ICT evaluation method and supply chain

RIRL 2010- Bordeaux 30 septembre, 1er octobre 2010

8th RIRL September 29, 30 and October 1st 2010 BEM-Bordeaux Management School

ICT evaluation method and supply chain: case studies in the American cattle chain Priscilla Cristina Cabral RIBEIRO a, Annibal J. SCAVARDA b, Katherine M. CHUDOBA c , DeeVon BAILEY d , Mário Otávio BATALHA e a

Ouro Preto Federal University

b

American University of Sharjah

e

c

Utah State University

d

Utah State University

São Carlos Federal University

Abstract

This paper will present a method to evaluate information and communication technologies (ICT) applied in some American ranches that use Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) in their operations. The qualitative approach and the case study method were adopted in this research. The case studies were carried out in the United States, and were performed between December 2008 and March 2009. The results indicated some RFID advantages and disadvantages, and a lack of an ICT evaluation (its costs and benefits) by some of these companies. As a consequence, they could undervalue or overvalue IT assets by top executives.

Keywords: Information and Communication Technology, RFID, Cattle supply chain, ranches. Supply chains and information systems (Technologies, exchanges, collaborative planning)

RIRL 2010- Bordeaux 30 septembre, 1er octobre 2010

1. INTRODUCTION The use of Information and Communication Technology (ICT) in the food industry demands further study and research since this sector has some specificity such as a short food lifecycle, generally within 25 to 90 days. As a consequence, to manage some of the logistical aspects, such as warehousing, researchers and practitioners need to consider the aspect of time and the integration between the supply chain agents (Mangina & Vlachos, 2005). Supply Chain Management (SCM) is recognized as a contemporary concept that leads to achieving benefits both operational and strategic in nature (Al-Mudimigh et al 2004). According to some authors, SCM involves a set of multiple firms, both upstream (i.e., supply) and downstream (i.e., distribution), as well as the ultimate consumer (Mentzer et al, 2001). This concept includes three elements: the business processes, the management components, and the structure of the chain (Cooper et al, 1997). The cattle supply chain includes agents such as ranchers/producers, feedlots, harvest facilities, distributors, retailers and consumers. To participate in this supply chain, with an important position in the market, countries and companies must implement traceability system structures. Traceability can be part of the strategy used to reduce the risks, or to minimize the impact of food-borne and other diseases that create barriers between international trade relationships. To trace these products, some ICTs, such as Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) and barcodes, have been used in the cattle chain. Although these technologies are an important tool used to trace and control the quality and security of these products, some agents have yet to implement these technologies within their animals. The American government does not have a mandatory traceability system in place, so agents in the cattle chain are not required to implement or use any ICT (including RFID) to trace their products. Some agents use RFID while others simply implement plastic ear tags to trace their cattle. The problem some ranchers face is the absence of an ICT evaluation before the implementation process begins. These ranchers invest in some of the ICTs but they lack any evaluation prior to implementation. In addition, ranchers often have problems training employees how to learn and how to use ICT systems. This paper aims to present a method in which to evaluate Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) as applied to some American ranches that use Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) within their operations. Although seven ranchers were interviewed by various authors, only three of the ranchers had implemented RFID in their operations. In this

RIRL 2010- Bordeaux 30 septembre, 1er octobre 2010

paper, these three case studies will be presented, according to the evaluation method variables, showing the similarities and differences among the group. The article is organized as follows; Section 2 presents the relationship between SCM and the food industry; Section 3 describes the relationship between ICT, RFID, and traceability; and Section 4 presents the ICT Evaluation method. Section 5 describes the methodology employed in literature review and field research, while Section 6 describes the structure of the American Cattle/Beef chain and case studies that were developed in American ranches. Finally, Section 7 outlines the primary conclusions of this paper. 2. SUPPLY CHAIN MANAGEMENT AND THE CATTLE CHAIN: THE LACK OF INTEGRATION 2.1 Supply Chain Management: integration and competitive advantage Crook & Combs (2007:546) presented the relationship between SCM and integration when they stated that “properly implemented, SCM tools increase coordination among firms at successive stages of production.” This relationship between integration, SCM, partnerships and alliances allows the producers at one end of the supply chain to respond to consumer demands at the other end of the chain in a more accurate fashion (Mulrony & Chaddad, 2005). As a result, the supply chain is able to generate a higher quality, added value product (Barcellos et al, 2006). The supply chain could maintain a firms’ competitive advantage greater than when these organizations relied entirely on their own resources and capabilities. Some changes such as fast-moving technological innovation, increased and globalized competition, vertical disintegration and ever-changing consumer demands have shaped a business environment where the establishment of inter-firm relationships has emerged as a necessary condition for competitiveness. This competitiveness results in the establishment of extensive business networks (Perez & Martinez, 2007). 2.2 Cattle Chain: integration, specificities, and partnerships Within the food industry, mainly in the cattle chain, the integration is difficult because the agents do not exchange information, experiences, or management techniques in order to improve their businesses. Mulrony & Chaddad (2005:18) share the same point of view on the subject of cattle/beef supply chain integration: “The beef supply chain has been traditionally described as a complex intertwining of multiple vertically sequenced segments characterized by intense rivalry and adversarial positions between supply-chain participants. However, this description of the beef supply chain is beginning to change as a result of the agro

