Step 1: Theoretical overview
Theoretical research is applied to systematize and find theoretical gaps related to the MQHHT of CTLH with suppliers in CCƯDL and at the same time discover factors affecting this MQHHT. In which, groups of factors are arranged and explained in a reasonable and scientific way to suit the nature and characteristics of CTLH in general as well as CTLH in Hanoi in particular. The grouping of influencing factors (independent variables) on the MQHHT of CTLH with suppliers in CCƯDL (dependent variables) aims to evaluate the combined impact of each factor on this MQHHT, thereby forming a theoretical research model.
Step 2: Build a draft scale
The draft scale was built based on a theoretical overview of the MQHHT of CTLH with suppliers in CCUDDL, and at the same time, analyzing the factors affecting these MQHHT and how to measure the factors based on overview studies in the world and in Vietnam. After conducting in-depth interviews and making adjustments to the draft scale, the official questionnaire was formed.
Step 3: Preliminary research
The preliminary study was conducted through qualitative research. Based on the proposed research model as well as the research objectives, the scale of the factors was determined based on an overview of domestic and foreign research works. To be more suitable for the research context in Vietnam as well as the nature and characteristics of the CTLHs in Hanoi, a qualitative questionnaire (in-depth interview) was developed to conduct interviews with 8 people, including 2 experts and 6 managers of the CTLHs in Hanoi. The in-depth interview questionnaire covered 2 basic contents: the first is the personal information of the respondents, the second is information about the factors affecting the relationship between the CTLHs and suppliers in the CCUDDL. The request to repeat the factors that have important and decisive influence on this relationship will be reaffirmed to assess the importance of each factor. Qualitative research results (in-depth interviews) help to supplement missing scales or remove scales that are not suitable for the research context.
Step 4: Formal Research
Formal research is conducted through quantitative research methods. The purpose of quantitative research is to test research hypotheses.
have been proposed as well as to check the suitability of the research model. The steps to be verified will be carried out as follows:
(1) Testing the reliability of the scale
The method of assessing the reliability of the scale allows to check which questions really contribute to the measurement of each criterion used in the research model. Criteria with a Cronbach Alpha coefficient of 0.8 or higher are considered to be well evaluated (reliable). If the research is conducted in a new context, the Cronbach Alpha coefficient
≥ 0.6 is still acceptable (Hoang Trong & Chu Nguyen Mong Ngoc, 2008).
The reliability coefficient of the scale (CA) is specified as follows:
- The scale for the variables will not be satisfactory if CA < 0.6.
- The scale is reliable enough to conduct research if 0.6 < CA < 0.7.
- The scale meets the research standard if 0.7 < CA < 0.8.
- The scale is very good if 0.8 < CA < 0.95.
- Virtual scale due to duplication or fake sample if CA > 0.95.
According to Hair et al. (1998), “if the total item correlation coefficient is < 0.3, it will be eliminated from the scale”.
(2) Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA)
The first goal of EFA analysis is to eliminate scales that are not meaningful or do not have high levels of total item correlation. Furthermore, this analysis also helps to group observed variables with the same trend into a set of variables (or factors) (Hair et al., 1998).
Before conducting EFA analysis, the author needs to test the KMO coefficient to check whether the factor analysis is appropriate or not. “If 0.5 <KMO<1 and P_value < 0.05, then factor analysis is completely appropriate (Hoang Trong & Chu Nguyen Mong Ngoc, 2008)”. Furthermore, “the total variance extracted >= 50%” (Gerbing and Anderson, 1988). In addition, “the factor loading coefficient Factor loading >= 0.5 to ensure the significance level of EFA (Hair et al., 1998)”. And at each item, the difference between the largest and any factor loading must be >= 0.3. This step helps determine the number of main factors affecting the relationship between the supplier and the supplier according to the evaluation perspective of the supplier.
(3) Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA)
CFA analysis aims to test the suitability of the research model, through
indicators: CFI, GFI and TLI ≥ 0.9 (Bentler & Bonett, 1980); CMIN/df ≤ 2; and
RMSEA ≤ 0.08. “This method is used to reaffirm the univariate, multivariate, convergent and discriminant validity of the scale to evaluate the MQHHT of CTLH with suppliers (Nguyen Dinh Tho and Nguyen Thi Mai Trang, 2009)”.
(4) SEM linear structural model analysis aims to test the hypotheses and the suitability of the research model. “SEM analysis allows the combination of latent concepts with their measurements and can consider independent measurements or combined with the theoretical model at the same time (Nguyen Dinh Tho and Nguyen Thi Mai Trang, 2009)”.
3.2. Quantitative research
3.2.1. Questionnaire development process
- Based on the theoretical overview, the author determines the content of the concepts of the factors and how to measure those factors in the research model. For new variables introduced into the model that do not have a ready scale, it is necessary to rely on the theoretical overview to determine the content of the concepts, on that basis, build appropriate observation variables.
