Regulative Intervention on the Relationship between Quality Management and Operational Performance of Third Party Port-Centric Logistics Firms in Kenya



Abstract Views
294

Downloads
289

Citations

Share

##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.sidebar##

Submitted Mar 22, 2022
Published Jun 29, 2022
10.24018/ejbmr.2022.7.3.1370

Abstract viewed = 294 times

Table of Contents

##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.main##

This research paper explores the effect of regulated environment under which third-party port-centric logistics (3PL) firms in Kenya operate by looking at the relationship between quality management and operational performance. The study tested the conceptual model of the relationship between quality management and operational performance variables. The objective of the study was to determine the effect of the regulative intervention on the relationship between customer orientation and operational performance of third party port-centric logistics firms in Kenya. Port-centric logistics services providers are highly regulated firms and therefore critical to find out the effect of this regulated context on the operational performance of these firms. The relationship between quality and operational performance has been tested and documented in numerous environments in varied studies. A survey design based on disproportionate-stratified sampling approach consisting of 164 firms (18% of the population) guided the methodology of this study. The sampled firms (164) were served with questionnaires and a response rate of 75.6% (124 firms) was achieved. Data analysis was carried out using moderated multiple regression (MMR) analysis where relationship between the quality and other variables and the dependent variable was computed. Test of internal consistency, validity test, reliability, and normality test, were conducted, all indicating appropriateness of data. The strength of the regression model was 53.6% (adjusted R2) which was considered good enough, appreciating the fact that operational performance is also affected by myriad factors outside the model. The null hypothesis (H0) was tested, and the results indicated that there was statistically significant evidence that regulative context affects the relationship between quality and operational performance. The results indicate that R = 0.709, R² = 0.502 and [F (2, 120) = 60.582, p = 0.000] with the value of R² showing that 60.582% of the variance in the third-party port-centric logistics firms’ performance can be accounted for by quality management scores and regulation and statistically significant. The results detected an R² change of 0.022, [F (1, 119) = 0.022, p = 0.022], indicating presence of moderation effect, in such levels that are statistically significant (p < 0.05). By inclusion of the moderator, regulation gained 2.2% variance in the operational performance generating a conclusion that regulation significantly moderates the relationship between quality management and operational performance. The study was a success and the goal was achieved with the findings critically providing baseline information and knowledge that will play a critical role in the research agenda in the area of lean and operational performance, particularly in service management. The study also provides fundamental information, knowledge, foundational anecdote and a platform from which research agenda and policy discussions can be referenced. The study recommends policy formulation that will support measures to boost operations and quality amongst 3PL firms towards continuous improvement and growth. The findings will essence inform and booster 3PL firms that are efficient, and effective emanating from superior operational performance. This will also benefit customers (importers and exporters), and the national economies within and without the east and central Africa region. The study recommends that 3PL firms, although sometimes affected negatively by regulatory frameworks, take it upon themselves to device smart interventions that will lead to efficient operations in order to compete and emerge victorious in operational excellence and outwit in the competitive battle.

Keywords: Lean, Operational Performance, Quality Management, Regulation, Third Party Logistics Service Providers