RIRL 2010- Bordeaux 30 septembre, 1er octobre 2010

industrialization process. First, the beef supply chain has witnessed concentration in all segments over the last few decades. The number of cow-calf producers, feedlots, and beef slaughter plants has suffered significant decline as the industry adjusts to slow growth in domestic beef consumption. In addition, concentration in food retailing and changes in consumer preferences and buying habits are affecting business practices, resulting in tighter linkages and coordination between segments of the beef supply chain.” According to Aramyan et al (2007), the food industry presents some specificities such as: shelf life constraints for raw materials and the perishability of products; long production throughput time; production seasonality; the product’s physical properties (taste, odor, appearance, and size); conditioned transportation and storage requirements; product safety issues; and natural conditions affecting the quantity and the quality of farm products. These specificities lead the food industry to implement SCM strategies. This implementation occurs because industries manufacturing products from agricultural resources are developing rapidly and the prices of agricultural products are time-sensitive, which means that the price decreases dramatically as the shelf life of the product comes to an end. (Du et al, 2009:253) Specifically in this case, where there is a tendency towards differentiation processes, the partnerships within the supply chains have been making possible the value aggregation of raw materials by primary producers (Hobbs & Young, 2000). In this way, in spite of existing problems, the opportunities for closer relationships among the agents of the agri-food chains are growing (Barcellos et al, 2006). According to Fearne & Dedman (2000:17), as far as the fresh produce meat sectors are concerned, there are five benefits which might generally be expected to result from a partnership arrangement: improved market access, improved communications, higher profit margins, greater discipline, and higher entry barriers. In agreement with a study accomplished by IEL et al (2000:136), other potential benefits of this cattle chain agent alliance and/ or partnership can be seen in Table 1: Table 1: Potential benefits of cattle chain alliance and/ or partnership. Agents Producers

Harvest facility

Benefits -Increase in the profitability; -Learning and the use of more modern handling techniques, [that] can provide productivity gains in the medium and long term; -Sales are guaranteed to the abattoirs that value specific characteristics of the animals (such as steers); -Product differentiation in the long term -Guarantee of inputs regularity; -Guaranteed sales; -Differentiation from the competitors

RIRL 2010- Bordeaux 30 septembre, 1er octobre 2010

Distributors

-Guarantee of inputs regularity; -Ability to offer an assured quality product to the final consumer Customers -Product data availability [about products]; -Availability of higher quality products (meat) [with higher quality]; -Guarantee of food security Search: Adapted from IEL et al (2000)

ICT could be the solution used to connect and integrate agents within a supply chain. When companies use ICTs, they are able to exchange information about their products, thus improving their quality and increasing the company’s revenues. 3. ICT, TRACEABILITY AND RFID 3.1 ICT and it contributions to SCM According to Trevino et al (1987:554) “new communication technologies are increasingly available to managers. Electronic mail allows managers to instantly send messages across vast distances without playing telephone tag. Teleconferencing offers the possibility of group meetings without traveling to meet face-to-face.” The same authors discussed the relationship between ICT and its contributions to link organizations and the changes to these organization’s forms. For instance, “Electronic communication technologies are enablers of changed forms by offering capabilities to overcome constraints on time and distance, key barriers around which organizational forms traditionally have been designed.” ICT support inter-organizational forms as outsourcing, and other relationships, into a supply chain. The importance of ICT has increased, such as the use of EDI and the Internet in financial services, the pharmaceutical industry, and the airline industry. In addition, RFID is emerging as a ubiquitous technology that promises identification and real time monitoring across the global supply chain and new forms of the integration effect. (Barret, 2006:42) 3.2 The use of RFID: advantages, disadvantages, and traceability Liu & Vijayaraman (2006:15) considered that RFID is a new e-business technology, and they defined it as “RFID is a technology that captures product data and track inventory throughout its supply chain without human interaction, enabling the Internet to reach the physical world.” According to Liu & Vijayaraman (2006) the data stored in RFID tags can be read through several substances such as snow, fog, ice, paint, encrusted grime, and other materials, conditions where barcodes or other optically read technologies would be useless. The benefits of RFID include: improved data accuracy, enhanced asset visibility, reduced information latency, reduced out-of-stocks, reduced inventory, reduced shrinkage, improved forecasting, enhanced product pedigree, reduced costs of product recalls, improved accuracy

RIRL 2010- Bordeaux 30 septembre, 1er octobre 2010

for return processing, reduced product counterfeiting, theft deterrence, etc. 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, 2006:22-23). The advantages of using RFID in the cattle supply chain are illustrated by Mennecke & Townsend (2005:16) as follows: “while RFID at the producer level is predominantly a replacement for conventional ear tagging, there is little precedent for the use of RFID to enhance traceability through the processor. The general feeling among many processors, particularly in the U.S. market, introducing anything beyond lot-level traceability would needlessly slow product throughput. Further, with much current production using multiple daily lots (i.e., four lots per shift), there exists great enough sensitivity within the current production process to avoid the extremely large product recalls that have characterized disease problems in the past”.

