Chapter V

RESPONDENT’S PERSONAL CHARACTERISTICS

Data obtained from the respondents were analyzed using univariate and bivariate techniques. Separate analyses were performed on subsample data. There were six subgroups as follows:

1. Transportation,

2. Retailer and Distributor,

3. Wholesaler and Supplier/Manufacturer,

4. Health Care,

5. VAN Service Provider, and

6. State or Government agency.

The differences among these groups were also examined. The results of the analyses are summarized in this chapter

Demographic Characteristics

Demographic characteristics include sex, age, status, education attainment, major of the study, type of organization, type of business, work position, salary, how respondents involve EDI, total experience of respondents counting in number of years, experience of the current function counting in years, and number of hours working a day. For education attainment, work position, and how respondents involve EDI, dummy variables will be used to elaborate the details of the content under the mentioned variables as shown in Table 5.1. For example, EDU1 describes highest educational attainment such that 1 = lower than high school and 2 = otherwise. EDU2 describes highest educational attainment such that 1 = high school and 2 = otherwise so on and so forth. For work position, only division manager and higher will be of interest to stress support from management. How respondents involve EDI also uses dummy variable to separate each responsibility. Table 5.1 lists bio-data variables in the multiple regression in the path analysis and level of measurement.

Table 5.1 Description and Level of Measurement of Bio-Data Variables

Variable	Description	Measurement Level
SEX	Gender of the respondent	1=Male 2=Female
AGE	Age of the respondent	Ratio
STATUS	Marital status of the respondent	1=Single 2=Mrarried 3=Divorced 4=Separated 5=Others
EDU1	Highest educational attainment	1=Lower than high school 0=Otherwise
EDU2	Highest educational attainment	1=High school 0=Otherwise
EDU3	Highest educational attainment	1=College 0=Otherwise
EDU4	Highest educational attainment	1=Master’s degree 0=Otherwise
EDU5	Highest educational attainment	1=Doctorate 0=Otherwise
MAJ	Major subject of the respondent
ORG	Type of organization of the respondent	1=Government 2=State enterprise 3=Private 4=Others
BUS_TYPE	Type of business of the respondent	1= Transportation/Freight forwarder/Custom broker/Importer/Exporter/Maritime/Transportation liner/Transportation agency/Trailer 2=Retailer/Distributor 3=Wholesaler/Supplier/Manufacturer 4=Health care 5=VAN 6=Airline/State agency 7=Others
POS_DUMMY	Highest position held of the respondent	1=Division manager and up 0=Otherwise
SAL	Salary of the respondent	1=Less than 5,000 2=5,000-10,000 3=10,001-20,000 4=20,001-30,000 5=30,001-40,000 6=40,001-50,000 7=Greater than 50,000
INV1NUM	How the respondent involve EDI	1=EDI developer 0=Otherwise
INV2NUM	How the respondent involve EDI	1=EDI users 0=Otherwise
INV3NUM	How the respondent involve EDI	1=EDI project leader 0=Otherwise
INV4NUM	How the respondent involve EDI	1=Management 0=Otherwise
INV5NUM	How the respondent involve EDI	1=Coordinator 0=Otherwise
INV6NUM	How the respondent involve EDI	1=Operation 0=Otherwise
INV7NUM	How the respondent involve EDI	1=EDI system monitor 0=Otherwise
EXPALL	All experience of the respondent (years)	Ratio
EXPFN	Experience of the respondent in current function (years)	Ratio
HRS	Average working hours	Ratio

Sex of the Total Sample contains almost equal between male and female. The number of male is slightly more than female (Table 5.2). However, only for the Retailer subgroup that the number of female is just two more than male.

The age structure shows that most of the respondents are between 21 to 30 account for 43 percent. Another 40 percent are between 31 to 40 years old. Respondents’ 41 years old or older account for only 16 percent. Only 2 respondents are less than 21 years old. As shown in Table 5.2, the age distribution among these groups holds the same pattern; that is, age clustering is within 21-40 years old. This shows that staffs who work with new technology are young and able to adapt to new comings. However, young employees cannot work by themselves. They need support and guideline from upper level. Therefore, a few numbers of older staff with high position also involve EDI.