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

  1. Barney, M. B. (2000). Measuring Supply Chain Performance. International Journal of operations & Production Management, 19(3), 275–92.
     Google Scholar
  2. Beamon, B. M., Ware, T. M. (1998). A process quality model for the analysis, improvement and control of supply chain systems. Logistics Information Management, 11(2), 105–13.
     Google Scholar
  3. Bhasin, S. (2011). Performance of organisations treating lean as an ideology. Business Process Management Journal, 17(6), 986–1011.
     Google Scholar
  4. Bowersox, D. J., Carter, P. L., Monczka, P. (1985). Materials logistics management. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, 23(5), 46-51.
     Google Scholar
  5. Chang, C., Liao, G., Yu, X. & Ni, Z. (2014). Information from relationship lending: Evidence from loan default in China. Journal of Money, Credit and Banking, 46(6), 1225–1257.
     Google Scholar
  6. Chavez, R., Gimenez. C., Fynes. B., Wiengarten, F. & Wantao Yu (2013). Internal lean practices and operational performance: The contingency perspective of industry clockspeed. International Journal of Operations & Production Management. 33(5), 562–588.
     Google Scholar
  7. Choi, T.Y., Rungtusanatham, M. (1999). Comparisons of quality management practices: across the supply chain and industries. The Journal of Supply Chain Management, 35(1), 20–27.
     Google Scholar
  8. Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S. G. & Aiken, L. S. (2013). Applied Multiple Regression / Correlation Analysis for the Behavioral Science. Routledge, New York.
     Google Scholar
  9. Forker, L. B., Mendez, D., Herhauser, J. C. (1997). Total quality management in the supply chain: what is its impact on performance? International Journal of Production Research. 35(6), 1681–1701.
     Google Scholar
  10. Gunasekaran, A., Patel. A., & Mcgaughey, R. E. (2003). A framework for supply chain performance measurement. International Journal of Production Economics. 87(3), 333–347.
     Google Scholar
  11. Krafcik, J. F. (1998). Triumph of the lean production system. Sloan Management Review. 30(1), 41-52.
     Google Scholar
  12. Motwani, J. (2003). A business process change framework for examining lean manufacturing: a case study. Industrial Management & Data Systems. 103(5), 339–46.
     Google Scholar
  13. Ohno, T. (1988). Toyota Production System – Beyond Large Scale Production. Productivity Press. Cambridge. MA.
     Google Scholar
  14. Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Daniel, L. G. (2002). A framework for reporting and interpreting internal consistency reliability estimates. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 35(2), 89–103.
     Google Scholar
  15. Pallant, J. (2007). SPSS Survival Manual: A Step by Step Guide to Data Analysis using SPSS for Windows (3rd ed.). Open University Press.
     Google Scholar
  16. Papadopoulou, T. C. & Ozbayrak, M. (2005). Leanness: experiences from the journey to date. Management Journal, 16(7), 784–807.
     Google Scholar
  17. Paul, S. R., & Zhang, X. (2010). Testing for normality in linear regression models. Journal of Statistical Computation and Simulation, 80(10), 1101–1113.
     Google Scholar
  18. Park, H. M. (2008). Univariate Analysis and Normality Test Using SAS Stata and SPSS, A Working Paper. The University Information Technology Services (UITS) Center for Statistical and Mathematical Computing. Indiana University.
     Google Scholar
  19. Rahman, S. (2006). Quality management in logistics: an examination of industry practices. Supply Chain Management. An international Journal. 11(3), 233–40.
     Google Scholar
  20. Rahman, S., Laosirihongthong, T., & Sohal, A.S. (2010). Impact of lean strategy on operational performance: a study of Thai manufacturing companies. Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management. 21(7), 839 - 852.
     Google Scholar
  21. Rocha, R., Farazi, S., Khouri, R. & Pearce, D. (2011). The status of bank lending to SMES in the Middle East and North Africa region: the results of a joint survey of the Union of Arab Bank and the World Bank. Policy Research working paper; no. WPS 5607. Washington, DC: World Bank. ttp://documents.worldbank.org/ curated/ en/443431468046484153/ The-status-of-bank-lending-to-SMES-in-the-Middle-East-and-North-Africa-region-the-results-of-a-joint-survey-of-the-Union-of-Arab-Bank-and-the-World-Bank.
     Google Scholar
  22. Rotich, A., K. & Wanjau, K. (2016). The Effects of Relationship Banking and Entrepreneurial Orientation on Financial Performance of Manufacturing Firms in Kenya. KCA Journal of Management, 8(1), 59–73.
     Google Scholar
  23. Saunders, M., Lewis, P. & Thornhill, A. (2009). Research methods for business students (5th ed.). Harlow: Pearson Education.
     Google Scholar
  24. Scott, W. R. (2004). Institutional theory. Encyclopedia of Social Theory. CA: Sage. 408–14.
     Google Scholar
  25. Sohal, A. S., Millen, R., Maggard, M. & Moss, S. (1999). Quality in logistics: a comparison of practices between Australian and North American/European firms. International Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics Management. 29(4), 267–80.
     Google Scholar
  26. Stockburger, D. (2007). Introductory statistics: concepts, models and applications. Cincinnati, OH: Cengage Learning.
     Google Scholar
  27. Xu, L. & Beamon, B. N. (2006). Supply chain coordination and cooperation mechanisms: an attribute-based approach. Journal of Supply Chain Management. 42(1), 4–12.
     Google Scholar
  28. Zikmund, W. G., Babin, B. J., Carr, J. C. & Griffin, M. (2012). Business Research Methods (9th ed.), New York, The Free Press.
     Google Scholar