KWAME NKRUMAH UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY,

KUMASI

EFFECT OF SUPPLY CHAIN RESPONSIVENESS ON SERVICE

PERFORMANCE.

BY

DORCAS SARPONG (BSc. Business Administration)

A THESIS SUBMITTED TO THE DEPARTMENT OF SUPPLY CHAIN AND

INFORMATION SYSTEMS, INSTITUTE OF DISTANCE LEARNING IN
PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENT FOR THE AWARD OF THE
DEGREE OF

MASTER OF SCIENCE (LOGISTICS AND SUPPLY CHAIN MANAGEMENT

MAY, 2022
 DECLARATION

I hereby declare that this thesis is the result of my original work towards the MSc. in
Logistics and Supply Chain Management, and that to the best of my knowledge, it
neither contains material published by another person nor materials which have been
accepted for the award of any other degree of the University, except where due
acknowledgments have been made in the te xt.

Dorcas Sarpong .................................... ............................

(PG3755620) Signature Date

Certified by:

Dr. Dorcas Nuerte y .................................... ............................

(Supervisor) Signature Date

Certified b y:

Dr. Abdul Samed Muntaka .................................... ............................

(Head of Department) Signature Date

2
 DEDICATION

I dedicate this work to my dear husband and children

3
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I thank Almighty God for His marvelous love towards me throughout this work. M y
sincere gratitude goes to my supervisor, Dr. Dorcas Nuerte y for her excellent
supervision, and encouragement through this thesis. I am much grateful to the entire
staff of the Department of Supply Chain and Information Systems for their
unflinching support. I also thank the CARISCA scholarship team for the funding
opportunities and my family and friends who have been there for me until this time.

4
 ABSTRACT

The economic environment is dynamic and the only certainty about it is that it will
continue to change. Supply chain responsiveness looks at the extent to which a firm
along with its supply chain partners responds to changes in the business environment.
Meanwhile, service perishability gives rise to many problems for service providers
and especially when service demand fluctuates. The concept of supply chain
responsiveness can be a sustainable tool for increasing service performance. This
study examines the relationship between supply chain responsiveness and service
performance and the inter relations among the various supply chain responsiveness
elements (operation process responsiveness, logistics responsiveness and supply
network responsiveness). The study employed a questionnaire survey instrument to
collect data from manufacturing firms within Ashanti Region based on the purposive
sampling techniques. The result of the study indicates that supply chain
responsiveness had positive and significant impact on service performance. The study
also revealed that there were positive significant inter relationship among operation
system responsiveness, logistics process responsiveness and supply network
responsiveness. The study therefore suggested that firm should pursue supply chain
responsiveness an end-to-end process.

5
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

DECLARATION ii
DEDICATION iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT iv
ABSTRACT v
TABLE OF CONTENTS vi
LIST OF TABLES ix
LIST OF FIGURES x

CHAPTER ONE 1
INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 Background to the Study 1
1.2 Statement of the Problem 4
1.3 Research Objectives 6
1.4 Research Questions 7
1.5 Justification of the Study 7
1.6 Research Methodology 8
1.7 Scope of the Study 8
1.8 Limitation of the Study 8
1.9 Organization of the Study 9

CHAPTER TWO 10
LITERATURE REVIEW 10
2.0 Introduction 10
2.1 Conceptual Review 10
2.1.1 Definition of Supply Chain Responsiveness 10
2.1.2 Operation System Responsiveness 14
2.1.3 Logistics Process Responsiveness (LPR). 15
2.1.4 Supply Network Responsiveness 16
2.1.5 Service Performance 17
2.2 Theoretical Review 19
2.2.1 Resource Based View 19
2.2.2 Dynamic Capability Theory 19
2.2.3 The Organizational Information Processing Theory (OIPT) 22
2.3 Empirical Review 23
2.3.1 Dimensions of Supply Chain Responsiveness 24

6
2.3.2 Supply Chain Responsiveness and Supply Chain Management 27
2.4 Conceptual Framework of the Study 30
2.4.1 Description of Variables in the Model 30
2.4.2 Supply Chain Responsiveness and Service Performance 31
2.4.3 Operation System Responsiveness and Logistics Process Responsiveness 32
2.4.4 Logistics process responsiveness and supply network responsiveness 34
2.4.5 Operation System Responsiveness And Supply Network Responsiveness 34

CHAPTER THREE 36
METHODOLOGY AND ORGANISATIONAL PROFILE 36
3.0 Introduction 36
3.1 Research Design 36
3.2 Research Methods 37
3.3 Study Population 37
3.4 Sample Size and Sampling Techniques 38
3.5 Types and Sources of Data 39
3.6 Data Collection Method 39
3.7 Data Analysis 40
3.8 Validity and Reliability Test 41
3.9 Ethical Consideration 41
3.10 Profile of Study Area 42

CHAPTER FOUR 45
DATA PRESENTATION, ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION 45
4.0 Introduction 45
4.1 Demographic Characteristics of Respondents 45
4.2 Statistical Tests 48
4.3 Descriptive Statistics of Study Variables 49
4.3.1 Supply chain responsiveness 50
4.3.2 Service Performance 52
4.4 Correlation Analysis 53
4.5 Regression Analysis 55
4.5.1 The Relationship Between Supply Chain Responsiveness and Service
performance 55
4.5.2 The Relationship Between Operation System Responsiveness and Logistics
Process Responsiveness 56

7
4.5.3 The Relationship between Operation System Responsiveness and Supply
Network Responsiveness 57
4.5.4 The Relationship Between Logistics Process Responsiveness and Supply
Network Responsiveness 58
4.6 Hypothesis Table 60
4.7 Discussion of Findings 61
4.7.1 Impact of Supply Chain Responsiveness on Service Performance 61
4.7.2 Impact of Operation System Responsiveness, Logistics Process Responsiveness
and Supply Network Responsiveness on Service Performance 61
4.7.3 The Inter Relationship Between Operation System Responsiveness, Logistics
Process Responsiveness and Supply Network Responsiveness 62

CHAPTER FIVE 63
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS 63
5.0 Introduction 63
5.1 Summary of Findings 63
5.1.1 The Impact of Supply Chain Responsiveness on Service Performance 63
5.1.2 The Impact of Operation System, Logistics Process and Supply Network
Responsiveness on Service Performance 64
5.1.3 The Inter Relationship among operation system responsiveness, logistics
process responsiveness and supply network responsiveness 64
5.2 Conclusion 65
5.3 Recommendations 66
5.3.1 Implication to Practices 66
5.3.2 Implication to Policy 67
5.3.3 Suggestion for Further Studies 68
REFERENCE 69
APPENDICES 74

8
 LIST OF TABLES

Table 4.1 Demographic Characteristics of Respondents 46

Table 4.2 Tests of Validity and Reliability 48
Table 4.3 Supply Chain Responsiveness 50
Table 4.4 Service Performance 52
Table 4.5 Correlation Analysis 54
Table 4.6 Model Summary 55
Table 4.7 ANOVA 56
Table 4.8 Coefficient of Variation 56
Table 4.9 Model Summary 56
Table 4.10 Analysis of Variation (ANOVA) 57
Table 4.11 Coefficient of Variation 57
Table 4.12 Model Summary 57
Table 4.13 Analysis of Variation 58
Table 4.14 Coefficient of Variation 58
Table 4.15 Model Summary 58
Table 4.16 Analysis of Variation 59
Table 4.17 Co efficient of Variation 59
Table 4.17 Hypothesis Table 60

9
 LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 2.1 Conceptual Framework of the Study 31

Figure 3.1 A Map of Ashanti Region 44

10
 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

LPR Logistics Process Responsiveness

OSR Operation System Responsiveness

SCM Supply Chain Management

SCR Supply Chain Responsiveness

SNR Supply Network Responsiveness

SP Service Performance

11
 CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background to the Study

Companies in today’s unstable business environment face volatile market conditions.

The emergence of technological breakthrough is turning things around. Organisations
that had enjoyed monopolies in their fields of operation or localities are now
struggling to remain in operation with the free entry of new firms. The removal of
entry barriers to new firms coupled with technological advancement, customer
demand variability, shorten life cycle of products, new product varieties and
globalisation have placed all entities on the same pedestal. In fact, irrespective of
time, place and type of business, every firm is competing in the same globalised
market. Prediction of the market condition based on customer demand pattern and
supply capabilities may woefully not reflect in reality due to uncertain and changing
environmental factors (Ahmed et al., 2019; Wu et al., 2017).

The nature of competition among companies have changed lately. The time when
firms gained competitive advantage from producing high quality products at a low
cost that can be sold at lower price margins relative to market price has passed.
Competitiveness currently is derived from the delivery capabilities of the firm.
Criteria for measuring competitiveness comprises variables that enable firms to
deliver the right products at the right quantity and quality to customers in a timely
manner (Naway & Ramat, 2019). Formulating and designing supply chain strategy to
provide values stream, waste free operation process and responsive systems in this
globalized unpredicted business environment is a top priority of corporations (Ahmed
et al., 2019). Competition which used to be based on firm level of capabilities has
turned into supply chain against supply chain. The obvious implication is that
competitive advantage comes from the ability of supply chain partners to coordinate
and integrate strategies aimed at satisfying the ultimate customers of the supply chain
at a relatively low total cost (Madhani, 2018).

The ever-changing market conditions has aroused the interest in supply chain actors
and researchers in supply chain responsiveness in business planning process (Nooraie
et al., 2019). Supply chain responsiveness looks at the extent to which a company
collaborates with the members in its supply and distribution channel to appropriately

1
meet the demands of the environment. To survive in a rapidly changing environment,
firms seek to develop responsive supply chains. Supply chain responsiveness entails
“quickly responding to changing customer or supplier needs and competitor strategies
by developing new products or services or adjusting supply chain operations to match
the changing markets through strategic collaboration with partners” (Yu et al., 2019).

Supply chain forms an important component of the competitive business environment.

It consists of complex set of activities including flow of material, product funds and
information. It involves the inter connection of suppliers, producers, wholesalers,
distributors, transporters, retailers and consumers themselves. From the competitive
and complexity associated with business activities today, companies must have the
ability to respond to the various ever-changing tastes and preferences coming from
customers who demand low cost but high-quality goods and services (Ortiz and
Gomez, 2017). Firms would have to influence the actions of the chain members at
each stage of the value chain to achieve the desired customer satisfaction level
(Thatte, 2007).

Supply chain management in today’s business environment remains great source of

competitiveness across industries. The practice of sharing information has become
very pronounced in managing supply chains for positive business performance
outcome (Topal & Sahin, 2018). The purpose of supply chain management (SCM) is
to position firms to become more customer-centric, information-intensive, and
flexible. The end product of the new perspective of supply chain management is
responsiveness. Responsiveness is an alternative supply chain approach relative to
traditional cost efficiency. Whilst cost efficient supply chain approach emphasises
low-cost processes, responsiveness promote value adding activities that ensure long
term returns to the firm. (Roh et al., 2013).

Yu et al. (2019) accepts that responsiveness concepts are closely linked with supply
chain flexibility and agility. The term responsiveness refers to “being quick or speedy
in responding to changing market or customer needs, which can be achieved with any
of the following antecedents: short lead time, quick response capability, flexibility,
agility, and visibility”. Responsiveness to customer demand has become an important
competitive tool in today’s unstable business environment which is plagued with
alternative sources of fulfilling customers’ needs through variety of products.

2
Products are experiencing shorter life cycle, new products are developed rapidly,
existing ones are modified easily to meet the prevailing market conditions. Getting the
right product, at the right time to the right customer has become the focus of all
supply chains. To be responsive in this volatile market economies, the firm and its
supply chain members needs to be flexible and have high speed in satisfying
customers (Feutes et al., 2016).

Naway & Ramat. (2019) emphasize that supply chain operational performance should
be gauged from process reliability, responsiveness, flexibility and cost. The
overarching goal of any supply chain is to ensure effective delivery of its products and
services to customers at the highest level of quality whilst keeping a cost and time
requirement at the possible minimum level. Low cost, high quality, flexible process
and quick response to demand are critical success factors supply chains need to
carefully deal with. Logistics process deals with the movement of products, materials,
funds, information and ideas from point of origin to the point of consumption. This
process can be effective to the extent that the logistics structures support timely flow
in the right quantum and direction. A close relationship with suppliers improves
operational responsiveness. Information sharing with suppliers enhances coordination
of inbound processes. Suppliers can therefore supply the required orders to producers
on time and in a more secure fashion. It is also said that external integration
immensely improves organisations’ responsiveness (Ishtiaque et al., 2018).

Responsiveness in the context of supply chain is the ability to react persistently and
within an apt period to client’s demand or changes in the marketplace, besides to
generate or sustain a competitive advantage as the way forward (Rojagopal et al.,
2016). The overall objective of supply chain network is to link source to the
consumers so that flow of money, materials and information can be managed
effectively and efficiently. Here, effectiveness and efficiency will be measured in
terms of supply chain surplus, time and customer satisfaction (Dubey et al., 2014).

Ishtiaque et al. (2018) acknowledge that operational responsiveness is attained when

organisations involve suppliers in design and production processes. Again, to be
responsive to customers, manufacturers need to engage in seamless information
sharing with their suppliers. Timely and adequate information sharing promotes
effective planning at the supply firm which increases supplier responsiveness to

3
operation demand of the focal organisation. Operational responsiveness in turn
enables the organisation to respond swiftly to the changes in product volumes
requested by different customers. At the customer side, retail agents serve as interface
between the manufacturer and the final consumer. Interestingly, is the responsiveness
of the retailer which would be most likely perceived by customers as the supply chain
responsiveness (Sharma et al., 2020)

Supply chain responsiveness in the assessment made by Nooraie et al., (2019) is how
a supply chain adapts its output within the available levels of four external flexibility
types: product, mix, volume, and delivery in respond to external factors. Holweg
(2005) stated “responsiveness is the strength to respond purposefully and within a
suitable timescale to customers’ demand or innovations in the marketplace, to bring
about or sustain an ambitious advantage”. A responsive supply chain reduces the lead
time and enhances service reliability, fast responses, and adaptability. Many supplies
are not ready to endure global competition because of responsiveness absence to
satisfy market needs (Singh, 2015). Bernardes & Hanna (2008) predicted a new breed
of customer who demands greater responsiveness to a dynamic set of requirements,
and a new competitive environment which expose local companies to competition
from companies around the globe, form a new scenario that has challenged firms in
most industries. As a result, responsiveness has become most important capabilities
needed for achieving competitive advantage.

1.2 Statement of the Problem

The market conditions continue to be unstable and things will forever change. The
continuous market instability is forcing enterprises to identify new ways of creating
values to their customers. Firms are now drawing their attention to relationship
management and strategic alliance with both local and foreign trading partners.
Besides, firms should be more cooperative with key partners in order to sustain local
and global presence (Pereira, 2009). Any failure in one part of the supply chain
network will extend multiple and adverse impact on the entire supply chain
(Rojagopal et. al., 2016).

Responsiveness which is a firm’s ability to speedily adapt to environmental changes

and market conditions is a critical subject, which needs to be further researched

4
(Ahmed et al., 2019) in this era of global disruption. Godsell (2009) emphasised the
need for a manufacturing strategy to be driven by marketing strategy which in turn
was driven by corporate strategy. A supply chain network must essentially provide
quick responses to customer demands and preferences, in order for the individual
chain members to remain competitive in the ever-changing marketplace. Meeting
customers’ expectations in acceptable timescales sounds like a reasonable assumption
for surviving in the competitive and dynamic market condition. Responsiveness is the
fundamental key to cater for all such needs, enhancing the service quality, customer
satisfaction, behavioural intentions and customer service (Sharma et al., 2020).

Studies have established that flexibility and agility have significant impact on both
customer service, efficiency and improve firm’s competitiveness (Ahmed et al.,
2019). Most of the studies reviewed investigated the effect of supply chain
responsiveness on competitive advantages. Hayat et. al. (2012) assessed the different
factors that affect supply chain responsiveness. Al - Hawajreh & Attiany (2014)
analyzed the effect of supply chain responsiveness on competitive advantage. Thathe
(2013) had earlier conducted a similar investigation into the effect of supply chain
responsiveness on competitive advantage. Responsiveness was assessed as
organisational competitive tool. Previous studies were limited to assessing supply
chain responsiveness under a competitive environment. Studies on supply chain
responsiveness under a cooperative environment is still lacking. Previous studies have
established the impact of supply chain responsiveness on organisational performance.
These studies (Gunasekaran, 2018); Sukati, 2012 and Thatte (2007) found out that
there is a significant relationship between supply chain responsiveness and
organizational performance.