The disadvantages associated with using RFID are related to cost, the lack of a worldwide tag standard, the volume of data that this technology creates, the complexity of the system integration, and the debate about privacy and security. In the cattle chain, the disadvantage is dependent upon the relative size and characteristic structure of a particular meat brand (i.e., lineage, conformity, tenderness, etc.). The lot-based system may not provide an efficient mechanism for capturing brand nuance (Mennecke & Townsend, 2005). The implementation of RFID generates a massive amount of data that needs to be stored, processed, and used in real time (Helders & Vethman, 2003). RFID systems will therefore need to be integrated with existing data warehouses and other e-business systems. (Liu & Vijayaraman, 2006:24) The continuous flow of products and their data demands a scalable esystem, which must be able to route and integrate information to internal applications and external business partners. RFID appears to have problems with perceived privacy issues, since consumers believe that RFID will violate their right to privacy. According to Cline (2004) any company or government can scan consumer’s houses to find out what products have been purchased, despite the fact that there is no feasible way to do so. Cattle identification systems use RFID technology that is embedded in ear tags, which are similar to those used for cattle identification and tagging for the past several decades. Tags are laser-engraved with an identification number that corresponds to the ISO number that is programmed on the RFID tag. In some cases, an engraved barcode is also included on each tag as a backup identification mechanism. 4. ICT EVALUATION METHOD 4.1 The ICT evaluation method framework

RIRL 2010- Bordeaux 30 septembre, 1er octobre 2010

Some authors have determined variables for evaluating ICT that consider a multi-level evaluation model starting with the most general (information) and moving up to the more specific identification technologies: information, technology, ICT, IS, and identification technologies (Ribeiro et al, 2008). In this paper the division between the different technologies will not be highlighted. Instead, all of the variables will be joined together to build a cohesive approach regarding IS/IT/ICT evaluation methods. The variables were classified into three main groups: organizational, security, and technical. Each group has its own division that depends on the characteristics of the variables. Initially, Rogers’ analysis (1995) constructed the divisions, but after several interviews, some variables were reallocated according to their meaning and practical use. The first author who was included in this evaluation method was Rogers (1995). After, some more authors were added and DeLone & McLean’s (1992) paper contributed to improving Roger’s methods as well as confirming some variables. DeLone & McLean presented an evaluation method which is based on a large group of authors. Some of them were selected according to the authors interests (the first group of variables) and were added to compound this method. These steps are showed in Figure 1. Model 1

Attributes COBIT Methodology Business key objectives IS Phases Evaluation Security Technical Aspects Environmental Aspects Economic Aspects

D&M + authors Attributes Business key objectives IS Phases Evaluation Security Technical Aspects Environmental Aspects Economical Aspects System Quality Information Quality Information use User satisfaction Individual Impact Organizational Impact Service Quality

Final Model

Organizational Variables Security Variables Technical Variables

Figure 1: Steps of evaluation method.

These steps lead to the proposition of a new evaluation method, which could be applied to some sectors of the food industry. 4.2 The variables 4.2.1 The Organizational Variables

RIRL 2010- Bordeaux 30 septembre, 1er octobre 2010

The first group, ‘Organizational Variables’, is divided into four sub-groups. The first is Relative Advantage (Rogers, 1995), which is related to the rate of technological innovation used by a company, and which in turn, was divided into three categories (ranked according to the respondent’s answers): company support in order to meet goals (Sonnenwald et al, 2001; DeLone & McLean ,1992; Boynton et al, 1994; Lewis et al, 1995; Moore & Benbasat, 1991; Agarwal & Prasad, 1997), assurance that the company has quality results (Sonnenwald et al, 2001; DeLone & McLean, 1992; Moore & Benbasat, 1991; Agarwal & Prasad, 1997), and the achievement and maintenance of a high market ranking (Sonnenwald et al, 2001; DeLone & McLean, 1992; Clemons, 1991; Moore & Benbasat, 1991; Agarwal & Prasad, 1997). For the Attribute of Compatibility (Rogers, 1995), – the second group - which is related to company missions and objectives, ICT was evaluated according to its contribution towards the group communication (Sonnenwald et al, 2001; DeLone & McLean, 1992; Bailey & Pearson, 1983; Boynton et al, 1994; Moore & Benbasat, 1991; Agarwal & Prasad, 1997) and experience with Information and Communication Technology (Sonnenwald et al, 2001; Moore & Benbasat, 1991; Agarwal & Prasad, 1997). The company’s Observational Ability (Rogers, 1995), is related to the last attribute, the third group, which is Innovation Visibility in the market (for instance, if the technology used by the company in the supply chain gives it a visibility in the market, the respondent will mark “5” on the scale above) (Sonnenwald et al, 2001; Moore & Benbasat, 1991; Agarwal & Prasad, 1997). The business Key Objectives compose the fourth group, which were translated by Tallon et al (2000) into IT and were ranked according to the previously mentioned scale. Thus, IT was evaluated as a benefit for efficiency (DeLone & McLean, 1992; Boynton et al, 1994; Rivard & Huff, 1984; Remus, 1984; Wang & Forgionne, 2008), effectiveness (DeLone & McLean, 1992; Mahmood, 1987; Bailey & Pearson, 1983; Rivard & Huff, 1984; Millman & Hartwick, 1987; Miller & Doyle, 1987; Wang & Forgionne, 2008; Igbaria & Tan, 1997; Petter et al, 2008), reach (DeLone & McLean, 1992; Boynton et al, 1994), and structure. 4.2.2 The Security Variables’ The second group of variables is ‘IT Security Variables’ (evaluated using the same scale as before), which consider mainly confidentiality (Department of Trade and Industry, 1991; Bailey & Pearson, 1983; Lewis et al, 1995), data integrity (Department of Trade and Industry, 1991; Bailey & Pearson, 1983; DeLone & McLean, 1992), physical integrity (Department of Trade and Industry, 1991; Bailey & Pearson, 1983), availability (Department of Trade and

