Reviewer 2 - eprints.undip.ac.ideprints.undip.ac.id/66189/1/C6_Governance... · HASIL PENILAIAN SEJAWAT SEBIDANG ATAU PEER REVIEW KARYA ILMIAH : JURNAL ILMIAH ..... Judul Jurnal Ilmiah

LEMBAR

HASIL PENILAIAN SEJAWAT SEBIDANG ATAU PEER REVIEW

KARYA ILMIAH : JURNAL ILMIAH

..............................

Judul Jurnal Ilmiah (Artikel) : Governance structure choice in the supply chain of broiler chickens: an

empirical study in Central Java, Indonesia

Jumlah Penulis : 4 orang

Status Pengusul : penulis pertama/utama

Identitas Jurnal Ilmiah : a. Nama Jurnal : International Journal of Services,

Technology and Management,

b. Nomor ISSN : 1741525X, 14606720

c. Volume, nomor, bulan tahun : 24 (5/6), .414–444. Agustus 2018

d. Penerbit : Inderscience Publishers.

e. DOI artikel (jika ada) : DOI: 10.1504/IJSTM.2018.10014971

f. Alamat web jurnal :

JURNAL : http://www.inderscience.com/info/inarticle.php?artid=94442 ARTIKEL: http://eprints.undip.ac.id/64774/ .

g. Terindeks di Scopus/Scimagojr/SJR=0,14 (2017) dan Q4.

Kategori Publikasi Jurnal Ilmiah : Jurnal Ilmiah Internasional

(beri pada kategori yang tepat) Jurnal Ilmiah Nasional Terakreditasi

Jurnal Ilmiah Nasional Tidak Terakreditasi

Hasil Penilaian Peer Review :

Komponen

Yang Dinilai

Nilai Maksimal Jurnal Ilmiah

Nilai Yang

Diperoleh Reviewer 1 Reviewer 2

a. Kelengkapan unsur isi jurnal(10%) 2,35 2,50 2,43

b. Ruang lingkup dan kedalaman

pembahasan (30%) 5,88 6,25

6,07

c. Kecukupan dan kemutahiran

data/informasi dan metodologi

(30%) 7,06

6,25

6,65

d. Kelengkapan unsur dan kualitas

penerbit (30%) 4,71 5,00

4,85

Total = (100%) 20,00 20,00 20,00

Nilai Pengusul = (60%)*20,00 = 12,00

Semarang,

Reviewer 1

Prof.Ir. Togar M. Simatupang, M.Tech.,Ph.D.

NIP. 196812311993031015

Unit kerja: Sekolah Bisnis dan Manajemen

(SBM) Insititut Teknologi Bandung

Reviewer 2

Prof. Ir. I Nyoman M.Eng.Ph.D.

NIP. 196912311994121076

Unit kerja :Teknik Industri ITS

http://www.inderscience.com/info/inarticle.php?artid=94442

http://eprints.undip.ac.id/64774/

LEMBAR



..............................

Judul Jurnal Ilmiah (Artikel) : “Governance structure choice in the supply chain of broiler chickens: an

empirical study in Central Java, Indonesia”



Identitas Jurnal Ilmiah : a. Nama Jurnal : International Journal of Services

Technology and Management

b. Nomor ISSN : 1741525X, 14606720

c. Volume, nomor, bulan tahun : 24 (5/6), .414–444. Agustus 2018

d. Penerbit : Inderscience Publishers.



JURNAL : http://www.inderscience.com/info/inarticle.php?artid=94442

ARTIKEL: http://eprints.undip.ac.id/64774/



(beri pada kategori yang tepat) Jurnal Ilmiah Nasional Terakreditasi

Jurnal Ilmiah Nasional Tidak Terakreditasi


Komponen

Yang Dinilai


Nilai Akhir

Yang

Diperoleh

Internasional

Nasional

Terakreditasi

Nasional

Tidak

Terakreditasi

a. Kelengkapan unsur isi jurnal (10%) 4,00 2,35


pembahasan (30%)

12,00 5,88


data/informasi dan metodologi (30%)

12,00 7,06


terbitan/jurnal (30%)

12,00 4,71

Total = (100%) 40,00 20,00

Nilai Pengusul = 60%*20,00 = 12,00

Catatan Penilaian artikel oleh Reviewer : 1. Kesesuaian dan kelengkapan unsur isi jurnal: Susunan paper telah memuat abstract, introduction, literature review, methods of the research,

results, and conclusions. Unsur paper sudah lengkap dan sesuai dengan petunjuk penulisan jurnal.2. Ruang lingkup dan kedalaman pembahasan: Ruang linkup paper termasuk dalam bidang Teknik Industri yang membahas tentang pilihan tata

kelola pada industri produksi ayam pedaging. Penulis telah berhasil dengan baik menurunkan hipotesis tentang pilihan tata kelola. Ada baiknya

model konseptual ditempatkan di awab sebelum menjelaskan hipotesis untuk memudahkan pembaca melihat gambaran besar dan alur penalaran dari model.

3. Kecukupan dan kemutakhiran data/informasi dan metodologi: Data yang dikumpulkan sejumlah 125 responden. Metode analisis yang

digunakan adalah Structural Equation Modelling (SEM) dengan prosedur yang lengkap. Referensi terbaru sudah memadai.4. Kelengkapan unsur dan kualitas terbitan: Paper telah diterbitkan baik dalam bentuk daring dan cetakan. Jurnal merupakan terindeks di SCOPUS

dengan kategori Q4. Penerbit inderscience termasuk yang diragukan oleh DIKTI

Bandung, 19 September 2018

Reviewer 1

Prof. Ir. Togar M. Simatupang, Ph.D.

NIP. 196812311993031015

Unit kerja : Sekolah Bisnis dan Manajemen (SBM)

Insititut Teknologi Bandung (ITB)


http://eprints.undip.ac.id/64774/

LEMBAR



..............................

Judul Jurnal Ilmiah (Artikel) : Governance structure choice in the supply chain of broiler chickens: an

empirical study in Central Java, Indonesia



Identitas Jurnal Ilmiah : a. Nama Jurnal : International Journal of Services,

Technology and Management

b. Nomor ISSN : 1741525X, 14606720

c. Volume, nomor, bulan tahun : 24 (5/6), .414–444. Agustus 2018d. Penerbit : Inderscience Publishers.



JURNAL : http://www.inderscience.com/info/inarticle.php?artid=94442 ARTIKEL : http://eprints.undip.ac.id/64774/



(beri pada kategori yang tepat) Jurnal Ilmiah Nasional TerakreditasiJurnal Ilmiah Nasional Tidak Terakreditasi


Komponen

Yang Dinilai


Nilai Akhir

Yang

Diperoleh

Internasional

Nasional

Terakreditasi

Nasional

Tidak

Terakreditasi

a. Kelengkapan unsur isi jurnal (10%) 4,00 2,50


pembahasan (30%)

12,00 6,25


data/informasi dan metodologi (30%)

12,00 6,25


terbitan/jurnal (30%)

12,00 5,00

Total = (100%) 40,00 20,00

Nilai Pengusul = 60%* 20,00= 12

Catatan Penilaian artikel oleh Reviewer : 1. Kesesuaian dan kelengkapan unsur isi jurnal: Cukup lengkap dan bidangnya sesuai dengan bidang yang diklaim penulis di deskripsi tentang penulis.2. Ruang lingkup dan kedalaman pembahasan: Cukup baik, ada hypothesis yang diusulkan dan ada testing hypothesis secara statistik.. 3. Kecukupan dan kemutakhiran data/informasi dan metodologi: Menggunakan metode standard dan cukup, walaupun mungkin bisa ditambahkan beberapa analisis yang lumrah dilakukan untuk penelitian dengan metodologi survey seperti ini untuk menjaga rigors.

4. Kelengkapan unsur dan kualutas terbitan: Cukup baik, jurnal melalui proses review yang baik, walaupun reputasi jurnal maupun penerbitnya masih relatif rendah.

Surabaya, 23 September 2018

Reviewer 2

Prof. Ir. I Nyoman M.Eng.Ph.D.NIP. 196912311994121076 Unit kerja : Teknik Industri ITS

http://www.inderscience.com/info/ingeneral/forthcoming.php?jcode=ijstm#67312

http://www.inderscience.com/info/ingeneral/forthcoming.php?jcode=ijstm#67312

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1hnN8xBbt14KXixKTd7WyGLy-4vRnJ4_s

also developed by scimago: SCIMAGO INSTITUTIONS RANKINGS

Scimago Journal & Country Rank

Home Journal Rankings Country Rankings Viz Tools Help About Us

International Journal of Services, Technology andManagement

Country United Kingdom - SIR Ranking of United Kingdom 20H Index

Subject Area andCategory

Business, Management and Accounting Marketing

Strategy and Management

Computer Science Computer Science Applications

Engineering

Engineering (miscellaneous)

Social Sciences E-learning

Publisher Inderscience Publishers

Publication type Journals

ISSN 1741525X, 14606720

Coverage 2002-ongoing

Scope IJSTM provides a refereed, authoritative forum in the �eld of services innovation, servicestechnologies and management, as well as the role of the supply chain, logistics and otherrelated topics. Services cover a wide range of operations and functions, such as human aspectsof healthcare, and technological aspects of public services design and management, as well asservices provided by the manufacturing sector, information services and the associated cultural,ethical, legal and political aspects; electronic commerce; globalisation in services; and marketinnovations in services etc.

Homepage

Join the conversation about this journal

Leave a comment

Name

Email (will not be published)

I'm not a robotreCAPTCHAPrivacy - Terms

Submit

The users of Scimago Journal & Country Rank have the possibility to dialogue through comments linked to a

speci�c journal. The purpose is to have a forum in which general doubts about the processes of publication in the

journal, experiences and other issues derived from the publication of papers are resolved. For topics on particular

articles, maintain the dialogue through the usual channels with your editor.

Developed by:

Powered by:

Follow us on @ScimagoJR

Scimago Lab, Copyright 2007-2018. Data Source: Scopus®

Enter Journal Title, ISSN or Publisher Name

Quartiles

The set of journals have been ranked according to their SJR and divided into four equal groups, four quartiles. Q1 (green)comprises the quarter of the journals with the highest values, Q2 (yellow) the second highest values, Q3 (orange) the thirdhighest values and Q4 (red) the lowest values.

Category Year QuartileComputer Science Applications 2001 Q4Computer Science Applications 2002 Q4Computer Science Applications 2003 Q4Computer Science Applications 2004 Q4

SJR

The SJR is a size-independent prestige indicator thatranks journals by their 'average prestige per article'. It isbased on the idea that 'all citations are not createdequal'. SJR is a measure of scienti�c in�uence ofjournals that accounts for both the number of citationsreceived by a journal and the importance or prestige ofthe journals where such citations come from It measuresthe scienti�c in�uence of the average article in a journal,it expresses how central to the global scienti�c

Citations per document

This indicator counts the number of citations received bydocuments from a journal and divides them by the totalnumber of documents published in that journal. Thechart shows the evolution of the average number oftimes documents published in a journal in the past two,three and four years have been cited in the current year.The two years line is equivalent to journal impact factor™ (Thomson Reuters) metric.

Cites per document Year ValueCites / Doc. (4 years) 2000 0.000Cites / Doc. (4 years) 2001 0.280Cites / Doc. (4 years) 2002 0.157Cites / Doc. (4 years) 2003 0.188Cites / Doc. (4 years) 2004 0.278Cites / Doc. (4 years) 2005 0.225Cites / Doc. (4 years) 2006 0.235Cites / Doc. (4 years) 2007 0.410Cites / Doc. (4 years) 2008 0.609Cites / Doc. (4 years) 2009 0.528Ci / D (4 ) 2010 0 759

Total Cites Self-Cites

Evolution of the total number of citations and journal'sself-citations received by a journal's publisheddocuments during the three previous years.

Journal Self-citation is de�ned as the number of citationfrom a journal citing article to articles published by thesame journal.

Cites Year ValueS lf Cit 2000 0

External Cites per Doc Cites per Doc

Evolution of the number of total citation per documentand external citation per document (i.e. journal self-citations removed) received by a journal's publisheddocuments during the three previous years. Externalcitations are calculated by subtracting the number ofself-citations from the total number of citations receivedby the journal’s documents.

Cit Y V l

% International Collaboration

International Collaboration accounts for the articles thathave been produced by researchers from severalcountries. The chart shows the ratio of a journal'sdocuments signed by researchers from more than onecountry; that is including more than one country address.

Year International Collaboration2000 12.002001 14 81

Citable documents Non-citable documents

Not every article in a journal is considered primaryresearch and therefore "citable", this chart shows theratio of a journal's articles including substantial research(research articles, conference papers and reviews) inthree year windows vs. those documents other thanresearch articles, reviews and conference papers.

Documents Year ValueN it bl d t 2000 0

Cited documents Uncited documents

Ratio of a journal's items, grouped in three yearswindows, that have been cited at least once vs. those notcited during the following year.

Documents Year ValueUncited documents 2000 0Uncited documents 2001 21Uncited documents 2002 47Uncited documents 2003 70

← Show this widget inyour own website Just copy the code belowand paste within your htmlcode:

<a href="https://www.scimag

2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015 2017

Computer Science Applications

E-learning

Engineering (miscellaneous)

Marketing

Strategy and Management

2001 2004 2007 2010 2013 2016

0.08

0.16

0.24

0.32

Cites / Doc. (4 years)Cites / Doc. (3 years)Cites / Doc. (2 years)

2000 2003 2006 2009 2012 2015

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

2000 2003 2006 2009 2012 2015

0

50

100

2000 2003 2006 2009 2012 2015

0

0.4

0.8

2000 2003 2006 2009 2012 2015

0

40

80

2000 2003 2006 2009 2012 2015

0

70

140

2000 2003 2006 2009 2012 2015

0

70

140

https://www.scimagoir.com/

https://www.scimagojr.com/

https://www.scimagojr.com/index.php

https://www.scimagojr.com/journalrank.php

https://www.scimagojr.com/countryrank.php

https://www.scimagojr.com/viztools.php

https://www.scimagojr.com/help.php

https://www.scimagojr.com/aboutus.php

https://www.scimagojr.com/journalrank.php?country=GB

https://www.scimagoir.com/rankings.php?country=GBR

https://www.scimagojr.com/journalrank.php?area=1400




https://www.scimagojr.com/journalrank.php?category=1406





https://www.scimagojr.com/journalsearch.php?q=Inderscience%20Publishers&tip=pub

http://www.inderscience.com/browse/index.php?journalID=26

https://www.google.com/intl/en/policies/privacy/

https://www.google.com/intl/en/policies/terms/

http://www.scimagolab.com/

http://www.scopus.com/

https://twitter.com/ScimagoJR

http://www.scimagolab.com/

http://www.scopus.com/

18/10/2018 International Journal of Services Technology and Management (IJSTM) - Inderscience Publishers

http://www.inderscience.com/info/inarticletoc.php?jcode=ijstm&year=2018&vol=24&issue=5/6 1/2

Help Sitemap

LOG INFor Authors, Editors, Board Members Username

Browse issues Vol. 24 Vol. 23 Vol. 22 Vol. 21 Vol. 20 Vol. 19 Vol. 18 Vol. 17 Vol. 16 Vol. 15 Vol. 14 Vol. 13 Vol. 12 Vol. 11 Vol. 10 Vol. 9 Vol. 8 Vol. 7 Vol. 6 Vol. 5 Vol. 4 Vol. 3 Vol. 2 Vol. 1

International Journal of Services Technologyand Management

2018 Vol. 24 No. 5/6

Special Issue on: Embracing the Asean Economic Community inIndonesia: The Convergence of Management and Technology

Guest Editors: Prof. Benny Tjahjono, Dr. Dessy Irawati-Rutten andProf. Nyoman Pujawan

Editorial

Pages Title and authors

394-413

A case study of Indonesian SMEs: an empirical evidence of SCMpractices and their impact on firm performance Bertha Maya Sopha; Aprilia Hestiani DOI: 10.1504/IJSTM.2018.10014963

414-444

Governance structure choice in the supply chain of broilerchickens: an empirical study in Central Java, Indonesia Aries Susanty; Hery Suliantoro; Eveline Siburian; Ahmad Syamil DOI: 10.1504/IJSTM.2018.10014971

445-462

The challenge of e-money adoption for transportation in Indonesia Amalia E. Maulana; Nova Aryanti DOI: 10.1504/IJSTM.2018.10014968

463-479

Monetary integration in the ASEAN Economic Communitychallenge: the role of the exchange rate on inflation in Indonesia Heru Rahadyan; Alexander Lubis DOI: 10.1504/IJSTM.2018.10014966

480- Assessing an information system in a mandatory environment: a

Sign up for new issue alertsSubscribe/buy articles/issuesView sample issueLatest issue contents as RSS feed Forthcoming articlesJournal information in easy print format (PDF)

Publishing with Inderscience: ethical guidelines (pdf)View all calls for papersRecommend to a librarianFeedback to Editor

Find related journalsFind articles and other searches

Keep up-to-dateOur Blog

Follow us on Twitter

Visit us on Facebook

Join us on Google+

Article search Go

Home > International Journal of Services Technology and Management > 2018 Vol. 24 No. 5/6

Remember me Forgotten?

