# Effect of Inter-Organizational Systems Use on Supply Chain Capabilities and Performance

David Asamoah, Benjamin Agyei-Owusu, Francis Kofi Andoh-Baidoo, Emmanuel Ayaburi

► To cite this version:

David Asamoah, Benjamin Agyei-Owusu, Francis Kofi Andoh-Baidoo, Emmanuel Ayaburi. Effect of Inter-Organizational Systems Use on Supply Chain Capabilities and Performance. International Working Conference on Transfer and Diffusion of IT (TDIT), Jun 2019, Accra, Ghana. pp.293-308, 10.1007/978-3-030-20671-0_20. hal-02294698

HAL Id: hal-02294698

https://inria.hal.science/hal-02294698

Submitted on 23 Sep 2019

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
# Effect of Inter-Organizational Systems Use on Supply Chain Capabilities and Performance

David Asamoah¹, Benjamin Agyei-Owusu ¹,
Francis Kofi Andoh-Baidoo² Emmanuel Ayaburi²

¹ Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology, Kumasi, Ghana

² University of Texas Rio Grande Valley, Texas, USA
bagyei-owusu.ksb@knust.edu.gh

**Abstract.** Inter-Organizational Systems (IOS), which are information systems that extend beyond organizational borders, have seen growing use in linking companies to their supply chain partners. This paper empirically explores the relationship between IOS use, Supply Chain Capabilities, and Supply Chain Performance. The research model proposes that IOS use directly enhances Sup- ply Chain Performance, and indirectly enhances Supply Chain Performance through Supply Chain Capabilities. To test the model, a survey of 200 firms op- erating in Ghana that use IOS was conducted. Analysis of the model was con- ducted using Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling techniques. The results of the study confirmed that IOS use positively impacted Supply Chain Capabilities and Supply Chain Performance. Supply Chain Capabilities also positively impacted Supply Chain Performance. Additionally, Supply Chain Capabilities was found to partially mediate the effect of IOS use on Sup- ply Chain Performance. Implications of the study for research and practice are discussed.

**Keywords:** Inter-organizational systems, Supply Chain Capabilities, Supply Chain Performance.

## 1 Introduction

Inter-Organizational Systems (IOS) generally refer to information systems that extend beyond organizational borders. IOS is believed to have been coined by Kaufman (1966) who encouraged business executives to view their companies beyond their organizational boundaries and consider linking their companies to their supply chain partners and enterprises undertaking related functions. These systems are essential to augment the effectiveness of business activities and promote coordination among partners through timely exchange of information. IOS facilitate the electronic integra- tion of business dealings and processes undertaken by more than one business entity (Chatterjee and Ravichandran, 2004). IOS have been important in the rise of Supply Chain Management, a concept which deals with the design of seamless value-added processes across organizational boundaries to meet the real needs of the end customer (Fawcett et al., 2013). Supply chain management seeks to help organizations create a
systemic and holistic view of their organization, having the consumer as the focus in
the value chain, with the focal firm looking at improving interactions within and
without in order to enhance the lot of the consumer. Thus, IOS can be seen as infor-
mation systems that facilitate effective management of the supply chain (Agbenyo et
al., 2018). In supply chain management, IOS use is seen in the use of electronic data
interchange (EDI) systems, vendor managed inventory (VMI) systems, and collabora-
tive planning, forecasting and replenishment (CPFR) systems, all of which enable
firms to communicate in real time with supply chain partners (Steinfield, 2014). Vari-
ous IOS are also used to support just-in-time inventory practices in supply chains.

IOS have significantly transformed the way business is carried out in many indus-
tries. In today’s information age, large volumes of data are created by and exchanged
between supply chain partners, and IOS have been widely adopted to help manage
this information exchange (Premkumar et al. 1994). IOS use is perceived to be more
prevalent in developed countries than in developing countries (Agbenyo et al., 2018).
Research into the effects of IOS use in developed countries is also more matured,
relative to those studies in the developing countries context (Agbenyo et al., 2018;
Bakunzibake et al., 2016; Ali and Kurnia, 2011). The literature on IOS in Sub-
Saharan Africa is particularly underdeveloped with very few studies exploring how
IOS use enhances performance. Given that environmental and contextual influences
are perceived to influence outcomes of information systems use (Asamoah et al.,
2015; Agbenyo et al., 2018; Agyei-Owusu et al., 2018), it is important to explore the
effects of IOS use in Sub-Saharan Africa. Thus, this study seeks to answer the follow-
ing research question: *how does IOS use influence supply chain capabilities and per-
formance?* Our study proposes that IOS use enhances supply chain performance di-
rectly and indirectly through supply chain capabilities.

This study has some practical and theoretical contributions. First, the study ex-
plains how IOS may enhance supply chain performance. The study presents insights
into the effects of IOS use in Sub-Saharan Africa, a context which has not been
properly explored previously. The study also helps to bridge the IOS research gap
between developed and developing countries. The rest of the paper is structured as
follows. The theoretical background and conceptual framework is presented next,
followed by a discussion of the methodology. The results of the study are then pre-
sented. The paper concludes with a discussion of the implications, recommendations
and limitations of the study.

## 2 Theoretical Background

Chatterjee and Ravichandran (2004) note that despite the increasing interest and vol-
ume of research into IOS, not much theoretical generalization has emerged. The study
of the outcomes of IOS have been explored from different perspectives such as, the
transactions cost (Malone et al., 1994; Gurbaxani and Whang, 1991; Choudhury et al., 1998), agency cost (Gurbaxani and Whang, 1991), power and interest (Boonstra and de Vries, 2005), incomplete contracts (Bakos and Brynjolfsson 1993; Banker et al., 2000), diffusion of innovation (Gurbaxani and Whang, 1991; Premkumar et al., 1994; Mukhopadhyay et al., 1995; Chwelos et al., 2001), theory of constraints (Geri and Ahituv, 2008), resource-based view (McClaren et al., 2004), and coordination theory (Saeed et al., 2011).

