This article was downloaded by: [University of North Texas]

On: 21 November 2014, At: 06:27

Publisher: Taylor & Francis
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

International Journal of Logistics

Research and Applications: A Leading
Journal of Supply Chain Management
Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cjol20

Assessing the application of focus

groups as a method for collecting data
in logistics
a b a
Vasco Sanchez Rodrigues , Maja Piecyk , Andrew Potter , Alan
b a b
McKinnon , Mohamed Naim & Julia Edwards
a
Cardiff University Innovative Manufacturing Research Centre ,
Cardiff, UK
b
Logistics Research Centre, Heriot-Watt University , Edinburgh,
UK
Published online: 12 Feb 2010.

To cite this article: Vasco Sanchez Rodrigues , Maja Piecyk , Andrew Potter , Alan McKinnon ,
Mohamed Naim & Julia Edwards (2010) Assessing the application of focus groups as a method for
collecting data in logistics, International Journal of Logistics Research and Applications: A Leading
Journal of Supply Chain Management, 13:1, 75-94

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13675560903224970

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the
“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,
our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to
the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions
and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,
and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content
should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources
of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,
proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or
howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising
out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
 systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &
Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-
and-conditions
Downloaded by [University of North Texas] at 06:27 21 November 2014
 International Journal of Logistics: Research and Applications
Vol. 13, No. 1, February 2010, 75–94

Assessing the application of focus groups as a method

for collecting data in logistics
Vasco Sanchez Rodriguesa *, Maja Piecykb , Andrew Pottera , Alan McKinnonb , Mohamed Naima
and Julia Edwardsb
Downloaded by [University of North Texas] at 06:27 21 November 2014

a Cardiff University Innovative Manufacturing Research Centre, Cardiff, UK; b Logistics Research Centre,
Heriot-Watt University, Edinburgh, UK

(Received 1 December 2008; final version received 31 July 2009 )

Relatively little attention has been given to methodological issues in the logistics literature. In logistics,
‘we need to take more account of the views of practitioners in the field by supporting quantitative data with
qualitative data’ [New, S.J. and Payne, P. (1995). Research frameworks in logistics: three models, seven
dinners and a survey. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, 25(10),
60–77]. The aim of this paper is to provide a guide on how to deploy focus groups as a supportive
method to achieve industrial relevance without compromising the academic rigour of logistics research.
We develop a framework that highlights the factors influencing focus groups’ effectiveness in the logistics
discipline. Our analysis is based on previous focus groups research applied in logistics and on focus group
cases discussed in the paper. We conclude that the focus group method for data collection can be used
as a supporting method in logistics research, enabling methodological triangulation that improves the
credibility of research results.

Keywords: research strategy; qualitative research; methodological triangulation; supply chain

1. Introduction

In comparison to other fields such as psychology, strategic management and human resources,
relatively little attention has been given to methodological issues in the logistics literature. As
New and Payne (1995) observe, ‘The mechanisms of academia offer a trade-off: one can pursue
artificial and abstract problems with the rigour necessary to play the research game, or one can
pursue more interesting and real issues and be lost in the extraordinary complexity and ambiguity
of the real world’. Whilst Näslund (2002) comments that much of the research within logistics is
dominated by quantitative methods, according to Dunn et al. (1993) ‘a given discipline may be
underachieving if all of its research is being conducted within a narrow methodological domain’.
In logistics research, there is a need for more methodological triangulation to achieve academic
rigour and industrial relevance (Mangan et al. 2004). There is a need to take into account the views
of practitioners in the field to support quantitative evidence with qualitative research. This balance

*Corresponding author. Email: sanchezrodriguesva1@cardiff.ac.uk

ISSN 1367-5567 print/ISSN 1469-848X online

© 2010 Taylor & Francis
DOI: 10.1080/13675560903224970
http://www.informaworld.com
 76 V.S. Rodrigues et al.

of methods is essential for the future development of logistics research (Näslund 2002). As stated
by Saunders et al. (2007) secondary data, observation, questionnaires and interviews are classified
as qualitative data collection methods. Focus groups can be defined as group interviews. They
have not been extensively used within logistics and are still less popular as a research method
(Larson and Halldorsson 2004) compared, for example, to case studies (Dinwoodie and Xu 2008).
The aim of this paper is to provide guidance on how to apply focus groups as a supportive
method to achieve industrial relevance without compromising academic rigour. We also aim to
link the generic literature on focus groups to an application in the field of logistics research. This
may encourage logistics specialists to add focus groups to their set of data collection methods.
In the next section, we discuss how focus groups have been applied in business research, before
addressing some more specific issues related to their use in the context of logistics research.
Downloaded by [University of North Texas] at 06:27 21 November 2014

A generic focus group process is then developed and its application in a recent logistics research
project is summarised. We outline several lessons learned from this experience which should be
of interest to other logistics researchers considering the adoption of this approach. Finally, various
conclusions are drawn.

2. Focus groups in business research

The focus group method is a group dynamic that aims to control the direction of the research
(Krueger 1998a). It can be defined also as a qualitative method as it explores the opinions, previous
experience and future expectations of the participants. As such, it is rooted within the interpretative
paradigm, represents an adoption of the relativist ontological approach and follows the subjectivist
epistemological tradition. Ontology and epistemology are branches of philosophy concerned with
the nature of reality and the acquisition of knowledge (Solem 2003). Ontology discusses whether
the social world is regarded as something external to social actors or as something that people are
in the process of fashioning through their actions and perceptions (Bryman 2004). In the relativist
perspective ‘realities exist in the form of multiple mental constructions’ as a product of individual
consciousness and are ‘dependent for their form and content on the person who holds them’ (Guba
1990). Epistemology relates to the nature and scope of knowledge. According to Maynard (1994)
‘epistemology is concerned with providing a philosophical grounding for deciding what kinds
of knowledge are possible and how we can ensure that they are both adequate and legitimate’.
The subjectivist approach assumes that ‘meaning is imposed on the object by the subject’ and all
knowledge comes from ‘an interaction between the subject and the object to which meaning is
ascribed’ (Crotty 1998). The focus of the interpretive approach is on understanding a business or
social phenomenon rather than on measuring, explaining or predicting it (Mentzer and Kahn 1995,
Bryman and Bell 2007). It assumes that there is a need to focus social inquiry on the meanings
and values of actors in order to understand what is happening and why it is happening (Crotty
1998). The researcher becomes an active part of the research process and considers himself to be
‘interactive, cooperative and lacking a privileged point of observation’ (Mentzer & Kahn 1995).
Mangan et al. (2004) argue that ‘physical sciences deal with objects which are outside people
whereas social sciences deal with action and behaviour which are generated from within the
human mind and that, furthermore, the interrelationship between the investigator and what was
being investigated was impossible to separate’. In contrast to the positivist approach, interpretative
research offers a holistic perspective on a given problem and allows much more complicated social
situations to be studied. This helps the researcher to cope with the complexities of business and
management (Remenyi et al. 2005).
Qualitative research is based on the assumption that ‘the world can only be understood from a
point of view of the individuals who are directly involved in the activities which are to be studied’
(Denzin and Lincoln 2003). However, ‘many regard qualitative researchers as soft scientists or
 International Journal of Logistics: Research and Applications 77

even journalists’ (Denzin and Lincoln 2003). Quantitative research, on the other hand, is consid-
ered more rigorous since validity and reliability can be statistically proven (Patton 2002, Bryman
and Bell 2007, Saunders et al. 2007). This statistical validity is often gained, however, at the
expense of a deeper understanding of attitudes, behaviour and processes, much of which requires
the collection and interpretation of qualitative data. Semi-structured interviews offer a means of
gathering this information from individuals, usually on a one-to-one basis, as discussed in detail
by Mason (2002). The focus group method, in contrast, makes interaction between several par-
ticipants a key part of the data collection process, with group discussion generating and testing
new ideas and opinions. The researcher can also tailor the structure and content of a focus group
discussion to the particular needs of the research project, making it a very flexible data collection
technique.
Downloaded by [University of North Texas] at 06:27 21 November 2014

