A Proposal for Case Study Methodology in Supply Chain Integration [PDF]

A Proposal for Case Study Methodology in Supply Chain Integration Research Teresa M. McCarthy, Susan L. Golicic

1

Introduction................................................................................................. 252

2

Research Purpose and Questions ................................................................ 254

3

Theoretical Justification.............................................................................. 255

4

Methodology............................................................................................... 258

5

Contributions .............................................................................................. 263

6

References................................................................................................... 265

Summary: This paper describes a case study research proposal designed to explore how and why firms chose to integrate process activities with supply chain partners. Previous quantitative studies suggest that integrating demand management, collaborative forecasting, and demand planning activities can lead to competitive advantage and improved supply chain performance. This qualitative research fills a gap in previous research by exploring the phenomenon of Interfirm Demand Integration in a true supply chain context, garnering perceptions from multiple supply chain partners. Results are expected to contribute to managerial, theoretical, and methodological knowledge. Keywords: Case Study, Supply Chain Management, Demand Management, Collaborative Forecasting, Qualitative Research

252

1

T. M. McCarthy, S. L. Golicic

Introduction

In practice, many firms plan and execute supply and demand activities separately (Vokurka & Lummus, 1998). Shankar (2001: 76) asserts supply chain management has traditionally focused on “back-end operational functions, while marketing has addressed front-end, or customer-facing functions”. The gap that exists between these two areas limits the potential for competitive advantage in the marketplace. As firms recognize that competition is no longer limited to company versus company, but rather supply chain versus supply chain, reliance on trading partners to help bridge the supply-demand gap and achieve competitive advantage becomes more important. As such, it is essential for trading partners to understand how to integrate supply and demand activities in order to deliver superior customer value. The purpose of this paper is to present a proposal to investigate why and how firms integrate business processes with their supply chain partners in order to bridge the gap between supply and demand activities. An additional objective is to offer a detailed description of the process followed when designing a supply chain research project to foster rigor in methodological approach and execution. Achrol (1997) suggests that, as firms move toward a more strategic, precise focus on core competencies resulting in vertical disaggregation and outsourcing of noncore competencies, networks of trading partners become more critical for gaining access to resources not controlled within the firm. These “opportunity networks” (Achrol, 1997: 62) represent nonequity modes of governance (Tsang, 2000) in which each trading partner brings a specific strategic resource to the network, and trading partners cooperate on mutually important activities. One mode of nonequity governance that has been explored in the interfirm literature is joint action arrangements, which is defined as “the extent to which parties undertake activities jointly rather than unilaterally” (Heide & John, 1990: 29). Joint action (JA) has been tested as a single construct representing the degree to which manufacturers and suppliers cooperate on certain activities that are important for both parties, such as: component testing, long-range planning, and forecasting (Heide & John, 1990), marketing strategy, new product launches, and premium volumes (Zaheer & Venkatraman, 1995); cost cutting, product redesign, new product development (Joshi & Stump, 1999). McCarthy (2003) suggests the concept of undertaking activities jointly in an interfirm governance situation is more complex than that which has been measured in previous studies. McCarthy refined the JA construct and conceptualized Interfirm Demand Integration Process as a higher-order construct comprised of three firstorder constructs. Interfirm Demand Integration (IDI) is a nonequity mode of governance defined as, “the systemic, strategic coordination of the customer-focused functions and tactics across businesses within the supply chain, for the purposes of improving the long-term performance of the individual companies and the supply