The average age is around 33 years old for all groups except for State Agency where its average age is 35.5 years old, a little bit higher than other groups. This indicates that State Agency has older staff working with new technology.

Table 5.2 Demographic Characteristics of Respondents by Business Type

Socio-Demographic

Characteristics

Total Sample

(N=109)

Transportation

(N=43)

Retailer

(N=26)

Supplier

(N=25)

Health Care

(N=1)

VAN

(N=6)

State Agency

(N=8)

c2

(P-Value)

GENDER

9.804

(.458)

Male

66

31

12

15

-

3

5

Female

43

12

14

10

1

3

3

AGE

16.994

(.653)

Less than 21

2

2

-

-

-

-

-

21-30

46

16

14

9

1

4

2

31-40

43

15

10

12

-

2

4

41-50

16

10

1

3

-

-

2

51-60

1

-

1

-

-

-

-

61 and over

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Mean (years)

32.82

33.49

31.69

32.70

30.00

30.33

35.50

Standard deviation

6.80

7.87

6.69

5.77

-

4.72

5.24

Marital

Status

5.866

(.826)

Single

58

23

15

12

1

4

3

Married

51

20

11

13

-

2

5

Divorced

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Separated

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Education

Attainment

24.049

(.240)

Less than high-school

1

1

High-school

7

6

1

Bachelor’s degree

76

29

21

16

-

3

7

Master’s degree

22

6

2

9

1

3

1

Doctorate

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Others

4

1

2

1

Work Position

79.698

(.000)

General staff

50

23

11

8

1

4

3

Supervisor

18

6

4

7

-

4

1

Division manager

21

9

6

4

-

-

2

Department manager

6

2

2

2

-

-

-

Director

5

-

-

5

-

-

-

Over director

3

1

-

-

-

2

-

Technician

2

-

-

-

-

-

2

Others

4

2

2

-

-

-

-

Income

49.761

(.013)

Less than 5,000

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

5,000-10,000

24

9

9

3

-

-

3

10,001-20,000

28

18

4

3

-

-

3

20,001-30,000

11

6

3

2

-

-

-

30,001-40,000

14

4

3

4

1

1

1

40,001-50,000

6

2

1

3

-

-

-

Over 50,000

13

4

3

3

-

2

1

Most of the Total Sample completed Bachelor’s degree. This is accounted for 69 percent (Table 5.2). Master’s degree is ranked the second. These numbers make no difference among these subgroups which means that each subgroup has similar education staff.

The work position of total sample and each group contain similar distribution structure (Table 5.2). Most of staffs are general staff. Number of division managers involving EDI is more than number of supervisors except Supplier group.

The income distribution of total sample and each group are the same. The majority has income between 10,001 and 20,000 (Table 5.2). Sample with income between 5,000 and 10,000 occupies the second most number. The minority has high income.

The respondents’ job title may not be mutually exclusive. For example, they can be both EDI project leader and coordinator etc. Therefore, the number of total respondents classified by job title are greater than the number of total respondents. The job title Figure is shown in Table 5.3. The sample consists of 58 EDI users, 28 coordinators, 25 system monitors, 15 project leaders, 14 developers, 8 management, 8 operation, and 3 job title holders.

Overall EDI Satisfaction

After EDI has been implemented, there may be several dimensions including both positive and negative impacts. However, to continue implementing EDI for best benefits, impact evaluation should be assessed. Finally, there may be slightly negative impacts but if stakeholders can accept that with certain satisfaction, the problems should be lessen. Therefore, impact evaluation is mainly measured by overall EDI satisfaction.

EDI satisfaction index is ranging from zero to ten. Table 5.3 shows the index score and meaning. The respondents were asked to score for overall EDI satisfaction.

Table 5.3 Index Score and Meaning

Index Score	Meaning
0.00-1.00	Completely dissatisfied
1.01-2.00	Dissatisfied
2.01-3.00	Rather slightly dissatisfied
3.01-4.00	Slightly dissatisfied
4.01-5.00	Neutral
5.01-6.00	Acceptable
6.01-7.00	Slightly satisfied
7.01-8.00	Rather slightly satisfied
8.01-9.00	Satisfied
9.01-10.00	Completely satisfied

Respondents with different personal characteristics are examined for their disparity in the level of overall EDI satisfaction. The analyses of variance and multiple comparison tests were undertaken to determine if any significant disparity exists between any subgroups. The results are summarized in Table 5.4.

