presentation ipsera 12 4 2011 xx
DESCRIPTION
Presentation by Jorieke Manders and Paul Ghijsen at the IPSERA 2011 meeting in MaastrichtTRANSCRIPT
![Page 1: Presentation Ipsera 12 4 2011 Xx](https://reader031.vdocuments.net/reader031/viewer/2022020110/55800dbfd8b42a693c8b52ec/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
Supply chain flexibility and customer satisfaction revisted
Results from higher order construct considerations and Rasch analyses
Jorieke MandersJorieke Manders andand Paul GhijsenPaul Ghijsen, , IPSERA, Maastricht, IPSERA, Maastricht, april april 1212th 2011th 2011
![Page 2: Presentation Ipsera 12 4 2011 Xx](https://reader031.vdocuments.net/reader031/viewer/2022020110/55800dbfd8b42a693c8b52ec/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
Overview
• Introduction
• Framework and problem statement
• Results of further analyses on supply chain flexibility and customer satisfaction
• Conclusion
2
![Page 3: Presentation Ipsera 12 4 2011 Xx](https://reader031.vdocuments.net/reader031/viewer/2022020110/55800dbfd8b42a693c8b52ec/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
Introduction
• To cope with uncertainty, a fast changing environment and globalisation firms aim for flexibility (Upton 1994; 1995, Zhang et al. 2002a; 2002b; 2006).
• To achieve the level of flexibility in relation to satisfy customers, firms must look beyond the organizational boundaries (supply chain- or value chain perspective)(Day 1994; Schmenner and Tatikonda 2005; Slack 2005b)
• Starting point: Value chain model Zhang et al. (2002), Zhang, Vonderembse and Lim/Cao (2002, 2003, 2005, 2006 en 2009).
3
![Page 4: Presentation Ipsera 12 4 2011 Xx](https://reader031.vdocuments.net/reader031/viewer/2022020110/55800dbfd8b42a693c8b52ec/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
Framework 2010 and problem statement
4
![Page 5: Presentation Ipsera 12 4 2011 Xx](https://reader031.vdocuments.net/reader031/viewer/2022020110/55800dbfd8b42a693c8b52ec/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
Study 2010
• Which capabilities of flexibility have an effect on customer satisfaction when used in combination?
5
![Page 6: Presentation Ipsera 12 4 2011 Xx](https://reader031.vdocuments.net/reader031/viewer/2022020110/55800dbfd8b42a693c8b52ec/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
Results study 2010
Relationship Coefficient t-value p-value Conclusion R² Product Modification Flexibility => Customer Satisfaction 0.208 2.543 0.006 H1 supported 0.478 New Product Flexibility => Customer Satisfaction -0.139 1.406 0.082 H2 not supported Volume Flexibility => Customer Satisfaction 0.108 1.121 0.133 H3 not supported Mix Flexibility => Customer Satisfaction 0.052 0.573 0.284 H4 not supported Physical Distribution Flexibility => Customer Satisfaction 0.200 2.741 0.004 H5 supported Demand Management Flexibility => Customer Satisfaction 0.105 0.925 0.179 H6 not supportedStrategy Development Flexibility => Customer Satisfaction 0.408 3.572 0.000 H7 supported
• From a comprehensive view only product modification-, physical distribution and strategy development flexibility show a significant impact.
• No indication of multicollineairity. The condition index becomes higher but remains under the value of 30 (28,7)
6
p < 0,05 and t > 1,98
![Page 7: Presentation Ipsera 12 4 2011 Xx](https://reader031.vdocuments.net/reader031/viewer/2022020110/55800dbfd8b42a693c8b52ec/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
Comments• Is it possible to make an index of the degree of flexibility to benchmark
between organizations (IBEC)?
• Why not expand this study with the relationship between flexibility and more countable data like profit, turnover, etcetera (IBEC).
• There are different sectors in the sample, so control the effect of these sector in the sample (IPSERA) and/or maybe you can add the sector as a dummy coded variable in the model (AoM)
• Why not model the higher level construct as such? (IPSERA)
• Consider the different dimensions of customer satisfaction and the difference between customer satisfaction on the short and long term in relation to the flexibility dimensions (IPSERA and AoM).
• Go for a more detailed and rigid approach with more than only the managers perspective about flexibility and customer satisfaction (AoM).
• Standard deviations decrease as the questionnaire progress. Further analyses?! (IPSERA and AoM)
• Check for multicollineairity (IPSERA and AoM)• Work out the check for non respons bias
and common method bias (IPSERA and AoM)• Increase the number of surveyed companies (IPSERA and AoM)
7
![Page 8: Presentation Ipsera 12 4 2011 Xx](https://reader031.vdocuments.net/reader031/viewer/2022020110/55800dbfd8b42a693c8b52ec/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
Furtheranalyseshigher order construct level
8
![Page 9: Presentation Ipsera 12 4 2011 Xx](https://reader031.vdocuments.net/reader031/viewer/2022020110/55800dbfd8b42a693c8b52ec/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
Results higher order construct level
• From a comprehensive view logistics and spanning flexibility show a significant impact.
