Ribeiro, Priscilla Cristina Cabral, Scavarda, Annibal José, Batalha, Mário Otávio & Bailey, DeeVon, 2009, 'Application of an IT Evaluation Method', International Journal of e-Business Management, vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 20-34. DOI 10.3316/IJEBM0302020. This is a peer-reviewed article.
Application of an IT Evaluation Method Case Studies in American Ranches Priscilla Cristina Cabral Ribeiro OURO PRETO FEDERAL UNIVERSITY
Annibal José Scavarda AMERICAN UNIVERSITY OF SHARJAH
Mário Otávio Batalha SÃO CARLOS FEDERAL UNIVERSITY
DeeVon Bailey UTAH STATE UNIVERSITY
ABSTRACT This paper presents an application of an information technology (IT) evaluation method in three ranches in the American (United States) cattle chain. This method was built on some information systems (IS), IT, and Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) evaluation models, according to its focus (RFID technical aspects). Some IT is used to trace products from their source until their destination. Traceability systems are more general than identification systems, which are the central focus, RFID being the paradigm example. Although some ranchers have used RFID tags to help monitor animal health and quality, they frequently supplement RFID with plastic ear tags to reduce cost. Taking a qualitative approach, the results of this study are derived from case studies with interviews. Keywords: Evaluation, Information Technology, RFID, ranchers, USA.
The United States does not have a mandatory system for tracking cattle. The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) has an information system (IS) called the National Animal Identification System (NAIS), which helps producers and animal health officials respond quickly and effectively to animal disease events in the United States (USDA, 2009). Although the American government does not obligate ranchers to register their own animals, each animal imported into the United States is identified with an official radio frequency identification (RFID) tag of the country of origin and bearing the animal’s individual identification number (USDA, 2005a). Tracking systems constitute control methods, since they can be used to identify the operations and ranches through which the animals have passed. In addition, they can be used for responding to infectious diseases and identifying the responsible party in the event of contamination amongst the cattle. Ear tags and rumen bolus (a chip inserted into the animal) are two different ways to monitor animals in order to track their path through the production chain. The ear tags are the less costly of the two. According to DeLone and McLean (1992), the practical contribution and effects of information systems to the world of commerce makes a well-defined measure of the technologies’ outcomes essential. These authors argue that without a well-defined dependent variable, much of information systems (IS) research is purely speculative. They proposed an IS evalu-
© RMIT Publishing, http://www.rmitpublishing.com.au/ijebm.html
Priscilla Cristina Cabral Ribeiro, Annibal José Scavarda, Mário Otávio Batalha & DeeVon Bailey,'Application of an IT Evaluation Method' | 21
ation model where they discussed a dependent variable—information systems success—and built their model with some variables related to this. Grover, Jeong and Segars (1996) argue that measurement of information systems’ effectiveness continues to be a central concern for academics and practitioners alike. According to these authors, without the benefit of these measures, IS assets may be undervalued by users and/or top executives, resulting in curtailed budget allocations and lower managerial profiles for top IS executives. The opposite may also occur; thus, the absence of validated and complete performance criteria in either of the two instances can result in misguided decisions regarding the acquisition, design, and delivery of IS. This article aims to test these ideas by presenting an application of an information technology (IT) method in three United States cattle ranches, administered in the form of a measurement instrument based upon variables derived through a review of the literature. Thus, the reaction of these US cattle ranchers to a specific information technology (RFID) serves as a paradigm example for the practical application of this method. This paper is divided into five parts: first, the literature review for evaluating the identification technologies; second, the research approaches, methods, and strategies used to gather the data; third, the context of American cattle supply chain; fourth, case studies and a comparative analysis of them; fifth and finally, conclusions and suggestions for further studies.
LITERATURE REVIEW FOR THE EVALUATION OF IDENTIFICATION TECHNOLOGIES Information Technology Evaluation Some authors have determined variables for evaluating IT, a multi-level evaluation model which considers the levels of the IT hierarchy. Using this model, analysis begins on the most general level and moves up to the most specific one in order: information, technology, information technology, information systems, and identification technologies. This article addresses the last three (Ribeiro, Scavarda, & Batalha, 2008) in order to provide a solid frame of reference for the variables used in this study. According to Kleiner (1997), the high costs of information technologies and identification technologies are unjustifiable as their benefits can sometimes be unpredictable. This unpredictability is due to technical interface changes between software and hardware and also because there is no strategic benchmark available for comparing performance of information technologies against the market expectations. Sonnenwald, Maglaughlin, and Whitton (2001) considered technology to be a subsystem within a company. They developed a multi-scale tool to evaluate this subsystem according to five attributes: relative advantage, compatibility, complexity, experimentation, and observation skills. In order to focus on evaluating IT safety, the Information Technology Security Evaluation Criteria—ITSEC UK—were created. According to these criteria, there are three main aspects of IT: confidentiality, meaning avoiding prohibited information disclosure; integrity, meaning avoiding prohibited information modification; availability, meaning avoiding prohibited information or resources retention. Based on Porter (1996), Tallon, Kraemer, and Gurbaxani (2000) stated that companies have certain objectives for IT: efficiency, effectiveness, reach, and structure.