RIRL 2010- Bordeaux 30 septembre, 1er octobre 2010

Industry, 1991; Bailey & Pearson, 1983; DeLone & McLean, 1992; Srinivasan, 1985; Bradley et al, 2006; Sedera et al, 2004), and consistency (Department of Trade and Industry, 1991; Bailey & Pearson, 1983; DeLone & McLean, 1992; Srinivasan, 1985; Bradley et al, 2006; Sedera et al, 2004; Ahituv, 1980; Petter & McLean, 2009; Wang & Forgionne, 2008; Igbaria & Tan, 1997). 4.2.3 The Technical Variables’ The third group, ‘Technical Variables’ includes technical aspects, reliability, complexity, experimentation, environmental aspects, and economic aspects. Technical aspects contain performance (Deavours et al, 2005; DeLone & McLean, 1992; Morey, 1982), variation (Deavours et al, 2005; Morey, 1982), quickness (Miller, 2007; DeLone & McLean, 1992; Bradley et al, 2006; Petter & McLean, 2009; Igbaria & Tan, 1997; Petter et al, 2008), conformity, and equipment quality (Miller, 2007). Reliability is a group that contains some variables to evaluate the IT such as reliability, and response speed (Sonnenwald et al, 2001; DeLone & McLean, 1992; Bailey & Pearson, 1983; Srinivasan, 1985; Ahituv, 1980; Miller & Doyle, 1987; Bradley et al, 2006; Sabherwal et al, 2006; Petter & McLean, 2009; Petter et al, 2008; Moore & Benbasat, 1991). For the Complexity group (Rogers, 1995), the evaluation criteria included both ease of system use, and learning. Experimentation (Rogers, 1995), is a group, which was divided into ease of recovering data (Sonnenwald et al, 2001; Moore & Benbasat, 1991), the effort required to use (Sonnenwald et al, 2001; Mahmood, 1987; Sabherwal et al, 2006; Petter & McLean, 2009; Wang & Forgionne, 2008; Moore & Benbasat, 1991) and learn the system (Sonnenwald et al, 2001; DeLone & McLean, 1992; Sabherwal et al, 2006; Wang & Forgionne, 2008; Igbaria & Tan, 1997; Petter et al, 2008; Davis, 1985; Agarwal & Prasad, 1997; Moore & Benbasat, 1991; Mahmood, 1987). Environmental aspects include ‘closeness to water’ in order to evaluate the resistance of the RFID ear tags to assorted materials present in cattle habitation (Miller, 2007; Deavours et al, 2005). Economical aspects include hardware (label) cost (Miller, 2007), profitability (Miller, 2007; DeLone & McLean, 1992; Ein-Dor et al, 1981; Rivard & Huff, 1984; Hitt & Bryjolfsson, 1996), the company budget (Miller, 2007), risk involved (Sonnenwald et al, 2001; Clemons, 1991), and the associated costs (Miller, 2007; Sonnenwald et al, 2001; DeLone & McLean, 1992; Clemons, 1991).

RIRL 2010- Bordeaux 30 septembre, 1er octobre 2010

The stages of IS evaluation were evaluated either. The answers did not follow a scale, but they were a ‘yes/no’ questions/answers. The variables are: Strategic Evaluation, which refers to preimplementation IS stage; Constructive Evaluation, a stage applied during the IS implementation; Cumulative Evaluation, a post-implementation stage, in the end of the process. The post-mortem evaluation is doing when the company interrupts the IS use (Beynon-Davies et al, 2004; Grover et al, 1996; Franz & Robey, 1986). The original method was applied to the cattle chain identification technologies, such as RFID and barcode. This application will be demonstrated in the section 6, where the case studies are presented. 5. METHODOLOGY In this paper, the qualitative approach was adopted since the objective is to gather information through interviews including the interviewees’ opinions and views (Bryman, 1989). The case study method was chosen because the focus is on how much present-day ranches use Information Technology. The research was carried out using a small number of cases, which did not allow for generalizations (Yin, 2001). According to Miguel (2007), a case study has an empiric characteristic, which investigates a specific and current phenomenon. The problem is that the boarders among this phenomenon and the context where it is are not clear, so its analysis has to be made carefully. This method could analyze deeply one or more cases, following some steps. The steps are: define the literature review; plan case studies; do a previous test with some cases (and go back to the planning step, if something seems wrong); collect data; analyze data; and write the report or paper. (Miguel, 2007) These steps were made in this paper, and after some case studies the author did again the ICT evaluation method framework, organizing in a different structure the variables. Some authors agree with Miguel (2007) and believe that the case study method contributes to clarify the research question, to suggest hypothesis, and to develop the theory (Gil, 1996; Berto & Nakano, 2000; Mattar, 1996). When the report or paper is finished, the conclusions should be specific, using some techniques (not statistics) and explanations, which will be useful for new theories and models (Campomar, 1991). The case study could be done using one case or more, but not exceeding ten. The quantity of cases is among four and ten. In this paper the authors obey this rule, and follow some authors that recommend some techniques such as: interviews (structured, semi-structured, and not structured), analysis of companies’ documents, observation, and a survey. In some cases, visit a factory will improve the observation and contribute to check the information from the