Relationship Coefficient t-value p-value Conclusion R²Product Development Flexibility => Customer Satisfaction
0.141 1.723 0.044 H1 Not supported 0.457
Manufacturing Flexibility => Customer Satisfaction 0.127 1.029 0.153 H2 Not supported Logistics Flexibility => Customer Satisfaction 0.224 2.671 0.005 H3 supported Spanning Flexibility => Customer Satisfaction 0.412 4.043 0.000 H4 supported
9
p < 0,05 and t > 1.98
![Page 10: Presentation Ipsera 12 4 2011 Xx](https://reader031.vdocuments.net/reader031/viewer/2022020110/55800dbfd8b42a693c8b52ec/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
Raschanalyses
10
Persons - map - items
![Page 11: Presentation Ipsera 12 4 2011 Xx](https://reader031.vdocuments.net/reader031/viewer/2022020110/55800dbfd8b42a693c8b52ec/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
Followed routing in Rasch analyses
• The construct validity
• Separation
• The way the response scale is used
11
![Page 12: Presentation Ipsera 12 4 2011 Xx](https://reader031.vdocuments.net/reader031/viewer/2022020110/55800dbfd8b42a693c8b52ec/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
Construct validity and separation
12
![Page 13: Presentation Ipsera 12 4 2011 Xx](https://reader031.vdocuments.net/reader031/viewer/2022020110/55800dbfd8b42a693c8b52ec/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
The way the response scale is used|CATEGORY OBSERVED|OBSVD SAMPLE|INFIT OUTFIT||STRUCTURE|CATEGORY||LABEL SCORE COUNT %|AVRGE EXPECT| MNSQ MNSQ||CALIBRATN| MEASURE||-------------------+------------+------------++---------+--------+| 1 1 70 2| -.61 -.89| 1.26 1.39|| NONE |( -3.49)| 1| 2 2 509 14| .11 .09| 1.02 1.05|| -2.30 | -1.43 | 2| 3 3 897 24| .54 .58| .95 .98|| -.22 | -.01 | 3| 4 4 1689 45| 1.01 1.03| 1.00 1.04|| .17 | 1.43 | 4| 5 5 570 15| 1.56 1.49| .92 .95|| 2.34 |( 3.52)| 5+------------------------------------------------------------------
CATEGORY PROBABILITIES: MODES - Structure measures at intersectionsP ++---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------++R 1.0 + 5555555+O | 555555 |B |111 555 |A | 11 5 |B .8 + 11 55 +I | 1 5 |L | 1 5 |I | 1 222 5 |T .6 + 1 22 22 5 +Y | 1 2 2 5 |
.5 + 12 2 44444 5 +O | 21 2 4 * |F .4 + 2 1 2 4 5 44 +
| 22 1 2 4 5 4 |R | 2 1 33*33 5 4 |E | 2 1 33 4 2 33 5 44 |S .2 + 22 1 33 4 2 * 4 +P | 22 3*1 4 *5 33 44 |O |222 33 ** 5 2 33 444 |N | 3333 44 11*55 222 333 444444 |S .0 +*******************555555 11111111***************************+E ++---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------++
-50 -30 -10 10 30 50 70Person [MINUS] Item MEASURE
13
![Page 14: Presentation Ipsera 12 4 2011 Xx](https://reader031.vdocuments.net/reader031/viewer/2022020110/55800dbfd8b42a693c8b52ec/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
Results lower and higher order construct level analyses based on Rasch measures
Relationship Coefficient t-value p-value Conclusion R²
Product Modification Flexibility => Customer Satisfaction 0.147 1.308 0.195 H1 not supported 0.326
New Product Flexibility => Customer Satisfaction -0.035 -0.310 0.757 H2 not supported
Volume Flexibility => Customer Satisfaction 0.085 0.785 0.451 H3 not supported
Mix Flexibility => Customer Satisfaction 0.028 0.245 0.028 H4 not supported
Physical Distribution Flexibility => Customer Satisfaction 0.222 2.278 0.025 H5 supported
Demand Management Flexibility => Customer Satisfaction 0.232 2.131 0.036 H6 supported
Strategy Development Flexibility => Customer Satisfaction 0.295 2.695 0.009 H7 supported
Relationship Coefficient t-value p-value Conclusion R²
Product Development Flexibility => Customer Satisfaction 0.110 0.985 0.328 H1 Not supported 0.340
Manufacturing Flexibility => Customer Satisfaction 0.057 0.506 0.614 H2 Not supported
Logistics Flexibility => Customer Satisfaction 0.379 3.645 0.000 H3 supported
Spanning Flexibility => Customer Satisfaction 0.296 2.852 0.006 H4 supported
14
p < 0,05 and t > 1,98
p < 0,05 and t > 1.98
![Page 15: Presentation Ipsera 12 4 2011 Xx](https://reader031.vdocuments.net/reader031/viewer/2022020110/55800dbfd8b42a693c8b52ec/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
Conclusion
• Flexibility with respect to logistics flexibility and spanning flexibility are important for increasing customer satisfaction.
15
![Page 16: Presentation Ipsera 12 4 2011 Xx](https://reader031.vdocuments.net/reader031/viewer/2022020110/55800dbfd8b42a693c8b52ec/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
Questions, comments
16
![Page 17: Presentation Ipsera 12 4 2011 Xx](https://reader031.vdocuments.net/reader031/viewer/2022020110/55800dbfd8b42a693c8b52ec/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
17
![Page 18: Presentation Ipsera 12 4 2011 Xx](https://reader031.vdocuments.net/reader031/viewer/2022020110/55800dbfd8b42a693c8b52ec/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
Methodology• Pilot study
• Survey (Dutch Manufacturing companies > 100 employees)
Population 7000, 1000 companies asked
• Dillman’s Tailored Design method
• Questionnaire (Zhang et al. 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006)
• Responses (83 usable)
senior managers, including presidents/CEO, vice presidents, (general) managers, directors, production managers, logistics managers and others, i.e. purchasing managers, marketing managers, supply chain managers and -specialists
18
![Page 19: Presentation Ipsera 12 4 2011 Xx](https://reader031.vdocuments.net/reader031/viewer/2022020110/55800dbfd8b42a693c8b52ec/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
Results study 2010 Collinearity diagnostics
19
Condition index - Variance proportions