Home For Authors For Librarians Orders Inderscience Online News

http://www.inderscience.com/info/ingeneral/help.php

http://www.inderscience.com/info/insitemap.php

http://www.inderscience.com/jhome.php?jcode=ijstm


http://www.inderscience.com/browse/getEditorial.php?articleID=5927


http://dx.doi.org/10.1504/IJSTM.2018.10014963








http://www.inderscience.com/info/ingeneral/inalert.php

http://www.inderscience.com/inorders.php

http://www.inderscience.com/info/ingeneral/sample.php?jcode=ijstm

http://www.inderscience.com/current_issues/ijstm.rss

http://www.inderscience.com/info/ingeneral/forthcoming.php?jcode=ijstm

http://www.inderscience.com/info/leaflet.php?filename=IJSTM_leaflet.pdf

http://www.inderscience.com/info/pdf/dl.php?filename=authorethics.pdf

http://www.inderscience.com/callPapers.php

http://www.inderscience.com/info/inform/libraryform.php

mailto:[email protected]?subject=Feedback%20on%20your%20Inderscience%20journal:%20International%20Journal%20of%20Services%20Technology%20and%20Management

http://www.inderscience.com/info/insubjall.php

http://www.inderscience.com/dev/search/index.php?action=basic

http://inderscience.blogspot.com/

http://twitter.com/inderscience

http://www.facebook.com/pages/Inderscience-Publishers/196705204387

https://plus.google.com/+inderscience

http://www.inderscience.com/info/index.html

http://www.inderscience.com/index.php


http://www.inderscience.com/forgotpwd.php

http://www.inderscience.com/index.php

http://www.inderscience.com/info/inauthors.php

http://www.inderscience.com/librarians/index.php

http://www.inderscience.com/inorders.php

http://www.inderscienceonline.com/

http://www.inderscience.com/info/innews/index.php

Lenovo

Highlight

18/10/2018 International Journal of Services Technology and Management (IJSTM) - Inderscience Publishers

http://www.inderscience.com/info/inarticletoc.php?jcode=ijstm&year=2018&vol=24&issue=5/6 2/2

502 case of a government agency in Indonesia Siti Mardiana; Jann H. Tjakraatmadja; Atik Aprianingsih DOI: 10.1504/IJSTM.2018.10014970

503-521

R&D intensity and allocation: empirical evidence from Indonesia inAEC integration Akbar Adhiutama; Nurbudi Mulyono; Sita Deliyana Firmialy; LayungAnindya Prasetyanti DOI: 10.1504/IJSTM.2018.10014972

522-544

Marine renewable energy: opportunities and challenges forcommunity development in coastal area of Indonesia Agung Iswadi; Alan Owen; Leuserina Garniati; Jito Sugardjito DOI: 10.1504/IJSTM.2018.10014969

Our Newsletter (subscribe for

free)

RSS feed

New issue alerts

Contact us | About Inderscience | OAI Repository | Privacy and Cookies Statement | Terms and Conditions | © 2018 Inderscience Enterprises Ltd.







http://www.inderscience.com/info/highlights/

http://www.inderscience.com/info/inform/regnews.php

http://www.inderscience.com/info/ingeneral/rssfeeds.php

http://www.inderscience.com/info/ingeneral/inalert.php

http://www.addthis.com/bookmark.php?v=250&pubid=ra-4f450fbe13c1ab3c

http://www.inderscience.com/info/ingeneral/contact.php

http://www.inderscience.com/info/ingeneral/about.php

http://www.inderscience.com/info/ingeneral/oai.php

http://www.inderscience.com/info/ingeneral/privacy.php

http://www.inderscience.com/info/ingeneral/terms.php

⽇本語に切り替える

切换到简体中文

切換到繁體中文

Русский язык

REVIEW PROCESS

08/03/2019 Gmail - Refereeing Process: Editor comments IJSTM-157912

https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0?ik=1b72e64c13&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-f%3A1567840879177063964&simpl=msg-f%3A1567840… 1/3

aries susanty <[email protected]>

Refereeing Process: Editor comments IJSTM-157912 4 messages

Inderscience Online <[email protected]> Fri, May 19, 2017 at 10:59 PMReply-To: Inderscience Online <[email protected]>, Submissions Manager<[email protected]>To: "Dr. Aries Susanty" <[email protected]>, Dr Ahmad Syamil <[email protected]>, Dr Hery Suliantoro<[email protected]>, Mrs Evelin Siburian <[email protected]>, "Dr. Benny Tjahjono"<[email protected]>

Dear Author(s), We have received further comments from the Panel of Reviewers for your paper "AN EMPIRICAL STUDY OF THEANTECEDENT FACTORS AFFECTING GOVERNANCE STRUCTURE CHOICE IN THE SUPPLY CHAIN OFBROILER CHICKENS IN CENTRAL JAVA, INDONESIA" We request you to implement in your latest author's revised version (AV) file the following new recommendationsmade by the reviewers, by 26 May 2017: Reviewer A Comments: ================== Basically I think the author has addressed all my comments in the revised version of the paper. However, there arefew minor points that require further revisions, including: 1. The revised title "An Empirical Study Governance Structure Choice in the Supply Chain of Broiler Chickens inCentral Java, Indonesia" is a bit too long and has a grammatical problem. It would be better to start with .."Governance Structure Choice in the Supply Chain:........" where the sub-title come after : 2. The language needs attention. Few examples in the revised parts: Governance become a new subject ..... (page 12) the relationships addressed is only ....... (page 19) this study have a new questionnaire ....... (page 22) there was 1 items have Standardized Regression ...... (page 24) The use of professional proofreader is recommended. Reviewer B Comments: ================== I have seen some improvement on the revised submission, however there are still several areas that require authorattention to be improved: - There are many language errors, please proof read the final version. - The paragraph discussing AEC in the introduction has been revised, however I don't see strong relevant with thepaper. - Data collection: -what is the response rate of the survey? -As the researcher helped the respondents in answering questionnaire, how to ensure there is no bias? It mightuseful to consider common method variance. - Fig 2: Please do not screen-shot from AMOS. RESULTS: - The structure of this section need to be revised. 4.1 should be respondent profile, followed by validity and reliabilitytest and bi-variate correlation. However bi-variate correlation should be amongst latent variable ONLY. - As most of the fit-indices are below requirement, author need to argue how to ensure the robustness of the modelas well as the results. Hypotheses tests: The sentence in the paragraph: ...... The hesitancy of the existence of asset specifications could also be seen from the mean of item AS2(mean=3.128) and AS3 (mean=3.224); which is the traders of broiler chicken will lose the time and effort have beeninvested in building the good collaboration with a former middleman, if they switch to the new middleman. The mean



of those items closes in 3 rather than 4. ..... All hypotheses in this study were essentially testing the relationship amongst LATENT variable. Analyzing the resultson the item level is in-appropriate. CONCLUSION: _ please do not just summarize, instead DRAW a conclusion. The last sentence in the conclusion: "Traders of broiler chicken should ensure that their business has the high transaction cost economics and uncertaincondition, their partner has high collaboration capability and the relationship has the high collaborative advantagebefore they decide to design integration with their partner." - This is contain logical fallacy. Transaction cost comes from the type of product, and other factor of the business. Canwe raise the transaction cost? please have a look again the TCE theory. - As TCE states, when transaction cost is hight then long-term collaboration should be sought in order or achieve totaloptimal condition. Collaboration and integration should not be sought in supply chain. There are ample of literaturediscussing this. Reviewer's annotated version file: http://www.inderscience.com/revFile.php?id=1365536 Instructions: ------------ 1. To help reviewers to verify that you have made the required corrections, you must append the summary ofmodifications made to the paper at the beginning of your revised manuscript. 2. To upload your revised version, please login at: http://www.inderscience.com/ospeers/login.php (if you do not remember your Username/Password, visit http://www.inderscience.com/forgotpw.php) 3. After login, point your browser to http://www.inderscience.com/ospeers/admin/author/articlestatus.php?id=157912 here you should scroll-down to find the input box "Author's revised version of file:". Please click on "Browse…" to findyour revised version and then click on "Upload" to include your revised version in our databases. 4. Click on "Editor/Author Comments" to see all the recommendations made by the reviewers. Your prompt attention is much appreciated. Dr. Benny Tjahjono Int. J. of Services Technology and Management (IJSTM) [email protected]

aries susanty <[email protected]> Sat, May 20, 2017 at 6:09 AMTo: Submissions Manager <[email protected]>, Inderscience Online <[email protected]>Cc: pak hery <[email protected]>, "Dr. Benny Tjahjono" <[email protected]>, Mrs Evelin Siburian<[email protected]>, Dr Ahmad Syamil <[email protected]>

Dear Dr Benny TjahjonoThis email (and also the comment from the reviewer) is same as the latest email I received in march 2017. I haverevised it and upload the latest version to the system based on the reviewer sugestion at 25march 2017. Pleasecheck it. I am also sent the latest revision to your email at the same time. Thank you for your kindnessBest regards Aries [Quoted text hidden]

20170520_060804.jpg 5001K

http://www.inderscience.com/revFile.php?id=1365536

http://www.inderscience.com/ospeers/login.php

http://www.inderscience.com/forgotpw.php

http://www.inderscience.com/ospeers/admin/author/articlestatus.php?id=157912

mailto:[email protected]



Tjahjono, Benny <[email protected]> Sat, May 20, 2017 at 3:44 PMTo: aries susanty <[email protected]>Cc: pak hery <[email protected]>, Mrs Evelin Siburian <[email protected]>, Dr Ahmad Syamil<[email protected]>

Dear Aries, Sorry for the inconvenience. This matter has now been resolved. Pls wait for the decision, and thanks for yourpatience. All the best, Benny Dr Benny Tjahjono Senior Lecturer in Supply Chain Operations Building 32, Cranfield University, Cranfield, Bedfordshire MK43 0AL T: +44 (0) 1234 750111 x2852 E: [email protected]

From: aries susanty <[email protected]> Sent: 20 May 2017 00:09:57 To: Submissions Manager; Inderscience Online Cc: pak hery; Tjahjono, Benny; Mrs Evelin Siburian; Dr Ahmad Syamil Subject: Re: Refereeing Process: Editor comments IJSTM-157912 [Quoted text hidden]

aries susanty <[email protected]> Sat, May 20, 2017 at 6:58 PMTo: "Tjahjono, Benny" <[email protected]>

Thanks for your emailRegardsAries[Quoted text hidden]

https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0?ui=2&ik=1b72e64c13&view=att&th=15c22f98611f8a25&attid=0.1&disp=inline&realattid=1567867850835502695-local0&safe=1&zw



1

ANSWERS FOR REVIEWER A Comment Answer Changes which must be made before publication: The paper presents a study on the factors affecting governance structure of chicken supply chain. The study was conducted in Central Java with data collected from chicken traders that supply middlemen for ultimate supply to traditional markets. Overall the paper is quite well written and the analysis looks sound. However, I have few concerns:

1. The sample is taken from chicken traders only while other

supply chain players are not involved. In addition, the relationships addressed is only between chicken traders and the middlemen. It seems to me that this study deals with a

dyadic relationships, but from the perspective of chicken traders. I think this has to be mentioned somewhere in the paper.

1.1. Following your suggestions, we have added additional statements. Please see the blue color text in Section 3.2. “The Sample of Study” on page 15.

2. The title should be revised. It is too long. In addition, if

"broiler chicken" is important to be mentioned in the title than one would expect the results are for broiler chicken only. But the author used the framework of pork supply chain.

Wouldn't this mean that the framework and determining factors could well apply for different commodities? The same applies for Central Java. The introduction does not mention anything specific about Central Java. Are the results intended to be specific for c (and the results may be generalize-able for Indonesia or wider population)?

2.1. We have revised the tittle

2.2. We have added the explanation why this study uses the pork supply chain framework on page 3:

“The conceptual model is used because there are some commonalities between the pork supply chain in China and the broiler chicken supply

chain in Indonesia. For example, actors of the broiler chicken supply chain consist of suppliers

of raw materials (day old chicks/DOCs, feeds, medicines and vaccines, as well as livestock equipment), the farmers, the middlemen

(collectors), the processors (slaughterhouses), the retailers and traders in the traditional market

(Oktavera and Andajani, 2013). On the other hand, the pork supply chain in China also consists of breeders, farmers (producers),

slaughterers, processors, middlemen, wet market, and supermarkets or grocery stores

(Kinsey, 2002). Furthermore, the issue addressed by Ji et al (2012) is quite similar to

this study, i.e., ensuring the quantity and quality of pork/broiler chicken through supply chain governance structure.”

2.3. The explanation about Central Java as the location of study has been added to the introduction section. Please check the text with blue color in the introduction section on page 5.

“In this research, the choice of supply chain

2

Comment Answer governance structure between traders and

middlemen is represented by the relationship between traders and middlemen in several traditional markets in Semarang City, Central

Java Province. Chicken business activities are dominant on Java Island especially in Central

Java Province (Muladno, 2008). Furthermore, the development of the chicken business follows the development of the wet markets around the

large populations of West, East, and Central Java. This has been supported by the

development of feed factories close to the ports of major population centers such as Jakarta and

Surabaya. Furthermore, the broiler chicken production in Central Java Province in 2011 was 105.839 metric tons, which was a huge number

compared with that of in other Indonesian provinces (United States Agency for

International Development, 2013). Furthermore, Semarang was chosen as a specific location for this study since most broiler meats are

consumed by people living in the big cities (Soedjana, 1999), such as Semarang”

2.4. The result of this study may not be generalized because of limited sample locations. We have added this explanation on page 28. Please check the text with blue color.

3. Introduction is too wordy but not quite effective in convincing the readers why this research is important? From knowledge point of view, what new knowledge that this paper may contribute? Why the current papers are not able to

answer the factors affecting the choice of supply chain governance in chicken supply chain?

3. Thank you very much for your suggestions. We have mentioned those issues in the previous version of this paper. However, we made some modifications to highlight those issues in this latest version. Please refer to page 3 onward.

“This research aims to make an empirical model for supply chain governance structure in the

broiler chickens supply chain. The previous studies have been mainly focused on

establishing the relationship between TCE and the choice of supply chain governance structure. This study will expand that relationship by

adding one important factor that should be considered when choosing the supply chain

governance structure. We argue that the choice of supply chain governance structure depends on not only TCE but also on collaborative

advantage between two actors in the supply chain. Moreover, we explore the factors that

influence transaction cost and collaboration advantages. “

3

Comment Answer

4. I think Table 2 should be improved. It appears in the table

that CC has only one item (but I think it actually has 4 items). It also applies for WC

4. Following your suggestions, we have revised Table 2.

5. The respondents are mostly the owner of very small enterprises. How would you ensure that they understand the questions?

5. The explanation about how to ensure that the respondents understand the questions has been added. Please check the text with blue color in Section 3.4. “Data Collection Procedure” on page 16. “Because the respondents are mostly the owners of very small enterprises, we accompanied the

respondents when they filled the questionnaire to make sure that they understood the questions.

We also gave the respondents some real-world examples when they could not understand the

meaning of questions. Sometimes, we help the respondents by translating the questionnaire into local Javanese language.”

6. Some paragraphs are too long (example page 20, page 23,

etc.). There are some language problems. Here are some that I noticed:

Page 1: "... in literature" should be "in the literature" Page 4: "... be more prefer..." (grammatically wrong) Page 4: ".... which is remove...” Page 4: ".... would be make a cost..."

Page 4: ".... could be more higher..." Page 15: "This study was conducted by using SEM...”. I think this statement should be revised. SEM is only for modelling / data analysis. Page 16: "...the researcher measuring..." ==> should be "...the

researcher is measuring..." Page 16: "...to measures how well the authors...." ==> should be "....to measure how well the authors..." Page 16: "...were deemed to be invalid..." ==> should be "...were deemed invalid..."

6. 6.1. We have separated some individual paragraphs into two or more paragraphs. 6.2. We have fixed the language problems.

ANSWERS FOR REVIEWER B Comment Answer ABSTRACT:

The methodology part of this paper and the analysis are mainly based on the survey data (from questionnaire). However, the abstract stated that semi-structured interviews were also used to draw the conclusion. I cannot find in the paper how the interviews data were used to

This study only used questionnaire to collect the data

although we also used interview to validate the result of questionnaires. However, following your suggestions, we deleted “semi-structured interviews were also used to draw the conclusion” from the abstract and also from the paper to reduce the

4

Comment Answer complement the study. Please be consistent whether both interviews and surveys were used or not in this study.

I think, it is not appropriate to state the name of the software (AMOS 22) in the abstract.

The last sentence of the abstract has no context with previous sentences.

confusion. The name of the software (AMOS 22) in the abstract

has been deleted

The last sentence of the abstract has been deleted CONTENT

Paragraph 2 states: “According to Cooper and Ellram (1993), the scope of

integration in SCM (from internal to external coordination) is related to supply chain governance

structure. There were two extreme conditions in the supply chain governance structure, i.e. spot market

and integral integration…….

Does it mean “external integration”? I think the spectrum of supply chain governance structure is from arm-length transaction (spot market) to external

integration.

It should have been vertical integration We have changed the sentences. Please see the text

with red color in the introduction section:

“According to Cooper and Ellram (1993), the scope of integration in SCM (from external to internal

coordination) is related to supply chain governance structure. There are two extreme conditions in the

supply chain governance structure, i.e. spot market and vertical integration…”

There have been many study on TCE (transaction cost economics) and supply chain. Please clarify how this research this research differs with the previous works. In other words, strong argument on the significant of this research is required.

The argument about the significance of the research has been added. Please see the text with red color in the introduction section as we mentioned earlier in our response to the first reviewer.