A Proposal for Case Study Methodology

253

chain as a whole” (McCarthy, 2003: 9). IDI Process is comprised of three distinct process activities coordinated among trading partners, each of which has been shown to improve supply chain performance (McCarthy, 2003): Demand Management (DM), Collaborative Forecasting (CF), and Demand Planning (DP) (see Figure 1). Demand management (DM) is the mutual modification or creation of demand across firms in the supply chain. Demand management activities are used to modify or create demand to optimize supply. This can take many forms, such as: exclusive products, packaging, and bundling options; the nature and timing of cobranded or trade brand promotions; and mutual decisions regarding market segmentation and positioning. These types of activities appear to parallel traditional marketing functions known as the “4 P’s”, but they are coordinated between firms rather than developed within one firm. Collaborative forecasting (CF) is a purposive exchange of specific and timely information (e.g., quantity, level, time horizon, location, probability of new business, etc.) between trading partners to develop a single shared projection of demand. The level of involvement of each partner varies, but the end result is a forecast of demand that both partners agree to and trust. Demand planning (DP) is coordination of the flow of dependent demand through companies in the supply chain. Dependent demand is demand for component parts or “bill of materials” that is derived from end-user demand for the finished product, taking into account production and shipping lead times. This integrated process is similar to the traditional Sales and Operations Planning (S&OP) processes that occur within firms, which plan for the flow of products within a firm. However, DP integrates the processes across firms in the supply chain. McCarthy’s (2003) quantitative test of the IDI model explored the manufacturer’s perception of manufacturer-retailer integration of DM, CF, and DP in the Consumer Packaged Goods industry. Results revealed a positive relationship between integration of these activities and improved supply chain performance under conditions of high interdependence. However, Cannon & Perreault’s (1999) research on buyer-seller relationships revealed some customer firms do not want or need close ties with all of their suppliers. Their results show different types of governance modes are adopted when operational elements (e.g., information exchange, legal bonds, cooperative norms, operational linkages) of the relationship vary. Their results show that governance modes differ based on the level and types of operational elements present in the relationship. Each relationship requires different types and degrees of integration resulting in different outcomes. Cannon & Perrault’s results were based on a survey capturing the customer’s perception of the buyer-seller relationship. When exploring interfirm relationships, Weitz & Jap (1995) emphasize the importance of refocusing research efforts from the individual firm perception toward dyadic perceptions.

254

T. M. McCarthy, S. L. Golicic

Demand Management

Collaborative Forecasting

Demand Planning

IDI Process

Effective Relations

Supply Chain performance Figure 1: Model of IDI Process and Outcomes

2

Research Purpose and Questions

Many studies exploring interfirm governance modes have surveyed one trading partner’s perceptions of a bilateral relationship (Cannon & Perrault, 1999; Heide & John, 1990; Joshi & Stump, 1999; McCarthy, 2003). While results of these studies of integration are important, a deeper understanding of the complex phenomena of interfirm integration requires capturing the perspectives of all trading partners involved in the integrative activities. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to explore the IDI Process model from a true supply chain context – that is, from the perspective of several trading partners within a supply chain. More specifically, this research asks the questions: x

Why do firms to choose to integrate DM, CF, and DP activities with trading partners versus executing these activities autonomously?

x

How do firms integrate DM, CF, and DP activities with trading partners?

A Proposal for Case Study Methodology

255

Regarding the first question, the research will also look to understand if perceptions of and attitudes toward integration with trading partners vary based on a firm’s role in the supply chain (e.g., manufacturer, wholesaler, retailer, etc.). Also, which trading partner initiates the move toward integration and why? Do trading partners tend to engage in all three IDI Process activities (DM, CF, DP), or are one or two activities more commonly integrated than others? Regarding the second research question, the study will attempt to determine if there is a particular pattern of these activities that typically occurs in a business cycle that is more effective in improving supply chain performance than alternative patterns. For example, are all three activities integrated to the same degree or are some more often practiced autonomously? Is integration of DM, CF, and DP practiced in a sequential, iterative, or concurrent manner? Answers to these complex questions can only be understood by gaining the perspectives of all trading partners involved.

3

Theoretical Justification

The literature on formation of interfirm relationships presents both economic and behavioural theories. Three theories that are suggested to explain decisions related to the formation of governance structures – transaction cost analysis (economic based), relational exchange theory (behavioural based), and resource dependence theory/resource based view (behavioural based), – are used to frame this research. Table 1 provides a summary of the approach, motivating variables, and assumptions associated with each of these theories. Transaction cost analysis (TCA) theories explain choices firms make in organizing transactions and mode of governance (Heide, 1994; Williamson, 1985). The basic motivation of TCA is minimization of transaction costs through the most efficient governance structure. TCA theorists describe governance structures as falling on a continuum ranging from market-based transactions (arms-length) to hierarchies (vertical integration). Researchers have suggested the presence of relational exchange norms allows for a hybrid governance falling between markets and hierarchies (Macneil, 1985). Under TCA logic, uncertainty and asset specificity are two primary factors contributing to transaction costs and, thus, choice of governance structure. Markets will generally prevail as the mode of choice unless conditions of uncertainty or asset specificity cause transaction costs to increase, resulting in a shift toward hierarchical governance (Williamson, 1985). Hybrid modes of governance prevail when asset specificity is of an intermediate degree (Tsang, 2000). A key behavioural assumption of TCA presumes firms engaged in relationships are motivated