Differences in EDI satisfaction of respondents who are different in their demographic characteristics such as gender, age, position, income, and type of business are not found to be statistically significant. Total samples show that they are slightly satisfied with EDI.

Table 5.4 Means and Standard Deviations of Measurement of EDI Satisfaction Variables Classified by Selected Demographic Characteristics

Socio-economic Characteristic	N	Mean	Standard Deviation	F (P-value)
Total Sample	83	6.93	2.35
Gender				0.761
Male	54	7.09	2.57	(0.386)
Female	29	6.62	1.86

Age				0.065
20 and less	2	7.50	3.54	(0.978)
21-30	36	6.89	2.35
31-40	32	7.03	2.12
41-50	12	6.83	3.04

Position				.615
General staff	36	6.86	2.39	(.762)
Supervisor	14	6.93	2.34
Division Manager	15	6.67	2.69
Department Manager	6	6.83	2.56
Director	3	5.67	1.15
Vice President	3	7.67	2.52
Technician/Practitioner	2	8.00	-
Others	3	9.33	1.15

Income				1.32
Less than 5,000	-	-	-	(0.258)
5,000-10,000	20	6.80	2.46
10,001-20,000	23	7.17	1.87
20,001-30,000	9	6.44	2.40
30,001-40,000	10	5.70	2.41
40,001-50,000	6	5.33	3.20
Greater than 50,000	11	6.55	2.32

Type of Business				1.387
Transportation	36	7.53	2.25	(0.238)
Retailer	19	6.63	1.86
Supplier	17	6.29	2.57
Health Care	1	3.00	-
VAN	4	7.00	1.83
Government Agency	6	6.67	3.44

Male respondents are more likely to be more satisfied than female respondents. The youngest group of sample tends to be more satisfied with EDI than others. Age between 21 and 30 and age between 41 and 50 have similar level of EDI satisfaction, which is slightly satisfied. Different positions held do not make significantly difference on EDI satisfaction. Staffs ranging from general staff to department manager are at level of slightly satisfaction. Top management, technician, and others are satisfied or even completely satisfied while director level is only acceptable. Different incomes make little differences and not significantly. The level of satisfaction is ranging from acceptable to rather slightly satisfied. Differences of business types mostly cause level of satisfaction to be different because the health care group level of satisfaction is slightly dissatisfied. Other subgroups have similar levels which are slightly satisfied and rather slightly satisfied.

In general, every group tends to have positive level of EDI satisfaction ranging from acceptable to completely satisfied except for heath care group. However, there is only 1 representative respondent from health care which may be unjustified.

Policy Satisfaction

Since EDI is implemented according to the government idea, policy is where EDI rooted from. Respondents with different personal characteristics such as gender, age, position, income, and type of business are not found to be statistically significant on policy satisfaction. Table 5.5 shows that the respondents are slightly satisfied with EDI policy. Male respondents are more likely to have more satisfaction than female respondents. Each subgroup with different education attainment maintains similar level of policy satisfaction which are slightly satisfied and rather slightly satisfied. The respondent who has the lowest education attainment is completely satisfied with policy. However, there is only 1 representative for this subgroup. Therefore, it is unjustified. Government and state enterprise agencies are more satisfied than private organizations. Level of policy satisfaction for each subgroup is very similar to level of EDI satisfaction except the means of each subgroup under income. Level of policy satisfaction of every subgroup under each socio-economic characteristics ranges from acceptable to completely satisfied.

Table 5.5 Description and Level of Measurement of Policy Satisfaction Variables

Socio-economic Characteristic

N

Mean

Standard Deviation

F (P-value)

Total Sample

83

6.93

2.35

Gender

.761

Male

54

7.09

2.57

(.386)

Female

29

6.62

2.35

Education

.777

Lower than high school

1

10

-

(.544)

High school

6

7.33

3.01

Greater than high school-Bachelor

57

7.00

2.34

Greater than Bachelor-Master

15

6.27

2.22

Greater than Master-Doctorate

-

-

-

Others

4

7.00

2.16

Type of Organization

0.147

Government agency

5

7.40

1.52

(.864)

