International Journal of Agriculture: Research and Review. Vol.

, 3 (3), 502-515, 2013

Available online at http://www.ecisi.com
ISSN 2228-7973 2013 ECISI Journals

SWEET CORN GROWER - BUYER RELATIONSHIP PERFORMANCE

MEASUREMENT
TANAKORN RACHAPILA1 , SITTHA JANSIRISAK2
1- Integral Development Studies Program Faculty of Management Science, UbonRatchathani University
85 Sathollmark Rd. Warinchamrap ,UbonRatchathani Province, Thailand. 34190.
2- Assistant Professor. Faculty of Engineering, UbonRatchathani University 85 Sathollmark Rd.
Warinchamrap ,UbonRatchathani Province, Thailand. 34190.
*Corresponding Author: TANAKORN RACHAPILA
ABSTRACT: The objectives of this research was to examine the level of a farmer-buyer
relationship in establishing the eight indicators of information sharing and planning
collaboration, the seven indicators of resource and benefit allocation, and the seven indicators
of trust and commitment. In-depth interview and questionnaire were applied for data
collection. In addition, all indicators were used to analyse a process benchmarking of two
sampled groups of farmers consisting of a group engaging through the agricultural extension
system(AES) the other was through their brokers system(BKS). The findings revealed that the
farmers who grew sweet corn based on the AES had a better level of relationship in terms of
information sharing and planning collaboration, as well as trust and commitment. However,
the level of resource and benefit allocation was lower than the farmers engaging in trading
through BKS.
Keywords: Supply chain, Relationship, Collaboration, Performance, Grower, Stakeholder,
Indicator
INTRODUCTION
Sweet corn is a major economic agronomy in
Thailand. There are large amounts of
consumption and utilization of sweet corn each
day. The sweet corn is a perennial plant
providing greater values to the fresh markets
and the industrial factories. Recently, sweet
corn is one of the most popular crops; the 2011
Thai Food Processors Association report
revealed that there were 29 factories of sweet
corn production and 64,000 hectares of its
plantation areas, and more than 35,000 farmers
involved. About 544,000 tons of sweet corn
ranking the third worldwide with 5,700 million
baht goes to the factories. As a result, sweet
corn becomes the industrial crop that many
investors are paying special attention to.
However, the sweet corn factories in Thailand
face problems related to the competition of raw
materials and the difficulty of the plantation
areas, due to its low profit compared with other
industrial crops, such as rubber trees and sugar
cane. In addition, the government provides no

subsidy for sweet corn production. Furthermore,

the Thai manufacturers have to compete with
producers from foreign countries, who receive
taxation exemption as part of free trade
agreements, and also contend with European
Union anti-dumping regulation.
Considering the present competition
conditions, business organization pays attention
to the supply chain to enhance competing
potentiality. Preliminary information reveals
that the farmers and entrepreneurs face many
problems, such as shortages of raw materials
and seeds, limitation of planted areas,
ineffective stakeholders relationship and
collaboration in terms of planning production,
collaboration among suppliers, producers and
customers, and information sharing. All the
problems mentioned above are caused by the
lack of meaningful supply chain management.
In recent years supply chain performance
measures have been in the spotlight of many
authors. Many performance measures have been
used. In this paper efficiency was measured as
an indicator of relationship and collaboration

Intl. J. Agric: Res & Rev. Vol., 3 (3), 502-515, 2013

performance in the sweet corn supply chain.A

supply chain is a firm network involved in
different processes and complex activities such
as planning, design, distribution, selling,
support, usage and recycling of the product
through upstream and downstream linkages, to
produce value as products and services
delivered to ultimate customers (Arshinder et al,
2008).Its generally defined as a network of
physical
and
decision-makingactivities
connected by material and information flows
that cross organizationalboundaries (Van der
Vorst 2000).Supply chain is a research area
which has attracted the attention of many
researchers for more than 20 years.(Mehrjerdi,
2009)According to Lambert and Cooper (2000)
there are four main characteristics of a supply
chain: first it goes through several stages of
increasing intra- and inter-organizational,
vertical coordination. Second, it includes many
independent firms, suggesting that managerial
relationship is essential. Third, a supply chain
includes a bi-directional flow of products and
information and the managerial and operational
activities. Fourth, chain members aim to fulfill
the goals to provide high customer value with a
best use of resources.
Supply chain management systems are
widely
used
in
agri
food
industry.(Aramyan,2007)The term agri-food
supply chains has been coined to describe the
activities from production to distribution that
bring agricultural or horticultural products
(Aramyan et al., 2006) from the farm to the
table. agri-food supply chains are formed by the
organizations
responsible
for
production(farmers), distribution, processing,
and marketing of agricultural products to the
final consumers.(Omar and Villalobos,2009)
The successful companies in agri-food business
most focus on farmers as the key member
suppliers ,primary production improvement are
increasing the performance of the supply chain
management.
Strategic sourcing concept was developed
to createa win-win relationship. Its important
for seller and suppliers will have the opportunity
to work together and share information and lead
to an opportunity for discovery to reduce the
overall cost in long-term.
Performance measurement is critical to the
success of almost any organization because it
creates understanding, moldsbehavior and
improves competitiveness (Fawcett and Cooper,
1998). In recent years supply chain performance
measures have been in the spotlight of many
authors. Many performance measures have been
used The development of more integrated

503

supply chains was not followed by simultaneous

development of supply chain performance
indicators and metrics in order to assess the
effectiveness
of
a
particular
chain
organization.(Gunasekaran et al., 2001) This is
not only true for agri-food chains, but reflects
the general developments in this area.
Measurement of supply chain performance
gives decision makers inside (e.g. producers,
distributors, marketers) and outside (e.g. policy
makers, investors) the supply chain information
for decision making, policy development etc.
Performance measurement is the process of
quantifying the effectiveness and efficiency
ofaction. (Neely et al., 1995)A performance
measurement system is more than just a set of
measures; the system embraces three constituent
components: performance models, metrics, and
measurement
methods
(Holmberg,
2000).
The
performance model is a selected framework that
links the overall performance with different
levels of decision hierarchy to meet the
objectives of the organization.
Simatupang and Sridharan (2002) The term
metric includes the definition of measure, data
capture, and responsibility for calculation
(Neely et al., 1995). The measurement method
is a set of rules and guidelines for
measurement.(Adisak , 2007) There are many
ways to measure the performance of supply
chain such as1)Supply Chain Operations
Reference (SCOR) (Supply-Chain Council,
2008) 2) Balanced Scorecard (Brewer and Speh
(2000) Bhagwat and Sharma
(2007)
3)
Activity Based Costing (Pirttila and Hautaniemi
,1994) 4) Multi-Criteria Analysis (Adisak ,
2008)5) Economic Value Added Ashayeri and
Lemmes (2006) 6) Life Cycle Analysis
(Hagelaar andVan der Vorst , 2002)7) Data
Envelopment Analysis(Zhu , 2003) and
(8)Benchmarking ( Christopher, 1998;PRTM
,1994; Stewart (1995). that all described
methods
have
their
advantages
anddisadvantages. Therefore, there is a need to
carefully consider all arguments forand against
the selected method to measure supply chain
performance. It is alsopossible to combine two
different methods to measure supply chain
performance.For instance balanced scorecard
can be combined with economic valueadded,because economic value added method is
project focused, while balancedscorecard is
functional focused. Nevertheless, when using a
combination
ofdifferent
performance
measurement methods, great care needs to be
taken to avoidconflicts between different
performance matrices used to evaluate the