256

T. M. McCarthy, S. L. Golicic

Theory (Key contributors)

Approach

Transaction Cost Economics (Coase, 1937; Williamson, 1985)

x Economic

Relational Exchange Theory (Granovetter, 1985; Macneil, 1980; Thibaut and Kelley, 1959)

x Behavioral

Motivating Variables x Uncertainty x Asset specificity

Assumptions

x Governance structure is driven by minimization of transaction cost x Firms are motivated by economic self-interest and will behave opportunistically

x Trust x Embeddedness

x Firms enter into a relationship with the expectation that it will be rewarding x Transactions occur within a historical and social context x Embeddeness in a relationship diminishes the need for formal governance mechanisms

Resource Dependency Theory (Pfeffer and Salancik, 1978) and Resourced Based View (Barney, 1991)

x Behavioral

x Uncertainty about supply of resources and competencies x Dependence

x Few organizations are self-sufficient x Firms develop relationships with other firms to obtain needed resources x Firms core competencies are built around resources that are valuable, rare, inimitable, and not easily substitutable

Table 1: Interfirm Governance Theories

by economic self-interest and will thus behave opportunistically when the opportunity arises (Williamson, 1985). However, relational exchange theory (RET) offers the notion of embeddedness in a relationship (Granovetter, 1985), which evokes a “moral control” (Larson, 1992: 96) that diminishes the desire for opportunism between trading partners. Relational exchange theory proposes the nature of the exchange relationship between entities is directed by the level of expectation that the relationship will be reward-

A Proposal for Case Study Methodology

257

ing (Thibaut & Kelley, 1959). The concept of embeddedness in social relationships explains the departure from “pure economic motives” as firms “become overlaid with social content that carries strong expectations of trust and abstention from opportunism,” (Granovetter, 1985: 490). Hill (1990) explains that relationships devoid of trust will be less efficient due to the energies expended to focus on safeguarding activities necessary to check opportunism. Thus, relationships characterized by lack of trust are less likely to survive in the marketplace as competitive pressures “select out inefficient relationships and firms that enter into them, leaving behind the more efficient, trust-based ones” (Zaheer & Venkatraman, 1995: 375). Joshi & Stump (1999) suggest the presence of trust in a dyadic relationship allows partners to focus more on developing and sustaining ongoing relations rather than focusing on the present transaction. The possibility of a long-term relationship is conducive to a governance mode characterized by cooperation rather than a transactional, arms-length relationship. The third relationship theory explaining choice of governance modes is based on possession of and dependence on resources. Resource dependence reflects the importance to a firm of obtaining resources from another firm to accomplish objectives (McCann & Galbraith, 1981). An underlying assumption of resource dependency theory is that most organizations are not self-sufficient, resulting in dependence upon other firms to obtain critical resources (Emerson, 1962; Hunt & Morgan, 1995). One strategy for reducing environmental uncertainty and managing dependence is to purposively structure bilateral governance forms with other organizations in which coordinated efforts enhance the effectiveness of both firms (Heide, 1994). Similarly, the Resource-Based View (RBV) of the firm suggests firms possess valuable, firm-specific resources that enable them to achieve relative advantage leading to superior performance (e.g., Day, 1994; Hunt & Morgan, 1995). RBV contends the achievement and sustainability of competitive advantage is a function of the firm’s core competencies (Barney, 1991; Hunt & Morgan, 1995). Barney (1991) proposes that core competencies are built around resources that are valuable, rare, difficult to imitate, and not easily substitutable. Transaction Cost Economics, Relational Exchange Theory, and the ResourceBased theories explain various choices in interfirm governance. This research will shed light on the circumstances under which economic-based theories and/or behavioural-based theories explain integration behaviours.

258

4

T. M. McCarthy, S. L. Golicic

Methodology

We follow a research process similar to those suggested by Miles & Huberman (1991) and Stuart et al. (2002). Specifically, the following steps will guide the research design and promote rigor in execution of the research: 1.

Define the research question

2.

Methodology a.

Select research structure

b.

Select the sample

c.

Develop the instrument

d.

Collect data

3.

Analyze data

4.

Disseminate

The first step in the process – defining the research question(s) – must be completed prior to determining the research methodology, and has been presented above. The remainder of this section will describe steps two and three; methodology and data analysis.