22 | International Journal of e-Business Management, vol. 3, no. 2, 2009
Information Systems Evaluation DeLone and McLean (1992) proposed a taxonomy that posits six major dimensions of IS success: system quality, information quality, use, user satisfaction, individual impact, and organisational impact. The dimensions of this model are analogous to the variables listed in this paper (see Table 1). In a paper published in 2002, DeLone and McLean considered their model in light of observations that Seddon (1997) made relating thereunto. In two papers (Seddon, 1997; Seddon et al., 1998), Seddon commented about some unclear discussions in the literature about IS evaluation. Seddon believes that a system has measures which are appropriate in a particular context. Thus, Seddon proposes a two-dimensional matrix for classifying IS effectiveness measures and studying the types of system to be evaluated by the researcher and the stakeholder, based on by whom the system is being evaluated. Seddon et al. (1998) disagreed with Keen (1980), who argues that IS researchers have to identify the most important dependent variable in order to research IS; and with DeLone and McLean (1992), who argued that researchers should systematically combine measures from their six IS categories in order to measure success. Seddon et al. argue that the range of different systems, stakeholders, and issues involved in different studies requires a wide variety of sharply-focused dependent variables to be used. They also state that different measures will likely be needed to evaluate different combinations of systems and stakeholders. Service quality is another variable that DeLone and McLean (2002) used in their comparison with other authors around the IS success model. Some authors mentioned the need for a service quality measure in order to achieve IS success. DeLone and McLean (2002) agreed that service quality has to be a metric, but they do not believe that it should be added to System Quality and Information Quality as components of the IS success. Instead, DeLone and McLean (2002) named it ‘servqual’: tangibles, reliability, responsiveness, assurance, and empathy. In a paper published in 2003 applying this model to an empirical situation in ecommerce IT tools, they emphasised the service quality as ‘an important dimension of IS success given the importance of IS support, especially in the e-commerce environment where customer service is crucial’ (DeLone & McLean, 2003, p. 27). They presented a table with e-Commerce Success Metrics serving as a guide to a new reader of IT metrics in e-commerce technologies. These authors grouped the additional impact measures; workgroup impacts, interorganisational and industry impacts, consumer impacts, and societal impacts in one group which they called ‘net benefits’. In a paper published in 2004, they claim that ‘the inclusion of “net” in “net benefits” is important because no outcome is wholly positive and without any negative consequences’ (DeLone & McLean, 2004, p. ?). Thus, ‘net benefits’ is probably the most accurate descriptor of the final success variable. Grover et al. (1996) synthesised the effectiveness, measures, and research approaches through three definitional dimensions: evaluative referent (with two approaches—goalcentred and system-resource; from which three potential evaluative judgments emerge: comparative, normative, and improvement); unit of analysis (macro and micro perspectives); and the evaluation type (the types including process, response, and impact). In regard to this last dimension, these authors divided the individual or organisational assessment of IS service or product into two steps of evaluation: implementation and post-implementation. Both of these will be discussed in this paper. In response to references to IS failures in the literature, Beynon-Davies, Owens, and Williams (2004) differentiated four kinds of IS evaluation procedures throughout the lifespan
Priscilla Cristina Cabral Ribeiro, Annibal José Scavarda, Mário Otávio Batalha & DeeVon Bailey,'Application of an IT Evaluation Method' | 23
of an IS: strategic, constructive, cumulative, and post-mortem; this adds needed information to the discussion above. According to this model, the first kind of IS evaluation is strategic evaluation. This is sometimes used as a pre-implementation stage, and compares potential and estimated costs as a way to aid in IT/IS investment decisions. The second is constructive evaluation, which determines the importance and value of the IS during its development. The third is cumulative evaluation. This takes place after the IS test case is implemented, and should include the strategic evaluation of the investment and benefits return of the IS at the conclusion of the period of use. The fourth kind is a variation of the third, and is called the post-mortem evaluation, as this analysis is conducted after the company partially or totally discontinues a project. In addition, Grover et al. (1996) divided IS into subcategories of service and product, though they do not discuss it fully in their paper as DeLone and McLean (2002) did. These authors established six classes of IS effectiveness that define the overall construct space of IS effectiveness and integrate the three definitional perspectives into it: the evaluative referent, unit of analysis, and evaluation type. They then divided these classes into macro and micro levels of analysis. The model of Grover et al. (1996) draws a parallel between micro and macro levels of analysis which is not found in the model of DeLone and McLean (1992). However, in spite of these differences, both theoretical depictions strongly imply the multidimensionality of IS effectiveness in terms of types of measures and level of analysis. As stated by Seddon et al. (1998) and Langsten and Goldkuhl (2008), stakeholders must be considered in the evaluation process. Langsten and Goldkuhl also added that, during this process, all stakeholders must be allowed to participate and express their views, and argue or defend their various positions. In addition, these authors argued that the criteria of evaluation are determined by context and included by all of the stakeholders’ concerns. They classify the participants’ statements on individual, interpersonal, and collective levels. This is an interesting view of the levels of analysis in an evaluation process, mainly when the research combines the insights of both user and manager, as shown in their paper.
Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) Evaluation RFID is an IT to identify products and their origin. The goals of any RFID system are the accurate reading of labels and the ability to collect the correct detail and volume of information, allowing customers and others to access all data about the product. This technology allows for greater quantity and detail of information than others (such as barcode). According to Scherer, Didonet, and Lara (2004), RFID is widely used for traceability, especially in farms and retail. Regarding the meat chain, sanitary control can be carried out using RFID, as the aim of this technique is to trace products, from their origin to the consumer. The benefits of RFID include, but are not limited to: improved data accuracy, enhanced asset visibility, reduced information latency, reduced stock-outs, reduced inventory, reduced shrinkage, improved forecasting, enhanced product pedigree, reduced costs from product recalls, improved accuracy for return processing, reduced product counterfeiting, and theft deterrence. In addition, RFID has the potential to automate supply chain processes and allow companies to determine the exact location of their products in real time (Liu & Vijayaraman, 2006). The disadvantages of RFID are related to costs, the lack of a worldwide tag standard, the complexity of systems integration created by the technology’s superior volume of data, and the sensitive issues of privacy and security. The privacy issue arises due to the perception
24 | International Journal of e-Business Management, vol. 3, no. 2, 2009
among consumers that RFID will enable and encourage violations of their privacy. According to Cline (2004), RFID would enable any company or government to scan consumers’ homes to identify what products this person had purchased or otherwise acquired, whereas there previously had been no feasible way to do so. The RFID Alliance Lab's (Deavours, 2005) report examined a number of different performance aspects of the label, including productivity, which establishes the number of labels that are actually working; and variation, which describes the difference in performance between labels of the same model. Miller (2007) compared twelve different categories of labels, including, among others, performance in noisy areas, as they may interfere with wireless or powerless technologies; reading rate; performance close to water or metal; technology maturity; operational speed; and cost. In his study, he divided the RFID evaluation into three different components—environmental, economical, and technical—which can then be examined specifically. The environmental component of a company considered the aspects of control, noise, and spread material must be examined specifically. The economical component considered the costbenefit relationship is based on reductions in both labour costs and on cost of data and error duplication. The technical component considered whether the technology is evaluated often enough to ensure its conformity with the latest standards. Deavours, Ramakrishnan, and Syed (2005) analysed the problems that tags have with proximity with water and metal. These authors noted that ‘the tolerance of the tag to water correlates to free space performance metrics’ (Deavours et al., 2005, B-43). They found that this does not always happen because in some tags they found an inverse relationship between free space performance and performance near water and metal. Depending on the location of the tag, they may not be readable or they could be damaged, so the quality of data could be reduced because of problems with data integrity. Morey (1982, p. 338) described some errors in transactions in Management Information Systems (MIS), ‘which takes time to batch and screen transactions and to manually review reject transactions strongly impacts the error rates of the information in the system’. This author presented two other types of errors that are related to data accuracy: the relative probability of not catching erroneous transactions, and reject transactions that should not be rejected. These errors affect the final error rate present in the store record. Trying to measure the accuracy the information, Morey (1982) presented them as: the transaction reject rate; the intrinsic transaction error rate; the stored MIS record error rate. Then, Morey contributed in technical aspects when he discussed the error and measures to try to solve problems related to accuracy. The contributions of these authors are shown in Table 1 below.