- Develop a Vietnamese version of the questionnaire by translating the scales from English to Vietnamese. Then, translate the Vietnamese version back into English to compare and edit the Vietnamese version to ensure that the language conversion is accurate, clear, coherent and does not significantly change the meaning of the scales.
- Qualitative research was conducted through in-depth interviews with 8 subjects who are experts and managers of tourism service providers to standardize terminology, adjust and supplement observation variables in the scale to suit the context and conditions in Vietnam, specifically the tourism service providers in Hanoi. At the same time, for the newly built scales, on the basis of observation variables collected from the overview study, the author conducted interviews with experts in the field of tourism service business to help eliminate inappropriate observation variables and select observation variables that accurately measure the newly introduced concept.
- After adjusting the scales, removing inappropriate content, and standardizing the words used in the scales, the author completed the official questionnaire to conduct quantitative research. The content of the questionnaire includes 3 main parts:
+ Introduction: includes an introduction to the purpose and significance of the study and an invitation to participants to answer the research survey.
+ Main content: includes questions that are developed, designed according to the model and the scales that have been studied. Respondents will mark the answers that best match their level of opinion for those statements. The main content of the questions is related to the factors affecting the MQHHT of CTLH with suppliers in CCUDDL.
+ Statistical information section: the respondent will provide personal information to help with statistics, description and further explanation of key information if necessary.
All observed variables in the research model use a 5-point Likert scale with option 1 being “strongly disagree” with the statement and option 5 being “strongly agree” with the statement.
3.2.2. Research sample
The selected qualitative research sample (in-depth interviews) includes 8 people (2 experts and 6 managers of tourism service providers in Hanoi), they have certain understanding of the relationship between tourism service providers and suppliers in the tourism supply chain and they also give their opinions on the factors affecting their company's relationship with suppliers. This inconvenient random selection aims to explore and learn about the factors affecting the relationship between tourism service providers and suppliers in the tourism supply chain.
In order to ensure the representativeness of the sample, the official research sample applied the probability sampling method, which combined the stratified sampling method and the convenient random method, specifically classified by the type of travel business in Hanoi. According to the data of the General Department of Tourism in 2016, travel businesses in Hanoi are divided by type of business including: Limited Liability Company, Joint Stock Company, Joint Venture Company, Partnership Company, Private Enterprise, which are identified as 5 groups when stratified. Then, in each group, the author will use the convenient random sampling method to conduct the official survey.
The selection of 450 CTLH in Hanoi as the official research object is because this is the area where most of Vietnam's international travel businesses are concentrated nationwide with branches and representative offices in all provinces and cities.
About sample size:
- According to Hair et al. (2006), “the minimum sample size is 50 if using EFA analysis, if the sample size increases to 100 it will be much better and the ratio of the number of observations/number of measured variables is 5/1, in other words, each measured variable needs at least 5 observations”.
This study uses EFA, CFA and SEM analysis methods, the research model has 56 measurement variables and 9 research concepts, including 12 indicators measuring the MQHHT factor of CTLH with suppliers in CCUDDL; 08 indicators measuring the trust factor; 8 indicators measuring the commitment factor; 6 indicators measuring the personal relationship factor; 6 indicators measuring the IT application factor in the chain, 5 indicators measuring the customer-oriented policy factor; 5 indicators measuring the cooperative culture factor in the chain; 3 indicators measuring the asset specificity factor and 3 indicators measuring the behavioral uncertainty factor. Therefore, if calculated according to the principle of 5 samples/measurement variable, the minimum sample size is 280 observations. To suit the research and select the most representative sample for the whole, the sample size was determined to be 450 CTLH in Hanoi.
Based on the results of the theoretical overview of research works and the construction of the proposed research model, 09 factors are identified, including 08 independent factors or variables and 01 dependent variable. The specific scale for each variable is built on the basis of the results of research in the same field published in prestigious scientific journals in the country as well as in the world.
3.2.3. Building a scale
3.2.3.1. Scale of cooperation relationship between travel companies and suppliers in the tourism supply chain (symbol SC)
The scale of MQHHT of CTLH with suppliers in the tourism supply chain is understood as two or more independent companies working together to plan and link operational processes to create value for end customers and related partners with much greater success than independent, individual businesses (Hovarth, (2001); Simatupang and Sridharan, (2002)). This scale is made up of 3 components: information sharing, decision synchronization and reward system integration. Statements about the factor of MQHHT of CTLH with suppliers in the tourism supply chain are based on a 5-point Likert scale from 1 = “strongly disagree” to 5 = “strongly agree”. This scale was developed based on the research of Simatupang and Sridharan (2005); Nyaga et al. (2010); Pairach Piboonrungroj (2012).