According to Frankel et al. (2005) ‘there would seem to be a number of potential opportunities
provided by the use of multiple methods in the logistics discipline’. Focus groups can be applied to
complement other methods. As Jack and Raturi (2006) recommend, methodological triangulation
can be used, whereby researchers should choose methods with complementary strengths and non-
overlapping weaknesses. Combining qualitative and quantitative data can improve the rigour and
reliability of research findings. When the research topic has not been studied in the literature,
the focus group method can be used as a means to refine a conceptual model, so the researcher
can have a better idea of associations between variables before designing a survey. The method
can also provide further validation of a conceptual model that has already been tested against
statistical data. Furthermore, the focus group method can be used to guide a series of case studies,
because through the group sessions the researcher is able to confirm the design of the case studies
in terms of research themes, scale and scope (Krueger 1998a).
Before discussing the advantages and disadvantages of the focus group method, it is important
to introduce the main characteristics of this method. Krueger (1998a) has established the main
features as follows. It is a focussed discussion that starts open and ends by focusing on the specific
aspects that the researcher is particularly interested in investigating. It involves experts in a specific
field and the level of group members’ knowledge of the topic is one of the factors influencing the
optimum group size. The group composition should be designed to keep a balance of similarities
and differences between participants, so the facilitator can ensure an interactive group discussion.
Focus groups are conducted in series, so that when a point of theory saturation is reached the
researcher can stop the data collection.
The application of focus groups has both advantages and drawbacks. The literature highlights
the advantages of this methodology:

• It is an innovative way to solve business problems (Bryman 2004).

• The researcher has a high degree of flexibility regarding the research plan (Krueger 1998a).
• Focus group discussions are formed by a small group that can represent a big population
(Krueger 1998a).
• Data collection is cost-effective (Patton 2002).
• Interaction among participants enhances data quality (Patton 2002).

However, the method has certain limitations that must be considered during the planning stage:

• The researcher has less control over proceedings than in individual semi-structured interviews
(Bryman and Bell 2007).
• The analysis process is a rather time-consuming activity (Bryman and Bell 2007).
• Focus group facilitation requires flexibility and a set of specific skills in the researcher (Patton
2002, Bryman and Bell 2007 ).
• The divergent views of individual members can be inhibited by dominant views from others in
the group (Patton 2002, Bryman and Bell 2007).
 78 V.S. Rodrigues et al.

• A focus group strategy is beneficial for identification of major themes but not so much for the
micro-analysis of subtle differences (Krueger 1998a).
• Compared with most qualitative fieldwork methods for data collection, focus groups typically
have the disadvantages of taking place outside of the natural settings where social interactions
normally occur (Madriz 2000).
• The available response time for any particular individual is limited in order to hear from everyone
(Patton 2002).

3. The specific circumstances of logistics

Downloaded by [University of North Texas] at 06:27 21 November 2014

Logistics research is often rigorous in methodological terms but does not necessarily reflect reality,
as problems need to be simplified to reduce the high level of complexity that real-world business
scenarios present. Frankel et al. (2005) estimate that ‘51 per cent of logistics research is based
on the application of the survey method, but very few methods take the form of an involved,
subjective, cognitive perspective’. In many studies the opinions of logistics practitioners are not
sought, leaving a ‘white space on logistics research’ (Frankel et al. 2005).
‘Following the path of rigour in a positivistic manner will result in a body of logistics knowledge
that only represents observable and measurable phenomena, thus missing the mechanisms that
have created these conditions’ (Arlbjorn and Halldorsson 2002). In logistics research, it is some-
times necessary to triangulate quantitative data with qualitative methods, since there are many
logistics processes that can only be understood fully by applying qualitative methods such as indi-
vidual interviews and focus groups. Also, logistics research tends to be characterised by studies
of phenomena currently occurring in the field, rather than investigating truly new and innovative
concepts that can radically change thinking within the discipline. According to Drucker (1985),
we should be more receptive to innovative academic researchers who seek to change mindsets and
capitalise on the resulting opportunities (Drucker 1985). Focus groups can be forums at which
new ideas emerge and be a more fruitful source of ideas than case studies and surveys.
Through a comprehensive search of the logistics literature, it is possible to identify a number
of papers where the research design includes focus groups. In particular, the search focused
upon journal articles and targeted databases such as Science Direct, Emerald Insight and EBSCO
Business Source Premier. The main search term was ‘focus group’ and either ‘logistics’ or ‘supply
chain’. Both terms are used to reflect the different perspectives people have on the relationship
between logistics and supply chains (Larson and Halldorsson 2004). The term ‘workshop’ is also
substituted for ‘focus group’, and papers containing the term consulted to see whether the research
was, in effect, using focus groups.
As presented in Appendix 1, these papers were then classified into a number of distinct
categories, reflecting the main types of research identified by Saunders et al. (2007):
• Descriptive – one example of such an application exists in the literature, where the focus
group method was used to examine the current state of automotive supply chains (Holweg and
Miemczyk 2002).
• Exploratory – these papers used focus groups to investigate particular issues. This category can
be further sub-divided into three:
◦ Sole method – these papers directly use the findings of the focus groups to draw conclusions
about the issue being investigated. Cullen and Webster (2007) use no other method, while
Mangan and Christopher (2005) and Manuj and Mentzer (2008) complement their focus
groups with other methods (a survey and interviews respectively).
◦ Construct development (Sink et al. 1996, Mentzer et al. 1997, Dinwoodie 2001, Lancioni
et al. 2001, Golicic et al. 2003, Guinipero et al. 2005, Evangelista and Sweeney 2006, Tian
 International Journal of Logistics: Research and Applications 79

et al. 2008) – this is the largest grouping and uses the focus group to identify the main
constructs for a wider scale survey.
◦ Other – two other papers use focus groups in an exploratory manner. Christopher and Jüttner
(2000) use the focus group findings to influence their choice of case studies while Rae-
Smith and Ellinger (2002) assess the impact of an action research study. The latter is the
only example found of exploratory focus groups being used after other empirical research
methods.
• Explanatory – in this category, the focus groups are used to assess in more detail causal
relationships observed by the use of other methods. Two distinct groupings exist:
◦ Survey results – these papers use focus groups to provide more depth to survey findings. In
the examples from New and Payne (1995) and Jüttner (2005), a number of focus groups are
Downloaded by [University of North Texas] at 06:27 21 November 2014