These studies focused on manufacturing operation system of the focal firms (Sukati,
2012; Hayat, 2012 and Thatte 2007). Obviously, supply chain responsiveness role in
improving service performance or customer satisfaction with service provided has not
been extensively studied. Previous studies assessed responsiveness from
manufacturing operation perspective therefore, a study on responsiveness from both
service and manufacturing or service operation perspective is required. Sandberg and
Jafari (2018) stated that “the majority of the body of the literature on responsiveness
pertains to the manufacturing setting since manufacturing is considered as the main
source for creation of responsiveness in the supply chain. Other supply chain

5
members such as retailers, distributors or service providers are generally neglected in
literature”

Few studies in the early years of supply chain responsiveness literature evaluated the
relationship among the sub construct of supply chain responsiveness. Research work
focusing on the inter relationship between the various dimensions of supply chain
responsiveness is woefully inadequate. Current studies have gone beyond assessing
the significant relationship between supply chain responsiveness and firm
performance. Asamoah et al. (2021) and Ibrahim & Babiker (2020) have investigated
the relationships among the three major supply chain responsiveness sub constructs
(operation process responsiveness, logistics responsiveness and supply network
responsiveness). However, these studies on supply chain responsiveness were
principally conducted on production systems. Impact of supply chain responsiveness
on the service delivery has not been extensively studied. Meanwhile, Service
perishability gives rise to many problems for service providers and especially when
service demand fluctuates. The fundamental challenge facing service providers is how
firms adopt strategies to match capacity and demand (Bielen & Demoulin, 2007). The
concept of supply chain responsiveness can be a sustainable tool for increasing
customer satisfaction. This study examines the relationship between supply chain
responsiveness and service performance and the inter relations among the various
supply chain responsiveness elements (operation process responsiveness, logistics
responsiveness and supply network responsiveness). The study adopted service
satisfaction dimensions as the service performance variables namely, service delivery
or provision time, waiting time, speed of making changes in service provision and
service customization.

1.3 Research Objectives

This study aimed at investigating the impact of supply chain responsiveness on

service performance. The following research objectives have been set to help axhieve
the overall goal of the study.

I. Evaluate the impact of supply chain responsiveness on service performance

II. Evaluate the impact of operation process, logistics and supply network
responsiveness on service performance

6
III. Examine the inter - relationship between operations system, logistics process
and supply network responsiveness

1.4 Research Questions

The study attempted to answer the following research questions to achieve the
aforementioned specific research objectives.

I. What is the impact of supply chain responsiveness on service performance?

II. What are the effects of operation system responsiveness, logistics process
responsiveness and supply network responsiveness on service performance?
III. What is the inter - relationship between operation systems, logistics process
responsiveness and supply network responsiveness

1.5 Justification of the Study

The global pandemic has disrupted many business models. As a result, the
old-fashioned way of doing business will now yield little to no result. The study shall
thus bring to light how firms can aptly adapt to unstable business environment in this
era of global pandemic and the new norm of doing things including business.

The study shall add to the pool of empirical evidence on supply chain responsiveness
specifically, the inter relatedness among the key constructs which is barely
investigated. The findings of this study shall be useful to academia and the research
community in understanding the inter relationship between the various dimensions of
supply chain responsiveness. The research outputs produced by this study shall
promote a greater awareness and a deeper understanding of how focal firms can rely
on flexibility in their supply networks to improve internal operation responsiveness
and in turn achieve customer side responsiveness.

The study shall provide new knowledge on how companies can reconfigure their
corporate resources revitalised value chain processes in meeting the market trend and
its requirements. The study is intended to underscore the relevance of firms constantly
modify internal operations and manage external relationship to improve flexibility and
quick delivery systems.

7
1.6 Research Methodology

The study followed a quantitative research design in gathering and collecting primary
data. Primary data was collected by following the following research procedure.
Firstly, a quantitative research survey approach was followed in gathering field data.
A questionnaire instrument was the main data collection instrument used. In terms of
sampling and sampling techniques, purposive sampling techniques was employed in
selecting individual firms as respondents to participate in the survey. Statistical
Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) and Microsoft Excel application were the main
tools for the data analysis and presentation. Statistical Package for Social Sciences
(SPSS) and Microsoft Excel applications were used to perform the correlation and
regression analysis to determine the significant relationship among the study
variables. The results and findings were visually presented in frequency tables and
statistical charts.

1.7 Scope of the Study

The study covers three key dimensions of supply chain responsiveness; supply
network responsiveness which measures the flexibility and speed in the upstream
chain, operation system responsiveness which measures flexibility and speed in the
internal operation capability of the focal firm, logistics process responsiveness which
measures the responsiveness of the distribution channel or the inbound process. The
study focused on effect of responsiveness level of the manufacturing operation, its
inbound and outbound process and performance. The study also concentrated on
measuring service performance as a competitive tool in different manufacturing firms
in Ghana. Geographically, the study was conducted using firms that are situated
within the borders of Ashanti Region. Again, the study was limited to firms in the
manufacturing sector with both production and service operation systems.

1.8 Limitation of the Study

The study concentrated on the impact of responsiveness on service performance.

Service performance is traditionally measured from either internal organisational
perspective or from external perspective which usually focus customers assessment of

8
service. Customers are the recipients of service provision. Responsiveness to
customers can best be evaluated by the consumers of the service. This study however
focused on measuring service performance from internal employee perspective other
than external customer perspective.

Again, the study was limited to the forward supply chain context. Responsiveness
issues in reverse supply chain process is likely to have different impact on
performance. This study however concentrated on the forward supply chain using the
manufacturing firm as the focal company.

1.9 Organization of the Study

This study is arranged in major parts titled as chapters and sub sections under each
chapter. There are five major chapters in the entire study. The first chapter is the
introduction chapter which serves as synopsis of the entire study. This comprises of
the study background, statement of problem, research objectives, research questions,
justification of the study, research methodology, scope of the study, limitation and
organization of the study. The second, chapter two is the literature review section
which is subdivided into four sections; conceptual review, theoretical review,
empirical review and conceptual framework sections. The third chapter outlines the
research methodology and organizational profile. It covers the research design,
population, sampling size and techniques, data collection methods, data analysis
method, internal reliability and profile of organization. The last but one chapter
presents the data analysis of the study whilst the final chapter gives summary of study
findings, conclusion, recommendation and direction of future studies.

9
 CHAPTER TWO

LITERATURE REVIEW

2.0 Introduction

This chapter presents a review of literature published in the field of operations

management, logistics, procurement and supply chain management. It covers a review
of the research constructs, and theories related to supply chain responsiveness and
service operation management. The chapter is presented in four sections. Section one
identifies and defines terms and concept relevant in understanding supply chain
responsiveness, section two gives a theoretical review of supply chain management
perspectives on responsiveness. In section three, report on the dynamics of similar
empirical studies that are recently carried out on supply chain responsiveness and its
related subjects is present. Section four illustrates the conceptual framework of the
study.

2.1 Conceptual Review

Under this section, discussion on supply chain responsiveness and related concepts
are presented. The review includes definition and dimensions of supply chain
responsiveness; operation system responsiveness, logistics process responsiveness and
supply network responsiveness. The section also covers review on service
performance.

2.1.1 Definition of Supply Chain Responsiveness

Various authors have attempted to define supply chain, the definition of supply chain
in Christopher (1998) remains popular among logistics and supply chain management
literature. By the definition of Christopher (1998), supply chain refers to “the
network of connected and interdependent organizations that are mutually and
co-operatively working together and involved, through upstream and downstream
linkages, in the different processes and activities to control, manage and improve the
flow of materials and information (from suppliers to end users) that produce value in
the form of products and services in the hands of the customer”. Supply chain in
other words denotes activities associated with the flow and transformation of goods
from the raw materials stage, through to the end user, as well as the associated

10
information flows (Handfield and Nichols, 2002). The supply chain should not be
considered as the connection between a company and its suppliers alone but rather
extends to other parties involved in the activities of moving, storing and retailing the
products to customers. Interestingly, the consumers of a company’s products and
services form integral part of the supply chain (Putra et al., 2019).

Supply chain management is defined as the coordination of resources and the

optimization of activities across the value chain to obtain competitive advantages
(Gunasekaran et al., 2008). Supply chain management encompasses “the planning and
management of all activities involved in sourcing and procurement, conversion,
demand creation and fulfilment of all logistic management activities”. Supply chain
management involves the integration among the activities of material procurement
and service, the process of transforming the materials into half-finished goods and
final products, and their delivery to the end consumers (Heizer & Render, 2011; Putra
et al., 2019). Ikechukwu (2019) also defines supply chain management as the
co-ordination and collaboration with channel partners which can be suppliers,
intermediaries, third party service providers and customers. Supply chain
management is best understood among researchers as an end-to-end process involving
the management of activities from point of origin of inputs to point of consumption of
finished goods.

Responsiveness refers to the ability to react to sudden or immediate changes in the

marketplace (Ghosh et al., 2014). Kim et al. (2013) defines supply chain
responsiveness as the ‘’ability of a supply chain to satisfy customers’ needs’’. In the
views of Kim and Lee (2010), supply chain responsiveness “denotes capability of a
firm to deploy resources available along the supply chain to identify and react to
market changes”. According to Jahre and Costes (2015), supply chain responsiveness
represents the coordination of activities of the members of the supply chain and the
integration of key business processes both within and across firms. Responsiveness is
considered as rapid attempt to meet customer requirement. Supply chain
responsiveness is marketplace or customer oriented. In other words, the ultimate goal
of supply chain responsiveness is to satisfy the customer. Though supply chain
responsiveness strategy focuses on satisfying the customer, it is regarded as reactive
or adaptive strategy rather than traditional static strategy without consideration of the
customer related factors. Supply chain responsive processes are customer induced

11
activities. The responsiveness of a supply chain is the combination of the firm’s
response to customer behaviour, the responsiveness of the firm’s supply chain
members and the collaborative activities among the supply chain members.

Supply chain responsiveness is therefore attained from two key supply chain
management concepts or practice namely; supply chain coordination and integration.
As it has already been stated by Kim and Lee (2010) that it is by the coordination of
activities and seamless integration of process both within and across firms that
responsiveness can be achieved. According to Jahre & Costes (2015), there exist two
school of thought among supply chain researchers on the basis of responsiveness;
responsiveness based on flexibility and responsiveness based on lean and agility. One
school of thought posits that responsiveness must be based on different form of
flexibility and another side regard responsiveness as having lean and agile supply
chain. Flexibility in general denotes the ability of a system to make the necessary
adjustment in accordance with the need and time (Khanal & Tamang, 2017).
Flexibility in this sense may not be limited to but implies operation flexibility, supply
flexibility, logistics flexibility, production or manufacturing flexibility, technology
flexibility and process flexibility (Kim & Lee, 2010).

The concept of lean system focuses on waste elimination. Gunasekaran et al. (2008)
describes agility as the capability of an organization, to proactively establish a virtual
manufacturing with an efficient product development system that meet the changing
market requirements, maximize customer service level, and minimize the cost of
goods, with an objective of being competitive in a global market and for increased
chance of long-term survival and profit potential. Agility can only succeed when there
is enough flexibility in human resources, business processes and technologies. The
concept of lean system is more practice at the upstream chain where inbound
activities are structured to reduce cost and waste. Lean practices such as lean
manufacturing, just in time production, etc. increase the level of flexibility at the
supply side. Agile supply chain essentially denotes the swiftness in meeting customer
requirements or dynamic market conditions. Čiarnienė & Vienažindienė (2014)
reported that the evolution of supply chain management and agile supply chain have
given rise to quick response movement. A lean supply chain strategy attempt to
ensure value stream from the suppliers to the final customers in order to eliminate all
kinds of buffering cost in the supply chain and to ensure a stable schedule in

12
production in order to improve process efficiency and then maintain the competitive
advantage through economies of scale in a stable and predictable marketplace. On the
other hand, an agile supply chain strategy aims to develop a flexible and
reconfigurable network with partners to share competences and market knowledge in
order to ensure survival and prosperity in a fluctuating market environment by
achieving a rapid response to market changes. A leagile supply chain strategy, which
combines some elements of both lean and agile strategies, utilizes make-to stock
strategies for high volume, stable demand products, while using make-to-order
strategies for everything else (Roh et al., 2014).

Hum et al. (2018) defines supply chain responsiveness as the probability of fulfilling a
customer order within a quoted lead-time. Supply chain responsiveness is measured as
the likelihood of a customer receiving his or her order at a preferred due date. In the
views of Christopher (2016), supply chain responsiveness refers “to the ability of a
supply chain to respond to market demand in time effective manner” These authors
liken responsiveness to speed of delivery. In addition, Giannakis et al. (2019)
elaborated on three dimensions of supply chain responsiveness. In their review, supply
chain responsiveness was used to mean the speed of supply chain to deliver
customers’ orders. Responsiveness in this regard can be determined based on the
order fulfilment time. Another dimension of supply chain responsiveness is the ability
to rapidly detect and react to risks associated with the supply chain. This is measured
in terms of how the supply chain can make rapid change to product mix, volume,
delivery sequence, and supply capacity. The third dimension of supply chain
responsiveness according to Giannakis et al. (2019) is the ability of the firm to operate
on flexible system. Responsiveness is recognized based on how the system adapt to
uncertainty and disruption, make operational adjustment and realign processes. Thus,
responsiveness was herein equated to flexibility. Khanal & Tamang (2017) also
described supply chain responsiveness bases on the dimension of speed and
flexibility. They view Supply chain responsiveness as the supply chain efficiency and
effectiveness which can address volatile customer demand. The generally accepted
view that supply chain responsiveness comprises of speed and flexibility dimension
dominate supply chain management literature. Empirically, both speed and flexibility
directly affect responsiveness (Khanal & Tamang, 2017).

13
From the strategic point of view, Roh et al. (2014) emphasise that responsiveness is an
alternative supply chain strategy to efficiency which involves a trade off in strategic
decision of supply chain members. A responsive supply chain strategy focuses on
product and functional innovativeness which can be one or combination of lean and
agile strategy. A firm can pursue an efficient strategy when the market is mature and
competitive advantage has been attained through low-cost strategy. Whereas,
responsiveness is the ideal strategy when an organization intend to compete on
distinctive innovation, customization and customer centered processes (Roh et al.,
2014).

2.1.2 Operation System Responsiveness

Operations system responsiveness is defined as “the ability of a firm’s operations

system to address volatile customer demand” (Thatte & Nathan, 2013). Responsive
operation system responds swiftly in labelling, packaging and documentation,
reconfigures process to address demand change, responds rapidly to changes in
shipment, effectively expedites emergency orders, adjusts capacity and reallocation of
employees (Khanal & Tamang, 2011) in the changing business environment. In the
short run, supply chain can achieve operational responsiveness through its product
mix and volume mix. Short term operational responsiveness is the ability to adjust a
firm’s output to short-term demand changes (Reichhart & Holweg, 2015).
Organization’s operations system could either be production operations and service
operations. Both service and production operation systems must responsive to sustain
competitiveness for the firm. Considering the nature of service operations which is
characterized with intangibility and perishability features, service operations should
always run in a system rooted in reliability and timeliness in order to meet the
variabilities in customers’ demand. reliable and timely to satisfy customer demand.
whilst achieving production operation system responsiveness might aim at attaining a
competitive edge over others. Responsiveness in the service operation systems is a
fundamental requirement for the service operations to be carried out successfully even
under noncompetitive environment. An alternative competitive operations strategy to
responsiveness is efficiency (Chopra & Meindl, 2013). Efficient operations system is
the one that can considerably reduce cost at the same time eliminate waste and non –
value adding activities. Firms are aware of the fact that demand uncertainty and
14
variability are inherent to their operations call for different types of responsiveness
which attempts to meet customers requirement (Reichart & Holweg, 2015). Beyond
the quest for organizational competitiveness, operation system responsiveness
contributes immensely to value creation strategies of supply chain members (Khanal
& Tamang, 2011).

2.1.3 Logistics Process Responsiveness (LPR).

Logistics process responsiveness is the firm’s ability in warehouse management,

distribution, and transportation to address volatile customer demand. Logistics
management deals with packaging, warehousing, transportation, shipping, order
tracking and delivery. Logistic process responsiveness remains an integral part of the
end-to-end supply chain responsiveness strategy that can create superior value for
customers (Thatte & Nathan, 2013; Khanal & Tamang, 2011). The evolving business
environment has resulted in a corresponding evolution in logistics process. Supply
chain Literature now pays attention to the broader spectrum of logistic processes
focusing on value addition and better logistics solution. Both researchers and
practitioners seek to improve the outlook of logistics activities with innovativeness in
vital components like packaging, third party inventory management, electronic
sensors, and advanced information systems (Mentzer et al., 2001). Manufacturing
and logistics operations are increasingly driven by customer needs rather than
forecasts, increasing the importance of demand and inventory information visibility
across the supply chain (Holweg & Pil, 2007; Gunasekaran, 2005). Organisations are
now designing and implementing their logistics strategies not just to reduce cost but
to create value for customers in the competitive way (Mentzer et al., 2001). Excellent
Logistic capability can serve as the competitive strategy of the supply chain focal firm
for achieving differentiation, low cost or customer segmentation strategy. A firm may
utilize its logistics process to support its marketing strategy by increasing market
share, practicing mass customization, increased service performance. Customer value
creation is driven by logistics process responsiveness (Mentzer et al., 2001). In the
value creation logistics provide the time and place utility of product. Logistics process
responsiveness creates greater portion of product value which is more pronounce in
what has been termed as the seven Rs (7Rs). Logistics enhances the firm’s ability to

15
deliver the right quantities of product with the right quality at the right place at the
right time in the right condition at the right price with the right information.