RIRL 2010- Bordeaux 30 septembre, 1er octobre 2010

interviewees and what is real (Miguel, 2007), which was done by the authors, when they visited the ranches. The research instrument consisted of semi-structured interviews with closed and open answers (yes/no questions ranked on a 5-point scale, where 1 is “very low” and 5 is “very high”). The respondents are the owners and operators of those modern ranches. The evaluation variables are the basis of the ICT evaluation method developed by the author based on the literature review. To make it easy to understand, in the method developed by the author, the variables were organized differently. Some variables that are normally grouped together currently belong to a different group as shown in item 4. The case studies were carried out by seven ranchers in Utah and Wyoming in the United States. In this paper three of the ranchers will be analyzed because they used RFID in their operations. The research was performed between December, 2008 and March, 2009. 6. CASE STUDIES 6.1 American Cattle Chain According to Al-Hakim (2006), “red meat supply chain entities include farmers, producers, harvest facilities, distributors and such, are located in rural areas, while a large number of retailers and consumers are mainly located in urban areas.” This distance produces a gap in technology diffusion, which has a direct influence on the flow of information through the red meat supply chain, which may ultimately affect consumer trust. The majority of American ranchers implement plastic ear tags to track their cattle, but some of them use ICT such as RFID to control the data related to these animals. The results were worse than these companies expected, since after the ranchers purchased and implemented the software and the hardware, they experienced problems with the managerial structure, human resources, and the cost to maintain these technologies. Because of this, some authors, such as Grover et al (1996), suggested an evaluation with some reliable performance metrics prior to an IT implementation in order to avoid the under or over value of IT assets by top executives. According to the previous paragraph, the cattle chain could improve its performance of the ICTs resulting in the preservation of the food quality and security. 6.2 Case Studies: American ranches According to the Utah and Wyoming Department of Agriculture and Food (2008), beef cattle producers can be divided into four size groups: Small (1-49 heads); Medium (50-99 heads); Large (100-499 heads); very large (500 heads and over). In this sample, all ranches are

RIRL 2010- Bordeaux 30 septembre, 1er octobre 2010

considered large and will be presented comparing their characteristics, and their ranking to those variables related in the evaluation method. Table 2 shows the sample, the interview locations, as well as the dates the interviews took place. Table 2: The sample and its characteristics. Ranches Case study 1 Case study 2 Case study 3 Search: Done by authors.

State Utah Utah Wyoming

Size (number of animals) 250 240 400

Interviews dates 01/19/2009 02/05/2009 02/16/2009

6.2.1 Case Study 1 The interviewee is the owner of this ranch, which is located in Smithfield, Utah, and the ranch has 70 years old. He has an agreement with a ranch that breeds bulls, but in general, he does not have any partnerships. He shares information with customers and clients about his cattle by the Internet. Internet is the tool that provides information about all the buyers in the world, whose can be potential buyers of his animals. In 2002 the rancher began the use of RFID in his cattle to be in a part of experiment with feedlots and a harvest facility. One week before the day that they scheduled to sell the cattle, the company that produces RFID tags called the rancher and said that the industry was bought by another group that decided not to do anything about RFID tags. He said that spent money and time and it was not compensated by any initiative. After the first experience, the rancher was involved in another project with other ranchers, but he made something wrong and when he sold the cattle he discovered that all the data that (he thinks) he recorded was not in the software. Then, he did not receive any money for this, but this last time he recognized that it was his fault, too. The tags were passive and they cannot monitor the place. The data was recorded only once, and the data cannot record and read many times. The material that these tags are made is yellow plastic with a tablet shape, and the rancher paid US$2.50 per tag. Although he had bad experiences with RFID in the past, he considers that IT is very important to his activities. If the market pays more for animals that have RFID tags, he will implement again this technology on his ranch. He does the evaluation internally, and he does in all steps, since pre-implementation until now, that he is still evaluating why he gave up using RFID ear tags. 6.2.2 Case Study 2

RIRL 2010- Bordeaux 30 septembre, 1er octobre 2010

The interviewee is the owner and operator of the ranch, which is designated case study 2. This ranch is located in Cokeville, Wyoming, and the rancher has been working in this ranch for 33 years. The rancher does not have any partnership, but it ranch is in a special program, which names Superior Animal Health with Pfizer. IT contributes for sharing information, but the rancher does not share outside of his business. He uses Internet to send and receive some information to/from another ranch. The ranch has RFID ear tags but it does not have any readers or antennas. The rancher places RFID tags on the animals’ ears thirty days before ships animals to the buyers. Before this time he used plastic ear tags, and he could control all animals using this system. The tags are passive and they cannot monitor the place. The data is recorded just once, and the data cannot record and read many times. The material that these tags are made is yellow plastic with a tablet shape, and the rancher pays US$3.00 per tag. According to this rancher, ranchers are using new technologies just because the higher prices that they can earn. The main factor to lead them is not to control diseases and avoid their spread, but to differentiate their product and as consequence, have higher prices. Although American system is not mandatory, he knows that he is in a market that demands more control. He evaluated the RFID tags since he decided to implement, but he did not use accounting techniques, just cost of this technology. He did not give up using these tags, and he intends to place the RFID tags on animals that he will buy. 6.2.3 Case Study 3 The interviewee is the owner of the ranch, which is located in Snowville, Utah, and the rancher was there since last 32 years. It does not have any partnerships, just some agreements with minerals suppliers. When he was asked about the data (information) sharing with other companies and what, the rancher responded that they share by e-mail and cell, the information is the breed, and the location of the cattle that we have and sell. He can integrate his business with other agents of his supply chain by telephone (most of the time) and by e-mail. In most of its operations, this ranch uses RFID ear tags, but it has plastics ear tags, too. The ID tag comes programmed on with a number, he just read it. The tags are passive and they cannot monitor the place. The data is recorded and read only once. The material that these tags are made is yellow plastic with a tablet shape, and the rancher paid US$2.00 per tag.