This study is grounded on the resource-based view (McClaren et al., 2004). The resource-based view suggests that the resources and capabilities that firms possess are the basis of superior performance. The focus is on the resources and capabilities controlled by a firm, which is seen as the basis for persistent differences in performance among competing firms (Barney, 1991; Peteraf and Barney, 2003). The resource-based view of the firm conceptualizes firms as a bundle of resources and suggests that the type and quality of resources a firm controls is the basis for competitive advantage. Firms achieve competitive advantage by possessing resources which are valuable, rare, imperfectly imitable, and unique, and these enable companies to pursue opportunities and avoid threats (Barney, 1991). McClaren et al. (2004) explored IOS from the resource-based view perspective and argued that supply chain management information systems resulted in the creation of supply chain management information systems capabilities.

Information systems and IT infrastructure are critical organizational resources that can generate capabilities, which can be leveraged to enhance enterprise wide performance (Kayworth and Sambamurthy, 2000; Kumar, 2001). IOS serve a similar purpose, but instead are used between two firms rather than departments or business units within a firm. This study thus views IOS as an important inter-organizational resource that can serve as the basis for gaining supply chain capabilities and achieving superior supply chain performance.

# 3 Theoretical Framework and Hypotheses

The study proposes that using IOS results in superior supply chain capabilities and higher supply chain performance. We argue IOS Use can directly enhance the supply chain performance of firms, and indirectly enhance supply chain performance through enhanced supply chain capabilities.

IOS Use in this study refers to the extent to which firms have adopted and are using
IOS in their operations. Extant literature identifies three broad uses of IOS, namely
for communication, integration, and intelligence (Agbenyo et al., 2018; Cao and
Zhang, 2013). These are explored as dimensions of IOS Use. Supply Chain Capabili-
ties refer to the ability of an organization to identify, utilize, and assimilate both inter-
nal and external resources/information to facilitate the entire supply chain activities
(Wu et al., 2006). Four primary Supply Chain Capabilities are identified in the litera-
ture – Integration, Coordination, Information Exchange, and Responsiveness (Wu et
al., 2006). We explore these dimensions of Supply Chain Capabilities in this study.
Finally, Supply Chain Performance is a measure of how well the supply chain can
meet its functional objectives (Agbenyo et al., 2018; Sezen, 2008). Three dimensions of Supply Chain Performance which have been identified in the literature – Reliability, Efficiency (cost containment) and Flexibility (Lee et al., 2007; Sezen, 2008) – are explored in this study. The theoretical framework for the study is presented in Figure 1.

<figure><img src="image_2.png" /><figcaption>Figure 1: Conceptual model</figcaption></figure>

Several studies have noted that the benefits achievable from an information system are often dependent on the extent to which they are implemented and utilized (Dwivedi et al. 2011; 2015; Karimi et al., 2007; Asamoah et al., 2015; Agbenyo et al., 2018). Some researchers have argued that IOS can directly enhance the performance of the firms in the supply chain in terms of higher efficiency and service levels (Bakos and Tracey, 1986; Charterjee and Ravichandran, 2004). McClaren et al. (2004) observed that the broad use of IOS in supply chains creates important capabilities for firms. The study of Wang et al. (2006) further lends credence to this view, by showing that using IOS leads to higher supply chain collaboration and integration. Previous studies show that the supply chain capabilities developed from IOS are important in driving performance of firms in the supply chain. Wang et al. (2006) survey study of Taiwanese manufacturing firms found that IOS, by integrating a set of suppliers for tighter supply chain collaboration, enables manufacturers to achieve greater manufacturing flexibility in addition to comparative cost advantages in supply-chain operations (Wang et al., 2006). Premkumar et al. (2005) study also revealed that IOS, by increasing information-processing capabilities, reduces supply-chain uncertainties, and that designing IOS to fit the information-processing needs for coping with supply chain uncertainties has a large positive impact on firm performance. Knowledge sharing and shared decision making which arises from IOS use leads to collaborative advantages in terms of productivity, agility, innovation and reputation (Chi and Holsap-
ple, 2005). Again, Hartono et al. (2010) noted that using IOS enabled higher quality
data sharing, which positively impacted firms’ operational supply chain performance.
Based on these arguments, it is hypothesized that:

$H_1$: The broader use of IOS lead to higher levels of Supply Chain Capabilities

$H_2$: Higher levels of Supply Chain Capabilities lead to higher levels of Supply Chain Performance

$H_3$: The broader use of IOS lead to higher levels of Supply Chain Performance

# 4 Methodology

Measurement instruments for the constructs were obtained from previous studies and adapted to suit the context of this study. IOS Use was adopted from Zhang and Cao (2018), Supply Chain Capabilities was adopted from Wu et al. (2006), and Supply Chain Performance was adopted from Kocoglu et al. (2011) and Lee et al. (2007). The research items were positively framed using five-point Likert scales. The selected research items were then critically reviewed by three experts in the subject area whose input helped refine the measures. Finally, a pilot test involving 30 organizations that use IOS was performed to help further refine the research items. We conducted exploratory factor analysis on the pilot data, which confirmed the good factor loadings and multi-dimensionality of the research items. This helped to ensure valid measurement items were used in our survey. The measurement items used in this study are presented in the Appendix.

A survey of 200 randomly selected firms in Ghana that use IOS systems in their operations was conducted to obtain data to test the proposed model. Our data collection targeted manufacturers and key distributors of fast moving consumer goods. In Ghana, the big manufacturers of fast moving consumer goods and their key distributors typically use IOS to share inventory and sales information, as well as to plan and execute restocking decisions. Questionnaires were delivered to each selected firm with a cover letter detailing the purpose of the study. In all, eighty-six (86) responses were successfully retrieved, representing a reasonably high response rate of 43%. Power tests revealed that given a total of ten predictors of the dependent variable, a medium effect size of 0.15, and observed R² of 0.410, a sample size of 86 gives a statistical power of 0.99, which sufficiently exceeds the recommended threshold of 0.80 (Cohen, 1998).

# 5 Results

## 5.1 Demographic results

Analysis of the demographic data collected revealed that 15.1% of the respondents were manufacturers of fast moving consumer goods, with the remaining 84.9% being
distributors. There was a fairly even distribution in terms of maturity of the organizations surveyed, with about 36% of the firms being in existence for up to 10 years, 32.5% of firms operating for 11 to 20 years, and about 31.4% of the firms operating for more than 20 years. Finally, majority of firms (57%) had revenue levels of one million Ghana Cedis or less (approximately US$186,219). The full demographic results are presented in Table 1.