“This research aims to make an empirical model for

supply chain governance structure in the broiler chickens supply chain. The previous studies have been mainly focused on establishing the relationship

between TCE and the choice of supply chain governance structure. This study will expand that

relationship by adding one important factor that should be considered when choosing the supply chain governance structure. We argue that the choice

of supply chain governance structure depends on not only TCE but also on collaborative advantage

between two actors in the supply chain. Moreover, we explore the factors that influence transaction cost and collaboration advantages. “

The reason Ji et al. framework is used in this study has been added similar to our response to the first reviewer. Please see the text with red color in the

5

Comment Answer It is obvious that this manuscript used the conceptual

model developed by Ji, Felipe, Briz, and Trienekens (2012). The only difference of this study with Ji et al (2012) is the object of the study. Therefore, the authors need to clarify why Ji et al.’s framework was used?

Please explain why this manuscript uses the level of integration to measure the governance structure.

introduction section.

“The conceptual model is used because there are some commonalities between the pork supply chain in China and the broiler chicken supply chain in Indonesia. For example, actors of the broiler chicken supply chain consist of suppliers of raw materials (day old chicks/DOCs, feeds, medicines and vaccines, as well as livestock equipment), the farmers, the middlemen (collectors), the processors (slaughterhouses), the retailers and traders in the traditional market (Oktavera and Andajani, 2013). On the other hand, the pork supply chain in China also consists of breeders, farmers (producers), slaughterers, processors, middlemen, wet market, and supermarkets or grocery stores (Kinsey, 2002). Furthermore, the issue addressed by Ji et al (2012) is quite similar to this study, i.e., ensuring the quantity and quality of pork/broiler chicken through supply

chain governance structure..”

This manuscript uses the level of integration to measure the governance structure because there are different typologies in governance structure which depend on the level of integration, i.e., from the spot market, short-term contract, long-term contract, joint venture, strategic alliance, and vertical integration. The explanation about the different typologies in governance structure can be seen in the introduction section (the text with red color).

We have fixed it. Furthermore, we made several changes to discuss AEC more clearly.

“Regarding with the ASEAN Economic Community (AEC), the choice of supply chain governance structure between traders and middlemen of broiler chicken might be different before and after the AEC implementation. Because AEC will raise the trade and economic development among AEC countries, the traders of broiler chicken may prefer to choose transactions with the middlemen in spot market because AEC will enable easier movement of goods, services, investment, capital, and people including the increasing number of middlemen. Ultimately, AEC will offer new ways of coordinating supply chains, or access to new markets for established products. AEC will improve the scale efficiencies, dynamism, and competitiveness of ASEAN members (Sujatanond, et al 2013). In this case, “a single market and production base” by 2015, which means removing trade barriers and impediments, would make the costs of internal

6

Comment Answer

AEC stands for ASEAN Economic Community. It is

not ASEAN Economic Development. Moreover, the paragraph discussing AEC is unclear and confusing.

coordination (such as the costs of employees and managers) could be higher than the costs of using independent market such as external providers (Duval and Feyler, 2016). There will be the free flow of goods, services, investment capital and skilled labor following the liberalization. These will include tariff reductions and streamlining of certain administrative procedures (Sujatanond, et al 2013). However, their propositions must be proven by further research.

Literature Review: o As this study use the conceptual framework from

Ji et al (2012), in which all hypotheses are essentially the same, I do not see urgency to establish other arguments for hypotheses development.

We still put some hypothesis arguments. Although this study uses the conceptual framework from Ji et al (2012), we support each hypothesis using different literatures.

Section 3.2 The Sample of Study o The first sentence of this section mentioned that

“….with help from LISREL software” while other parts of the paper stated that this research used AMOS 22 software. Please be consistent.

We used AMOS and have changed several mistakes.

Section 3.4 o What is the purpose of semi-structured interviews

(see previous comments)

As we mentioned earlier in our response to the first reviewer, this study only used questionnaire to collect the data although we also used interview to validate the result of questionnaires. However, following your suggestions, we deleted “semi-structured interviews were also used to draw the conclusion” from the abstract and also from the paper to reduce the confusion.

Section 3.3 Instruments and Measures o Please make sure which instruments were derived

from Ji et al (2012) and which were developed from Grover and Maholtra (2003)

o Some of instruments used in this study are questionable. The instruments for The level of integration is not convincing, please clarify this by referring to the established instruments for measuring the level of integrations such as:

Flynn, B.B., Huo, B., Zhao, X., 2010. The impact of supply chain integration on performance: a contingency and configuration approach. Journal of Operations Management 28, 58–71.

Narasimhan, R., Kim, S.W., 2002. Effect of supply chain integration on the relationship between diversification and performance: evidence from Japanese and Korean firms. Journal of Operations Management 20, 303–323.

To make it easier to understand which instrument is derived from Ji et al (2012) and which one is derived from Grover and Maholtra (2003), we have added the source of each instrument in Table 2.

Thank you very much for your suggestion. Flynn et al (2010), Narasimhan and Kim (2002) and this paper capture supply chain integration. However this paper is little bit different. For example, the study conducted by Flynn et al focused more on the degree of information sharing between an organization and its partners or suppliers. Furthermore, this study does not focus on information sharing but how far the traders have the relationship with the middlemen by focusing on the level of governance stability and level of the governance intensity.

7

Comment Answer

o Instruments to measure “collaborative advantage” differ with Ji et al’ (2012), and those used by this paper are misleading. Please elaborate this.

Regarding with the measurement items in the

questionnaire, an answer above 3, such as 4 (agree) and 5 (strongly agree), indicates a high collaboration or a high stability/intensity of the governance between traders of broiler chicken and middlemen; whereas, an answer below 3, such as 1 (strongly disagree) and 2 (disagree), indicate a low collaboration or low stability/intensity of the governance. In this case, traders of broiler chicken prefer to use spot market than making long term commitment with the middlemen.

The instrument to measure “collaborative advantage”

is not different from Ji et al (2012). Please refer to a screen shoot bellow. In this case, Collaboration Advantages measure : Logistics Advantages (LGA) Cash Response Advantages (CRA) Information Use and Exchange Advantages

(IEA) Technology Advantages (TEA) Innovation Advantages (INA) Quality Management Advantages (QMA)

Section 4.1 Validity and Reliability: o Please provide strong arguments why Spearmen

correlation was used to measure construct validity. As this research used SEM, why this paper did not use the validity test provided by SEM (please see Anderson & Gerbing, 1982 or Ahire and Devaraj, 2001)

Please refer to section 4.1. “Validity and reliability.”

This research uses validity and reliability tests for several purposes. First, this study uses validity and reliability tests for the initial questionnaire which was distributed to 30 respondents and too small for SEM. The initial construct validity test was used to measure the intended construct. The initial construct validity was associated with convergent validity and was calculated using the Spearman correlation coefficient.

8

Comment Answer After removing all items which were invalid, then we had a new set of questionnaire as the final questionnaire. The final questionnaire was then distributed to 125 traders of boiler chicken and the validity and reliability of the data collected from this questionnaire were tested using SEM technique. For example, the convergent validity was verified using the Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) approach.

Figure 2 does not give any meaning Thank you for your suggestion. We have deleted Figure 2

Figure 3. All R values in this Figure are above 1. Please use standardize value of SEM.

We have changed the R values with standardized values of SEM.

The paragraph after Figure 3 is well too long. Please summarize it.

We have separated this paragraph into two paragraphs.

Please provide Bi-variate relationship amongst variables (both latent and observed variables)

We have added bivariate analysis. Please refer to Table 5.

Section 4.4 Hypotheses Test o The paragraph and bullet points below Table 5 are

useless as they are similar with Table 5. Authors should focus more on discussing what the results mean to the theory as well as to the practice.

o The discussion below the bullet points are also unclear. The unsupported relationship between asset specify and TCE might be caused by the fact that asset specify in the trader-middleman transaction is very low. The SEM used in this study are merely explaining the relationship between latent variables, explaining the cause of unsupported hypothesis using the item level i.e. mean of AS1, AS2 etc. (instead of latent variable level) is not appropriate. Please provide better arguments

We have changed the explanation below Table 5 (now becomes Table 6) and followed your suggestions.

We have added a simple discussion regarding the

unsupported relationship between asset specify and TCE. Please see the text with red color in the discussion section.

9

An Empirical Study Governance Structure Choice in the Supply Chain of Broiler Chickens in Central Java, Indonesia

Abstract. This study aims to clarify the dominant factors (which can be defined as antecedent factors) influencing the supply chain governance structure choice between traders and middlemen of broiler chickens. The investigation will represent several traders and middlemen of broiler chickens in the traditional town market of Semarang district, central Java. This study utilized closed questionnaires with 5-Likert Scale. One hundred and twenty-five copies of the questionnaire were administered to the traders of broiler chickens in North Johar market, Central Johar market, South Johar market, Bulu Market, Karangayu market, Peterongan market, and Jatingaleh market. Additional information was collected through follow-up telephone interviews and archive records. Data acquired from the questionnaire were processed using Structural Equation Modelling (SEM). The findings of this study indicate that the transaction cost of economics and collaborative advantage have a positive significant effect on the level of integration; in this case, the effect of transaction cost economics on the level of integration is stronger than collaboration advantages. The findings of this study also indicate that transaction cost economics significantly depend on uncertain conditions between traders and the middlemen of broiler chickens; whereas, the collaborative advantage significantly depends on uncertain conditions and collaboration capability. Keywords: Transaction cost economics; collaborative advantage; level of integration; broiler chicken supply chain; Semarang

1. Introduction

Nowadays Supply Chain Management (SCM) has become an important concept. There are many definitions of

SCM in the literature. According to the Council of Supply Chain Management Professionals (CSCMP), SCM is

related to the planning and management of all actions involved in sourcing and procurement, conversion, and all

logistics management actions. Notably, it also consists of coordination and collaboration with suppliers,

intermediaries, third-party service providers, and customers. It can be said that SCM incorporates supply and

demand management within and across companies (Naslund and Williamson, 2010). Lambert et al (1998) stated

that SCM can be defined as the integration of the main business processes from end-users through to the original

suppliers of products, services, and information that add value for customers and other stakeholders. According to

Stock and Boyer (2009), SCM can be defined as the management of a network of relationships within a firm and

between interdependent organizations and business units consisting of material suppliers, purchasing, production

facilities, logistics, marketing, and related systems that facilitate the forward and reverse flow of materials,

services, finances and information from the original producer to final customer with the benefits of adding value,

maximizing profitability through efficiencies, and achieving customer satisfaction. For those definitions of SCM,

we can see that the concept of SCM is related to material and information flow from one company to others or the

concept of SCM starts when the integration scope is extended from internal to external coordination.

According to Cooper and Ellram (1993), the scope of integration in SCM (from external to internal coordination)

is related to supply chain governance structure. There are two extreme conditions in the supply chain governance

structure, i.e. spot market and vertical integration. The spot market is at zero level of integration. The spot market

usually has a short-term focus and relations in the spot market are usually based on the mechanism of price. In

the spot market, the composition of the actors involved changes frequently. Different from the spot market, in

terms of vertical integration, there was one actor involved in the supply chain that held different stages of the

10

supply chain (Wever et al, 2010; Williamson, 1991). Thus, between those two extremes (the spot market and

vertical integration), there were different kinds of collaborations, from short-term contracts, long-term contracts,

and joint venture. Particularly, collaboration allows for an intermediate form of hybrid governance (Cao and

Zhang, 2010). According to Nyaga et al (2010), collaboration puts more emphasis on governance through

relational strategies in addition to governance through contract definition. It seems that collaboration emerges as

the alternative to avoid the problems arising from both hierarchies and markets (Koh and Venkatraman, 1991) by

decreasing: a) the costs of opportunism and monitoring related to market transactions through mutual trust; b) and

increasing the partner’s interest in the partnership (Croom, 2001).

Previous studies on supply chain governance have mainly been concerned with establishing the relationship

between Transaction Cost Economics (TCE) theory and choice of supply chain governance structure. The TCE

theory is often linked with the work of Williamson (1975). According to Barringer and Harrison (2000), TCE

provides an important analytical framework explaining the firms’ organization and their relationships along the

supply chains. According to TCE, the decision to use either the spot market or vertical integration depends on the

relative monitoring costs that arise from bounded rationality and uncertainties due to partners’ self-interest and

opportunism (Kaufman et al., 2000). Specifically, within the framework of TCE, the level of vertical integration

is determined by the relative costs of using markers or employing resources within the firm and the supplier-

buyer relationships should structure themselves in such a way to minimize transaction costs (Williamson, 1993).

In other words, TCE assumes that the market will always be the lowest-cost producer of certain goods or services

because of economies of scale and scope. Alternatively, the specific level of integration is preferred when

transaction costs are high because opportunistic behaviors lead to the risk of one-time transactions (Ji et al,

2012).

This research aims to make an empirical model for supply chain governance structure in the broiler chickens

supply chain. The previous studies have been mainly focused on establishing the relationship between TCE and

the choice of supply chain governance structure. This study will expand that relationship by adding one

important factor that should be considered when choosing the supply chain governance structure. We argue that

the choice of supply chain governance structure depends on not only TCE but also on collaborative advantage

between two actors in the supply chain. Moreover, we explore the factors that influence transaction cost and

collaboration advantages. This study uses the conceptual model of supply chain governance structure choice in

the pork supply chain in China which was developed by Ji et al. (2012). The conceptual model is used because

there are some commonalities between the pork supply chain in China and the broiler chicken supply chain in

Indonesia. For example, actors of the broiler chicken supply chain consist of suppliers of raw materials (day old

chicks/DOCs, feeds, medicines and vaccines, as well as livestock equipment), the farmers, the middlemen

(collectors), the processors (slaughterhouses), the retailers and traders in the traditional market (Oktavera and

Andajani, 2013). On the other hand, the pork supply chain in China also consists of breeders, farmers

(producers), slaughterers, processors, middlemen, wet market, and supermarkets or grocery stores (Kinsey, 2002).

Furthermore, the issue addressed by Ji et al (2012) is quite similar to this study, i.e., ensuring the quantity and

quality of pork/broiler chicken through supply chain governance structure.”

11

This study does not encompass the supply chain governance structure choices between all actors in the supply

chain of broiler chicken; this study is limited to the supply chain governance structure choices between two actors

in the broiler chicken supply chain, e.g. the small middlemen (collectors) and the traders of broiler chicken in the

traditional market. In this case, small middlemen act as the collectors of the broiler chicken from the farmers, and

then deliver the broiler chicken to the traders in the traditional market. The middlemen may sell directly to the

traditional market after slaughtering the birds in simple facilities before trucking them to the traditional market.

In Indonesia´s broiler chicken chains, the middlemen and the traders of broiler chicken in traditional market are

two of the important agents of the chain as they drive the chains´ governance structure development through

connecting the farmers to the consumer of broiler chicken in the urban area. The traders rarely make direct

contact with the farmers without the middlemen.

According to the preliminary interviews with 15 traders of broiler chicken in three traditional town markets in the

Semarang district (Damar traditional market, Jatingaleh traditional market, and Johar traditional market),

sometimes the relationship between the traders and middlemen in the traditional market faces a number of

uncertainties. In general, there are three sources of uncertainty in the supply chain of broiler chicken, i.e.

customer demand, a price of broiler chicken, and supply of broiler chicken. The quality of broiler chicken, lead

times, and transportation are several examples of uncertainty that belong to the supply side. The quality of broiler

chickens from the middlemen varies. The middlemen cannot guarantee the same level of quality. All those

uncertainties can affect the performance of the supply chain, both in terms of service levels in the order

fulfillment processes, and cost levels.

High uncertainty levels in demand information have an unfavorable impact on supply chain performance,

resulting in lost sales or obsolete inventories and inefficient utilization of resources. To overcome those

uncertainties, some of the traders must expend extra costs to monitor the performance of their middlemen.

Whenever the cost of monitoring is becoming higher, some traders start to offer the higher level of collaboration

with their middlemen using mechanisms such as long-term contracts. Moreover, some of the traders start to make

vertical integrations when the demand, the price and the external supply of broiler chicken could not be

controlled. Conversely, when the demand, price, and external supply of broiler chicken could be controlled, the

traders preferred to continue transactions with the middlemen in spot market relationships or did not want to offer

a higher level of collaboration.

In fact, the decision to carry out higher levels of collaboration does not only depend on the uncontrolled

conditions described above but also depends on the ability and the willingness of the middlemen to collaborate.

So, based on the condition encountered by middlemen and the traders of broiler chicken in the traditional market,

the empirical model resulted from this research can be used by the traders to choose the supplier strategy, create

supplier portfolio, and supplier negotiation and contract to award. In this case, all of that choice will depend on

the on the asset used in transaction, level of certainty of the environment faced by the traders, and the willingness

and capability to collaborate.

12

Regarding with the ASEAN Economic Community (AEC), the choice of supply chain governance structure

between traders and middlemen of broiler chicken might be different before and after the AEC implementation.

Because AEC will raise the trade and economic development among AEC countries, the traders of broiler chicken

may prefer to choose transactions with the middlemen in spot market because AEC will enable easier movement

of goods, services, investment, capital, and people including the increasing number of middlemen. Ultimately,

AEC will offer new ways of coordinating supply chains, or access to new markets for established products. AEC

will improve the scale efficiencies, dynamism, and competitiveness of ASEAN members (Sujatanond, et al

2013). In this case, “a single market and production base” by 2015, which means removing trade barriers and

impediments, would make the costs of internal coordination (such as the costs of employees and managers) could

be higher than the costs of using independent market such as external providers (Duval and Feyler, 2016). There

will be the free flow of goods, services, investment capital and skilled labor following the liberalization. These

will include tariff reductions and streamlining of certain administrative procedures (Sujatanond, et al 2013).

