Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
The Impact of Supply Chain Collaboration on Operational Performance
in the Cocoa Industry: The Case of Ghana Cocoa Board-Ashanti Region.
By
TABE SHADRACK Ayuk
A Thesis submitted to Department of Information Systems and Decision
Sciences, Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology in partial
fulfilment of the requirements for the award of the degree
MASTER OF BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION
(LOGISTICS AND SUPPLY CHAIN MANAGEMENT OPTION)
School of Business, KNUST
College of Art and Social Sciences
July, 2015
ii
DECLARATION
I hereby declare that this thesis is my own work towards the fulfilment of the
requirements for the award of Master of Business Administration (Logistics and
Supply Chain Management) and that, to the best of my knowledge, it contains no
material which has been accepted for the award of any other degree of the university,
except in places where references of other people’s work have been cited and full
acknowledgements given.
TABE SHADRACK Ayuk (PG9654213) ……….…………… …………….…
(Student & Index Number) Signature Date
Certified by:
Dr. Jonathan Annan …………….…………… ……………………….…
(Supervisor) Signature Date
Certified by:
Dr. Jonathan Annan …………….…………… ……………………….…
(Head of Department) Signature Date
iii
DEDICATION
I dedicate this thesis to the Glory of the Almighty God through whose undeserved
kindness I have been able to complete this work.
iv
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I am grateful to Almighty God for giving me strength and wisdom to undertake this
work. I also acknowledged the several authors whose work I referenced from and
support of all those who contributed to the success of this work.
Secondly, I extend my profound gratitude to Prof J.M Frimpong the Dean of KNUST
School of Business for his constant advice and direction; not forgetting the
indefatigable efforts of Dr. Jonathan Annan, my supervisor who did more than I
imagined in making this work successful. I must mention that without him, this work
could not have this form and been completed within time frame.
Thirdly, I again express special thanks to the entire staffs of KSB and MBA 2013-
2015 batch of students for the altruism and making my stay worthwhile in KNUST
and not forgetting to acknowledge the management and staffs of Cocoa Board,
Ashanti region, Kumasi for their cooperation towards data collection.
Finally, I wish to thank immensely my mother, siblings, the entire TABE’s family and
Mr. Ebai Sona at the World Cocoa Foundation for their valuable support and
cooperation till the completion of this work.
v
ABSTRACT
Since the development of collaboration in the mid-1990s and with its growing
presence in the field of supply chain management, its effective implementation has
been a source of worry to collaborative partnership in COCOBOD Ashanti region. It
is against this background that the study was carried out to investigate the measurable
impact of supply chain collaboration on the operational performance. Hence, the
study sought to examine the effect of joint-planning of supply chain members on
operational performance, determine the effect of information sharing on operational
performance, evaluate the effect of trust on operational performance and investigate
the level of supply chain visibility on operational performance in COCOBOD Ashanti
region. The study adopted both quantitative and qualitative approaches with the use of
sample techniques such as stratified sampling, purposive sampling and convenience
sampling methods to select the respondents and a sample size of 265 respondents
from COCOBOD Ashanti region of which a response rate of 90.5% was achieved.
The reliability test performed produced the Cronbach’s alpha coefficient minimum
value of 0.84 and the maximum value of 0.932 indicating that the concepts used to
represent collaborative partnership are consistent and relevant to improve supply
chain collaboration. The findings confirmed a total mean score of 7.82, 6.85, 5.22,
and 4.28 respectively for joint-planning, information sharing, trust and visibility
indicating that the level of collaboration is stronger with joint-planning and weaker
with visibility; while the total mean score of the perceived SC collaboration was 3.24.
Again, the findings revealed that visibility has a major problem across the value
chain. The study therefore recommend management to implement a robust IT system
to enable information sharing that will transmit timely and accurate information that
will enhance collaborative advantage.
vi
TABLE OF CONTENT
CONTENTS PAGE
DECLARATION.......................................................................................................... ii
DEDICATION............................................................................................................ iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ....................................................................................... iv
ABSTRACT .................................................................................................................. v
TABLE OF CONTENT .............................................................................................. vi
LIST OF TABLES ....................................................................................................... x
LIST OF FIGURES .................................................................................................... xi
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ................................................................................... xii
CHAPTER ONE .......................................................................................................... 1
INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................ 1
1.1 Background .............................................................................................................. 1
1.2 Problem Statement ................................................................................................... 3
1.3 Research Objectives ................................................................................................. 5
1.3.1 General Objective ................................................................................................. 5
1.3.2 Specific Objectives ............................................................................................... 5
1.4 Research Questions .................................................................................................. 5
1.5 Methodology ............................................................................................................ 6
1.6 Relevance of the Study/Justification ........................................................................ 6
1.7 Scope of the Study ................................................................................................... 7
1.8 Limitation ................................................................................................................. 7
1.9 Organization of the Study ........................................................................................ 8
CHAPTER TWO ......................................................................................................... 9
LITERATURE REVIEW ........................................................................................... 9
2.1 Introduction .............................................................................................................. 9
2.2 Supply Chain Collaboration ..................................................................................... 9
2.3 Supply Chain Collaboration and Joint-planning .................................................... 12
2.4 Supply Chain Collaboration and Information Sharing .......................................... 12
2.5 Supply Chain Collaboration and Trust .................................................................. 14
2.6 Supply Chain Collaboration and Supply Chain Visibility ..................................... 15
vii
2.7 Moderating Effects of Supply Chain collaboration ............................................... 16
2.7.1 Supply Chain collaboration and Organizational Culture .................................... 17
2.7.2 Supply Chain Collaboration and Information Technology Infrastructure .......... 17
2.7.3 Supply Chain Collaboration and Management Commitment ............................. 18
2.8 Assessing Operational Performance ...................................................................... 18
2.8.1 Effectiveness ....................................................................................................... 19
2.8.2 Efficiency ............................................................................................................ 19
2.8.3 Profitability ......................................................................................................... 19
2.8.4 Collaborative Advantage .................................................................................... 20
2.9 Supply Chain Members in the Ghana Cocoa Industry ........................................... 20
2.9.1 The Cocoa Farmer............................................................................................... 20
2.9.2 Licensed Buying Companies (LBCs) ................................................................. 21
2.9.3 Cocoa Board (COCOBOD) and Ashanti Regional Office ................................. 21
2.9.4 Cocoa Research Institute of Ghana (CRIG) ........................................................ 22
2.9.5 Seed Production Unit (SPU) ............................................................................... 22
2.9.6 Cocoa Health and Extension Division ................................................................ 22
2.9.7 Quality Control Company (QCC) ....................................................................... 23
2.9.8 Cocoa Marketing Companies (CMC) ................................................................. 23
2.10 Conceptual Framework ........................................................................................ 24
CHAPTER THREE ................................................................................................... 24
METHODOLOGY .................................................................................................... 25
3.0 Introduction ............................................................................................................ 25
3.1 Research Design..................................................................................................... 25
3.2 Target Population ................................................................................................... 26
3.2.1 Accessible Population ......................................................................................... 26
3.3 Sample Size ............................................................................................................ 27
3.4 Sampling Techniques ............................................................................................. 28
3.4.1 Stratified sampling .............................................................................................. 28
3.4.2 Purposive sample ................................................................................................ 28
3.4.3 Convenience sampling method ........................................................................... 28
3.5 Sources of Data Collection .................................................................................... 29
3.5.1 Primary Source.................................................................................................... 29
viii
3.5.2 Questionnaire Design .......................................................................................... 30
3.5.3 Pretesting of Questionnaires ............................................................................... 30
3.5.4 Data Acquisition ................................................................................................. 31
3.5.4 Ethical Considerations ........................................................................................ 32
3.5.5 Secondary Source................................................................................................ 32
3.6 Data Collection Instruments .................................................................................. 33
3.7 Data Analysis ......................................................................................................... 33
3.8 Organizational Profile of Ghana Cocoa Board and Ashanti Regional Office ....... 33
CHAPTER FOUR ...................................................................................................... 35
DATA ANALYSIS, PRESENTATION AND DISCUSSION OF FINDINGS ..... 35
4.0 Introduction ............................................................................................................ 35
4.1 Demographics ........................................................................................................ 36
4.3 Scale Reliability Test ............................................................................................. 41
4.4 Descriptive statistics .............................................................................................. 43
4.4.1 Joint-Planning in COCOBOD’s SC .................................................................... 43
4.4.2 Information Sharing in COCOBOD’s SC........................................................... 45
4.4.3 Trust in COCOBOD’s SC ................................................................................... 47
4.4.4 Visibility in COCOBOD’s SC ............................................................................ 49
4.4.5 A Summary of Total Supply Chain Collaboration Upstream and downstream. . 51
4.4.6 Perceived Supply Chain Performance of COCOBOD ........................................ 52
4.5 The impact of SC Collaboration on SC performance. ........................................... 53
4.6 Challenges of Supply Chain Collaboration at COCOBOD ................................... 56
CHAPTER FIVE ....................................................................................................... 57
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS .. 57
5.0 Introduction ............................................................................................................ 57
5.1 Summary of Findings ............................................................................................. 57
5.1.1 Summary of Respondent’s Demographics.......................................................... 57
5.1.2 Summary of Supply Chain Collaboration in terms of Joint-Planning ................ 58
5.1.3 Summary of Supply Chain Collaboration in terms of Information Sharing ....... 58
5.1.4 Summary of Supply Chain Collaboration in terms of Trust ............................... 58
ix
5.1.4 Summary of Supply Chain Collaboration in terms of Visibility ........................ 59
5.1.5 Perceived Supply Chain Performance ................................................................ 59
5.2 Conclusion ............................................................................................................. 59
5.3 Recommendations .................................................................................................. 60
5.3.1 Holistic Implementation of Joint-planning with Collaborative Partners ............ 60
5.3.2 Implementation of Robust IT System with the Value Chain .............................. 61
5.3.3 Develop the level of Trust ................................................................................... 61
5.3.4 Implement Training and Development ............................................................... 62
5.3.5 Areas for Future Research Study ........................................................................ 62
REFERENCES ........................................................................................................... 63
APPENDICES ............................................................................................................ 69
x
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE PAGE
Table 3.1: Study’s Accessible Population ................................................................... 26
Table 3.2: Data Collection Instruments ....................................................................... 33
Table 4.1: Scale Reliability Test .................................................................................. 41
Table 4.2: Joint-Planning in COCOBOD's SC Descriptive Statistics ......................... 43
Table 4.3: SC Descriptive Statistics for COCOBOD's Information Sharing .............. 45
Table 4.4: SC Descriptive Statistics for COCOBOD's Trust ....................................... 47
Table 4.5: SC Descriptive Statistics COCOBOD's Visibility ...................................... 49
Table 4.6: SC Descriptive Statistics for COCOBOD’s Perceived Supply Chain
Performance. .............................................................................................. 52
Table 4.7: Model Summary ......................................................................................... 53
Table 4.8: COCOBOD’s SC Predictive Power............................................................ 53
Table 4.9: Regression Model for COCOBOD’s SC .................................................... 54
Table 4.10: Recommendations for improved COCOBOD’s SCC............................... 56
xi
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE PAGE
Figure 2.1: Organization of Cocoa Industry in Ghana ................................................. 23
Figure 2.2: Conceptual Framework ............................................................................. 24
Figure 4.1: Respondent's Personal Profile (Gender) .................................................... 36
Figure 4.2: Respondent's Personal Profile (Age Distribution) .................................... 37
Figure 4.3: Respondent's Personal Profile (Levels of Education) ............................... 38
Figure 4.4: Respondent's Work Profile (Divisions/Subsidiaries) ................................ 39
Figure 4.5: Respondent's Work Profile (Position at COCOBOD) ............................... 40
Figure 4.6: Respondent's Work Profile (Work Duration) ............................................ 40
Figure 4.7: Levels of SC collaboration At COCOBOD .............................................. 51
xii
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
CMC Cocoa Marketing Companies
COCOBOD Cocoa Board
CRIG Cocoa Research Institute of Ghana
CSSVDCU Cocoa Swollen Shoot Virus Disease Control Unit
EPR Enterprise Planning Resource
GDP Gross Domestic Product
GNA Ghana News Agency
ISD Information Systems and Decision Sciences
IT Information Technology
KNUST Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology
LBC Licensed Buying Company
QCD Quality Control Division
SC Supply Chain
SCC Supply Chain Collaboration
SCM Supply Chain Management
SCOR Supply Chain Operations Reference
SPSS Statistical Package for Social Sciences
SPU Seed Production Unit
1
CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background
In today’s rapidly growing highly competitive business environment, it is difficult for
organizations to produce the final product and create value to the final consumers on
their own without the assistance of other organizations to streamline business
processes at the most optimal cost in order to achieve sustained competitive
advantage. Hence the reason for the existence of supply chain-a network of parties
which usually consist of supply chain practices such as purchasing, manufacturing,
distribution and retailing in some cases to achieve either responsiveness or efficiency
strategies or both in rare cases while adding value to the right consumers. The series
of organizations that interact to produce the final product, and create value until it
reaches the final consumer at the lowest possible cost is referred to as supply chain.