4.1

Research Structure

The first step in designing the methodology for any research is selection of the research structure. The chosen methodological structure should be guided by the research question(s). Guidelines for matching research questions with the appropriate methodology have been offered by several researchers (Ellram, 1996; Handfield & Melynk, 1998; Stuart et al., 2002; Yin, 2003). Table 1 (adapted from Handfield & Melynk, 1998; and Stuart et al., 2002) is useful for identifying the appropriate research structure based on the research purpose and questions. Our research purpose and questions are similar to the relationship building category in Table 1 in that we are looking for patterns and linkages between variables, and a better understanding of why the relationships exist. Handfield & Melynk (1998) identify multiple-case study and/or best-in-class case study as appropriate methodological design for the research questions being explored in this study. Näslund (2002) and Yin (2003) also suggest case study methodology is well suited to meet the requirements of answering “why” and “how” questions such ours that examine contemporary phenomena in-context where control over behavioural events is not required. Therefore, a best-in-class, multiple-case design will be adopted.

A Proposal for Case Study Methodology

4.2

259

Sampling

For multiple case studies, each case must be carefully selected to achieve replication of results (Yin, 1994). Thus, one pilot study and three case studies will be selected that are known a priori to integrate activities with trading partners. As such, a small number of cases is acceptable as results should illustrate replication of findings (Yin, 1994). The pilot and each case will represent one supply chain, each in a different industry. Choice of supply chains for the study will begin with selection of a focal firm (e.g., manufacturer). To achieve best-in-class sampling, the focal firm must be one that has been identified as best-in-class in supply chain integration in publications such as trade journals, academic journals, or popular press (Stuart et al., 2002). The focal firm for each supply chain will be asked to identify one strategically important supplier (e.g., component parts supplier or contract manufacturer) and two customers (e.g., retailers) that would be willing to participate in the study. The supplier will supply goods or services that are intended for the downstream retail customers involved in the study. One of the retail customers will be a highly strategic customer, the other will be one with whom the focal firm has a less strategic relationship. The rationale for including two different types of customers, as well as including supply chains in different industries, is to create variance in patterns of response to the research questions.

4.3

Instrumentation

In case study research, the measurement instrument used to maintain consistent focus and a rigorous approach is the study protocol (Yin, 2003; Stuart et al., 2002). The protocol is more than just a list of questions to be asked during data collection. It is a tool to be used by the researchers to guide them through the entire research process. Yin (2003) suggests the case study protocol should include the following four sections: 1.

Overview of the case study project

This section acts as a reference to keep the researchers targeted on the subject of the case study. It includes the conceptual framework, research purpose, and research questions. Relevant readings can also be included in this section. 2.

Field procedures

This section includes a list of the companies comprising each case (supply chain) included in the study. A list of the types of people that should be interviewed within each company is included in this section. Ideally, these informants should be described by job responsibility rather than title or position. In addition, introductory letters should be written describing the research project and the

260

T. M. McCarthy, S. L. Golicic

Purpose

Research Question

Discovery: uncover areas for research and theory development

What is going on?

Description: explore territory

What is there?

Is it interesting enough to research?

What are the key issues?

Research Structure In-depth case study (unfocused) Longitundinal case study In-depth case study (unfocused) Longitudinal case study

Mapping: identify and describe critical variables

What are the key variables?

Focused case studies

What are the key patterns or categories?

In-depth field studies Multi-site case studies Best-in-class cases

Relationship building: identify linkages between variables, causal understanding

What are the patterns that link the variables? Can an order in the relationships be identified? Why do these relationships exist?

Theory validation: test the developed theories, predict future outcomes

In-depth field studies Multi-site case studies Best-in-class cases

Are the theories robust?

Experiment

Is predictive capability validated?

Quasi-experiment

Are there unexpected behaviours? Theory extension/refinement: expand the map of the theory, better structure the theories in light of observed results

Focused case studies

How widely applicable are the developed theories? What are the constraints?

Large-scale sample Refutation case study Quasi-experiment Large-scale sample Contextual case studies

Table 2: Matching Research Question and Structure (Stuart et al., 2002: 422)

participating companies’ responsibilities in the research process. For the current study, three introductory letters will be written, each targeted at a trading partner at a different level in the supply chain (i.e., a retailer letter, a focal firm letter, as supplier letter). This section will also describe the variety of evidence that should be collected during the site visit and data collection process. For case study methodology, the primary form of data collection is systematic interviewing and direct

A Proposal for Case Study Methodology

261

observation. Additional data includes any documents collected during the site visits, observation of the physical locations, company websites, plant tours, etc. 3.