<table><caption>Table 1: Demographic data</caption><thead><tr><th>Firm Type</th><th>Frequency</th><th>Percent</th><th>Cumulative Percent</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Manufacturers</td><td>13</td><td>15.1</td><td>15.1</td></tr><tr><td>Distributors</td><td>73</td><td>84.9</td><td>100.0</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td>86</td><td>100.0</td><td></td></tr></tbody></table><table><thead><tr><th>Years of Operation</th><th>Frequency</th><th>Percent</th><th>Cumulative Percent</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Up to 10 years</td><td>31</td><td>36.0</td><td>17.4</td></tr><tr><td>11 to 20 years</td><td>28</td><td>32.5</td><td>68.5</td></tr><tr><td>More than 20 years</td><td>27</td><td>31.4</td><td>100.0</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td>86</td><td>100.0</td><td></td></tr></tbody></table><table><thead><tr><th>Annual Revenue (in US$)</th><th>Frequency</th><th>Percent</th><th>Cumulative Percent</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Less than 9,310</td><td>11</td><td>12.8</td><td>12.8</td></tr><tr><td>9,310 to 18,621</td><td>8</td><td>9.3</td><td>22.1</td></tr><tr><td>18,622 to 93,109</td><td>20</td><td>23.3</td><td>45.3</td></tr><tr><td>93,110 to 186,219</td><td>10</td><td>11.6</td><td>57.0</td></tr><tr><td>186,220 to 931,098</td><td>4</td><td>4.7</td><td>61.6</td></tr><tr><td>931,098 to 1,862,197</td><td>11</td><td>12.8</td><td>74.4</td></tr><tr><td>1,862,198 to 9,310,986</td><td>14</td><td>16.3</td><td>90.7</td></tr><tr><td>9,310,987 and above</td><td>8</td><td>9.3</td><td>100.0</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td>86</td><td>100.0</td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>

## 5.2 Measurement model results

The measurement model was analysed by assessing the convergent validity and discriminant validity of the model. Convergent validity can be assessed by measuring the reliability of survey items, that is, assessing the composite reliability of constructs, average variance extracted (AVE), Cronbach's Alpha, and factor analysis (Hair et al., 2014). We tested the attributes of the constructs by measuring the psychometric properties of the constructs and comparing them against recommended benchmarks. The AVEs of all the constructs were higher than 0.5 as required (Barclay et al. 1995). Composite Reliabilities values were high (least value was 0.825) and comfortably exceeded the suggested threshold of 0.7 (Chin, 1998). Cronbach Alpha values also
exceeded the 0.7 threshold as recommended (Hair et al., 2014). The summary of the psychometric properties of the constructs are presented in Table 2.

<table><caption>Table 2. Attributes of Constructs</caption><thead><tr><th>Constructs</th><th>Cronbach's Alpha</th><th>rho_A</th><th>Composite Reliability</th><th>AVE</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>IOS Use for Communication</td><td>0.905</td><td>0.907</td><td>0.933</td><td>0.777</td></tr><tr><td>Efficiency</td><td>0.917</td><td>0.920</td><td>0.942</td><td>0.801</td></tr><tr><td>Flexibility</td><td>0.918</td><td>0.921</td><td>0.938</td><td>0.753</td></tr><tr><td>Supply Chain Information Exchange</td><td>0.895</td><td>0.897</td><td>0.927</td><td>0.761</td></tr><tr><td>IOS Use for Intelligence</td><td>0.722</td><td>0.724</td><td>0.844</td><td>0.644</td></tr><tr><td>IOS Use for Integration</td><td>0.772</td><td>0.781</td><td>0.853</td><td>0.594</td></tr><tr><td>Reliability</td><td>0.867</td><td>0.872</td><td>0.904</td><td>0.654</td></tr><tr><td>Supply Chain Coordination</td><td>0.881</td><td>0.885</td><td>0.913</td><td>0.678</td></tr><tr><td>Supply Chain Integration</td><td>0.871</td><td>0.894</td><td>0.911</td><td>0.720</td></tr><tr><td>Supply Chain Responsiveness</td><td>0.849</td><td>0.855</td><td>0.892</td><td>0.624</td></tr></tbody></table>

We examined item loadings to ensure that all items loaded highly on their constructs (0.7 or higher) (Hair et al., 2014). Items with poor loadings were dropped as recommended (Hair et al., 2014). The loadings of the remaining items were adequate as can be seen in appendix II.

The items were tested for sufficient discriminant validity. Discriminant validity examines the extent to which a measure correlates with measures of constructs that are different from the construct they are intended to assess (Barclay et al. 1995). The factor loadings and cross loadings table indicates good discriminant validity because the loading of each measurement item on its latent variable is larger than its loading on any other construct (see appendix II). Further, discriminant validity can be assessed by comparing the square root of the AVE for each factor against the correlation of constructs against each other, with the former required to be higher than the latter (Fornell and Larcker, 1981). In Table 3, the bold diagonal figures represent square roots of AVEs whilst the off-diagonal figures represent correlation among constructs. It can be seen that the bold diagonal values are all greater than the off-diagonal ones, confirming adequate discriminant validity.

<table><caption>Table 3. Intercorrelation among constructs</caption><thead><tr><th></th><th>COMM</th><th>EFF</th><th>FLEX</th><th>INFEX</th><th>INTEL</th><th>INTG</th><th>REL</th><th>SCCOR</th><th>SCINT</th><th>SCRES</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><th>COMM</th><td><strong>0.882</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><th>EFF</th><td>0.611</td><td><strong>0.895</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><th>FLEX</th><td>0.411</td><td>0.571</td><td><strong>0.868</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><th>INFEX</th><td>0.497</td><td>0.536</td><td>0.486</td><td><strong>0.872</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>
<table><tr><td>INTEL</td><td>0.490</td><td>0.343</td><td>0.295</td><td>0.443</td><td><b>0.802</b></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>INTG</td><td>0.440</td><td>0.384</td><td>0.182</td><td>0.526</td><td>0.636</td><td><b>0.771</b></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>REL</td><td>0.420</td><td>0.567</td><td>0.412</td><td>0.479</td><td>0.515</td><td>0.612</td><td><b>0.809</b></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>SCCOR</td><td>0.559</td><td>0.449</td><td>0.378</td><td>0.620</td><td>0.303</td><td>0.452</td><td>0.328</td><td><b>0.823</b></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>SCINT</td><td>0.470</td><td>0.308</td><td>0.250</td><td>0.462</td><td>0.565</td><td>0.475</td><td>0.541</td><td>0.557</td><td><b>0.848</b></td></tr><tr><td>SCRES</td><td>0.488</td><td>0.433</td><td>0.467</td><td>0.757</td><td>0.528</td><td>0.625</td><td>0.615</td><td>0.592</td><td>0.625</td><td><b>0.790</b></td></tr></table>