However, their propositions must be proven by further research.

In this research, the choice of supply chain governance structure between traders and middlemen is represented

by the relationship between traders and middlemen in several traditional markets in Semarang City, Central Java

Province. Chicken business activities are dominant on Java Island especially in Central Java Province (Muladno,

2008). Furthermore, the development of the chicken business follows the development of the wet markets around

the large populations of West, East, and Central Java. This has been supported by the development of feed

factories close to the ports of major population centers such as Jakarta and Surabaya. Furthermore, the broiler

chicken production in Central Java Province in 2011 was 105.839 metric tons, which was a huge number

compared with that of in other Indonesian provinces (United States Agency for International Development,

2013). Furthermore, Semarang was chosen as a specific location for this study since most broiler meats are

consumed by people living in the big cities (Soedjana, 1999), such as Semarang.

So, in order to clarify the dominant factors (which can be defined as antecedent factors) influencing the supply

chain governance structure choice between traders and middlemen, the paper is organized as follows. Section 2

will present the main findings from the review of the previous work on antecedent factors influencing supply

chain governance structure choice and then develop the main hypothesis and conceptual model for testing.

Section 3 will explain the methodological approach and the development of the questionnaire. Section 4 will

present the findings and discuss these findings relating them to the theoretical background. The last section will

present the main conclusions along with suggestions for further research.

2. Literature Review

The literature review will consist of previous work on antecedent factors influencing supply chain governance,

and then develop the main hypothesis and conceptual model for testing.

2.1. Transaction cost economics and the choice of supply chain governance structure

Governance become a new subject in scientific area for the last period. It was dominated by corporate governance

concept. The corporate governance concept refers to the organizations as single entities and in the beginning, the

13

corporate governance concept talk about the relationship between shareholders and managers which is called the

shareholder’s perspective (Thomson and Jain, 2006). The problem arising between shareholders and manager is

called the principal–agent problem (Ruuska, et al, 2010). A more advanced view of corporate governance refers

to the relation between organizations and stakeholders, called the stakeholder perspective (Ruuska, et al, 2010).

In detail, Ruuska et al. define governance as the mechanisms or processes that affect how either a single

transaction or recurrent transactions are organized ex-ante and carried out ex-post between two or more actors,

either within the boundaries of a single organization or between two or more organizations. Specifically, the

governance involving two or more organizations is known as supply chain governance (Crisan et al., 2011).

It is essential to differentiate supply chain management and supply chain governance. Supply chain management

denotes the integration of all activities associated with the control, planning, processing and flow of goods and

services from companies that supply raw material to the end user, including the flow of information internally

and externally (Chen and Paulraj, 2004). Besides the focus on integration and flow between the companies and

the end customers, supply chain management focuses on operations and on efficiency related to the final

customer (Ketchen and Hult 2007). Supply chain governance, on the other hand, focuses on understanding

different aspects of supply chain engagement while giving less importance to the end customers and the material

flow itself (Dolci et al, 2013). The main question in governance is whether the coordinator or the coordinators of

the chain have the possibility to influence partners’ actions and how this influence happens (Crisan et al., 2011).

According to literature, there were six governance structure type in the agribusiness contexts, i.e. spot markets,

long-term relationships, marketing contracts, production contracts, contract farming, and vertical integration (e.g.

Ferguson, 2004; Kim, 1998; Mighell and Jones, 1963; Barkema and Drabenstott, 1995; Hobbs, 1996; Peterson

and Wysocki, 1997). In the sport market (SM), price is the main factor for closing the transaction and goods are

traded between numerous seller and buyer in the current time (Hobbs, 1996). In the long-term relationships (L-

TR), there were long-term non-contractual relationship that bounded two parties (buyer and seller) which are

independent each other. Thus, in the marketing contract (MC), there were agreement from the buyer to the seller

to provide a market for their output. In production contracts (PC), buyer was the party that supply and manages

the farm, whereas the famers was the party that provide their land and labor. In the contract farming (CF),

farmers conduct a production system and supply the product to the buyer under forward contract. The last, in the

vertical integration (VI), products passage between numerous stages of production, processing and distribution as

a result of within-the-firm managerial orders rather than due to the direction of prices

As we mentioned in the previous explanation, the decision about supply chain governance structure type is

mainly determined by the Transaction Cost of Economics (TCE). Several results of studies concerned with the

relationship between choice of the supply chain structure and TCE theory can be explained as follows. According

to a study conducted by Frank and Henderson (1992), TCE are a primary motivation to vertically coordinate.

Weleschuk and Kerr (1995) said that the TCE approach can be used by sellers to make a choice between signing

production contracts with buyers or selling their product on the spot market. Mudambi and Mudambi (1995)

introduced a model of the buyer's switching decision that integrates the tenets of both TCE and relationship

marketing. The model analyzes how the switching decision is affected by parameters such as: transaction-specific

14

assets, information quality and time. Hobbs and Young (2000) presents a framework which links the product

characteristics with transaction characteristics and transaction costs and changes in vertical coordination. More

recently, a study conducted by Ji et al (2012) proves the positive relationship between TCE and the level of

integration; a higher transaction cost will encourage the chain actors to increase the level of integration.

Therefore, based on the relationship between the choice of supply chain governance structure and TCE from the

previous literature (Frank and Henderson, 1992; Weleschuk and Kerr, 1995; Mudambi and Mudambi. 1995;

Hobbs and Young 2000;, and Ji et al., 2012), this study proposes that:

H1: The transaction cost economics between the traders and middlemen of broiler chicken have a significant

positive effect on the choice of supply chain governance structure which is represented by the level of integration

between them.

2.2. Asset specificity, uncertainty and transaction cost economies

According, to Williamson (1979, 1981, and 1985), there were three antecedent factors of TCE, i.e. asset

specificity, uncertainty, and transaction frequency. In line with the study conducted by Ji et al (2012), this

research only uses two instead of three factors as antecedent factors that influence the transaction cost economics

between traders and middlemen of broiler chicken. Those two factors were asset specification and uncertainty.

According to Williamson (1985), asset specificity can be defined as long-lasting investments that needed to

support the particular transactions. Asset specificity can also define as an investment in physic or human that are

committed to a particular partner in the business and the redeployment of this asset needs to consider the

switching cost (Erramilli and Rao, 1993; Heide, 1994). From another approach, according to Klein (2007), asset

specificity is an asset that has a significantly higher value within a particular transacting relationship than outside

the relationship. Usually, when the asset specificity is high, the firm favor in-house production than making the

relationship with another because the high asset specificity will make the costs of the transaction increasing. In

this case, the positive relationship between asset specificity and transaction cost economics have been proven by

Ji et al (2012). This positive relationship can be explained by two reasons. The first reason, usually, the risk of

opportunism is significant in the transactions that need highly particular asset investment (Rindfleisch and Heide,

1997). High specificity will create sunk cost and the party who undertakes an asset is vulnerable to the risks of

the opportunism of the trading partner who may intimidate to finish the project too early and cause the investor to

lose the assets (Vining and Globerman, 1999). Based on this condition, to protect the investor, the transactions

with significant particular investments will request a contract or mechanism. In order to avoid being placed in an

unfavorable condition, the investor will request for a longer period of the contract or the investor will build

bilateral adjustment mechanisms into the contract (Aubert, et al. 1996). This contract and bilateral adjustment

mechanisms will make the costs of the transaction increasing. The second reason, high asset specificity leads to a

decrease in market production cost advantage (Williamson, 1981), and thus, the relative governance costs of

markets will increase as the assets needed for the transaction become more specific progressively. The highly

specific asset is categorized as totally specified to a particular use or user only. This asset will have a low

15

transferability to another user. So, based on the relationship between asset specificity and transaction cost

economics from the previous literature this study proposes that:

H2: The asset specificity between the traders and middlemen of broiler chicken has a significant positive

effect on the transaction cost economics, which in turn will affect the choice of supply chain governance structure

between them.

Uncertainty can be defined as the cost related with the unpredicted outcome and asymmetry of information

(Williamson, 1985). Uncertainty can also be viewed as a level of unpredicted changes in the circumstances

surrounding the transaction (Grover and Malhotra, 2003) and thus indicates a shortage of information (Aubert et

al., 1996). According to Williamson (1979), there were two categories of uncertainty, i.e. behavioral uncertainty

and environmental. Behavioral uncertainty is talking about the problems in performance assessment or in

checking whether both of the parties have been compliance with established contracts has been prepared. Indeed,

it is usually challenging and costly to assess the real performance of the suppliers, especially in the case of

services. Behavioral uncertainty is determined by the degree of intangibility, customization and professionalism

of the service tasks. Service transactions that possess a high degree of intangibility and little tangible components

imply that they are dominated by performance and procedures. As intangibility increases, transaction complexity

rises, and then, the companies have less evidence available to assess the supplier's performance both before and

during the contract (Promsivapallop, 2009). Different with behavioral uncertainty, environmental uncertainty is

talking about the unpredictability of the environment and the volume of products or services. Environmental

uncertainty can also be seen as the changes of the external environment which are unaffected by the actions of

economic. Environmental uncertainty surrounding the basic transaction that arises from altering conditions in

random acts of nature and/or the economic environment in competition, technology, and regulations.

Since long time ago, uncertainty has been viewed as dominant contingency and uncertainty is one of the

underlying determinants of high transaction costs (Williamson, 1975). More explicitly, the relationship between

uncertainty and transaction cost can be explained as below. According to Williamson (1979), transaction costs

will increase as the environment in which an exchange takes place more unpredictable. In this case, transaction

cost which an exchange takes place are the impact of the complexity and the uncertainty of the system of

economic system related to the nature of human beings and differences in the character of the exchange level.

The higher level of uncertainty usually implies a higher transaction cost because each of the parties in the

transaction will expend extra time and effort in watching the process of transaction. Opportunistic behavior is

likely and difficult to avoid when several aspects of the transaction are highly uncertain and a market transaction

is unlikely to offer sufficient control mechanisms to manage this transaction. (Lietke and Boslau, 2007).

Sometimes, contracts can be used to resolve the uncertainty to some degree, but they are however costly and

incomplete. There is no clear consensus in the literature whether a market or hierarchy is the best response to

environmental uncertainty. Thus, the positive relationship between the level of uncertainty and transaction cost

economics can be seen in Noordewier et al.(1990), Teo et al (2004), Geyskens et al (2006), Lietke and Boslau

(2007), Promsivapallop (2009), Ji et al. (2012) and Chen et al. (2013).

16

So based on the theoretical background discussed above (e.g., Williamson, 1979; Williamson, 1985) and the

result of previous research (including research conducted by Ji et al, 2012), the current study proposes that:

H3: The uncertain conditions between the traders and middlemen of broiler chicken has a significant positive

effect on the transaction cost economics, which in turn will affect the choice of supply chain governance structure

between them.

2.3. Collaborative advantage and the choice of supply chain governance structure

Collaboration is an important part of every operating market economy, and businesses tend to look for

collaboration because it can provide the relative advantage to the firms rather than not collaborating. According

to Jap (1999), there were some advantages of collaboration. Collaboration can broaden the size of the joint

benefits and collaboration can give each participant a share of a greater gain that could not be created by each

participant by its own. Collaboration can make several supply chain partners work together as if they were a

portion of a single enterprise (Lambert et al., 2004). Collaboration can also increase the joint competitive

advantage (Jap, 2001). Thus, to capture all of the rewards from collaboration, some researchers have proffered

the notion of collaborative advantage (Dyer, 2000; Huxham and Vangen, 2005; Lank, 2005). Specifically,

according to Kanter (1994) (as cited in Foss and Nielsen, 2012), collaborative advantage can be defined as the

particular advantages that may accumulate in firms that built a strategic partnership with other firms (e.g. joint

ventures) by virtue of such cooperation. According to Ferratt et al. (1996) (as cited in Cao and Zhang, 2010)

collaborative advantage can be seen as the benefit gained by a group of firms as the result of their cooperation

rather than their competition. Collaborative advantage relates to the desired synergistic outcome of the

collaborative activity that could not have been achieved by any firm acting individually (Vangen and Huxham,

2003). The collaborative advantage permits partners to appreciate the opportunities afforded by working together

as an alternative to the destructive forces of working individually against the purpose of the collaboration (Cao

and Zhang, 2011). Thus, supply chain collaborative advantage can also be seen as synergistic benefits gained by

the firms more than their competitor in a marketplace because those firms make partnership in supply chain and

partner-enabled knowledge creation, and such synergistic benefits could not be achieved by acting individually

(Jap, 2001; Vangen and Huxham, 2003; Malhotra et al.. 2005). In this case, partnership in supply chain involves

several of collaborative activities such as synchronizing decisions, sharing information and complementary

resources, and aligning incentives with partner’s risks and costs. The collaborative advantage resides not within

the single firm but across the boundaries of a firm through its relationship with their partners in the supply chain

(Dyer, 1996; Dyer and Singh, 1998; Jap, 2001). In the research conducted by Ji, et al. (2012), collaborative

advantages have a positive impact on choice of supply chain governance structure; in this case, to maintain or to

increase the collaborative advantage, exchanging partners in supply chain be likely to apply more intensity in the

level of integration and built a stable governance structure.

Based on the theoretical background discussed above and the results of previous research, this study proposes

that:

17

H4: The collaborative advantage between traders and middlemen of broiler chickens have a significant

positive effect on the choice of supply chain governance structure which is represented by the level of integration

between them.

2.4. Uncertainty, capability to collaborate, willingness to collaborate and collaborative

advantage

Uncertainty was seen as a primary driver of collaboration. In this case, uncertainty can have a negative effect on

the relationship quality (Kumar et al, 1995). Under conditions of uncertainty, the partner may not be sure that the

counterpart seeks the interests of the collaboration (Caglio and Ditillo, 2008). In their research, Ji et al. (2012)

proved the negative effect of uncertainty on the collaborative advantage. So based on the theoretical background

discussed above (e.g., Kumar et al., 1995; Caglio and Ditillo, 2008) and the result of previous research conducted

by Ji et al. (2012), the current study proposes that:

H5: The uncertainty between traders and middlemen of broiler chickens has a significant negative effect on

the collaborative advantage between them.

Collaboration capability is one of the important factors for managing collaboration between firms. Collaboration

capability has been defined as the firm’s ability to build and manage relationships based on mutual trust,

communication, and commitment (Blomqvist and Levy 2006). In this case, the trust will increase network

members’ commitment and make the cooperation more straightforward and efficient (Dhanaraj and Parkhe,

2006). Collaboration capability also can improve group working and knowledge sharing. Keen (1991) explained

this concept as linking people and allowing collaboration beyond spatial barriers. Based on the previous

theoretical background about collaborative advantage (i.e. Vangen and Huxham, 2003; Cao and Zhang, 2011) and

collaboration capability (i.e. Keen, 1991; Blomqvist and Levy, 2006) and the result of the research conducted by

Ji et al (2012) which can prove a positive effect of collaboration capability to collaborative advantage, this study

proposes that:

H6: The collaboration capability of traders and middlemen of broiler chicken has a significant positive effect

on the collaborative advantage between them.

The willingness to collaborate is conceived as active communication, involvement with others during the process

of decision-making. Conceptually, this means a willingness to participate in decision-making but also includes a

willingness to negotiate and be assertive (Anderson, 1993). Willingness to collaborate shows the commitment

from supplier to sustain the relationship (Zineldin, 1998). Willingness to collaborate in a networked organization

is associated with the attitude and intentions of the partners towards real collaboration circumstances

(Camarinha-Maltos and Rosas, 2010). In the context of relationship and inter-organizational collaboration

success, willingness to collaborate is one of the factors that have the significant contribution (Raišienė, 2011).

Related to those contributions, Ji et al (2012) are one of the researchers that can prove a positive relationship

between willingness to collaborate with collaboration advantage. In this case, willingness to collaborate can

improve the coordination of policies and related activities (Bramwell and Sharman, 1999). On the other side,

18

there were some aspects which account for willingness to collaborate, among others the external incentives, the

perceived risks, or the existence of a fierce competition (Camarinha-Maltos and Rosas, 2010).

Based on the previous theoretical background about willingness to collaborate (i.e. Anderson, 1993; Zineldin,

1998; Camarinha-Maltos and Rosas, 2010; Raišienė, 2011; Bramwell and Sharman, 1999), this study proposes

that:

H7: The willingness to collaborate between traders and middlemen of broiler chickens has a significant positive

effect on their collaborative advantage.

Based on these hypotheses, the conceptual model of this study can be seen in Figure 1.

Fig. 1. The conceptual model of antecedent factors influencing supply chain governance structure choice between traders and middlemen of broiler chickens

3. Method of Research

The method of research consists of an explanation about the population and sample of the study, instrument and

measures, and data analysis tools.

3.1. The Population of Study

This study was conducted in Semarang, Central Java. This study chose the traders of broiler chicken in traditional

markets as a target population. The reason for this choice can be seen in the following explanation. There was

some characteristic of modern markets. First, the modern market (e.g. supermarket) have the buying power that

permits them to control their suppliers to an extent which would not be possible if there were the equitable

balance of bargaining power between them (Nicholson and Young, 2012). Second, modern market has a tendency

to supply their commodity from larger and more established suppliers (Reardon, et al 2007; Natawidjaja et al.,

2007; Reardon and Berdegué, 2002). Third, in the procurement system, the modern market implements private

standards results that scan the high-quality products from traditional wholesale value chains (Chang, et al, 2015).