Priscilla Cristina Cabral Ribeiro, Annibal José Scavarda, Mário Otávio Batalha & DeeVon Bailey,'Application of an IT Evaluation Method' | 25
Table 1: Authors’ Contributions to Evaluation Theory Authors
Level of
Variables
Variable in this paper method
Relative Advantage
Relative Advantage
hierarchy Sonnenwald et
Technology
al (2001)
ITSEC (1991)
Information
Compatibility
Compatibility
Complexity
Complexity
Experimentation
Experimentation
Observation
Observation
Safety
Technology
Confidentiality
Confidentiality
Data integrity
Data integrity
Physical integrity
Physical integrity
Availability
Availability
Consistency
Consistency
Tallon et al
Information
Business key
Efficiency
Efficiency
(2000)
Technology
objectives
Effectiveness
Effectiveness
Reach
Reach
Structure
Structure Strategic Evaluation (pre-implementation)
Beynon-Davies
Information
IS evaluation
Strategic Evaluation (pre-
et al (2004)
Systems
procedures
implementation) Constructive Evaluation
Constructive Evaluation (implementation)
(implementation) Cumulative Evaluation (post-
Cumulative Evaluation (post- implementation)
implementation) Post-Mortem Evaluation
Post-Mortem Evaluation
DeLone and
Information
Dimensions/
system quality/service quality,
system
response time, reliability, ease of use, ease of learning, investment
McLean (1992,
Systems
dependent
information quality, use, user
quality/service
utilisation, stored record error rate (performance), system
variable
satisfaction, individual
quality
accessibility (availability)
impact, and organisational
information
accuracy and precision (consistency of data), reliability
impact
quality
2002, 2003, 2004)
Use
cost reduction (cost), management (risk), strategy planning (efficiency, effectiveness), competitive trust (reach and structure).
user satisfaction
top management satisfaction (satisfaction)
individual
interpretation accuracy (consistency), computer awareness (ICT
impact
experiences), change in decision behaviour (group communication), amount of data considered (availability of data)
Organisational
overall manager productivity (cost of information per employee),
impact
economic performance (efficiency), marketing achievements (visibility, profitability), innovations (quality of results/higher prices), return on assets (profitability), market share, cost-benefit ratio (pre-implementation evaluation), overall cost-effectiveness of IS (effectiveness and efficiency), organisational effectiveness Document: Authors.doc Author: Joseph Gelfer Save Date: 16/09/2009 Page 1 of 2
26 | International Journal of e-Business Management, vol. 3, no. 2, 2009
(effectiveness), IS contribution to meeting goals (goals support), production scheduling costs, and costs reductions (cost) Use/ intention
indicator of IS success
indicator of IS success (performance)
tangibles, reliability,
Reliability and responsiveness (reliability and response speed of information)
to use ‘servqual’
responsiveness, assurance, and empathy net benefits
impact measures (workgroup
impact measures (workgroup impacts, interorganisational and industry impacts,
impacts, interorganisational
consumer impacts, and societal impacts) (structure)
and industry impacts, consumer impacts, and societal impacts) Seddon (1997)
Information
and Seddon et
Systems
stakeholders
Independent observer, an
a group of users, the management or owners of the organisation (ranchers)
individual user, a group of
al (1998)
users, the management or owners of the organisation, a country or a mankind System
A single IT application, a type
RFID/barcode
of IT, the IT function and so on Level of analysis
Organisation/ranches
Grover et al
Information
Evaluative
Approaches: goal-centred and
(1996)
Systems
referent
system-resource
goal-centred
Unit of analysis
Macro and Micro perspective
Micro perspective
Evaluation type
Process, response and impact
Process, response and impact (implementation and post-implementation)
(implementation and postimplementation) Langsten and
Information
Stakeholders
a group of users, managers, or owners of the organisation (ranchers)
Goldkuhl
Systems
Level of analysis
Organisation/ranches
RFID
Technical
Productivity
Productivity
Aspects
Information delivery
Information delivery quickness (reliability and response speed of information)
(2008) Deavours (2005)
quickness Conformity
Economic Aspects
Environmental
Conformity
Equipment quality
Equipment quality
Hardware cost
Hardware cost
Profitability
Profitability
Company’s budget
Company’s budget
Proximity to water
Proximity to water
Aspects
METHODOLOGY
Document: Authors.doc Author: Joseph Gelfer Save Date: 16/09/2009 Page 2 of 2
This research uses a small number of case studies in order to study the ranches’ current level of IT application, but this research was extremely attentive to accuracy and details, and generalisations cannot be designed based on this research (Yin, 2001). The authors interviewed the operators and the owners of the ranches. Following suggestions for research studies that use interviewees’ perspectives and opinions for data collection (Bryman, 1989), this research study has a qualitative approach. It is composed by semi-structured interviews using closed and open answers (yes-and-no questions ranked on a five-point scale).
Priscilla Cristina Cabral Ribeiro, Annibal José Scavarda, Mário Otávio Batalha & DeeVon Bailey,'Application of an IT Evaluation Method' | 27
The method developed by the authors does not have an economic approach even though this aspect is important in this kind of analysis. Some variables relating to cost and profits will be presented because the authors recognise that aspects of cost and economy could be prohibitive in RFID implementation. However, the authors decided to focus their method on technical aspects, thus choosing not do a deep analysis of economical variables. The evaluation variables are presented in Section 1; they are the basis of the IT evaluation method developed by the authors based on the literature review. To facilitate ease of understanding, the method developed by the authors in certain instances organises the variables differently. Thus some variables that would normally be grouped together are here assigned to different groups. For example, complexity variables such as ease of use, and ease of learning the system, were originally in the group Organisational Variables, but after some analysis have been assigned to the group Technical Variables. Cronbach’s Alpha was used to test the reliability of the questionnaire, and the procedure output has an alpha of 0.81 for the first group of variables (organisational variables), an alpha of 0.85 for the second group (IT safety), and an alpha of 0.82 for the third group (technical variables). These results are significant, as 0.70 is the minimum acceptable value (Santos, 1999). The first set, ‘Organisational Variables’, can be divided into four smaller groups: The first of these is relative advantage, which refers to the rate of technological innovation implemented by the company. Innovation contributes to relative advantage in three ways, which respondents rank during the interview, and which was, in turn, divided into three contributions provided by innovation (ranked according to the respondent’s answers: company support in order to meet the goals, assurance that the company has quality results, and achievement and maintenance of high ranking in the market). The second group of organisational variables is the attributes of compatibility, which is related to the company missions and objectives. IT is evaluated according to the contribution of this compatibility to the group communication and experience with communication technology. The third group, innovation visibility in the market, is related to compatibility and contributes to the company’s observational ability. In this study, respondents who feel that the technology used by the company in the supply chain makes it visible in the market will mark ‘5’ on the rating scale in this area. The fourth and final group of organisational variables comprises the business key objectives, which were translated by Tallon et al. (2000) into IT and then ranked according to the same scale used before. Thus, IT was evaluated for a positive correlation to efficiency, effectiveness, reach, and structure. The second set, ‘IT Safety Variables’, is evaluated using the same scale previously mentioned, and mainly considers confidentiality, data integrity, physical integrity, availability, and consistency. The third set, ‘Technical Variables’, includes more specific elements: technical aspects, reliability, complexity, experimentation, environmental aspects, and economic aspects. Technical aspects include productivity, variation, quickness, conformity, and equipment quality. Reliability includes variables such as IT reliability and response speed. Complexity includes ease of system use and learning. Experimentation is divided into ease of recovering data or inverting situations when using the system, effort required using the system, risk involved, and costs. Environmental aspects include susceptibility of the RFID ear tags to some materials present where the cattle live, particularly the effect of ‘closeness to water’. Economic aspects include hardware (label) cost, profitability, and company budget. The case studies were carried out in three ranchers in Utah and Wyoming in the United States. The research was performed between December 2008 and February 2009. This study
28 | International Journal of e-Business Management, vol. 3, no. 2, 2009
is limited to IT, traceability systems, and cattle chain. Some subjects (government of IT, quality, logistics, and agribusiness) were not discussed by the authors to avoid losing the main focus. In addition, the consumer privacy discussion and its implications will be not discussed in this study because this paper focuses in IT evaluation and its application in three case studies. Further research could present the literature review and the IT evaluation method used in this study.