2.1.4 Supply Network Responsiveness

Thatte et al, (2013) define supplier network responsiveness as the ability of a firm’s
major suppliers to address changes in the firm’s demand. Having a responsive
upstream and downstream partner is key to achieving supply chain responsiveness.
Supply chain firms need to appropriately select supplier that have quick response
ability and can adapt to changing demands in order to be responsive. (Ibrahim &
Babiker, 2020). A responsive supply chain is a network of firms that is capable of
creating wealth to its stakeholders in a competitive environment by reacting quickly
and cost effectively to changing market requirements. There is a need to meet the
changing market requirements by developing a suitable network of collaborative firms
based on the core-competencies and on leveraging people and information as quickly
as possible and in the most cost-effective manner (Gunasekaran et al., 2008).

The responsive level of one chain member depends on the other stages within the
supply chain configuration. In view of that, product related decisions are jointly taken
by all supply chain actors across the chain which facilitates alignment of individual
operational objectives with the collective actions of the entire supply chain (Reichhart
& Holweg, 2015). Decision on how a focal firm design its supply chain network
remains most important strategic level decisions in supply chain management. Supply
chain network structures depict the nature of connectivity and linkage across the
stages of the chain. It portrays how suppliers, focal firm, distribution outlets and
customers are located relative to the other members along the value chain.
Undoubtedly, supply chain networks affect overall supply chain agility (Babazadeh et
al 2012). Supplier network flexibility supplier network responsiveness are basic
ingredient for achieving responsiveness to changes in customer demand (Ibrahim &
Babiker, 2020).

Supply chain focal firms use relationship arrangement to reduce risk of failure from
their supply network. Supply chain risk management encompasses the collaborative
effort among supply chain members to apply risk management tools in dealing with
risk in all logistics activities. ‘It is the management of risks for the supply chain,
through a coordinated approach among supply chain members, to reduce supply chain

16
vulnerability as a whole’ (Juttner et al., 2003). Kim et al. (2013) established that
proper implementation of manufacturing flexibility can mitigate supply chain risk and
in turn makes the supply chain more responsive. They further built their argument
based on work of Christopher and Lee (2004) which suggested that responsive supply
chain networks can be achieved through risk mitigating strategies. They articulated
the significance of information sharing, early detection of abnormalities and
responsive corrective action. Through information sharing and supply chain
collaboration, firms are reducing demand uncertainty that results from transparent
demand information accessible to all players in the supply chain in the most timely
manner (Reichhart & Holweg, 2015). Supply risk management approaches enhances
responsiveness through alliance relationships where the firm and its suppliers become
connected in reducing risk associated with supplies. There is a consolidated gain from
collaborative supply network strategy focusing on supply risk mitigation. These gains
are consolidated from supply side flexibility and collaboration which in turn improves
supply network responsiveness of the supply chain (Kim et al., 2013). A responsive
supply chain is achieved from the integrating of information systems across firms,
networking of partners and knowledge management approaches among supply chain
members (Gunasekaran et al., 2008)

2.1.5 Service Performance

Performance of a system generally falls into two major categories; financial and
non-financial performance measures. Financial performance metrics focus on the
profitability outcomes including turnover, net income, revenue growth, cost reduction
consideration, etc. whereas non-financial performance includes non-profitable metrics
such as market share, productivity, customer satisfaction, corporate governance,
employee’s condition of service among others (Ikechukwu, 2019). Service business
operators often assess the service quality provided to their customers in order to
improve their service, to quickly identify problems, and to better assess client
satisfaction. Service quality means the ability of a service provider to satisfy customer
in an efficient manner through which he can better the performance of business.
Service quality is used as an assessment of how well a delivered service conforms to
the client’s expectations (Ramya et al., 2019).

17
The success of a supply chain is dependent on effective management process. Supply
chain performance assessment should pay attention to the manner in which supply
chain activities were planned, organized and conducted to get products and services to
customers and the accompanied value customers derived from the consumption of the
products (Putra et al., 2019). Competitive advantage is defined as the “capability of an
organization to create a defensible position over its competitors” (Li et al., 2006). It is
the ability of a firm to differentiate itself from its competitors and is an outcome of
critical management decisions. Competitive advantage is either built upon low-cost
strategy or unique product or service offering that creates greater value to customers
relative to what competitors can offer (Khanal & Tamang, 2017).

Organizational performance is the ability of an organization to use its resources

efficiently and effectively to produce outputs that meet or are consistent with the goals
or objectives and relevant to its users (Ikechukwu, 2019). Service performance
measures include customer satisfaction and internal performance analysis. Customer
satisfaction measures involves surveys where individual customers or corporate
customer may be asked to rate their specific and overall impression of service
delivery. Whilst internal service performance analysis includes employee surveys that
are conducted to determine perception of the quality of service delivered to customers
on specific dimensions (Ramya et al., 2019). Responsiveness is one key dimension of
service quality in the midst of tangibility, empathy, assurance and service reliability.
Responsiveness dimension of service quality looks at the willingness to help
customers and to provide prompt service. This dimension focuses in the attitude and
promptness in dealing with customer requests, questions, complaints and problems.
Responsive production operation system can be a source of competitive advantage to
manufacturing organizations yet in a service operations environment responsiveness
forms part of the essential components in the delivery and consumption of services
(Thatte, & Nathan, 2013).

18
2.2 Theoretical Review

This section presents propositions of relevant theories that provide justification for
implementing a supply chain responsiveness strategy. The theories review under this
section consists of resource-based view (RBV), dynamic capability theory (DCV) and
Organizational Information Processing Theory (OIPT).

2.2.1 Resource Based View

Studies by Barnes (1991) and Grant (1991) have been generally used in strategic
management and organizational studies to emphasis how competitive advantage is
gained from the array of organizational resources. The resource – based view posits
that firms consist of “bundles of resources which are both tangible and non-tangible
assets that are tied to the firm in relatively permanent fashion. Organizational
resources cut across human, capital, physical and technology. These resources are not
limited to assets, capabilities, internal procedures and processes, information,
corporate attributes, knowledge and culture. The extent to which firms can build
competitive advantage depends on the ability of the firm to control these resources
that are valuable, unique, non – substitutable and inimitable. Organisations can
assume a competitive position to the extent that their resources and processes are rare
and cannot be easily copied by other firms (Liao et al., 2009). Based on the resource
based view, the competitive advantage firms obtain in operational domains like
manufacturing results from hard-to-duplicate resources that firms build up through
external and internal learning processes (Holweg & Pil, 2007). The resource based
view as used in this study suggest that supply chain responsiveness becomes a
resource when it possesses the ability to create organizational processes intended to
facilitates supply chain relationship building. From this theoretical point of view
supply chain responsiveness as a valuable intangible asset enable firms to achieve
their competitive priorities

2.2.2 Dynamic Capability Theory

Dynamic capability has been defined by Helfat et al. (2007) as “the capacity of an
organisation to purposefully create, extend or modify its resource base”. The word
dynamic connotes the capability to regenerate competences that correspond with
changing environment. Capability also stresses on various forms of adaptation,
integration, reconfiguration of both internal and external organizational resources in

19
response to the changing environment (Chein & Tsai, 2012). A dynamic capability
theory underscores how organisations are able to develop or acquire externally
resources needed to make them competitive in the changing business environment
they operate within. Dynamic capabilities are the firm’s processes that uses resources
to integrate, configure, gain and release resources to match and even create market
changes. Dynamic capabilities are firm specific oranisational processes and strategic
practices through which firms allocate resources based on the prevailing market
condition (Kim et al., 2013; Winter, 2003). A firm has dynamic capabilities if it can
make changes in its resources and process in satisfactory manner (Menon & Maharty,
2008).

With the resource-based view, proponents argue that competitive advantage is gained
when a firm possesses rare and valuable resources which have been uniquely acquired
or developed to the extent that others cannot find substitution for them or imitate
easily. But dynamic capability view argues that possessing rare, unique and valuable
resources which cannot be substituted or imitated is not enough to quarantee
competitive advantage over time. The dynamic capability theorists emphasis that in
addition to the valuable resources, firm must exhibit the ability to be adaptive and
flexible to changing market conditions (Liao et al., 2009). Dynamic capabilities unlike
the traditional resource-based view which is static, react to the market uncertainty in
the dynamic business environment. Therefore, dynamic capability theory is an
extension of the resource-based view (Chowdhury & Quaddus, 2017). Teece et al.
(1997) and Eisenhardt & Martin (2000) who were the pioneers in laying the
foundation for the dynamic capability theory moved the discussion on resource-based
view further. In their respective works, they introduce the concept of organizations
developing capabilities to face unexpected changes in the business environment. The
dynamic capability theorists believe competitive advantage stem from distinctive
processes and products that can respond to changing market requirements. RBV is
criticized for its failure to provide a strong theoretical framework for organisations to
develop capabilities that can be tailored towards addressing the dynamism in the
external environment. In comparison, resource-based view is limited to using
resources for what it is intended to do whilst dynamic capability view focus on using
resources adapt to rapid shift in the environmental conditions (Chowdhury &
Quaddus, 2017; Liao et al., 2009).

20
Dynamic capability view rest on the premise that organizations need to plan and
coordinate resources that are can best meet changing market condition under the
atmosphere of uncertainties (Chowdhury & Quaddus, 2017). The highest level of
capability lies in the appropriate, timely and efficient reconfiguration of existing
resources to create new competences. Reconfiguration of organizational resources
involves modification of the manner in which existing resources are allocated, and
combined in wake of shifting market opportunities in order to achieve competitive
advantage (Menon & Moharty, 2008). Based on the dynamic capability view, firm
must adapt, integrate and configure resources to respond to the changes in the
environment. In this sense, system flexibility and adaptation form the basis of
responsiveness (Chowdhury & Quaddus, 2017). Liao et al. (2009) proposed that
organizational dynamic capability originates from two core concepts; integrative
capacity and firm innovation. Menon & Moharty (2008) referred to capacity as the
ability to perform a task in a satisfactory manner. Integrative capacity in the views of
Liao et al. (2009) measures “the ability of firms to configure and reconfigure its
resources whilst deploying and redeploying the resources to capture and take
advantage of the changing market condition. Integrative capacity comes in the form of
either internal or external capabilities. External capabilities enable the firm to identify
opportunities whereas internal integrative capabilities enable the firm to capitalize on
opportunities through resource reconfiguration and redeployment. On the other hand,
Liao et al. (2009) describe firm innovation as a firm’s ability to create new value
propositions through offering of new products and services, adopting new operating
practice, technological, organizational, or market-oriented, or creating new skills and
competencies. In their description, firm innovation composed of both content-wise
and process-wise innovation. Content-wise innovation emanates from the firm’s
ability to comes create new value propositions in the form of tangible assets or
products. In Process-wise innovation, a firm attempt to create new form of business
processes and systems. Innovation results in the creation of new products and services
(Liao et al., 2009).

Menon & Moharty (2008) listed some of the dominant pattern of collective
engagements available to organisations and has been reported in dynamic capability
literature. These include “distributing and assigning knowledge resources, sharing
individual knowledge in the group, capturing synergies among tasks and resources,

21
appointing the right person to the right unit, integration strategies during corporate
acquisitions, keeping managers informed of collective activities, etc”. Kim et al.
(2013) adopted the dynamic capability as the theoretical foundation for investigating
the influence of changing business environment on market flexibility and supply
chain responsiveness. The dynamic capability theory explains the need for supply
chains to develop a more robust operation system and supply network that can aptly
respond to the changing market demands and pressure from the external environment.
The dynamic capability theory in this study explains that firms reconfigure and
redeploy their resources including supply chain processes to adapt to external changes
from the environment.

2.2.3 The Organizational Information Processing Theory (OIPT)

The Organizational Information Processing Theory (OIPT) stresses on the essence of

firms engaging in active gathering, analysis, and usage of information in the most
effective and efficient manner, to accomplish complex tasks given greater degrees of
uncertainty and interdependence (Yu et al., 2020). From the perspective of
organizational information processing theory (OIPT), firm must endeavour to use the
information they have at their disposal to remain competitive under uncertain business
environment. Uncertainty refers to the difference between level of information
required to carry out a task and the actual level of information available to perform
the task. Organizational information processing theory (OIPT) states that firms can
tackle uncertainty by enhancing information processing within the organization.
Defenders of the organizational information processing theory (OIPT) argue that lack
of information increases business uncertainty and that information sharing is pivotal
in managing uncertainty in a competitive enterprise (Bryde et al., 2020).
Simultaneously, uncertainty within the business environment hinders the organization
from undertaking effective planning and operational activities. Therefore, the higher
the uncertainty an organization faces, the higher the firm’s need for information. To
reduce uncertainties, organisations need to invest in vertical information systems and
maintain strong ties among actors on the horizontal level (Bodes et al., 2010; Yu et al,
2020).

According to the Organizational Information Processing Theory (OIPT),

organizations must develop their information processing capacity to meet the growing
need of information due to uncertainty (Yu et al., 2019). Information itself is
22
intangible resources which needs to be managed appropriately and the ability of firms
to process information likewise presents superior form of organizational competitive
positioning. The speed and direction of information dissemination affects the
information processing (Bryde et al., 2020; Cao & Zhang, 2011). According to the
Organizational Information Processing Theory (OIPT), strategic formulation and
decision making of organisations are influenced by how information flow internally
within the organization and how information is exchange with externally among
organisations. Organizational structure must be designed to increase the capability of
the firm to capture, process and share information in order to stay competitive in the
uncertain business environment (Yu et al., 2019). The organizational information
processing theorists focus on how competitive edge is achieved from internal
organizational procedures, process and structures with little attention on inter – firm
interactions (Bodes et al., 2010). Information processing perspectives support the
beliefe that information processing capability of organisations essentially determines
the competitive position of firms in the ever-evolving business environment and
provides justification for organisations to promptly respond to changes in the external
environment (Schoenher, 2015; Bodes et al., 2010). The information processing
theory in this study explain that firms that are able to develop their information
processing capabilities become responsive to their customers which improves service
performance outcomes.

2.3 Empirical Review

This section presents review of empirical investigation on supply chain

responsiveness, service performance and related concepts. Most of the previous
studies on responsiveness were conducted from manufacturing perspective, as it is
regarded as the prime origin of responsiveness (Sharma et al. 2020, Sandberg &
Jafari, 2018). Reichhart & Holweg (2007) stated that demand uncertainty and
variability are the driving forces behind responsiveness objectives pursued by
manufacturing or supply chain firms. These studies, Al – Hawajreh & Attiany (2014),
Roh et al. (2013) Sukati (2012), Thatte et al (2013) explore the competitiveness with
pursuing a supply chain responsive strategy.

23
2.3.1 Dimensions of Supply Chain Responsiveness

In Squire et al. (2009), flexibility and responsiveness were considered related but
distinct concepts; to them, flexibility denotes an ability to adapt or change but not
necessarily with the speed implied of responsiveness. Nair (2005) finds that value
chain flexibility is an important moderator between postponement, centralized
distribution and responsiveness. This was explained using the case of the buyer
organization working with a supplier to reduce lead times or minimum lot sizes, or to
ensure that the supplier has an approved subcontractor to cope with significant
demand fluctuations.

Ying (2010) performs analysis of supply chain flexibility and responsiveness: in the
chinese textile and clothing industry. The study aimed at analyzing how the
implementation of supply chain flexibility strategies impacts on the responsiveness of
the supply chain beyond the boundaries of an individual. Flexibility was demonstrated
in four dimensions, namely sourcing flexibility, operating system flexibility,
distribution flexibility, and information system flexibility. The study reveals that
supply chain flexibility fosters responsiveness to customers’ enquiries and
requirements, and the ability to meet their various demand. Lummus et al, (2003)
analyzed supply chain responsiveness in the dimensions of operation system, logistics
process, supply network, organizational design and information systems and proposed
to corresponding outcomes; customer satisfaction in the form of service and
responsiveness perception and improvement in supply chain asset utilization.
Gunasekaran et al. (2008) suggested that a responsive supply chain displays
interconnected information network configuration involving key supply chain
partners. They hypothesized that information systems, knowledge management and
network of partnering firms enhance supply chain responsiveness with speed and
flexibility as the outcomes.

Closs & Swink (2005) investigated the role of information connectivity in achieving
responsive logistics operation. They conceptualized logistics responsiveness in terms
of flexible logistics program and information connectivity. Flexible logistics program
in their model covers the planning and decision-making capabilities firms use to
enhance flexibility in their logistics function. Information connectivity construct
consisted of information sharing and collaborative effort of supply chain members.
Holweg (2005) studied responsiveness based on three operation system flexibility
24
variables; volume, product and process flexibility. These variables were arrived at in
considering customer lead times, order to delivery time, distribution lead time, supply
chain response lead time, volume stability, demand specifications, product variety,
degree of product customization, product life cycle, and decoupling points. Stevenson
& Spring (2009) analyse empirical evedience on supply chain flexibility arising from
inter firm relationship. Linking a firm’s flexibility to the wider supply chain

Ibrahim & Babiker (2020) was among the first researches that extended the study on
supply chain responsiveness to service industry. Ibrahim and Babiker (2020) explore
supply chain responsiveness in service industry in Sudanese environment. Sukati et al.
(2011) focus their investigation on supply chain responsiveness in the consumer
goods industry. Then, Sharma et al. (2020) expandeded the study of responsiveness to
retail sector.