Compared with the modern market, a trader of broiler chicken usually has poor bargaining power with their

supplier and they tend to source from small and non-established suppliers. It is not always easy for them to

The uncertainty condition between the trader and middleman of broiler

chicken

The asset specificity between the trader and middleman of broiler

chicken

The collaboration capability of the trader and middleman of broiler

chicken

The transaction cost economics between the trader and middleman of

broiler chicken

The collaborative advantage between the trader and middleman of broiler

chicken

The level of integration between the trader and middleman of broiler

chicken

H1+

H2 +H3 +

H4 +H5

-

The willingness to collaborate from the trader and middleman of broiler

chicken

H6

H7

+

+

19

determine the price or specify the quality of their supplier. This condition makes some traders in the traditional

market face problems, such as sudden cancellation of sourcing from suppliers, or the uncertainty of the

advantages of collaboration due to the prices offered by suppliers.

Traditional markets are places that offer numerous commodities for daily needs, including live birds. In the

traditional markets, the poultry section usually consists of live bird selling, slaughtering, and carcass selling

activities with insufficient hygienic and sanitary situations. Often small slaughter places are found in these

markets. The traditional market operates every day. Then, a traditional market can be categorized as modern

based on the condition of the physical aspects of the building, the human resources, and the trading system

(Sumiarto and Arifin, 2008). There are 51 traditional markets in Semarang which can be grouped into two

categories according to their size, i.e. traditional town market and traditional district market. The traditional town

market was bigger than the traditional market. There were 7 traditional town markets (such as North Johar

market, Central Johar market, South Johar market, Bulu market, Karangayu market, Peterongan market, and

Jatingaleh market) and 44 traditional district markets (such as Dargo market, Tanah Mas market, Damar market,

Jangli market, and so on). In comparison to the traditional town market and traditional district market, more

specifically, this study chooses the traders of broiler chicken in the traditional town market as the target

population. This is because the traditional town market was larger than the traditional district market and there

were more traders of broiler chicken in the traditional town market than in the traditional district market. In total,

there were 555 traders of broiler chicken in the traditional town market.

3.2. The Sample of Study

In this study, the sample is taken from chicken traders only while other supply chain players are not involved. In

addition, the relationships addressed is only between chicken traders and the middlemen. Then, in order to meet

the prerequisites of variance-based Structural Equation Modeling (SEM), as much as one hundred and twenty-

five broiler chicken traders were chosen as the sample of this study. The samples with SEM using the Maximum

Likelihood method require a minimum sample size as much as 5 times the items in the questionnaire and the

recommended sample size range is 100 to 200 (Ghozali, 2011; Hair et al.. 2006). The sampling technique used in

this study was a proportional stratified random sampling. Stratification is a means of sample design by which the

population of interest is divided into groups, called strata, according to the known characteristic(s) (Khan and

Khalid, 2013). The population of interest was divided proportionally into 7 groups, according to the traditional

town market the traders came from. This study used stratified random sampling because the population frame

could be properly defined in each traditional town market during the period of collection of data with regard to

the actual number of traders of broiler chicken in each traditional town market. Besides that, stratified sampling

was performed in this study to ensure that all the important views from traders are represented in the samples.

The traders of broiler chicken as the sample of this study as can be seen in Table 1.

Table 1. Sample of study from each traditional town market. No. Name of market Number of traders of

broiler chicken Number of

samples 1 North Johar 3 2 2 Central Johar 80 15 3 South Johar 1 3 4 Bulu 119 34 5 Karangayu 217 43

20

6 Peterongan 106 21 7 Jatingaleh 29 7

Total 555 125

3.4. Data Collection Procedure

This study utilized closed questionnaires for data collection. The 125 questionnaires were administered to traders

of broiler chicken in North Johar market, Central Johar market, South Johar market, Bulu market, Karangayu

market, Peterongan market, and Jatingaleh market. Additional information needed for this study was collected

through follow-up telephone interviews and archival records. Because the respondents are mostly the owners of

very small enterprises, we accompanied the respondents when they filled the questionnaire to make sure that they

understood the questions. We also gave the respondents some real-world examples when they could not

understand the meaning of questions. Sometimes, we help the respondents by translating the questionnaire into

local Javanese language.

3.3. Instrument and Measures

In the beginning of the research, thirty-one items were selected to test the relationship between asset specificity,

uncertainty condition, collaboration capability, willingness to collaborate, transaction cost economics,

collaborative advantage, and level of integration between the traders and middlemen of broiler chicken in the

traditional town markets. After considering the result of the validity and reliability test from the initial and final

questionnaire, twenty-three items passed the test and could be used to test the relationship between asset

specificity, uncertainty condition, collaboration capability, willingness to collaborate, transaction cost economics,

collaborative advantage and level of integration. In this case, twenty-five items passed the validity and reliability

test for initial questionnaire and then, twenty-three items passed the validity and reliability test for final

questionnaire. Out of these thirty-one items, four items were used to measure asset specificity, four items were

used to measure uncertainty condition, five items were used to measure collaborative capability, two items were

used to measure willingness to collaborate, seven items were used to measure transaction cost economics, five

items were used to measure collaborative advantage, and four items were used to measure the level of integration.

Most of those items were developed from Ji et al. (2012) and only items used to measure transaction cost

economics were developed from Grover and Malhotra (2003). In detail, all of the items used to measure asset

specificity, uncertainty condition, collaboration capability, and willingness to collaborate, transaction cost

economics, collaborative advantage and level of integration and the source of each item are described in Table 2.

This study used a 5-point Likert scale (1= strongly disagree, 2=disagree, 3=neither agree nor disagree, 4=agree,

and 5= strongly agree) to measure the condition of all of the items.

3.5. Data Analysis Tools

The data was analyzed through SEM which was run through an Analysis of Moment Structure (AMOS) 22

program. The SEM is a second generation data analysis technique for estimating complex relationships among

multiple constructs (Byrne, 2013). There are significant differences between SEM and traditional statistic

methods such as regression, regression, analysis of variance, and logit. SEM have advantages compared to

21

traditional statistic methods. SEM can construct latent variable and then, measure a complex causal path (e.g.,

recursive, hierarchical) among latent variables, whereas, traditional statistic methods can only check pairwise

relationships between observed variables. A latent variable is abstract concepts that cannot be measured directly.

Therefore, the SEM technique is becoming more widely used in social work research, behavioral science, and

management science, for modeling complex and multivariate relationships. With the availability of user-friendly

statistical software, such as LISREL, AMOS and EQS, SEM has become more widely used and reported in social

work journals (Guo et al., 2009)

4. Result

This section consists of the explanation about the result of the validity and reliability tests, the characteristics of

the respondents, the results of the model of fitness test, and the results of the hypothesis testing.

4.1. Validity and Reliability

Validity and Reliability for Initial Questionnaire

Validity is concerned with the significance of research instrument. Validity test is intended to ensure that the

researcher is measuring what they proposed to measure, especially when they are measuring behaviors. There

were four types of validity test, i.e. statistical conclusion validity, internal validity, construct validity, and

external validity (Drost, 2011). This study uses construct validity to measure how well the authors converted or

transformed a construct (concept, idea, or behavior) into a functioning and operating reality, the

operationalization (Trochim, 2006).

The initial construct validity test was conducted before the final questionnaire distributed to the 125 traders of

broiler chicken. The initial construct validity was used to anticipate the differences between the issue and sector

addressed by the original questionnaires with the current condition of broiler chicken supply chain in Indonesia

It was no simple metric can be used to quantify the extent to which a measure can be described as construct valid.

Researchers typically establish construct validity by presenting correlations between a measure of a construct and

a number of other measures that should, theoretically, be associated with it (convergent validity) or vary

independently of it (discriminant validity) (Westen and Rosenthal, 2003). For initial questionnaire which was

tested on 30 traders as respondents, the initial construct validity was associated with convergent validity and was

quantified by using the Spearman correlation coefficient. The items of the questionnaire were deemed invalid if

that item has a Spearman correlation coefficient of less than 0.361 (1-tailed test; α=0.05; n=30, respondent for the

preliminary survey). Otherwise, the items of the questionnaire are said to be valid. The results of the validity test

indicated that six items have a value of the Spearman correlation coefficient less than 0.361, i.e. one item in asset

specificity, one item in uncertainty condition, one item in collaboration capability, one item in transaction cost of

economics, one item in collaborative advantage, and one item in level of integration.

After removing all of the items which have a value of the Spearman correlation coefficient less than 0.361, the

internal reliability was verified by computing the Cronbach’s alpha. Internal reliability is intended to measure the

internal consistency of the individual indicators that belong to one construct. A higher value of internal reliability

22

provides greater confidence to the researcher that individual indicators of one construct can use to measure a

particular situation consistently. Nunnally (1978) suggested that a minimum Cronbach’s alpha of 0.6 sufficed for

the early stages of research. After removing all the items which are invalid, the asset specificity, uncertainty

condition, collaboration capability, willingness to collaborate, transaction cost economics, collaborative

advantage and level of integration have a Cronbach’s alpha above 0.60, ranging from 0.618 to 0.832. This

condition demonstrates an acceptable level of internal consistency of each of the construct indicators. The final

items used for the questionnaire for this study (after removing the items which have a value less than 0.361) and

the results of the validity and reliability test for initial questionnaire can be seen in Table 2.

Validity and Reliability for Final Questionnaire

After removing all the items which are invalid, this study have a new questionnaire which called final

questionnaire. The final questionnaire is distributed to 125 traders of boiler chicken and the validity and

reliability of the data collected from this questionnaire is tested using SEM technique. Under this technique, the

convergent validity is verified using the Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) approach. The CFA analysis

provides standardized loading factor of each indicator where the research variable is quantified from a series of

statement known as manifest variable. The convergent validity was assessed by means of factor loadings (given

as Regression Weights in the AMOS), Average Variance Extracted (AVE), and Composite Reliability (CR). With

regard to Factor Loadings, Hair et al. (2006) recommend that Standardized Regression Weights obtained through

the AMOS should be 0.5 or higher, ideally 0.7 or higher and at a minimum statistically significant. As noted by

Hair et al. (2006), AVE value should be above 0.5; whereas, CR values should be greater than 0.6. The value of

VE that is smaller than 0.5 indicates that more error remains in the items than variance explained by the latent

factor structure imposed on the measure and the CR value lower than 0.6 indicates that the items do not

consistently measure the hypothesized latent construct and (Hair et al., 2006). The result of convergent validity

and discriminant validity from final questionnaire which was distributed to 125 traders of broiler chicken can also

be seen in Table 2.

Table 2. Results of convergent and reliability test for initial and final questionnaire

Construct Items

Initial questionnaire Final questionnaire Spearman correlation coefficient

Cronbach’s Alpha

Standardized Regression

Weights

AVE CR

Asset specificity (AS)

The traders of broiler chicken will lose all physical asset (facilities and tools) have been invested, if they switch to the others product (AS1)*

0.399 0.618

dropped 0.635

0.670

The traders of broiler chicken will lose the time have been invested in building the good collaboration with former middlemen, if they switch to the new middlemen (AS2)*

0.452 1.023

The traders of broiler chicken will lose the effort have been invested in building the good collaboration with former middlemen, if they switch to the new middlemen (AS3)*

0.579 0.543

The traders of broiler chicken will lose a lot of investment If they switch to other products (AS4)*

dropped

Uncertainty condition (UN)

Demand for broiler chicken is uncertain (UN1)* 0.482 0.775

0.787 0.620

0.676 I and my middlemen cannot exchange business information well (UN2)*

0.536 0.766

My middlemen is not reliable for anything that has 0.379 0.793

23

Construct Items


Cronbach’s Alpha


Weights

AVE CR

relationship with partnership (UN3)* Regulations of the market of broiler chicken change frequently (UN4)*

dropped

Collaboration capability (CC)

Between me and my middlemen, at least one has capital to enhance your collaboration (CC1*

0.657 0.800

0.799 0.661

0.733

Between me and my middlemen, at least one has strategic logistics systems to support the supply of broiler chicken (CC2)*

0.647 0.658

Between me and my middlemen, at least one has good business reputation in the supply chain of broiler chicken (CC3)*

0.726 0.719

Between me and my middlemen, at least one has good managerial skills to manage the relationship (CC4)*

0.824 0.677

Between me and my middlemen, at least one holds key technology to support the logistic activity of broiler chicken (CC5)*

dropped

Willingness to collaborate (WC)

As a trader of broiler chicken, I have great willingness to know my middlemen' s preference (WC1)*

0.574 0.727 0.680 0.619 0.678

I have great willingness to make a great effort to maximize the joint value between me and my middlemen (WC2)

0.574 0.845

Transaction cost economics (TC)

It is very difficult to get the information about the condition of my middlemen when I try to make collaboration with my middlemen (TC1)**

0.603 0.821

0.744 0.629

0.688

It is very difficult to exchange information with my middlemen about the performance of this collaboration (TC2)**

0.369 dropped

It is very difficult to identify root causes of each problem between me and my middlemen (TC3)**

0.386 0.784

It is very difficult to solve each problem between me and my middlemen (TC4)**

0.395 0.782

It is very difficult for my middlemen to give me the correct information about the quality of broiler chicken (TC5)**

0.483 0.758

In my opinion, there is a great tendency for my middlemen to get benefit for themselves (TC6)**

0.384 0.739

I need significantly effort to explain the role of each individual to support this collaboration (TC7)**

dropped

Collaborative advantage (CA)

Logistics system that exists between me and my middlemen can ensure the availability of broiler chicken (CA1)*

0.563 0.832

0.782 0.616

0.670

Payment between me and my middlemen could be realized quickly (CA2)*

0.591 0.800

Cost between me and my middlemen is lower than that of between me and another processor (CA3)*

0.75 0.764

Communication system between me and my middlemen can facilitate us to share all information that important for the successful of the broiler chicken supply (e.g. quality, price) (CA4)*

0.77 0.808

I and my middlemen can share information about cost, price, product safety, quality, and quantity etc. (CA5)*

dropped

Level of Integration (LI)

Frequency of transactions between me and my middlemen is higher than that between me and a common upstream chain agent (LI1)*

0.66 0.749

0.758 0.647

0.713

I and my middlemen have a long time of cooperation, at least more than 6 months (LI3)*

0.674 0.731

Either me and my middlemen gives up to the cooperative relationship easily (LI3)*

0.363 0.726

Both I and middlemen rarely betray the contract dropped

24

Construct Items


Cronbach’s Alpha


Weights

AVE CR

(LI4)*

* Ji et al. (2012); ** Grover and Malhotra (2003).

The result of convergent validity test for final questionnaire indicated that there were two items must be removed

from final questionnaire because those items have Standardized Regression Weights less than minimum or less

than 0.5. The first item, the traders of broiler chicken will lose all physical asset (facilities and tools) have been

invested, if they switch to the others product (AS1) and the second item was, it is very difficult to exchange

information with my partner about the performance of this collaboration(TC2). Among valid items, there was 1

items have Standardized Regression Weights above 1. However, according to Jöreskog (1999), the standardized

coefficient of 1.04, 1.40 or even 2.80 does not necessary imply that something is wrong, although, it might

suggest that there is a high degree of multicollinearity in a data. The multicollinearity is a phenomenon in which

two or more predictor variables in multiple regression models are highly correlated, meaning that one can be

linearly predicted from the others with a substantial degree of accuracy. That is, a model with correlated

predictors can indicate how well the entire bundle of predictors predicts the outcome variable, but it may not give

valid results about any individual predictor, or about which predictors are redundant with respect to others. Then,

after removing two non-valid items, the AVE value in the range of 0.619 and 0.661 and the CR value in the range

0.676 and 0.733, indicated the satisfactory convergent validity of each construct.

4.2. Profile of Respondents

The characteristics of the 125 respondents who completed a questionnaire in this study (not including the 30

preliminary respondents) can be seen in Table 3. Most of the respondents are female with less than 2 employees.

Only thirty percent of the respondents have five or more employees. In terms of duration of working as traders of

broiler chickens, most of the respondents have become a traders broiler chickens for 15 years or more, followed

by 5 years to less than 10 years, 10 years to less than 15 years, and less than 5 years. Then, in terms of average of

broiler chicken that can be sold, most respondent can sell an average of 100 to 300 kilograms of broiler chicken

in one day, followed by less than 100 kilograms, 300 kilograms to less than 500 kilograms, and 500 kilograms

and more.

Table 3. Characteristics of respondents Characteristics Category Percentages

Gender Male 46%

Female 54%

The number of employees

0 – 2 employees 85%

3 – 5 employees 12%

5 or more employees 3%

Duration of working as a trader of broiler chickens

Less than 5 years 6%

5 - 10 years 26%

10 – 15 years 17%

15 or more years 52%

Average number of broiler chickens that can be sold in one day

0 – 100 kg 22% 100 – 300 kg 50% 300 – 500 kg 22%

25

Characteristics Category Percentages

500 or more kg 6%

4.3. Model Fitness Test

The hypothesized model of the antecedent factor affecting governance structure choices in the supply chain of a

broiler chicken is presented in Figure 2 with seven latent constructs. Figure 2 shows the finalized model of the

antecedent factor affecting governance structure choices in the supply chain of broiler chicken after considering

all statistical fit index tests and modification index.