used because of low survey response rates. Rinehart et al. (2004) and Bernon and Cullen
(2007) use fewer focus groups as their response rates are higher.
◦ Other opinion based methods – here, the focus groups provide more depth as well as the
potential to further generalise the findings.. Methods used prior to the focus group discussions
include interviews (Dainty et al. 2001, Blackhurst et al. 2005), a workshop (Jüttner et al.
2007) and a Delphi study (Melnyk et al. 2009).
More detail on the applications can be found in Appendix 1. They have been analysed on the basis
of the following factors: research approach, role of the focus group within the research strategy,
research design, format of the focus group and the analytical process. These are key stages in the
focus group method and are discussed in more detail shortly. What is interesting to note is that,
in almost all cases, focus groups form part of a research process and are complemented by other
data collection methods.
In the next section of the paper, we develop a generic focus group research process, based on
the general literature. Where appropriate, reference is made to Appendix 1 to illustrate how this
has been applied previously.

4. The focus group process

Figure 1 presents the different stages in the application of the focus group method and the factors
that influence each stage. First of all, the research problem needs to be defined. This decision is
reflected in the categorisation of logistics research in the previous section. After that, the research
strategy needs to be selected taking into account the nature of the research problem. In this stage
of the process, the philosophical paradigm from which the researcher comes has a considerable
influence on the choice of method and whether or not the focus group method is selected in the
first place.
After defining the research problem, the focus group procedure needs to be designed. The
literature suggests that two factors determine the controllability of the group discussion and the
quality of the data gathered: group size and composition.
Figure 2 depicts how group size can influence the group discussion controllability and the
quality of the data. According to Krueger (1998a), in order to achieve ideal levels of data richness
and group control, a focus group session should have between 6 and 10 members. If a focus
group session has more than 10 members, the facilitator needs to apply alternative strategies to
manage the group effectively, such as splitting it into smaller groups. If the facilitator has enough
assistants, the group can be divided into two. Otherwise, the facilitator needs to extend the time
arranged for the session. If there are fewer than 6 members, the group discussion can be poor,
but if the group members are experts in the particular field, the minimum acceptable number of
members is 4, since each participant has a greater contribution to make in terms of knowledge and
 80 V.S. Rodrigues et al.

Define Research Problem

• Descriptive
• Exploratory
• Explanatory

Research Strategy and Design

• Research philosophy
• Defining a research path

No Apply other
Downloaded by [University of North Texas] at 06:27 21 November 2014

Are focus groups appropriate? research methods

Yes

Focus Group Design

• Group composition
• Group size

Conducting the Focus Group

• Structured v. unstructured
approach
• Venue layout
• Facilitation skills

Analysing the Data

• Analytical process
• Theory saturation

Participant Feedback
• Report
• Workshop

Figure 1. Generic focus group process (adapted from Krueger 1998a, Morgan 1998).

insight (Morgan 1998). Referring to Appendix 1, it seems that in logistics, focus group size has
tended to be at the larger end of the scale. Further, it appears that the focus groups conducted in
Europe tend to be smaller in size than those in North America. Only two examples from the latter
region had 10 or fewer participants in their focus groups (Lancioni et al. 2001, Golicic et al. 2003).
In terms of group composition, the mix of interests and expertise must clearly reflect the
purpose of the research. Some diversity of background and knowledge is nevertheless required
to build new ideas and make group participants ‘think outside the box’. On the other hand, it has
been suggested that group discussions work best if conducted with like-minded people (Eggins
et al. 2008). Therefore, in the design stage, the research team needs to find the right balance
between similarities and differences within group members (Krueger 1998a). If participants are
too similar, the group discussion may not be sufficiently holistic, open and innovative, but if they
are too different and there are no evident synergies between them, group discussions can become
diffuse and unproductive.
 International Journal of Logistics: Research and Applications 81

100
90

Index (0 to 100) 80
70
60
50
40
30 Controllability
20 Data quality
Downloaded by [University of North Texas] at 06:27 21 November 2014

10
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
Number of participants

Figure 2. Effect of group size on quality and controllability (Krueger 1998a).

The literature also considers how focus group discussions should be conducted. It is important to
decide on whether a structured or unstructured approach is taken. This decision is also influenced
by the researcher’s philosophical paradigm and the nature of the research problem. A structured
approach presents the participant with a number of potential topics related to the issue being
discussed. In contrast, the unstructured approach poses a few prompting questions to initiate a
free discussion between participants. The evidence from the papers in Appendix 1 suggests that,
for logistics, an unstructured approach is more popular for exploratory studies and a structured
approach for explanatory studies.
The facilitator should have certain skills to reach the standard required in terms of data quality
and controllability. According to Krueger (1998a) and Morgan (1998), the facilitator should play
different roles to ensure a rich and interactive discussion:

• Expert consultant in the topic discussed, having a similar level of knowledge of the subject to
that of the group as a whole
• Challenger, questioning the opinions of participants, making the group rethink their assumptions
and not allowing dominant members to divert the discussion onto less relevant topics
• Referee, intervening when there is conflict between participants
• Discussion leader, actively facilitating and guiding the group
• Effective interrogator, capable of asking probing questions
• Mentally alert and free from distractions
• Listening and taking notes at the same time, keeping a written record of the discussion.

The approach taken to facilitate focus groups should be directly linked to the initial research
objectives. However, the approach can be modified to take account of the specific circumstances
of each new group and the level of theory saturation achieved previously.
In order to achieve a high level of data quality in the analysis stage, it is a good practice to
employ an assistant facilitator to ensure that group discussions are appropriately recorded and
notes taken (Krueger 1998a). Their facilitation skills can complement those of the main facilitator.
Venue layout and equipment are other important success factors in the organisation of focus
group sessions. The venue layout needs to ensure that all the participants are able to listen to the
facilitator and fellow participants and they can easily see any presentation used to support the
facilitation. The venue layout needs to be a room that offers a considerable amount of flexibility
 82 V.S. Rodrigues et al.

in terms of chairs and tables, so that it can be possible to re-arrange the layout depending on the
number of attendees that turn up.
The other two stages in the application of the focus group method are data analysis and partic-
ipant feedback. The literature briefly describes three factors that the researcher should consider
when analysing focus group data, namely frequency, extensiveness and intensity of participants’
opinions (Krueger 1998b). The majority of papers in Appendix 1 adopt some form of cluster-
ing exercise, either manually or with the help of software. However, the literature contains little
consideration of the quantitative approaches that might be used in the analysis stage to improve
objectivity and rigour. It is also important to test for theory saturation to ensure that the findings
are as complete as possible. According to Krueger (1998a), theory saturation is reached when an
additional focus group does not add any new theme to the data collected, but adds more cost to
Downloaded by [University of North Texas] at 06:27 21 November 2014

the data collection process. In effect, the opinions expressed within a focus group are the same
as those identified through previous focus groups. Generally speaking, theory saturation tends to
be reached after the fifth session (Krueger 1998a, Morgan 1998). Only one paper in Appendix
1 explicitly tests for theory saturation (Cullen and Webster 2007). This could raise concerns in
the other cases as to the credibility of the findings, although they do all deploy methodological
triangulation which reduces the risk of bias.
The process culminates in the writing of a final report and dissemination of feedback to partic-
ipants (Krueger 1998a). None of the papers in Appendix 1 provided information on this feedback
process.
In the next section of the paper, we take this generic research process and show how it has been
applied in logistics research.