Finally, discriminant validity was tested using the HTMT test. HTMT is the average of the heterotrait-heteromethod correlations (i.e., the correlations of indicators across constructs measuring different phenomena), relative to the average of the monotrait-heteromethod correlations (i.e., the correlations of indicators within the same construct) (Henseler et al, 2015). HTMT test approach indicates that HTMT values must be significantly less than 1, with a value of less than 0.85 ideal (Henseler et al, 2015). Table 4 indicates that the highest HTMT value is 0.791, confirming the model possesses adequate discriminant validity.

<table><caption>Table 4. HTMT results</caption><thead><tr><th></th><th>COMM</th><th>EFF</th><th>FLEX</th><th>INFEX</th><th>INTEL</th><th>INTG</th><th>REL</th><th>SCCOR</th><th>SCINT</th><th>SCRES</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><th>COM</th><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><th>EFF</th><td>0.665</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><th>FLEX</th><td>0.443</td><td>0.617</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><th>INFX</th><td>0.546</td><td>0.586</td><td>0.526</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><th>INTEL</th><td>0.598</td><td>0.420</td><td>0.382</td><td>0.552</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><th>INTG</th><td>0.505</td><td>0.451</td><td>0.225</td><td>0.625</td><td>0.858</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><th>REL</th><td>0.466</td><td>0.627</td><td>0.456</td><td>0.539</td><td>0.646</td><td>0.744</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><th>SCCOR</th><td>0.621</td><td>0.496</td><td>0.415</td><td>0.687</td><td>0.380</td><td>0.533</td><td>0.368</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><th>SCINT</th><td>0.515</td><td>0.342</td><td>0.282</td><td>0.502</td><td>0.723</td><td>0.586</td><td>0.607</td><td>0.607</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><th>SCRES</th><td>0.544</td><td>0.484</td><td>0.519</td><td>0.860</td><td>0.678</td><td>0.774</td><td>0.712</td><td>0.667</td><td>0.724</td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>

Structural model results

After confirming that the measurement model was sound, we proceeded to analyze the structural model and hypothesized relationships. PLS-SEM provides the magnitude and significance of the hypothesized causal relationships as standardized path coefficients. The parameter estimate of the hypothesized structural path should be statistically significant in the hypothesized direction of the effect. A path is considered to be statistically significant if its *p* value is less than the 0.05 significance level.
The R² values represent the variance explained by the latent variables. The results of the structural model analysis are presented in Figure 2 and Table 5 below.

<figure><img src="image_3.png" /><figcaption>Figure 2. Research Model</figcaption></figure>

<table><caption>Table 5. Hypotheses results</caption><thead><tr><td>Hs</td><td>Hypothesis</td><td>Path Co-efficient</td><td>T Statistics</td><td>P values</td><td>Decision</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>H1</td><td>IOS use → Supply Chain Capabilities</td><td>0.723</td><td>11.683</td><td>0.000</td><td>Supported</td></tr><tr><td>H2</td><td>Supply Chain Capabilities → Supply Chain Performance</td><td>0.389</td><td>3.152</td><td>0.002</td><td>Supported</td></tr><tr><td>H3</td><td>IOS use → Supply Chain Performance</td><td>0.630</td><td>6.763</td><td>0.000</td><td>Supported</td></tr></tbody></table>

The co-efficient of determination (R²) values of Supply Chain Capabilities and Supply Chain Performance were 0.522 and 0.469 respectively. This means that about 52.2% of the variation in Supply Chain Capabilities was predicted by IOS Use, and about 46.9% of the changes in Supply Chain Performance were predicted by IOS Use and Supply Chain Capabilities. These represent moderate levels of explanatory power (Hair et al., 2017). The results of the structural model analysis revealed that all three hypothesized paths were supported. The effect of IOS use on supply chain capabilities was positive and significant, supporting hypothesis 1. This confirms that firms that use IOS to a high level are better able to achieve higher levels of supply chain information exchange, supply chain integration, supply chain coordination, and supply chain responsiveness. The results further indicated that firms with higher supply chain capabilities are able to achieve higher levels of supply chain performance. This indicates that the supply chain capabilities developed through IOS use are useful building blocks that aid firms achieve greater reliability, efficiency and flexibility in their supply chains. Finally, the findings of the study indicated that IOS use can directly en-
hance the supply chain performance of firms, supporting hypothesis 3. Thus, it can be
said that IOS use both directly and indirectly enhances the supply chain performance
of firms.

Conclusion

The study explored the effects of IOS use in a developing country and observed that
IOS use directly enhances supply chain performance and supply chain capabilities.
The study also observed that supply chain capabilities directly enhance supply chain
performance. There are a number of implications of the study for research and prac-
tice.

By way of implication for research, the study conceptualizes and empirically con-
firms that IOS use enables the development of supply chain capabilities for firms and
as well enhances the performance of the supply chain. The relationship between IOS
Use, Supply Chain Capabilities, and Supply Chain Performance has not been explored
in this way in previous research and as such the findings of the study provide new
insights on the outcomes of IOS use. Previous studies that explore IOS have largely
done so from an information systems perspective, where the focus is on the character-
istics of the IOS, or from a supply chain management perspective, where the focus is
on how the IOS enhances collaboration. The study provides an integrative look at IOS
and their outcomes from the resource-based view perspective, enriching both IOS use
and supply chain management theories and providing new insights.