Case study questions

The questions for this case study protocol are designed to tap the phenomenon of IDI to elicit answers to the research questions presented above, and to evoke responses that will inform the theoretical issues related to TCE, RET, and RBV. Separate protocols will be developed for the focal firm, supplier, and customer to include questions appropriate for each firms’ position in the supply chain. Examples of the types of questions designed to tap the constructs of the IDI model include: x

How is demand estimated for this customer (collaborative forecasting example)?

x

How are production schedules determined for products sold to this customer (demand planning example)?

x

What types of marketing activities are currently employed with this customer (eg., personal selling, sales promotions, advertising, public relations)? Which are most successful? (demand management example)?

4.

Guide for case study report

Because a multiple case study involves collection of large amounts of documentary evidence, such as company reports, memoranda, publications, and field notes, these data need to be organized and filed in such a way as to make them easily retrievable for later use. The organizational system should be documented in this section. A specific list of materials needed for the data collection process (e.g., tape recorders, audio tapes, microphones, batteries, copy of non-disclosure agreement) should be included as part of the protocol. In addition, a contact record must be maintained listing all informants by company with their contact information, date and location of interview, and name of researcher conducting the interview.

4.4

Collect Data

For the current project, a team of two researchers will visit each site to conduct pre-arranged depth interviews using a consistent protocol across all cases. Interviews will be arranged to include boundary-spanning personnel involved in supply and demand side activities, such as buyer/purchasing/procurement, inbound and outbound logistics, supply chain management, new product development, marketing, sales, forecasting, demand planning/replenishment, and production. Interviews with informants not present during the site visit will be conducted by telephone as soon as possible following the site visit. Interviews will be transcribed verbatim, and any additional documentation collected during the process will be filed according the protocol.

262

4.5

T. M. McCarthy, S. L. Golicic

Data Analysis

This research will employ pattern-matching logic as the method of analysis (Yin, 1994). In an exploratory multiple case study, this logic seeks to determine if answers to the research questions produce patterns that coincide across cases. Literal replication is expected to occur when comparing supply chain cases involving retailers at the same level of strategic importance, while theoretical replication is expected to occur when comparing results across cases with different levels of strategic importance (Yin, 1994). Literal replication occurs when patterns are identical across multiple cases. Theoretical replication exists when results from one group of cases fails to occur in a second group of cases due to predictably different circumstances, such as those suggested by TCA, RET, and RBV theories posited to explain choices in governance modes. Transcribed interviews will be analyzed using NVivo Software. Before identifying patterns, categories of meaning relevant to the study must be identified and defined. Categories – also referred to as nodes (QSR International, 2002) – can represent constructs, concepts, processes, people, actions, or any other ideas relevant to the research. Examples of nodes that will be used in this research include each of the constructs in the IDI Model (Figure 1), and the variables associated with the interfirm governance theories (Table 1), to name a few. For this study, the research team will develop a list of nodes before analysis begins. Analysis in NVivo involves coding, a method of “linking data and ideas” by linking “selected passages of text to the category created for the coding” (QSR International, 2002: 64). Coding will be completed independently by each of the two researchers present during the interview, and subsequently compared to reconcile coding and resolve discrepancies by consensus. A third member of the team will review the reconciled transcripts to verify reliability of the codes. Upon completion of the pilot study, the team will meet to discuss general themes into which the nodes can be linked, and to identify patterns that emerge from the themes. Pattern-matching will occur as the data analysis for the three remaining case studies is completed. In a multiple case study, each case should be analyzed independently for within-case themes, patterns and conclusions before moving onto across-case analysis. Identification of patterns can be facilitated by rearranging the order in which the data is organized. For example, the data can be arrayed by tier in the supply chain (i.e., retailer, manufacturer, supplier) with each tier in the supply chain analyzed separately, or by strategic versus non strategic relationships, or by informant position. Reorganization of the data can reveal patterns that otherwise would be difficult to discern.