5. Application to the UK logistics sector

Research teams from two UK-based universities combined their resources to conduct a series of
seven focus groups. Although the research was carried out as part of a single large project, the
two teams had different research objectives and topics. In terms of research philosophy, the two
research teams are formed with researchers that can be positioned in the middle of the philosophical
spectrum between positivism and relativism. Both research teams selected focus groups as part of
a wider methodological path, for instance, using the focus group findings to complement research
work into conceptual model development. The topics can be summarised as follows:

5.1. Uncertainty

Prior to the focus group discussion, a model of transport uncertainty was developed from published
literature (Sanchez-Rodrigues et al. 2008). This model categorised the sources and causes of supply
chain uncertainty in transport operations. However, the model needed to be refined by logistics
practitioners before its validity could be tested by an industrial survey. In order to achieve this,
focus groups were chosen over other methods for two main reasons. Firstly, they provide an
efficient way to gather data from a large number of participants in a shorter time than would be
possible with individual interviews. Secondly, it allowed different perspectives on the subject to
be assembled and compared during an interactive session. The objectives of the focus groups
were first to identify the main causes of supply chain uncertainty within current UK logistics
operations and, second, to identify the root causes of these uncertainties. A final objective was
to evaluate the impact of transport operations on environmental performance. The focus groups
were exploratory in nature, since they were designed to provide empirical evidence to support a
conceptually developed model.
 International Journal of Logistics: Research and Applications 83

5.2. Business-as-usual Trends

A framework mapping the complex inter-relationships between economic growth, a series of key
logistics variables and a range of freight-related environmental impacts was developed prior to
the focus groups. From this, based on a literature review, more detailed key ratios were identified
(Piecyk et al. 2007). The aim of the focus groups was to canvass expert opinion on the main
factors influencing business-as-usual trends in these key ratios in order to confirm validity of the
literature review findings and to identify other issues that may not have been reported. The focus
group technique was chosen because of its interactivity and ability to promote greater involvement
by the participants and stimulate innovative thinking. Also, discussions among participants from
diverse professional and industry backgrounds allowed the research team to adopt a multi-sectoral
perspective on the subject. A number of possible determinants of past changes in each of the key
Downloaded by [University of North Texas] at 06:27 21 November 2014

ratios were identified and the focus groups invited to consider how, on a business-as-usual basis,
they would be likely to change in the future.
The decision to combine our efforts was based on the fact that organising a combined two-
session focus group panel could help to increase the attendance and maximise the utilisation of
available resources. Both teams were seeking a similar profile of respondents. Each focus group
session was divided equally between the two research teams. After conducting the focus groups,
in order to assess the seven sessions, the five researchers who took part in the facilitation process
qualitatively assessed the effectiveness of each session in terms of controllability, data quality and
the factors likely to have influenced it.
In developing and conducting the focus groups, we followed the generic process detailed in
Figure 1. We now describe the application of this process and identify additional learning points
about the method.

5.2.1. Focus group design

In the planning stage, 7 potential venues were chosen taking into account major logistics flows and
business locations within the UK.Venue is not considered in the generic literature as a key issue and
therefore represents a refinement to the process in Figure 1. By taking account of the geographical
location of potential participants, we hoped to increase participation by reducing their journey
time and inconvenience. A similar approach is adopted by New and Payne (1995), Dainty et al.
(2001), Guinipero et al. (2003) and Evangelista and Sweeney (2006). Locations were determined
as a pilot session in Birmingham, two sessions in London, two in Nottingham, and one each in
Cardiff and Edinburgh. Postal invitations were sent to 156 potential participants from logistic-
related companies (manufacturers, retailers, 3PLs and technology providers), trade associations,
government bodies and logistics consultancy companies. These were generally people known to
the research team; this is quite common according to the papers detailed in Appendix 1. The
postal invitations included information about both research projects, a personal invitation letter
and a response form to confirm attendance. Participants were allocated to a focus group depending
on their workplace location. In order to encourage attendance at the focus groups, participants
were offered a written feedback report and a potential invitation to a dissemination workshop.
Evangelista and Sweeney (2006) also offered an incentive to attendees, but in the form of a free
magazine subscription.
Initially, only 26 invitees confirmed their attendance at the focus group sessions. Those that
did not respond were first telephoned to ensure that they understood the purpose of the event and
to invite them verbally. A formal e-mail invitation was then sent to the practitioners who agreed
to attend during the initial telephone call. This follow-up process was effective since it raised the
number of participants to 75. Nevertheless, on average one in four participants was subsequently
unable to attend, yielding a final total of 58.
 84 V.S. Rodrigues et al.

Table 1. Group size and composition of the 7 sessions.

Type of organisation represented

Focus group Group Trade Policy Number of
session size Shipper Carrier Customer Enabler association maker industrial sectors

Birmingham 6 1 2 1 1 1 0 5
London 1 11 2 2 1 2 2 2 7
London 2 7 1 2 0 2 2 0 5
Nottingham 1 9 3 2 1 1 1 1 7
Nottingham 2 7 1 2 1 2 1 0 5
Cardiff 5 2 0 1 0 1 1 4
Edinburgh 13 6 1 0 1 4 1 7
Total 58 16 11 5 9 12 5
Downloaded by [University of North Texas] at 06:27 21 November 2014

The size and composition of the seven focus groups varied widely (Table 1). First, regarding
group size, we had three focus groups that did not have between the 6 and 10 participants recom-
mended by Krueger (1998a). Two had more than 10 participants. In the first of these (London 1),
the group was divided into two for discussions. However, this reduced the quality of data recorded.
In some groups the diversity of sectors represented also impaired the quality of discussion. The
Cardiff focus group had only five participants, but they were from large enterprises and had a
wide knowledge on the topic area. Morgan (1998) suggests a minimum of four for such a group,
and depth in the discussions was possible. Golicic et al. (2003) and Cullen and Webster (2007)
both had similar sized groups.

5.2.2. Conducting the focus groups

The focus groups were designed to last for a whole day, with each research team having half a
day for their session – a summary of the procedure used for each session can be found in Table 2.
Each session lasted around 2 h with a refreshment break in the middle. However, there was a short
initial presentation that gave some background to the overall research project. Notes were taken
by the researchers and complemented by audio recordings, to which all participants agreed. Each
research team managed their session differently:

• Uncertainty: Participants were first asked to write the main causes of uncertainty that affected
their logistics operations on Post-It notes. Post-It notes were used to allow all group members
to participate. Each participant then briefly explained the comments they had written, while the
other group members were encouraged to intervene. The group then categorised the individual
Post-It notes into thematic clusters. Subsequent discussion explored cause and effect links
between these clusters and the clusters then formed the main unit of analysis for the research.