The study also provides context-specific insights into the outcomes of IOS use in Sub-Saharan Africa, a context which has not been empirically explored previously (Andoh-Baidoo, 2017). Research suggests that environmental and contextual influences are perceived to influence outcomes of information systems use and supply chain management initiatives (Asamoah et al., 2015; Asamoah et al., 2016), providing the need to properly explore information systems and supply chain management initiatives within the Sub-Saharan African context. The results of the study also point to a mediating effect of supply chain capabilities in the effect of IOS use on supply chain performance. Thus, using IOS enhances the ability of firms to manage their supply chains, which subsequently enhances the performance of their supply chains. By way of implications for practice, the study provides insights that can guide IOS use in Sub-Saharan Africa.

There were some limitations to the work. Even though IOS Use, Supply Chain Capabilities, and Supply Chain Performance were conceptualized as second-order constructs having first order dimensions, structural model analysis was conducted at the second-order level to prevent the model becoming overly complex. This however means the relationship between dimensions of these constructs could not be explored into greater detail. Also, as the study focused on the Sub-Saharan African context, the findings of the study may not be supported in other developing regions of the world. We call for more empirical studies to explore effects of IOS use in other developing countries. Future research should also be directed at exploring the mediating role of supply chain capabilities into more detail.
## References

Agbenyo, L., Asamoah, D. and Agyei-Owusu, B., 2018. Drivers and Effects of Inter-Organizational Systems (IOS) use in a developing country. Twenty-fourth Americas Conference on Information Systems, New Orleans.

Agyei-Owusu, B., Asamoah, D. and Agbenyo, L., 2018. Examining the effects of Information Technology Outsourcing on Competitive Advantage. Twenty-fourth Americas Conference on Information Systems, New Orleans.

Ali, M., and Kurnia, S. 2011. "Inter-organizational systems (IOS) adoption in the Arabian Gulf region: the case of the Bahraini grocery industry," *Information Technology for Development*, (17:4), pp. 253-267.

Andoh-Baidoo, F. K. 2017. "Context-specific theorizing in ICT4D research," *Information Technology for Development*, (23:2), pp. 195-211.

Asamoah, D., Andoh-Baidoo, F. K., and Agyei-Owusu, B. 2015. "Impact of ERP implementation on business process outcomes: A replication of a United States study in a Sub-Saharan African Nation," *AIS Transactions on Replication Research*, (1:1), pp. 1-19.

Asamoah, D., Andoh-Baidoo, F., and Agyei-Owusu, B. 2016. "Examining the Relationships between Supply Chain Integration, Information Sharing, and Supply Chain Performance: A Replication Study," In *Proceedings of the 22nd Americas Conference on Information Systems*, San Diego, California, (4), pp. 2749–2758

Bakos, J. Y., and Treacy, M. E. "Information Technology and corporate strategy. A research perspective." MIS Quarterly; 10:2; June 1986; pp. 107-119.

Bakos, J.Y. and Erik Brynjolfsson (1993), "Infroamtion Technology, Incentives and the Optimal Number of Suppliers," Journal of Management Information Systems, 10 (2), 37.

Bakunzibake, P., Grönlund, Å., and Klein, G. O. (2016, September). "E-Government Implementation in Developing Countries: Enterprise Content Management in Rwanda," In *15th IFIP Electronic Government (EGOV)/8th Electronic Participation (ePart) Conference, Univ Minho, Guimaraes, Portugal, September 5-8, 2016*, pp. 251-259.

Banker, R., J. Kalvenes, and R. Patterson (2000), "Information Technology, Contract Completeness and Buyer-Supplier Relationships," in The 21st Annual International Conference on Information Systems. Brisbane, Australia.

Barclay, D., Higgins, C. and Thompson, R. 1995. "The partial least squares (PLS) approach to causal modeling: personal computer adoption and use as an illustration," *Technology studies* (2), pp. 285-309
Barclay, D., Higgins, C., and Thompson, R. 1995. "The partial least squares (PLS) approach to causal modeling: personal computer adoption and use as an illustration," *Technology studies* (2), pp. 285-309.

Barney, J. 1991. "Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage," *Journal of Management*, (17), pp. 99-120.

Chatterjee, D and Ravichandran, T. 2004. "Inter-organizational Information Systems Research: A Critical Review and an Integrative Framework," in *Proceedings of the 37th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences*.

Chi, L., & Holsapple, C. W. (2005). Understanding computer-mediated interorganizational collaboration: a model and framework. *Journal of knowledge Management*, 9(1), 53-75.

Choudhury, V., Hartzel, K. S., & Konsynski, B. R. (1998). Uses and consequences of electronic markets: an empirical investigation in the aircraft parts industry. *MIS quarterly*, 471-507.

Chwelos, P., I. Benbasat, and A.S. Dexter (2001), "Research Report: Empirical Test of an EDI Adoption Model," Information Systems Research, 12, 304-21

Cohen, J. 1988. *Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences*. Second Edition. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers

Dwivedi, Y. K., Wade, M. R., & Schneberger, S. L. (Eds.). (2011). *Information systems theory: Explaining and predicting our digital society* (Vol. 1). Springer Science & Business Media

Dwivedi, Y. K., Wastell, D., Laumer, S., Henriksen, H. Z., Myers, M. D., Bunker, D., ... & Srivastava, S. C. (2015). Research on information systems failures and successes: Status update and future directions. *Information Systems Frontiers*, 17(1), 143-157.

Fiske, D. W. (1982). Convergent-discriminant validation in measurements and research strategies. *New Directions for Methodology of Social & Behavioral Science*.

Fornell, C., and Larcker, D.F. 1981. "Structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error: Algebra and statistics," *Journal of Marketing Research*, (18:3), pp. 328-388

Geri, N., & Ahituv, N. (2008). A Theory of Constraints approach to interorganizational systems implementation. *Information Systems and E-Business Management*, 6(4), 341-360.

Gurbaxani, V., & Whang, S. (1991). The impact of information systems on organizations and markets. *Communications of the ACM*, 34(1), 59-73.

Hair F. Jr, Sarstedt, JM. Hopkins, L., and Kuppelwieser, G. V. 2014. "Partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) An emerging tool in business research," *European Business*
Hair, J. F., Hult, G. T. M., Ringle, C. M. and Sarstedt, M. (2017), *A Primer on Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM)*, SAGE, Los Angeles.

Hartono, E., Li, X., Na, K. S., & Simpson, J. T. (2010). The role of the quality of shared information in interorganizational systems use. *International Journal of Information Management*, 30(5), 399-407.