In supply chain responsiveness literature, most researches were conducted by

adopting a case study approach in examining responsiveness. Kaneberg et al. (2020)
demonstrated impact of network responsiveness on supply chains within emergency
preparedness, in an explorative case study. The study reveals that challenges in the
supply network remain the main setback in attaining responsiveness in complex
supply chains and suggested that a responsive strategy must include all relevant actors
and share the necessary and most correct information. Gunasekaran et al. (2008) use a
case study approach in examining the critical success factors for achieving responsive
supply chain. These factors include an extensive distribution channel (logistics),
global suppliers, accurate demand forecasts, just-in-time deliveries, and applications
of various technologies such as the Internet-based solutions. Squire et al. (2009) found
out the relationship among three supplier manufacturing capabilities, namely
responsiveness, flexibility and modularity, and their effect on buyer firm performance
as measured by levels of customer responsiveness. Based on factor loading analysis
conducted in the study of Closs & Swink (2005), flexible logistics program positively
impacts on delivery responsiveness whereas information connectivity partially
mediates between the relationship between logistics flexibility and delivery
responsiveness. Thatte et al. (2013) using a survey tested the relationship between
supply chain responsiveness and operational performance based on structural equation
modeling. The results revealed that supply chain responsiveness have positive effect
on operational performance. There was also a positive relationship between supply

25
chain management practices and supply chain responsiveness; supply chain
management practices and operational performance.

Sharma et al. (2020) perform a systematic review on responsiveness from retailer’s

perspective. Holweg & Mienczyk (2002) had earlier assessed logistics responsiveness
in a distribution system using lead time and efficiency as the outcomes. Based on their
study, responsive delivery system is more cost efficient than the traditional
distribution channel in the UK automobile industry. The study also reveals that
logistics responsiveness alone does not guarantee supply chain performance. Logistics
system responsiveness needs to be embarked upon in addition to other sub – system
activities in order to maintain supply chain optimization.

In response to the scanty empirical evidence on supply chain responsiveness

constructs, studies in the last decades have attempted to conceptualize supply chain
responsiveness into sub constructs and empirically investigated the effects of the
individual sub construct on performance. Thatte et al. (2013) conceptualized three
dimensions of supply chain responsiveness and developed an instrument for
measuring each constructs of SCR. Again, Sukati et al. (2011) drew inspiration from
Thatte et al. (2009) and evaluated the relationship between supply chain management
practices namely strategic supplier partnership, customer relationship and information
sharing and supply chain responsiveness and it’s sub constructs,; operation system
responsiveness, logistics process responsiveness, supply network responsiveness as
well as competitive advantage variables including price, quality, delivery
dependability, time to market, and product innovation.

Thatte & Agrawal (2017) studied two dimension of supply chain responsiveness;
operation system responsiveness and supply network responsiveness and found out
that Operation System responsiveness and Supply network responsiveness have
positive impact on operational performance. Thatte et al. (2013) specifically analyze
the relationships between supply chain responsiveness and operation performance,
supply chain management practice and supply chain responsiveness as well as supply
chain responsiveness and operational performance. Ibrahim & Babiker (2020)
extended the contribution of Thatte & Agrawal (2017) and Thatte et al. (2013) on
supply chain responsiveness and operational performance. They (Ibrahim & Babiker,
2020) were among the pioneer researchers in studying the inter relationship among

26
the dimensions of supply chain responsiveness. Ibrahim & Babiker (2020) contributed
uniquely by assessing the inter relationship between operation system responsiveness
and supply network responsiveness.

However, Ibrahim and Babiker (2020) studied two major dimensions of supply chain
responsiveness; supply network responsive and operation system responsiveness as
the independent constructs and their impact on operational performance in terms of
cost and service performance. The study showed that a strong inter relationships and
interactions among the two components of supply chain responsiveness. Both supply
network responsive and operation system responsiveness had significant relationship
with operational performance but there was medium relationship between supply
chain responsiveness and operational performance.

2.3.2 Supply Chain Responsiveness and Supply Chain Management

Earlier literature on supply chain management concepts measured supply chain

responsiveness as supply chain performance variable. Sukati et al (2011) assessed the
relationship between supply chain management practices, supply chain
responsiveness and competitive advantages. Supply chain responsiveness was
measured as a dependent variable in addition to competitive advantages. Sukati et al.
(2011) discovered that supply chain management practices were key determinants on
supply chain responsiveness comprising of all the three dimensions; operation system,
logistics process and supply network. Information sharing showed a stronger
relationship with supply chain responsiveness than customer relationship management
and strategic supplier partnership. Hayat et al. (2012) also examine various factors
affecting supply chain responsiveness. These factors included top level commitment
to coordinate, mutual understanding among supply chain firms, organizational factors
like structures, culture and training, flow of information, relationships and decision
making had significant impact on supply chain responsiveness. Roh et al. (2013)
identify the implications of pursing a responsive supply chain strategy in global
complexity: focusing on manufacturing firms and conclude that responsive supply
chain thrives well in strategic integration between the focal firm and its customers and
suppliers. Kim et al. (2013) examine the effect of manufacturing flexibility and
market flexibility on supply chain responsiveness and the moderating effect of
business environment on the relationship between market flexibility and supply chain
responsiveness.
27
Sukati et al (2012) analyze the relationship between supply chain integration, supply
chain responsiveness and competitive advantages and found a positive relationship
between supply chain integration and supply chain responsiveness; supply chain
responsiveness and competitive advantages. Al – Hawajreh & Attiany (2014) assess
the effect of supply chain responsiveness on competitive advantages and reveal that
supply chain responsiveness significantly impacts on competitive advantage. The
study further analyse the relationship between the three variables under supply chain
responsiveness; operation system responsiveness, logistics process responsiveness,
supply network responsiveness and competitive advantage. Operation system
responsiveness in particular significantly impact on competitive advantage.

Several studies on responsiveness lacks strong theoretical justification (Sharma et al,

2020). Sharma et al. (2020) employed the resource-based view as the theoretical guide
in exploring responsiveness as an internal dynamic capability of the firm to internalize
the customer demands and choices. Squire et al. (2009) also based their study on the
extended resource-based view theory. They argue that collaboration is a key
determinant of external resource access or acquisition where it promotes in-depth
communication and two-way interaction. Buyer firms are better able to identify
complementary capabilities which help increase performance, while supplier firms are
more likely to be open and committed to the relationship.

2.3.3 Supply Chain Responsiveness in Service Operation

Jaakelaineen et al (2013) research survey sought to understand the dimensions of

service performance measurement. They theorized that service performance
measurement could be conducted from two levels of examination; strategic
management view point and operation management perspective. Strategic
management views pay attention to organizational level of success related factors
hovering around profitability and productivity. Popular strategic management metric
is the balanced scored card perspectives. Service operations management metrics
focus on the distinctive features of service; intangibility, heterogeneity, inseparability,
perishability of the service delivery and consumption.

Service operations is embedded in every industrial sector (Jääskeläinen et al., 2013).

Service performance measurement is regarded as important due to the increasing
significance of service activities, but it is also regarded as a more complicated one

28
compared to the manufacturing context (Pawar et al., 2009). Service supply chains are
more process centered (Drzymalski, 2012). Service performance can be evaluated
from customers perspective as the degree of quality of customer service or
measurement of the service operations from internal perspective. Service performance
in this case represent an external perspective of firms. Yet perception of external
customers is based on internal behaviour of employees (Ibrahim & Babiker, 2020).
Service operation performance denotes the configurations of resources and processes
that create and deliver service to the customer (Jääskeläinen et al., 2013). Um (2018)
discloses that service supply chain performance measures either focus on input factors
comprising of service capacity, service productivity, service delivery and profit or
output performance representing the quantity and quality of the final service. This
also reflects the customer service level. Output performance variables are categorized
into service quality, service agility and service effectiveness.

Jääskeläinen et al. (2013) categorized service performance measurement into two

organizational level of performance measurement and service operation level.
Organisation level of examining service performance consider context-specific nature
of an organization’s performance measurement such as firm size, industry and
strategy. Service operation perspective stresses on marketing orientation which
present the organization to the outside world. Service operation measurement
considers customer being the output of operation perceive service delivery and how
customer presence affects resources during service delivery. Service operation
performance measurement combines the perspective of service provider on one hand
and perspective of customer on the other hand. The service performance metrics are
not limited to length of customer contact, criticality of service, degree of customer
orientation. Famiyeh et al. (2018), Agnihotri et al. (2016) have stated that
responsiveness is a significant ability in positioning the firms’ image in the minds of
customers by renewing the services delivery. Almutawa et al. (2018), Meesala and
Paul (2018) studies have focused their analysis about responsiveness by considering
service quality. Responsiveness and service quality have been used in numerous
studies as key service dimensions for measuring firm performance and customer
satisfaction (Sharma et al., 2020).

29
2.4 Conceptual Framework of the Study

This section presents the conceptual framework of the current study based on
concepts and theories reviewed in relevant literature related to the subject. The section
is presented in three major parts; the first part gives introduction and description of
the variables in the model; the second part presents the pictorial view of the model in
the form of a diagram and the third part presents a brief discussion of the relationship
between the variables in the model and the resultant hypothesis formed.

2.4.1 Description of Variables in the Model

Figure 2.1 shows the conceptual framework of the study. In the framework, supply
chain responsiveness which refers to the ability of a supply chain to respond and adapt
time-effectively based on the ability to read and understand actual market signals
(Reichhart & Holweg, 2007) represents the independent variable of the study. There
are three sub constructs under supply chain responsiveness namely; operation system
responsiveness, logistics process responsiveness and supply network responsiveness.
On the other hand, service performance dimensions consisting of service delivery
time, queuing and waiting environment, speed of change management and customised
services represents the dependent variable. The main variables are illustrated in
rectangular blocks while sub constructs are illustrated in an oval within the
rectangular boxes. Supply chain responsiveness and service performance which
represents the main independent and dependent variables respectively were illustrated
in a rectangular box. The three sub – constructs of the independent variable; operation
system responsiveness, logistics process responsiveness and supply network
responsiveness were illustrated in an oval within the supply chain responsiveness
rectangle. Service performance as a dependent variable is measured in the dimension
of delivery time, service waiting environment, speed of changes to service, and degree
of service customerisation. The arrows and straight lines depict the relationship
between the variables. Based on the framework, supply chain responsiveness has
impact on service performance.

SUPPLY CHAIN RESPONSIVENESS

30
 H1(a-c)

INDEPENDENT VARIABLE DEPENDENT VARIABLE

Figure 2.1 Conceptual Framework of the Study

Source: Author’s Construct (2021)

2.4.2 Supply Chain Responsiveness and Service Performance

Responsiveness brings to mind the ability of firm to take action in response to

changing customer needs in an effective and profitable manner (Squire & Cousins,
2009). Companies employ supply chain responsiveness strategy meet customer needs
and create value proposition through product variety and shortened lead times
(Reichhart & Holweg, 2007). Jääskeläinen et al. (2013) reiterate that structuring the
service delivery system and streamlining the ability to respond to demand require
effective resource configuration and capacity management as proposed in the dynamic
capacity theory. In a typical manufacturing system, responsiveness corresponds to the
ability of the production system to achieve its operational goals in the presence of
supplier, internal and customer disturbances (Reichhart & Holweg, 2007). Service is a
process and customer is an evaluator (Jaakelainen et al., 2013). Service should be
responsive in the sense that always service delivery will match customers presence
since there is no inventory in service provision (Um, 2018). Pereira (2009) argues that

31
flexibility should reflect in higher services levels and low costs. Responsiveness is the
fundamental key to enhance service performance and meet customer expectation in
the globally competitive market (Sharma et al., 2020). Ibrahim & Babiker (2020)
shows a strong relationship between supply chain responsiveness and service
performance. However, Sharma (2020) hypothesized that responsiveness had
significant influence on service performance and customer relationship management
under the moderation of customer orientation. Squire et al. (2009) shows that
flexibility in supply network enables the buyer organisation to respond to changes in
its customer orders in terms of volume and mix without whilst maintain cost and
quality levels. Um (2018) discloses that flexibility and responsiveness is a perquisite
in service supply chain for both customized and standardized service. Both operation
system responsiveness and supply network responsiveness have positive impact on
service performance and operational cost (Ibrahim & Babiker, 2020). Ying (2010)
used supply chain responsiveness to measure firms’ customer support capabilities and
promptness in service delivery. Based on the discussion the following hypothesis were
formed.

H1: Supply chain responsiveness has a positive and significant impact on service
performance

H1a: Operation system responsiveness has a positive and significant impact on

service performance

H1b: Logistics process has a positive and significant impact on service performance

H1c: Supply network responsiveness has a positive significant impact on service

performance

2.4.3 Operation System Responsiveness and Logistics Process Responsiveness

In the views of Reichhart & Holweg (2007), the responsiveness of a manufacturing or

supply chain system is defined by the speed with which the system can adjust its
output within the available range of the four external flexibility types: product, mix,
volume and delivery, in response to an external stimulus. Pereira (2009) comments
that flexibility can be gained from products variety by offering a wide product, or
product volume and emphasize that firm’s ability to react quickly to unexpected

32
demand or changes in supply affect supply chain performance. To effectively respond
to customer requirement both operation system and the logistics system of the focal
firm must be flexible enough. Reichhart & Holweg, (2007) argue that firm’s
responsiveness will be visible to the customer when four key forms of flexibility exist
in the firm’s operation and distribution chain; product, mix, volume and delivery
flexibility. Product flexibility describes the ability to introduce new products or
changes to existing products. Mix flexibility is the ability to alter the product mix
within the existing product range that the system delivers. Volume flexibility refers to
the ability to change the system’s aggregated output and delivery flexibility is the
ability to alter agreed delivery agreements including shortening lead-times and to an
extreme extent of changing the place of delivery or the actual destination of the
product. In other times, delivery flexibility comes as the ability of the firm to make
changes to the pre-determined delivery sequence. Without a responsive logistics
processes operation system flexibility cannot consolidate much gain to the supply
chain. Zhang et al. (2005) concede that logistics flexibility originates from the
physical distribution responsiveness which externally focused on customer to the
extent that there is internally driven customer value creation agenda value,
competence and operation capabilities that support the logistics drive. Operations
system responsiveness and logistics process responsiveness are reported as nearly the
same concept. To Pereiro (2009) logistics responsiveness encompasses both inbound
and outbound, shipments, and manufacturing support and flow of information, which
coordinates these efforts at the same time Holweg (2005) infers that responsiveness is
the manufacturing ability to adapt to customers’ requests. Manufacturing operation
flexibility concepts seems to have given rise to logistics responsiveness and agility.
Flexible manufacturing strategy creates avenue for improving supply chain that can
respond to changing needs of the market (Kim et al., 2013). Therefore the following
hypothesis is proposed.

H2: There is significant inter – relation between operation system responsiveness and
logistics process responsiveness

2.4.4 Logistics process responsiveness and supply network responsiveness

Pereira (2009) recounts that the increasing degree of business uncertainty coupled
with global dynamism drives companies that seek superior value proposition in
delivering meeting customer requirement to integrate business of key trading partners
33
in more cooperation and information sharing efforts. An excellent customer side
logistics process must be complemented with a supply side responsiveness both local
and global for total supply chain goals to be achieved. Outbound logistics partners
particularly, retailers have assumed powerful position on the value chain. Retailers are
providing source of input that depict customers taste and preferences, product
features, service quality and timing requirements. Achieving responsiveness requires
advancing relationship with suppliers. Strategic alliances with suppliers create both
agility and efficiency for the contracting firms (Gunasekaran et al., 2008). The
internal responsiveness capability of the supplier should have a direct impact on the
responsiveness of the buyer firm to their customers. Based on the argument above the
following hypothesis is proposed

H3: There is significant inter – relation between logistics process responsiveness and
supply network responsiveness

2.4.5 Operation System Responsiveness And Supply Network Responsiveness

Reichhart & Holweg (2007) argue that the level of responsiveness of a firm’s
upstream trading partners affects its internal operations responsiveness. The level of
responsiveness changes among the different actors in the supply chain. Its imperative
for the focal firm to align its responsive objectives with upstream members for
efficient and sustainable responsive system. For instance, adapting to short term
operational changes depends on the responsive levels of immediate tiers at the supply
side. Continuous cooperation and communication among supply nodes and warning
capabilities with inherent actionable response along the chain undoubtedly safeguard
the operation system against environmental disruption (Pereira, 2009). Internal
capability of a firm depends on the capability of supply base (Squire et al., 2009).
Smith et al. (2007) pointed out two forms of risk that needs to be tackle together as
internal system risk arising from demand and supply mismatch and external risk
arising from interaction among parties in a supply chain network. Using supply chain
thinking as a basis for planning and integrating actors in networks has already been
suggested as a solution to achieve responsiveness (Kaneberg et al., 2020). Squire et al.
(2009) suggest that greater levels of collaboration enable a firm to have greater access
to their suppliers’ capabilities, thus moderating the effect on performance. Ibrahim &
Babiker (2020) found a significant inter – relationship between operation system

34
responsiveness and supply network responsiveness. Against this background, the
following hypothesis is developed.