A Proposal for Case Study Methodology

4.6

263

Data Quality

When designing any research project, four elements must be addressed to ensure quality results (Yin, 1994). The first, internal validity is relevant when testing for causal relationships and is therefore not applicable for the present exploratory study. Second, construct validity ensures the measures being used correspond to the research concepts. Construct validity is achieved through triangulation of multiple data sources, a chain of evidence, and key informant reviews (Yin, 1994). This research will use interviews, observation, field notes, company documents, and websites as multiple sources of data. The chain of evidence is realized when an independent observer is able to follow the analysis from original data, to coding and theme development, and to pattern matching. For this study, one team member not involved in the interviews or coding will independently review the analysis for chain of evidence. Key informant reviews – also called member checks – involve having the interview participant review a summary interpretation of the interviews. Member checks will be conducted with each company involved in the research. External validity addresses generalizability of the results. External validity is supported by replication of findings. This replication logic will be sought in the multiple-case design whereby pattern-matching approach is adopted. Replication of results in case study design achieves analytic generalization (versus statistical generalization) from which theoretical implications can be drawn (Yin, 1994). The fourth test for quality is reliability, which is the ability to repeatedly yield similar results across similar situations (Mentzer & Kahn, 1995). Reliability will be established in the research design by using the protocol consistently across interviews, and a common database for collecting and analyzing data. In addition, the interviews will be conducted by a team of two members of the research team and will be audiotaped for subsequent transcription to minimize researcher bias and support data quality and reliability. Incorporating these tests into the design of qualitative research is essential to ensure quality data collection and results. Incorporating and following the tactics outlined above will lead to credible, valid, and reliable results.

5

Contributions

Results are expected to add value to both the practitioner and academic communities. Implications for managers are found in the prescriptive insights that can result from this research. Although the importance of supply chain integration is widely recognized, may firms struggle with decisions related to how and when to manage

264

T. M. McCarthy, S. L. Golicic

integrative processes, and with which trading partners they should enter into integrative relationships. Weitz & Jap (1995) called for research that would lead to a better understanding of what firms are doing to effectively manage inter-firm relationships, and this research answers that call. For trading partners wishing to improve management of their supply chain, results will reveal effective approaches to interfirm demand integration resulting in improved supply chain performance. More specifically, results will help firms understand how, when, and with whom to integrate supply and demand activities in order to deliver superior customer value and achieve differential advantage. From a theoretical perspective, gaining insights into how and why relationships are forged and maintained from the perspective of multiple supply-chain trading partners will broaden our understanding of choices and outcomes in governance structure. For example, how and when do TCE, RET, and RBV theories guide decisions to develop integrative governance processes within supply chains as opposed to adopting arms-length transactional relationships? How does the corporate culture of each trading partner affect which approach (behavioural or economic) is adopted? Are cost-based and behavioural-based approaches mutually exclusive, or is some hybrid approach more common? Are governance decisions determined at a firm level, or do different divisions adopt different approaches? What is the impact of corporate structure (e.g., level of centralization) on such decisions? The current research seeks to answer these questions The current research also makes a methodological contribution. Supply chain management research has been largely conducted from the positivist paradigm (Mentzer & Kahn, 1995; Näslund, 2002). A paucity of rigorous qualitative research has been conducted and published addressing issues related to supply chain management. In order to accurately describe, truly understand, and begin to explain these complex phenomena, supply chain scholars are calling for more studies using qualitative methods (Mentzer and Kahn, 1995), specifically more case study research (Näslund, 2002). In addition, Weitz and Jap (1995) urge interfirm relationship scholars to employ research methods that will collect data from multiple trading partners. The present study answers these calls for qualitative research in the supply chain context by adopting a qualitative case study approach described in detail below. In doing so, the research will contribute to the body of knowledge by triangulating results from McCarthy’s (2003) quantitative study while gaining a deeper, richer understanding of the complex phenomenon of IDI. Finally, the research will result in development of hypotheses that can be tested in future research to further refine our knowledge of integrative processes such as demand management, collaborative forecasting, and demand planning.

