) Indonesia s Poultry Value Chain, Nathan Associates Inc., United States
30 Reference 13 Weleschuk, I.T. and Kerr, W.A. (1995) ‘The sharing of risks and returns in prairie special crops: a transaction cost approach’, Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics, Vol. 43, No.2, pp.237–258.
30 Reference 20 Williamson, O.E. (1981) ‘The economics of
Page No.
Section Paragraph Line No.
Delete Add/amend
organization: the transaction cost approach’, American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 87, No.3, pp.548–577
31 Reference 2 Williamson, O.E. (1991) ‘Comparative economic organization: the analysis of discrete structural alternatives’, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol.36, No.2, pp.269–296
31 Reference 4 Williamson, O.E. (1994) ‘Transaction cost economics and organization theory’, Organization Theory: From Chester Barnard to the Present and Beyond, pp.207–256.
31 Reference 5 Williamson, O.E. (1996) ‘Economics and organization: a primer’, California Management Review, Vol. 38, No. 2, pp.131–146