Henseler, J., Ringle, C. M., and Sarstedt, M. (2015). A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling. *Journal of the academy of marketing science*, 43(1), 115-135.

Kayworth, T. R., & Sambamurthy, V. (2000). Facilitating localized exploitation and enterprise wide integration in the use of IT infrastructures: The role of PC/LAN infrastructure standards. *DATABASE for Advances in Information System*, 31(4), 54–77.

Kocoglu, I., Imamoglu, S. Z., Ince, H., and Keskin, H. 2011. "The effect of supply chain integration on information sharing: Enhancing the supply chain performance," *Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences*(24), 1630-1649

Kumar, K. (2001). Technology for supporting supply chain management. *Communication of the ACM*, 44(6), 57–61.

Lee, C. W., Kwon, Ik-Whan G. and Severance, D. 2007. "Relationship between supply chain performance and degree of linkage among supplier, internal integration and customer's" *Supply Chain Management: An International Journal*, (12:6), pp. 444 – 452

MacKenzie, S. B., & Podsakoff, P. M. (2012). Common method bias in marketing: causes, mechanisms, and procedural remedies. *Journal of retailing*, 88(4), 542-555.

Malone, T. W., Yates, J., & Benjamin, R. I. (1994). *Electronic markets and electronic hierarchies* (pp. 61-83). New York: Oxford University Press.

Mclaren, T. S., Head, M. M., & Yuan, Y. (2004). Supply chain management information systems capabilities. An exploratory study of electronics manufacturers. *Information systems and E-business management*, 2(2-3), 207-222.

Mclaren, T. S., Head, M. M., & Yuan, Y. (2004). Supply chain management information systems capabilities. An exploratory study of electronics manufacturers. *Information systems and E-business management*, 2(2-3), 207-222

Mukhopadhyay, T., S. Kekre, and S. Kalathur (1995), "Business Value of Information Technology: A Study of Electronic Data Interchange," MIS Quarterly, 19 (2), 137-56

Peteraf, M. A., and Barney, J. B. 2003. "Unraveling the resource-based tangle," *Managerial and decision economics*, (24:4), pp. 309-323.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. *Journal of applied psychology, 88*(5), 879.

Premkumar, G., K. Ramamurthy, and S. Nilakanta (1994), "Implementation of electronic data interchange: an innovation diffusion perpective," Journal of Management Information Systems, 11 (2), 157-86

Premkumar, G., Ramamurthy, K. and Nilakanta, S. 1994. "Implementation of electronic data interchange: an innovation diffusion perspective," *Journal of Management Information Systems*, (11:2), 157-86

Premkumar, G., Ramamurthy, K., & Saunders, C. S. (2005). Information processing view of organizations: an exploratory examination of fit in the context of interorganizational relationships. *Journal of Management Information Systems*, 22(1), 257-294.

Saeed, K. A., Malhotra, M. K., & Grover, V. (2011). Interorganizational system characteristics and supply chain integration: an empirical assessment. *Decision Sciences*, 42(1), 7-42.

Sezen, Bulent 2008. "Relative effects of design, integration and information sharing on supply chain performance.,*Supply Chain Management: An International Journal*, (13), 233 – 240

Steinfeld, C. Inter-organizational Information Systems. In Tucker, A., Gonzalez, T., Topi, H. and Diaz-Herrera, J. (eds.), Computing Handbook, Third Edition, Volume 2: Information Systems and Information Technology (Chapter 69), Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, 2014, 69-1-69-15.

Wang, E. T., Tai, J. C., & Wei, H. L. (2006). A virtual integration theory of improved supply-chain performance. *Journal of Management Information Systems*, 23(2), 41-64.

Wu, F., Yeniyurt, S., Kim, D., and Cavusgil, S. T.2006. "The impact of information technology on supply chain capabilities and firm performance: A resource-based view," *Industrial Marketing Management*, (35), 493 – 504

Zhang Q. and Cao, M., 2018. Exploring antecedents of supply chain collaboration: Effects of culture and interorganizational system appropriation. *International journal of Production economics*, 195, pp.146-157

**Appendix I: Measurement scales of constructs**

**IOS Use for Communication**

Our firm and supply chain partners use IOS for workflow coordination

Our firm and supply chain partners use IOS for conferencing

Our firm and supply chain partners use IOS for message services

Our firm and supply chain partners use IOS for frequent contacts
Our firm and supply chain partners use IOS for multiple channel communication

## IOS Use for Integration

Our firm and supply chain partners use IOS for integrating business functions across firms

Our firm and supply chain partners use IOS for joint forecasting, planning, and execution

Our firm and supply chain partners use IOS for order processing, invoicing and settling accounts

Our firm and supply chain partners use IOS for exchange of shipment and delivery information

Our firm and supply chain partners use IOS for managing warehouse stock and inventories

## IOS Use for Intelligence

Our firm and supply chain partners use IOS for understanding trends in sales and customer preferences

Our firm and supply chain partners use IOS for storing, searching, and retrieving business information

Our firm and supply chain partners use IOS for deriving inferences from past events (e.g., process exceptions, patterns of demand shifts, what worked and what did not work)

Our firm and supply chain partners use IOS for combining information from different sources to uncover trends and patterns

Our firm and supply chain partners use IOS for interpreting information from different sources in multiple ways depending upon various requirements

## Supply Chain Information Exchange

Our Firm exchanges more information with our supply chain partners

Our Firm benefits more from information exchange with our supply chain partners

Information flows more freely between our firm and supply chain partners

Information exchange with our supply chain partners is accurate and timely

## Supply Chain Coordination

Our Firm is more efficient in coordination activities with our supply chain partners

Our Firm conducts transaction follow-up activities more efficiently with our supply chain partners

Our Firm spends less time coordinating transactions with our supply chain partners than our competitors

Our firm has reduced coordinating costs more than our competitors

Our firm can conduct the coordination activities at less cost than our competitors

## Supply Chain Integration

Our Firm develops strategic plans in collaboration with our supply chain partners
Our Firm collaborates actively in forecasting and planning with our supply chain partners

Our Firm projects and plans future demand collaboratively with our supply chain partners

Our Firm always forecasts and plans activities collaboratively with our supply chain partners

## Supply Chain Responsiveness

Our firm and supply chain partners understand trends in sales and customer preferences