State enterprise

8

7.13

3.31

Private organization

70

6.87

2.30

Type of Business

1.387

Transportation

36

7.53

2.25

(.238)

Retailer

19

6.63

1.86

Supplier

17

6.29

2.57

Health Care

1

3.00

-

VAN

4

7.00

1.83

Government Agency

6

6.67

3.44

Others

-

-

-

Position

0.615

General staff

36

6.86

2.39

(.762)

Supervisor

14

6.93

2.34

Division Manager

15

6.67

2.69

Department Manager

6

6.83

2.56

Table 5.5 (Continued)

Director

3

5.67

1.15

Vice President

3

7.67

2.52

Technician/Practitioner

2

8.00

0.00

Others

3

9.33

1.15

Income

1.458

Less than 5,000

-

-

-

(.204)

5,000-10,000

20

6.85

2.76

10,001-20,000

23

7.48

1.56

20,001-30,000

9

7.33

2.55

30,001-40,000

9

6.22

2.99

40,001-50,000

4

5.00

3.83

Greater than 50,000

10

7.80

1.62

Satisfaction Domains

Overall of the picture, stakeholders’ satisfactions with various domains ranging from neutral to satisfied. On average respondents are less satisfied with EDI law. The level of law satisfaction is only acceptable. They are most satisfied with intra-organization cooperation. The second top of domain satisfaction is policy satisfaction. The respondents think that EDI is acceptable for users.

Means and distribution of respondents are also separated by subgroups which are Transportation, Retailer, Supplier, Health Care, VAN, and State Agency. The first four subgroups are treated as the groups who implement or use EDI while the two last subgroups are the organization who supports EDI. Therefore, in this study, those four subgroups will be more concerned.

It is confident to confirm that intra-organization cooperation is the most satisfaction of every subsample except for retailer group. Nevertheless, the retailer group rates the level of satisfaction of intra-organization cooperation in the range of slightly rather satisfied whereas health care group rates this domain satisfaction to be satisfied.

Respondents are slightly satisfied with EDI. Especially, VAN and State Agency groups are more satisfied with EDI than other groups. In the EDI users’ point of view, EDI is only acceptable for most of subgroups except for the Retailer group where its EDI users are slightly satisfied.

On the average, the respondents are slightly satisfied with management support. But for the retailer group, they are satisfied with management support. As mentioned before about the level of law satisfaction, EDI for most of subgroups are only acceptable. It is worse for the Supplier group because their feeling about EDI is just neutral.

Table 5.6 Means and Distributions of Respondents by Level of Domain Satisfactions, Total Sample, and Shipping Agency, Retailer, Supplier, Health Care, VAN, State Agency Subgroups

Completely Dissatisfied										Completely Satisfied
Domain	0	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	Total	Means	N
All Types of Business
Policy Satisfaction	1	-	4	3	1	14	11	11	16	7	15	75.5%	6.93	83
Law Satisfaction	3	2	5	3	4	22	12	10	3	2	1	60.9%	5.09	67
Inter-organization cooperation satisfaction	1	-	7	5	4	16	11	15	12	7	4	74.5%	6.04	82
Intra-organization cooperation satisfaction	1	-	1	-	1	13	7	15	20	11	25	85.5%	7.73	94
Management Support	-	-	1	-	-	1	-	2	3	1	-	100%	6.75	8
User Satisfaction	2	-	4	3	1	9	9	6	10	3	1	82.8%	5.81	48
EDI Success	2	1	5	4	8	15	15	17	13	3	11	85.5%	6.17	94

Overall EDI Satisfaction	1	1	3	5	4	16	15	10	16	5	11	79.1%	6.45	87

Transportation
Policy Satisfaction	-	-	2	1	-	3	4	5	8	4	9	83.7%	7.53	36
Law Satisfaction	2	1	2	1	3	10	5	5	3	1	-	76.7%	5.09	33
Inter-organization cooperation satisfaction	1	-	2	1	2	5	7	8	4	6	1	86.0%	6.32	37
Intra-organization cooperation satisfaction	-	-	-	-	-	6	5	4	6	3	12	83.7%	7.86	36
Management Support	-	-	-	-	-	1	-	1	1	-	-	100%	6.67	3
User Satisfaction	2	-	1	3	1	3	3	3	3	1	1	84%	5.33	21
EDI Success	2	1	-	1	3	4	9	7	3	1	6	86%	6.27	37