H4: There is significant inter – relation between operation system responsiveness and
supply network responsiveness

35
 CHAPTER THREE

METHODOLOGY AND ORGANISATIONAL PROFILE

3.0 Introduction

The chapter presents the research methodology and organizational profile of the study.
The chapter specifically covers ten sub sections. Section one presents the research
design of the study. Section two presents the research methods applied during the
conduct of the study. Section three and four presents the study population, sample size
and sampling techniques respectively. Section five, six and seven reports on the
sources of data, methods used in collecting data and data analysis method
respectively. Section eight focuses on the research validity and reliability test whilst
section nine highlights the ethical consideration of the study. The final section
presents a profile of the study area.

3.1 Research Design

Research design is the framework within which a study is carried out. The research
design of a study depicts the research plan that constitutes, methods of data collection,
measurement and analysis (Akhtar, 2016). Lodico et al. (2010) stated that research
designs suitable for quantitative approaches include descriptive survey research,
correlational, experimental research, single-subject researched, causal-comparative
research method. Correlational research is a type of quantitative research method
within the positivism paradigm. This attempts to explain phenomena by collecting
numerical data that are analysed using mathematically based methods. Correlation
research also referred to as associational research is the study that investigate
relationships among two or more variables without any attempt to influence them.
There is no manipulation of variables in correlational research as in the case of
experimental designs (Asamoah, 2014).

Descriptive research design focuses on providing a static picture about variables but
correlational research is designed to discover relationships between variables and
allow the prediction of future events from present knowledge. The study however
used the explanatory approach to investigate the relationship between the constructs.
Explanatory designs give account of why event or phenomenon looks, changes or
varies in a research environment. Explanatory designs provide complete and
comprehensive understanding of the research problem (Asad et al., 2018).

36
3.2 Research Methods

Research is categorized as quantitative or qualitative in nature. Quantitative research

employs the use of numbers and accuracy, while qualitative research focuses on lived
experiences and human perceptions (Polit & Beck, 2012). Quantitative research
involves studies that make use of statistical analyses to obtain their findings.
Qualitative research involves studies that do not attempt to quantify their results
through statistical summary or analysis (Kaufman et al., 2005).

This study followed on the quantitative research approach through a questionniore

survey methodology in collecting and analysing data. Survey research according to
Sukamolson (2007) encompasses the use of scientific sampling method with a
designed questionnaire to measure a given population's characteristics through the
utilisation of statistical methods.

Survey study is advantageous because large numbers of people can be studied in

terms of behaviors, attitudes, and opinions. Some surveys merely describe what
people say, think and do. Other survey studies attempt to find relationships between
the characteristics of the respondents and their reported behaviours and opinions
(Kaufman et al., 2005). This study was carried out to find relationship between two
variables namely supply chain responsiveness and service performance. The survey
was a form of quantitative research that was conducted through a questionnaire
instrument.

3.3 Study Population

Polit and Hungler (1999) refer to research population as an aggregate or totality of all
the objects, subjects or members that conform to a set of specifications. A population
is an entire group about which some information is required to be ascertained
(Banerjee & Chaudhury, 2010). A population is all the individuals or units of interest.
According to Best & Kahn (2007), “a population is any group of individuals who
have one or more characteristics in common that are of interest to the researcher. The
population may be all the individuals of a particular type or a more restricted part of
that group.

The population of the study comprises all manufacturing and processing firms that
are located within the Ashanti Region. This includes firms in the manufacturing

37
industry covering electronics manufacturing, car manufacturing, electric car
manufacturing, automotive manufacturing, light manufacturing, aluminum smelting,
food processing, cement, and small commercial ship building.

3.4 Sample Size and Sampling Techniques

A sample is any part of the fully defined population (Banerjee & Chaudhury, 2010).
A sample is a subset of the individuals in a population. Population is all individuals of
interest to the researcher but due to numerical constraints, researchers typically study
a subset of the population, and that subset is called a sample. Because researchers may
not be able to study the entire population of interest, it is important that the sample be
representative of the population from which it was selected (Kaufman et al., 2005). To
make accurate inferences, the sample has to be representative. A representative
sample is one in which each and every member of the population has an equal and
mutually exclusive chance of being selected. A sample of one hundred and ten (110)
firms was used for the study.

Sampling techniques are categorised into random and non-random techniques.

Probability sampling or random sampling techniques are those sampling methods in
which every element of the group has an equal chance of selection. These methods
exhibit the greatest freedom from bias but may represent the most costly sample in
terms of time and energy (Taherdoost, 2016). This study employed a purposive
sampling technique. Purposive or judgmental sampling is a strategy in which
particular settings, persons or events are selected deliberately in order to provide
important information that cannot be obtained from other choices. Under purposive
sampling participants are included in the sample based on certain characteristics that
justify their inclusion (Taherdoost, 2016).

Purposive sampling technique which is a non-probability sampling technique was

adopted in choosing individual respondents among the sample of the population to be
surveyed. Purposive sampling is believed to increase the likelihood of obtaining
information from a particular group of people with the requisite knowledge on the
matter being studied. Only manufacturing firms were sampled and top management or
supply chain practitioners were included in the study. The rationale being that the
pre-defined group which are limited to key staff whose duties or roles in the
organization are directly associated with supply chain management practices possess

38
in - depth knowledge and practical experience in the area of study. Experts in
procurement, transport, warehouse, depot, distribution, sales, marketing accounts,
operation departments were included in the sample. These people were selected
because they have had considerable experience and knowledge in the subject matter
within the manufacturing sector in Ashanti Region.

3.5 Types and Sources of Data

Data is facts or figures from which conclusions can be drawn. Data as a general
concept refers to the fact that some existing information or knowledge is represented
or coded in some form suitable for better usage or processing. Data is collected and
analyzed; data only becomes information suitable for making decision in some
fashion (Ajayi, 2017). Gathering data can be accomplished through a primary source
when the researcher is the first person to obtain the data or a secondary source when
the researcher obtains the data that has already been collected by other sources, such
as data disseminated in a scientific journal (Mesly, 2015).

Primary data is one which is collected for the first time by the researcher while
secondary data is the data already collected or produced by others. Primary data
sources include surveys, observations, experiments, questionnaire, personal interview
etc. Secondary data collection on the other hand, are government publications,
websites, books, journal articles, internal records etc. (Ajayi, 2017). Primary data
were utilized for the conduct of the research. Primary data were collected from the
field survey by means of questionnaire survey. This data provided the empirical data
for the analysis of the results.

3.6 Data Collection Method

Data collection is “the process of gathering and measuring information on variables of

interest, in an established systematic fashion that enables one to answer stated
research questions, test hypothesis, and evaluate outcomes” (Kabir, 2016). The study
employed a survey method for the collection of primary data. Two types of survey
designs including cross-sectional and longitudinal surveys can be employed for a
study. This study was a cross sectional survey which is a one-time survey using
questionnaire survey instrument. One hundred and ten (110) copies of questionnaires
were administered among respondents from the manufacturing industry.

39
The questionnaires were self - administered by respondents as respondents included
the top management, and practitioners in the supply chain management field. The
questionnaires organized into three major parts; part one demanded respondents
background information, part two addressed components of supply chain
responsiveness and part three addressed service performance variables. Both the
independent and dependent variables were gauged on a seven-point Likert scale
ranging from 1 which represents strongly disagree to 7 which represents strongly
agree. A seven – point Likert scale is more sensitive and robust in reducing possibility
of errors (Sauro and Dumas, 2009)

3.7 Data Analysis

Ader (2008) defines data analysis as “the process of editing, cleaning, transformation,
and modelling data with the goal of highlighting useful information, suggestion,
conclusions, and supporting decision making”. Data analysis covers the process of
turning data into meaningful information for decision making. The data collected
through the questionnaire survey was first scrutinized and then coded before the
actual analysis. The results of the analysis were presented using both descriptive
analysis and inferential statistics. Inferential statistics help us to draw conclusions
beyond our immediate samples and data (Kaufman, 2005). Uzunboylu and Asiksoy
(2014) argue that descriptive statistics have been relied upon as the most efficient
means of communicating research outcomes. In their views “descriptive analysis
methods are the most commonly used data analysis techniques, yet various other
techniques are also frequently used by various researchers. The examples of such
analysis techniques are t-test, ANOVA, ANCOVA, correlation, regression, factor
analysis, and nonparametric test. In this study, the demographic data of respondents
were presented using descriptive statistics whilst the analysis of the relationship
among the study variables were performed using inferential statistics”.

Correlation and regression analysis were the main inferential statistics adopted for the
analysis of data. Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) and Microsoft Excel
application were the main tools for the data analysis and presentation. Statistical
Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) and Microsoft Excel applications were used to
perform the correlation and regression analysis to determine the significant
relationship among the study variables.

40
3.8 Validity and Reliability Test

Reliability refers to “the consistency or dependability of a measurement technique,

and it is concerned with the consistency or stability of the score obtained from a
measure or assessment over time and across settings or conditions” (Kaufman, 2005).
To test the consistency or internal reliability different test can be performed including
test – retest, split half reliability and alternative form reliability. Interrater reliability is
another form of assessing consistency in a dataset that measures the degree harmony
in the response. Interrater reliability test ascertains the level of agreement between
different participants in terms of their opinion on a subject. (Kaufman et al., 2005).

Validity refers to “the conceptual and scientific soundness of a research study or

investigation, and the primary purpose of all forms of research is to produce valid
conclusions” (Kaufman et al., 2005) The concept of validity answers the question as
to whether or not the research tools can effectively obtain the required information
needed on the subject matter (Kaufman et al., 2005).

Validity can be assessed from internal and external perspective. Internal validity refers
“to the ability of a research design to rule out or make implausible alternative
explanations of the results, or plausible rival hypotheses whereas external validity
refers to the generalizability of the results of a research study”. Construct validity
refers to “the basis of the causal relationship and is concerned with the congruence
between the study’s results and the theoretical underpinnings guiding the research”.
Statistical validity concerns with the impact of quantitative assessment of the data that
can influence the truthfulness of the findings of the study. External validity measures
the extent to which findings of a study can be applied to a similar group of
respondents under different study area and period (Mitchell & Holley, 2010). In this
study, an internal consistency test was conducted and Cronbach alpha values were
computed for each construct in order to determine the degree of precision or
reliability of the study findings.

3.9 Ethical Consideration

Ethics involve learning what is right and wrong and doing what is right thing
(Prabhakar, 2011). According to Fleming (2018) ethical research should be conducted
based on three vital principles: informed consent, anonymous and confidentiality and
conflict of interest. The most commonly infringed upon of ethical issue is informed

41
consent (Denzin & Lincoln, 2011). Informed consented is rooted in two distinct
concepts, fundamental in research and ethical issues; informed and consent. Ethically,
it was required that respondents were made aware of their participation in the survey.
Respondents had the rights to permit access to their information and the right to
withdraw from the survey at any point. This study clearly explained in advance to
respondents who the researcher was, what the study sought to achieve, the
information needed from them and how the data would be analyzed and presented.
Only respondents who were willing and ready to participate in the survey were
eventually included after their consent had been completely sought.

Also, ethical research demands that respondent’s information is kept anonymous and
confidential. Participant anonymity means “the participant’s identity was unknown to
the researcher. Participant confidentiality means the participant’s identity were known
to the researcher but the data was de-identified and the identity is kept confidential”
(Fleming, 2018).

The study through the design of questionnaire and the presentation of results
provided the highest assurance of anonymity and confidentiality. The assurance of
anonymity and confidentiality was enhanced as no question in the questionnaire
intended to collect personal and identification information. The research questionnaire
avoided self-identifying statements and information.

Researchers previous association and interaction can create a conflict of interest

situation (Fleming, 2018). However, the researcher had no such relationship so ever to
create conflict of interest situation. Meanwhile, the study appropriately cited all
sources from which ideas, information and other forms of data were accessed to
prevent plagiarism.

3.10 Profile of Study Area

Ashanti Region is one of the regions in the middle zone of the country. It is situated
within longitudes 0.15W and 2.25W and latitudes 5.50N and 7.46N. The region alone
have total land area of 24,389 square kilometre which represents about 10.2% of the
country’s land area. The region is one of the busiest Regions in Ghana with Kumasi as
the administrative capital or capital town. Ashanti region is surrounded by four
neigbouring regions. Brong Ahafo Region is bordered to Ashanti Region in the

42
northern direction, Eastern Region to the east, Central Region to the South and
Western Region to the South West.

Demographically, the region is the second largest in terms of population. The region
has a population of 4,780,380 representing 19.47% of Ghana’s total population.
Currently there are forty – three districts assemblies within the Ashanti Region, where
rural communities dominate. Majority of the districts comprise of greater portions of
rural dwellers. Agriculture is the leading economic activities with cocoa farming and
mining activities being the most leading economic activities (GSS, 2010). Wholesale
and retail trade, manufacturing, personal services, water, transport, storage and
communication activities are the predominant economic activities in order of
engagement. Approximately, 30.5% of the active labour force in the region are
employed under agricultural activities except fishing which is widely practised in the
region. About 25.4% are employed by the wholesale and retail of goods whilst 10.5%,
6.1% respectively engaged in manufacturing and hospitality services (GSS, 2010).

The social administration of the Asante communities has been a traditional and
customary practices presided by chiefs and elders. In every Asante locality, there is
some designated authority who exercise rulership over the residents. The Asantehene
remains the only king over the entire Asante Kingdom with other chiefs being his
divisional chiefs and elders. The Asante chieftancy is practised matrilinear system and
kings are enthrond from their mother’s linage. The people of Asante speaks a major
Akan language called Asante Twi. Asante region inhabits about 30.5% of Akans.
However, the region is made up of people from different ethnic background.
Approximately, 74.3% of the populace are Akans, 11.3% are Mole-Dagbani, Ewe
(3.8%) and Gurma (2.8%).

43
Figure 3.1 A Map of Ashanti Region

Source: Ghana Statistical Service, 2010

44
 CHAPTER FOUR

DATA PRESENTATION, ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION

4.0 Introduction

This chapter presents the results of the study and discussion of the findings. The
Chapter is organized into seven (7) main sections. Section one presents the
demographic characteristics of respondents and section two presents the results of
reliability and data validity test. Section three presents the descriptive statistics of the
study variables. Section four and five present the correlation and regression analysis.
The next section presents the hypothesis table whilst the final section covers the
discussion of key findings.

4.1 Demographic Characteristics of Respondents

This section presents the description statistics of the items measured. It covers the
mean response, standard deviation, minimum and maximum values of each item
under the study variables. The mean scores were used to describe the central position
of the response or opinion of respondents on the study variables whilst the standard
deviation was used to describe how the responses were spread out away from the
mean. The minimum and maximum values were used to describe the range of
responses for each item. To determine the extent to which respondents agree to the
various statements measuring the study variables, respondents were asked to range
their responses on a scale from 1 to 7 where 1 represents strongly disagree and 7
represent strongly agree.

45
Table 4.1 Demographic Characteristics of Respondents
VARIABLE FREQUENCY (N) PERCENTAGE (%)
Gender 110 100
Male 64 58.2
Female 46 41.8
Age 110 100
18 – 30 years 49 44.5
30 – 50 years 59 53.6
Above 50 years 2 1.8
Education 110 100
Senior High 4 3.7
HND 11 10.1
Degree 56 51.4
Masters 38 34.9
Industry 110 100
Food And Beverages 16 14.6
Agro processing 18 16.4
Health And Pharmaceuticals 23 20.9
Water And Bottling 16 14.5
General Merchandise 16 14.5
Others 21 19.1
Job Position 110 100
CEO 27 24.5
Supply /Procurement Officer 33 30
General Manager 26 23.6
Transport Manager 8 7.3
Operations Manager 8 7.3
Finance/Accounts Officer 8 7.3
Department 110 100
Administration 40 36.4
Procurement And Supply 13 11.8
Logistics And Transport 22 20
Accounts/Finance 16 14.5
Operations 19 17.3
Experience 110 100
Below 5 Years 36 32.7
5-15 Years 66 60.0
Above 15 Years 8 7.3
Source: Field Survey (2021)

Table 4.1 illustrates the demographic characteristics of respondents presented in both

frequency and percentage of responses. Out of 110 respondents, 64 representing
58.2% were male and 46 representing 41.8% were female. The ratio of male to female
representations in the survey were fairly apportioned. The table indicates that 49 of
the total respondents representing 44.5% were aged between 18 and 30 years, 59

46
participants representing 53.6% were between the ages of 30 and 50 years while only
two respondents representing 1.8% were above 50 years old. The results suggest that
respondents fall within the appropriate age bracket suitable for participating in this
survey. Also, information on respondent’s educational background were solicited and
the shows that only 4 respondents had only completed Senior High School with
WASSCE as the highest educational qualification. This indicates that 3.7% of
respondents were yet to attain a tertiary educational qualification. Meanwhile, 11
respondents accounting for about 10.1% had an HND, 56 respondents accounting for
51. 4% had obtained their first degree and the remaining 38 respondents accounting
for 34.9% had obtain their masters degree. Respondents’ educational qualification
evidently justifies their ability to comprehend the concepts and requirement of the
study and therefore response appropriately to the questions.