One of several empirical studies in the area of supply chain management (SCM) by
Kohli and Jensen, (2010) reveals that supply chain collaboration (SCC) started
gaining force during the early 1990 in the organizational milieu and is seen as an
impetus for the growth of supply chain performance. The concept of SCM has led to
two main concepts: collaboration and integration which are used interchangeably with
collaboration dynamics being the most important in improving operational
performance in supply chain (Chakraborty et al., 2014). In clarifying the difference, a
cross-sectional research over the past years have documented substantial advantages
of supply chain collaboration for the consumer, retailer, manufacturer and supplier
though their relationship sometimes pose challenges to operational performance and
growth of cocoa in the Ghanaian economy (Otchere et al., 2013). In the competitive
contemporary business arena, collaboration has become a prominent issue; and
2
effective collaboration offers supply chain partners the opportunity to improve
revenue, operate on the most optimal cost, the ability to respond quickly to fast
changing demand, helps supply chain partners to share risk and access complimentary
resources, improved quality service level, improved information sharing, shorter lead-
time, and improved customer satisfaction (Hudnurkar et al., 2014).
The impact of supply chain collaboration on operational performance in Cocoa Board
(COCOBOD) Ashanti region as the major supply chain player in the cocoa industry
cannot be over emphasized as the cocoa beans are farmed in the hinter lands by
farmers, dried and packaged in bags of similar sizes and weights. They are bought by
authorized Licensed Buying Companies (LBCs) on its behalf, warehoused and
shipped to the different ports such as Tema, Tarkoradi and Kumasi for onward
distribution (Cao, 2013). Cocoa has been the pillar in Ghana’s economy for several
years and accounted for approximately 10% to the country’s Gross Domestic Product
(GDP) and account for 25-30% of its total income from export ; it also contributes to
the Ghanaian economy an estimated one-third of all export revenues (Otchere et al.,
2013).
This study attempt to investigate the measurable impact of supply chain collaboration
on operational performance. Despite the prominent role and advantages gained by
COCOBOD through the implementation of supply chain collaboration in the Ghana’s
cocoa industry, it is worthwhile examining its operational performance even though
thorough survey needs to be carried out to justify it on a global scale (Kohli and
Jensen, 2010). Moreover, other scholars take it as a generic approach and it is
worthwhile understanding its specific needs though further investigation is required to
recognize its true value (Chakraborty et al., 2014).
3
1.2 Problem Statement
Cocoa is one of the major cash crop that prides Ghana’s agricultural potentials in
international trade. It’s economic value does not only account for approximately 25%
of annual foreign exchange earnings but also contribute to livelihoods sustainability
for cocoa farmers and other players in the value chain (Essegbey and Ofori-Gyamfi,
2012). As COCOBOD strives to improve and sustain competitive advantage in the
highly competitive global market environment, support from its external business
partners is very essential in order to fulfill customer’s increasing demand; supply
chain collaboration is the best concept to describe these practices where collaborative
members mutually agreed to implement planning, sharing information, trust, supply
chain visibility and other management processes to attain operational excellence
(Ralston, 2014).
Even though a wide array of scholarly works have been concluded to bridge several
gaps in the area of supply chain collaboration, however little have been adopted
practically by COCOBOD Ashanti region to harmonize the industry for an improved
operational performance. Lack of appropriate measures to handle request from
collaborative partners have had negative consequences on the overall lead time,
efficiency and value of products across the value chain. Also, lack of proper design of
new information technology infrastructures to address issues throughout the vastness
and scattered location of COCOBOD makes it difficult to retrieve, operate and
communicate data effectively and efficiently within and across the value chain.
Again, the business process design lack the capability to meet the fast changing
complex trading environment which prevent the seamless flow of products, services
and related information in timely manner (Muckstadt et al., 2001). Although some
aspects of collaboration could be perceived, the absence of a holistic and effective
4
collaboration is not visible because COCOBOD do not only strive to practice top
management commitment, performance appraisal, efficient and effective flow and
storage of information, but because supply chain partners in this sector are not willing
to manage the outcome of collaboration (Otchere et al., 2013). But successful
implementation of supply chain collaboration across the collaborative partners can
substantially improve operational performance where partners can achieve
collaborative advantages, operate at the most optimum total cost, reduces lead time
and inventory levels and improve an overall customer assessment of their services
(Cynthia, 2014).
Furthermore, the deplorable state of the primary supply chain partner is a call for
concern
“Cocoa farmers are the bedrock of our industry and yet they appear to be the most
vulnerable link in the value chain”(GNA, 2014).
Therefore, if nothing is done, the problem will persist and the impact of the current
level of supply chain collaboration on operational performance will continue to pull
the socio-economic development of Ghana and losing its pride of place in cocoa
production. This is a source of worry and concern to the collaborative process within
the chain members that need urgent attention. Hence, the reason this study sought to
bring to the knowledge of COCOBOD’s supply chain stakeholders, the impact of
effective and holistic collaboration have on their collective operational performance.
5
1.3 Research Objectives
1.3.1 General Objective
To investigate the measurable impact of supply chain collaboration on the
operational performance at the Ghana COCOBOD Ashanti region. But to
achieve this, the following were adopted as specific objectives:
1.3.2 Specific Objectives
To examine the effect of joint-planning of supply chain members on
operational performance in COCOBOD Ashanti region;
To determine the effect of information sharing on operational performance
in COCOBOD Ashanti region;
To evaluate the effect of trust on operational performance in COCOBOD
Ashanti region;
To investigate the level of supply chain visibility on operational
performance in COCOBOD Ashanti region.
1.4 Research Questions
To what extent can joint-planning within supply chain collaborators affect
operational performance in COCOBOD?
Can information sharing influence operational performance in the
COCOBOD?
What are the measurable impacts of trust on operational performance in
COCOBOD?
To what extent is visibility assessable across the supply chain have impact on
operational performance in COCOBOD?
6
1.5 Methodology
This section focuses on the research approach that was adopted for the study.
Research methodology is the methods, procedures and techniques used in an attempt
to discover what the study intends find out (Goni, 2011). The study used an inductive
approach in which theories were formulated after data collection so as to better
understand the nature of the problem the study seeks to resolve. The study employed
both primary and secondary sources of data collection techniques. Survey instruments
such as questionnaires and interviews were used as primary data collection technique,
while relevant books, theses, journals, newspapers, bulletins and other publications
were also used as secondary sources for collecting data. These instruments were
analyzed with Statistical Package for Social Sciences version 20 (SPSS), the results
were then exported to MS Word for interpretation.
1.6 Relevance of the Study/Justification
This research work does not only bring out the inadequacies on supply chain
collaboration and its impact on operational performance in Ashanti region of
COCOBOD, but also hope that its critical analysis will be useful in further scholarly
research because it will provide ample data and information that will be useful for
policy formulation, decision making, and improve collaborative partnership across the
value chain that will be benefited directly from the research.
The study will again trigger supply chain members to reorganize their entire
operational designs in order to outsource processes which are not within their
capabilities so that they can effectively collaborate and improve their operational
performance on their core business processes.
7
The findings and recommendations will also help the Ghanaian government and
international community sets out the frame work for boosting growth in the cocoa
industry through support, good governance and transparency.
1.7 Scope of the Study
This study has a coverage within supply chain collaborators in Ghana cocoa industry
Ashanti region. The time frame of the study will be between January and July, 2015
through a cross-sectional sample survey for assessing some employees of Ghana
COCOBOD Ashanti region. Data will be collected using questionnaires, interviews,
Focus Group and document analysis techniques.
1.8 Limitation
Among the several challenges the researcher went through in the course of the
research were the following:
Administrative bureaucracy experienced when the researcher submitted the letter of
introduction in order to gain access to information at COCOBOD Ashanti region took
almost three weeks as they needed approval from the head office in Accra. Hence, it
affected the quality of data collected.
Lack of satisfactory participation from top management personnel with grounded
knowledge and experience in the survey also affected the quality of data collected
because they would have provided first-hand information needed.
Further still, most of the employees who participated were field staffs with little or no
knowledge of the actual state of collaborative partnership.
Moreover, data collection was done simultaneously with field staff training at
COCOBOD house which makes it difficult for them to focus and provide real answers
8
to the survey questions, but rather just ticking to fill the boxes because limited time
was giving the researcher to administer questionnaire during the training sessions.
1.9 Organization of the Study
The study will be organized into five (5) chapters ensuring chapters are organized as
follows; chapter one presents the introduction which covers the background to the
study, statement of the problem, objectives, research questions, significance of the
study, scope, limitation and organization of the study. In chapter two we put into
perspective the relevant literature for the research. Chapter three presents the
researcher’s chosen methods and procedures adopted in collecting data and presenting
findings. Chapter four consists of data analyses and interpretation. The final chapter
outlines the summary, conclusions and recommendations of the study.
9
CHAPTER TWO
LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Introduction
This chapter reviews the relevant literature related to the impact of supply chain
collaboration on operational performance in Ghana Cocoa Board Ashanti region,
focusing on the specific objectives and research questions well-thought-out as the
main backbone of the study as outlined. For better understanding, supply chain
collaboration is operationally defined by employing joint-planning, information
sharing, supply chain visibility and trust to conceptualize the framework of the study.
These operational definitions though interrelated, are quite distinct; they have
different type of arguments and implications. And shall also be used to form the basis
for literature review. The study examine these parameters and integrate important
contributions from diverse authoritative perspectives. We therefore conclude that the
four aspects are mutually supportive to sustain an effective supply chain collaboration
to improve operational performance in the COCOBOD Ashanti region.
2.2 Supply Chain Collaboration
Thanks to SCM, many firms have now reorganized their entire operational designs in
order to outsource processes which are not within their capabilities so that they can
improve their operational performance on their core business processes. Vendor
Managed Inventory was the most practiced before the advent of collaboration during
the mid-1990s (Barratt, 2004). The author further explains one of the most difficult
questions in the area of supply chain management is whether firms should collaborate
with just every other firm; focusing relationship with relatively small number of firms
has the potential of yielding maximum collaborative advantage.
10
Contemporary collaboration between supply chain members is seen as an essential
measuring rod and a trigger behind any successful supply chain management;
collaborative effort is able to positively impact operational efficiency and
effectiveness when well implemented (Kohli and Jensen, 2010). Other school of
thoughts defined supply chain collaboration as a durable relationship where supply
chain members work in a synergy by implementing joint-planning, and related
information sharing in order to improve operational performance in a business setup
(Ralston, 2014). Again, authors like Kohli and Jensen, (2010) stated that supply chain
collaboration is defined as
“a win-win that is likely to provide improved business success for both parties”.
Another imperical study defines collaboration as a reciprocal act undertaken in a
buyer supplier relationship and focus on collaborative product and development
process (Muh, 2008). Other research findings perceived it as a process in supply chain
operations where several independent firms execute joint-planning in order to pursue
collective objectives and advantages (Hudnurkar et al., 2014). Morestill, Kohli and
Jensen, (2010) indicated that collaboration means two or more independent entities
involved in joint-planning to carry out supply chain activities. The above definitions
agree with each other that supply chain members requires joint-action, information
sharing, visibility and trust for an effective collaboration (Spekman et al., 2002).
