International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management

Richard Lancioni; John Grashof

1997 International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management

doi: 10.1108/09600039710175886

Reveals that physical distribution organization and information system development among US manufacturing firms is still in a period of transmission. Concludes that many problems have arisen because of the move towards the formalization of physical distribution management as an integral part of a firm’s management organization.

John J. Withey

1997 International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management

doi: 10.1108/EUM0000000004331

Deals with the structural problem of how to allocate work to sub‐units or departments within physical distribution organizations. Asks what bases or criteria should be followed in assigning duties to the various parts of physical distribution structures. Concludes with managerial implications.

Göran Persson

1997 International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management

doi: 10.1108/EUM0000000004332

Identifies and discusses three different approaches to the organization of the logistics function in a firm. Develops a model to explain the basic design strategies for logistics co‐ordination. Recommends that further research in the area should be undertaken.

Jacques Picard

1997 International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management

doi: 10.1108/EUM0000000004333

Presents an exploratory study to define the organizational approaches available to multinational corporations in their attempt to optimize their global PD operations.

Hans‐Christian Pfohl; Werner Zöllner

1997 International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management

doi: 10.1108/09600039710175895

Argues that the organization for logistics often favours an aggregation of all tasks into one department. This decision presupposes an extensive analysis of important contingency factors, like product line, environmental relations, technology and organizational size. However, such contingency factors have a limited influence, and are modified by the strategy of the organization. Defines selected contingency factors, examines the organization’s overall strategy and shows how these two factors can be combined in the light of the specific requirements of the firm’s logistical task.

Larry C. Giunipero; Robert M. Monczka

1997 International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management

doi: 10.1108/09600039710175903

Discusses analysis of the organizational structures utilized to conduct international purchasing activities which was undertaken at 24 multinational corporations. The majority of the corporations studied had decentral‐ ized purchasing organizations and all had corporate purchasing staffs. Four basic approaches were found: (1) totally decentralized; (2) co‐ordinated; (3) totally centralized; and (4) separate international purchasing group. Within this overall framework there were several forms of staff assistance for helping operating units effectively to accomplish their international purchasing goals. This assistance included foreign buying offices, trading companies, and international staff specialists. There was also a common philosophy which indicated the necessity of worldwide sourcing.

Patricia J. Daugherty; Cornelia Dröge

1997 International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management

doi: 10.1108/09600039710175912

Posits that, in recent years, more firms have chosen to use outside service vendors to provide at least a portion of their logistical support requirements. Presents projected usage trends for selected services as identified by logistics executives. Discovered differences in anticipated usage levels of external logistical services when firms of different organizational structure were examined.

Edward A. Morash; Cornelia Dröge; Shawnee Vickery

1997 International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management

doi: 10.1108/09600039710175921

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.