Again, respondents were asked to indicate the industry within which their
organizations operate. Table 4.1 indicates that 16 respondents each which represents
14.5% of the total responses works in the food and beverages, water and bottling and
general merchandise industries respectively. Within the agroprocessing industry, 18
respondents were surveyed which represents 16.4% and 23 which respondents 20.9%
work in the health and pharmaceuticals sector. The remaining 21 respondents
representing 19.1% work in other industries comprising of petroleum and construction
industries respectively (7 respondents representing 6.3%) each and electronics (6
respondents representing 5.4%).

The respondents moreover indicated their job roles in their respective companies ant it
was revealed that 27 respondents which accounts for approximately 24.5% of the total
respondents were Chief Executive Officers (CEOs) and Managing Directors of their
firms, 26 general managers representing 23.6%, 33 were supply or procurement
officers representing 30%. Each of transport officers, operation mangers and finance
or account officers were 8 respondents respectively representing 7.3% each. These
respondents work in the following departments; administration 40 respondents
representing 36.4%, procurement and supply 13 which is 11.8%, logistics and
transport 22 respondents representing 20%, operations had 19 respondents
representing 17.3% and accounts or finance department were 16 respondents
representing 14.5% of the total research participants. In terms of respondents’ work
experience, the study indicates that 36 (32.6%) respondents had work in their current

47
job position for less than five years. Almost 66 respondents have worked between 5 to
15 years in their current position and only 8 (7.3%) had work for more than 15 years
in their current job positions. Respondents occupy key roles in their respective firms
and likely to possess the work-related experience in the subject matter of this survey.

4.2 Statistical Tests

To test for internal reliability and data validity, a Cronbach alpha was determined for
the various study constructs. Generally, a Cronbach alpha of one indicates a perfect
reliability. A Cronbach alpha above 0.7 is accepted as highly reliable whilst Cronbach
alpha below 0.7 indicates weak data validity and questionable reliability. In cases of
lower Cronbach alpha values, some items measuring the constructs need to be deleted
to further check for the reliability level.

Table 4.2 Tests of Validity and Reliability

Construct No. of items Cronbach’s Alpha
Operation System Responsiveness 7 0.956
Logistics Process Responsiveness 5 0.951
Supply Network Responsiveness 6 0.953
Service Performance 11 0.871
Source: Field Survey (2021)

Table 4.2 shows the results of the test of internal reliability of the study’s constructs
based on the Cronbach alpha scores. The results indicate that operation system
responsiveness which was measured using 7 items had a Cronbach alpha value of
0.956. This suggests a high degree of inter item reliability of the operation system
responsiveness sub - construct. Likewise, logistics process responsiveness sub –
construct measured with 5 items had a Cronbach alpha value of 0.951. A Cronbach
alpha value close to 1 indicates a perfect internal reliability of the logistics process
responsiveness construct. Moreover, supply network responsiveness was measured
with 6 items and obtained a Cronbach alpha score of 0.953 which is very close to 1.
The Cronbach alpha value suggest a perfect internal reliability for supply network
responsiveness. Lastly, service performance was measured on 11 items but obtained a
Cronbach alpha of 0.871 suggesting a higher reliability level for service performance
construct. The results show that the Cronbach alpha values for all the sub constructs
under supply chain responsiveness were very close to 1indicating a perfect internal
reliability and validity of supply chain responsiveness constructs. Similarly, service
performance construct exhibited an acceptable degree of internal reliability and data

48
validity greater than the standard alpha value of 0.7. Hence, the predictions of the
study will be valid in other situations and the methods of measurement especially the
variables will yield a similar result if carried out in a different environment.

4.3 Descriptive Statistics of Study Variables

This section presents the descriptive statistics of the study variables; supply chain
responsiveness and service performance. The descriptive statistics comprising of the
mean, standard deviations, minimum and maximum values were used to describe the
level of agreement in respondents’ opinions. The study asked respondents to express
their opinion on various statements measuring the study variables. These responses
from the respondents were rated on a seven-point Likert scale where 1 represents
strongly disagree and 7 represents strongly agree. Based on the Likert scale, mean
values lower than 1.5 indicates that strongly disagreement, mean range of 1.50 to 2.49
indicates disagreement to the statements and mean range from 2.50 to 3.49 indicates
that respondents somewhat disagree. Mean values ranging from 3.50 to 4.49 suggest
neutral opinion from respondents. Mean values ranging from 4.50 to 5.49 also suggest
somewhat agree and mean values ranging from 5.50 to 6.49 indicate that respondents
agree to the statement whilst mean values above 6.5 indicates strong agreement.

49
4.3.1 Supply chain responsiveness

Table 4.3 Supply Chain Responsiveness

Dimensions Min Max Mean Std.
Deviation
Operations System Responsiveness 1 7 5.02 0.07
Our operations system responds rapidly to changes in product 1 7 4.97 1.50
volume demanded by customers
Our operations system responds rapidly to changes in product 1 7 5.06 1.42
mix demanded by customers
Our operations system effectively expedites emergency customer 1 7 5.10 1.47
orders
Our operations system rapidly reconfigures equipment to address 1 7 5.01 1.49
demand changes
Our operations system rapidly reallocates people to address 1 7 5.04 1.50
demand changes
Our operations system rapidly changes processes to address 1 7 4.98 1.35
demand changes
Our operations system rapidly adjusts capacity to address demand 1 7 4.96 1.58
changes
Logistics Process Responsiveness 1 7 4.95 0.15
Our logistics system responds rapidly to unexpected demand 1 7 5.08 1.40
change
Our logistics system rapidly adjusts warehouse capacity to 1 7 4.94 1.46
address demand changes
Our logistics system rapidly varies transportation carriers to 1 7 4.84 1.61
address
demand changes
Our logistics system rapidly accommodates special or non-routine 1 7 4.76 1.56
customer requests
Our logistics system effectively delivers expedited shipment 1 7 5.12 1.38
Supplier Network Responsiveness 1 7 5.23 0.05
Our major suppliers change product volume in a relatively short 1 7 5.24 1.26
time
Our major suppliers change product mix in a relatively short time 1 7 5.27 1.24
Our major suppliers consistently accommodate our requests 1 7 5.29 1.24
Our major suppliers provide quick inbound logistics to us 1 7 5.24 1.31
Our major suppliers have outstanding on-time delivery record 1 7 5.23 1.28
with us
Our major suppliers effectively expedite our emergency orders 1 7 5.15 1.45
Overall 1 7 5.07 0.15
Source: Field Survey (2021)

In table 4.3, all the statement or items measuring operation system responsiveness
had a mean value within the range of 4.96 and 5.10. The mean values imply that
respondents somehow agree that there is operation system responsiveness in their
focal firm. The standard deviation values were all greater than 1 which suggest that

50
the responses were farther dispersed from the mean value. The overall mean value for
operation system responsiveness sub construct was 5.02 with a corresponding
standard deviation value of 0.07. The mean value suggests that respondents somehow
agree to the statements that their firms have operation system responsiveness. The
standard deviation value lower than 1 imply that the responses were closely
concentrated around the mean. Also, all the mean values for items that measure
logistics process responsiveness were within the ranges of 4.76 and 5.12 which
suggest that respondents somehow agree to the statements. The corresponding
standard deviation values were all greater than 1 which implies that the individual
responses were widely dispersed from the mean. The responses were range from 1 to
7. The overall mean value for logistics process responsiveness was 4.95 with a
corresponding standard deviation value of 0.15. The mean indicates that respondents
somehow agree that there is logistics process responsiveness in their firms and the
items were close to the mean since the standard deviation value was lower than 1.
Supply chain responsiveness as a whole obtained an overall mean value of 5.07 with a
corresponding standard deviation value of 0.15 which suggests that respondents agree
that there is supply chain responsiveness in their respective firms. And the standard
deviation value implies that the items were closely concentrate around the mean.

51
4.3.2 Service Performance

Table 4.4 Service Performance

Dimension Min Max Mean Std.
Deviation
Service Delivery Performance 1 7 3.78 0.03
We fulfil customer/client needs within a shorter time 1 7 3.59 1.69
We have improved the speed of service by eliminating 1 7 4.15 1.69
waste and non – value adding activities
We have shorter throughput time (the time between when a 1 6 3.62 1.75
particular client service begins and the time service ends)
Waiting Time Satisfaction 1 7 4.25 0.02
We have a satisfactory waiting time 1 7 4.06 1.57
We have a satisfactory waiting environment 1 7 4.26 1.57
We have reduced the frequency of queues during service 1 7 4.42 1.59
delivery
Speed of Responding to Change 1 7 4.42 0.04
We provide adequate information to clients when there is 1 7 4.38 1.58
change
Our clients are satisfied with information provided in case of 1 7 4.43 1.62
delay
We have the ability to make desirable changes to meet 1 7 4.46 1.66
customer/client request
Service Customization 1 7 4.54 0.16
We are able to provide customized service tailored to meet 1 7 4.66 1.63
specific needs of clients
We can easily alter our service process to meet special 1 7 4.42 1.86
needs of clients
Overall 1 7 4.25 1.92
Source: Field Survey (2021)

Table 4.4 illustrates the mean and standard deviation values for the four service
performance metrics (service delivery performance, waiting time satisfaction, speed
of responding to change and service customization). Table 4.4 shows that responses
for items 1 and 2 under service delivery performance ranges from 1 to 7. The mean
values and corresponding standard deviations for items 1 and 2 were 3.59 (1.69) and
4.15 (1.69) respectively. The mean values suggests that respondents gave neutral
opinions on items 1 and 2 which measure service delivery performance. The standard
deviation values greater than 1 imply that the responses were dispersed farther from
the mean. Response for item 3 ranges from 1 to 6. This suggests that no respondent
strongly agree to the statement that there is shorter throughput time (the time between
when a particular client service begins and the time service ends). The mean and
standard deviation values for the statement were 3.62 and 1.75 suggesting that

52
respondents were uncertain about the statement and the responses were dispersed
from the mean. In summary, respondents were uncertain about the statement that
service delivery performance has improved. A mean value of 3.78 with corresponding
standard deviation of 0.03 were obtained for service delivery performance variable.

The range of responses for waiting time satisfaction was 1 to 7 and the mean response
for all the items we’re above 4 with corresponding standard deviation values greater
than 1. The results indicate that respondents agree to the statements and the responses
were dispersed from the mean. The overall mean value for waiting time satisfaction
variable was 4.25 with a corresponding standard deviation of 0.02. This implies that
respondents somehow agree that waiting time satisfaction has improved in their firms.
Similarly, the range of responses for both speed of responding to change and service
customization was 1 to 7. The mean values for all the items under the two service
performance dimensions were above 4 suggesting general agreement to the
statements. The standard deviation values were however greater than 1 which implies
that the responses could be widely dispersed from the mean. The overall mean
responses for the variables were above 4 indicating that respondents somehow agree
that speed of responding to changes and customizing services have improved. The
results reveals that respondents do not fully agree to the statements. Stated differently,
respondents partially agree that service performance has improved in their firms.

4.4 Correlation Analysis

Correlation is the measure of association or relationship existing between two study

variables usually based on the assumption of linear relationship. Correlation is the
measure of both the strength and direction of association between two or more study
variables. The strength of association determines the degree or extent of relationship
between the variables whilst direction of association determines whether the
relationship is positive or negative (Gogtay & Thatte, 2017). Correlation analysis
centers on the value of the correlation coefficient represented as r. According to
Gogtay & Thatte (2017), correlation coefficients represent an integer on a straight line
ranging from -1 to +1 where negative coefficients indicates an inverse association or
indirect relationship whereas positive coefficient indicates a positive or direct linear
relationship. Correlation coefficient of 1 suggest a perfect linear association between
the study variables. This implies that a coeffeicent of +1 indicates a direct perfect
relationship while -1 indicates a perfect indirect relationship. Correlation Coefficient
53
of 0 indicates that no linear association exist between two variables. Therefore,
correlation coefficient ranging from -1 to - 0.5 indicate strong association in the
negative linear manner, coefficients ranging from -0.6 to -0.9 and 0.9 to 0.4 indicates
weak strength of association in their respective directions whilst coefficient of 0.5 and
above indicate strong direct linear association.

Table 4.5 Correlation Analysis

SCR OSR LPR SNR SP
**
SCR Pearson 1 .935 .910** .938** .578**
Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .000
N 110 110 110 110 110
**
OSR Pearson .935 1 .747** .857** .517**
Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .000
N 110 110 110 110 110
LPR Pearson .910** .747** 1 .770** .515**
Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .000
N 110 110 110 110 110
** **
SNR Pearson .938 .857 .770** 1 .581**
Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .000
N 110 110 110 110 110
SP Pearson .578** .517** .515** .581** 1
Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .000
N 110 110 110 110 110
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
Source: Field Survey (2021)

Table 4.5, the correlation analysis reveals that supply chain responsiveness (SCR)
positively and significantly related with service performance (SP). The correlation
coefficient (r) for the association between supply chain responsiveness and service
performance was 0.578 and significant at p < 0.01. Also, operation system
responsiveness (OSR) had positive significant relationship with service performance;
r (109) = 0.517 and p < 0.01. Logistics process responsiveness (LPR) had positive and
significant relationship with service performance. The results of the correlation test
were; r (109) = 0.515 and p < 0.01. Besides, supply network responsiveness (SNR)
was also positively and significantly correlated with service performance. The
pearson correlation coefficient obtained was 0.581 significant at p < 0.01. The results

54
indicates that supply chain responsiveness and all the three sub constructs had positive
and significant effect on service performance. This implies that any variation in values
of supply chain responsiveness and it’s sub constructs will result in a significant
variation in the values of service performance. This relationship is direct or positive in
the sense that an increase in responsiveness will lead to a corresponding increase in
service performance and a reduction in supply chain responsiveness will lead to
reduction in service performance. The strength of the association between all the
independent variables and service performance is determined to be strong
4.5 Regression Analysis

This section presents the results of the regression analysis between the predictor
variables and the dependent variable. The regression results further examine the level
of prediction and the extent of variation in the dependent variable than can be
explained by the independent predictor. The independent variable; supply chain
responsiveness was regressed on the dependent variable and the regression results of
the relationship between the sub constructs were also performed.

4.5.1 The Relationship Between Supply Chain Responsiveness and Service

performance

Table 4.6 Model Summary

Model Summary
Adjusted R Std. Error of the
Model R R Square Square Estimate
a
1 .578 .334 .327 .89694
a. Predictors: (Constant), SCR
Source: Field Survey (2021)

Table 4.6 presents the regression model summary of supply chain responsiveness and
service performance. The r square value was 0.338. This indicates that about 33.8% of
the variations in service performance can be linked to changes in operation system
responsiveness.

55
Table 4.7 ANOVA
ANOVAa
Model Sum of Squares Df Mean Square F Sig.
1 Regression 43.487 1 43.487 54.054 .000b
Residual 86.887 108 .805
Total 130.373 109
a. Dependent Variable: SP
b. Predictors: (Constant), SCR
Source: Field Survey (2021)

The total sum of squares for service performance is 130.373. The sum of squares
implies the variation in the dependent variable. The sum of squares for the regression
model is 43.487, implying that 43.487 of the variations in service performance is
caused by supply chain responsiveness. The regression model is also significant as p <
0.01.

Table 4.8 Coefficient of Variation

Coefficientsa
Standardized
Unstandardized Coefficients Coefficients
Model B Std. Error Beta T Sig.
1 (Constant) 1.524 .377 4.046 .000
SCR .533 .072 .578 7.352 .000
a. Dependent Variable: SP

From table 4.8, B = 0.533 implying that when supply chain responsiveness is
increased by 1-unit, service performance will also increase by 0.533. The relationship
is also significant as p < 0.01.

4.5.2 The Relationship Between Operation System Responsiveness and Logistics

Process Responsiveness

Table 4.9 Model Summary

Model Summary
Adjusted R Std. Error of the
Model R R Square Square Estimate
a
1 .747 .558 .554 .90617
a. Predictors: (Constant), OSR
Source: Field Survey (2021)

Table 4.9 shows the regression model summary of operation system responsiveness
and logistics process responsiveness. The r square value of 0.558. This indicates that

56
about 55.8% of the variations in logistics process responsiveness can be attributed to
changes in operation system responsiveness.