AMERICAN TRACEABILITY SYSTEM There are several ways for producers to participate in National Animal Identification System (NAIS): premises registration, animal identification, and animal tracing. Premises registration identifies the geographic location where animals are raised, housed, or boarded with a Premises Identification Number (PIN). The animal identification method includes either individual or group identification, which remains with the animal throughout its life. Animal tracing tracking databases provide timely, accurate animal movement records to quickly locate at-risk animals in the event of a disease outbreak. It is important to note that a rancher who obtains a PIN for the location of his farm/ranch will not be obligated to participate in animal identification or tracking. The US Department of Agriculture has initiated the National Animal Identification System (NAIS) that ‘helps producers and animal health officials respond quickly and effectively to animal disease events in the United States’ (USDA, 2009). Ranchers can participate in the program by using RFID tags to trace their cattle but they are not obligated to do so. Participation in NAIS is voluntary because the American government believes that ‘the goals of the system can be achieved with a voluntary program’ (USDA, 2007, p. 3). As of mid2009, the Obama administration is considering whether to mandate farmer participation in NAIS (Lovley, 2009), which would require traceability for all meat harvested in the US. NAIS offers two different kinds of traceability: • Individual identification is a good option for many situations because each animal can be identified individually with an Animal Identification Number (AIN). The method of identification varies by species. • Group/Lot identification is best suited for animals that are raised and move through the production chain as a group. These animals can be identified by a Group/Lot Identification Number (GIN), rather than by individual numbers. The GIN is a 15-character number consisting of a 7-character PIN, the date that the group or lot of animals was assembled, and a 2-digit number that reflects the number of groups assembled at the same premises on the same day. Animal tracing is available through several Animal Tracking Databases (ATDs) maintained by state governments and private industries. This component of NAIS continues to require the highest degree of continuing development because much of the data collection infrastructure must be set up in certain places in the market and other locations. However, producers now have access to several ATDs that allow them to report the movement of animals that are shipped off or moved onto their premises. Movements within a production unit for management purposes (for example, from pasture to pasture) do not impact disease spread, and therefore are not necessary to be reported to NAIS. State and private industry ATDs hold the animal location and movement records
Priscilla Cristina Cabral Ribeiro, Annibal José Scavarda, Mário Otávio Batalha & DeeVon Bailey,'Application of an IT Evaluation Method' | 29
that producers report. When there is a disease outbreak or other animal health event, the ATDs provide timely, accurate reports that show where potentially exposed animals have been and whether or not other animals have come into contact with them (Schelhaus & Baggett, 2008). According to Bruce Knight, undersecretary for marketing and regulatory programs, ‘Rapid and effective animal-disease containment is necessary to protect US animal health and marketability … Traceability or the access to accurate identification information, locations, and movement points for suspect and exposed animals is the key to determine the source and extent of a disease outbreak’ (USDA, 2009). In the case of cattle, if an imported animal or groups of cattle does not have the equivalent of the US AIN/RF tag, the animal(s) are off-loaded at the US border, or final destination location, and then individually identified with an AIN tag. USDA/APHIS animal health officials or port veterinarians assume responsibility for reporting to the National Animal Records Repository all official individual numbers of imported cattle with or without RFID tags; including any cross-referenced number on the animals at the time of entry, the date of import, date of tagging with the official AIN tag (if not previously tagged), premises of last destination prior to being imported into the United States, and the destination premises within the United States where the cattle are to be shipped, with subsequent validation that the cattle have been received at their designated US premises (USDA, 2005a). The official AIN ear tag with an RFID transponder encased in it, and which is compliant with ISO 11784 and 11785, is referred to as the AIN/RF Tag. The 3-digit country code (or manufacture code) and the 12-digit animal number embedded in the transponder code would also be printed on the AIN/RF Tag. The animal identification number encoded in each tag can be easily read with an electronic reader as each animal is tested and then automatically transferred with the test records to the information system. The handheld computers and electronic ear tags make the testing of the cattle less time-consuming for producers and animal health officials, as it eliminates manually written test sheets and labour-intensive data entry with its associated errors (Schelhaus & Baggett, 2008). The USDA has developed a plan (2005 to 2009) that intends to make animal tracking mandatory, including the reporting of animal movements and a full implementation of Animal ID and tracking (USDA, 2005b). Although necessary for the success of the cattle chain, some ranches in the USA have not completely adopted this procedure.
CASE STUDIES Case Study 1 The respondent in Case Study 1 is the owner of a 70-year-old ranch, located in Smithfield, Utah. It can be classified as a small ranch, with 100 acres of land and 250 cows. The ranch land covers a total of 11,480 acres, including sections in Logan (Utah), in Idaho, and Box Elder County Woodland Hills because, depending on the season, the cattle move to different locations. Part of this land is leased and part of it is owned by others. The rancher participated in two different programs that implemented RFID, so he described both experiences and evaluated the technology based on these two different implementations, both of which included only ear tags, not readers or antennae. The rancher said:
30 | International Journal of e-Business Management, vol. 3, no. 2, 2009
I just plug in a computer to the equipment that scans the tag and then it’ll translate all the information to the PC/laptop. The first time I did not have any of the software from which the company that sold me the ear tags scanned all the information. I just had the tags. The second time I sent them by email the information about my cattle, so they could translate the information using their computer. The last time there was a problem because they could not read the information and I did not receive any money, but it was my fault too.