But research findings by Corste and Felde, (2005) on the relationship between supply
chain collaboration and the innovative capability of the buyer and finacial
performance reveals that relationship with the high trust buyers experienced greater
innovative abilities than low trust buyers. Saunders, (2007) on the other hand found a
direct positive relationship between intra-organizational supply chain collaboration
11
and organizational performance in examining the role e-business technologies had on
intra and inter- organizational supply chain collaboration. The survey further reveals
inter-organizational collaboration is indirectly affected by operational perfomance
through intra-organizational collaboration. While a positive relationship was
establised in the survey of Rosenzweig, (2009) between electronic supply chain
collabration, the connection between suppliers and its downstream, it’s business and
operational performance.
Earlier studies used parameters such as decision synchronization, incentive alignment,
and information sharing to measure the effect of supply chain collaboration on firm’s
performance (Mathuramaytha, 2011). Also, Fawcette et al., (2008) indicated in their
empirical study that key target for implementing supply chain collaboration are top
management commitment, performance management, relationship management and
others, while research undertaken by Vlachos & Bourlakis, (2006) between the food
supply chain partners indicates that retailers considers information sharing,
distribution and commitment to be more important for effective collaboration despite
the fact that the issue of trust is a very critical factor for the manufacturer (Kohli and
Jensen, 2010). While suggesting that farmers as the primary supply chain members be
given substantial training in order to improve cocoa production in the industry’s value
chain, collaboration will gain multiplier effect when appropriate information
dissemination and trust across the chains are being implemented (Sarpong et al.,
2013).
For better understanding, supply chain collaboration is operationally defined by
employing joint-planning, information sharing, visibility and trust to model
conceptual framework of the study. These operational definitions though
12
interconnected, are quite distinct; they have different perspectives and implications.
And are also used to form the basis for literature review. We examine these
parameters and integrate important contributions from diverse authoritative
perspectives. We therefore concluded that these aspects are mutually supportive to
sustain an effective and efficient supply chain collaboration to improve firm’s
operational performance
2.3 Supply Chain Collaboration and Joint-planning
Among other important variables that determine supply chain collaboration, joint-
planning has the aptitude to significantly improve operational performance in a firm.
Though there are potentials for failure where appropriate planning and analysis are
not implemented. Hence, the saying
“when you fail to plan, therefore you plan to fail”.
The absence of goal congruence will result to team failure because collaboration
requires objective involvement within supply chain members. On the contrary, joint-
planning activities is expected to produce effective and efficient supply chains. Past
studies in supply chain alliance reveals that improved joint-planning has had positive
effect on business performance (Petersen et al., 2005). They also conceptualized joint-
planning as a mutual buyer-supplier decision processes that need assimilated flow of
information within the supply chain members (Petersen et al., 2005). For example,
cocoa farmers may inform the LBCs of their expected productivity same as LBCs
may inform COCOBOD of their capacity constraints (Jaya Krishna, 2011)
2.4 Supply Chain Collaboration and Information Sharing
Supply chain practices also involve the flow of information focusing on information
sharing within chain members with particular emphasis on the content and quality of
13
related information. While information sharing refers to the consistent flow of
information between the partners, quality information looks at the value of related
information shared between the different suppliers and customers. Sustained
collaboration and information sharing results to an all-encompassing long term
advantage on operational performance (Rashed et al., 2010). Connectivity and
willingness are both aspects in supply chain collaboration found out to be very critical
to positively impact operational performance and enhance the degree of information
sharing capability. The authors found out that heavy investment in information
technology is not sufficient to qualify information sharing but supply chain members
will achieve sustained effective operational performance only when management
teams decide to consistently invest on information technologies and choose the
appropriate information to share because technology is an appropriate parameter to
improve supply chain collaboration (Rashed et al., 2013). Also, the practice of
meaningful and relevant information sharing across the chains can significantly
improve supply chain visibility. Hence, improving operational performance in an
organization (Mora-Monge et al., 2010) and again cut down operational cost to a
substantial level (Hudnurkar et al., 2014). But will be a very big setback in a
collaborative setting when not well executed (Vanpoucke et al., 2009); even though
information sharing improves awareness within the supply chains, empirical research
established that when the right information is not shared with the right members at the
right time information sharing will have a very weak significant relationship between
the supplier and buyer (Rashed et al., 2010).
It is again indicated that business operations will experience steady improvements in
terms of flexibility, responsiveness and control by focusing on communication,
relationships management and knowledge should they be shared among supply chain
14
members and customers in real time (Kohli and Jensen, 2010). The authors
acknowledged three (3) important measures (operations information, marketing
information and systems of information sharing) of information sharing which impact
operational performance positively by reducing the bullwhip effect and supply chain
cost.
2.5 Supply Chain Collaboration and Trust
Like many other important supply chain collaborative determinants. Trust requires a
very strong commitment to bridge the relationship between members of the supply
chain and it is related with joint-planning, information sharing and can significantly
improve operational performance of a firm. Trust is the degree of belief and
confidence conferred upon a person or organization relying on the integrity of that
person or organization. The existence of trust is able to measure long term
relationships to prevail for sharing related information within the supply chain
members, it is an indication for building confidence and improving stakes in the
business environment (Sridharan and Simatupang, 2013). Supply chain members are
motivated to respect their roles and responsibilities when trust compliment other
determinants of supply chain collaboration but will not always be associated with
information sharing and joint planning (Talavera and Gloria, 2008). Trust is not
always advantageous. For supply chain members to adopt trust as a measure to
enforce collaboration, some of the consequences for its holistic implementation across the
chain members creates an unfavorable environment for business partners, it is very
unpredictable, it operates under circumstances of too much reliance on the stakeholders to the
chain members (Talavera, 2013). Other researchers have identified trust in supply chain
collaboration as cost and benefit, dynamic capabilities, technology and security
15
system. It can however be measured in terms of risk and uncertainty though can be
transformed back into trust when well managed (Mohammed Laeequddin, 2010).
Earlier research attempts to empirically confirm the correlation between trust and
commitment within the supply chains, the outcome of the study show that trust is
positively linked with asset specific investments and negatively linked with
behavioral uncertainty (Hudnurkar et al., 2014).
2.6 Supply Chain Collaboration and Supply Chain Visibility
Contemporary business environment is characterized by very stiff competition and
vulnerability. In order to have a competitive edge over others in the same industry,
robust strategies is required. No wonder competition is no longer between companies;
it is between supply chains. Hence, visibility of products, related information and
operational processes within supply chain are necessary benchmarks to improve
operational performance in a highly competitive business environment.
Many authors in their empirical research have attempted the definition of supply chain
visibility among which is described as building a chain of suppliers, manufacturers,
distributors and consumers in maximizing utility at the most optimal cost for the
entire supplier supply chain (Bartlett et al., 2007). The authors further cited Lee et al.
(1997) in their research findings who states that,
"The lack of accurate information can cause certain negative consequences such as
the 'bullwhip‐effect' in supply chains".
That is, lack of transparency creates difficulty in tracing the flow of products, services
and related information from upstream to downstream which can lead to distortion.
This erroneousness flow is very detrimental within the chain members and has a
16
negative multiplier effect on the overall cost to the supply chain. Other findings
suggested that supply chain visibility and information sharing cannot be used
interchangeably since both concepts have different meanings and has to be distinguish
since visibility is a consequence of information sharing which is an activity; they posit
that the outcome of visibility produces a more productive supply chain that will lead
to improved operational performance in a firm. These authors defined supply chain
visibility as
“the extent to which actors within a supply chain have access to or share information
which they consider as key or useful to their operations and which they consider will
be of mutual benefit” (Barratt and Oke, 2007).
Again, another research findings suggested a well-designed Supply Chain Operations
Reference (SCOR) model will improve supply chain visibility in a firm which are to
plan, source, make deliver, and to return (Melski et al., 2008). Implementing the
Supply SCOR model shall go a long way to improve supply chain collaboration on
operational performance in COCOBOD Ashanti region and will have a positive
impact in the entire cocoa industry in Ghana.
2.7 Moderating Effects of Supply Chain collaboration
Moderating effects are variable factors that have a robust relationship between the
independent and dependent variables and can moderate them to give a resulting effect
on the dependent variable(s). A relationship is established between supply chain
collaboration and operational performance by introducing moderating effect factors
that determine the level of positive or negative impact on operational performance.
17
2.7.1 Supply Chain collaboration and Organizational Culture
Organizational culture is one of the factors among others that has a very strong impact
on supply chain collaboration of firm performance. That is, by synchronizing the
efficient and effective movement and storage of goods, services, and related
information across the supply chain even though only a hand few of research
concentrated on organizational culture effectively influencing supply chain integration
(Yunus and Tadisina, 2010). Further, extensive research established that to achieve
operational performance, organizational culture context is an important variable factor
to be considered (Cadden et al., 2013). Considering previous research findings as
cited above, the holistic implementation of organizational culture by COCOBOD in
Ashanti region can proliferate the level of supply chain collaboration on operational
performance in the cocoa industry.
2.7.2 Supply Chain Collaboration and Information Technology Infrastructure
Information technology like other supply chain drivers is a very significant trigger to
the improvement of supply chain collaboration on operational performance of a firm.
Information technology provides the platform for technical and organizational
capabilities if information technology resources are to be shared across the supply
chain members in order to reinforce resource allocation and decision making. Today,
appropriate information technological infrastructure provides the prospects for
efficient and effective flow and storage of related information across the supply chain
to fulfil timely customer request in order to achieve strategic fit (Jaana Auramo et al).
Though the tangible usage and reasons for information technology is still very
uncertain, other empirical study revealed that the use of improved computer-based
software such as the enterprise planning resource (EPR) can significantly improve
operational performance in an uncertain business environment and minimizes
18
information asymmetry and total transaction cost across the supply chains (Welty and
Becerra-Fernandez, 2001). Hence, the reason for undertaken the research study to
improve the information technology structure of COCOBOD in Ashanti region.
2.7.3 Supply Chain Collaboration and Management Commitment
Much has been said and practiced about how management commitment significantly
optimize operational performance of a firm in an uncertain business environment,
even though mutual consent is a prerequisite among the supply chain partners (Welty
and Becerra-Fernandez, 2001). The successful implementation of a holistic
management commitment can improve the relationship between COCOBOD’s
collaborative supply chain and operational performance.
2.8 Assessing Operational Performance
Operational performance in any sector is very essential even though sometimes
difficult to fairly appreciate without consistent evaluation; and depends on several
determinants all with the main goal of achieving stakeholder’s requirements. Earlier
studies indicated that one of the major goals for any effective supply chain
management is to differentiate itself in a competitive market environment by
operating at an optimal cost and greater profit (Lenny Koh et al., 2007). This study
examines three dimensions of operational performance which may be applicable to
the COCOBOD Ashanti region which are effectiveness, efficiency and profitability as
indicators to satisfy stakeholder’s requirements. Supply chain collaboration will
definitely have a significant impact on operational performance should the processes
be streamlined, and efforts made to discard indolence and improve concerted efforts
within the supply chains to give value to productivity.
19
2.8.1 Effectiveness
Effectiveness is one of the parameters used to measure operational performance of a
firm. According to Kohli and Jensen, (2010), how well resources are utilized for
productive uses determines operational effectiveness while the level of goal
congruence in enhancing customer orientations and profitability of a firm is described
as overall effectiveness. Total synchronization of the entire supply chain partners is
needed to implement effectiveness as a tool to be used to target the right market
segments and thrive sustained competitive advantage in order to evaluate performance
measurement.
2.8.2 Efficiency
Efficiency refers to the ratio of input of resources to a corresponding output from it.
As another parameter to measure operational performance of a firm, supply chain
partners have to be very cost-oriented in satisfying customer request in the most
appropriate manner. Efficiency is used as an internal tool to assess the performance
and allocate resources in order to get the most optimum output.
2.8.3 Profitability
Profitability in any business venture is all what is left from the revenue generated after
all expenses must have been made. Profitability can be improved either by adopting
price-based strategies such as low pricing, differentiation, and non-price-based
strategies such as the implementation of customer service to boost sales and maintain
loyal customers. Further, supply chain partners can achieve profitability while
satisfying the customer request at a minimal cost through considerable understanding
and implementing economies of scale.