Table 4.10 Analysis of Variation (ANOVA)

ANOVAa
Model Sum of Squares Df Mean Square F Sig.
1 Regression 112.011 1 112.011 136.409 .000b
Residual 88.683 108 .821
Total 200.694 109
a. Dependent Variable: LPR
b. Predictors: (Constant), OSR
Source: Field Survey (2021)

The total sum of squares for logistics process responsiveness is 200.694 The sum of
squares implies the variation in the dependent variable. The sum of squares for the
regression model is 112.011, implying that 112.011 of the variations in logistics
process responsiveness is caused by operation system responsiveness. The regression
model is also significant as p < 0.01.

Table 4.11 Coefficient of Variation

Coefficientsa
Standardized
Unstandardized Coefficients Coefficients
Model B Std. Error Beta T Sig.
1 (Constant) 1.071 .343 3.124 .002
OSR .773 .066 .747 11.679 .000
a. Dependent Variable: LPR
Source: Field Survey (2021)

From the table 4.11, B = 0.773 implying that when operation system responsiveness is
increased by 1-unit, logistics process responsiveness will also increase by 0.773. The
model is also significant as p < 0.01.

4.5.3 The Relationship between Operation System Responsiveness and Supply

Network Responsiveness

Table 4.12 Model Summary

Model Summary
Adjusted R Std. Error of the
Model R R Square Square Estimate
a
1 .857 .735 .733 .60432
a. Predictors: (Constant), OSR
Source: Field Survey (2021)

57
Table 4.12 shows the regression model summary of operation system responsiveness
and supply network responsiveness. The r square value of 0.735. This indicates that
about 73.5% of the variations in supply network responsiveness can be attributed to
changes in operation system responsiveness.

Table 4.13 Analysis of Variation

ANOVAa
Model Sum of Squares Df Mean Square F Sig.
1 Regression 109.464 1 109.464 299.738 .000b
Residual 39.441 108 .365
Total 148.905 109
a. Dependent Variable: SNR
b. Predictors: (Constant), OSR
Source: Field Survey (2021)

The total sum of squares for supply network responsiveness is 148.905. The sum of
squares implies the variation in the dependent variable. The sum of squares for the
regression model is 109.464, implying that 109.464 of the variations in supply
network responsiveness is caused by operation system responsiveness. The regression
model is also significant as p < 0.01.

Table 4.14 Coefficient of Variation

Coefficientsa
Standardized
Unstandardized Coefficients Coefficients
Model B Std. Error Beta T Sig.
1 (Constant) 1.403 .229 6.136 .000
OSR .764 .044 .857 17.313 .000
a. Dependent Variable: SNR
Source: Field Survey (2021)

From table 4.14, B = 0.764 implying that when operation system responsiveness is
increased by 1-unit, supply network responsiveness will also increase by 0.764. The
model is also significant as p < 0.01.

4.5.4 The Relationship Between Logistics Process Responsiveness and Supply

Network Responsiveness

Table 4.15 Model Summary

Model Summary
Std. Error of the
Model R R Square Adjusted R Square Estimate
1 .770a .593 .590 .74877
a. Predictors: (Constant), LPR
58
Table 4.15 above presents the regression model summary of logistics process
responsiveness and supply network responsiveness. The r square value of 0.593. This
indicates that about 59.3% of the variations in supply network responsiveness can be
explained by changes in logistics process responsiveness.

Table 4.16 Analysis of Variation

ANOVAa
Model Sum of Squares Df Mean Square F Sig.
1 Regression 88.354 1 88.354 157.590 .000b
Residual 60.551 108 .561
Total 148.905 109
a. Dependent Variable: SNR
b. Predictors: (Constant), LPR
Source: Field Survey (2021)

Table 4.16 shows that the total sum of squares for supply network responsiveness is
148.905 The sum of squares implies the variation in the dependent variable. The sum
of squares for the regression model is 88.354, implying that 88.354 of the variations
in supply network responsiveness is caused by logistics process responsiveness. The
regression model is also significant as p < 0.01.

Table 4.17 Co efficient of Variation

Coefficientsa
Standardized
Unstandardized Coefficients Coefficients
Model B Std. Error Beta T Sig.
1 (Constant) 1.952 .271 7.203 .000
LPR .664 .053 .770 12.553 .000
a. Dependent Variable: SNR
Source: Field Survey (2021)

From table 4.16, B = 0.664 implying that when logistics process responsiveness is
increased by 1-unit, supply network responsiveness will also increase by 0.664. The
model is also significant as p < 0.01.

59
4.6 Hypothesis Table

Table 4.17 Hypothesis Table

Hypothesis Relationship R Remarks
square
H1 Supply chain responsiveness has positive 0.334 Accepted
and significant relationship with service
performance
H1a Operation system responsiveness has 0.267 Accepted
positive and significant relationship with
service performance
H1b Logistics process responsiveness positive 0.265 Accepted
and significant relationship with service
performance
H1c Supply network responsiveness positive 0.337 Accepted
and significant relationship with service
performance
H2 There is significant inter – relation 0.558 Accepted
between operation system responsiveness
and logistics process responsiveness

H3 There is significant inter - relation 0.735 Accepted

between operation system responsiveness
and supply network responsiveness

H4 There is significant inter – relation 0.593 Accepted

between logistics process responsiveness
and supply network responsiveness

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

Table 4.16 shows that in all the relationships tested, there were positive significant
relationship. Supply chain responsiveness had a positive significant effect on service
performance and therefore the Hypothesis that supply chain responsiveness has
positive and significant relationship with service performance was accepted. In
addition, the second hypothesis that there is significant inter – relation between
operation system responsiveness and logistics process responsiveness was accepted.
Third and fourth hypotheses “There is significant inter - relation between operation
system responsiveness and supply network responsiveness and There is significant
inter – relation between logistics process responsiveness and supply network
responsiveness” respectively were all accepted.

60
4.7 Discussion of Findings

4.7.1 Impact of Supply Chain Responsiveness on Service Performance

The results of the study indicate that pursuing supply chain responsiveness is very
important in the manufacturing sector. All the forms of responsiveness were practised
through out the supply chain. The findings suggests that the firms were keenly
interested in supply chain responsiveness activities at the various point in the value
chain. Uyoga (2018) concluded that responsiveness is rare and worth pursuing by an
organisation. Responsiveness must be among the priorities of any firm that wants to
survive in the dynamic business environment.

This study is consistent with prior studies on the effect of supply chain responsiveness
on organizational performance and competitive priorities. Numerous studies including
the work of Al-Hawajreh & Attiany (2014); Thatte et al. (2013); Sukati et al. (2012);
Hayat et al. (2012) and Thatte (2007) had found responsiveness at different nodes of
the supply chain to influence competitive advantages, organaisational performance
and service performance. This study found significant direct relationship between
supply chain responsiveness and service performance. This study supports the
findings of the study by Ibrahim & Babiker (2020) which also found a significant
relationship between supply chain responsiveness and service performance.

4.7.2 Impact of Operation System Responsiveness, Logistics Process

Responsiveness and Supply Network Responsiveness on Service Performance

The study also revealed that there were positive and significant relationship between
the three dimensions of responsiveness and service performance. Both the correlation
and regression results indicate that operation system responsiveness positively related
to service performance Supply network responsiveness also positively and
significantly related service performance. In addition, logistic process had positive
relationship with service performance. Consistent with this study, Uyoga (2018) found
out that customer side responsiveness positively and significantly related with service
performance. Ibrahim & Babiker (2020) had earlier found similar relationship
between operation system responsiveness and service performance in the health care
service. They also found a significant relationship between logistics process and
service performance.

61
4.7.3 The Inter Relationship Between Operation System Responsiveness,
Logistics Process Responsiveness and Supply Network Responsiveness

The study found out that there was significant inter-relationship between supply
network responsiveness and operation system responsiveness, operation system
responsiveness and logistics process responsiveness, logistics process responsiveness,
and supply network responsiveness. The relationship and interaction among the three
sub variables; operation system, logistics process and supply network were positive.
This result indicates that any variation in the variables of one dimension of supply
chain responsiveness will directly influence the outcome of the other dimensions of
supply chain responsiveness.

The findings of the current study conform to the finding of Ibrahim & Babiker (2020).
The study of Ibrahim & Babiker (2020) equally showed that there were strong
inter-relationships and interactions among the components of supply chain
responsiveness. The authors investigated the relationship between operations system
responsiveness and logistics system responsiveness and found significant relationship
between them. This study was among the few studies that had attempted to examine
the inter relations between the dimensions of supply chain responsiveness.

Though the empirical studies on the inter relationship between the various dimension
of supply chain responsiveness is not pronounced yet the conceptual understanding in
literature support the positive and significant relationship among the dimensions of
responsiveness. Al Hawajreh & Attiany (2014) has pointed out that ensuring
operation responsiveness at each node of the chain is an integral component of supply
chain responsiveness. Similarly, Ibrahim & Babiker (2020) and Holweg & Pil
(2001) believed that supplier networks are the essential building blocks of a flexible
system and their flexibility is an important ingredient of being responsive to
customers .

62
 CHAPTER FIVE

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

5.0 Introduction

This chapter summarises the entire study by laying emphasis of on the key research
findings, conclusion and recommendation from the study. The chapter also suggests
areas for future research directions and draws attention to the theoretical and practical
implications of the study.

5.1 Summary of Findings

This study s was conducted to investigate the effects of supply chain responsiveness
on service performance. The results of the survey that was carried out among supply
chain practitioners from different industries in the manufacturing sector recorded
higher level of intern item reliability. The study sought to assess three different but
related relationships among the study variables namely supply chain responsiveness
and service performance. In this section, summary of the key findings on the
relationship between supply chain responsiveness and service performance; the effect
of the sub-dimensions of supply chain responsiveness on service performance and the
inter relationship among the sub dimension or components of supply chain
responsiveness is presented.

5.1.1 The Impact of Supply Chain Responsiveness on Service Performance

The primary objective of the study was to assess the impact of supply chain
responsiveness on service performance. The study discovered that supply chain
responsiveness had positive and significant impact on service performance. The
findings of the study shows that respondents agreed that their firms practice supply
chain responsiveness. Supply chain responsiveness construct obtain a mean value of
greater than 5 suggesting that respondents generally agree that there is supply chain
responsiveness process in their firms. This was equally translated into the service
performance outcome of their firms in terms of service delivery, waiting time
reduction, speed of change in service and service customisation. The study found out
a strong positive and significant relationship between supply chain responsiveness and
service performance. It was revealed that about thirty four percent (34%) of changes

63
in service performance outcome can be attributed to changes in supply chain
responsiveness process.

5.1.2 The Impact of Operation System, Logistics Process and Supply Network
Responsiveness on Service Performance

The second objective of the study was to evaluate the effect of the three dimensions of
supply chain responsiveness on service performance. Among the three components of
supply chain responsiveness, Supply network responsiveness activities were the most
widely practiced by respondent firms. Operation system responsiveness was the
second ranked supply chain responsiveness dimension practice within the firms that
was surveyed. Logistics process responsiveness was the last with least mean response.
The firms were more concerned about achieving supply network responsiveness deals
with making suppliers responsive to the focal firm. The findings of the study imply
that, the firms first and foremost responsiveness priority is the supply networks which
is usually controlled by external parties. It follows that supply chain responsiveness
comes from supply network responsiveness.

Again, all the sub-components of supply chain responsiveness were positively and
significantly related to service performance. Supply Network responsiveness had the
strongest correlation with service performance among the three supply chain
responsiveness sub-components. Supply network is the building block for
responsiveness and achieving responsiveness in the firms supply network could
greatly improve service performance. Operation system responsiveness was the next
sub-construct in terms of degree of influence on service performance. Logistic process
responsiveness exhibited the least influence on service performance.

5.1.3 The Inter Relationship among operation system responsiveness, logistics

process responsiveness and supply network responsiveness

The final objective was to examine the relationship that exist among the three
dimensions of supply chain responsiveness. Thus, the study assessed the
inter-relationship between supply network responsiveness and operation system
responsiveness, operation system responsiveness and logistics process responsiveness,
logistics process responsiveness, and supply network responsiveness. The study
revealed that there was a positive and significant relationship among the three
sub-constructs. There were strong significant relationship among the three

64
sub-constructs. The significant relationship between supply network responsiveness
and operation system responsiveness was the strongest whilst the relationship between
logistics process responsiveness and supply network responsiveness was stronger than
the relationship between operation system responsiveness and logistics process
responsiveness. The findings of the study shows that supply network responsiveness
highly contributes to the level of responsiveness in both operation system and
logistics process. The extent to which firms achieve operation system responsiveness
and logistics process responsiveness depends greatly on the level of responsiveness
coming from the supply network. The responsiveness of the upstream partners
including firm’s suppliers and supplier's suppliers affect the operations system and
logistics process responsiveness.

5.2 Conclusion

In the dynamic business environment especially under changing market conditions,

the focus on service performance outcome is essential for the survival and success of
both manufacturing and service operations. Competitiveness is moving from
organisations to supply chains and firms are practicing supply chain management in
an attempt to achieve responsiveness. The study highlighted how responsiveness can
be achieved at most important nodes of the supply chain being supply side, within the
organisation’s business operations and downstream side. The study revealed that
supply chain responsiveness is required to improve service performance outcomes.
Supply chain responsiveness positively and significantly affects service performance
and therefore ensuring a responsive supply chain will transform the level of its service
performance outcome.

The study also found out that the all three dimensions of supply chain responsiveness
individually had positive and significant influence on service performance. And again,
there were significant direct inter - relationships among the three components of
supply chain responsiveness (operation system responsiveness, logistics process and
supply network responsiveness). Supply network responsiveness had the strongest
positive and significant relationship with service performance and the other
dimensions of supply chain responsiveness. The study discovered that achieving
supply side responsiveness was linked to all forms of responsiveness including the
overall supply chain responsiveness, operation system responsiveness and
downstream responsiveness as well as service delivery responsiveness. The study
65
therefore concluded that supply network responsiveness had greater influence on
end-to-end supply chain responsiveness which in turn significantly affect service
performance.

5.3 Recommendations

Generally, the study found out that the logistic system of the firms studied were least
adaptable to changes in the business environment. The study reveals that logistics
process of majority of the firms had low rate of responding to external changes. There
is the need for digitization of the logistics process of these firms. Advanced transport
technologies that facilitate data capturing, processing and analysis in real time must
be employed through the firms’ outbound operations. In vehicle technologies and en
route applications should be applied to control outbound operations and enhance
speed and flexibility of the logistics process in order to meet customers’ diverse
demands.

Besides, the performance of one dimension of supply chain responsiveness is

contingent on the other dimensions. Efficiency in the logistics process is dependent on
the efficiency from the previous processes consisting of supply network
responsiveness and the operation system performance. It is therefore recommended
that supply chains design their logistics process in connection with their internal
operation system as well as suppliers’ operations.

Logistics process responsiveness is the most visible service performance indicator in

terms of customer perception of satisfaction. The study also recommended that firms
must build strategic partnership with third party logistics providers as means to
increase their logistics efficiency.

5.3.1 Implication to Practices

The study has revealed that supply chain responsiveness relates positively with
service performance. It is thus recommended that focal firms that seek to improve
service performance outcomes should make efforts to increase responsiveness of the
supply chain. The study also revealed that all the three sub constructs of supply chain
responsiveness positively influence service performance. The study recommends that
firms which seek to achieve sustainable service performance improvement must not
only invest resources in supply chain responsiveness but ensure appropriate

66
investment into responsiveness at each stage of the supply chain principally at the
upstream, within the organization and at the downstream. The study suggests that
focal firms in building supply side relationships must incorporate strategies to
improve customer service performance into the relationship since supply network
responsiveness significantly affects service performance.

Moreover, the study found out that there was inter relationship among supply network
responsiveness, operation system responsiveness and logistics process responsiveness.
The study therefore suggests that firms should ensure appropriate linkages between
their upstream networks, internal operation systems and downstream channels.
Responsiveness at any stage of the supply chain significantly affects the other
components and therefore firms should make sure all the stages are connecting
together in order to unleash the potential benefits of end-to-end supply chain
responsiveness that can be visible to customers. Hence, integrating internal operation
systems within the focal firm with upstream or key suppliers and downstream process
especially key logistics partners is required.

In line with the finding that supply network responsiveness had the strongest
significant relationship with operations system responsiveness and logistics process
responsiveness, the study finally recommends a strategic partnership and alliance
between focal firms and their key trading partners whose activities and influence on
the supply chain cannot be ignored. Similarly, focal firms can replicate their
relationship with upstream partners at the downstream side to increase the level of
logistics process responsiveness.

5.3.2 Implication to Policy

Chopra, and P, Meindl (2001) had already established that supply chain comprises of
every member at each stage of the chain who directly or indirectly contribute to
meeting the customer demands. The chain which starts with suppliers extend beyond
the manufacturing firm, transporting companies, wholesalers, retail outlets, carriers,
forwarders and the final customer. The essence of managing the supply chain is to
optimize value delivered at each node of the chain whilst maximizing profit for the
entire supply chain. This study found out that effective supply chain responsiveness
process is the one that target all the stages of the supply chain rather than focus on
specific aspect of the supply chain. The study informs government and its agencies,

67
supply chain practitioners and management of corporations to develop policies that
outline comprehensive supply chain responsiveness plan and practices throughout the
supply chain. A comprehensive responsive plan should provide strategies for
achieving responsiveness in the operations of each player including the
responsiveness of manufacturer, its supplying and transporting partners, wholesale
and retail channels, courier services and customer service representatives.