Fig 2. The finalized model of the antecedent factor affecting governance structure choices in the supply chain of

broiler chicken

This study did not use the value of chi-square (χ2) as statistical fit indices to assess the fitness of the model. The

Chi-Square value is the traditional measure for assessing the overall model fit and assessing the magnitude of the

discrepancy between the sample and fitted covariance matrices (Hu and Bentler, 1999). A good model fit would

provide an insignificant result at a 0.05 threshold (Barrett, 2007), thus the Chi-Square statistic is often referred to

as either a ‘badness of fit’ (Kline, 2005) or a ‘lack of fit’ (Mulaik et al., 1989) measure. Although the Chi-

Squared test is one of the popular statistical fit indices, there were a number of limitations when researchers using

chi-square test. Firstly, the chi-Square test assumes severe deviations from normality and multivariate normality

can result in model rejections even when the model is appropriately specified (McIntosh, 2007). Secondly, the

Chi-Square test is sensitive to sample size, which means that the Chi-Square statistic nearly always rejects the

model when the researcher using large samples (Bentler and Bonett, 1980; Jöreskog and Sörbom, 1993). On the

other hand, when a researcher using a small sample, the Chi-Square statistic lacks power and because of this

condition, the chi-square may not be able to discriminate between good and poor fitting models (Kenny and

McCoach, 2003). Due to the restrictiveness of the Model Chi-Square, researchers (including this study) have

sought alternative indices to assess model fit. One example of a statistic that minimizes the impact of sample size

on the Model Chi-Square is Wheaton et al. (1977) relative/normed chi-square (Relative Chi-square (CMIN/DF:

the chi-square/degree of freedom; χ2/df). Although there is no consensus regarding an acceptable ratio for this

statistic, recommendations range from as high as 5.0 (Wheaton et al., 1977) to as low as 2.0 (Tabachnick and

Fidell, 2007).

26

Besides CMIN/DF, this study also used five other measures to test of model fitness, i.e.: Goodness-of-Fit Index

(GFI), Adjusted Goodness-of-Fit Index (AGFI), Tucker-Lewis index (TLI), Normed Fit Index (NFI), Root Mean

Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA). GFI, AGFI, TLI, and NFI are incremental fit indexes. Incremental fit

measures assess how well the estimated model fits relative to some alternative baseline model. Values for GFI,

AGFI, TLI, and NFI range between 0.0 and 1.0 with values closer to 1.0 indicating a good fit. A value of GFI,

AGFI, TLI, and NFI ≥0. 95 is indicative of good fit (Browne and Cudeck, 1993; Verschuren, 1991; Bentler,

1990; Hu and Bentler, 1999), although the conventional cut-off of this indicator is about 0.90 (Russell, 2002).

According to Ghozali (2011), the value of GFI, AGFI, TLI, and NFI from 0.0 to 0.50 are presently recognized

as indicative of marginal fit; the value of the value of GFI, AGFI, TLI, and NFI from 0.5 to 0.80 are presently

recognized as indicative of adequate fit; the value of the value of GFI, AGFI, TLI, and NFI from 0.80 to 0.90 are

presently recognized as indicative of good fit; and the value of the value of GFI, AGFI, TLI, and NFI from 0.9 to

1.00 are presently recognized as indicative of very good fit. According to Browne and Cudeck (1993), RMSEA

values ≤ 0.05 can be considered as a good fit, values between 0.05 and 0.08 as an adequate fit, and values

between 0.08 and 0.10 as a mediocre fit, whereas values > 0.10 are not acceptable. Marsh et al. (2004) suggest

that 0.08 should be acceptable in most circumstances (see also Wijayanto, 2008). The final results of the six

statistical fit index to measure of model fit can be seen in Table 4. To increase the statistical fit index according

to their cut-off value, items of AS1 and TC1 have to be deleted from the hypothesized model.

Table 4. Statistical fit indices to measure of model fit Statistical fit index to measure of model fit

Result Cut off value Meaning

CMIN/DF 3.009 2 ≤CMIN/DF ≤ 5 Good Fit GFI 0.773 0≤GFI, AGFI, TLI, and NFI < 0.5 marginal fit

0.5≤GFI, AGFI, TLI, and NFI < 0.8adequate fit 0.8 ≤GFI, AGFI, TLI, and NFI < 0.9 good fit

0.9≤GFI, AGFI, TLI, and NFI ≤1. 0 very good fit

Adequate fit AGFI 0.714 Adequate fit TLI 0.762 Adequate fit NFI 0.726 Adequate fit RMSEA 0.052 RMSEA ≤ 0.05 (good fit

0.05 < RMSEA ≤ 0.08 adequate fit 0.08 < RMSEA ≤ 0.10 mediocre fit,

Adequate fit

4.3. Bivariate Analysis among Variables

The bivariate analysis aims to analyze the relationship between two variables. The result of

bivariate analysis between latent and predictor variables can be seen in Table 5

Table 5. Result of Bivariate Analysis between Latent and Predictor Variables

AS AS1 AS2 AS3 AS 1 0.676** 0.802** 0.785** AS1 0.676** 1 0.255** 0.250** AS2 0.802** 0.255** 1 0.556** AS3 0.785** 0.250** 0.556** 1

UN UN1 UN2 UN3 UN 1 0.860** 0.816** 0.817** UN1 0.860** 1 0.568** 0.581** UN2 0.816** 0.568** 1 0.458** UN3 0.817** 0.581** 0.458** 1

27

WC WC1 WC2 WC 1 0.899** 0.874** WC1 0.899** 1 0.574** WC2 0.874** 0.574** 1

CC CC1 CC2 CC3 CC4 CC 1 .843** .761** .779** .778** CC1 .843** 1 .634** .526** .495** CC2 .761** .634** 1 .359** .422** CC3 .779** .526** .359** 1 .564** CC4 .778** .495** .422** .564** 1

TC TC1 TC2 TC3 TC4 TC5 TC 1 .762** .473** .794** .793** .760** TC1 .762** 1 .150 .640** .547** .469** TC2 .473** .150 1 .284** .260** .276** TC3 .794** .640** .284** 1 .499** .518** TC4 .793** .547** .260** .499** 1 .478** TC5 .760** .469** .276** .518** .478** 1 TC6 .756** .448** .151 .475** .647** .570**

CA CA1 CA2 CA3 CA 1 .820** .808** .824** CA1 .820** 1 .598** .497** CA2 .808** .598** 1 .566** CA3 .824** .497** .566** 1

LI LI1 LI2 LI3 LI 1 .808** .827** .814** LI1 .808** 1 .489** .471** LI2 .827** .489** 1 .540** LI3 .814** .471** .540** 1

The result of bivariate analysis between the latent variable, it turned out that all of the predictor variables show a

statistically significant relationship with latent variable. It can be said that the entire bundle of predictors predicts

the outcome latent variable.

4.4. Hypothesis Test

The results of the hypothesis testing are presented in Table 6. Hypothesis testing is done by testing the direct

influence of Critical Ratio (CR) on each line direct effect partially. If the value of CR> 1.96 and the p-value is

less than 5% (p < 0.05), we accept the hypothesis (it means we reject the null hypothesis - there is no effect).

Table 6. Result of hypothesis testing Hypothesis Relationship Critical Ratio p-value Result

H1 Transaction cost of economics Level of integration (+) 9.180 < 0.05 Accepted

H2 Asset specificity Transaction cost of economics (+) 1.125 > 0.05 (0.260) Rejected

H3 Uncertainty condition Transaction cost of economics (+) 10.286 < 0.05 Accepted

H4 Collaborative advantage Level of integration (+) 10.129 < 0.05 Accepted

H5 Uncertainty condition Collaborative advantage (-) -6.884 < 0.05 Accepted

H6 Collaboration capability Collaborative advantage (+) 5.262 < 0.05 Accepted

H7 Willingness to collaborate Collaborative advantage (+) 1.626 > 0.05 (0.104) Rejected

It can be seen that not all the hypotheses given by the study are proven by the model in the case of the supply

chain of broiler chicken. Although this study refers to the conceptual model of a previous study belonging to Ji et

al. (2012), the results of this study are slightly different. Ji et al. (2012) found that all the hypotheses given by the

study are proven by the model in the case of China´s pork chain, but could not be proven in the case of broiler

28

chicken chain. Both studies could prove the significant effect of the transaction cost of economics and

collaborative advantage on the level of integration. This study also found that the effect of transaction costs is

stronger than collaboration advantages on the level of integration. However, this study only can prove the effect

of uncertain conditions on the transaction cost of economics between traders and the middlemen. At the level of

significance of 0.05, this study failed to prove that asset specificity between the traders and the middlemen has a

positive significant effect on the transaction cost economics. According to Williamson (1981), high asset

specificity leads to increases on the transaction cost economics because the asset is fully specialized to a single

use or user only. This asset, therefore, assumes low transferability to another use or user. The broad advice is that

when assets are not specific to an exchange the market may be the most efficient way (or the best way for

minimizing costs) to organize it (Williamson, 1989). The degree of asset specificity ranges from nonspecific to

mixed to idiosyncratic (Williamson, 1979, 1985). The asset specificity assumption might be called the locomotive

or driving assumption of TCE as Williamson himself states the importance of asset specificity to transaction cost

economics is difficult to exaggerate (Williamson, 1985). So based on the statement from Williamson (1981,

1985, 1989), we argue that the unsupported relationship between asset specify and TCE might be caused by the

fact that asset specify in the trader-middleman transaction is very low. In this case, most of our sample are small

traders of broiler chicken, which did not need assets that are specially designed for the use of just one particular

transaction with one broiler chicken middlemen. This asset can be used for other broiler chicken’s processors (or

middlemen) without huge adaptation. It is the reason, why in the broiler chicken chain, this study could not prove

the significant effect of asset specificity on the transaction cost economics. The hesitancy of the existence of

asset specifications could also be seen from the mean of item AS2 (mean=3.128) and AS3 (mean=3.224); which

is the traders of broiler chicken will lose the time and effort have been invested in building the good collaboration

with a former middleman, if they switch to the new middleman. The mean of those items closes in 3 rather than

4. This condition indicates that, on average, traders of broiler chickens were not sure of the existence of asset

specifications between them and their broiler chicken middlemen. The traders were not sure about losing all

physical assets (facilities and tools) that had been invested if they switched to another product. The traders were

also not sure about losing the time and effort that had been invested in building good collaboration if they

switched to a new middleman. Moreover, asset specificity could be claimed to be the most important construct of

the transaction cost paradigm because of opportunism (Jaakko, 2015). So, since our sample consists of small

traders of broiler chicken with very low asset specify, the asset specificity could not be claimed as an important

factor for transaction cost because no threat of opportunism or no beneficial for the middlemen to behave

opportunistically.

The other difference of this study with Ji et al. (2012), is that this study only can prove the effect of uncertainty

conditions and collaboration capability on the collaborative advantage. At the level significance of 0.05, this

study also failed to prove that willingness to collaborate from the traders and the middlemen has a positive

significance effect of the collaborative advantage between them. According to Camarinha-Maltos and Rosas

(2010), willingness to collaborate depends on a variety of aspects, including the perceived risks, external

incentives, or the presence of a fierce competition. Related to the previously rejected hypothesis (hypothesis 2),

the insignificance of the effect of willingness to collaborate on the collaborative advantage could be happening

because the traders do not perceive a significant risk or incentive or fierce competition in making relationships

29

with their middlemen due to the absence of specific assets between traders and middlemen. The hesitancy of

willingness for the traders to collaborate with their middlemen could also be seen from the mean of item WC1

(mean=3.208) and item WC2 (mean=3.368). This condition indicates that, on average, the traders were not sure

about their willingness to collaborate with the middlemen by knowing better their middlemen preference and

giving greater effort to maximize the joint value between them.

Related to the past study about transaction cost economics, asset specificity, and uncertain condition, the findings

of this study suggest that, for transactions which do not involve a fully specialized asset to a single use or user

only, transaction cost economics are less influenced by the asset specificity. Then, relating to the past study about

collaborative advantage, uncertainty condition, collaboration capability, and willingness to collaborate, the

findings of this study suggest that, for the condition of market, which is perceived as low risk, low incentive, and

low competition, the collaborative advantage is less influenced by the willingness to collaborate.

5. Conclusion

This study aims to investigate the relationship between asset specificity, uncertainty condition, collaboration

capability, willingness to collaborate, transaction cost economics, collaborative advantage, and the level of

integration between traders and middlemen of broiler chicken. Specifically, the investigation took place at seven

traditional town markets in Semarang, Central Java province (North Johar market, Central Johar market, South

Johar market, Bulu market, Karangayu market, Peterongan market, and Jatingaleh market). Based on the results

of data processing, this study found that not all the hypotheses given by the study are proven by the model. This

study could prove the significant effect of transaction cost of economics and collaborative advantage on the level

of integration and the effect of transaction cost is stronger than collaboration advantages on the level of

integration. This study also found that the effect of transaction cost is stronger than collaboration advantages on

the level of integration. Transaction cost economics significantly depend on uncertainty condition between

traders and the middlemen of broiler chicken; whereas, the collaborative advantage significantly depends on

uncertainty condition and collaboration capability. This study failed to prove that asset specificity between the

traders and the middlemen of broiler chicken has a significant effect on the transaction cost economics. This

study also failed to prove that willingness to collaborate from the traders and middlemen has a significant effect

on the collaborative advantage between them. The authors argue this condition could be happening because this

study uses small traders and middlemen, which did not use fully specialized assets for a single use or user only.

This condition meant the traders did not perceive a significant risk or incentive or fierce competition in making

relationship with their middlemen; on average, the traders were not sure about their willingness to collaborate

with the middlemen by knowing their middlemen preference better and making a greater effort to maximize the

joint value between them.

This study has some limitations. The first limitation relates to the sample size. The sample size of the current

study was 125 traders. Although this sample size met the minimum requirement, this sample study only came

from traders of broiler chicken of 7 traditional town markets in Semarang, Central Java and most of our sample

consisted of small traders with average sales of broiler chicken from 100 kg to 300 kg a day. Therefore, the

results of the study may not be generalized to the entire population or to another object in the supply chain. It is

30

possible that the results of the study may be subject to the characteristics of the object of the supply chain. Thus,

future research should attempt to examine the relationship between asset specificity, uncertainty condition,

collaboration capability, willingness to collaborate, transaction cost economics, collaborative advantage, and the

level of integration between the traders and middlemen of broiler chickens across many different markets

(traditional market, modern market) and with samples from other geographical areas. This will give the

opportunity to make comparisons between different markets and between different geographical areas.

The second limitation related to the size of the trader of broiler chicken, which became a sample of this study.

Although we argue that hypothesis 2 is rejected, perhaps due to size of the traders; in fact, this study did not

include the size of the traders and middlemen as a variable to differentiate the effects of asset specificity,

uncertainty condition, collaboration capability, willingness to collaborate, transaction cost economics, and

collaborative advantage. The third limitation of this study is related to performance measurement. This study did

not conduct any performance measurements due to inability to gather the required financial data. Based on the

second and the third limitations of this study, future research should attempt to include the size of the object and

performance measurement as variables to strengthen this study.

In terms of theoretical implication and practical implication, this study has concluded as follows. This study

contributes to the existing body of knowledge by examining the effect of asset specificity, uncertainty condition,

collaboration capability, willingness to collaborate, transaction cost economics, collaborative advantage, and the

level of integration. Although previous studies in the pork supply chain from Ji et al. (2012) suggest that asset

specificity and uncertain conditions have a significant effect on transaction cost economics and uncertainty

condition, collaboration capability, willingness to collaborate have a significant effect on collaborative

advantage, this empirical study in the broiler chicken supply chain shows different results. So, in terms of

theoretical implication, the characteristics of the supply chain may give a different result for the factors which

can influence transaction cost economics and collaborative advantage. In other words, it can be said that the

factors which are influencing the transaction cost economics and the factors which are influencing the

collaborative advantage may be slightly different due to the characteristics of the supply chain. In terms of

practical implications, the outcome of this research has given valuable feedback which can be used for designing

the supply chain governance structure in the broiler chicken supply chain. This feedback is important since there

were several types of supply chain governance structure in use for agribusiness, from spot markets until vertical

integration (e.g. Ferguson, 2004; Kim 1998; Mighell and Jones 1963; Barkema & Drabenstott 1995; Hobbs 1996;

Peterson and Wysocki 1997). The actors (traders) in the broiler chicken supply chain should remember that some

factors have a more significant effect on building levels of integration, i.e. transaction cost economics, uncertain

conditions, collaboration capability, and collaborative advantage. Traders of broiler chicken should ensure that

their business has the high transaction cost economics and uncertain condition, their partner has high

collaboration capability and the relationship has the high collaborative advantage before they decide to design

integration with their partner.

6. References

31

Anderson, C. M. (1993). Willingness to Collaborate as a New Communication Trait: Scale Development and a Predictive Model of Related Communication Traits.

Aubert, B. A., Rivard, S., & Patry, M. (1996). A transaction cost approach to outsourcing behavior: Some empirical evidence. Information & management, 30(2), 51-64.

Bagozzi, R.P. and Yi, Y. (1988). “On the evaluation of structural equation models”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol.16 No.1, 74-94.