Intl. J. Agric: Res & Rev. Vol., 3 (3), 502-515, 2013

performanceof
the
chain
in different
dimensions.
Measuring the performance of agri-food
supply chains is even more difficult,because
agri-food supply chains are different from other
supply chains is the importanceplayed by
factors or someaspects such as food quality and
safety,
andweather
related
variability.
(Salin,1998)
Requires
conditioned
transportation and storage, perishability, long
production throughput time, seasonality,
physical product features like sensory properties
such as taste, odor,appearance, color, size and
image (Aramyan , 2007), shortshelf life and
quality deterioration over time , product
quantity and quality is high uncertainty makes it
difficult to plan for supply chain management
(Porntipa Ongkunaruk , 2009).
In order to illustrate what needs to be done
to establish successful supply chain relationship
and collaboration measuring integration
between grower and buyer (i.e. broker and
manufacturer), What is the impact of different
factors,
particularly
relationship
and
collaboration, on
sweet corn growers
performance . What relationship and
collaboration performance indicators are
currently in use in sweet corn supply chains and
what problems can be identified in measuring
performance of sweet corn supply chains? How
can these indicators be used for the development
of a farmer and stakeholder relationship and
collaboration. The results of the research study
between Thais sweet corn growers and byers
are shown.
CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK
This conceptual framework focuses on
primary production in order to study the
relationship among stakeholders which set the
farmers as a center in dimension of information
sharing and planning collaboration, resource
and benefit allocation and trust and
commitment. Thus, these research presents
causes of problems and guidelines for effective
supply chain operations to enhance the
competition capacity.
A value is created from a collaboration of
strategic partnership based on a supply chain
involving activities such as information,
production, services, finance, and knowledge
innovation. The strategic partnership also
collaborates in activities processing through
upstream and downstream linkages in order to
produce value as products and services
delivered to ultimate customers. In other words,
this is another way to enhance and add value to

products and services as supply chain

collaboration (Jutathip, 2000). The important
factor for effective and successful collaboration
is a network to provide quality products for
customers and sustainability (J.D.Diniz and A.S.
Figueiredo, 2011).
Types of relationships
The types of relationships among
organizations related to individual linkage
direction and roles, in general, are divided into
two categories: Vertical Relationships are the
general relationship in supply chain such as the
farmers and buyers, the supplier and farmers.
Horizontal Relationship are the relationship
between similar organizations or the same
groups, such as the relationship among farmers
(Hong.I.B., 2002; Lazzarini et al., 2001; Coyle
et al., 2003). Bowersox et al (2002) classified
the relationship among organizations into
responsibility, activities, and independence and
independency aspects involving three channels,
which ranked from less dependency to high
independency: (1) Single Transaction Channels,
(2) Conventional Channels occurring based on
the needs of relationship: greater or less
dependence (3) Relational Collaborative
Arrangement is a collaboration relationship
which is sub-divided into four types: 1)
Administered System is a less formal
relationship with no contract, 2) Partnership and
Alliances are an `obvious and long term
relationship. This is the formal relationship by
having partners or alliances, but also having
independence. However, the partnership
involves lesser relations than Alliances, which
act as a supply chain management,
3)
Contractual System is the organization
relationship with contract such as Franchises,
and Dealership, and 4) Join Ventures are the
organizations
invest
collaboratively
in
establishing new business activities. Harrison
and Hoek (2002) indicated that the weight of
relationship is a driving force of the
development. If the weight of relationships
between buyer and supplier is high, the
impulsion will be greater.
Supply chains relationship
Poulin et al.(1994) suggested that the
classification of organization relationship from
traditional supplier led to co-enterprises. They
determined the level of relationship into 3
levels: 1) Supply relationships 2) Outsourcing
relationships and 3) Co-enterprise relationships.
The supply chain comprises 1) Information
sharing 2) Coordination and 3) Organizational
linkages (Lee, 2000). Moreover, the relationship

504

Intl. J. Agric: Res & Rev. Vol., 3 (3), 502-515, 2013

of supply chain is related to the level of

dependency between companies (La Londe,
2002).
Harrison and Hoek (2002), Coyle et al
(2002) separated the relationship into 3 types:
cooperation, coordination and collaboration
(Harrison and Hoek, 2002).Coyle et al. (2003)
presented the classification of relationship
between organization and alliances as the
relationship between producer (agriculture) and
members of organization in supply chain having
several forms as well as the relationship in
vertical and horizontal relationships between
producer and organization through various
activities, including marketing co-operation,
production and operation co-operation, research
and development co-operation, procurement cooperation and strategic resources co-operation
(Teerayout,2005).The relationship between
producer and supplier causes producing factors
such as seed distribution, fertilizer distribution,
and land use management. Thus, this research
focuses on studying the relationship of sweet
corn growerand buyer.
Supply Chain Relationship Performance
Measures
According to Humphries and Wilding
(2003) and Humphries and MaComie(2012)
proposed
relationship
performance
measurements as: 1) creativity, such as quality,
innovation and long term performance 2)
stability investment 3) communication: open
dialogue and exchange information 4)
reliability: focusing on expense and risk, and,
5)
value:
building
win-win
relationship.Furthermore, the five dimensions as
mentioned above are the key drivers which
contain 8 sub-factors. These are: 1) trust 2)
commitment 3) behaviour such as co-operation,
co-ordination and collaboration, 4) long term
orientation, 5) interdependence power and
conflict, 6)adaptation and communication, 7)
culture change (Humphries and Wilding, 2004),
and 8) personal relationship (Humphries and
MaComie, 2010). Further to this, Ferrer et al.
(2010) explained the relationship factor of
supply chain as having 3 factors: 1) sharing,
which is the organizational intention in using