20
2.8.4 Collaborative Advantage
Collaborative advantage refers to the situation where through effective supply chain
collaboration something is achieved that could not have been achieved without
collaboration. It can also be translated as an overall competitive advantage gained in a
very high competitive business environment as a result of improved collaborative
partnership (Cao and Zhang, 2011). The authors further stated that the implementation
of effective and sustainable collaborative partnership will result to better management
and commitment of upstream and downstream across the supply chain, shorter lead
time, shared risk, improved operational performance and profitability for the entire
supply chain members.
2.9 Supply Chain Members in the Ghana Cocoa Industry
Diverse players operates within the Ghana cocoa industry. They consist of the cocoa
farmers considered as the primary supplier, the Licensed Buying Companies (LBCs),
Haulage companies, and the Ghana Cocoa Board (COCOBOD) as members of the
supply chain in the cocoa industry in Ghana. The government is one of the main
stakeholder ably represented within the chains by COCOBOD assigned as the
regulatory agent to oversee the effective and efficient production and marketing of
cocoa in Ghana. The cocoa farmers produce and sell cocoa to the LBCs who buy at
the farm and transport to COCOBOD through Haulage companies (Cao, 2013). The
cumulative roles, functions and relationship of the different players in the value chain
have a significant impact in the Ghana cocoa industry.
2.9.1 The Cocoa Farmer
Like in many other cocoa producing countries, farmers are the primary source of
cocoa production within the value chain of the cocoa industry in Ghana. It takes
21
approximately five months for the cocoa fruit to grow under rigorous and meticulous
management mechanisms to guard against diseases and pest (Adamu Nbabuine,
2012). The Seed Production Unit (SPU) was created as a result of some of the
challenges faced by cocoa farmers such as low yield that affected them at the time.
Their primary responsibility was to learn extensive support through developing hybrid
seed pods, all-year-round- yield seedlings, techniques in controlling diseases and
provide training services to cocoa farmers throughout the cocoa producing regions in
the country (ABRAMPAH, 2009).
2.9.2 Licensed Buying Companies (LBCs)
These are registered marketing companies under Ghana laws given the license to
purchase cocoa from farmers for COCOBOD (Adamu Nbabuine, 2012) . The difficult
role played by the LBCs within the chains to make the produce available downstream
cannot be over emphasized as they go through stiff market competition to provide
quality cocoa beans to COCOBOD according to the “Regulations and Guidelines for
the Privatization of the Internal Marketing of Cocoa” (Essegbey and Ofori-Gyamfi,
2012). They buy cocoa from the farmers and ensure specified quality standards are
met before they transport in sealed export sacks to the various ports of Tema,
Tarkoradi, and Kumasi for onward distribution (ABRAMPAH, 2009).
2.9.3 Cocoa Board (COCOBOD) and Ashanti Regional Office
It was created by the government to oversee the holistic activities of cocoa production
and actors of the cocoa industry in Ghana in order to carry on research, produce and
market quality cocoa within and without Ghana. It is the major agent that control the
industry on behalf of the government (Adamu Nbabuine, 2012). This central function
are categorized into two main segments; before the harvest and after the harvest
22
which are implemented by the following subsidiaries and divisions that make up the
Cocoa Board in the Ashanti region.
2.9.4 Cocoa Research Institute of Ghana (CRIG)
Its main function is to:
"CRIG will be a centre of excellence for developing sustainable, demand driven,
commercially oriented, cost-effective, socially and environmentally acceptable
technologies which will enable stakeholders to realize the overall vision of the cocoa
industry and that of the other mandated crops (Coffee, Shea, Kola and Cashew)”
(www.cocobod.gh, 2015).
It carries out this function basically to improve favorable ecologically responsive
economic returns conditions and yields for farmers through excellent gardening
practices and technologies.
2.9.5 Seed Production Unit (SPU)
The main operation for this division is to ensure well organized and in the most cost-
effective manner the sustainable allocation of sufficient quantities of improved quality
planting materials in the form of cocoa pods and seedlings (www.cocobod.gh, 2015).
The seed production unit was formed to overcome the difficulties of low productivity
to afflicted cocoa farmers at the time.
2.9.6 Cocoa Health and Extension Division (CHED)
This subsidiary division of the COCOBOD has as tasks to initiate technical
programmes that treat, revives die-out cocoa farms, execute constant re-inspection
and assist farmers to replant better-quality hybrid varieties of cocoa. Again, as part of
their rehabilitation programmes, cocoa farmers are trained on improved agric-business
23
operations and livelihoods sustainability through their Bunso Cocoa College
(www.cocobod.gh, 2015).
2.9.7 Quality Control Company (QCC)
The vision of the quality control company is
“to become the leading experts in produce and products quality and disinfestations
services in the West Africa sub region”.
The main task or operations of the quality control company is to implement various
activities that provide efficient and effective strategies of supplying at the national and
global market the best grade cocoa of international standard (www.cocobod.gh,
2015).
2.9.8 Cocoa Marketing Companies (CMC)
This value chain member also under the supervision of COCOBOD has the
responsibility to receive cocoa in tight sealed bags with tags from the LBCs,
warehoused and prepare them for shipment both locally and abroad (Adamu
Nbabuine, 2012).
Figure 2.1: Organization of Cocoa Industry in Ghana
Source: (Cao, 2013).
24
2.10 Conceptual Framework
As the old adage says, “It’s not what you know, but what you can remember when
you need it.” The conceptual framework is insufficient to explain relevant details of
the study (Hugos, 2011).
Figure 2.2: Conceptual Framework
Source: (Modified, 2015)
Supply Chain Collaboration
Joint-Planning
Demand Forecast
Capacity Planning
Transportation Planning
Information Sharing
Design of Information
Systems
Operational Information
Marketing Information
Trust
Credibility
Benevolence
Reliance
Operational Performance
Organizational
Culture
I.T
Infrastructure
Management
Commitment
Supply Chain Visibility
Product Tracing
Transparent Information
Operational Sequences
Moderating
Effects Effectiveness
Improved Service Quality
Improved Sales
Improved Profit
Efficiency
Employees Knowledge
& Skills
Reduced Cost
Reduced Lead Time
Profitability
Market Share
Improved Sale
Competitive Advantage
Collaborative Advantage
Delivery Reliability
Improved Demand
Improved Performance
25
CHAPTER THREE
METHODOLOGY
3.0 Introduction
This section focuses on the research approach that were adopted for the study.
Research methodology is the methods, measures and techniques used in an attempt to
determine what the study aim to achieve (Goni, 2011). To determine the clarity of
every research from the start determines whether the study should employ deductive
approach that is; were the researcher states theories and hypotheses then design a
technique to test the hypotheses or an inductive approach were data is collected and
the researcher develops theories from analyzing the data collected (Saunders et al.,
2011). This study makes use of the inductive approach in which theories will be
formulated after data collection so as to better understand the nature of the problem
the study seeks to resolve. Research methodology consist of research design, data
instruments used, sampling and data analysis techniques. These parameters shall be
described and analyzed to achieve the objective of the study.
3.1 Research Design
A research design is a well-structured plan and investigative strategy conceived to
obtain answers to research questions and to control variances (ABRAMPAH, 2009).
Also in this study design, a survey strategy for the study were conducted in order to
make inference to the study’s target population by using both the quantitative and
qualitative approaches. Survey design is a suitable research strategy for this study
because it uses smaller samples to get better understanding of an in-depth analysis
about the opinions and practices of the impact of supply chain collaboration on
operational performance in the Ghana cocoa industry, Ashanti regional office.
26
The purpose for using survey design strategy is providing numeric description of
some part of the chosen population under study. Using survey makes the data
collection fast and gives understanding of the population from part of it. Data used
through instruments was analyzed with Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS)
version 20, the results were exported to MS Word for interpretation.
3.2 Target Population
The study was conducted in the Ghana cocoa industry targeting the Cocoa Board
(COCOBOD), the regional office and subsidiary units in the Ashanti region with
headquarters in Kumasi. This served as the accessible population in order to draw the
sample because the entire population is too large and scattered making it too difficult
to draw a sample from the whole. This accessible population was chosen for their
strategic role played within the supply chains.
3.2.1 Accessible Population
Table 3.1: Study’s Accessible Population
COCOBOD Location No Staff Strength
Seed Production Unit (SPU) Kumasi 1 4
Cocoa Health and Extension
Division
Kumasi 11 Districts 470
Quality Control Company Kumasi 15 Districts 166
Cocoa Marketing Company
(CMC)
Kumasi 1 District 214
TOTAL 29 854
Source: Field Data, 2015
27
3.3 Sample Size
A sample means selecting a part or portion of the accessible population in order to
draw inferences from a small amount of data needed to generalize the entire
population. The study adopted survey design technique where it becomes very
difficult to consider all the elements in the entire population because of some
constraints such as time frame for the study, the means to finance data collection and
the scattered nature of Ghana COCOBOD Ashanti region. Therefore selecting an
appropriate sample size was an important consideration so that the study is able to
satisfy its objectives or answer its research questions (Saunders et al., 2011). The
sample this research focused on are selected staffs as key informants based on the
relevant technical, operational and functional capabilities because the study believes
their output can influence the value chain members by producing high level of
accuracy and reduce the margin of error.
There are two (2) types of sampling: the probability and non-probability sampling.
The non-probability is fast, easy, very economical and the sample is representative of
the entire population; while the probability sampling is constructed on chance, time
consuming and more expensive than non-probability sampling (Franklin and Walker,
2003). The non-probability sampling is appropriate and was adopted for this study
because it will allow us to meet up with the time and budgetary constraints.
A sample size calculator was used from the Creative Research Systems survey
software that enable the researcher to determine the sample size of 265 that is required
to draw inferences needed to generalize the entire accessible population of 854
population (staff strength) using 95% confidence level and 5% interval
(http://www.surveysystem.com/sscalc.htm, 2012).
28
This sample size is adopted for their heterogynous nature of the population to reflect
the vastness and how scattered COCOBOD is and also their important role will
provide tangible information to contribute to knowledge.
3.4 Sampling Techniques
Budgetary constraints and sometimes access to timely information from COCOBOD
may hinder or slow data collection and analysis. Sampling techniques offers
possibilities to vary data collection in stratum than considering the sample frame
(Saunders et al., 2011). Again, stratified sampling, purposive and convenience
sampling techniques were adopted for the study.
3.4.1 Stratified sampling
This technique aided the study to locate the different subsidiary divisions of
COCOBOD, their sizes and select from each to form a sample. It was suited for the
study because it facilitates the grouping of the population into homogenous category
that share similar attributes. It ensures equal representation of each; it is justified
because it ensures all divisions players identified in the study are proportionately
represented.
3.4.2 Purposive sample
This technique permits us to consciously decide which subsidiary division to include
in the sample. The purpose for adopting the technique is to collect focused
information. We are using it in our work because it helps us to select representative
and relevant information from employees useful to our study only.
3.4.3 Convenience sampling method
This method selects on the basis of those who was available during the gathering of
data. It was used adopted because it was difficult to determine the sampling frame; it
29
was justified by taking advantage of those who happen to be there at the time of data
collection.
3.5 Sources of Data Collection
The study employs both primary and secondary sources of data collection techniques.
Survey instruments such as questionnaires and interviews, were used as primary data
collection technique, while relevant books, theses, journals, newspapers, bulletins and
other publications were also used as secondary sources for collecting data relevant to
the study.
The selection of these tools have been guided by the objectives of the study and
research questions, nature of data to be collected, as well as the time available was
taking into consideration. Careful planning through the use of well-designed guides
have been made for each of the instruments mentioned below.
3.5.1 Primary Source
The primary data for this research made use of questionnaires because the study deals
with some variable that cannot be directly observed such as the perception and
opinions of the respondents. It was also complimented with interview to better
understand the problems of the study and find possible solutions to address the
problem. The use of questionnaires involve techniques of data collection where
respondents are asked to respond to the same questions in an orderly manner
(Saunders et al., 2011). The use of questionnaires in this study was adopted in order to
collect large amount of data within a short period. The advantage of using
questionnaire enables us to generate large size of data within short time and giving
credibility to the study by making the respondents anonymous. Self-administered
questionnaires was designed and answers expected according to the questions.