Barkema A., Drabenstott M. (1995 INDUSTRY NOTE: The Many Paths of Vertical Coordination: Structural Implications for the US Food System. Agribusiness, 11 (5): 483–492

Barrett, P. (2007). Structural equation modelling: Adjudging model fit. Personality and Individual differences, 42(5), 815-824. Barringer, B. R., & Harrison, J. S. (2000). Walking a Tightrope: Creating Value through Interorganizational Relationships. Journal

of Management, 26(3), 367–403 Bentler, P. M. (1990). Comparative fit indices in structural models. Psychological Bulletin, 107, 238-246. Doi: 10.1037/0033-

2909.107.2.238. Bentler, P. M., & Bonett, D. G. (1980). Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance structures. Psychological

bulletin, 88(3), 588. Blomqvist, K., & Levy, J. (2006). Collaboration capability–a focal concept in knowledge creation and collaborative innovation in

networks. International Journal of Management Concepts and Philosophy, 2(1), 31-48. Bramwell, B., & Sharman, A. (1999). Collaboration in local tourism policymaking. Annals of tourism research, 26(2), 392-415. Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In K. A. Bollen and J. S. Long (Ed.). Testing

structural equation models (pp. 136-162). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Byrne, B. M. (2013). Structural Equation Modeling with LISREL, PRELIS and SIMPLIS: Basic Concepts, Applications and

Programming. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Caglio, A., & Ditillo, A. (2008). A review and discussion of management control in inter-firm relationships: Achievements and

future directions. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 33(7), 865-898. Camarinha-Matos, L. M. & Rosas, J. (2010). Assessment of the Willingness to Collaborate in Enterprise Networks. In Emerging

Trends in Technological Innovation (pp. 14-23). Springer Berlin Heidelberg. Cao, M., & Zhang, Q. (2010). Supply chain collaborative advantage: a firm’s perspective. International Journal of Production

Economics, 128(1), 358-367 Cao, M., & Zhang, Q. (2011). Supply chain collaboration: Impact on collaborative advantage and firm performance. Journal of

Operations Management, 29(3), 163-180. Chang, H. H., Di Caprio, A., & Sahara, S. (2015). Global Agrifood Value Chains and Local Poverty Reduction: What Happens to

Those Who Don't Plug In? Asian Development Bank Economics Working Paper Series, (453). Chen, G., Zhang, G., & Xie, Y. M. (2013). Impact of transaction attributes on transaction costs in project alliances: Disaggregated

analysis. Journal of Management in Engineering, 31(4), 04014054. Chen, I. J., & Paulraj, A. (2004). Towards a theory of supply chain management: the constructs and measurements. Journal of

operations management, 22(2), 119-150. Cooper, M. C., & Ellram, L. M. (1993). Characteristics of supply chain management and the implications for purchasing and

logistics strategy. The International Journal of Logistics Management, 4(2), 13-24. Costales, A., & Catelo, M. A. O. (2008). Contract farming as an institution for integrating rural smallholders in markets for livestock

products in developing countries :( I) Framework and applications. Pro-Poor Livestock Policy Initiative (PPLPI) Research Report (FAO).

Crisan, E., Parpucea, I., & Ilies, L., 2011. The Relation between Supply Chain Governance and Supply Chain Performance. Journal of Management & Marketing Challenges for the Knowledge Society, 6(4), 637-644

Croom, S. (2001). Restructuring supply chains through information channel innovation. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 21(4), 504-515.

Denolf, J. M., Trienekens, J. H., van der Vorst, J. G. A. J., & Omta, S. W. F. (2015). The role of governance structures in supply chain information sharing. Journal on Chain and Network Science, 15(1), 83-99.

Dhanaraj, C., & Parkhe, A. (2006). Orchestrating innovation networks. Academy of management review, 31(3), 659-669. Dolci, P. C., Maçada, A. C. G. C., & Grant, G. G. (2013). Information Technology and Supply Chain Governance: A Conceptual

Model. Information Technology, 7, 1-2013. Drost, E. A. (2011). Validity and reliability in social science research. Education Research and Perspectives, 38(1), 105. Duval, Y., & Feyler, E. (2016). Intra-and Extraregional Trade Costs of ASEAN Economies: Implications for Asian Regional

Integration. In ASEAN Economic Community (pp.153-172). US: Palgrave Macmillan US Dyer, J. H. (1996). Does governance matter? Keiretsu alliances and asset specificity as sources of Japanese competitive

advantage. Organization Science, 7(6), 649-666. Dyer, J. H. (2000). Collaborative advantage: Winning through extended enterprise supplier networks. Oxford University Press. Dyer, J. H., & Singh, H. (1998). The relational view: Cooperative strategy and sources of Interorganizational competitive

advantage. Academy of management review, 23(4), 660-679 Erramilli, M. K., & Rao, C. P. (1993). Service firms' international entry-mode choice: A modified transaction-cost analysis

approach. The Journal of Marketing, 19-38.

32

Ferguson, S. M. (2004). The economics of vertical coordination in the organic wheat supply chain (Doctoral dissertation, University of Saskatchewan).

Foss, N. J., & Nielsen, B. B. (2012). Researching multilevel phenomena: The case of collaborative advantage in strategic management. Journal of CENTRUM Cathedra: The Business and Economics Research Journal, 5(1), 11-23.

Frank, S. D., & Henderson, D. R. (1992). Transaction costs as determinants of vertical coordination in the US food industries. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 74(4), 941-950.

Garson, G. D. (2013). Generalized Linear Models / Generalized Estimating Equations, 2013 Edition . Asheboro, NC: Statistical Associates Publishers.

Gefen, D., Straub, D., & Boudreau, M. C. (2000). Structural equation modeling and regression: Guidelines for research practice. Communications of the association for information systems, 4(1), 7.

Geyskens, I., Steenkamp, J. B. E., & Kumar, N. (2006). Make, buy, or ally: A transaction cost theory meta-analysis. Academy of management journal, 49(3), 519-543.

Ghozali, I. (2011). Model Persamaan Struktural: Konsep Aplikasi dengan Amos 19.0. Semarang: Badan Penerbit Undip. Grover, V., & Malhotra, M. K. (2003). Transaction cost framework in operations and supply chain management research: theory

and measurement. Journal of Operations management, 21(4), 457-473. Guo, B., Perron, B. E., & Gillespie, D. F. (2009). A systematic review of structural equation modelling in social work

research. British Journal of Social Work, 39(8), 1556-1574. Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., Anderson, R. E., & Tatham, R. L. (2006). Multivariate data analysis (Vol. 6). Upper Saddle

River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall. Hair.Jr., J. F., Black., W. C., Babin., B. J., Anderson., R. E., & L.Tatham., R. (2006). Multivariant Data Analysis. New Jersey:

Pearson International Edition Heide, J.B. (1994).Inter-organizational Governance in Marketing Channels. The Journal of Marketing 58 (1), 71-85 Hobbs, J. E. (1996). A transaction cost approach to supply chain management. Supply Chain Management: An International

Journal, 1(2), 15-27. Hobbs, J.E. & Young, L.M. (2000) Closer vertical co‐ordination in agri‐food supply chains: a conceptual framework and some

preliminary evidence. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, Vol.5 Issue 3, 131-143 Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new

alternatives. Structural equation modeling: a multidisciplinary journal, 6(1), 1-55. Huxham, C., & Vangen, S. (2005). Managing to collaborate: the theory and practice of collaborative advantage. London: Routled Jap, S. D. (1999). Pie-expansion efforts: collaboration processes in buyer-supplier relationships. Journal of marketing Research,

461-475. Jap, S. D. (2001). Perspectives on joint competitive advantages in buyer–supplier relationships. International Journal of Research in

Marketing, 18(1), 19-35. Ji, C., de Felipe, I., Briz, J., & Trienekens, J. H. (2012). An Empirical Study on Governance Structure Choices in Chinas Pork

Supply Chain. Int. Food Agribus. Manag. Rev, 15, 121-152. Jöreskog, K. G. (1999). How large can a standardized coefficient be. Unpublished Technical Report. Retrieved from: http://www.

ssicentral. com/lisrel/techdocs/HowLargeCanaStandardizedCoefficientbe. pdf. Jöreskog, K. G., & Sörbom, D. (1993). LISREL 8: Structural equation modeling with the SIMPLIS command language. Scientific

Software International. Kaufman, A., Wood, C. H., & Theyel, G. (2000). Collaboration and technology linkages: A strategic supplier typology. Strategic

Management Journal, 21(6), 649–663. Keen, P.G.W. (1991). Shaping the Future: Business Design through Information Technology, Harvard Business School Press,

Boston; Massachusetts. Kenny, D. A., & McCoach, D. B. (2003). Effect of the number of variables on measures of fit in structural equation

modeling. Structural equation modeling, 10(3), 333-351. Ketchen, D. J., & Hult, G. T. M. (2007). Bridging organization theory and supply chain management: The case of best value supply

chains. Journal of Operations Management, 25(2), 573-580. Khan, S., & Khalid, M. M. (2013). Multi Choice for Precision in Multivariate Stratified Surveys: A Compromise

Solution. International Journal of Operations Research, 10(4), 171-181. Kim, Y. (1998). Distribution channel decisions in import consumer goods markets. Logistics Information Management, 11(3), 178-

187. Kinsey, J. (2002). The Supply Chain of Pork: US and China (Vol. 2, No. 1). Food Industry Center, University of Minnesota. Klein, B. (2007). The Economic Lessons of Fisher Body–General Motors. International Journal of the Economics of

Business, 14(1), 1-36. Kline, R.B. (2005), Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling (2nd Edition Ed.). New York: The Guilford Press. Koh, J., & Venkatraman, N. (1991). Joint venture formations and stock market reactions: An assessment in the information

technology sector. Academy of management journal, 34(4), 869-892. Kumar, N., Scheer, L. K., & Steenkamp, J. B. E. (1995). The effects of supplier fairness on vulnerable resellers. Journal of

marketing research, 54-65.

33

Lambert, D. M., Cooper, M. C., & Pagh, J. D. (1998). Supply chain management: implementation issues and research opportunities. The international journal of logistics management, 9(2), 1-20.

Lambert, D. M., Knemeyer, A. M., & Gardner, J. T. (2004). Supply chain partnerships: model validation and implementation. Journal of business Logistics, 25(2), 21-42.

Lank, E. (2005). Collaborative advantage: how organizations win by working together. London, UK: Palgrave Macmillan Lietke, B., & Boslau, M. (2007). Exploring the transaction dimensions of supply chain management. International journal of

networking and virtual organisations, 4(2), 163-179. Malhotra, A., Gasain, S., El Sawy, O.A., 2005. Absorptive capacity configurations in supply chains: gearing for partner-enabled

market knowledge creation. MIS Quarterly 29 (1), 145–187. Marsh, H.W., Hau, K.T., & Wen, Z. (2004) In search of golden rules: Comment on hypothesis-testing approaches to setting cutoff

values for fit indexes and dangers in overgeneralizing Hu and Bentler's (1999) findings. Structural Equation Modeling, 11, 320-341.

McIntosh, C. N. (2007). Rethinking fit assessment in structural equation modelling: A commentary and elaboration on Barrett (2007). Personality and Individual Differences, 42(5), 859-867

Mighell, R. L., & Jones, L. A. (1963). Vertical coordination in agriculture. Vertical coordination in agriculture. Mudambi R., Mudambi M.S. (1995): From transaction cost economics to relationship marketing. A model of buyer- supplier

relations. International Business Review, 4(4): 419–433 Muladno (2008). Local chicken genetic resources and production systems in Indonesia, GCP/RAS/228/GER Working Paper No.6.

Animal Production and Health Division, Indonesia Mulaik, S. A., James, L. R., Van Alstine, J., Bennett, N., Lind, S., & Stilwell, C. D. (1989). Evaluation of goodness-of-fit indices for

structural equation models. Psychological bulletin, 105(3), 430. Mulaik, S.A., James, L.R., Van Alstine, J., Bennet, N., Lind, S., & Stilwell, C.D. (1989). Evaluation of goodness-of-fit indices for

Structural Equation Models. Psychological Bulletin, 105 (3), 430-45. Naslund, D., & Williamson, S. (2010). What is management in supply chain management?-a critical review of definitions,

frameworks and terminology. Journal of Management Policy and Practice, 11(4), 11-28. Natawidjaja, R., T. Reardon, S. Shetty, T. I. Noor, T. Perdana, E. Rasmikayati, S. Bachri, and R. Hernandez. (2007). Horticultural

Producers and Supermarket Development in Indonesia. UNPAD/MSU Report published by the World Bank/Indonesia. June. Nicholson, C., & Young, B. (2012). The relationship between supermarkets and suppliers: What are the implications for

consumers? Consumers International, 1, 7 Noordewier, T. G., John, G., & Nevin, J. R. (1990). Performance outcomes of purchasing arrangements in industrial buyer-vendor

relationships. The Journal of Marketing, 80-93. Nunnally, J. (1978). Psychometric Theory (2nd eel.). New York, McGraw-Hill. Nyaga, G. N., Whipple, J. M., & Lynch, D. F. (2010). Examining supply chain relationships: do buyer and supplier perspectives on

collaborative relationships differ? Journal of Operations Management, 28(2), 101-114. Oktavera, R., & Andajani, E. (2013). Implementation of Value Chain Analysis in the Broiler Supply Chain Agribusiness. Peterson, H. C., & Wysocki, A. F. (1997). The vertical coordination continuum and the determinants of firm-level coordination

strategy (No. 11817). Michigan State University, Department of Agricultural, Food, and Resource Economics Promsivapallop, P. (2009). A Critical Evaluation of Transaction Cost Economics Applied to Outsourcing in the Hotel Industry in

Thailand (Doctoral dissertation, University of Surrey). Raišienė, A. G. (2011). Public Servants' Approach to Success Factors of Partnership in Local Government. Viesoji Politika ir

Administravimas, 10(4), 659–667 Reardon, T. and J. A. Berdegué. 2002. The Rapid Rise of Supermarkets in Latin America: Challenges and Opportunities for

Development. Development Policy Review. 20 (4). pp. 317–34. Reardon, T., S. Henson, and J. A. Berdegué. (2007). Proactive Fast-Tracking’ Diffusion of Supermarkets in Developing Countries:

Implications for Market Institutions and Trade. Journal of Economic Geography. 7(4). pp. 399–431. Rindfleisch, A., & Heide, J. B. (1997). Transaction cost analysis: Past, present, and future applications. the Journal of Marketing,

30-54. Russell, D. W. (2002). In search of underlying dimensions: the use (and abuse) of factor analysis in personality and social

psychology. Bulletin Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 1629–1646. doi: 10.1177/014616702237645 Ruuska, I., Ahola, T., Artto, K., Locatelli, G., and Mancini, M. 2010. A new governance approach for multi-firm projects: Lessons

from Olkiluoto 3 and Flamanville 3 nuclear power plant projects. International Journal of Project Management 29 (6), 647-660 Stock, J. R., & Boyer, S. L. (2009). Developing a consensus definition of supply chain management: a qualitative

study. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, 39(8), 690-711. Suh, T., & Kwon, I. W. G. (2006). Matter over mind: When specific asset investment affects calculative trust in supply chain

partnership. Industrial Marketing Management, 35(2), 191-201. Sujatanond, S. Tibkaew, A.P., & Pramojanee, P. (2013). Consequences of the Asean Economic Community (AEC) on Thailand

Agricultural situation and food security of Southern Thailand, GMSARN International Journal, 7, 139-144 Sumiarto, B., & Arifin, B. (2008). Overview on poultry sector and HPAI situation for Indonesia with special emphasis on the Island

of Java. Background Paper Africa/Indonesia, Team Working Paper No, 3.

34

Sumiarto, B., & Arifin, B. (2008). Overview on Poultry Sector and HPAI Situation for Indonesia with Special Emphasis on the Island of Java-Background Paper. Manuscript submitted for publication, Royal Veterinary College. Retrieved from http://www. ifpri. org/publication/overview-poultry-sector-and-hpai-situationindonesia-special-emphasis-island-java.

Tabachnick, B.G. and Fidell, L.S. (2007), Using Multivariate Statistics (5th Ed.). New York: Allyn and Bacon. Teo, T. S., Wang, P., & Leong, C. H. (2004). Understanding online shopping behaviour using a transaction cost economics

approach. International Journal of Internet Marketing and Advertising, 1(1), 62-84. Thompson, L., & Hastie, R. (1990). Social perception in negotiation. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision

Processes, 47(1), 98-123 Thomson, D. & Jain, A. (2006), “Corporate governance failure and its impact on National Australia Bank's performance”, Journal

of business case studies, 2(1), 41-56 Trochim, W. M. K. (2006). Introduction to Validity. Social Research Methods, retrieved from

www.socialresearchmethods.net/kb/introval.php, September 9, 2010. United States Agency for International Development (USAID) (2013). Indonesia s Poultry Value Chain, Nathan Associates Inc. Vangen, S., Huxham, C., 2003. Enacting leadership for collaborative advantage: dilemmas of ideology and pragmatism in the

activities of partnership managers. British Journal of Management 14 (Suppl. 1), S61–S76 Verschuren, P. J. M. (1991). Structurele modellen tussen theorie en praktijk (structural models between theory and practice),

Meppel: Het Spectrum Vining, A. & Globerman, S. (1999), A conceptual framework for understanding the outsourcing decision. European Management

Journal, 17(6), 645-754. Weleschuk, I.T. and Kerr, W.A. (1995). The Sharing of Risks and Returns in Prairie Special Crops: A Transaction Cost Approach.

Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics, 43, 237- 258 Westen, D., & Rosenthal, R. (2003). Quantifying construct validity: two simple measures. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 84(3), 608-618. Westen, D., & Rosenthal, R. (2003). Quantifying construct validity: two simple measures. Journal of personality and social

psychology, 84(3), 608. Wever, M., Wognum, N., Trienekens, J., & Omta, O. (2010). Alignment between chain quality management and chain governance

in EU pork supply chains: A Transaction-Cost-Economics perspective. Meat science, 84(2), 228-237. Wheaton, B., Muthen, B., Alwin, D. F., & Summers, G. F. (1977). Assessing reliability and stability in panel models. Sociological

methodology, 8(1), 84-136 Wijayanto, S. H. (2008). Structural equation modelling dengan LISREL 8.8: konsep dan tutorial, Yogyakarta, Indonesia: Graha

Ilmu, Yogyakarta. Williamson, O. E. (1975). Markets and Hierarchies: Analysis and Antitrust Implications. New York: Free Press Williamson, O.E. (1979). Transaction-cost economics: the governance of contractual relations. The journal of law &

economics, 22(2), 233-261. Williamson, O.E. (1981). The economics of organization: the transaction cost approach. American Journal of Sociology, 87, 548–

577. Williamson, O.E. (1985). The economic institutions of capitalism: Firms, markets, relational contracting. New York: Free Press. Williamson, O.E. (1989). Transaction cost economics. In: R. Schmanlensee & R. Willig (eds.), Handbook of Industrial

Organization, Vol. 1, 136-82, Amsterdam: Elsevier Science. Williamson, O.E. (1991). Comparative economic organization: The analysis of discrete structural alternatives. Administrative

science quarterly, 269-296. Williamson, O.E. (1993). Transaction cost economics and organization theory. Industrial and corporate change, 2(2), 107-156. Williamson, O.E. (1994). Transaction cost economics and organization theory. Organization theory: from Chester Barnard to the

present and beyond, 207-256. Williamson, O.E. (1996). Economics and organization: A primer. California Management Review, 38(2), 131-146. Zineldin, M. A. (1998). Towards an ecological collaborative relationship management A. European Journal of Marketing, 32(11-

12), 1138-1164.

08/03/2019 Gmail - Final Refereeing Decision IJSTM_157912


aries susanty <[email protected]>

Final Refereeing Decision IJSTM_157912 6 messages

Inderscience Online <[email protected]> Thu, May 25, 2017 at 5:21 PMReply-To: Inderscience Online <[email protected]>, Submissions Manager<[email protected]>To: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], Editor<[email protected]>, Handling Editor <[email protected]>

Dear Aries Susanty, Ahmad Syamil, Hery Suliantoro, Evelin Siburian, Ref: IJSTM-157912 Submission "AN EMPIRICAL STUDY OF THE ANTECEDENT FACTORS AFFECTINGGOVERNANCE STRUCTURE CHOICE IN THE SUPPLY CHAIN OF BROILER CHICKENS IN CENTRAL JAVA,INDONESIA" Congratulations, your above mentioned submitted article has been refereed and accepted for publication in theInternational Journal of Services Technology and Management. The paper is accepted providing that the text andEnglish language in the revised paper must be checked, edited and corrected by authors preferably by a nativeEnglish speaker. The acceptance of your article for publication in the journal reflects the high status of your work byyour fellow professionals in the field. You need now to login at http://www.inderscience.com/login.php and go to http://www.inderscience.com/ospeers/admin/author/articlelist.php to find your submission and complete the following tasks: 1. Save the "Editor's post-review version" on your local disk so you can edit it. If the file is in PDF format and youcannot edit it, use instead your last MS Word revised version, making sure to include there all the reviewrecommendations made during the review process. Rename the new file to "authorFinalVersion." 2. Open the "authorFinalVersion" file and remove your reply or any response to reviewers that you might have in thefront of your article. 3. Restore the author's identification, such as names, email addresses, mailing addresses and biographicalstatements in the first page of your local file "authorFinalVersion." 4. IMPORTANT: The paper is accepted providing that you, the author, check, edit and correct the English language inthe paper. Please proofread all the text and make sure to correct any grammar and spelling mistakes. 5. Save your changes in the file "authorFinalVersion" and use the "Browse…" and "Upload" buttons to upload the fileon our online system. 6. Click on "Update Metadata" to correct the title, abstract and keywords according the recommendations receivedfrom the Editor. You must make sure that the title, abstract and keywords are totally free of English Spelling andGrammar errors. Do not forget to click the "Update" button to save your changes. 7. Once you have updated the metadata, check the box "Yes." 8. Upload a zipped file with the Copyright Agreement forms signed by each author. We need a signed authoragreement form for every author and every co-author. Please insert the full names of all authors, reflecting the nameorder given in the article. 9. To see a sample of real articles that have been published in the International Journal of Services Technology andManagement visit http://www.inderscience.com/info/ingeneral/sample.php?jcode=ijstm. Finally click on the "Notify Editor" button to let the editor know that you have completed the six tasks. Your continuing help and cooperation is most appreciated. Best regards, Dr. Benny Tjahjono, Guest Editor International Journal of Services Technology and Management [email protected]

http://www.inderscience.com/login.php

http://www.inderscience.com/ospeers/admin/author/articlelist.php

http://www.inderscience.com/info/ingeneral/sample.php?jcode=ijstm




aries susanty <[email protected]> Thu, Jun 1, 2017 at 9:33 AMTo: Inderscience Online <[email protected]>, Submissions Manager <[email protected]>,[email protected], "Tjahjono, Benny" <[email protected]>, Ahmad Syamil <[email protected]>

Dear Dr. Benny Tjahono I try to upload the copyright in compressed file (zip file) but always fails.Maybe you give me any suggestion? Thank you very much for your kindness and attention best regardsAries [Quoted text hidden]

Copyright Agreement forms.zip 14565K

aries susanty <[email protected]> Thu, Jun 1, 2017 at 9:36 AMTo: Ahmad Syamil <[email protected]>

Assalamualaikum wr wb mungkin bisa bantu untuk upload yang copyrightgagal melulu neh username ariessusantypassword safira1004[Quoted text hidden]

Copyright Agreement forms.zip 14565K

Tjahjono, Benny <[email protected]> Thu, Jun 1, 2017 at 9:03 PMTo: aries susanty <[email protected]>Cc: Ahmad Syamil <[email protected]>

Dear Aries,

Have you considered reducing the resolution of the scanned files hence the zip file?

Regards,

Benny

From: aries susanty [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 01 June 2017 03:34 To: Inderscience Online; Submissions Manager; [email protected]; Tjahjono, Benny; Ahmad Syamil Subject: Re: Final Refereeing Decision IJSTM_157912

Dear Dr. Benny Tjahono

[Quoted text hidden][Quoted text hidden]

aries susanty <[email protected]> Thu, Jun 1, 2017 at 9:46 PMTo: "Tjahjono, Benny" <[email protected]>

Ok..

https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0?ui=2&ik=1b72e64c13&view=att&th=15c61807383094a7&attid=0.1&disp=attd&realattid=f_j3dsyvzj0&safe=1&zw

https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0?ui=2&ik=1b72e64c13&view=att&th=15c6182c5b69a757&attid=0.1&disp=attd&realattid=f_j3dsyvzj0&safe=1&zw





I will try it and let you the result Thanks for attentionRegardsAries[Quoted text hidden]

aries susanty <[email protected]> Fri, Jun 2, 2017 at 8:17 AMTo: "Tjahjono, Benny" <[email protected]>

Dear Dr Benny As your suggestion, I try to compress in the smaller size But, it does not work. Can I submit the copyright form manually. By email? regards aries [Quoted text hidden]

AMENDMENTS TO PROOF JOURNAL: Int. J. Services Technology and Management AUTHORS NAME: Aries Susanty, Hery Suliantoro, Eveline Siburian, Ahmad Syamil PAPER TITLE: Governance structure choice in the supply chain of broiler chickens: an empirical study in Central Java, Indonesia

Page No.

Section Paragraph Line No.

Delete Add/amend

2 Biographical notes Ahmad Syamil is the Dean of Master of Management Programs, Bina Nusantara University, Jakarta, Indonesia. Previously, he was an Associate Professor at College of Business, Arkansas State University, State University, Arkansas, USA. He received his bachelor degree in mechanical engineering from Bandung Institute of Technology, Indonesia, MBA from the University of Houston, USA and PhD in Manufacturing Management from the University of Toledo, Ohio, USA. Dr. Syamil has presented his papers nationally and internationally as well as published extensively in various journals.

2 Previous version of the paper

This paper is a revised and expanded version of a paper entitled [title] presented at [name, location and date of conference]. (no previous version of the paper, please deleted)

6 1. Introduction Add in reference Soedjana, T.D. (1999) ‘International trade in livestock, livestock products and livestock inputs’, in Riethmuller, P. et al (Eds.), Livestock Industries of Indonesia prior to the Asian Financial Crisis, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific, Bangkok, Thailand, pp.99–114

16 4.2.2.CMV test (Shu et al., 2015). Shu and Quynh (2015).

23 4.5 Hypothesis test 3 (Jaakko, 2015). (Oittinen,2015)

Reference Add in reference Oittinen, J. (2015) Outsourcing at the edge of chaos: why transaction cost economics fails under complexity. Unpublished Master thesis, Aato University, Greater Helsinki, Finland.

25 Reference 1 Anderson, C.M. (1993) Willingness to Collaborate as a New Communication Trait: Scale Development and a Predictive Model of Related Communication Traits

Anderson, C.M. (1993). (2000) ‘Willingness to Collaborate as a New Communication Trait: Scale Development and a Predictive Model of Related Communication Traits’. Paper Presented at the Joint Meeting of the Southern States Communication Association and the Central States Communication Association. 14-18 April 1993. Lexington, Kentucky

25 Reference 3 Bagozzi, R.P. and Yi, Y. (1988) ‘On the evaluation of structural equation models’, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 16, No. 1, pp.74–94.

25 Reference 7 Bentler, P.M. (1990) ‘Comparative fit indices in structural models’, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 107, No.2, pp.238–246, Doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.107.2.238.

26 Reference 9 Costales, A. and Catelo, M.A.O. (2008) Contract Farming as an Institution for Integrating Rural Smallholders in Markets for Livestock Products in Developing Countries: (I) Framework and Applications, Pro-Poor Livestock Policy Initiative

Page No.


Delete Add/amend

(PPLPI) Research Report (FAO).

26 Reference 12 Denolf, J.M., Trienekens, J.H., Van der Vorst, J.G.A.J. and Omta, S.W.F. (2015) ‘The role of governance structures in supply chain information sharing’, Journal on Chain and Network Science, Vol. 15, No. 1, pp.83–99.

26 Reference 14 Dolci, P.C., Maçada, A.C.G.C. and Grant, G.G. (2013) ‘Information technology and supply chain governance: a conceptual model’, Information Technology, Vol. 7, pp.1–2013

Dolci, P.C., Maçada, A.C.G.C. and Grant, G.G. (2013), ‘Information technology and supply chain governance: a conceptual mode’ in ECIS 2013: Proceedings of the 21st European Conference on Information Systems, Utrecht University, Utrecht, Netherland, pp. 1-12.

26 Reference 18 Dyer, J.H. (2000) Collaborative Advantage: Winning through Extended Enterprise Supplier Networks, Oxford University Press, Oxford.

27 Reference 1 Erramilli, M.K. and Rao, C.P. (1993) ‘Service firms’ international entry-mode choice: a modified transaction-cost analysis approach’, The Journal of Marketing, Vol.57, No.3, pp.19–38.

27 Reference 2 Ferguson, S.M. (2004) The Economics of Vertical Coordination in the Organic Wheat Supply Chain, Doctoral dissertation, University of Saskatchewan

Ferguson, S. (2004). The Economics of Vertical Coordination in the Organic Wheat Supply Chain. Unpublished thesis. University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Canada

27 Reference 5 Garson, G.D. (2013) Generalized Linear Models/Generalized Estimating Equations, 2013 ed., Statistical Associates Publishers, Asheboro, NC

27 Reference 6 Gefen, D., Straub, D. and Boudreau, M.C. (2000) ‘Structural equation modeling and regression: guidelines for research practice’, Communications of the Association for Information Systems, Vol. 4, No. 1, p.7.

27 Reference 17 Jap, S.D. (1999) ‘Pie-expansion efforts: collaboration processes in buyer-supplier relationships’, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 36, No. 4, pp.461–475

27 Reference 19 Ji, C., de Felipe, I., Briz, J. and Trienekens, J.H. (2012) ‘An empirical study on governance structure choices in Chinas pork supply chain’, International Food and Agribusiness Management Review., Vol. 15, No.2, pp.121–152.

27 Reference 20 Jöreskog, K.G. (1999) How Large Can a Standardized Coefficient Be, Unpublished Technical Report [online] http://www.ssicentral.com/lisrel/techdocs/ HowLargeCanaStandardizedCoefficientbe.pdf. (Accessed 15 July 2016).

27 Reference 21 Jöreskog, K.G. and Sörbom, D. (1993) LISREL 8: Structural Equation Modeling with the SIMPLIS Command Language, Scientific Software International, Chicago, Illinois

28 Reference 7 Kinsey, J. (2002) The Supply Chain of Pork: US and China, Vol. 2, No. 1, Food Industry Center, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota

28 Reference 11 Kumar, N., Scheer, L.K. and Steenkamp, J.B.E. (1995) ‘The effects of supplier fairness on vulnerable resellers’, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 32, No. 1, pp.54–65.

28 Reference 18 Marsh, H.W., Hau, K.T. and Wen, Z. (2004) ‘In search of golden rules: comment on hypothesis-testing approaches to setting cutoff values for fit indexes and

http://www.ssicentral.com/lisrel/techdocs/

Page No.


Delete Add/amend

dangers in overgeneralizing Hu and Bentler’s (1999) findings’, Structural Equation Modeling, Vol. 11,No.3,

pp.320–341. 28 Reference 20 Mighell, R.L. and Jones,

L.A. (1963) Vertical Coordination in Agriculture.

Mighell, R.L. and Jones, L.A. (1963) Vertical Coordination in Agriculture, Agricultural Economic

Report No.19, Economic Division of Economic Research Service, USDA, Washington, DC.

29 Reference 5 Nicholson, C. and Young, B. (2012) ‘The relationship between supermarkets and suppliers: what are the implications for consumers?’, Consumers International, Vol. 1, p.7.

Nicholson, C. and Young, B. (2012) The relationship between supermarkets and suppliers: what are the implications for consumers?, Summary of the Main Report, Consumers International and Europe Economics.

29 Reference 6 Noordewier, T.G., John, G. and Nevin, J.R. (1990) ‘Performance outcomes of purchasing arrangements in industrial buyer-vendor relationships’, The Journal of Marketing, Vol. 54, No. 4, pp.80–93.

29 Reference 9 Oktavera, R. and Andajani, E. (2013) Implementation of Value Chain Analysis in the Broiler Supply Chain Agribusiness.

Oktavera, R. and Andajani, E. (2013), ‘Implementation of Value Chain Analysis in the Broiler Supply Chain Agribusiness’ in Proceedings of the 10th International Annual Symposium On Management, Surabaya University, Surabaya, Indonesia, pp. 1268-1279.

29 Reference 10 Peterson, H.C. and Wysocki, A.F. (1997) The Vertical Coordination Continuum and the Determinants of Firm-Level Coordination Strategy, No. 11817, Michigan State University, Department of Agricultural, Food, and Resource Economics

Peterson, H.C. and Wysocki, A.F. (1997) The Vertical Coordination Continuum and the Determinants of Firm-Level Coordination Strategy, Staff Paper, No. 11817, Department of Agricultural, Food, and Resource Economics, Michigan State University, Michigan, United States

29 Reference 12 Promsivapallop, P. (2009) A Critical Evaluation of Transaction Cost Economics Applied to Outsourcing in the Hotel Industry in Thailand, Doctoral dissertation, University of Surrey, United Kingdom

29 Reference 16 Rindfleisch, A. and Heide, J.B. (1997) ‘Transaction cost analysis: past, present, and future applications’, The Journal of Marketing, Vol. 61, No.4, pp.30–54.

30 Reference 1 Suh, T. and Kwon, I.W.G. (2006) ‘Matter over mind: When specific asset investment affects calculative trust in supply chain partnership’, Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 35, No. 2, pp.191–201.

30 Reference 2 Sujatanond, S. Tibkaew, A.P. and Pramojanee, P. (2013) ‘Consequences of the ASEAN Economic Community (AEC) on Thailand Agricultural situation and food security of Southern Thailand’, GMSARN International Journal, Vol. 7, No. 4, pp.139–144.

30 Reference 3 Sumiarto, B. and Arifin, B. (2008) Overview on Poultry Sector and HPAI Situation for Indonesia with Special Emphasis on the Island of Java-Background Paper, Manuscript submitted for publication, Royal Veterinary College [online] http://www.ifpri.org/publication/ overviewpoultry-sector-and-hpai-situationindonesia-

special-emphasis-island-java. (Accessed 15 July 2016).

30 Reference 6 Thompson, L. and Hastie, R. (1990) ‘Social perception in negotiation’, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 47, No. 1, pp.98–123.

30 Reference 9 United States Agency for International Development (USAID) (2013) Indonesia s Poultry Value Chain, Nathan Associates Inc., United States

30 Reference 13 Weleschuk, I.T. and Kerr, W.A. (1995) ‘The sharing of risks and returns in prairie special crops: a transaction cost approach’, Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics, Vol. 43, No.2, pp.237–258.

30 Reference 20 Williamson, O.E. (1981) ‘The economics of

http://www.ifpri.org/publication/

Page No.


Delete Add/amend

organization: the transaction cost approach’, American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 87, No.3, pp.548–577

31 Reference 2 Williamson, O.E. (1991) ‘Comparative economic organization: the analysis of discrete structural alternatives’, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol.36, No.2, pp.269–296

31 Reference 4 Williamson, O.E. (1994) ‘Transaction cost economics and organization theory’, Organization Theory: From Chester Barnard to the Present and Beyond, pp.207–256.

31 Reference 5 Williamson, O.E. (1996) ‘Economics and organization: a primer’, California Management Review, Vol. 38, No. 2, pp.131–146