505

resources of supply chain 2) power, which is the

controlling relationship based on experience,
knowledge and position in supply chain, and, 3)
interdependency, which is the level of
dependence in supply chain.
According to the concept of C3 behaviours:
co-operation, co-ordination and collaboration,
this research found that these three concepts had
the same aspect, which could not be clearly
clarified, and some factors that could not be
developed, so had to be integrated instead.
There were seven concepts which were adapted
in this study: Karuranga, Frayret, DAmours
(2008) indicated as follows: 1) circulation
prediction, 2) information sharing, 3)
replenishment systems, 4) joint planning, 5)
joint delivery improvement, 6) joint new
products development and, 7) joint investment
and Simatupang and Sridharan (2004) (2005) in
information sharing and decision-making and
benefit sharing.
The successful management was based on
integrating indicators related relationship and a
member of supply chain (Christopher, 2005;
Spekman et al, 1998; Stank et al, 2001). To
measure relationships, the indicators should
consider internal and external work in line with
Vereecke and Muylle (2006) who proposed the
relationship measurement between suppliers and
customers. Miguel A. Altieri (2009) mentioned
that minor agricultures were important for
regional food security. Hans Pongratz (1990)
determined that the traditional social exchange
of agriculture was the network which linked
economics, policies and relationship of socioculture of industry for Capitalist Society. For
the agricultural industry, agriculture is
considered as the suppliers in the supply chain.
Therefore, the relationship management and
agriculture were operated by purchasing system
and contract farming system (Flavia and
Cristina, 2005).
The agricultural extension is another activity
of agricultural development. The agricultural
extension officer or Broker acts as service
provider
to
the
agricultures
(Semana,2001).Thus, the relationship and
collaboration between farmer and buyer cause
benefit
for
each
other.

Intl. J. Agric: Res & Rev. Vol., 3 (3), 502-515, 2013

Figure 1. Conceptual framework

MATERIALS AND METHODS
This research is integrated between the
qualitative and quantitative research. The study
and the data collection are divided into three
parts. The first part is to study the relationship
and the collaboration of the stakeholders who is
related to the sweet corn producer by in-depth
interviewing and focus group discussion. The
second part is to extract the factors and to form
the relationship and andcollaboration indicators
that consists of three sub-methods, 1) The
measurement the validity of the instrument by
the expertise, 2) The analysis of the reliability,
and 3) The study of need to use the indicators.
The third part is the measurement of the
relationship
and
the
collaboration
performanceof the companys case study.
Part I:The study of the relationship and the
collaboration of who is related to the sweet corn
production by capture and collecting from the
case study stakeholder that gives the main key
informants about the production of the sweet
corn in Northeast province of Thailand
involving
NongKhai,
BeugKarn
and
NakhonPranom province and analyzes the
information in many relationship aspects.
Part II is to select the factors and form the
relationship and collaboration that consist of
Three steps:
The first step is the measurement of validity
of the instrument by five experts to analyze the
construct validity (Punch,1998) that considered
by the Item Objective Congruence Index: IOC
and calculate IC by the questions and the main
point of Rovinelli and Hambleton (1977). The
IOC of the questionnaire is 0.8442, and it shown
that the instrument has the reliability at high.
The indicators have the IOC lower than 0.5 will
be deleted from the questionnairesuch as 1) the
information sharing and planning collaboration
consists of indicators in visiting the grower, the

contentment of the grower, giving advice to the

grower, get useful advice, unsuccessful in
solving the problem. 2) The resource and
benefit allocation consists of indicators in the
number of distributers, the rate of
transportation, the delay of delivery, and the
number of cooperative seller. 3) Trust and
commitment consists of indicators in trust in
providing the advice and problem solving
together, the failure in paying; receiving the
products and services or the quantities is not
followed by the condition.
The second step is the reliability analysis
and tries out to 30 samples by questionnaire that
consists of 5 interval rating scales and analyst
the reliability by Cronbachs alpha coefficient.
(Cronbach and Richard ,2004).These are the
alpha coefficients of group indicators by the
following:1) Information sharing and planning
collaboration is 0.8073. 2) Resource and benefit
allocation is 0.7969. 3) Trust and commitment
is 0.8215 and all reliability has the alpha
coefficient at 0.9014. It is shown that the
questionnaire has high reliability. (George, D.,
&Mallery, P. ,2003)
The third step is to study the need to use
relationship and collaboration indicators; there
were 324 samples by multi-stage random
sampling. The purposive sampling was used to
start random by selecting the sweet corn
manufacturer that would be the representative or
the good sample and answer questions instead
of 12 from 29 sweet corn manufacturers in
Thailand. After that random by quota sampling
and classify the sample in four groups, consists
of growers ,transporters, suppliers and buyers.
The study of need to use the relationship and
collaboration indicators, the samples decided to
select the indicators in many aspects by using
the questionnaire and the description of rating
scale indicators by using interval scale each
item using 5 point Likert scales anchored by

506

Intl. J. Agric: Res & Rev. Vol., 3 (3), 502-515, 2013

strongly agree/strongly disagree. The score will

be mean () and standard deviation () by an
item and interpret the interval scale at 0.8
(Siriwan et al.,2005) and chose the mean 3.415.00 (Table 1).
Part III is to study the relationship and the
collaboration benchmarking between the sweet
corn grower and the company in case study in
the northeastern of Thailand two manufacturers
by convenience sampling. The sampling size
calculated by Taro Yamane method, until
obtaining enough samples.
Yamane (1967) consists of group No.1 was
the 267 sweet corn grower in agricultural
extension system (AES) and, group No.2 was
197 sweet corn growers in broker system (BKS)
RESULTS
The indicators of each group which was
considered the mean score of implementation
requirements, as described in Table 1., were
applied to collect the data to determine the level
of relationships and collaboration between the
sweet corn growers for processing factories and
the buyers and to compare benchmarking. The
group no.1 was the sweet corn growers who
were in agricultural extension system (AES),
and direct in factory system and the group no.2
was the sweet corn growers in broker system
(BKS). The results were as follows:
1- In terms of data and information sharing
between the growers and their buyers, for the
evaluation of the level of creating opportunity to
share information between the buyers and the
growers by using the indicator of creating
opportunity to share information, the mean
score were 3.08 and 2.28, respectively.
According to AES, an effort to create
opportunity to share information was at a
moderate level, and sometimes the growers and
the buyers attempted to create opportunity to
share information between each other and were
occasionally responded. According to the BKS.,
it showed that an effort to create an opportunity
for information sharing was at a low level, and
sometimes the growers and the buyers
attempted to create an opportunity for
information sharing but each group did not
respond to each other.
For the evaluation of level of experience
sharing between the growers and buyers by
using the indicator of experience sharing, the
mean score were 3.92 and 3.27, respectively.
This indicated that the growers and the
buyers had experience sharing at a moderate
level, that the growers and the buyers realized
the importance of experience sharing, and that