5.3.3 Suggestion for Further Studies

The study explored how responsiveness in supply chain influence service

performance within the context of manufacturing sector. The study further examined
the interaction between the three dimensions of supply chain responsiveness and their
effect on service performance outcome. There are other variables that might influence
the relationship between supply chain responsiveness and service performance. the
study suggests that future studies should introduce mediating or moderating factor in
the relationship between supply chain responsiveness and service performance.

68
 REFERENCE

Ader H J. (2008). Small Enterprises and Changing Policies. In Smith A & Peter B.
Structural Adjustment, Financial Policy and Assistance Program In Africa.

Asamoah K. (2014). Re – examination of the Limitations Associated with

Correlational Research. Journal of Educational Research and Reviews. Vol.
2(4). Pp. 45-52.

Babazadeh R, Razmi J et al. (2012). Supply chain network design problem for a new
market opportunity in an agile manufacturing system.. Journal of Industrial
Engineering International Vol. 8:19.

Bielen F & Demoulin N. (2007). Waiting Time Influence on the Satisfaction-Loyalty

Relatioship in Services. Journal of Managing Service Quality. Vol. 17(2). Pp.
174-193

Bode C, Wagner S. M, Pertersen K. J. et al. (2010). Understanding Responses to

Supply Chain Disruption: Insight from Information Processing and Resource
Dependence Perspectives. Journal of Academy of Management.

Chien S. Y, Ching-Han Tsai, (2012),"Dynamic capability, knowledge, learning, and

firm performance", Journal of Organizational Change Management, Vol. 25
Iss: 3 pp. 434 - 444

Closs J. D. & Swink M (2005) The role of information connectivity in making

flexible logistics programs successful. International Journal of Physical
Distribution & Logistics Management Vol. 35 No. 4, 2005 pp. 258-277

Dubey R, Ali S. S, Aital P & Venkatesh V. G. (2014). Mechanics of humanitarian

supply chain agility and resilience and its empirical validation International
Journal of Services and Operations Management, Vol. 17, No. 4.

Eisenhardt K. M. & Martin J. A. (2000). Dynamic Capabilities: What are

they?Strategic Management Journal 21(100-11), 1105-1121.

Faeghe Mohammaddust, Shabnam Rezapour, Reza Zanjirani Farahani, Mohammad

Mofidfar and Alex Hill (2015). Developing lean and responsive supply chains:
A robust model for alternative risk mitigation strategies in supply chain
designs, Intern. Journal of Production Economics.

Giannakis, M., Spanaki, K. And Dubey, R., (2019). A cloudbased supply chain
management system: effects on supply chain responsiveness.

Godsell, J. (2005), "Demand chain strategy: The missing link?", Management Focus,
vol. Spring, no. 22, pp. 4-7.

Gogtay N J & Thatte U M. (2017). Statistics for Researchers; Principles of

Correlation Analysis. Journal of Association of Physicians of India. Vol. 65

69
Gunasekaran, A., Lai, K.H. and Cheng, T.E. (2008), “Responsive supply chain: a
competitive strategy in a networked economy”, Omega, Vol. 36 No. 4, pp.
549-564.

Hayat K, Abbas A, Siddique M & Cheema K R A (2012). Study of the Different

Factors That Affecting the Supply Chain Responsiveness Online at
https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/53193/

Holweg M (2005) The three dimensions of responsiveness. nternational Journal of

Operations & Production Management Vol. 25 No. 7, 2005 pp. 603-622

Holweg M. & Miemczyk J (2002) Logistics in the ``three-day car’’ age Assessing the
responsiveness of vehicle distribution logistics in the UK. International
Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, Vol. 32 No. 10, pp.
829-850

Holweg, M. (2005), “An Investigation into Supplier Responsiveness”, International

Journal of Logistics Management, 16(1), pp. 96-119. 89.

Holweg, M. and Pil, F. K. (2001), “Successful Build-To-Order Strategies Start with

the Customer”, MIT Sloan Management Review, 43(1), pp. 74-84.

Holweg, M., 2005b "The Three Dimensions of Responsiveness" International Journal

of Operations & Production Management, Vol 25 No 7, pp. 603-622

Ibrahim N. A & Babiker L. M. (2020). Supply Chain Responsiveness and Operational

Performance In Sudanese Service Institutions, Medical Sector. EJVE.

Jahre M & Cosste N F (2015) How standards and modularity can improve
humanitarian supply chain responsiveness: the case of emergency response
units. Journal of Humanitarian Logistics and Supply Chain Management, Vol
25 (3) pp 348-386

Juttner U, Peck H & Christopher M. (2003). Supply Chain Management Risk:

Outlining an Agenda for Future Research. Journal of Logistics: Research &
Applications. Vol 6(4), 197-210.

Kabir S. M. S (2016). Basic Guideline for Research: An Introductory Approach for

All Discipline. Book Zone Publication. Chittagoog, Bangledish.

Kaneberg, E., Jensen, L-M., Hertz, S., (2020). Managing network responsiveness in
emergency preparedness supply chains for safety and security in developed
nations. Revista Científica General José María Córdova, 19(34), 453- 477.
http://dx.doi.org/10.21830/19006586.735

Kaneberg, E., Jensen, L-M., Hertz, S., (2020). Managing network responsiveness in
emergency preparedness supply chains for safety and security in developed
nations. Revista Científica General José María Córdova, 19(34), 453- 477.

Kaufman A., Kaufman N. L., Marczyk G et al. (2005). Essentials of Research Designs
and Methodologies. John Wiley and Sons Inc.

70
Ketchen, D.J. and G.T.M. Hult. ‘‘Bridging Organization Theory and Supply Chain
Management: The Case of Best Value Supply Chains,’’ Journal of Operations
Management, (25), 2007, pp. 573-580

Khanal P & Tamang G (2017) Journal of Enterprise Information Management, 32 (4),

pp.585-607. Supply Chain Management Practices: A Study of Freight
Forwarders in Nepal. Pertanika Journal of Social Science. & Humanity. 25 (3):
1473 - 1488

Kim, M., Suresh, N.C. & Kocabasoglu-Hillmer, C. (2013). An impact of

manufacturing flexibility and technological dimensions of manufacturing
strategy on improving supply chain responsiveness: Business environment
perspective. International Journal of Production Research, 51(18), pp.
5597-5611.

Kumar R & Singh K R (2017)," Coordination and responsiveness issues in SMEs

supply chains: a review ", Benchmarking: An International Journal, Vol. 24 Iss
3

Kumar, P. and Deshmukh, S. (2006) ‘A model for flexible supply chain through
flexible manufacturing’, Global Journal of Flexible Systems Management,
Vol. 7, Nos. 3/4, pp.17–24.

Liao J, Kickul J. R & Ma H. (2009). Organisational Capability and Innovation: An

Empirical Examination of Internet Firms. Journal of Small Business
Management Vol 47(3). Pp. 263 – 286.

Lummus, R.R., Duclos, L.K., Vokurka, R.J., 2003 "Supply Chain Flexibility: Building
a New Model" Global Journal of Flexible Systems Management, Vol 4 No 4,
pp. 1-13

Menon A G. & Mohanty B. (2008). Towards a Theory of Dynamic Capability for

firms. 6th AIMS International Conference Management.

Nair, A. (2005), “Linking manufacturing postponement, centralized distribution and

value chain flexibility with performance”, International Journal of Production
Research, Vol. 43 No. 3, pp. 447-63.

Pawar, K.S., Beltagui, A., Riedel, J.C.K.H. (2009) "The PSO triangle: designing
product, service and organization to create value", International Journal of
Operations & Production Management, Vol. 29 No. 5, pp. 468 – 493

Pereira J V. (2009). The new supply chain’s frontier: Information management.

International Journal of Information Management 29 (2009) 372–379

Pilot D & Hungler B. P (1999). Nursiing Research: Principles and Methods (6th Ed.)
Philadelphia. J. B. Lippincort.

Rajapol P, Azar N. A. Z, Bahrin A. S, Appasamy G & Sundram K V. (2016).

Determinants of Supply Chain Responsiveness among Firms in the
Manufacturing Industry in Malaysia. International Journal of Supply Chain
Management Vol. 5, No. 3
71
Rajesh Kumar Singh (2015),"Modelling of critical factors for responsiveness in
supply chain",Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, Vol. 26 Iss
6 pp. 868 – 888

Reichhart A & Holweg M (2009) Creating the Customer-responsive Supply Chain: A

Reconciliation of Concepts International Journal of Operations & Production
Management

Reichhart, A. and Holweg, M. (2007), “Creating The Customer-Responsive Supply

Chain: A Reconciliation Of Concepts”, International Journal of Operations &
Production Management, 27(11), pp.1144-1172.

Roh J, Hong P & Min H (2014). Implementation of a responsive supply chain strategy
in global complexity: The case of manufacturing firms International of
Journal of Production Economics 147 (2014) 198–210

Sandberg, E., Jafari, H., (2018), Retail supply chain responsiveness: Towards a
retail-specific framework and a future research agenda, International Journal
of Productivity and Performance Management, 67(9), 1977-1933.

Sharma D, Taggar R, Bindra S & Dhir S. (2020). A systematic review of

responsiveness to develop future research agenda: a TCCM and bibliometric
analysis", Benchmarking: An International Journal.

Shukla S. (2020). Concept of Population and Sample. Ahmedabad: Rishit

Publications.

Singh, R. K (2015). Modelling of Critical Factors for Responsiveness In supply

Chain. Journal of Manufacturing technology Management 26(6). Pp 886 - 888

Singh, R. K., Garg, S. K. and Deshmukh, S. G. (2005), "Development of Flexible

Strategies by Indian SMEs in Electronics Sector in Emerging Economy",
Global Journal of Flexible Systems Management, vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 15-25.

Squire B & Cousin P D. (2009). The effect of supplier manufacturing capabilities on

buyer responsiveness. The role of collaboration. International Journal of
Operations & Production Management Vol. 29 No. 8, 2009 pp. 766-788

Sukati I, Bakar A, Hamid A, Baharun R, Alifiah M N & Anuar A M (2012)

Competitive Advantage through Supply Chain Responsiveness and Supply
Chain Integration International Journal of Business and Commerce Vol. 1, No.
7 pp 1-11

Taherdoost H. (2016). Sampling Methods in Research Methodology; How to Choose

a Sampling Technique for Research. International Journal of Academic
Research in Management. Vol. 5, No. 2. Pp. 18-27.

Teece, D. J., Pisano, G., and Shuen, A. (1997), “Dynamic Capabilities and Strategic
Management”, Strategic Management Journal, 18(7), pp. 509-533.

72
Thatte A. A, Rao S. S. & Nathan T. S. R. (2013) Impact Of SCM Practices of A Firm
on Supply Chain Responsiveness And Competitive Advantage Of A Firm. The
Journal of Applied Business Research Volume 29, Number 2

Thatte, A., Agrawal, V., and Muhammed, S. (2009), “Information Sharing and
Supplier Network Responsiveness: Effects on Delivery Dependability of a
Firm”, Journal of Applied Business Research, 25(3), pp. 37-56.

Thatte, A., Muhammed, S., and Agrawal, V. (2008), “Effect of Information Sharing
and Supplier Network Responsiveness on Time-to-Market Capability of a
Firm”, Review of Business Research, 8(2), pp. 118-131.

Um J. (2018). Managing a Service Supply Chain Performance: A Review and New

Performance Metrics. The British Academy of Management.

Uyoga D. (2018) Relationship Between Customer Responsiveness, Service

Performance and Satisfaction Among Arline Passengers in Kenya. Conference
Paper, Moi University of Moi, Kenya

Wang Y, Su X & Wang H. (2019). Intellectual Capital and Technological Dynamic

Capability: Evidence from Chinese Enterprises. Journal of Intellectual Capital.

Yu, W, Chavez, R, Jacobs, M et al. (2 more authors) (2019) Environmental scanning,

supply chain integration, responsiveness, and operational performance.
International Journal of Operations and Production Management, 39 (5). pp.
787-814. ISSN 0144-3577

Zhang, Q., Vonderembse, M. A., & Lim, J.-S. (2005). Logistics flexibility and its
impact on customer satisfaction. The International Journal of Logistics
Management, 16, 71–95.

73
 APPENDICES

APPENDIX

KWAME NKRUMAH UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

KNUST SCHOOL OF BUSINESS
SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE
I am a Postgraduate student at the Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and
Technology, Department of Supply Chain and Information system, Kumasi. This
survey instrument has been designed to enable me carry out a research on the topic:
‘SUPPLY CHAIN RESPONSIVENESS AND SERVICE PERFORMANCE’
Any information provided will ONLY be used for academic purpose, and it will be
treated as HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL.
Please write in ink in the box which corresponds to the statement, which in your
opinion is the most appropriate answer to the related question. For the following
questions, kindly select by checking (✓) all that apply.

SECTION A: DEMOGRAPHICS OF RESPONDENTS

1. Gender of Respondent.
Male [ ] Female [ ]
2. Age of respondent.
18-30 years [ ] 31-50 years [ ] above 50years [ ]
3. What is your level of education?
Junior High [ ] Secondary School [ ] Tertiary [ ] Second degree [ ]
4. Type of industry: Food [ ] Agroprocessing [ ] Transport [ ] Health [ ]
Pharmaceuticals [ ] Beverages [ ] Petroleum [ ] Electronics [ ] Furniture [
] General merchandise [ ] Construction [ ]

5. Position/ Job Title : CEO [ ] General Manager [ ] Supply Officer [ ]

Transport Officer [ ] Operations Manager [ ] Procurement Officer [ ]
Accounts Officer [ ] Customer Service REP [ ] Marketing Officer [ ]
Logistics Officer [ ] Others (Specify)…………

6. Department: Operations [ ] Logistics & Transport [ ] Marketing [ ]

Procurement [ ] Accounts [ ] Administration [ ] Others (Specify)…………

7. How long have you worked in the organisation?

Below 5 years [ ] 5-10 years [ ] 11-15years [ ] 16-20years [ ]
above 20years [ ]

74
 SECTION B: SUPPLY CHAIN RESPONSIVENESS (Source: Al – Hawajreh &
Attianny, 2014; Thatte et al., 2013)
Please using a scale of 1=strongly disagree; to 7=strongly agree, please select the
number that accurately reflects the extent of your supply chain’s current level of
responsiveness
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Strongly Disagree Somehow Indifferent/ Somehow Agree Strongly
Disagree Disagree Not sure Agree Agree
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Operations system responsiveness
1. Our operations system responds rapidly to changes in
product volume demanded by customers
2. Our operations system responds rapidly to changes in
product mix demanded by customers
3. Our operations system effectively expedites emergency
customer orders
4. Our operations system rapidly reconfigures equipment
to address demand changes
5. Our operations system rapidly reallocates people to
address demand changes
6. Our operations system rapidly changes our
manufacturing processes to address demand changes
7. Our operations system rapidly adjusts capacity to
address demand changes
Logistics process responsiveness
8. Our logistics system responds rapidly to unexpected
demand change
9. Our logistics system rapidly adjusts warehouse capacity
to address demand changes
10. Our logistics system rapidly varies transportation
carriers to address demand changes
11. Our logistics system rapidly accommodates special or
non-routine customer requests
12. Our logistics system effectively delivers expedited
shipment
Supplier network responsiveness
13. Our major suppliers change product volume in a
relatively short time
14. Our major suppliers change product mix in a relatively
short time

75
 15. Our major suppliers consistently accommodate our
requests
16. Our major suppliers provide quick inbound logistics to
us
17. Our major suppliers have outstanding on-time delivery
record with us
18. Our major suppliers effectively expedite our emergency
orders
SECTION C: SERVICE PERFORMANCE (Source: Um, 2019; Bielen &
Demoulin, 2007)
Using a scale of 1 to 7 [where 1=much worse; 7=much better], indicate the service
performance level of your agency:
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Worst Worse Somehow Somehow Good Better Best
Worse Good
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Service Delivery Performance
19. We fulfil customer/client needs within a shorter time

20. We have improved the speed of service by eliminating

waste and non – value adding activities
21. We have shorter throughput time (the time between when
a particular client service begins and the time service
ends)
22. Waiting time Satisfaction

23. We have a satisfactory waiting time

24. We have a satisfactory waiting environment

25. We have reduced the frequency of queues during service
delivery
Speed of responding to changes
26. We provide adequate information to clients when there is
change
27. Our clients are satisfied with information provided in case
of delay
28. We have the ability to make desirable changes to meet
customer/client request
Customised Service
29. We are able to provide customised service tailored to
meet specific needs of clients

76
30. We can easily alter our service process to meet special
needs of clients

77