Our firm and supply chain partners promote storing, searching, and retrieving business information (share common database)

Our firm and supply chain partners derive inferences from past events (e.g., process expectations, patterns of demand shifts, what worked and what did not work)

Our firm and supply chain partners use information from different partners in multiple ways depending upon various requirements

## Reliability

Our firm with supply chain partners offers products that are highly reliable

Our firm with supply chain partners offers high quality products to our customers

Our firm and supply chain partners have helped each other to improve product quality

Our firm with supply chain partners increases the rate at which we fulfill customer orders

Our firm with supply chain partners increases our inventory turns

## Efficiency

Our firm with supply chain partners reduces inbound and outbound cost of transport

Our firm with supply chain partners reduces warehousing and inventory holding costs

Our firm with supply chain partners meets on-time delivery requirements for all product

Our firm with supply chain partners reach agreed costs per unit as compared with industry

## Flexibility

Our firm with supply chain partners offers a variety of products and services efficiently

Our firm with supply chain partners offers customized products and services with different features

Our firm with supply chain partners meets different customer volume requirements efficiently

Our firm with supply chain partners has short customer response time as comparison to industry

Our firm with supply chain partners responds to and accommodate demand variations
Appendix II: Item Loadings

<table><thead><tr><th></th><th>COMM</th><th>EFF</th><th>FLEX</th><th>INFEX</th><th>INTEL</th><th>INTG</th><th>REL</th><th>SCCOR</th><th>SCINT</th><th>SCRES</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>APCOM2</td><td><strong>0.865</strong></td><td>0.452</td><td>0.348</td><td>0.335</td><td>0.370</td><td>0.357</td><td>0.299</td><td>0.509</td><td>0.388</td><td>0.383</td></tr><tr><td>APCOM3</td><td><strong>0.887</strong></td><td>0.403</td><td>0.279</td><td>0.362</td><td>0.440</td><td>0.338</td><td>0.287</td><td>0.405</td><td>0.393</td><td>0.296</td></tr><tr><td>APCOM4</td><td><strong>0.897</strong></td><td>0.625</td><td>0.340</td><td>0.479</td><td>0.362</td><td>0.400</td><td>0.459</td><td>0.529</td><td>0.455</td><td>0.551</td></tr><tr><td>APCOM5</td><td><strong>0.877</strong></td><td>0.657</td><td>0.471</td><td>0.558</td><td>0.543</td><td>0.447</td><td>0.427</td><td>0.525</td><td>0.422</td><td>0.480</td></tr><tr><td>APINTG1</td><td>0.119</td><td>0.211</td><td>0.027</td><td>0.272</td><td>0.517</td><td><strong>0.735</strong></td><td>0.492</td><td>0.202</td><td>0.395</td><td>0.418</td></tr><tr><td>APINTG2</td><td>0.377</td><td>0.359</td><td>0.185</td><td>0.443</td><td>0.444</td><td><strong>0.701</strong></td><td>0.452</td><td>0.357</td><td>0.315</td><td>0.422</td></tr><tr><td>APINTG3</td><td>0.360</td><td>0.314</td><td>0.097</td><td>0.439</td><td>0.531</td><td><strong>0.830</strong></td><td>0.511</td><td>0.373</td><td>0.375</td><td>0.542</td></tr><tr><td>APINTG4</td><td>0.452</td><td>0.289</td><td>0.228</td><td>0.443</td><td>0.478</td><td><strong>0.809</strong></td><td>0.440</td><td>0.429</td><td>0.383</td><td>0.527</td></tr><tr><td>APINTL1</td><td>0.398</td><td>0.273</td><td>0.132</td><td>0.235</td><td><strong>0.750</strong></td><td>0.543</td><td>0.393</td><td>0.180</td><td>0.551</td><td>0.351</td></tr><tr><td>APINTL2</td><td>0.469</td><td>0.292</td><td>0.223</td><td>0.398</td><td><strong>0.838</strong></td><td>0.465</td><td>0.434</td><td>0.271</td><td>0.421</td><td>0.395</td></tr><tr><td>APINTL3</td><td>0.305</td><td>0.258</td><td>0.360</td><td>0.434</td><td><strong>0.817</strong></td><td>0.526</td><td>0.410</td><td>0.279</td><td>0.387</td><td>0.530</td></tr><tr><td>SCCOD1</td><td>0.464</td><td>0.376</td><td>0.431</td><td>0.581</td><td>0.244</td><td>0.396</td><td>0.322</td><td><strong>0.763</strong></td><td>0.423</td><td>0.478</td></tr><tr><td>SCCOD2</td><td>0.404</td><td>0.297</td><td>0.262</td><td>0.523</td><td>0.276</td><td>0.434</td><td>0.171</td><td><strong>0.836</strong></td><td>0.475</td><td>0.494</td></tr><tr><td>SCCOD3</td><td>0.581</td><td>0.459</td><td>0.353</td><td>0.536</td><td>0.169</td><td>0.409</td><td>0.303</td><td><strong>0.891</strong></td><td>0.475</td><td>0.512</td></tr><tr><td>SCCOD4</td><td>0.383</td><td>0.321</td><td>0.216</td><td>0.344</td><td>0.237</td><td>0.306</td><td>0.175</td><td><strong>0.804</strong></td><td>0.348</td><td>0.369</td></tr><tr><td>SCCOD5</td><td>0.452</td><td>0.384</td><td>0.282</td><td>0.537</td><td>0.321</td><td>0.306</td><td>0.357</td><td><strong>0.818</strong></td><td>0.547</td><td>0.558</td></tr><tr><td>SCINFX1</td><td>0.560</td><td>0.621</td><td>0.367</