Search results

This paper sets out to empirically analyse the integration process that firms follow to implement supply chain management (SCM). This study has been inspired by the integration model proposed by Stevens.

Uses the survey method.

The results show that there are companies in three different integration stages. In stage I, companies are not integrated. In stage II, companies have a medium‐high level of internal integration in the logistics‐production interface, a low level of internal integration in the logistics‐marketing interface, and a medium level of external integration. And, in stage III, companies have high levels of integration in both internal interfaces and in some of their supply chain relationships.

First, only one side of the manufacturer‐retailer relationship was considered, and, second, there was a reduced number of cases in each cluster.

As firms' survival lies on integration, a good understanding of the integration process is a key aspect. In this subject, this study has a main implication for managers: in the integration process, firms must achieve a relatively high level of collaboration among internal functions before initiating any external integration.

The contribution of this study is to describe the integration process, comparing two levels of internal integration (logistics‐marketing and logistics‐production) and analysing the relationship between these internal integration levels and the level of external integration. Many studies consider internal or external integration from the logistics point of view, but very few consider both levels of integration simultaneously. This study differs from the existing literature in the fact that it explores the sequence of integration stages in an integration process.

This paper examines the logistics‐production and logistics‐marketing interfaces and their relation with the external integration. The study also investigates the causal impact of these internal and external relationships on the company's logistical performance.

An empirical study was conducted in the Spanish FMCG sector and the theoretical model was subjected to analysis using SEM.

The generic results derived from this study are: Internal and external integration influence each other. Integration in the logistics‐marketing interface does not lead to reductions in costs, stock‐outs and lead‐times, while the integration achieved in the logistics‐production interface does improve these performance measures, if there is no external integration. The external collaboration among supply chain members does always contribute to improving firms’ logistical performance.

The study has some limitations: other important members of the grocery supply chain (such as retailers, TPL, etc.) have not been considered and the effect of inter‐firm co‐ordination has only been analyzed from the perspective of the provider (as most studies do). Further research on the logistics‐marketing impact on performance should be carried out and other important supply chain members should be considered.

The study contributes to the existing literature by showing that the impact on performance of internal integration depends on the functional areas that are being integrated and the level of external integration.

It is believed that this paper will be insightful to researchers and managers in the SCM field. For researchers, this paper has provided new lines of research. And, for managers, this paper has shown that there is a positive relationship between firms’ logistical performance and SCM.

Focuses on the logistics‐marketing interface and possible mechanisms for enhancing co‐ordination between the two functions. A comparison of both logistics and marketing practitioners reveals that there were minimal differences in the usage of 14 co‐ordination‐enhancing techniques. The results also suggest that improvements in the relationship between marketing and logistics can be made relatively quickly and at a relatively low cost. Concludes with a discussion of managerial implications.

Logistics and marketing are both corporate functions that are critical for the competitive position of an organisation. Traditionally, logistics has been seen as a passive tool supporting marketing, while more recent research publications have stressed the strategic importance of logistics. Here the focus is on: showing the impact logistics has on competitive advantage; identifying the key interfaces between logistics and marketing; stressing the need of integrating the two functions to avoid permanent friction between them; and providing an approach to developing an integrated logistics/marketing strategy.

Investigates performance relationships for interfunctional process integration and specific logistics interface capabilities. The results indicate that competitive advantage is more likely to emanate from interfunctional process integration than individual function (sub) optimization. Also identifies logistics’ unique role as a boundary‐spanning interface between marketing, production, and new product development, as a potential source of competitive advantage. In terms of overall business performance, logistics followed by new product development are shown to have the greatest impact on profitability and growth. Further, logistics interface capabilities of customer service and logistics quality have the greatest independent impacts on business performance. In total these results imply that logistics, new product development, and demand‐management capabilities may provide firms with that extra competitive edge which shows up in “bottom line” performance. States that the relatively neglected areas of logistics boundary spanning and production customer service also deserve attention.

Investigates performance relationships for interfunctional process integration and specific logistics interface capabilities. The results indicate that competitive advantage is more likely to emanate from interfunctional process integration rather than individual function (sub) optimization. Logistics’ unique role as a boundary spanning interface between marketing, production, and new product development, is also identified as a potential source of competitive advantage. In terms of overall business performance, logistics followed by new product development are shown to have the greatest impact on profitability and growth. Further, logistics interface capabilities of customer service and logistics quality have the greatest independent impacts on business performance. In total, these results imply that logistics, new product development, and demand‐management capabilities may provide firms with that extra competitive edge which shows up in “bottom‐line” performance. States that the relatively neglected areas of logistics boundary spanning and production customer service also deserve attention.