RIRL 2010- Bordeaux 30 septembre, 1er octobre 2010

According to the interviewee ranchers are using and searching for new technologies because the market is demanding this, so differentiating is the main reason to implement new technologies. The rancher evaluates all steps. He uses price that his animals have in the market such as a variable to balance costs and benefits. The last evaluation carried him to decide to continuous using RFID ear tags. 6.3 Case Studies’ analysis: similarities and differences The analysis will outline the similarities and differences within the case rankings. The main similarities between all of the case rankings were found primarily in the sub-variables such as: the quality of the results, high rank achievement, ICT experience, structure, closeness to water, and hardware costs. This outcome illustrates the information about the rancher’s experiences with RFID. They ranked similarly with regards to the variables related to managerial aspects, which were ranked from medium to high (3 to 4). One exception was the sub-variable “Closeness to water”, which had the same ranking, but “very low” (1). All ranchers agreed that RFID did not have any problem concerning water contact. The ICT phase evaluation variables were evaluated during and after implement their technologies. The differences in this sample ranking are related to technical aspects because they ranked some variables differently such as: data integrity, performance, ease of data recovery and risk. Case 1 ranked the data integrity provided by RFID as “very low” (1), but other cases ranked it as “high” (4). When interviewees ranked the sub-variable performance the behavior was the same, Case 2 ranked lower than others (low (2) and very high (5), respectively). The subvariable, ease of data recovery, received a “low” ranking by Cases 1 and 2. This is due to the fact that they considered RFID, such as an ICT, which provides data but does not permit data recovery. All of these sub-variables are found within technical variables and two of them are in the technical aspects sub-group. The interviewees articulated that in the ICT phase evaluation they did not evaluate pre-implementation or after they gave up an ICT implementation. 7. CONCLUSION The Cattle chain is a group of agents which contain some specificity and problems that lead to an absence of integration, difficulties in implementing and evaluating ICTs. In addition, the agents are in a situation that demands a high level of organization as they are not obligated to implement ICTs to track their products from the USDA. Nevertheless, they have customers (retailers and countries) who demand ICT, such as RFID, to track cattle. Ranchers intend to invest in RFID but they lack employees with the qualifications to work with this new

RIRL 2010- Bordeaux 30 septembre, 1er octobre 2010

technology. Some companies produce RFID tags to track cattle and help these ranches with technical aspects, giving some technical support, but this generally only happens when they are interested in developing specific projects. When these companies are not interested in developing an idea, they simply sell the tags with a manual, which shows how to place the tag on cattle. Despite these problems, some ranches implemented RFID and other ICTs in their traceability system. Three of them were interviewed and after this their answers were compared, according to the evaluation method variables. There were some similarities and differences in their rankings. First, the similarities were about organizational variables, which ranked from 3 to 5. This information lead to the following conclusion in this small sample: the RFID scored from medium to high performance in managerial aspects (organizational and economics). The differences were in technical aspects, mainly Case 1, which produced strong opinions about these aspects as a result of having two implementations that failed to understand how to record information and which also failed to earn money. Despite receiving a higher monetary value per animal the interviewee commented that technical problems with the system influenced his decision not to implement RFID. The evaluation method showed that the interviewees had some variables to evaluate an ICT, depending on their interests and necessities, before purchasing software and/or hardware. Some variables about Rogers’ (1995) theory have to be explained more clearly because some interviewees had difficulty in understanding the technology. When it has three groups of variables, this method provides an organization which is totally different than any others to date. It has an extensive literature review which may provide a framework for new applications in other sectors and could be discussed in other papers. The method provides a source of technical information which will lead some companies (ranches, feedlots, and harvest facilities) to evaluate an important resource, their ICTs tools. Nowadays, is common to find some IT/IS evaluation methods about financial resources, which is important, but not enough during the decision about buy or not an ICT. ICT’s packages represent a high cost, mainly for ranchers, to not be evaluated appropriately. For this, this ICT evaluation method gives a simple basis to be followed by companies in general. It could be a complementary method with other, such as DeLone&McLean. The authors do not intend to substitute none of them, but complement their ideas, contributing to the literature review and to cattle chain.

RIRL 2010- Bordeaux 30 septembre, 1er octobre 2010

REFERENCES Agarwal R., Prasad J. (1997), The Role of Innovation Characteristics and Perceived Voluntariness in the Acceptance of Information Technologies, Decision Sciences, Vol. 28, No3, pp. 557-582. Ahituv N. (1980), A systematic approach toward assessing the value of an information system, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 4, No4, pp. 61-75. Al-Hakim L. (2006), Collaborative Commerce in meat supply chain. Asian Pacific Industrial Engineering and Management Conference. Industrial Engineering and Management Systems, Asian Institute of Technology, Thailand, 17th-20th, December. Al-Mudimigh S. A., Zairi M, Ahmed A. M. M. (2004), Extending the concept of supply chain: The effective management of value chains, International Journal of Production Economics, No87, pp. 309–320. Aramyan L. H, Lansink A. G.J.M. O., Van Der Vorst J. G.A.J., Van Kooten O. (2007), Performance measurement in agrifood supply chains: a case study, Supply Chain Management: an International Journal, Vol. 12, No4, pp 304–315. Bailey J. E., Pearson S. W. (1983), Development of a tool for measuring and analyzing computer user satisfaction, Management Science, Vol. 29, No5, pp.530-545. Barcellos M. D. De, Canever M., Prandini L. (2006), The Key Features of Partnership in the British and Brazilian Beef Chain: Threats or Opportunities?, Poster presented at the 7th International Conference on Management in AgriFood Chains and Networks, Ede, The Netherlands, May, 31st, June, 1st-2nd. Barcellos M. D. De, Ferreira G. C., Vieira L. M. (2006), Quality Assurance and Vertical Alliances: Case Studies in the UK and Brazilian Beef Chains, Paper presented at the 7th International Conference on Management in AgriFood Chains and Networks, Ede, The Netherlands, May, 31st, June, 1st-2nd. Barret, M. (2006), ICTs, Organizational change and new modes of organizing, in: Salazar, A. J., Sawyer, S. (Eds.), Handbook of Information Technology in Organizations and Electronic Markets, World Scientific Publishing Co, pp. 39-55. Beynon-Davies P., Owens, I., Williams M. D. (2004), Information systems evaluation and the information systems development process, Journal of Enterprise Information Management, Vol. 17, No4, pp.276-282.