td><td><strong>0.867</strong></td><td>0.349</td><td>0.560</td><td>0.512</td><td>0.521</td><td>0.413</td><td>0.591</td></tr><tr><td>SCINFX2</td><td>0.311</td><td>0.282</td><td>0.300</td><td><strong>0.863</strong></td><td>0.394</td><td>0.406</td><td>0.300</td><td>0.461</td><td>0.350</td><td>0.642</td></tr><tr><td>SCINFX3</td><td>0.380</td><td>0.452</td><td>0.427</td><td><strong>0.908</strong></td><td>0.421</td><td>0.447</td><td>0.449</td><td>0.574</td><td>0.369</td><td>0.719</td></tr><tr><td>SCINFX4</td><td>0.478</td><td>0.507</td><td>0.585</td><td><strong>0.850</strong></td><td>0.381</td><td>0.426</td><td>0.405</td><td>0.596</td><td>0.476</td><td>0.683</td></tr><tr><td>SCINTG1</td><td>0.483</td><td>0.267</td><td>0.193</td><td>0.447</td><td>0.482</td><td>0.416</td><td>0.487</td><td>0.583</td><td><strong>0.890</strong></td><td>0.578</td></tr><tr><td>SCINTG2</td><td>0.478</td><td>0.287</td><td>0.248</td><td>0.523</td><td>0.436</td><td>0.385</td><td>0.532</td><td>0.575</td><td><strong>0.896</strong></td><td>0.584</td></tr><tr><td>SCINTG3</td><td>0.271</td><td>0.280</td><td>0.209</td><td>0.296</td><td>0.560</td><td>0.458</td><td>0.435</td><td>0.389</td><td><strong>0.851</strong></td><td>0.454</td></tr><tr><td>SCINTG4</td><td>0.324</td><td>0.205</td><td>0.198</td><td>0.244</td><td>0.469</td><td>0.364</td><td>0.353</td><td>0.276</td><td><strong>0.749</strong></td><td>0.487</td></tr><tr><td>SCRESP1</td><td>0.174</td><td>0.194</td><td>0.319</td><td>0.463</td><td>0.444</td><td>0.475</td><td>0.463</td><td>0.339</td><td>0.604</td><td><strong>0.756</strong></td></tr><tr><td>SCRESP2</td><td>0.453</td><td>0.350</td><td>0.414</td><td>0.649</td><td>0.444</td><td>0.463</td><td>0.459</td><td>0.563</td><td>0.515</td><td><strong>0.790</strong></td></tr><tr><td>SCRESP3</td><td>0.507</td><td>0.378</td><td>0.471</td><td>0.671</td><td>0.413</td><td>0.455</td><td>0.412</td><td>0.601</td><td>0.480</td><td><strong>0.830</strong></td></tr><tr><td>SCRESP4</td><td>0.475</td><td>0.366</td><td>0.355</td><td>0.642</td><td>0.423</td><td>0.512</td><td>0.577</td><td>0.429</td><td>0.462</td><td><strong>0.843</strong></td></tr><tr><td>SCRESP5</td><td>0.269</td><td>0.418</td><td>0.261</td><td>0.541</td><td>0.360</td><td>0.585</td><td>0.537</td><td>0.368</td><td>0.414</td><td><strong>0.725</strong></td></tr><tr><td>SPEFF1</td><td>0.512</td><td><strong>0.849</strong></td><td>0.460</td><td>0.412</td><td>0.329</td><td>0.313</td><td>0.449</td><td>0.403</td><td>0.262</td><td>0.303</td></tr><tr><td>SPEFF2</td><td>0.548</td><td><strong>0.913</strong></td><td>0.511</td><td>0.480</td><td>0.304</td><td>0.377</td><td>0.481</td><td>0.426</td><td>0.266</td><td>0.347</td></tr><tr><td>SPEFF3</td><td>0.570</td><td><strong>0.920</strong></td><td>0.531</td><td>0.446</td><td>0.243</td><td>0.280</td><td>0.463</td><td>0.332</td><td>0.260</td><td>0.329</td></tr></tbody></table>
<table><tr><td>SPEFF4</td><td>0.556</td><td><strong>0.897</strong></td><td>0.537</td><td>0.570</td><td>0.351</td><td>0.399</td><td>0.625</td><td>0.445</td><td>0.312</td><td>0.553</td></tr><tr><td>SPFLX1</td><td>0.231</td><td>0.544</td><td><strong>0.823</strong></td><td>0.388</td><td>0.078</td><td>0.141</td><td>0.366</td><td>0.209</td><td>0.084</td><td>0.398</td></tr><tr><td>SPFLX2</td><td>0.269</td><td>0.376</td><td><strong>0.838</strong></td><td>0.315</td><td>0.319</td><td>0.168</td><td>0.257</td><td>0.280</td><td>0.219</td><td>0.335</td></tr><tr><td>SPFLX3</td><td>0.401</td><td>0.471</td><td><strong>0.884</strong></td><td>0.438</td><td>0.356</td><td>0.220</td><td>0.389</td><td>0.427</td><td>0.276</td><td>0.387</td></tr><tr><td>SPFLX4</td><td>0.425</td><td>0.535</td><td><strong>0.910</strong></td><td>0.402</td><td>0.231</td><td>0.089</td><td>0.367</td><td>0.317</td><td>0.239</td><td>0.415</td></tr><tr><td>SPFLX5</td><td>0.439</td><td>0.535</td><td><strong>0.882</strong></td><td>0.548</td><td>0.304</td><td>0.174</td><td>0.392</td><td>0.400</td><td>0.264</td><td>0.480</td></tr><tr><td>SPREL1</td><td>0.436</td><td>0.550</td><td>0.393</td><td>0.448</td><td>0.470</td><td>0.568</td><td><strong>0.846</strong></td><td>0.306</td><td>0.570</td><td>0.667</td></tr><tr><td>SPREL2</td><td>0.380</td><td>0.506</td><td>0.336</td><td>0.429</td><td>0.475</td><td>0.600</td><td><strong>0.849</strong></td><td>0.268</td><td>0.423</td><td>0.580</td></tr><tr><td>SPREL3</td><td>0.270</td><td>0.363</td><td>0.344</td><td>0.349</td><td>0.474</td><td>0.537</td><td><strong>0.824</strong></td><td>0.275</td><td>0.442</td><td>0.439</td></tr><tr><td>SPREL4</td><td>0.263</td><td>0.326</td><td>0.325</td><td>0.375</td><td>0.411</td><td>0.373</td><td><strong>0.793</strong></td><td>0.219</td><td>0.429</td><td>0.428</td></tr><tr><td>SPREL5</td><td>0.327</td><td>0.525</td><td>0.258</td><td>0.321</td><td>0.237</td><td>0.366</td><td><strong>0.725</strong></td><td>0.249</td><td>0.302</td><td>0.32</td></tr></table>