507

they occasionally shared experience and initially

applied their experience. For the evaluation of
level of information sharing for clarity and
understanding ofinformation between the buyers
and the growers by using the indicator of clarity
and understanding ofinformation, the mean
score were 3.75 and 3.11, respectively. This
showed that the growers had quite clear
understanding of information, and they chose
appropriate media and easy-understanding and
concise words for clarity and understanding of
information. For the evaluation of the level of
information sharing of the corn growing period,
by using the indicator of Frequency(number)
ofInformation error, the mean score were 1.36
and 2.24 times per production cycle,
respectively.For the evaluation of the level of
joint planning of the growers and the buyers by
using the indicator of joint planning, the mean
score were 4.45 and 4.09, respectively. This
showed that the growers and the buyers had a
high level of joint planning and they both gave
priority to planning, and the plan was clear and
they often conducted mutual activities together.
For the evaluation of the level of joint decision
making, by using the indicator of joint decision
making, the mean score were 3.34 and 3.03,
respectively. This revealed that the growers and
the buyers had a moderate level of mutual
decision making, that they had information
collection and proposed the decision making to
each group for approval, and that they made a
mutual decision of important activities. For the
level of evaluation of joint problem solving
between the buyers and the growers by using
the indicator of joint problem solving, the mean
score were 3.07 and 2.21, respectively.
According to the AES, the results showed that
the growers and the buyers had a moderate level
of joint problem solving, that they had a way to
solve problems in some occasions, and that the
problems solved together resulting in a
satisfactory level. According to the BKS, the
results indicated that the growers and the buyers
had a low level of joint problem solving.
Although the growers began to realize the
importance of joint problem solving and solved
problems together but were still not clear.For
the proportion evaluation of the level of the
efficiency joint problem solving between the
buyers and the growers, by using the indicators
of efficiency Joint problem solving, the
percentages of efficiency were 65.75 and 26.14,
respectively.
2-In terms of resource and benefit allocation
between the growers and the buyers, for the
evaluation the ratio of production factor and
product value supported by the buyers by using

Intl. J. Agric: Res & Rev. Vol., 3 (3), 502-515, 2013

the indicator of joint investment ratio, the

percentages were 5.81 and 26.05, respectively.
For the evaluation of the supports to access
financial fundsfor the growers by using the
indicator of supporting to access financial funds,
the mean score were 3.68 and 3.12, respectively.
According to the AES, the results showed that
the buyers had a moderate level of supporting to
access financial funds for the growers, that the
buyers helped support the growers for accessing
to financial funds in some occasions. For the
evaluation of the level of repurchase during one
year by using the indicator of repurchase
frequency, the mean score were 1.86 and 2.45 a
year, respectively. This showed that the BKS
had more repurchase than the AES, or the
growers repurchased sweet corn. For the
evaluation of the level of dependence, which the
growers depended on the buyers, by using the
indicator of dependence, the mean score were
3.64 and 2.26, respectively.
According to the AES, the results revealed
that the growers and the buyers depended on
each other in a moderate level, and the growers
had other buyers and conditions of purchasing
were unsatisfied. According to the BKS, it
indicated that the growers and the buyers
depended on each other in a low level and the
growers had many other buyers, but the
conditions of purchasing or service were
required a commitment. For the evaluation of
the level of adaptation ability of the growers by
using the indicator of adaptation ability, the
mean score were 2.52 and 3.81, respectively.
According to the AES, the results indicated that
the growers had a low level of adaptation
ability. According to the BKS, the results
showed that the growers had a moderate level of
adaptation ability. For the evaluation of level of
independence on purchasing and giving services
by using the indicator of independence, the
mean score were 2.26 and 4.04 respectively.
According to the AES, the results showed that
the growers had a low level of independence
from the buyers that the growers had other
markets or buyers who purchased products, or
that they had few kinds of economic plants, that
the legal commitment made the growers unable
to sell their products to other the buyers.
According to the BKS, the results revealed that
the growers had a high level of independence
from the buyers, that the growers had many
other markets or the buyers, or that they had
more kinds of economic plants but sometimes
depended on the buyers, and that the legal
commitment had no effect but they were unable
to sell their products to other buyers because of
other conditions. For the evaluation of level of

growers opportunity for negotiation with the

buyers by using the indicator of negotiation, the
mean score were 2.24 and 3.17, respectively.
According to the AES, the results showed that
the growers had a low level of negotiation
opportunity with the buyers, and they still had
an opportunity and were required to negotiate
with the buyers, but the negotiation was not
responded.
According to the BKS, the results showed
that the growers had a low level of negotiation
opportunity, and occasionally the growers had
an opportunity and were able to negotiate with
the buyers only in some issues and conditions.
For the evaluation of the level of buyers control
and empowerment towards the growers, using
the indicator of control and empowerment, the
mean score were 3.92 and 2.68, respectively.
According to the AES, the results revealed that
the buyers had a high level of control and
empowerment towards the growers, and the
growers needed to have permission from the
buyers before doing anything. According to the
BKS, the results revealed that the buyers had a
low level of control and empowerment towards
the growers, and the growers had more freedom
to do anything under market conditions. For the
evaluation of opportunismlevel, by using the
indicator of opportunism, the mean score were
2.17 and 4.02, respectively. According to the
AES, the results showed that the growers had a
low level of opportunism. According to the
BKS, the results revealed that the growers had a
high level of opportunism. For the evaluation of
lack of quality level by using the indicator of
lack of quality, the mean score were 2.02 and
3.71, respectively. According to the AES, the
growers found or received low-quality products
or services in a low level, and they received
low-quality products or services 2-3 times a
year.
According to the BKS, the growers found or
received low-quality products or services in a
moderate level, and they found or received lowquality products or services 4-5 times a year.
For the evaluation of delivery lead time level by
using indicator of delivery lead time, the mean
score were 3.27 and 4.12, respectively.
According to the AES, it was found that the
buyers could not deliver products or services in
the required amount and the growers were
required to wait for a while (such as receiving
grain or planting date). According to the BKS,
the results showed that the buyers could deliver
products or services in required amount and on
time but sometimes deliveries were late.
3- In terms of trust and commitment
between the growers and the buyers, for the