30
Semi-structured interview was also employed where an interview guide with a list of
questions were designed as a follow up of the questionnaires in order to cover areas
where questionnaires couldn’t to meet the objective or research questions of the study.
Confidentiality was a very important ethical consideration to us were respondents
were told that their responses would be kept confidential. This was done to ensure that
the respondents honestly answered and communicated their opinions and perceptions
to the questionnaire.
3.5.2 Questionnaire Design
A 25- survey designed questions was designed to investigate the measurable impact of
supply chain collaboration on the operational performance at the Ghana COCOBOD,
Ashanti Region. The first set of questions aimed at getting the demographic nature of
the respondent. The next sections dealt with aspects of joint-planning, information
sharing, trust, and supply chain visibility respectively. The final sector probed into
issues of the overall evaluation of the supply chain activities and later operational
performance that the study suggests can be affected by supply chain collaboration.
The sources of survey questions were adopted from existing literature to
operationalize the independent and dependent variables. In designing the
questionnaire, the study employed the use of Likert scale questions for clarity, better
understanding and neatness.
3.5.3 Pretesting of Questionnaires
To determine the effectiveness of the questionnaire, it was necessary to pretest it
using focus group and some selected technical staffs at the Ghana COCOBOD
Ashanti regional office before actually administering it. It also helped us determine
the strength and weaknesses of the survey concerning the questions format, wording
31
and order; where respondents were asked to explain reactions to question form,
wording and order (Participating pretest); this approach helped the researcher to
determine whether the questionnaire was understandable.
3.5.4 Data Acquisition
A letter of introduction was sought from the department of Information Systems and
Decision Sciences in the KNUST School of Business for COCOBOD to grant access
to the researcher collect data from their institution, an approval was finally granted
from the head office in Accra after three weeks of administrative procedures of which
two weeks was used to collect data. It is normal during survey to have some missing
information, but the researcher took measures to clarify ambiguous terms so that all
questions were answered by the respondents except those who forgot to submit their
survey questionnaire at the end of the training seminar. A thank you message was
given to all the human resource officers in the different divisions and subsidiaries who
facilitated data collection. Out of 265 staffs selected as sample size from 854
population of study (staff strength), 240 responses were received giving a response
rate of 90.5%. This high response rate was made possible through explaining the
benefits of the study to COCOBOD such as the analyzed data can be used for policy
formulation, decision making, and improve collaborative partnership across the value
chain that will be benefited directly from the research. It will again improve their
operational performance on their core business processes, the time laps to fill the
questionnaire was relatively short due to explanation of technical terminologies used
in the questionnaire by the researcher and the need for ethical consideration. Some
were not received was due to work pressure from the respondents at the various
divisions and subsidiaries that restrain the full participation and some few respondents
were more focused on their regular staff training; the researcher also used the
32
advantage of staff training going on simultaneously with data collection and many
respondents wanted the researcher to fill the questionnaire for them which he did.
3.5.4 Ethical Considerations
A letter of introduction was sought from the head of department of Information
Systems and Decision Sciences (ISD), Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and
Technology (KNUST) School of Business addressed to the management of Ghana
COCOBOD for data to be collected. We pledged to keep the responses anonymous
and confidential; the contribution by responding to the questionnaire will go a long
way to improving COCOBOD in the Ashanti region and making sure keeping the
length of the interviews short so each could be completed in an average of 20
minutes or less.
3.5.5 Secondary Source
Secondary sources were employed to give a holistic or a portion to the answer to the
study objectives. The researcher also consulted secondary data that have already been
collected through journals, theses, books, documentary data and other materials
relevant to the study. This was done in order to review issues around the study area
that have developed over time. The advantage is to get in-depth information from
diverse sources and the disadvantage is, being consistent with so much available
materials.
33
3.6 Data Collection Instruments
Table 3.2 Data Collection Instruments
COCOBOD Data Instruments
Seed Production Unit (SPU) Questionnaires/Interview
Cocoa Health and Extension Division Questionnaires/Interview
Quality Control Company Questionnaires/Interview
Cocoa Marketing Company (CMC) Questionnaires/Interview
Source: Field Data, 2015
3.7 Data Analysis
Meticulous measures were taken immediately after data collection to cross-check in
order to avoid errors and later on correct minor mistakes assuming the likelihood that
the missing gaps would have been the possible answer (Brettel and Voss, 2013). To
demonstrate how the data was analyzed, descriptive analysis, a scale reliability test
and multiple linear regression analyses were used in analyzing and reporting findings,
draw conclusions and recommendations made from research results. The data
collected was grouped, numbered, coded and analyzed with the use of Statistical
Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) version 20 software according to the study
objectives and research questions. Visual display such as tables was used to
demonstrate frequencies and percentages of every variable under study. The data was
then transferred to Microsoft Word (MS WORD) for interpretation.
3.8 Organizational Profile of Ghana Cocoa Board and Ashanti Regional Office
It was created by the government to oversee the holistic activities of cocoa production
and actors of the cocoa industry in Ghana in order to carry on research, produce and
market quality cocoa within and without Ghana. She performs her main functions in
two broad phases; Pre-harvest sector which are carried out by the Cocoa Research
34
Institute of Ghana (CRIG), the Seed Production Unit (SPU) and the Cocoa Swollen
Shoot Virus Disease Control Unit (CSSVDCU) deal with important operations on
specific cocoa production with basic collaborative partners at the farm gate. And
operations post-harvest sector which are carried out by the Quality Control Division
(QCD) and the Cocoa Marketing Company (CMC) Limited who facilitate the
warehousing, marketing and export of cocoa to the her customers (www.cocobod.gh,
2015).
The above mentioned subsidiaries that perform the pre and post harvest functions
constitute the Ashanti regional office with headquaters in kumasi.
35
CHAPTER FOUR
DATA ANALYSIS, PRESENTATION AND DISCUSSION OF FINDINGS
4.0 Introduction
This chapter presents summaries of the data collected by the study carried out on the
impact of supply chain collaboration on operational performance in the COCOBOD
Ashanti region of Ghana. Data summaries are subjected to analysis, interpretation and
blended to conclude and make appropriate recommendations in the subsequent
chapter. The analysis was done with the aid of SPSS version twenty to present the
findings using descriptive statistics such as frequencies, mean and standard deviation
in the form of tables, figures, percentages and descriptive statements in order to draw
inferences from them according to particular questions on the questionnaire as per the
objectives and research questions set for the study. Out of 265 staffs selected as
sample size, from 854 population of study (staff strength), 240 responses were
received giving a response rate of 90.5%. The research survey also adopted a multiple
linear regression analysis to report how well joint-planning, information sharing, trust
and supply chain visibility can predict operational performance in COCOBOD.
The analysis were run under five different headings. That is, analyzing the
demographic nature of the respondents, the perceptions of the four concept that were
used as the operational definition of supply chain collaboration (joint-planning,
information sharing, trust and supply chain visibility) as provided by the following
tables below and that of supply chain management performance to rate the operational
performance of COCOBOD.
36
4.1 Demographics
This section presents the demographic information of respondents. This is to help the
researcher know the background of the respondents to judge whether their responses
obtained were from the right informants. The section is presented in two; the first
being the summary of information on respondents personal profile (i.e. respondents’
gender, age and educational attainment); and the second part presents respondents’
work profile within the case organization.
Figure 4.1 Respondent's Personal Profile (Gender)
Source: Field Data, 2015.
This study focused on investigating from the staffs who were both male and female of
Ghana COCOBOD Ashanti region, the impact of supply chain collaboration on
operational performance in the cocoa industry. From figure 1 above, the findings
indicated that there are more male (64.2%) than female (37%) giving a total of 240
respondents. The analysis revealed that more males were field workers probably
because of the job requires more time, efforts, and heavy duty job.
37
Figure 4.2 Respondent's Personal Profile (Age Distribution)
Source: Field Data, 2015.
The statistics presented in figure 4.2 above shows that there are more employees
within the age group 18-30 years, with 34% while the least were in 50 years and
above bracket making 14%. However, this suggests that while there were more
younger people that constitute the staff strength of Ghana COCOBD Ashanti region,
the greater part of the staff strength (31-40 to 50 years and above) forms the highest
majority who are able to guide young employees, because they have the experience
and expertise required to provide tangible information of the study.
38
Figure 4.3 Respondent's Personal Profile (Levels of Education)
Source: Field Data, 2015.
Furthermore, figure 4.3 indicates that staffs with bachelor’s degree dominated the
respondents received with a 49% and the least were master’s degree holder,
constituting 11%. However, both degree holders possess the highest percentage
indicating that they are more familiar to the subject matter and can better appreciate
the importance of the study.
The second segment of demographics presents the work profile of respondents. The
essence of this is to demonstrate the respondents’ capacity to provide reliable and
accurate responses to support the study by virtue of their experience, and task/position
in COCOBOD.
Form the employees’ work profile, respondents were fairly selected from among at
least four units of COCOBOD in the Ashanti region so that responses would not be
biased. Also, having most of the respondents occupying managerial and technical
39
positions, respondents for the study are in capacity to give reliable information for the
study. Finally, in spite of the fact that 22.1% of respondents had less than a year
working experience with the company, the remaining respondents have had a
considerable years of working experience enough to provide valid information for the
course of the current study.
Figure 4.4 Respondent's Work Profile (Divisions/Subsidiaries)
Source: Field Data, 2015.
Figure 4.4 shows that majority of the respondents were from the cocoa health and
extension division (43%), followed by staff from Quality Control Unit (30%). 15%
and 9% of respondents were from the cocoa marketing company and regional office
respectively, while the least were staffs from seed production unit (SPU) having 3%.
This small numerical strength from SPU were staffs at the regional office and they are
in the process of setting up branches in the districts.
40
Figure 4.5 Respondent's Work Profile (Position at COCOBOD)
Source: Field work (2015)
Respondents’ position profile from figure 4.5 indicated that, the majority were
technical staff (38%), followed by middle management staff (35%), and management
staff (17%). Contract workers and others (not specified) constituted the least in
number, representing 4% and 6% of total respondents.
Figure 4.6: Respondent's Work Profile (Work Duration)
Source: Field Data, 2015.
41
In terms of years of working experience with COCOBOD, respondents experience
were fairly distributed. While a majority (27%) had from 2-5 years of experience, it
was followed by 27% for those hove worked for 10 years and above with
COCOBOD. 24.2% of respondents have 6 to 10 years working experience, while the
minority 22% had less than a year working experience.
4.3 Scale Reliability Test
This section of the study presents a reliability test on the survey instrument used for
the study to test the consistency of each measurement in measuring what the
researcher intended. Reliability test results are presented in Table 4.1, and followed
by interpretations.
Table 4.1: Scale Reliability Test
Measures of SC
collaboration
Upstream/Downstream
Supply Chain
Number
of Items
Cronbach's Alpha
(a>=.7 preferred)
Joint-planning Upstream 6 0.840
Downstream 4 0.858
Information
Sharing
Upstream 6 0.895
Downstream 4 0.865
Trust Upstream 4 0.888
Downstream 4 0.905
Visibility Upstream 4 0.932
Downstream 2 0.907
Source: Field Work (2015)
42
A scale reliability test was performed using SPSS version 20 to find out the degree to
which the essential concepts used are measurable and consistent. Cronbach’s alpha
coefficient is one of the most appropriate parameter for measuring scale reliability test
whose value should be a minimum of .7 for it to be consistent and relevant (Pallant,
2007).
The reliability test performed produced the four main measurements (eight when
looking at the downstream and upstream separately) yielded minimum Cronbach’s
alpha coefficients of 0.84 and a maximum value of 0.932 indicating that the concepts
employed (joint-planning, information sharing, trust and supply chain visibility) both
in the upstream and downstream parts of the supply chain were, each, consistent and
relevant in measuring what the researcher intended each measure for. There was no
relevance to delete any of the items in each of the measures since it would not amount
to any improvement in the alpha values.