The purpose of this paper is to investigate the management of the logistics-manufacturing interface between the manufacturer and its logistics service provider from the perspective of the service-dominant (S-D) logic.

The approach adopted is that of abductive reasoning through case study: data are primarily gleaned from semi-structured in-depth interviews. Field visits and secondary documentation are used to ensure data validity.

The results show that the interface can be categorized into three levels: design interface between products and logistic services, process interface between manufacturing processes and service-offering processes, and information interface between manufacturing information systems and logistics information systems. The results also indicate that ten foundational premises of S-D logic, especially service-focussed, customer-oriented and rational views can be applied in defining and managing these interfaces.

This research contributes not only to the theory of S-D logic and managing interface, but also provides managers with guidelines of applying S-D logic to build a service-focussed, customer-oriented and relational logic to effectively manage the logistics-manufacturing interface. However, the research is limited to the context of automotive and logistics industries.

Three levels of logistics-manufacturing interface, including design, process and information are identified, and S-D logic is applied to identify and manage the interface.

The purpose of this paper is to consider theory development related to returns management within supply chain strategy. The marketing/logistics relationship relative to the returns management process is investigated.

Grounded theory qualitative methodology. Managers in five Italian firms, across marketing and logistics roles, at strategic and operational levels were interviewed.

Four key findings emerged: strong evidence exists that strategic goals and policies are being implemented; cross‐functional integration within the firms is broader than was expected; the more integrated firms deal better with external factors influencing the returns management process; and supply chain orientation – including forward and reverse supply chain flows – is linked to effective returns management.

Firms were pre‐selected for participation, due to researcher's time constraints. Additionally, given the pan‐European approach to many supply chains, this Italian research needs to be replicated in other (western and eastern) European settings to determine the robustness of the factors posited to be important to the returns management process. Finally, other functional areas beyond marketing and logistics are involved in returns management, and will be more formally incorporated into future research.

Returns management – increasingly being recognized as affecting competitive positioning – provides an important link between marketing and logistics. The broad nature of its cross‐functional impact suggests that firms would benefit by improving internal integration efforts. In particular, a firm's ability to react to and plan for the influence of external factors on the returns management process is improved by such internal integration.

Returns management has been under‐represented in much of the logistics and supply chain literature. This paper represents the first stage of an on‐going research project aimed at providing a theoretical framework for understanding the returns management process within a firm's supply chain strategy.

Traditional retailers still insist on using price, product, and promotion as sources of competitive advantage. This emphasis typically ignores the potential of in‐store logistics operations in the creation of customer value. A major objective of retail customers is to navigate the retail servicescape in an efficient, convenient, enjoyable and effective manner. In‐store logistics operations largely determine how and to what extent the customer may achieve this objective. However, customer‐perceived indicators of in‐store logistics performance, such as product returns, order information, opening hours, and product availability and accessibility, have been largely ignored in research on retail service. The purpose of this paper is to investigate the role of in‐store logistics in determining customer outcomes such as store image, satisfaction and loyalty intentions.

A model is developed based on extant research in the areas of logistics service quality, service logic, store image, and customer loyalty. To test the plausibility of the model, 200 supermarket customers were surveyed in an exploratory field study. Data were analyzed by means of structural equation modeling in SmartPLS.

Results show that customers may derive a substantial share of their satisfaction from interactions with in‐store logistics operations. Customer‐perceived performance of these operations – an important element of the retail servicescape – influences customer satisfaction directly, but also through its influence on store image.

In‐store logistics dimensions were identified based on exploratory research. A more structured, theory‐driven approach, might yield further insight. Explained variance levels in the outcome variables point at unobserved influences. Future research into the drivers of retail experience satisfaction could further complete the picture.

From a customer perspective, the paper investigates in‐store logistics performance and its effects on customer outcomes in a field study.

Discusses the results from an empirical study that investigated potential career frustrations and concerns of women in distribution, defined as female marketing and logistics professionals. In general, both groups of respondents have some reservations about career opportunities in their respective fields. Moreover, perceptions about career opportunities appear to be influenced by personal demographic characteristics such as education and managerial status. The results also suggest that education and continuous learning are crucial for a successful career in distribution.