508

Intl. J. Agric: Res & Rev. Vol., 3 (3), 502-515, 2013

evaluation oftrust in complements of quality

level by using the indicator of trust in
complements of quality, the mean scorewere
3.62 and 3.14,respectively.This indicated that
the growers had a moderate level of trust,
whichproductsor services had the required
quality in accordance with commitment, and
sometimes the growers had found that the
quality of products or services was not in
accordance with commitment in an acceptable
level. For the evaluation of trust in complements
of quantity level by using trust in complements
of quantity indicator, the mean score were 4.65
and 4.78, respectively. This showed that the
growers had the high level of trust in
complements of quantity, and rarely the growers
had found that the quantity of products or
services was not in accordance with
commitment in an acceptable level. For the
evaluation of trust in delivery time level by
using the indicator of trust in delivery time, the
mean score were 4.61 and 4.13, respectively.
This indicated that the growers had a high level
of trust in delivery time in accordance with
commitment, and rarely the growers had found
that the delivery time was not in accordance
with commitment in an acceptable level.For the
evaluation of trust in trade agreement level,
using the indicator of trust in trade agreement,
the mean score were 3.05 and 2.64, respectively.
According to the AES, it was found thatthe
growers had a moderate level of trust in trade
agreement, andthey still had some doubts in
regulations and conditions of trade, and the
buyers began to have activities or tries to show
that the regulations and conditions of trade
would be fair for the growers in some occasions.
According to the BKS, the results indicated that
the growers had the low level of trust in trade
agreement, andthey still had some doubts in
regulations and conditions of trade, and the
buyers had no activities or tries to show that the
regulations and conditions of trade would be fair
for the growers. For the evaluation of trust in
financial deal level by using the indicator of
trust in financial deal, the mean score were 3.71
and 2.45, respectively. For the AES, it was
found that the growers had a moderate level of
trust in financial deal, and they had found that
sometimes a payment was not in accordance
with the commitment in an acceptable level. For
the BKS, it was found that the growers had a
low level of trust in financial deal, and they had
found that often a payment was not in
accordance with the commitment in an
unacceptable level. For the evaluation of trust in
information sharing level by using the indicator
of trust in information sharing, the mean score

509

were 4.15 and 3.82, respectively. According to

the AES, it was found that the growers had a
high level of trust in information sharing, and
they believed that suggestions were applicable,
and that information for problem solving was
obvious and up-to-date, and communicators
were quite reliable, proficient, and responsive to
questions, and that information sharing was
obvious, up-to-date and reliable. According to
the AES, it was found that the growers trusted
in information sharing in some issues, and they
believed that the suggestions were applicable,
and that information for problem solving was
obvious and up-to-date, and communicators
were sometimes quite reliable, proficient, and
responsive to questions, and that information
sharing was obvious, and up-to-date but
sometimes doubtful.For the evaluation of the
level of implementation of the commitment by
using level of implementation of the
commitment indicator, the mean score were
3.88 and 4.06, respectively.
According to the AES, the results indicated
that implementation of the commitment was at a
moderate level, and the buyers implemented
only some issues depending on an occasion.
According to the BKS, the resulted showed that
the implementation of the commitment was at a
high level, and the buyers were able to
implement the commitment in important issues.
DISCUSSION
The relationship and collaboration between
farmers and buyers is currently being
challenged. It has been found that farmers who
grow sweet corns have a collecting system but
their frequency in giving incorrect information
to buyers is 2.34 times per production since the
brokers misunderstood, and chose their own
way of sending information which is not
appropriate. It has caused a lot of
misunderstanding amongst farmers, and they
also lack of the skills to get information
(Jitendra, 2007).The joint resolution (Mean
score 2.21) addresses the problem in which the
farmers and buyers can solve the problem
effectively at 26.14 of the time for assisting the
brokers and their lack of knowledge of
academics (Vijay Sardana, 2012). The problem
is mainly caused by the brokers who suggested
the wrong way to report production data, and
the same group offering alternatives to solve
the problem with no positive results
(MethaSuteeraroj, 2011). These same farmers
are likely to be the brokers thus they can take
advantage of the situation (Mean score 3.62).
Since the buyers will
lack or have no

Intl. J. Agric: Res & Rev. Vol., 3 (3), 502-515, 2013

bargaining power. The brokers will be in a

position to control the most useful stock (Xu
and Beamon, 2006) and other farmers also end
up being exploited when the brokers have the
opportunity (Hosmer, 1995). Farmers do not
rely on the rules and conditions of trading with
the brokers (Mean score 2.64) because these
farmers believe that they do not have a fair
share, and those brokers have no morals or
integrity. (Mayer et al. (1995). The quality
brokers also failed to comply with the
agreement faithfully (Hosmer,1995). They
violate the financial agreement between farmers
and lower buyers (Mean score 2.64. and 2.45)
because the brokers reportedly do not pay
farmers who complete their task and
disappointingly they pay later than the time
agreed upon in the details of payment terms
where timing of payment is made crystal clear
(Marta, 2012). To support the production
together with the yield between farmers and
buyers, the farmers have grown sweet corn in
support system of production with percentage
5.81% which is the lowest for the buyers for
that period.
There is an effort to reduce the cost of
production and avoid debt that does not generate
income for farmers (Non-performing loans).
The problem of unpaid debts and bad debts in
the agricultural sector has an impact on the
amount of credit facilities, on the farmers
(Kwanchanok,2010), and on the inputs to the
production as well. During product purchase or
service (average 1.86 times per year), it shows
that buyers who are in the brokers group were
able to buy the product at much lower prices.
Hence, a few farmers are satisfied or motivated
to return to grow sweet corn again (Chen., 2008;
Alegre and Cladera, 2009).
Furthermore, customer royalty to farmers is
suffering (Kumar and Shah, 2004; Hsu, 2007).
Those who intended to grow over this farm have
recommended the customers to the other
farmers. (Taylor, 1998; Ryu el al., 2007). The
degree of dependence on the buyers is going for
farmers who grow corn in the agricultural
industry. The farmers reliance on buyers is
moderately high (Mean score 3.64) since
farmers have no training in the field of sales and
marketing for purchasing their goods. The terms
and conditions of the purchase order are not
satisfactory enough for farmers. Studies have
shown these farmers who grow corn in the
agricultural industry even farmers have the
ability to adjust their reliance much lower
(average. 2.52). The farmers should make or
produce other products. They can change to
other kinds of crops that are suitable with the