43
4.4 Descriptive statistics
4.4.1 Joint-Planning in COCOBOD’s SC
Table 4.2: Joint-Planning in COCOBOD's SC Descriptive Statistics
Upstream joint-planning N Mean Std. Deviation
Development of Demand forecast & capacity planning 240 3.84 .823
Production Planning & inventory management 240 3.85 .852
Transportation & Lead Time 240 3.85 .745
Material/Recourse Planning 240 3.96 .767
Product Quality 240 4.02 .928
Rapid response in order processing 240 3.85 .954
Total Average 240 3.8938 .63226
Valid N (listwise) 240
Downstream Joint-planning N Mean Std. Deviation
Development of Demand forecast & Capacity
planning
238 3.81 .911
Transportation & Lead Time 240 3.93 .860
Product Quality 240 4.10 .893
Rapid response in order processing 240 3.89 .894
Total Average 238 3.9349 .74627
Valid N (listwise) 238
Variable weights: 1=Strongly Disagree, 2 = Disagree, 3 = Neither Agree nor Disagree, 4 =
Agree, and 5= Strongly Agree.
Source: Field Work (2015)
44
The output above shows an investigative set of questions on joint-planning that were
used as one of the operational concepts of supply chain collaboration were designed
through a Likert scale method to verify the extent to which the respondents agree to
the implementation of joint-planning through descriptive analysis as seen in Table
4.2. The table also contain important survey questions that summarieses joint-
planning both in the upstream and downstream part of supply chain in Ghana
COCOBOD Ashanti region.
From the upstream part of the SC, out of a total of 240 respondents, development of
demand forecast and capacity planning reveals the lowest mean of 3.84 which
probably indicates that there is low mutual collaborative planning at the upstream part
of COCOBOD’s supply chain while product quality indicated 4.02 which may
suggest they place more emphasis on quality with their collaborative partners at the
upstream part of supply chain. The total average of 3.9 hovers around “Neither Agree
nor Disagree” and “Agree” which suggests the respondents nearly agree to the
implementation of joint-planning.
At the downstream part of SC, development of demand forecast & capacity planning
recorded the lowest mean of 3.81 suggesting low level of joint-planning with their
downstream collaborative partners and product quality recorded the highest mean of
4.10 indicating they place priorities on quality as well in the downstream. The total
average of 3.93 hovers around “Neither Agree nor Disagree” and “Agree” which
suggest the respondents agree to the implementation of joint-planning. this findings
agree with earlier research which indicated that, conceptualized joint-planning as a
mutual buyer-supplier decision processes that need assimilated flow of information
within the supply chain members (Petersen et al., 2005).
45
4.4.2 Information Sharing in COCOBOD’s SC
Table 4.3: SC Descriptive Statistics for COCOBOD's Information Sharing
Upstream Information sharing N Mean Std. Deviation
Demand forecast & Capacity utilization rate 240 3.33 .992
Order tracking data & Material requirements 240 3.40 .997
Transportation & Lead Time 237 3.23 .969
Market trends & Lead Time 240 3.42 1.095
Product Quality & Customer Preferences 240 3.55 1.009
Rapid response in order processing 240 3.31 1.073
Total Average 237 3.3727 .83268
Valid N (listwise) 237
Downstream Information Sharing N Mean Std. Deviation
Production information with customers 240 3.50 .933
Transportation & Lead Time 240 3.48 .910
Product Quality & Customer Preferences 240 3.58 1.044
Rapid response in order processing 240 3.63 .946
Total Average 240 3.5469 .80962
Valid N (listwise) 240
Variable weights: 1=Do not exchange, 2 = Exchange rarely, 3 = Exchange sometimes, 4 =
Exchange frequently, and 5= Exchange Extensively.
Source: Field Work (2015)
46
The results above from Table 4.3 shows an analytical set of questions on information
sharing that were used as another operational concepts employed to describe supply
chain collaboration which were designed through a Likert scale method to verify the
extent to which the respondents agree information is exchanged through descriptive
analysis. The table also contain important survey questions that summarizes
information sharing both in the upstream and downstream part of supply chain in
COCOBOD Ashanti region.
From the upstream part of the SC out of a total of 240 respondents, transportation and
lead time reveals the lowest mean of 3.23 which probably indicates that information is
exchanged sometimes at the upstream part of COCOBOD’s supply chain while
product quality and customer preferences indicated the mean score of 3.55 which may
suggest they place more emphasis on quality and customer preferences with their
collaborative partners at the upstream part of supply chain. The total average of 3.37
hovers around “Exchange sometimes” and “Exchange frequently” which suggest the
respondents agree to the fact that there is some considerable form of information
sharing with the value chain at the upstream part of supply chain.
At the downstream part of SC, Transportation & Lead Time had the lowest mean
score of 3.48 suggesting low level of exchanging information with downstream
collaborative partners and Rapid response in order processing recorded the highest
mean score of 3.63 indicating that they place priorities on processing customer
demands quickly in the downstream as well. The total average of 3.54 hovers around
“Exchange sometimes” and “Exchange frequently” which suggest the respondents
agree to the fact that there is some considerable form of information sharing. This
agree with existing literature that sustained collaboration and information sharing
47
results to an all-encompassing long term advantage on operational performance
(Rashed et al., 2010).
4.4.3 Trust in COCOBOD’s SC
Table 4.4: SC Descriptive Statistics for COCOBOD's Trust
Upstream Trust N Mean Std. Deviation
Confidence level 240 2.42 .916
Associate information sharing with trust 240 2.60 .842
Associate joint-planning with trust 240 2.63 .928
Keeping promises 240 2.67 .962
Total Average 240 2.5813 .79002
Valid N (listwise) 240
Downstream Trust N Mean Std. Deviation
Keeping promises 240 2.67 .962
Associate information sharing with trust 240 2.64 .909
Product Quality 240 2.54 .946
Order Processing 240 2.70 .968
Total Average 240 2.6375 .83519
Valid N (listwise) 240
Variable weights: 1=Very low, 2 = Low, 3 = Moderate, 4 = High, and 5= Very high.
Source: Field Work (2015)
The outcomes of the survey above as seen in Table 4.4 shows an analytical set of
questions on trust that were used as another operational definition used to describe
supply chain collaboration which were designed through a Likert scale method to
verify the extent to which the respondents agree they experienced the usage of trust
48
through descriptive analysis. The table also contain important survey questions that
summaries trust both in the upstream and downstream part of supply chain in
COCOBOD.
From the upstream part of the SC out of a total of 240 respondents, confidence level
reveals the lowest mean score of 2.42 which probably indicates that there is somewhat
low, but getting closer to moderate level of trust at the upstream part of COCOBOD’s
supply chain while keeping promises indicated the highest mean score of 2.67 which
may suggest they place low emphasis, but getting closer to moderate level of trust as
well with their collaborative partners at the upstream part of supply chain. The total
average of 2.58 hovers around “Low” and “Moderate” which suggest the respondents
agree to the fact that the level of trust as experienced is low but moving towards
moderate level in the upstream part of SC.
At the downstream part of SC, product quality had the lowest mean score of 2.54
suggesting low level of trust with downstream collaborative partners while order
processing recorded the highest mean score of 2.70 indicating that they place low
priorities on trust in the downstream as well.
The total average of 2.637 hovers around “Low” and “Moderate” which suggest the
respondents agree to the fact that though trust is essential in strengthening
collaborative partnership as suggested by existing studies, it can also be detrimental to
business processes if well implemented. This findings agree with existing literature
which says trust is not always advantageous, for supply chain members to adopt trust
as a measure to enforce collaboration, some of the consequences for its holistic
implementation across the chain members creates an unfavorable environment for
49
business partners, it is very unpredictable, it operates under circumstances of too
much reliance on the stakeholders to the chain members (Talavera, 2013).
4.4.4 Visibility in COCOBOD’s SC
Table 4.5: SC Descriptive Statistics COCOBOD's Visibility
Upstream Visibility N Mean Std. Deviation
Visibility of demand 240 1.95 1.003
Visibility of inventory levels 240 2.03 .980
Visibility of processes 240 2.13 1.008
Visibility of information 240 2.21 1.022
Total Average 240 2.0813 .91459
Valid N (listwise) 240
Downstream Visibility N Mean Std. Deviation
Order visibility 240 2.17 1.050
Visibility of information 240 2.24 1.039
Total Average 240 2.2042 .99894
Valid N (listwise) 240
Variable weights: 1=Threat to your Organization, 2 = Major problem, 3 = Frequent problem
but can be managed, 4 = Slight problem, and 5= Not a problem.
Source: Field Work (2015)
The findings of the analyzed data above in Table 4.5 shows an analytical set of
questions on supply chain visibility which were used as another operational definition
for supply chain collaboration which were designed through a Likert scale method to
verify the extent to which the respondents agree there exist supply chain visibility
across the value chain through descriptive analysis. The table also contain important
50
survey questions that summaries visibility both in the upstream and downstream part
of supply chain in COCOBOD.
From the upstream part of the SC out of a total of 240 respondents, visibility of
demand reveals the lowest mean of 1.95 which probably indicates that it is a threat to
the organization but almost a major problem at the upstream part of COCOBOD’s
supply chain while visibility of information indicated the highest mean of 2.21 which
may suggest there is a threat to the organization but somewhat frequent problem
which can be managed with their collaborative partners at the upstream part of supply
chain. The total average of 2.08 which suggest the respondents agree to the fact that
the level of supply chain visibility as experienced is has a major problem.
At the downstream part of SC, order visibility recoded the lowest mean of 2.17
suggesting low level of tracking orders with downstream collaborative partners while
visibility of information recorded the highest mean of 2.24 indicating that they place
low priorities on tracing information in the downstream as well. The total average of
2.20 suggest the respondents agree to the fact that visibility has a major problem
across the value chain. In circumstances like this, research findings suggested a well-
designed Supply Chain Operations Reference (SCOR) model will improve supply
chain visibility in a firm which are to plan, source, make deliver, and to return (Melski
et al., 2008).
51
4.4.5 A Summary of Total Supply Chain Collaboration Upstream and
downstream.
Figure 4.7 Levels of SC collaboration At COCOBOD
Source: Field Data, 2015
Figure 4.7 above summarizes the various levels of factors that determine supply chain
collaboration both at the upstream and downstream in COCOBOD Ashanti region.
The findings revealed that the level of collaboration with the collaborative partners at
the downstream is slightly high or stronger than the upstream part of supply chain.
52
4.4.6 Perceived Supply Chain Performance of COCOBOD
Table 4.6: SC Descriptive Statistics for COCOBOD’s Perceived Supply Chain
Performance.
N Mean Std.
Deviation
Overall SC effectiveness 240 2.75 .795
SC Operational effectiveness 240 3.73 .751
Total Perceived SC performance 240 3.2417 .37708
Valid N (listwise) 240
a) Outstanding b) Excellent c) Good d) Average e) Poor
a) Very low b) Low c) Average d) High e) Very High
Source: Field Work (2015)
Findings from table 4.6 above indicated the overall SC effectiveness and SC
operational performance of COCBOD. This was used as the dependent variable to
measures the level of collaborations (joint-planning, information sharing, trust and
supply chain visibility). While overall SC effectiveness measures the rate of
improving the general SC service levels, sales, profit and market competitiveness; SC
operational effectiveness on the other hand measures the rate of reducing inventory
cost, lead time and improving product and services quality.
Table 4.6 revealed that overall SC effectiveness had a mean score of 2.75 and SC
operational effectiveness was found to have a mean score of 3.73 recording a total
perceived SC performance mean score of 3.24. This suggests that for an operational
excellence to be achieved, there must be a robust existence of supply chain
collaboration (Kohli and Jensen, 2010).
53
4.5 The impact of SC Collaboration on SC performance.
In this section of the study, the regression output of the study is presented. The study
ultimately set out to find the impact of specific supply chain collaboration factors on
the performance of COCOBOD’s supply chain. These were joint-planning,
information sharing, trust, and visibility, constituting the independent/ predictor
variables; and supply chain performance as the dependent variable.