Table 2. Summary of focus group activities.

Phase of focus
Group research Uncertainty Trends

Conduct Presentation of framework (20 min)
Post-It note exercise and discussion (1 h)
Cause and effect exercise and discussion (40 min)
Analysis Clusters of Post-It notes
Cause and effect diagrams to add depth
Presentation interwoven by discussion (120 mins)
Frequency analysis
Disaggregating the data by type of organisation
and by industry represented
 International Journal of Logistics: Research and Applications 85

• Trends: A short presentation was prepared outlining recent changes in four sets of key
parameters relating to supply chain structure, freight modal split, vehicle utilisation and fuel
management and the factors that had contributed to recent trends in these variables. Participants
were asked to comment on the factors and to raise other issues they found relevant. After the first
two focus group sessions it was felt that this approach might condition the range of responses
by prematurely drawing the attention of interviewees to past causes. Therefore, the structure of
the workshops was modified slightly. The participants were first shown a graph illustrating the
past changes in a given parameter. Then they were encouraged to discuss what the future direc-
tion of the trend would be and what factors were likely to be influencing this parameter. The
moderator tried to stimulate discussion by asking additional questions and finally introducing
factors that none of the delegates had mentioned.
Downloaded by [University of North Texas] at 06:27 21 November 2014

The nature of the facilitation evolved over the series of focus groups. In the Uncertainty sessions,
the facilitator approach was initially fairly unstructured but, for the last four sessions, the discus-
sion was managed in a slightly more structured fashion. This reflected the fact that the facilitators
were in a better position to anticipate the issues raised by delegates. With the Trends sessions, the
format of the group discussions became less structured to promote more open discussion and a
freer flow of ideas.

5.2.3. Analysing the data

The two research teams analysed the data using different approaches, since they collected the data
in slightly different ways and had different research objectives. The Uncertainty team used Post-It
notes to assist data collection, so it was relatively straightforward to categorise the uncertainty
issues that participants raised in their specific session. The data were synthesised in matrices
to compare individual Post-It note issues and their clusters with uncertainty types, sectors and
participants’ background. In contrast, the Trends team prepared transcripts from the discussions,
and were able to analyse and disaggregate the data by type of companies and industrial sector.
Generic effectiveness measures were used to compare the two sets of focus groups. Figure 3
shows the percentage of comments by type of participant for each set. For the Uncertainty session,
the shippers generally dominated. The policy makers were the participants who had a lower number
of comments overall. On the other hand, in the Trends session, enablers, carriers and customers
contributed around 65 per cent of the data.

40
Uncertainty session
35
Trends session
30
% of comments

25

20

15

10

0
Shipper Trade body Enabler Carrier Customer Policy maker
Type of participants

Figure 3. Percentage of comments by type of participant for the two focus group cases.
 86 V.S. Rodrigues et al.

20
Uncertainty session

Trends session
15
% of comments

Expected % of comments
10 if proportional to number
of attendees

0
Drinks

Primary
intermodal
Rail and
Transport bodies
and influencers
Policy makers
Retailer

Consultants
reverse logistics
Waste and
Construction

Health
3PL

IT providers

Grocery
Downloaded by [University of North Texas] at 06:27 21 November 2014

Industrial Sector

Figure 4. Percentage of comments per sector.

There are a number of reasons why participants contributed differently to the focus group
sessions. Shippers probably experience uncertainty in transport operations the most, both for
their inbound and outbound movements, and hence contribute more to this discussion. Although
the Post-It notes should encourage all to participate, it may be that they also allow those with lots
to contribute to get more of their comments included. Equally, policy makers are not involved in
the management of supply chains, and so provide less input. The more even spread for the Trends
session indicates that the key ratios are widely recognised as being critical to the management of
the supply chain and its external effects.
Figure 4 depicts the percentage of comments by sector for the two sets of groups, compared with
the expected percentage of comments had the number of comments per sector been proportional
to the number of attendees per sector. It can clearly be seen that certain sectors contributed more
to the discussion than others. There are significant differences among the top five sectors for each
session, with retailers and consultants represented more strongly in the Trends session. The chart
suggests that there may be some bias in the findings towards the sectors that have contributed
more. This is particularly so for the Trends session, where there are more sectors both significantly
over-represented and under-represented. This requires further investigation.
As noted earlier, it is essential to verify that theory saturation is achieved. If theory saturation
is achieved, it is less likely that bias is present. To measure the degree of theory saturation the
number of new comments per participant was calculated for each session. The results are shown
in Figure 5. In both cases, the number of new comments tails off over the seven sessions. There is
a slight increase in new contributions per participant from focus group 6 to focus group 7. Since
a new industrial sector took part in the focus group, this was to be expected. In both cases, it can
be said that theory saturation has been reached.

5.2.4. Participant feedback

After all the analysis had been completed, a feedback session for all participants was organised.
The participants were notified about the event well in advance, firstly after each focus group
session and then again through special invitations sent to everyone involved. In the feedback
session, presentations with the results of both studies were prepared and shown to the participants.
This was followed by discussions of the findings, where the group had a chance to express their
 International Journal of Logistics: Research and Applications 87

14

12
New comments per participant
Uncertainty session
10
Trends session

2
Downloaded by [University of North Texas] at 06:27 21 November 2014

0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Focus group

Figure 5. Theory saturation in the two cases.

views and point out any potential misinterpretations in the results. Hence, this feedback session
contributed to the credibility and accuracy of the results. To complement the session, a short report
was also produced and circulated to all participants.

6. Lessons learned

It was possible to identify a number of key factors influencing the effectiveness of the focus group
particularly in terms of data quality (Figure 6).
The first lesson learned is that a focus group does not just depend upon its size and composition.
In the focus group literature, much emphasis is placed on these two aspects. It is also important
that the participants are interested in the content of the discussion. This can be seen in Figures 3
and 4, where the type of company and industrial sector influenced the level of participation in
each focus group session. There are also a number of other factors that need to be considered. We
categorise these as uncontrollable and controllable.
Uncontrollable factors relate specifically to the participants. There are four attributes that appear
to affect the size, composition and interest of the focus groups, namely participants’ knowledge,
expectations, availability and personality. People are only likely to attend if they feel that they
have something to contribute to the topic(s) being discussed within the focus groups. This can be
seen in Figure 3 where policy makers contributed little to the Uncertainty session but more to the
discussion on Trends. The former session was more supply chain oriented while the latter was
more public policy oriented. However, it is also important that they have appropriate expectations
as to what the focus group will achieve and the related benefit for them and their organisations. One
participant thought there was going to be more dissemination of research rather than discussion.
Finally, the personality of the participant affects their contribution to the discussion.
Given these uncontrollable factors, we now turn to the controllable factors, which the research
team can influence. At the design stage, the team can ensure that the appropriate people are selected
for the focus group. For example, Mangan and Christopher (2005) targeted executive education
students to identify the skills requirements of supply chain managers. The method of inviting
participants is also critical. From our experience, personal contact with potential participants is
important in generating interest. In our case, this happened during the follow up process but it
 88 V.S. Rodrigues et al.