area, and they must review the terms and

conditions in sales and marketing, and the ways
to produce that the factories want. (Dolan et al.,
2001). The study on degree of the freedom to
sell or use have shown that farmers who plant
corn in agricultural systems are free to sell or
use the services of a buyer at a low level
(Average. 2.26). The farmers were independent
from the buyers but only at a low level. These
farmers may not be available to other buyers to
purchase sweet corn or other crops, but such
freedom is limited. Research shows that legal
effect of the contract which the farmers make to
the buyers states that farmers cannot produce to
sell to others at all (Sumet, 2007; Tossapol,
2011).The opportunity and the ability to
negotiate with the farmers is relative such that
the group which planted corn in the agricultural
industry have the ability to negotiate lower
(Mean score 2.24). The farmers have enough to
file a claim, but a claim or to negotiate is useless
with buyers who often do not respond and do
not compromise (Adler et al., 1992). The
purchaser is often at an advantage to claim. It is
the policy of the company made by executives
at headquarters which set up farmers who tend
to be at a disadvantage level (Turton, 1987).
The odds are against the professional farmers in
agricultural commitments and they are helpless
to optimize production utilities amongst
themselves (Navin, 2011). The level of
command and control of farmers who grow corn
in the agricultural industry are still well
managed (Mean score 3.92). It is noted that
farmers will continue in any conversion or the
yield of the crop. It must be approved by the
purchaser before actual production. It is a
unified control and restricted the decision of
buyers (McCann and Galbraith, 1981).
Currently, the farmers had heard that there is a
development of service learning assistance with
respect and honor between each other with a
team of advices who offer agricultural support
and work together and not against one another
(Kanter, 1989).The opportunity to take
advantage of, this will find these farmers who
grow corn in their ingredients welcoming these
opportunities for those involved or taking
advantage of these opportunities (Mean score of
3.62). There is a disadvantage in the price of
output which is expected to be less than normal,
as well as the lower prices of goods and
products, thus causing hardship to farmers at
low rates (Simatupang and Sridharan, 2004).The
low level of trust in the rules and conditions of
sale is also found between the farmers who
grow corn with the brokers. The farmers believe
that they have a fair few. The farmers still have

510

Intl. J. Agric: Res & Rev. Vol., 3 (3), 502-515, 2013

many questions on the rules and conditions of

sale. Buyers do not have activity or any attempt
to show that farmers receive a fair trading terms
and conditions. (Benchaphun et al.,2011) and
the level of trust in finance reveals that the
farmers who grow corn with the brokers which
offers payment to the brokers according to the

agreement. Agricultural organizations have

found that the payment terms in the agreement
were unacceptable. As a result there is of
uncertainty in terms of the contract and the
number of farmers get inputs from the brokers is
increasing
(Benchaphun
et
al.,2011).

Table1. Indicators of relationships and collaboration between the growers and the buyers
Indicators usage need
Benchmarking Score
Indicators
Mean
S.D.
AES
BKS
1.Data and Information Sharing
1.1 Level of creating opportunity
to share
4.31A
0.7438
3.08
2.28
information
1.2 Level of experience sharing
4.53A
0.6494
3.92
3.27
1.3 Level of clarityand understanding
B
3.97
0.7485
3.75
3.11
ofInformation
A
1.4 Frequency(number)ofInformation error
4.18
0.7567
1.36
2.34*
A
1.5 Level of joint planning
4.07
0.8278
4.45
4.09
1.6 Level of joint decision making
3.61A
0.6179
3.34
3.03
1.7 Level of joint problem solving
4.31A
0.8160
3.17
2.21*
A
1.8 Percentage of efficiency joint problem solving 4.07
0.6986
65.75
26.14*
2. Resource and Benefit Allocation
2.1 Joint investment ratio
3.46B
0.6700
5.81*
26.05
B
2.2 Level of supporting to access financial funds
4.21
0.8711
3.68
3.12
2.3 Level of repurchase
4.07B
0.7185
1.86*
2.45
2.4 Level ofdependency
4.11B
0.7971
3.64*
2.26
2.5 Level of adaptation ability
4.14B
0.7747
2.52*
3.81
2.6 Level of independency
4.26B
0.8557
2.26*
4.04
2.7 Opportunity and ability level of negotiation
4.42A
0.5753
2.24*
3.17
2.8 Level of control and empowerment
4.22A
0.7732
3.92*
2.68
2.9 Level of Opportunism
4.10B
0.8419
2.17
3.62*
A
2.10 Level of Lack of Quality
4.28
0.7165
4.02
3.71
2.11 Level of Delivery lead time
4.06B
0.7294
3.27
4.12
3. Trust and commitment
3.1 Level of trust in complements of quality
4.33A
0.6920
3.62
3.14
3.2 Level of trust in complements of quantity
4.29A
0.7207
4.65
4.78
3.3 Level of trust in delivery time
4.33A
0.7861
4.61
4.13
3.4 Level of trust in trade agreement
4.39A
0.7422
3.05
2.64*
A
3.5 Level of trust in financial deal
4.25
0.8179
3.71
2.45*
A
3.6 Level of trust in information sharing
4.40
0.7442
4.15
3.82
3.7 Level of implementation of the commitment
4.03B
0.8877
3.88
4.06
Remark :**Mean score of Implementation requirement
Average score level A means strongly agree ; Average score level B means agree
Recommendations include offers fully
integrated and activities developed to reduce the
13 plus the development of an informationgathering system for the brokers. Brokers and
the advisory must support and develop the
solution and combination of materials, to reduce
the chance of farmers being taken advantage of
and to decrease taking advantage of the raw
materials and the terms and conditions of the
sale in order to build trust and sustainability.
Both sides must strengthen the confidence of the
financial agreement between farmers and
gatherers of raw materials by bank transfer to

511

factories and directly to farmers or factory as a

mediator in the contract. Inputs from both sides
must be noted to support the development of
materials and to reduce the dependency between
farmers and factories. These showed be an
increase the ability of farmers to adapt. Farmers
should be allowed to increase the freedom to
sell or use the farm to the factory. They must be
assisted in enhancing opportunities for their
ability to negotiate.
Lastly, there must be a reduction of
command and control between farmers and
factories, and increasing sales for farmers to

Intl. J. Agric: Res & Rev. Vol., 3 (3), 502-515, 2013

cultivate maize, sweet corn and other agronomy.