The tags used in this case are passive and they cannot monitor the location of the animals. The data is recorded only once, and cannot be recorded or read many times. These tags are made of yellow plastic with a tablet shape, and cost US$2.50 per tag. When the rancher was asked about sharing information with other companies, he responded that he shares information with different people, but he does not want to share some information. He is concerned about sharing so much information with the National ID System, explaining, ‘They know who I am, where I am living, where my pasture is, and how many cows I have in the pasture. Then, they can impose a tax on a cow, and this scares me!’ When asked about business integration by IT, he responds that the Internet is very helpful as he sends information about his ranch to buyers (for example, feedlots and traders). The rancher reports that his relationship with IT companies is good, and that he is responsible for buying software and maintaining a relationship with these companies. Although the rancher considers that IT is important (ranked ‘3’ in the scale), he was not satisfied with his past investments in IT because of problems he had using RFID the first time, and problems he had with technical support the second time. Currently, he expresses confidence that he has the skills needed to implement the RFID ear tags on his ranch, and says that he will buy and use RFID ear tags as soon as it becomes apparent that the market will pay more for cattle equipped therewith. This ranch does not comply with certain requirements and certificates of IT. However, by evaluating IS from the pre-implementation stage to the post-mortem stage, the rancher evaluates all steps. He uses the market price for his animals as a variable to balance costs and benefits. His choice to as to whether or not to continue using RFID ear tags is based upon the last evaluation.
Case Study 2 The respondent in Case Study 2 is the owner of a ranch located in Cokeville, Wyoming. The interviewee has been there for the last 10 years, but the ranch has been in operation for 33 years. It currently has 2000 acres and 240 cows, so it can be classified as a medium-sized ranch. He also owns another ranch in Idaho. This ranch uses RFID ear tags but is not equipped with readers or antennae. The RFID tags are placed thirty days before shipping the animals to the buyers. Before that, plastic ear tags are used to control all animals using this system. These tags are passive and can not monitor the location of the animals. The data is recorded only once, and can not be recorded and read many times. These tags are made of yellow, tablet-shaped plastic, and the rancher pays US$3.00 per tag. According to this rancher, IT provides data-sharing with other companies but he finds it difficult to receive feedback from buyers. Despite the problems related to informationsharing, he claims that IT, mainly Internet, is positive, as it provides integration to his business. He is responsible for buying software and maintaining a relationship with IT companies. He reports that his relationship with those companies is very good, and that IT companies provide all support that the rancher needs. The rancher ranked the IT value for
Priscilla Cristina Cabral Ribeiro, Annibal José Scavarda, Mário Otávio Batalha & DeeVon Bailey,'Application of an IT Evaluation Method' | 31
his ranch as somewhat critical (4). He is satisfied with his investments on IT, reporting good returns from these investments.
Case Study 3 The respondent of Case Study 3 is the owner of a ranch located in Snowville, Utah, and where he has been for the last 32 years. It has 4000 acres, 400 cows, and it can be classified as a medium-sized ranch. In most of its operations, this ranch uses RFID ear tags, but it also uses plastic ear tags. The ID tag is programmed with a number. According to the rancher: the tag has the number of each animal. It is the premises identification. When I buy the tags, they all have individual numbers, not the same number. The other information used is the plastic ear tag on which the rancher puts his name. The ranch phone number is on dangle tags.
The tags are passive and cannot monitor the location. The data is recorded only once; it cannot be recorded and read many times. Those tags are made of tablet-shaped yellow plastic, and the rancher pays US$2.00 per tag. When asked about sharing information with other companies, the rancher responded that they share information on the breed and location of the cattle he owns and will trade. He can usually integrate his business with other agents of the supply chain by telephone and by email. The rancher reports that he has a good relationship with the companies that supply ITs. He said that one company is responsible for the maintenance of the system, and that the company that sells RFID ear tags has an employee that gives technical support to his ranch. The rancher considers IT to be important (ranked ‘3’ in the scale). He reports satisfaction with his investments in IT because it gives him better control of his cattle. The ranch does not comply with certain IT requirements and certificates. By analysing IT in steps, from the pre-implementation stage to the post-mortem stage, the rancher evaluates all steps. He uses the market price for his animal as a variable to balance costs and benefits. This evaluation leads him to decide to continue using RFID ear tags.
COMPARISON FOR IT EVALUATION BY CASE STUDIES The following paragraphs will show the comparison of the case studies according to the variables obtained from the literature review. The sub-variables and rankings were defined using a scale designed by the authors and were ranked specifically for each ranch. The other variables, mentioned earlier, were ranked and integrated according to each company reality. Only the questions with closed answers and truly related to the evaluation of IT identification were ranked. The first group of variables is called Organisational Variables. The first sub-variable, Goals Support, had an average rank of 2.7. Ranches in Cases 2 and 3 are close to this average (ranked 3.0), though Case 1 received a lower ranking (2.0). This is due to the fact that when the rancher implemented the RFID tag he expected he would be able to charge higher prices. This was a business goal he did not reach using these ear tags. The Quality of the Results was associated with higher prices in Cases 2 and 3. Because of this, they both (ranked this variable) had an average 3.0, which is the same value they assigned to the goals support variable. In Case 1, Quality of the Results was ranked higher
32 | International Journal of e-Business Management, vol. 3, no. 2, 2009