Focus group
effectiveness

is a
function of

• Size
• Composition
• Interest
which are which are
influenced by influenced by
Downloaded by [University of North Texas] at 06:27 21 November 2014

Uncontrollable Factors Controllable Factors

help to manage

• Participants’ knowledge • Design

• Participants’ expectations o Invitation and follow up
• Participants’ availability process
• Participants’ personality o Location
• Conduct
o Facilitation
• Analysis
o Theory saturation
testing
• Feedback

Figure 6. Factors influencing focus group effectiveness.

could form part of the initial invitation. Another important aspect is the location of the focus
groups. By holding sessions around the UK, we minimised participants’ travelling time.
The nature of the facilitation is important both for stimulating discussion and for ensuring that
everyone participates. With a group of diverse personalities, there is a danger that those who are
more confident dominate the discussion and distort the findings. The Post-It note exercise proves
an effective means of encouraging contributions from all participants. By asking participants to
record their opinions before the discussion starts, it helps the facilitator to bring their opinions
into the discussions. Conversely, making the discussion too structured can reduce the level of
discussion, and interest in the topic can wane. The most important element, however, is for the
research team to reflect upon each focus group and, if necessary, adjust the facilitation approach
to improve the quality of data collected.
One of the main lessons from the analytical stage is the need to reflect upon any bias in the
findings. Testing for theory saturation can help to detect bias and assess the thoroughness with
which the subject has been discussed. Previous applications of the focus group method in the field
of logistics appear not have measured the degree of theory saturation, with an exception being
Cullen and Webster (2007).
Finally, a significant number of participants expressed a desire to take back relevant information
and insights to their organisations. Maintaining good relations with delegates after the focus group
also increases the probability of them participating in future research. The fact that many of the
practitioners have subsequently been involved in other parts of the research programme (beyond
the focus groups) demonstrates this wider benefit. Many of them, for example, subsequently
participated in a Delphi questionnaire survey.
 International Journal of Logistics: Research and Applications 89

7. Focus groups and research quality

A number of authors have noted that, in the logistics research community, there is an apparent
lack of awareness of qualitative criteria in the evaluation of research methods. In assessing the
efficacy of the focus group method, the qualitative criteria recommended by Lincoln and Guba
(1985) have been used:

• Credibility – in our research, this was measured by testing for theory saturation and inviting
participants to comment on summaries of the research findings.
• Transferability – A danger with focus groups is that the findings will reflect the opinions of the
participants and not be generalisable. It was essential, therefore, that a diverse group of spe-
cialists take part that can effectively represent the wider body of opinion on the research issues.
Downloaded by [University of North Texas] at 06:27 21 November 2014

In addition, relating the findings back to the literature can help to determine the transferability
of the results.
• Dependability – Here, it was critical that the researchers fully document the whole focus group
process, from design through to analysis and feedback.
• Confirmability – This was enhanced by applying focus groups as part of a methodological trian-
gulation strategy, combining with questionnaire surveys, case studies, interviews etc. Involving
more than one research team in the focus groups also created an opportunity for cross-checking
results.

Referring to the literature summarised in Appendix 1, the majority of the focus group papers
reviewed try to assess research quality against transferability and confirmability criteria. Limited
use is made of theory saturation testing or participant feedback, however, suggesting that there has
been inadequate consideration of credibility (see the analysis column in Appendix 1). Depend-
ability is reliant upon the process being documented and, again referring to Appendix 1, it can
be seen that many papers provide little or no information on how the focus group was conducted
and the results analysed.

8. Concluding remarks

It appears that the collection of data from focus group discussions has been less used in logistics
than in many other subject areas. The aim of this paper was to examine where the method can
be appropriately used and what research issues it raises. The wider literature on focus groups
makes a series of methodological recommendations. These have been related to the particular
circumstances of logistics research through a review of published logistics studies employing this
technique and direct experience of a large focus group exercise. Also, we have highlighted that
the process of selecting the focus group method as part of a wider methodological research path is
influenced by two main factors, the research philosophy paradigm of the researcher and the nature
of the research problem. This exercise has confirmed that most of the general methodological
recommendations made in the literature, relating to defining the research problem, focus group
design, analysing the data and participant feedback, apply to a logistics study (Figure 1). We
also identify three potential roles for focus groups in logistics research, namely in description,
exploration and explanation.
Many of the published papers on the application of focus groups in logistics provide inadequate
detail on the research process, particularly the conduct of the focus group, the analysis and
feedback. The insufficient detail reported in most of the published literature can be due to the fact
that the final papers have attempted to report the findings from the other method(s) applied in the
research path, e.g. final survey results, which fulfil the primary research objectives, where focus
 90 V.S. Rodrigues et al.

groups have been often applied in logistics as a complementary research method. Where multiple
focus groups have been held, there has been a lack of testing for theory saturation. This casts
doubt on the rigour with which the technique has been used and may have discouraged others
from employing it or accepting its results. However, in terms of methodological contribution,
focus groups can be used to complement other methods and can add both breadth and depth to a
logistics research project. A well-managed focus group discussion can very usefully supplement
qualitative literature reviews or quantitative questionnaire surveys as well as refine conceptual
models at an earlier stage in a research project.
One of the keys to a successful focus group is the extent to which the researchers can stimulate
interest in the topic. This can be done mainly in three ways: by personal contacts with potential
participants at the recruitment stage, by effective facilitation during the focus group and by seeking
Downloaded by [University of North Texas] at 06:27 21 November 2014

feedback from participants afterwards. In terms of facilitation, it is important for the research
team to reflect upon their approach and make appropriate adjustments. From our application of
the method, we conclude that the semi-structured form of facilitation is superior as it strikes a
balance between, on the one hand, providing guidance and ensuring broad coverage of the issues,
while, on the other, leaving the participants relatively free to express their views.
This paper leaves a number of issues unresolved such as how one should determine the optimal
size of a focus group in logistics research and the effectiveness of different recruitment methods.
In future studies involving focus groups, the impact of group size on the effectiveness of the
discussions will be assessed, taking account of other relevant factors. The impact of different
recruitment methods on some of the ‘uncontrollable’ factors defined in Figure 6 will also merit
further investigation. As the focus group discussion is still a relatively new method of data collec-
tion in logistics, there is a need for greater sharing of experiences to help to establish best practice
and promote its wider application.