REFERENCES
________ (2004) A benchmarking scheme for
supply
chain
collaboration.
An
International Journal Benchmarking.
11(1): 19-30.
_________ (2005) The collaboration index: A
measure for supply chain collaboration.
International Journal of Physical
Distribution and Logistics Management.
35(1): 44-62.
A.R. Semana (2002) Agricultural Extension
Services at Crossroads. present dilemma
and possible solutions for future in
Uganda. Council for the Development
of Social Science Research in Africa
Adisak Theeranuphattana (2007) A performance
measurement method for supply Chains:
an integrated multiple criteria decision
analysisapproach.Phd.thesis.
Thailand.Asian Institute of Technology.
Adler, N. E., David, H. P., Major, B. N., Roth,
S. H.,Russo, N. F., & Wyatt, G. E
(1992)
Psychological
factors
in
abortion.
American
Psychologist.
47:1194-1204.
AlegreJoaqun, Magdalena Cladera (2009)
Analysing the effect of satisfaction and
previous visits on tourist intentions to
return. European Journal of Marketing.
43(5/6):670 685.
Andrew Humphries & Linda McComie (2010)
Managing and Measuring for Supply
Chain
Relationships
Performance.
Chapter 2 in Delivering Performance in
Food Supply Chains edited by Carlos
Mena & Graham Stevens , Woodhead
Publishing
Andrew S. Humphries, Richard Wilding (2003)
Sustained
Monopolistic
Business
Relationships: An Interdisciplinary
Case. British Journal of Management.
14(4):323-338
Andrew S. Humphries, Richard Wilding (2004)
UK defense supply chain relationships:
a study of sustained monopoly.,
Management Decision. 42(2):259 276
Ashayeri, J., L. Lemmes (2006) Economic value
added of supply chain demand planning:
A system dynamics
simulation.
Robotics and Computer-Integrated
Manufacturing (Elsevier). 22 (2006):
550556.
Benchaphun Ekasingh, Jirawan Kitchaicharoen ,
Pornsiri Suebpongsung ( 2011) Contract

farming risk in Chiang mai and Lampun

province: Small farm grower impact to
public policy. Chiang Mai University,
Chiang Mai (Thailand). Faculty of
Agriculture. Multiple Cropping Center.
BhagwatRajat and Milind Kumar Sharma
(2007) Performance measurement of
supply chain management: A balanced
scorecard approach.Computers and
Industrial Engineering. 53(1):43-62.
Brewer, P.C. &Speh, TW (2000) Using the
balanced scorecard to measure supply
chain performance.Journal of Business
Logistics. 21(1):75-93.
Chen Chin-Fu (2008) lnvestigating structural
relationships between service quality,
perceived value, satisfaction, and
behavioral intentions for air passengers:
Evidence From Taiwan. Transportation
Research Part A.
Christopher Martin, Helen Peck, and Moira
Clark (1998) Logistics & Supply Chain
Management: creating value-adding
networks. 3rdEdition : Paperback.
Christopher S. Alexander, Paul Miesing, Amy
L. Parsons (2005) How Important Are
Stakeholder Relationships. Academy of
Strategic Management Journal. 4.
Council of Supply Chain Management
Professional
(2008)
Supply-Chain
Operations Reference-model version
9.0.
Coyle, J., Bardi, J., and Langley, Jr. C (2003)
The Management of Business Logistics,
7th ed.,Thomson Learning, Canada.
:122-126, 207-215.
Cronbach, Lee J., and Richard J. Shavelson
(2004) My Current Thoughts on
Coefficient Alpha and Successor
Procedures.
Educational
and
Psychological Measurement. 64(3):391
418.
Dolan, A.H., Smit, B., Skinner, M.W.,
Bradshaw, B., Bryant, CR (2001)
Adaptation to Climate Change in
Agriculture:
Evaluation
of
Options.Department of Geography,
Guelph.
gideKaruranga, Jean-Marc Frayret, Sophie
DAmours (2008) Measurement and
Determinants
of
Supply
Chain
Collaboration . Interuniversity research
center on enterprise network logistic
and
transportation.Universite
demontreal. May 2008.
FerrerMario,Ricardo Santa, Paul W. Hyland and
Phil Bretherton (2010) Relational
factors that explain supply chain

512

Intl. J. Agric: Res & Rev. Vol., 3 (3), 502-515, 2013

relationships Asia Pacific Journal of

Marketing and Logistics. 22(3):419440.
FlaviaEchnove and Cristina Steffen (2005)
Agribusiness and Farmers in Mexico:
The
Importance
of
Contractual
Relations.
The
Geographical
Journal.171(2):166-176.
George D, Mallery P (2003) SPSS for Windows
Step by Step: A Simple Guide and
Reference. 11.0 update. 4. Allyn&
Bacon; Boston. p. 231.
Gunasekaran, A., Patel, C. and Tirtiroglu, E
(2001) Performance measures and
metrics in a supply chain environment.
International Journal of Operations and
Production Management. 21(1/2): 7187.
Hagelaar, G.J.L.F. and Van der Vorst, J.G.A. J
(2002) Environmental supply chain
management:
Using
life
cycle
assessment
to
structure
supply
Chains.International
Food
and
Agribusiness Management Review.
4:399-412.
Hans Pongratz (1990) Cultural tradition and
social
change
in
agriculture.Sociologiaruralis. 30(1): 517.
Harper and Row.Zhu, J (2003) Quantitative
models for performance evaluation and
benchmarking.
Dordrecht: Kluwer
Academic Publishers.
Harrison, A. & van Hoek, R (2002) Logistics
management and strategy, England;
Pearson Education Limited.
Holmberg, S (2000) A system perspective on
supply
chain
measurements.
International Journal of Physical
Distribution
&
Logistics
Management.30 (10):847-868.
Hong I.B (2002) A new framework for
interorganizational systems based on the
linkage
of
participants'
roles.
Information & Management. 39(4):
261-270.
Hosmer, LT (1995) Trust: The connecting link
between organizational theory and
philosophical ethics. Academy of
Management Review. 20(2):379-403.
Hsu, S. H (2007) Developing an index for
online customer satisfaction: Adaptation
of American customer satisfaction
index.
Experts
System
With
Applications. 34:3033-3042.
Janaina Deane de Abreu Sa Diniz and Adelaide
dos Santos Figueiredo (2011) Integrated
Logistics in the Supply of Products