Table 4.7: Model Summary
Model R R Square Adjusted R
Square
Std. Error of the
Estimate
1 .515a .266 .253 .41327
a. Predictors: (Constant), TOTVIS, TOTJP, TOTINF, TOTRUST
Source: Field Work (2015)
Table 4.8: COCOBOD’s SC Predictive Power
ANOVA a
Model Sum of
Squares
df Mean
Square
F Sig.
1 Regression 14.202 4 3.550 20.788 .000b
Residual 39.281 230 .171
Total 53.483 234
a. Dependent Variable: Overall SC performance
b. Predictors: (Constant), TOTVIS, TOTJP, TOTINF, TOTRUST
Source: Field Work (2015)
54
Statistics from Table 4.7 above shows the level at which supply chain collaboration
factors such as the total of all questions under joint-planning (TOTJP), information
sharing (TOTINF), trust (TOTRUST) and visibility (TOTVIS) is able to predict
operational performance in COCOBOD Ashanti region.
The model summary of the regression analyses performed in both Tables 4.7 and 4.8
indicated an R² of 0.266 adjusted to 0.253 (N=240, significance ˂ 0.0001) implies a
positive relationship between supply chain collaboration and operational performance.
Also, the R² value implies supply chain collaboration is able to influence about 26.6%
of supply chain performance. This is in support of existing literature the indicates that
contemporary collaboration between supply chain members is seen as an essential
measuring rod and a trigger behind any successful supply chain management;
collaborative effort is able to positively impact operational efficiency and
effectiveness when well implemented (Kohli and Jensen, 2010).
Table 4.9: Regression Model for COCOBOD’s SC
Coefficientsa
Model Unstandardized Coefficients Standardized
Coefficients
t Sig.
B Std. Error Beta
1 (Constant) .999 .259 3.862 .000
TOTJP .131 .048 .162 2.758 .006
TOTINF .223 .038 .356 5.926 .000
TOTRUST .131 .042 .206 3.121 .002
TOTVIS .172 .035 .318 4.895 .000
a. Dependent Variable: Overall SC performance
Source: Field Work (2015)
55
Findings from Table 4.9 above shows how regression model for COCOBOD’S supply
chain collaboration and supply chain performance was obtained for this study. This
implies that the determinants of SC collaboration such as joint-planning, information
sharing, trust, and visibility in addition to the constant is able to predict the dependent
variable which is overall SC performance as illustrated by the formula below:
[Overall SC performance = 0.999+0.131 (TOTJP) + 0.223 (TOTINF) + 0.131
(TOTRUST) + 0.172 (TOTVIS)]
From Table 4.9 again, total information sharing has the highest coefficient of 0.223,
followed by supply chain visibility with 0.172 coefficient, with joint-planning and
trust with same coefficient of 0.131. This indicates how shared information as well as
visibility in supply chain processes, joint-planning and trust in that hierarchical order
is able to contribute substantially to improve overall SC performance. According to
research undertaken by Vlachos & Bourlakis, (2006) between the food supply chain
partners indicates that retailers considers information sharing, distribution and
commitment to be more important for effective collaboration despite the fact that the
issue of trust is a very critical factor for the manufacturer (Kohli and Jensen, 2010).
56
4.6 Challenges of Supply Chain Collaboration at COCOBOD
Table 4.10: Recommendations for improved COCOBOD’s SCC
Frequen
cy
Percen
t
Valid
Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid Improved communication
on both parts of supply
chains
49 20.4 52.1 52.1
Frequent staff training 34 14.2 36.2 88.3
More studies on different
areas of the value chain
11 4.6 11.7 100.0
Total 94 39.2 100.0
Missi
ng
System 146 60.8
Total 240 100.0
Source: Field Work (2015)
Table 4.10 shows the challenges that COCOBOD Ashanti region is currently facing
and some of the respondent’s made recommendations for an improved level of supply
chain. Out of those who made recommendations, more respondents (20.4%)
recommends improved communication on both parts of the value chain, while the
smaller portion (4.6%) recommends that more research studies on different areas of
the value chain be carried out. This suggest that communication is very important in
improving operational excellence.
57
CHAPTER FIVE
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
5.0 Introduction
This chapter presents the summary of key findings of the study on the impact of
supply chain collaboration on operational performance in the Ghana cocoa industry,
Ashanti region. In order to improve upon the results from the findings, appropriate
recommendations were made as well as logical conclusion.
5.1 Summary of Findings
The summary of the major findings of the research is presented based on the
objectives early set out in the study.
5.1.1 Respondent’s Demographics
Targeting the respondents of Ghana COCOBOD was very necessary for the
development of the study through meeting its objectives. The demographic findings
show that there are more male with a valid percentage of 64.2% than female with a
valid percentage 35.8%. The respondent’s demographic profile also indicated the age
group, educational level and work profile of the respondents. It was revealed that
more workers fall with the active population segment (18-30 years got 34.9% and 31-
40 years got 32.9%). The educational level of the respondents indicated that most
workers had attained higher level of education with bachelor degree holders 48.8%
having and master degree holders having 10.8%. Most of the workers were from the
Cocoa Health and Extension Division (CHED) with 43.3% of the respondents. It was
also important to determine which segment of the respondents are aware of the
subject matter and to obtain the right information to yield quality results.
58
5.1.2 Supply Chain Collaboration in terms of Joint-Planning
The first specific objective adopted for the study was to examine the effect of joint-
planning of supply chain members on operational performance in Ghana COCOBOD
Ashanti region. Joint-planning was summarized both at the upstream and downstream
part of supply chain in Ghana COCOBOD Ashanti region and the findings indicated
that there was the implementation of join-planning both at the upstream and
downstream part of the COCOBOD’s supply chain.
5.1.3 Supply Chain Collaboration in terms of Information Sharing
The second specific objective was to determine the effect of information sharing on
operational performance in COCOBOD Ashanti region. Information sharing was
summarized both at the upstream and downstream part of supply chain in Ghana
COCOBOD Ashanti region and the findings indicated that though there is
considerable amount of information exchange, quality information flow both at the
upstream and downstream part of the COCOBOD’s supply chain should be the life
stream to support collaborative partnership.
5.1.4 Supply Chain Collaboration in terms of Trust
The third specific objective was to evaluate the effect of trust on operational
performance in COCOBOD Ashanti region. Trust construct was used as one of the
parameters to describe supply chain collaboration and was summarized both at the
upstream and downstream part of supply chain in Ghana COCOBOD Ashanti region
and the findings indicated that trust is an important element to be implemented both at
the upstream and downstream part of the COCOBOD’s supply chain.
59
5.1.4 Supply Chain Collaboration in terms of Visibility
The fourth specific objective of the study was to investigate the level of supply chain
visibility on operational performance in COCOBOD Ashanti region. Supply chain
visibility was summarized both at the upstream and downstream part of supply chain
in Ghana COCOBOD Ashanti region and the outcome of the survey indicated
respondents agree to the fact that visibility has a major problem across the value
chain. In circumstances like this, research findings suggested a well-designed Supply
Chain Operations Reference (SCOR) model will improve supply chain visibility in a
firm which are to plan, source, make deliver, and to return (Melski et al., 2008).
5.1.5 Perceived Supply Chain Performance
Survey questions were also designed on the premises of supply chain performance
such as operations effectiveness and overall effectiveness to represent operational
performance (dependent variable). The findings indicated that some considerable
level of supply chain collaboration measures are implemented in order to achieve
perceived operational performance.
5.2 Conclusion
The study was carried out to examine the impact of supply chain collaboration on
operational performance in COCOBOD Ashanti region with a general objective
sought to investigate the measurable impact of supply chain collaboration on the
operational performance at the COCOBOD Ashanti region in Ghana. Some factors
such as joint-planning, information sharing, trust and visibility were used founded on
past studies to describe supply chain collaboration (independent variable). A scale
reliability test was performed to find out the degree to which these essential concepts
used are measurable and consistent.
60
The reliability test performed produced the four main measurements (eight when
looking at the downstream and upstream separately) yielded minimum Cronbach’s
alpha coefficients a maximum value of 0.932 indicating that the concepts both in the
upstream and downstream parts of the supply chain were, each, consistent and
relevant in measuring what the researcher intended each measure for. Operations
effectiveness and overall effectiveness to represent operational performance
(dependent variable).
The survey results confirmed that, the more the above mentioned factors of supply
chain collaboration are implemented robustly in a holistic manner, the more
possibility for COCOBOD Ashanti region will achieve operational performance. The
lesser measure of implementation will attract less achievement of operational
excellence.
5.3 Recommendations
The following recommendations are suggested to be implemented by COCOBOD
Ashanti region based on the survey results, objectives, and existing literatures
reviewed.
5.3.1 Holistic Implementation of Joint-planning with Collaborative Partners
The output for joint-planning shows that the total mean score is 3.93 which hovers
around “Neither Agree nor Disagree” and “Agree” response rate for this construct
which is fairly implemented. Implementing effective strategies to achieve operational
planning and other business planning processes with collaborative partners will
significantly improve supply chain collaboration in Ghana COCOBOD Ashanti
region.
61
5.3.2 Implementation of Robust IT System with the Value Chain
The findings indicated the total mean core of 3.54 for both the upstream and
downstream of the value chain in COCOBOD Ashanti region hovers around
information is “Exchange sometimes” and “Exchange frequently” which suggest that
information which is the key driver of supply chain management is not adequately
implemented. This study recommends the efficient and effective application of
information technology that will enable significant appropriate information sharing to
enhance sustainability and profitability to COCOBOD Ashanti region. Some of the
collaborative advantages that will precede the implementation of a robust IT system
include the following;
Proper information sharing transmit timely and accurate information across
collaborative members;
Accurate information sharing reduces transportation lead time;
Suitable information sharing reduces forecast error;
Right information sharing will improve the value of vendor managed
inventory and supply chain visibility of key information and business
processes both at the upstream and downstream parts of the value chain;
5.3.3 Develop the level of Trust
The results also show the total average score of 2.637 for trust construct which centers
on “Low” and “Moderate” levels. This suggest that the respondents agree to the fact
that trust is essential in strengthening collaborative partnership as suggested by
existing studies, though it can also be detrimental to business processes if well
implemented.
62
5.3.4 Implement Training and Development
Findings from table 4.12 indicates that respondents recommends frequent training to
develop their level of understanding of their collaborative partnership. Implementing
regular training and education for staffs to be aware of the value chain processes both
at the upstream and down will tremendously improve operational performance.
5.3.5 Areas for Future Research Study
The researcher recommends future research studies on supply chain collaboration and
operational performance to extend the factors that determine collaboration as the
independent variable and more standard of measurements to represent operational
performance as the dependent variable should be investigated in order to improve the
its predictive power. Future study should also include the collaborative partners in the
study and finally this study could be adapted to the manufacturing and service
industries.
63
REFERENCES
ABRAMPAH, A.-M. 2009. INSTITUTE OF DISTANCE LEARNING. INSTITUTE
OF DISTANCE LEARNING ASSESSMENT OF WAREHOUSING
OPERATIONS IN THE COCOA INDUSTRY–THE CASE OF TEMA PORT
BY AKOMEA-MENSAH ABRAMPAH (BA [HONS.]) STUDENT ID:
PG1817307 A THESIS SUBMITTED TO THE INSTITUTE OF DISTANCE
LEARNING, KWAME NKRUMAH UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND
TECHNOLOGY.
ADAMU NBABUINE, K. 2012. Evaluating the Supply Chain of Ghana Cocoa from a
company point of view.
BARRATT, M. 2004. Understanding the meaning of collaboration in the supply
chain. Supply Chain Management: an international journal, 9, 30-42.
BARRATT, M. & OKE, A. 2007. Antecedents of supply chain visibility in retail
supply chains: a resource-based theory perspective. Journal of operations
management, 25, 1217-1233.
BARTLETT, P. A., JULIEN, D. M. & BAINES, T. S. 2007. Improving supply chain
performance through improved visibility. The International Journal of
Logistics Management, 18, 294-313.
BRETTEL, M. & VOSS, U. 2013. Antecedents of Management Control
Combinations–An Explanation from Resource Dependence Theory.
Schmalenbach Business Review, 65, 409-430.
64
CADDEN, T., MARSHALL, D. & CAO, G. 2013. Opposites attract: organisational
culture and supply chain performance. Supply Chain Management: an
international journal, 18, 86-103.