RIRL 2010- Bordeaux 30 septembre, 1er octobre 2010

Berto, R. M. V. S., Nakano, D. N. A (2000), Produção Científica nos Anais do Encontro Nacional de Engenharia de Produção: Um Levantamento de Métodos e Tipos de Pesquisa. Produção, Vol. 9, No 2, pp. 65-76. Boyton A. C., Zmud R. W., Jacobs G. C. (1994), The influence of IT management practice on IT use in large organizations, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 18, No3, pp.299-318. Bradley R. V., Pridmore J. L., Byrd T. A. (2006), Information system success in the context of different corporate cultural types: an empirical investigation, Journal of Management Information Systems, Vol. 33, No2, pp. 267-294. Bryman, A. (1989), Quantity and quality in social research, in Bulmer, M. (Ed), Research Methods and Organisation Studies, Routledge, Unwin Hyman, London, pp. 135-169. Campomar, M. C. (1991), Do uso de estudos de caso em pesquisas para dissertações e teses em administração, Revista de Administrição, Vol. 26, No 3, pp. 95-97, julho/set. Clemons E. K. (1991), Evaluation of Strategic Investments in Information Technology, Communications of the ACM, Vol. 34, No1, pp. 22-36. Cline J. (2004), The RFID privacy scare is overblown, Computerworld, Vol. 15, No38, p. 11. Cooper M. C., Lambert D. M., Pagh J. D. (1997), Supply Chain Management: more than a new name for Logistics, The International Journal of Logistics Management, Vol. 8, No1, p. 1–14. Crook T. R., Combs J. G. (2007), Sources and consequences of bargaining power in supply chains, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 25, pp. 546–555. Davis F. D. Jr. (1985), A technology acceptance model for empirically testing new-ender user information systems: theory and results. PhD Dissertation in Management, The Sloan School of Management, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, December. Deavours D, Ramakrishnan K. M., Syed A. (2005), RFID Performance Tag Analysis. Technical Report. ITTC-FY2006-TR-40980-01. Information and Telecommunication Center. The University of Kansas, USA. DeLone W. H., Mclean E. R. (1992), Information Systems Success: The quest for the dependent variable, Information Systems Research, Vol. 3, No1, pp.60-95. Du X. F., Leung S. C. H., Zhang J. L., Lai, K. K. (2009), Insight from industry Procurement of agricultural products using the CPFR approach, Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, Vol. 14, No4, pp. 253–258.

RIRL 2010- Bordeaux 30 septembre, 1er octobre 2010

Ein-Dor P., Segev E., Steinfeld A. (1981), Use of Management Information Systems: an empirical study, Second International Conference on Information Systems, December. Fearne A., Dedman S. (1999), Supply chain partnerships for private label products: insights from the UK, Conference of the Food Distribution Research Society, Wye. Franz C. R., Robey D. (1986), Organizational context, user involvement, and the usefulness of information systems, Decision Sciences, Vol. 7, No3, pp.329-356. Gil, A. C. (1996), Como Elaborar Projetos de Pesquisa. São Paulo: Atlas. Grover V., Jeong S. R., Segars A. H. (1996), Information systems effectiveness: the construct space and patterns of application, Information & Management, 31, pp. 177-191. Helders B., Vethman A. J. (2003), Beyond 2005: How RFID will change the global supply chain, Chain Store Age, pp. 39-48. Hitt L., Bryjolfsson E. (1996), Productivity, Business Profitability, and Consumer Surplus: three different measures of Information Technology value, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 20, No2, pp. 121-142. Hobbs J., Young L. (2000), Closer Vertical Co-ordination in Agrifood Supply chain: A Conceptual Framework and some Preliminary Evidence, Supply Chain Management, Vol. 5, No3, pp. 131-142. IEL, CNA, SEBRAE (2000), Estudo sobre a eficiência econômica e competitividade da cadeia agroindustrial da pecuária de corte no Brasil. Brasília, IEL, Brazil. Igbaria M., Tan M. (1997), The consequences of information technology acceptance on subsequent individual performance, Information & Management, Vol. 32, pp. 113-121. Lewis B. R., Snyder C. A., Rainier Jr R. K. (1995), An Empirical Assessment of the Information Resource Management Construct, Journal of Management Information Systems, Vol. 12. No1, pp. 199-223. Liu L., Vijayaraman B. S. (2006), Information Integration: a review of emerging e-business technology, in Salazar, A. J., Sawyer, S. (Eds.), Handbook of Information Technology in Organizations and Electronic Markets, World Scientific Publishing Co, pp. 13-37. Mangina E. P., Vlachos I. P. (2005), The changing role of information technology in food and beverage logistics management: beverage network electricity using intelligent agent technology, Journal of Food Engineering, Vol. 70, No3, pp. 403-420. Mattar, F. N. (1996), Pesquisa de Marketing: Metodologia e Planejamento. São Paulo: Atlas.