513

Originating from Family Farming

Organizations.
Supply
Chain
Management - New Perspectives,
SandaRenko (Ed.), InTech, August
2011
JitendraChauhan (2007) Agriculture extension
education communication in agriculture.
[Online].
Available:http://nsdl.niscair.res.in/bitstr
eam/123456789/517/1/PDF+Communic
ation+in+Agriculture.pdf. (Access date :
April 23, 2012).
JutathipPattrawat
(2010)
Suppy
chain
management framework. Co-operative
Academic
Institute,
Kasetsart
University. . [Online]. Available:
http://www.cai.ku.ac.th/article/article_2
80653.pdf. (Access date : April 15,
2012).
Kanter, R.M. 1989. When giants learn to dance.
New York: Simon & Schuster.
Kumar, V. & Shah, D (2004) Building and
sustaining profitable customer loyalty
for the 21 century.Journal of Retailing.
80:317-330.
Kwanchanok Rodprasert (2010) Causes and
problem solving on loan defaults of
members of agriculture co-operatives in
Mueangsrakeaw limited. Master of
business administration thesis. Burapha
University. Thailand.
Lambert, D.M. and Cooper, M.C (2000) Issues
in supply chain management. Industrial
Marketing Management. 29(1):65-83.
Lazzarini, S.G., Chaddad, F.R., Cook, ML
(2001) Integrating Supply Chain and
Network Analyses: The Study of Net
chains. Journal on Chain and Network
Science. 1:7-22
Lei Xu and Benita M. Beamon (2006) Supply
Chain Coordination and Cooperation
Mechanisms:
An
Attribute-Based
Approach. Journal of Supply Chain
Management. Volume 42, Issue 1, pages
412, February 2006.
Lusine H. Aramyan (2007) Measuring supply
chain performance in the agri-food
sector. Doctors Thesis: Wageningen
University.
Lusine H. Aramyan, Alfons G.J.M. Oude
Lansink, Jack G.A.J. van der Vorst and
Olaf vanKooten (2007) Performance
measurement in agri-food supply
chains: a case study. International
Journal SupplyChain Management. 12:
304315
Lusine H. Aramyan, C., Van Kooten O. and
Oude Lansink, A (2006) Performance

Intl. J. Agric: Res & Rev. Vol., 3 (3), 502-515, 2013

Indicators in agri-food production

chains, In Quantifying the Agrifood
Supply Chain.
Marta Doria (2012) Contract farming:Legal
considerations on contractual design and
enforcement. Food and Agricultural
Organization of The United Nation.
[Online].
Available:http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/
user_upload/contract_farming/Brief%20
1%20legal%20aspects%20of%20contra
ct%20farming.pdf. Access date : July 5,
2012.
Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H., & Schoorman, FD
(1995) An integrative model of
organizational trust. Academy of
Management Review. 20:709734.
McCann, J.E. & Galbraith JR (1981)
Interdepartmental relations. In P. C.
Nystrom & W. H. Starbuck (Eds.)
Handbook of Organization Design New
York: Oxford University Press. pp. 6084.
Meta Suteeraroj (2011) Problem solving skills
and critical thinking skills in strategic
decisions.
.[Online].
Available:http://coop.ea.rmuti.ac.th/dow
nload/pre_2-2554/pre_4-1.pdf. (Access
date : Dec.18, 2011)
Miguel A. Altieri (2009) Agroecology , Small
Farms,
and
Food
Sovereignty.
Environment Science Monthly review.
61(03) (July-August).
NavinSopapum (2011)The Famers negotiating
strategies under agro-food industry : a
case study of potato growers in Chiang
Mai Province. Master thesis.Chiang Mai
University.
Neely, A., Gregory, M. & Platts, K (1995)
Performance
measurement
system
design: a literature review and research
agenda. International Journal of
Operations&Production Management.
15(4):80-116.
Neely, A., Mills, J., Platts, K., Gregory, M. and
Richards, H (1994) Realizing Strategy
through Measurement. International
Journal of Operations and Production
Management. 14(3): 140-52.
Omar Ahumada, J. Rene Villalobos (2009)
Application of planning models in the
agri-food supply chain: A review.
European Journal of Operational
Research. 195:120
Ondersteijn, C.J.,Wijnands, J.H., Huirne R.B.
and Van Kooten O (Eds.) pp. 47-64:
Berli; Springer,

Pirttila, T. Hautaniemi, P (1994) Activity-based

costing and distribution logistics
management. International Journal of
Production Economics. 41:327-333.
PorntipaOngkunaruk (2009) Supply chain
management for agricultural industry.
For quality. 16(143):58-61.
Poulin D., Montreuil B., et Gauvin S (1994)
Lentreprisereseau:
batiraujourdhuilorganisation
de
demain.Publi-Relais, Montral, Qubec.
PRTM (1984) Third Annual Supply Chain
Performance Benchmarking Study.
Pittiglio Rabin Todd and McGrath
(PRTMs)
Punch, K (1998) Introduction to Social
Research: Quantitative and Qualitative
Approaches, London, Sage.
Rovinelli, R. J., &Hambleton, R K (1977) On
the use of content specialists in the
assessment of criterion-referenced test
item validity. Dutch Journal of
Educational Research.2:49-60.
Ryu, K., Han, H., and Kim, TH (2007) The
relationships among overall quickcausal restaurant image, perceived
value, customer satisfaction, and
behavioral intensions. International
Journal of Hospitality Management.
12(3):23-25.
Salin, V (1998) Information technology in agrifood supply chains. International Food
and Agribusiness Management Review.
1(3):329334.
Simatupang, T.M., R., Sridharan (2002) The
Collaborative
Supply
Chain.The
International Journal of Logistics
Management. 13(1):15-30.
Spekman, R., T. Forbes, L. Isabella en T.
MacAvoy (1998) Alliance management:
a view from the past and a look to the
future. Journal of Management Studies
.35(6):747-772.
Stank, T.P., S.B., Keller, P.J. Daugherty (2001)
Supply
chain
collaboration
and
logistical service performance. Journal
of Business Logistics. 22(1): 29-48.
Stewart Gordon (1995) Supply chain
performance
benchmarking
study
reveals
keys
to
supply chain
excellence.Logistics
Information
Management. 8(2):38-44.
Taylor, T (1998) Better loyalty measurement
leads to business solutions. Marketing
News. 32(22):41
Teerayout Wattanasupachoke (2005) Strategic
management
and
Competition.
Chulalongkorn University press.

514

Intl. J. Agric: Res & Rev. Vol., 3 (3), 502-515, 2013

TossapolTassanakulpan
(2011)
Contract
farming and out of poverty. Mathichon
Online.
[Online].
Available:http://www.matichon.co.th/ne
ws_detail.php?newsid=1307455177&gr
pid&catid=02&subcatid=0207
Turton Andrew (1987) Production , Power and
participation
in
rural
Thailand
experience of poor farmers groups.
Geneva Switzerland, United Nation
Research
Institute
for
social
development.
Van der Vorst, J.G.A.J (2000) Effective food
supply chains: generating, modelling
and evaluating supplychain scenarios.
ProefschriftWageningen
[Online].

515

Available:
http://www.library.wur.nl/wda/dissertati
ons/dis2841.pdf]
Vereecke, A., S., Muylle (2006) Performance
improvement through supply chain
collaboration in Europe. International
Journal of Operations & Production
Management. 26(11):1176 - 1198.
Vijay Sardana (2012) Common Mistakes
decision makers make in Agribusiness
Enterprises.Process food industry.
W.G. Cochran (1977) Sampling Techniques, 3rd
edition. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Yamane, Taro (1967) Statistics, An Introductory
Analysis, 2nd Ed., New York.