A Proposal for Case Study Methodology

6

265

References

Achrol, R. S. (1997): Changes in the Theory of Interorganizational Relations in Marketing: Toward a Network Paradigm, in: Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 25(1): 56-71. Barney, J. (1991): Firm Resources and Sustained Competitive Advantage, in: Journal of Management, 17(1): 99-120. Cannon, J. P., Perreault, W. D. (1999): Buyer-Seller Relationships in Business Markets, in: Journal of Marketing Research, 36 (November): 439-460. Coase, R. H. (1937): The Nature of the Firm, in: Economica N.S., 4: 386-405. Day, G. S. (1994): The Capabilities of Market-Driven Organizations, in: Journal of Marketing, 58 (October): 37-52. Ellram, L. M. (1996): The Use of the Case Study Method in Logistics Research, in: Journal of Business Logistics, 17(2), 193-138. Emerson, R. M. (1962): Power-Dependence Relations, in: American Sociological Review, 27: 31-41. Granovetter, M. (1985): Economic Action and Social Structure: The Problem of Embeddedness, in: American Journal of Sociology, 19 (November): 481-510. Hanfield, R. B., Melnyk, S. A. (1998): The Scientific Theory-Building Process: A Primer Using the Case of TQM, in: Journal of Operations Management, 16, 321-339. Heide, J. B. (1994): Interorganizational Governance in Marketing Channels, in: Journal of Marketing, 58 (January): 71-85. Heide, J. B., John G. (1990): Alliances in Industrial Purchasing: The Determinants of Joint Action in Buyer-Supplier Relationships, in: Journal of Marketing Research, 27(1): 2436. Hill, C. W. L. (1990): Cooperation. Opportunism, and the Invisible Hand: Implications for Transaction Cost Theory, in: Academy of Management Review, 15, 500-513. Hunt, S D., Morgan R. M. (1995): The Comparative Advantage Theory of Competition, in: Journal of Marketing, 59 (April): 1-15 Joshi, A. W., Stump, R L. (1999): The Contingent Effect of Specific Asset Investments on Joint Action in Manufacturer-Supplier Relationships: An Empirical Test of the Moderating Role of Reciprocal Asset Investments, Uncertainty, and Trust, in: Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 27(3): 291-305 Larson, A. (1992): Network Dyads in Entrepreneurial Settings: A Study of the Governance of Exchange Relationships, in: Administrative Science Quarterly, 37: 76-104. Macneil, I. (1980): The New Social Contract. Yale University Press, New Haven, CT. McCann, J., Galbraith, J. R. (1981): Interdepartmental Relations, in: Handbook of Organizational Design, 2: 60-84.

266

T. M. McCarthy, S. L. Golicic

McCarthy, T. M. (2003): Interfirm Demand Integration: The Role of Marketing in Bridging the Gap between Demand and Supply Chain Management, Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, The University of Tennessee. Mentzer, J. T., Kahn, K. B. (1995): A Framework of Logistics Research, in: Journal of Business Logistics, 16(1): 231-250. Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M. (1984): Qualitative Data Analysis: A Sourcebook of New Methods; Sage, Newbury Park. Näslund, D. (2002): Logistics Needs Qualitative Research – Especially Action Research, in: International Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics Management: 32(5), 321-338. Pfeffer, J, Salancik G. R. (1978): The External Control of Organizations: A Resource Dependence Perspective; Harper & Row, New York. QSR International (2002): Nvivo Qualitative Data Analysis Program, third edition, Melbourne, Australia. Shankar, V. (2001): Integrating Demand and Supply Chain Management, in: Supply Chain Management Review, (September): 76-81. Stuart, I., McCutcheon, D., Handfiled, R., McLachlin, R., Samson, D. (2002): Effective Case Research in Operations Management: A Process Perspective, in: Journal of Operations Management, 20: 419-433. Thibaut, J. W., Kelley, H. H. (1959): The Social Psychology of Groups, Wiley, New York. Tsang, E. W. K. (2000): Transaction Cost and Resource-Based Explanations of Joint Ventures: A Comparison and Synthesis, in: Organization Studies, 21(1): 215-242. Vokurka, R. J., Lummus, R. R. (1998): Balancing Marketing and Supply Chain Activities, in: Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 6(4): 41-50. Weitz, B. A., Jap, S. D. (1995): Relationship Marketing and Distribution Channels, in: Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 4: 305-320. Williamson, O. E. (1985): The Economic Institutions of Capitalism: Firms, Markets, and Relational Contracting, The Free Press, New York. Yin, R. K. (2003): Case Study Research: Design and Methods, third edition, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks. Zaheer, A., Venkatraman N. (1995): Relational Governance as an Interorganizational Strategy: An Empirical Test of the Role of Trust in Economic Exchange, in: Strategic Management Journal, 16: 373-392.