References

Arlbjorn, J.S. and Halldorsson, A., 2002. Logistics knowledge creation: reflections on content, context and processes.
International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, 32 (1), 22–40.
Bernon, M. and Cullen, J., 2007. An integrated approach to managing reverse logistics. International Journal of Logistics:
Research and Applications, 10 (1), 41–56.
Blackhurst, J., Craighead, C.W., Elkins, D. and Handfield, R.B., 2005. An empirically derived agenda of critical research
issues for managing supply chain disruptions. International Journal of Production Research, 43 (19), 4067–4081.
Bryman, A., 2004. Social research methods. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bryman, A. and Bell, E., 2007. Business research methods, 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Christopher, M. and Jüttner, U., 2000. Developing strategic partnerships in the supply chain: a practitioner perspective.
European Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management, 6 (2), 117–127.
Crotty, M., 1998. The foundations of social research. Meaning and perspective in the research process. London: Sage
Publications.
Cullen, A.J. and Webster, M., 2007. A model of B2B e-commerce based on connectivity and purpose. International
Journal of Operations and Production Management, 27 (2), 205–225.
Dainty, A.R.J., Millett, S.J., and Briscoe, G.H., 2001. New perspectives of construction supply chain integration. Supply
Chain Management: An International Journal, 6 (4), 163–173.
Denzin, N. K. and Lincoln, Y. S. (2003), The landscape of qualitative research: theories and issues, 2nd ed. California:
Sage.
Dinwoodie, J., 2001. Motivational profiling of logistics Masters students. International Journal of Physical Distribution
and Logistics Management, 31 (3), 187–202.
Dinwoodie, J. and Xu, J., 2008. Case studies in logistics: a review and tentative taxonomy. International Journal of
Logistics: Research and Applications, 11 (5), 393–408.
Drucker, P. F., 1985. Innovation and entrepreneurship: practice and principles. London: Pan Books.
Dunn, S., Seaker, R., Stenger,A., and Young, R. 1993. An Assessment of Logistics Research Paradigms, Working Paper
No. 93-5, Pennsylvania State University.
Eggins, R.A., O’Brien, A.T., Reynolds, K.J., Haslam, S.A., and Crocker, A.S., 2008. Refocusing the focus group: AIRing
as a basis for effective workplace planning. British Journal of Management, 19 (3), 277–293.
Evangelista, P. and Sweeney, E., 2006. Technology usage in the supply chain: the case of small 3PLs. The International
Journal of Logistics Management, 17 (1), 55–74.
 International Journal of Logistics: Research and Applications 91

Frankel, R., Naslund, D., and Bolumole, Y., 2005. The ‘white space’ of logistics research: a look at the role of methods
usage. Journal of Business Logistics, 26 (2), 185–208.
Golicic, S.L., Foggin, J.H., and Mentzer, J.T., 2003. Relationship magnitude and its role in inter-organisational relationship
structure. Journal of Business Logistics, 24 (1), 57–75.
Guba, E., 1990. The Paradigm Dialog. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
Guinipero, L.C., Denslow, D., and Eltantawy, R., 2005. Purchasing/supply chain management flexibility: Moving to an
entrepreneurial skill set. Industrial Marketing Management, 34, 602–613.
Holweg, M. and Miemczyk, J., 2002. Logistics in the ‘three day car’ age: Assessing the responsiveness of vehicle
distribution in the UK, International Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics Management, 32 (10), 829–850.
Jack E.P. and Raturi,A.S., 2006. Lessons learned from methodological triangulation in management research. Management
Research News, 29 (6), 345–357.
Jüttner, U., 2005. Supply chain risk management: Understanding the business requirements from a practitioner perspective.
International Journal of Logistics Management, 16 (1), 121–141.
Jüttner, U., Christopher, M., and Baker, S., 2007. Demand chain management – integrating marketing and supply chain
management. Industrial Marketing Management, 36 (3), 377–392.
Downloaded by [University of North Texas] at 06:27 21 November 2014

Krueger, R.A., 1998a. Focus groups. A practical guide for applied research, 2nd ed. London: Sage
Krueger, R.A., 1998b. Analysing and reporting focus groups: A focus group kit, 2nd ed. London: Sage.
Lancioni, R., Forman, H., and Smith, M.F., 2001. Logistics and supply chain education: Roadblocks and challenges.
International Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics Management, 31 (10), 733–745.
Larson, P.D. and Halldorsson, A., 2004. Logistics versus supply chain management: An international survey. International
Journal of Logistics: Research and Applications, 7 (1), 17–31.
Lincoln, Y. and Guba, E., 1985. Naturalistic inquiry. New York, NY: Sage.
Madriz, E., 2000. Focus groups in feminist research. In: N.K. Denzin and Y.S. Lincoln, eds. Handbook of qualitative
research, 2nd ed. California: Sage, 835–850.
Mangan, J. and Christopher, M., 2005. Management development and the supply chain manager of the future. International
Journal of Logistics Management, 16 (2), 178–191.
Mangan, J., Lalwani, C., and Gardner, B. 2004. Combining quantitative and qualitative methodologies in logistics research.
International Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics Management, 34 (7/8), 565–578.
Manuj, I. and Mentzer, J., 2008. Global supply chain risk management strategies. International Journal of Physical
Distribution and Logistics Management, 38 (3), 192–223.
Mason, J., 2002. Qualitative researching. London: Sage.
Maynard, M., 1994. Methods, practice and epistemology: The debate about feminism and research. In: M. Maynard and
J. Purvis, eds. Researching women’s lives from a feminist perspective. London: Taylor & Francis.
Melnyk, S.A., Lummus, R.R., Vokurka, R.J., Burns, L.J., and Sandor, J., 2009. Mapping the future of supply chain
management: a Delphi study. International Journal of Production Research, 47 (16), 4629–4653.
Mentzer, J.T., and Kahn, K.B., 1995. A framework of logistics research. Journal of Business Logistics, 16(1), 231–250.
Mentzer, J.T., Rutner, S.M., and Matsuno, K., 1997. Application of the means-end value hierarchy model to understand-
ing logistics service value. International Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics Management, 27 (9/10),
630–643.
Mentzer, J.T., Flint, D.J., and Kent, J.L., 1999. Developing a logistics service quality scale. Journal of Business Logistics,
20 (1), pp. 9–32.
Morgan, D.L., 1998. Focus groups as qualitative research. London: Sage.
Näslund, D., 2002. Logistics needs qualitative research – especially action research. International Journal of Physical
Distribution and Logistics Management, 32 (5), 321–338.
New, S.J. and Payne, P., 1995. Research frameworks in logistics: three models, seven dinners and a survey. International
Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, 25(10), 60–77.
Patton, M.Q., 2002. Qualitative research & evaluation methods, 3rd ed. London: Sage.
Piecyk, M., Edwards, J., and McKinnon, A., 2007. Modelling the future impact of freight transport on the environment.
Proceedings of the 12th Logistics Research Network Conference, Hull, UK, 5th–7th September, 33–36.
Rae-Smith, J. B. and Ellinger, A. E. (2002), Insight from the introduction of an online logistics service system. Supply
Chain Management: An International Journal, 7 (1), 5–11.
Remenyi, D., Williams, B., Money, A., and Swartz, E., 2005. Doing research in business and management. An introduction
to process and method. London: Sage.
Rinehart, L. M., Eckert, J. A., Handfield, R. B., Page, T.J., and Atkin, T., 2004. An assessment of supplier–customer
relationships. Journal of Business Logistics, 25 (1), 25–62.
Sanchez-Rodrigues V., Stantchev D., Potter A., Naim M., and Whiteing A., 2008. Establishing a transport operation
focussed uncertainty model for the supply chain. International Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics
Management, 38 (5), 388–411.
Saunders, M., Lewis, P., and Thornhill A., 2007. Research methods for business students, 4th ed. London: Prentice Hall.
Sink, H.L. and Langley, C.J., 1997. A managerial framework for the acquisition of third-party logistics services. Journal
of Business Logistics, 18 (2), 163–189.
Sink, H.L., Langley, C.J., and Gibson, B.J., 1996. Buyer observations of the US third-party logistics market. International
Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics Management, 26 (3), 38–46.
Solem, O., 2003. Epistemology and logistics: a critical overview. Systemic Practice and Action Research, 16 (6), 437–454.
Tian,Y., Lai, F., and Daniel, F., 2008. An examination of the nature of trust in logistics outsourcing relationships. Industrial
Management and Data Systems, 108 (3), 346–367.
 92
Appendix 1. Summary of articles using the focus group method in logistics