than the variable Goals Support since, during the interview, the rancher responded that this experience with RFID gave to him skills to use this kind of IT as well as others. In High Rank Achievement and Maintenance all cases were ranked the same score of 4.0. This is likely because, according to the respondents, RFID has aided the maintenance of their market share as well as added visibility. Visibility was ranked 3.0 in Cases 2 and 3; and 2.0 in Case 1, which was lower than the average (2.7). According to Case 2, this kind of technology adds value to the ranch image in the market. Market Share is a variable that can be included in Reach, which received an average ranking of 3.7. Cases 1 and 2 (which ranked this variable 4.0) considered that implementing RFID would increase the value of their market share. However, the respondent in Case 3 did not have the same opinion as the others (3.0), which is likely because he (as a market leader among ranchers in his area) implemented RFID to be in a project with a group of ranchers (coordinate with a group of other ranchers), where he is on the top, but has not achieved higher market share in the cattle market. Though Case 2 assigned a low rating (2.0) to Group Communication, it has an average of 3.3 because ranchers in Cases 1 and 3 reported that this IT promotes good data exchange in their respective businesses (4.0). Respondents in both of these cases own other ranches as well and responded that, with RFID, they can control the information about their cattle more closely. The rancher in Case 1 used specific software to download information, which allowed him to manage all relevant information about his cattle in Utah, as well as in another state where he leases land and raises cattle. Ranchers in both of these cases agreed that RFID enabled them to get to know more, not just about ID technologies, but also about others (for example, via the Internet) that have aided integration between their businesses and their partners in the cattle supply chain. ICT experience was ranked 4.0, in all Cases. The business key objectives group of variables was ranked accordingly. Efficiency is a variable that, except in Case 1, was ranked below the average (2.0 and 2.7, respectively) because the respondent considered that RFID leads to high costs and could give the government information about his cattle that could become, in the future, taxes on his activities. The respondent in Case 2 ranked efficiency as average (3.0). This is likely because of the high cost of ear tags, and because the ranch does not have software that allows for quick exchange of information. The respondent in Case 3 also ranked efficiency as average (3.0), reporting that putting RFID ear tags on the cattle takes time and also that doing so neither decreases nor increases productivity. Effectiveness is a variable that has a low average (2.3) which reflects the responses of the ranchers in Cases 1 and 3, who reported that RFID ear tags do not give them flexibility. However, the rancher in Case 2 (3.0) has the same buyer for his cattle, so he knows more about the customer’s necessities. Consequently, they do not consider RFID to promote high responsiveness (2.0). When asked about the influence of RFID on changes in the cattle chain structure, respondents in all cases responded positively (4.0), reporting because this technology can influence and change the way cattle is tracked through costs, operations, sanitary control, and relationships between agents in the cattle supply chain. The second group of variables is IT Safety Variables. The first sub-variable is Confidentiality, which received a low average rating (2.3). This is likely because Case 1 and 2 reported concerns about the issue raised previously that these tags may allow the government to track and tax their activities, which may interfere with the confidentiality of their information. Even though the respondents of Cases 1 and 2 reported similar concerns, the Case 2 inter-
Priscilla Cristina Cabral Ribeiro, Annibal José Scavarda, Mário Otávio Batalha & DeeVon Bailey,'Application of an IT Evaluation Method' | 33
viewee ranked it higher (3.0), claiming that his information is shared only with his cattle buyers. According to the report of the rancher in Case 3 (2.0), the information about the cattle is not confidential. Case 1 assigned a low rating (2.0) to this sub-variable. Data Integrity was ranked high (4.0) in Cases 2 and 3, but was ranked very low in Case 1 (1.0). This is likely due to the fact that the rancher in Case 1 had problems sending cattle information to the buyers the second time he used RFID. Although these two aspects are not closely related, the problem that the rancher had in the pilot project influenced his evaluation of the RFID tags. The variable Physical Integrity received a higher average rating (4.3). Cases 1, 2, and 3 (4.0, 4.0, 5.0, respectively) reported that it is difficult to lose or damage the ear tags, thus making it almost impossible to lose information about the cattle. The Availability of Information variable received a low average rank (2.3), with Case 1 ranking it as very low (1.0), and Case 2 ranked it as low (2.0). This is likely because the respondents considered that with plastic ear tags, which display large numbers, it is easier to differentiate the animal by reading the ear tags manually. However, the rancher in Case 3 (4.0) reported difficulty in collecting information manually, and noted the comparative ease of customers using readers to collect all the needed information about an animal. This rancher, like those in Cases 1 and 2, agreed that it is more difficult to identify the animal with RFID ear tags, but claimed that more accurate information is available with this tag. The sub-variable of Consistency received a low average (2.0), and was ranked differently by the each of the respondents. The Case 1 respondent reported that RFID information is consistent if the rancher has all of them available, and if he has feedback from the buyers (1.0). The Case 2 respondent mentioned the same problem, but chose a slightly higher ranking (2.0) than the Case 1 respondent. The Case 3 interviewee assigned Consistency an average rating (3.0) which is likely because of the feedback and technological support that he has received, and because the of how important he claims this information and its meaning is to his activities. Technical Variables is a group of variables, which has sub-variables of Technical Aspects, Reliability, and Complexity in its first group. It is divided in two groups because this group is a large group. The first one has the first three sub-variables listed above. The first variable that the respondents in the case studies ranked was Productivity, or the ‘performance’ of the tags. Respondents of Cases 2 and 3 reported that all tags have the same characteristics and all of them work, and assigned this variable a very high ranking (5.0). However, the Case 1 respondent stated that some of the tags did not work well (2.0). Because of this ranking, which lowers the average, this variable had a high rank (4.0). Consequently, for the variable Uniformity, Case 1 also had the lowest rank (2.0). Because there was a problem with one tag in one lot in Case 3, the average is lower than it is for the other variables (3.7). Uniformity was also ranked high and very high in Cases 2 and 3 (4.0, 5.0, respectively) but not by Case 1. This is likely because this interviewee claimed that tags and equipment have to be improved. Although the rancher agreed that the industry has progressed significantly, the quality of equipment and tags still need to improve. In all Cases, Equipment Quality was given a ranking similar to Conformity. Equipment Quality had a high average (3.7). Case 1 stated that the quality of the set of ID technologies was still poor (2.0). The Case 2 respondent gave this variable an average rating (3.0) which is likely because he did not use readers or antennas. The respondent in Case 3 gave Equipment Quality a high rank (4.0), likely because this rancher simply used the tags, and did not hear about problems with equipment.
