A NOTE ON MAIL SURVEYS AND RESPONSE RATES IN LOGISTICS RESEARCH

INTRODUCTION

166351 This is the number of questionnaires mailed to logistics and SCM professionals to support research published in the International Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics Management (IJPD&LM) from 1989-2003 In 2002 54% of the articles published in the Journal of Business Logistics (JBL) reported mail review results. Mail surveys have become extremely popular as a data collection process There have been calls for fewer mail observes - and more telephone take a view ofs and/or case studies - in logistics research. The main end of this note is to report contented analysis of mail survey practices and flows as published in IJPD&LM and JBL

The nearest section is a brief literature review upon mail surveys in logistics research and view response inducement techniques. The third section is a satisfied analysis of all IJPD&LM articles reporting mail view results, from 1989-2003, and all JBL articles reporting mail review results, from 1989-2003. Response rates and inducement techniques are the focus of this easy in mind analysis. The fourth and final section discusses implications for logistics researchers and tenders suggestions for future research.

MAIL reviews AND LOGISTICS RESEARCH

The classic logistics objectives imply a trade-off between customer service horizontal and total costs. Logisticians strive to minimize total take away froms while meeting service level requirements. Alternatively, logistics managers put to the test to maximize service level make submissive to budget limitations. In analogous fashion, overlook researchers work to maximize answer rates, given limited survey administration bag s (see Figure 1). The logistician dispose ofs his or her limited roll building safety stock, employing premium transportation, implementing information technology (IT), etc to provide customer service. Similarly, the researcher allocates a portion of his or her packet to various response inducement tools, of that kind as monetary incentives, follow-up mailings, and pre-qualification of the observe recipients.

Mentzer and Kahn (1995) analyzed all the articles published in JBL from 1978 to 1993 While 543% of these articles used scans only 3.2% reported case studies. Of the 120 articles (in the International Journal of Logistics Management, UPD&LM said JBL) studied, Naslund (2002) ground 35% used surveys and 7% used case studies. Naslund (2002 p 322) concludes: "There is a significant lack of published case research articles, especially in U.S. journals." A new study, based on a mail take a view of with fax and e-mail follow-up set an interesting difference between North American and European logistics researchers. While the North Americans rated overlook methods most useful in their research, the Europeans rated case investigation methods most useful (Larson and Halldorsson 2004)

In the logistics literature, there have been calls for more case studies - and fewer reviews Chow, Heaver, and Henriksson (1994 p 22) refer to that "the predominance of the mail view as a data collection course . . . raises a certain quantity of concern in light of its inherent limitations." They press journal editors to encourage use of alternative meanss such as the case investigation in logistics research.

Low reply rates, and non-response bias, are certainly ongoing touchs in conducting mail surveys (Greer Chuchinprakarn, and Seshadri 2000) According to Jobber, Birro, and Sanderson (1988) depressed mail survey response rates have compell a certain number of researchers to use telephone take a view ofs instead. Griffis, Goldsby, and Cooper (2003) remind of that communication via mail is many times impersonal and noncommittal. Walton (1997) advocates telephone as an alternative to mail for overlook research, since phone offers a means to combat non-response bias. She also bring to an ends that "the telephone survey course is most appropriate for meeting the challenge of the Seven R of logistics research" (p 229-230) The Seven R describe "the challenge of contacting the right someone with the right information at the right time in order to ask the right questions using the right instrument for the collection of the right data at the right cost" (p 221)

Walton (1997) invites war of words with her comparison of mail and telephone take a view ofs across the Seven Rs. In confines of reaching people at the right time and collecting the right data, she rates mail view "low" and telephone survey "high." However, it can be argued that mail scans offer the ultimate in time convenience for respondent While mail view respondents can complete questionnaires anytime at their convenience, telephone view participants are on the line at a convenient time for the researcher. Mail reviews are also able to gather a wide range of quantitative and qualitative data. Further, telephone view respondents lose their anonymity, which could compromise collection of the right data.

Despite regards about non-response bias, there are many advantages of data collection through mail survey, including geographic flexibility, time convenience for respondent elimination of interviewer bias, and depressed cost compared to phone or face-to-face modes (Fox, Robinson, and Boardley 1998) According to Lambert and Harrington (1990) "the greatest in quantity common protection against non-response bias is to attempt to increase the replication rate." Response inducement techniques include prequalification of review recipients, personalization of survey mailings, monetary incentives, and follow-up mailings.