Author Research strategy Role of focus group Design Conduct Analysis

Downloaded by [University of North Texas] at 06:27 21 November 2014

Descriptive
Holweg and Focus group → To obtain background data on the Involved research sponsors but no other No information No information
Miemczyk Process map supply chain and propose future state information provided provided provided
(2002) → Survey → scenarios
Modelling

Exploratory – sole method

Mangan and Literature review Obtain the views of students of an One focus group of 10 students from a No information No information
Christopher → Focus group executive education course on Masters course run by authors provided provided
(2005) and survey management skills
Cullen and Literature review To determine the mechanisms used for Four focus groups planned but only Round table, Identified clusters
Webster (2007) → Focus group the sale and purchase of products, and three3 carried out. Made up of 4–6 structured of topics and also

V.S. Rodrigues et al.

the role of e-commerce in these postgraduate students and individuals discussion coding of results.
known to the researchers, selected by Theory saturation
purposive sampling tested
Manuj and Focus group and To identify elements of risk in global One focus group with seven executives No information No, although theory
Mentzer (2008) interviews supply chains and how they are from a global manufacturing firm provided saturation testing
mitigated with the interviews

Exploratory – construct development

Sink et al. (1996) Literature review Refined a comprehensive literature One focus group of 11 members Semi-structured Identified clusters of
and Sink and → Focus group review undertaken on 3PL theory. representing a broad base of industry. discussion issues
Langley (1997) → Survey Also influenced the design process Some selection criteria
of a wider-scale questionnaire-based
survey
Mentzer et al. Literature review Helped the researchers to understand 13 focus groups with a broad base of Unstructured Identified clusters
(1997, 1999) → Focus group the logistics service quality needs opinions. All participants customers of of topics and also
→ Survey of the Defence Logistics Agency’s the DLA coding of results.
customers. The focus groups findings Also researcher
supported the research team in refining triangulation
a questionnaire
Dinwoodie (2001) Focus group → Explored the motivations for students to The number of focus groups is not stated No information No information
Survey study a Masters degree programme but they involved enrolled students provided provided
 Lancioni et al. Focus group → Developed a list of barriers to developing Four focus groups of 5 to 6 administrators, No information List of barriers
(2001) Survey logistics programmes faculty and deans from Business provided produced and
Downloaded by [University of North Texas] at 06:27 21 November 2014

Schools duplicates removed

Golicic et al. Literature review Applied to explore and understand Two focus groups, with 5 and 9 Unstructured Coding of results
(2003) → Focus Group inter-organisational relationships participants. Covered 7 industrial and researcher
→ Survey sectors triangulation

International Journal of Logistics: Research and Applications

Guinipero et al. Focus group → To gain information on trends, skill, Four focus groups across the US. Unstructured Identified clusters of
(2005) Survey knowledge and training for supply Participants invited from Fortune 1000 issues
chain managers companies. 58 executives from 41
companies attended
Evangelista and Focus group → To verify completeness of the survey Two focus groups in Milan and Rome Structured, based No information
Sweeney (2006) Survey instrument and obtain further with a total of 20 participants from around draft survey provided
engagement in research industry and academia instrument
Tian et al. (2008) Literature review To confirm that the survey instrument One focus group involving 3 managers Structured, based No information
→ Focus group was complete and understandable from 2 manufacturing firms around draft survey provided
→ Survey instrument

Exploratory – other
Christopher and Focus group → To gain insights into current practice on 12 focus groups arranged at a conference. No information No information
Jüttner (2000) Case studies managing supply chain relationships Open invitation to conference delegates provided provided
Rae-Smith and Action research Applied to evaluate the extent an online One focus group for employees of Structured No information
Ellinger (2002) → Focus group logistics system (implemented through the company involved in the action provided.
action research) was helping to research
improve customer service
Explanatory – survey results

New and Payne Survey → Focus Applied to validate results of a survey Seven focus groups across the UK. 51 Organised as a dinner Identified clusters of
(1995) Group (2.5% response rate) regarding supply participants from a range of industries party with food and issues
chain integration in logistics with group sizes from 3 to 13. then an unstructured
Invitations sent to personal contacts of discussion
research team

(Continued)

93
 94
Appendix 1. Continued
Downloaded by [University of North Texas] at 06:27 21 November 2014

Author Research strategy Role of focus group Design Conduct Analysis

Rinehart et al. Literature review Conducted in order to determine Three focus groups of executive MBA Structured, with a Ranking of the
(2004) → Survey → appropriate descriptive terms for each students and company executives, all range of descriptive descriptive terms
Focus group cluster identified in the survey. involved in relationship management. terms provided for for each cluster
75 participants in total. delegates to select based on frequency
from of selection
Jüttner (2005) Survey → Focus To provide more depth and insights Six focus groups arranged at a Structured Identified clusters of
Group to survey findings especially as the conference. Open invitation to issues
survey had an 8% response rate conference delegates. Each focus
group had 7 to 8 participants

V.S. Rodrigues et al.

Bernon and Cullen Case studies → To compare case study and survey One focus group with sixc sectors No information No information
(2007) Survey → findings with participants’ experiences represented. provided provided.
Focus Group in reverse logistics.

Explanatory – other opinion based methods

Dainty et al. Interviews → To refine a set of change requirements for Three focus groups across the UK. Semi-structured and Data analysed using
(2001) Focus Group improving supply chain integration, Composed of smaller construction facilitated by the NVIVO software
obtained through interviews sector companies and interviewees research team
Blackhurst et al. Case studies → To identify examples of supply chain Three focus groups of between 10 and 14 Structured. Identified clusters of
(2005) Interviews → disruptions to verify earlier findings participants from a number of industry issues.
Focus group sectors.
Jüttner et al. Literature review Verification and improvement of One focus group of 14 participants No information No information
(2007) → Workshop framework developed in workshop representing a range of industries provided provided
→ Focus group
Melnyk et al. Literature review Discuss and refine the findings from the One focus group of 25 participants drawn Semi-structured with a Identified clusters of
(2009) → Delphi study Delphi study from the Delphi study respondents clustering exercise issues
→ Focus group