34 | International Journal of e-Business Management, vol. 3, no. 2, 2009
Conformity was ranked high (4.0) by Case 2 and 3, but was ranked low (2.0) by Case 1. This is likely because the rancher in Case 1 reported problems with tags and he did not know if these problems occurred because he did not have the skills necessary to use the RFID tags correctly or because of non-conformity. The variable Quickness was ranked low by Case 1 respondent (2.0), probably because the rancher had problems when he tried to send information to his buyers. The Case 2 respondent ranked it as average (3.0), which is likely because, as discussed previously, the rancher had problems receiving feedback from his buyers. The Case 3 respondent reported Quickness in sending information as high (4.0), and did not mention problems with feedbacks or sending information. Reliability and Response Speed had an average of 3.0. Case 3 had the same ranking, but for the other cases it was the opposite. This occurred because the rancher in Case 2 (2.0) reported dissatisfaction with feedbacks, more than did the rancher in Case 1 (3.0). Case 3 ranked high (4.0), which implies that this rancher did not have problems with feedback. The variable Complexity was divided into two sub-variables: Ease of system use received a high average rank (4.0), and ease of learning the system received a low average (2.3) rank. This is due to the fact that Cases 2 and 3 had only one opportunity to learn about the system, but the respondent in Case 1 had two opportunities to learn more about the RFID system. This added understanding of the system made it easier to use. In Cases 1, 2, and 3, Ease of System Use, received a ranking opposite to those received by the variable Effort to Use the system (5.0, 3.0, 3.0). The average (3.7) results confirm this conclusion: The respondents who ranked Easiness higher (Case 2: 5.0 and Case 3: 4.0), ranked the variable Effort required to use the system lower (Case 2: 3.0 and Case 3: 3.0); and the Case 1 respondent who ranked Easiness lower than the others (3.0) also ranked Effort required to use the system higher than the others (5.0). The second group of Technical Variables also includes sub-variables: Experimentation, Environmental Aspects, and Economical Aspects. The first sub-variable of this group is Easiness of Recovering Data that had low average (2.0). Case 1 and 2 respondents agreed that data recovery using RFID ear tags is limited when ranchers try to recover certain data from their buyers, ranking this variable as very low (1.0). The Case 3 respondent did not report any problems with this, and ranked this variable as high (4.0). The variable Effort Required to Use the system was discussed previously. Risks had a low average (2.0), rated as very low in Cases 2 and 3 (1.0), but not in Case 1 (4.0). The ratings of the Costs variable averaged as 3.0, which ranking was consistent with the Efficiency ranking (Case 1: 4.0, Case 2: 3.0, and Case 3: 2.0). All Case respondents ranked the variable ‘Closeness with Water’ very low (1.0), and did not report any problems with water in RFID tags. Every Case rated the Cost of Hardware (label) as average (3.0), but its weight in the Company Budget variable was lower on average (1.7) because Cases 1 and 2 ranked it as low (2.0) and Case 3 ranked it as very low (1.0). The potential Profitability of an RFID ear tag was ranked as low (2.0) in Cases 1 and 3, and high (4.0) in Case 2, bringing the average to 2.7. The Case 2 respondent probably rated this variable as high (4.0) because he sells to export markets that paid higher prices for his cattle. These comparisons were made and conclusions drawn by the authors using the ranchers’ rankings and comments during the interviews. These rankings revealed how interrelated the group of variables is, and confirmed the empirical way the results were presented in Section 2, regarding Cronbach Alpha’s validation.
Priscilla Cristina Cabral Ribeiro, Annibal José Scavarda, Mário Otávio Batalha & DeeVon Bailey,'Application of an IT Evaluation Method' | 35
CONCLUSION The USA does not have a mandatory traceability system, but it uses the USDA (NAIS) program to improve the control of its cattle. The NAIS program is introducing certain initiatives to not only use plastic ear tags, but also to implement new technologies such as RFID. The USDA would then benefit from increased traceability, useful for such activities as tracing disease outbreaks to their source. These initiatives are interesting because they motivate the cattle supply chain to exercise more control over its activities. This can then lead to a better integration of the supply chain through such technologies as RFID tags, readers, antennas, and software utilised via the Internet. This set of technologies monitors the animals, their health, and provides accurate information that can be accessed in the event that problems arise. This system also enables the final customers to complain to the agent responsible in the cattle supply chain if they have a problem with the meat they have purchased. On the other hand, this technology will invite more government control, possibly resulting in new taxes to this activity, and influencing consumers’ privacy—particularly through controlling stock and possibly disciplining originating ranches should there be an outbreak of disease. Some years ago, USDA began a project similar in nature to this study, called US Northwest Pilot Program ID, in which Case 1 and 3 ranches participated. Utah was one of the states that USDA invited to participate in the program. Although these ranchers participated in this program, one of them argued that he did not received more for his cattle. Because of the many factors make the use of RFID important to the cattle supply chain, many of its variables need further evaluation. The cost of RFID ear tags is higher than that of plastic ear tags, and this cost can be even greater if the rancher buys the associated computers, software, readers, and antenna. In addition, it takes time and training for ranchers to learn how to use the system, and how to attach the RFID ear tags onto the animals. Because of this, it is necessary to further research and develop certain methods and models in order to create more viable evaluation processes. Based on this evaluation, the sector can then decide whether or not to use RFID ear tags. In this study, three ranches were evaluated, and the questionnaire was applied separately to avoid external influences. Each rancher responded to the questionnaire based on their past and present experiences. The problems reported were: lack of feedback from buyers; failure of RFID to increase the cattle’s market price; the technical support that exists is not sufficient to improve the use of this technology; ranchers sometimes buy only ear tags, sometimes also software, so feedlots and buyers control the information rather than the ranchers. These problems must be considered in order to avoid other problems and prevent reduction of the value of using RFID in their activities. Another problem identified is that using the RFID system requires a set of technologies; and not just a tag, though this is one of its components. It also requires a reader or antenna to collect cattle information, in a database, which can be a laptop, personal computer, or mobile media such as a flash drive, to download this information into, and Internet or mobile media that can send the information to the next agent, such as the feedlots. This system can promote integration in the cattle chain and enable ranchers to control their activities more closely. Another related problem was the education background of some ranchers, older ones in particular. Some are not experienced in the use of computers, the Internet, or high technology in general. Therefore, it may be more likely that ranchers who are either younger, or who
36 | International Journal of e-Business Management, vol. 3, no. 2, 2009
involve younger persons in management, will be more interested in such activities, and thus more successful in implementing these new technologies. Finally, prices and the American traceability system are also problematic. For some ranchers, potentially achieving higher market value is not enough to motivate them to implement these technologies, and for ranchers with no interest in new technology, adoption will not be forthcoming unless it is made mandatory by the United States government. Although the American system is not mandatory, ranchers are motivated to have their herds traced by traceability systems. The government gives information (types of RFID tags and companies) but does not give any subsidy. At the end of the questionnaire applied, ranchers in Cases 2 and 3 commented that, even though they had some problems with using RFID ear tags, they will continue to use them in their activities. The Case 1 respondent, however, is not currently using this technology. He commented that he had used it twice before, and will buy and use RFID ear tags again as soon as the market will pay more for cattle with RFID ear tags. This study can be used as a reference in the evaluation of IS models and RFID characteristics in case studies of harvest facilities and feedlots.
