The research purpose was to determine strengths and weaknesses of Appalachian wood products sales in Central America. In the future, there may be a greater need for international forest products in Central America due to increasing population size, tourism, and deforestation. Potential market opportunities for Appalachian forest product companies in Central America were evaluated and strategies were developed to increase exports from Appalachian wood product companies. Interviews of Central American wood products wholesalers and government and non-government officials were conducted to determine the current situation of the forest, the demand for local wood production, and potential for future production of wood products. A survey of wood products retailers and manufacturers was conducted to determine drivers and barriers of the sale of Appalachian wood products in Central America. Models were developed to describe relationships between company performance and suppliers and a series of independent variables (e.g, supplier promotion, product attributes). Results suggested that U.S. wood products companies have not put enough effort into marketing forest products in Central America. Central American wood products consumers lack knowledge of Appalachian wood products and their advantages over wood products currently used. Inconsistencies between Appalachian and Central American wood products industries (e.g., dimensions, species terminology) act as a barrier to efficient exchange of wood products. Models suggest that companies may need to focus on barriers to increase company performance. The best market strategies for Appalachian forest products companies to increase sales into Central America are: partner with local wholesalers, offer higher value-added products, maintain similar pricing with competition, and offer sales and product discounts. / Master of Science

No description available.

Thesis (MBus) -- University of South Australia, 1994

Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Oregon, 2007. / Typescript. Includes vita and abstract. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 183-205). Also available for download via the World Wide Web; free to University of Oregon users.

Thesis (Ph. D.)--West Virginia University, 2008. / Title from document title page. Document formatted into pages; contains xi, 98 p. : ill. (some col.). Includes abstract. Includes bibliographical references (p. 47-52).

Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of British Columbia, 1995. / Includes bibliographical references (leaves 374-417).

Thesis (doctoral)--Landbouwuniversiteit te Wageningen, 1989. / Summary and thesis note in Dutch. Includes vita. Includes bibliographical references.

In many business sectors today, the focus on quality as a competitive tool is being replaced by a focus on innovation. Research exploring connections between quality management, innovation, and company performance suggests that quality is 'necessary but insufficient' in today's business environment. In short, the question facing managers, particularly those in small firms, is how to adapt their quality management practices to achieve innovation performance in addition to quality performance. To answer this question, West Coast U.S. forest products manufacturers were surveyed about quality management practices and performance with respect to both quality and innovation. Quality management practices were assessed following the systems perspective articulated by the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award. Data envelopment analysis was used to identify companies efficiently using quality management practices to lead to quality and/or innovation performance. Survey responses from the efficient firms were then analyzed via cluster analysis to identify two categories of firms: those achieving primarily quality outcomes and those achieving both quality and innovation outcomes. Executives from two firms in each category were interviewed to provide detail on the management practices used by the companies. Interview transcripts were examined to identify similarities and differences in practices between the two categories of firms. Results suggest several specific areas of focus for firms wanting to adapt their quality management practices to achieve both quality and innovation performance. For example, firms focused on innovation proactively seek to identify and meet customers' needs whereas quality-focused firms primarily emphasize reacting to customer complaints. More specifically with respect to 'customer focus', firms focused on innovation emphasize convenience for their customers through practices such as standardizing product lines and providing product specifications on their websites. In contrast, neither quality-focused firm had a website. These firms were at their production capacity (at least prior to the recession) and viewed websites strictly as a means to attract new business rather than as a service to existing customers. Also with regards to customer focus, firms focused on innovation sought to generate new business - not just for their company, but for their customers as well. Beyond customer focus, firms focused on innovation provide employees with opportunities to help the organization implement changes. With respect to benchmarking, firms focused on innovation actively sought to measure their performance against the 'best practice' in the industry; firms focused primarily on quality performance demonstrated little if any emphasis on benchmarking. Finally, there were apparent overarching and hence cultural differences between the two categories of firms - firms focused on innovation were more proactive, strategic, and willing to take risk; in addition, these firms discussed innovation as the means to improve product quality, reduce costs, or attract new customers. By contrast, the quality-focused firms were reactive, conservative, and risk-averse; these firms discussed innovation primarily as 'technology' without reference to potential linkages to company performance.

The wood products industry faces increased pressure to attract and maintain the interest of young audiences, such as the millennial generation. This study was created in attempt to bridge the perceived communication gap between the industry and millennial generation, or “millennials.” Millennials are defined in this study as individuals born from 1980 to 2000. An online survey was created and distributed to over 1500 millennials in February 2018 and received 1,479 usable surveys. Analysis performed on the resultant data included descriptive statistics and chi-square calculations. The study results indicate millennials have a positive view of wood products and hold uncertain or neutral perceptions towards the entire industry. Millennials perceive wood products as stylish, durable, and environmentally friendly. Millennials have neutral perceptions of the industry with stronger attitudes towards the industry’s relationship with the environment. Millennial responses also indicate weak general knowledge regarding the wood products industry and wood product properties.

No description available.