CAO, M. & ZHANG, Q. 2011. Supply chain collaboration: Impact on collaborative
advantage and firm performance. Journal of Operations Management, 29, 163-
180.
CAO, T. C. D. M. G. 2013. Opposites Attract: Organizational Culture and Supply
Chain Performance. Supply Chain Management: an international journal, 18,
86-103.
CHAKRABORTY, S., BHATTACHARYA, S. & DOBRZYKOWSKI, D. D. 2014.
Impact of Supply Chain Collaboration on Value Co-creation and Firm
Performance: A Healthcare Service Sector Perspective. Procedia Economics
and Finance, 11, 676-694.
CYNTHIA, O.-M. 2014. Assessing the Effect of Supply Chain Collaboration On
Organizational Performance - A Case Study Of Millicom Ghana Ltd (TIGO).
ESSEGBEY, G. O. & OFORI-GYAMFI, E. 2012. Ghana Cocoa industry—an
analysis from the innovation system perspective.
FRANKLIN, S. & WALKER, C. 2003. Survey methods and practices. Statistics
Canada. Social Survey Methods Division, Ottawa.
GNA. 2014. The Ghanaian Cocoa Farmer is Poor [Online]. Tema,Ghana: Ghana
News Agency. Available: www.ghananewsagency.org [Accessed 22/06/2014
2014].
65
GONI, A. A. 2011. Assessing the operational performance of Vodafone Ghana
Company Limited in the Ghanaian Telecommunication Industry.
HTTP://WWW.SURVEYSYSTEM.COM/SSCALC.HTM 2012. Sample Size
Calculator.
HUDNURKAR, M., JAKHAR, S. & RATHOD, U. 2014. Factors Affecting
Collaboration in Supply Chain: A Literature Review. Procedia-Social and
Behavioral Sciences, 133, 189-202.
HUGOS, M. H. 2011. Essentials of supply chain management, John Wiley & Sons.
JAANA AURAMO ET AL the roles of information technology in supply chain
management by
JAYA KRISHNA, S. 2011. Supply Chain Collaboration: Evolution Management
Framework. International Journal of Global Business, 4.
KOHLI, A. S. & JENSEN, J. B. Assessing effectiveness of supply chain
collaboration: an empirical study. Supply Chain Forum: an International
Journal, 2010. KEDGE Business School, 2-16.
LENNY KOH, S., DEMIRBAG, M., BAYRAKTAR, E., TATOGLU, E. & ZAIM, S.
2007. The impact of supply chain management practices on performance of
SMEs. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 107, 103-124.
MATHURAMAYTHA, C. Supply Chain Collaboration–What’s an outcome?: A
Theoretical Model. International Conference on Financial Management and
Economics. IPEDR, 2011.
66
MELSKI, A., MULLER, J., ZEIER, A. & SCHUMANN, M. Improving supply chain
visibility through RFID data. Data Engineering Workshop, 2008. ICDEW
2008. IEEE 24th International Conference on, 2008. IEEE, 102-103.
MOHAMMED LAEEQUDDIN, B. S. S., VINITA SAHAY AND K. ABDUL
WAHEED 2010. Measuring trust in supply chain partners’ relationships VOL.
14
MORA-MONGE, C. A., CARIDI, M., CRIPPA, L., PEREGO, A., SIANESI, A. &
TUMINO, A. 2010. Measuring visibility to improve supply chain
performance: a quantitative approach. Benchmarking: An International
Journal, 17, 593-615.
MUCKSTADT, J. A., MURRAY, D. H., RAPPOLD, J. A. & COLLINS, D. E. 2001.
Guidelines for collaborative supply chain system design and operation.
Information systems frontiers, 3, 427-453.
MUH, F. N. 2008. A Framework Supporting the Design of a Lean-Agile Supply
Chain towards Improving Logistics Performance.
OTCHERE, A. F., ANNAN, J. & QUANSAH, E. 2013. Assessing the Challenges and
Implementation of Supply Chain Integration in the Cocoa Industry: a factor of
Cocoa Farmers in Ashanti Region of Ghana. International Journal of Business
and Social Sciences, 4, 112-123.
PALLANT, J. 2007. A step by step guide to data analysis using SPSS for windows
version 15.
67
PETERSEN, K. J., RAGATZ, G. L. & MONCZKA, R. M. 2005. An examination of
collaborative planning effectiveness and supply chain performance. Journal of
Supply Chain Management, 41, 14-25.
RALSTON, P. 2014. Supply chain collaboration: A literature review and empirical
analysis to investigate uncertainty and collaborative benefits in regards to their
practical impact on collaboration and performance.
RASHED, C. A. A., AZEEM, A. & HALIM, Z. 2010. Effect of information and
knowledge sharing on supply chain performance: a survey based approach.
Journal of Operations and Supply Chain Management, 3, 61-77.
RASHED, C. A. A., AZEEM, A. & HALIM, Z. 2013. Effect of information and
knowledge sharing on supply chain performance: a survey based approach.
Journal of Operations and Supply Chain Management, 3, 61-77.
SARPONG ET AL. 2013. An Assessment of Supply Chain Risks in the Cocoa
Industry in the Ashanti Region, Ghana International Journal of Humanities and
Social Science, Vol. 3
SAUNDERS, M. N., SAUNDERS, M., LEWIS, P. & THORNHILL, A. 2011.
Research methods for business students, 5/e, Pearson Education India.
SRIDHARAN, R. & SIMATUPANG, T. M. 2013. Power and trust in supply chain
collaboration. International Journal of Value Chain Management, 7, 76-96.
TALAVERA, M. & GLORIA, V. 2008. Supply chain collaboration in the Philippines.
Journal of International Business Research, 7, 65.
68
TALAVERA, M. G. V. 2013. Exploring the Relationship of Supply Chain
Collaboration and Trust.
VANPOUCKE, E., BOYER, K. K. & VEREECKE, A. 2009. Supply chain
information flow strategies: an empirical taxonomy. International Journal of
Operations & Production Management, 29, 1213-1241.
WELTY, B. & BECERRA-FERNANDEZ, I. 2001. Managing trust and commitment
in collaborative supply chain relationships. Communications of the ACM, 44,
67-73.
WWW.COCOBOD.GH 2015. Ghana Cocoa Board.
YUNUS, E. & TADISINA, S. K. Organizational culture context, supply chain
integration and performance. POMS 21 annual conference, 2010. 7-12.
69
APPENDICES
APPENDIX I
SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE
My name is TABE SHADRACK Ayuk. I am a student at the Kwame Nkrumah
University of Science and Technology (KNUST) in the Department of
Information Systems and Decision Sciences in the KNUST School of Business.
This survey instrument has been designed to enable me carry out a research on
The Impact of Supply Chain Collaboration on Operational Performance in
the Cocoa Industry – The case of Ghana Cocoa Board (COCOBOD), Ashanti
Region. The main purpose of the research is to investigate the measurable
impact of supply chain collaboration on the operational performance at the
Ghana COCOBOD, Ashanti Region by using data from the Divisions and
Subsidiaries of
Ghana Cocoa Board Ashanti regional, Kumasi. Your responses to this
questionnaire will be very much appreciated and any information provided will
be treated as highly confidential.
Thank you for your time.
Administered to Management of Ghana Cocoa Board in Ashanti Region
SECTION A: DEMOGRAPHICS
1. Gender a) Male b) Female
2. Age distribution. a) 18 -30 Years b) 31-40 Years c) 41-50 Years
d) Above50 Years
3. Highest level of education a) HND b) Bachelor’s Degree c) Master’s Degree
d) Others…………………….
4. Please place a check mark on the corresponding company’s subsidiary/division you
work for
70
a) Seed Production Unit (SPU) b) Cocoa Health and Extension Division
c) Quality Control Company d) Cocoa Marketing Company
e) Regional Office
5. Which of the following applies to you?
a) Management staff b) Middle Management staff c) Technical staff
d) Contract worker e) Others specify ………………………………………
6. How long have you been working with your organization?
a) Less than 1 Year b) 2-5 Years c) 6-10 Years d) +10 Years
71
SECTION B: SUPPLY CHAIN COLLABORATION IN TERMS OF JOINT-
PLANNING.
Upstream = Relationship with the suppliers
Downstream = Relationship with the customers
Indicate the extent to which you agree with
the following practices of supply chain
collaboration with respect to the
implementation of joint-planning with:
1
2 3 4 5
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree Neither
Agree nor
Disagree
Agree Strongly
Agree.
UPSTREAM PART OF SUPPLY CHAIN
7 Development of demand forecast &
Capacity planning
8 Production planning & inventory
management
9 Transportation & Lead Time
10 Material/Resource Planning
11 Product quality
12 Rapid response in order processing
DOWNSTREAM PART OF SUPPLY CHAIN
13 Development of demand forecast &
Production planning
14 Transportation & Lead Time
15 Product quality
16 Rapid response in order processing
For this section, (question 7-16), indicate your opinion for the following statement by placing a check
mark (√) in the right column under the five (5) Likert scale where 1= Strongly Disagree and 5=
Strongly Agree.
72
SECTION C: SUPPLY CHAIN COLLABORATION IN TERMS OF
INFORMATION SHARING.
Upstream = Relationship with the suppliers
Downstream = Relationship with the customers
Indicate the extent to which you
experience information sharing with the
following supply chain collaborative
members:
1 2 3 4 5
Do not
exchange
Exchang
e rarely
Exchange
sometimes
Exchange
frequently
Exchange
extensively
UPSTREAM PART OF SUPPLY CHAIN
17 demand forecast & Capacity
utilization rate
18 Order tracking data & Material
requirements
19 Transportation & Lead Time
20 Market trends & Pricing Levels
21 Product quality & Customer
Preferences
22 Rapid response in order processing
DOWNSTREAM PART OF SUPPLY CHAIN
23 Production information with
customers
24 Transportation & Lead Time
25 Product quality & Customer
Preferences
26 Rapid response in order processing
For this section, (question 17-36), indicate your opinion for the following statement by placing a
check mark (√) in the right column under the seven (5) Likert scale where 1= Do not exchange
and 5= Exchange extensively
73
SECTION D: SUPPLY CHAIN COLLABORATION IN TERMS OF TRUST.
Upstream = Relationship with the suppliers
Downstream = Relationship with the customers
Indicate the extent to which you
experience trust with the following as
supply chain collaborative members?
1
2 3 4 5
Very Low Low Moderate High Very High
UPSTREAM PART OF SUPPLY CHAIN
27 Confidence level
28 Associate information sharing with
trust
29 Associate joint-planning and trust
30 Keeping promises
DOWNSTREAM PART OF SUPPLY CHAIN
31 Keeping promises
32 Associate information sharing with
trust
33 Product quality
34 Order processing
Instructions: For this section, (question 26-36), Select the number that best describe the rating
of your organization relationship with close collaborative partners where 1= Very High, and
5= Very Low
74
SECTION E: SUPPLY CHAIN COLLABORATION IN TERMS OF
VISIBILITY.
Upstream = Relationship with the suppliers
Downstream = Relationship with the customers
Indicate the extent to which the
following applies to collaborative
partnership within you organization’s
supply chain with:
1 2 3 4 5
Threat to
your
organization
Major
proble
m
Frequent
problem
but can be
managed
Slight
problem
Not a
problem
UPSTREAM PART OF SUPPLY CHAIN
37 Visibility of demand
38 Visibility of inventory levels
39 Visibility of processes
40 Visibility of information
DOWNSTREAM PART OF SUPPLY CHAIN
41 Order Visibility
42 Visibility of information
Rate the working strategies of supply chain effectiveness on the basis of the current
programs.
a) Outstanding b) Excellent c) Good d) Average d) Poor
Indicate your organization’s supply chain operational performance with its
collaborative partners
a) Very low b) Low c) Average d) High e) Very High
Could you please provide some recommendations to ensure a better supply chain
collaborative partnership?
…………………………………………………………………………………………
Thank you for being part of the study.
(Please rate on a scale of 1-5 and tick the appropriate box) where 1= not a problem, and 5=
threat to your organization.
75
APPENDIX II