RIRL 2010- Bordeaux 30 septembre, 1er octobre 2010

Mennecke B., Townsend A. (2005), Radio Frequency Identification tagging as a mechanism of creating a viable producer’s brand in the cattle industry. MATRIC Research Paper 05MRP 8, Iowa. Mentzer J. T., Dewitt W., Keebler J. S., Min S. (2001), Defining supply chain management, Journal of Business Logistics, Vol. 22, No2, pp. 1-25. Miguel, P. A. (2007), Estudo de caso na engenharia de produção: estruturação e recomendações para sua condução, Revista Produção, Vol. 17, No1, pp. 216-229. Miller J. (2007), Criteria for evaluating RFID Solutions for records and information, Information Management Journal, Vol. 41, No1, pp.50-53. Miller J., Doyle B. A. (1987), Measuring the effectiveness of computer-based information systems in the financial services sector, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 11, No1, pp.107-124. Millman Z., Hartwick J. (1987), The impact of automated office systems on middle managers and their work, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 11, No4, pp.479-491. Moore G. C., Benbasat I. (1991), Development of an instrument to measure the perceptions of adopting an Information Technology innovation, Information Systems Research, Vol., 2, No3, pp. 193-222. Morey R. C. (1982), Estimating and Improving quality of information in a MIS, Communications of the ACM, Vol. 25, No5, pp.337-342. Mulrony B. R., Chaddad F. R. (2005), Strategic alliances in the U.S. beef supply chain, Journal of Food Distribution Research, Vol. 36, No3, pp. 18-32. Perez A. M. G., Martinez M. G. (2007), The agrifood cooperative netchain. A theoretical framework to study its configuration, Food Economics, Acta Agricult Scand C, Vol. 4, pp. 3139. Petter S., Mclean E. (2009), A meta-analytic assessment of the DeLone & McLean IS success model: An examination of IS success at the individual level, Information & Management, Vol. 46, pp. 159–166. Petter, S., Delone W., Mclean E. (2008), Measuring information system success: models, dimensions, measures, and interrelationships, European Journal of Information Systems, Vol. 17, pp. 236-263. Remus W. (1984), An empirical investigation of the impact of graphical and tabular data presentations on decision making, Management Science, Vol. 30, No5, pp.533-542.

RIRL 2010- Bordeaux 30 septembre, 1er octobre 2010

Ribeiro P. C. C. R. (2009), Proposição de um método de avaliação de tecnologia de identificação: o caso RFID nas cadeias de carne bovina no Brasil e nos EUA. PhD Dissertation in Production Engineering, São Carlos Federal University (UFSCar), December. 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, Vol. 1, No2, pp. 65–76. Rivard S., Huff S. L. (1984), User developed applications: evaluation of success from the DP Department Perspective, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 8, No1, pp.39-50. Rogers E. M. (1995), Diffusion of innovations, The Free Press, New York (4th Edition).

RIRL 2010- Bordeaux 30 septembre, 1er octobre 2010

Sabherwal R., Jeyaraj A., Chowa C. (2006), Information System Success: individual and organizational determinants, Management Science, Vol. 52, No2, pp. 1849-1864. Sedera D, Gable G., Chan T. (2004), A factor and structural equation analysis of the enterprise systems success measurement model, Twenty-Fifth International Conference on Information Systems, Washington D.C., December, 12th-15th. Sonnenwald D. H., Maglaughlin K .L., Whitton, M. C. (2001), Using innovation diffusion theory to guide collaboration technology evaluation: work in progress, WETICE Conference – 7th. International Workshops on Enabling Technologies: Infrastructures for Collaborative Enterprises, Cambridge, 20th-22nd June. Srinivasan A. (1985), Alternative measures of system effectiveness: associations and implications, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 9, No3, pp.243-253. 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, Vol. 16, No4, pp. 145-173. Trevino L. K., Lengel L. H., Daft R. H. (1987), Media symbolism, media richness, and media choice in organizations - a symbolic interactionist perspective, Communication Research, Vol. 14, No5, pp. 553-574. Utah Department of Agriculture and Food (2008), 2008 Annual Report - Utah Agricultural Statistics, USDA, National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS), USA. Wyoming Department of Agriculture and Food (2008), 2008 Annual Report - Wyoming Agricultural Statistics, USDA, National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS), USA. Wang Y. D, Forgionne G. (2008), Testing a decision-theoretic approach to the evaluation of information retrieval systems, Journal Information Science, Vol. 34, No6, pp. 861-876. Yin R. K. (2001), Estudo de caso: planejamento e métodos, Bookman, Porto Alegre (2nd. edition).

Acknowledgements to CAPES (for the scholarship for this research from November, 2008 to August, 2009), toUtah State University (for the contacts and resources provided to do the case studies), and to Fundação de Apoio à Pesquisa do Estado de Minas Gerais (FAPEMIG), by the resources provided present this paper on 8th RIRL, from September, 29th to October, 1st, 2010.