International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management

Benjamin T. Hazen; Terry Anthony Byrd

2012 International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management

doi: 10.1108/09600031211202454

Purpose – Successfully implementing and exploiting the right information technologies is critical to maintaining competitiveness in today's supply chain. However, simply adopting off‐the‐shelf technologies may not necessarily induce this competitiveness unless the organization combines these technologies with additional complimentary resources. This study draws on the logistics innovation literature, resource‐advantage theory, and the resource‐based view of the firm with the purpose of investigating performance outcomes of logistics information technology (LIT) adoption and the proposed moderating effect of a complimentary resource. The paper posits that combining LIT with positive buyer‐supplier relationships may set the stage for organizations to achieve competitive advantage. Design/methodology/approach – A meta‐analysis of 48 studies that report outcomes of EDI or RFID adoption was performed. Regression was used to investigate the moderating effect of the buyer‐supplier relationship on the relationship between LIT adoption and performance outcomes. Findings – The findings suggest that adoption of LIT promotes enhanced levels of effectiveness, efficiency, and resiliency for the adopting firm and that the quality of the buyer‐supplier relationship moderates the degree of efficiency and resiliency realized via adoption. Research limitations/implications – The results of this study suggest that adoption of a logistics innovation by itself may not necessarily produce a sustained competitive advantage. Instead, when combined with complimentary firm resources, the innovation may yield a sustained competitive advantage for the adopting firm. Originality/value – Logistics innovation needs greater theoretical development in the literature. This research extends a foundational logistics innovation model by incorporating relevant theory to propose and test an additional dimension of the model.

Fredrik Eng‐Larsson; Christofer Kohn

2012 International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management

doi: 10.1108/09600031211202463

Purpose – A commonly suggested measure to make logistics greener is a shift to intermodal road‐rail transportation. Most research addresses the issue from the carrier's perspective, arguing for ways to improve the service production to better fit the shippers' demand. In this article the issue is addressed from the shipper's perspective. The purpose is to understand what contextual factors and operations changes that are possible and/or necessary for the shipper to make a fit to the current production system. Design/methodology/approach – Six case companies selling non‐bulk, fast moving goods are examined. These firms have gone against the mainstream and shifted modes of transport. They are investigated through a multiple case‐study design. Findings – The findings indicate that contextual factors stressed in the carrier‐focused literature, or rule of thumb decisions made by shipping logistics management, do not always clearly predict the success of a modal shift. However, some common denominators emerge among successful cases: large transport purchasing resources, high general carrier performance, low demand volatility, and centralized system control. The study also poses some propositions regarding the success of a modal shift. Research limitations/implications – The research is qualitative in nature and thus limited to the companies and their respective logistics systems. However, the models could be further evaluated empirically through quantitative and qualitative methods alike. Practical implications – The paper poses a number of propositions of what constitutes a successful modal shift from a shipper's perspective, based on the identified factors and operational changes. Originality/value – Previous research on the shift to intermodal road‐rail solutions are predominantly made from a carrier's perspective. This research addresses the issue from the shipper's perspective.

Daniel Kern; Roger Moser; Evi Hartmann; Marco Moder

2012 International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management

doi: 10.1108/09600031211202472

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to develop a model for upstream supply chain risk management linking risk identification, risk assessment and risk mitigation to risk performance and validate the model empirically. The effect of a continuous improvement process on identification, assessment, and mitigation is also included in the model. Design/methodology/approach – A literature review is undertaken to derive the hypotheses and operationalize the included constructs. The paper then tests the path analytical model using partial least squares analyses on survey data from 162 large and mid‐sized manufacturing companies located in Germany. Findings – All items load high on their respective constructs and the data provides robust support to all hypothesized relationships. Superior risk identification supports the subsequent risk assessment and this in turn leads to better risk mitigation. The model explains 46 percent of the variance observed in risk performance. Research limitations/implications – This study empirically validates the sequential effect of the three risk management steps on risk performance as well as the influence of continuous improvement activities. Limitations of this study can be seen in the use of perceptional data from single informants and the focus on manufacturing firms in a single country. Practical implications – The detailed operationalization of the constructs sheds further light on the problem of measuring risk management efforts. Clear evidence of the performance effect of risk management provides managers with a business case to invest in such initiatives. Originality/value – This is one of the first large‐scale, empirical studies on the process dimensions of upstream supply chain risk management.

Michael Maloni; Craig R. Carter; Lutz Kaufmann

2012 International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management

doi: 10.1108/09600031211202481

Purpose – The purpose of this study is to extend a series of studies dating back to 1967 that evaluates faculty publication productivity in refereed supply chain management and logistics journals. Design/methodology/approach – Publication output and rankings of academic institutions are based on publication data from six supply chain management and logistics journals from 2008 through 2010. The results are compared to prior studies to identify trends and changes in the rankings. The authors also assess author collaboration influences as well as authorship diversity. Finally, the authors examine further changes to the core set of journals considered for future iterations of this study. Findings – The results indicate that supply chain management and logistics authorship continues to be dynamic. Several schools entered the top 25 ranking for the first time and others substantially improved their rankings. While higher‐ranked schools engage in more collaboration within their own institutions, they practice less external and international collaboration. Additionally, the diversity of both individual authors and schools continues to expand, though evidence also suggests some level of emerging stability in sources of authorship. Research limitations/implications – As limitations, the selected journal set may present bias against some authors and institutions, particularly those from outside North America and those choosing to publish in other journals in the field or in related fields. Originality/value – This research stream enables authors and universities to judge their relative productivity of academic scholarship in the supply chain management and logistics field. Moreover, the longitudinal analysis provides insight into the evolving maturity of the field itself.