REFERENCES Beynon-Davies, P., Owens, I. & Williams, M. D. (2004). Information systems evaluation and the information systems development process. Journal of Enterprise Information Management, 17(4), 276–282. Bryman, A. (1989). Research methods and organisation studies. London: Routledge. Cline, J. (2004). The RFID privacy scare is overblown. Computerworld, 15(38), 11. Deavours, D. (2005). UHF EPC tag performance evaluation: The second report by the RFID Alliance Lab. RFID Alliance Lab. Retrieved June 2007 from http://www.rfidjournal.com/article/articleview/1610. Deavours, D., Ramakrishnan, K. M. & Syed, (2005). RFID performance tag analysis. Technical report. ITTC-FY2006-TR-40980-01. The University of Kansas: Information and Telecommunication Center. Department of Trade and Industry. (1991). Information technology security evaluation criteria (ITSEC). London: Department of Trade and Industry. DeLone, W. H. & McLean, E. R. (2004). Measuring e-commerce success: Applying the DeLone and McLean Information Systems Success Model. International Journal of Electronic Commerce, 9(1), 31–47. DeLone, W. H. & McLean, E. R. (2003). The DeLone and McLean Model of Information Systems success: A ten-year update. Journal of Management Information System, 19(4), 9–30. DeLone, W. H. & McLean, E. R. (2002). Information Systems Success revisited. Proceedings. 35th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Big Island, Hawaii, 7-10 January. DeLone, W. H. & McLean, E. R. (1992). Information systems success: The quest for the dependent variable. Information Systems Research, 3(1), 60–95. Grover, V., Jeong, S. R. & Segars, A. H. (1996). Information systems effectiveness: The construct space and patterns of application. Information & Management, 31, 177–191. Keen, P. G. W. (1980). MIS research: Reference disciplines and a cumulative tradition. Proceedings, First International Conference on Information Systems. 9–18. Kleiner, B. M. (1997). An integrative framework for measuring and evaluating information management performance. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 32(3), 545–555. Langsten, J. & Goldkuhl, G. (2008). Interpretative IS evaluation: Results and uses. Electronic Journal Information Systems Evaluation, 11(2), 97-108. Retrieved December 2008 from http://www.ejise.com/volume-11/volume11-issue2/Lagsten_and_Goldkuhl.pdf.
Priscilla Cristina Cabral Ribeiro, Annibal José Scavarda, Mário Otávio Batalha & DeeVon Bailey,'Application of an IT Evaluation Method' | 37
Liu, L. & Vijayaraman, B. S. (2006). Information integration: A review of emerging e-business technology. In A. J. Salazar & S. Sawyer (Eds.), Handbook of information technology in organisations and electronic markets, Hackensack, NJ: World Scientific Publishing, 13–37. Lovley, E. (2009). The Government has a database for most everything. Politico. Retrieved June 2009 from http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0609/24118.html. Miller, J. (2007). Criteria for evaluating RFID Solutions for records and information. Information Management Journal, 41(1), 50–53. Morey, R. C. (1982). Estimating and improving quality of information in a MIS. Communications of the ACM, 25(5), 337–342. Porter, M. E. (1996). What is strategy? Harvard Business Review, 74(6), 61–78. Ribeiro, P. C. C., Scavarda, A. J. & Batalha, M. O. (2008). The evaluation of information technology: A case study in Brazilian slaughterhouses. Journal of Operations and Supply Chain Management, 1(2), 65–76. Santos, J. R. A. (1999). Cronbach’s alpha: A tool for assessing the reliability of scales. Journal of Extension. 37(2). Retrieved December 2008 from http://www.joe.org/joe/1999april/tt3.html. Schelhaus, J. & Baggett, W. (2008). USDA releases official animal disease traceability business plan. USDA Newsroom. Retrieved February 2009 from http://www.aphis.usda.gov/newsroom/content/2008/09/nais_bus_plan.shtml. Scherer, F. L., Didonet, S. R. & Lara, J. E. (2004). Considerações Sobre a Utilização de Etiquetas Inteligentes no Varejo. Proceedings, VII SEMEAD, FEA/USP, São Paulo. 1–11. Seddon, P. B., Staples, D. S., Patnayakuni, R. & Bowtell, M. J. (1998). IS effectiveness matrix: The importance of stakeholder and system in measuring is success. Proceedings, International Conference on Information Systems, December 13-16, Helsinki, Finland. 165–176. Seddon, (1997). A respecification and extension of the DeLone and McLean Model of IS success. Information System Research, 8(3), 240–253. Sonnenwald, D. H., Maglaughlin, K .L. & Whitton, M. C. (2001). Using innovation diffusion theory to guide collaboration technology evaluation: Work in progress. Enabling technologies: Infrastructure for collaborative enterprises, WET ICE, 20-22 June, 2001, Cambridge. 114–119. Tallon, P., Kraemer, K. L. & Gurbaxani, V. (2000). Executives perceptions of the business value of information technology: a process-oriented approach. Journal of Management Information Systems, 16(4), 145–173. United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). (2009). National animal identification system (NAIS) Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS). Retrieved February 2009 from http://animalid.aphis.usda.gov/nais. United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). (2007). A user guide and additional information resources. Version 2.0. Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS). United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). (2005a). National animal identification system (NAIS). ‘Draft program standards’—A discussion document. Marketing and regulatory program. Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS). United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). (2005b). National animal identification system (NAIS). ‘Draft strategic plans’—A state-federal-industry cooperative effort. Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS). Yin, R. K. (2001). Estudo de caso: Planejamento e métodos (2nd ed). Porto Alegre: Bookman.
38 | International Journal of e-Business Management, vol. 3, no. 2, 2009
ABOUT THE AUTHORS Priscilla Cristina Cabral Ribeiro is Assistant Professor at the Production Engineering, Business and Economy Department, Mines School at Ouro Preto Federal University (UFOP), Brazil. She obtained her Masters in Production Engineering from the Production Engineering Program at Rio de Janeiro Federal University (COPPE/UFRJ). She is currently pursuing her PhD at the Production Engineering Department of São Carlos Federal University (UFSCar) and at Utah State University (USU). Her research interests are in logistics, supply chain management and information technology in the agribusiness sector (dairy products and meat chains). Email:
[email protected] Annibal José Scavarda is Associate Professor at the School of Business and Management at American University of Sharjah (UAE). He is also Adjunct Professor at Marriott School of Management at BYU (USA), Adjunct Professor at SIFT (China), and Faculty Member at Kochi International Business School (India). He has been involved with various research projects, served as Visiting Professor, and/or taught in USA, Brazil, France, Portugal, Israel, China, Hong Kong, Macau, Singapore, UAE, Australia, and New Zealand. Dr. Scavarda is the author or co-author of several papers in refereed academic journals. He received the award for the best 2007-2008 empirical Decision-SciencesJournal-of-Innovative-Education paper. Email:
[email protected] Mário Otávio Batalha is Associate Professor and Researcher at the Production Engineering Department of UFSCar, Brazil. He is the Coordinator of the Production Engineering Graduate Program and also coordinates the Group of Studies and Research in Agribusiness (GEPAI). He has a PhD in Industrial Systems Engineering from the Institut National Polytechnique de Lorraine (France). Email:
[email protected] DeeVon Bailey is Associate Vice President for Research – International Program Development and professor in the Department of Applied Economics at Utah State University. Bailey received a BA (1980) in Economics, an MS (1981) in Agricultural Economics, both from Utah State University, and a PhD (1983) in Agricultural Economics from Texas A&M University. Email: deevon.bailey@usu