Symbol
Scale | Source | |
Information sharing | ||
SC1 | Our company and suppliers in the supply chain Communicate with each other in advance about changing needs. | Simatupang and Sridharan (2005), Nyaga and Associate (2010) |
SC2 | Our company and suppliers hope that useful information will be shared. | |
SC3 | Our company and suppliers expect to notify each other of any material changes. | |
Decision Synchronization | ||
SC4 | Our company and suppliers plan promotional events together. | Simatupang and Sridharan (2005), Cao et al., (2011) |
SC5 | Our company and suppliers jointly develop demand forecasts.. | |
SC6 | Our company and suppliers work together to plan product assortment. | |
SC7 | Our company and suppliers work together to find solutions to solve problems. | |
Integrated reward system | ||
SC8 | Our company and suppliers in the supply chain jointly develop a system to evaluate and publicly disclose/announce business performance (e.g. operational performance indicators, product/service delivery, etc.). | Simatupang and Sridharan (2005), Cao et al., (2011) |
SC9 | Our company and suppliers share the benefits and possible risks together. | |
SC10 | Our company and our suppliers share the savings gained from reducing unnecessary costs. | |
SC11 | The incentives and rewards offered to our company are commensurate with the investments and risks. | |
Maybe you are interested!
-
The relationship between travel motivation, destination image and destination choice - A case study of Binh Dinh province tourism destination - 1 -
Factors affecting the cooperative relationship of travel companies with suppliers in the tourism supply chain - 1 -
Past Travel Experience Scale at Destination -
Performance Evaluation Index System for Large-Scale Travel Companies -
The relationship between travel motivation, destination image and destination choice - A case study of Binh Dinh province tourism destination - 2
3.2.3.2. Asset specificity scale (symbol AS)
The asset specificity scale is understood as long-term investments in physical capital and human capital to support special transactions as well as maintain specific MQHHT of CTLH with suppliers. The asset specificity scale is built based on the study of Kwon and Suh (2004). Statements on asset specificity factors are based on a 5-point Likert scale from 1 = “strongly disagree” to 5 = “strongly agree”.
Symbol
Scale | Source | |
AS1 | Suppliers have invested significant resources (time and money) to develop a relationship with our company. | Kwon and Suh (2004), |
AS2 | The suppliers' operating procedures have been adjusted to meet our company's requirements. | |
AS3 | To fulfill our commitments to suppliers, our company I invest a significant amount of time and money in employee training. |
3.2.3.3. Behavioral uncertainty scale (symbol BU)
Behavioral uncertainty is understood as the impossibility of predicting the behavior of partners in the external environment. Behavioral uncertainty increases the difficulties associated with monitoring partners in transactions (Wiliamson, 1985). Behavioral uncertainty statements are based on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1= “strongly disagree” to 5= “strongly agree”. This scale was developed based on the research of Kwon and Suh (2004).
Symbol
Scale | Source | |
BU1 | Before establishing relationships with suppliers, the company We have difficulty controlling their business performance effectively. | Kwon and Suh (2004) |
BU2 | Before establishing relationships with suppliers, our company could not know in advance whether they could adapt quickly if we changed technical details. in a short time. | |
BU3 | Before establishing relationships with suppliers, the company We cannot predict their future business performance. |
3.2.3.4. Scale of trust of travel companies with suppliers (symbol TR)
Trust is mentioned as an important factor affecting the relationship between CTLH and suppliers in CCUDDL. Moreover, it is also a decisive factor for commitment as well as information sharing between suppliers (Anderson and Narus, 1990; Ganesan, 1994; Pavlou, 2002; Zaheer et al., 1998; Morgan and Hunt, 1994; Cao et al., 2011). Statements about the trust factor of CTLH with suppliers are based on a 5-point Likert scale from 1= “strongly disagree” to 5= “strongly agree”. This scale was developed based on the research of Morgan and Hunt, (1994); Cao et al., (2011).
Symbol
Scale | Source | |
TR1 | Suppliers in the supply chain are always open and honest in their treatment/behavior/dealing with our company. | Morgan and Hunt, (1994); Cao et al., (2011). |
TR2 | Trusted suppliers. | |
TR3 | Suppliers always keep the information they receive confidential. from our company. | |
TR4 | Suppliers in the supply chain always keep their promises to our company. | |
TR5 | Suppliers always provide accurate information. | |
TR6 | Suppliers are ready to help and support our company in any case. | |
TR7 | Suppliers always keep our company's interests in mind when making important decisions. | |
TR8 | Our company always trusts suppliers in the supply chain with the purpose of considering how the actions of partners will affect us. |
3.2.3.5. Scale of commitment of travel companies to suppliers (symbol CO)
The scale of CTLH’s commitment to suppliers reflects the willingness of each party to invest resources to build a sustainable relationship. This scale is built on the research of Morgan & Hunt, (1994) and Torres, MAS (2011). Statements on the factor of CTLH’s commitment to suppliers are based on a 5-point Likert scale from 1= “strongly disagree” to 5= “strongly agree”.