Overall EDI Satisfaction	1	-	1	3	3	5	7	3	6	2	4	81.4%	6.20	35

Retailer
Policy Satisfaction	-	-	-	1	-	5	4	3	3	1	2	73.1%	6.63	19
Law Satisfaction	-	-	-	1	1	3	3	2	-	-	1	42.3%	5.82	11
Inter-organization cooperation satisfaction	-	-	1	1	1	2	3	1	7	1	1	69.2%	6.61	18
Intra-organization cooperation satisfaction	-	-	-	-	-	1	2	5	10	3	4	96.2%	7.96	25
Management Support	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	2	-	-	100%	8.00	2
User Satisfaction	-	-	-	-	-	4	5	1	5	1	-	94.1%	6.63	16
EDI Success	-	-	1	2	1	6	1	5	6	1	3	100%	6.54	26

Overall EDI Satisfaction	-	-	-	1	-	6	3	4	3	1	4	84.6%	6.91	22

Supplier
Policy Satisfaction	-	-	2	-	1	5	2	1	2	1	3	65.4%	6.29	17
Law Satisfaction	1	1	1	-	-	4	4	1	-	1	-	50%	4.85	13
Inter-organization cooperation satisfaction	-	-	2	1	1	4	1	3	1	-	2	57.7%	5.73	15
Intra-organization cooperation satisfaction	1	-	1	-	1	3	-	5	2	4	5	84.6%	7.18	22
Management Support	-	-	1	-	-	1	-	1	-	-	-	100%	6.00	3
User Satisfaction	-	-	2	-	-	1	1	2	1	1	-	66.7%	5.75	8
EDI Success	-	-	2	-	4	2	5	3	2	1	1	76.9%	5.80	20

Overall EDI Satisfaction	-	-	2	1	1	4	4	1	5	1	1	76.9%	6.05	20

Health Care
Policy Satisfaction	-	-	-	1	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	100%	3.00	1
Law Satisfaction	-	-	-	1	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	100%	3.00	1
Inter-organization cooperation satisfaction	-	-	-	1	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	100%	3.00	1
Intra-organization cooperation satisfaction	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	1	-	-	100%	8.00	1
Management Support	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
User Satisfaction	-	-	1	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	100%	2.00	1
EDI Success	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	1	-	-	100%	8,00	1

Overall EDI Satisfaction	-	1	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	100%	1.00	1

VAN
Policy Satisfaction	-	-	-	-	-	1	1	-	1	1	-	66.7%	7.00	4
Law Satisfaction	-	-	1	-	-	1	-	1	-	-	-	50%	4.67	3
Inter-organization cooperation satisfaction	-	-	1	-	-	2	-	1	-	-	-	66.7%	4.75	4
Intra-organization cooperation satisfaction	-	-	-	-	-	1	-	-	-	1	2	66.7%	8.50	4
Management Support	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
User Satisfaction	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
EDI Success	-	-	1	-	-	2	-	1	-	-	-	66.7%	4.75	4

Overall EDI Satisfaction	-	-	-	-	-	-	1	1	-	1	1	66.7%	8.00	4

State Agency
Policy Satisfaction	1	-	-	-	-	-	-	2	2	-	1	75%	6.67	6
Law Satisfaction	-	-	1	-	-	4	-	1	-	-	-	75%	4.83	6
Inter-organization cooperation satisfaction	-	-	1	1	-	3	-	2	-	-	-	87.5%	4.86	7
Intra-organization cooperation satisfaction	-	-	-	-	-	2	-	1	1	-	2	75%	7.50	6
Management Support	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
User Satisfaction	-	-	1	-	-	1	-	-	1	-	-	66.7%	6.50	2
EDI Success	-	-	1	1	-	1	-	1	1	-	1	75%	5.83	6

Overall EDI Satisfaction	-	-	-	-	-	1	-	1	2	-	1	62.5%	7.60	5

In sum, the EDI delegates are more satisfied with domains that are concerned with cooperation (e.g., intra-organization cooperation, inter-organization cooperation, management support) and less satisfied with law. This is compatible with respondents’ interview.

Hosted by www.Geocities.ws