Suchergebnisse

PurposePrior research has primarily examined interorganizational relationships from the supplier or customer side or using dyadic pairs. The study aims to offer a comparison of carrier and shipper relationship views using a hybrid research method examining the relationship from both points of view by sampling both populations independently with identical surveys.Design/methodology/approachMail surveys were used to collect data from the two samples. Invariance tests were conducted, and the model was analyzed using structural equation modeling (AMOS 5.0).FindingsInvariance tests of the measurement instrument and comparisons of specific results show that, in the context of shippers and carriers, relationships – specifically trust and commitment and the contribution of dependence to relationship strength – are perceived differently.Research limitations/implicationsEmpirically supporting significant differences in theoretical relationship constructs between the two participants in an interorganizational relationship is important for understanding and advancing knowledge on supply chain relationships.Practical implicationsSuccessful supply chain management can only be achieved when firms successfully develop and manage relationships with other firms in their supply chain; therefore, it is important to recognize and understand any differences in these relationships so that they will be better equipped to manage them. Knowing that the other firm perceives differences in levels of trust and commitment and the contribution of dependence to relationship strength can provide indications of behaviors that are important to a firm in reaching their relationship goals.Originality/valueThe paper applies a method to compare supplier and customer relationship views that has not been used in supply chain management literature to uncover and support relationship differences between carriers and shippers.

PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to begin to explore the phenomenon of time pressure in supply chain relationships.Design/methodology/approachUsing grounded theory methodology, qualitative data were accumulated from experienced supply chain managers. Depth interviews were utilized in order to gain a deeper understanding of time pressure in supply chain relationships.FindingsAnalysis of the qualitative data suggests that time pressure can exist in a supply chain relationship and potentially impact the relationship. This qualitative evidence implies that time pressure may create tension, reduce collaboration, or alter expectations in supply chain relationships.Research limitations/implicationsThis research provides a greater understanding of the potential effects of time pressure in relationships which provides insight into relational dynamics and characteristics. These initial qualitative findings can inform and prompt quantitative testing of the effects of time pressure in relationships. By demonstrating that time pressure can exist in supply chains and impact interfirm relationships, new streams of research can develop.Practical implicationsThis research begins to provide managers with information about potential consequences of imposing time pressure on other supply chain members. Such information can be used to make more informed decisions about relationship management.Originality/valueInterfirm relationships are the foundation of supply chain management and supply chains frequently focus on time‐based performance. However, the interfirm relationship literature does not address relationships in an environment with an intense pressure to focus on time. Although the detrimental effects of time pressure have been studied in other business contexts, research is lacking in the interfirm relationship literature. This research begins to address this gap in the literature.

PurposeSustainability is becoming increasingly important in supply chains, particularly in those that function in highly competitive industries. The purpose of this paper is to understand more deeply the role sustainability plays within supply chains based on a qualitative study conducted in the New Zealand wine industry.Design/methodology/approachThis research followed a grounded theory methodology which used in‐depth interviews with managers from wineries, retailers, and restaurants; observations of operations; and interpretation of field documents/artifacts.FindingsThe findings show that managers within the New Zealand wine supply chains are trying to find ways to leverage sustainability‐related competencies for competitive advantage in what is now a highly competitive industry. Within this context, the emergent theme of searching for advantage through sustainability involves: pursuing and leveraging sustainability; telling a story that involves sustainability; managing supply chain relationships around sustainability; and experimenting with sustainability initiatives.Research limitations/implicationsThe research is limited to the context and participants of the study. As a qualitative inquiry, findings are exploratory. The research implications, however, involve deeper studies into how wine industry firms in other nations and regions of the world are treating sustainability and searching for competitive advantages. Further validation of the models that emerge can be accomplished through future research, which would draw on aggregate data.Originality/valueThe approach and context within which sustainability is explored is unique. By seeking deep insights from managers on the cutting edge of sustainability initiatives, we are able to get close to strategic thinking and explore the impact on distribution relationships.

Drawing on over 200 interviews and visits with winery owners, executives and managers from over 100 companies in five countries, industry experts across marketing and supply chain management examine successful marketing frameworks as they apply to growers, wineries, distributors and retailers.

PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to describe how to implement mixed methods research in supply chain management.Design/methodology/approachA review of past journal analyses on research methods used in supply chain management‐related disciplines is conducted to demonstrate the low incidence of mixed methods research in supply chain management. Drawing from literature on multiple and mixed methods research, the paper provides guidelines for designing and reporting such studies.FindingsKnowledge development in logistics and supply chain management relies primarily on single‐method quantitative research designs, while mixed methods approaches are rarely used. Thus, there is a significant opportunity to advance the discipline through the rigorous application of mixed methods research.Research limitations/implicationsSupply chain management phenomena are complex and dynamic. Thus, the application of mixed methods research would serve the advancement of the discipline as these approaches provide richer understanding and more robust explanations of such phenomena.Practical implicationsIf supply chain research is to keep up with the dynamic business environment, research methods must be applied with the capability to fully explain supply chain phenomena. The application of a single‐method research approach is not always adequate for this task.Originality/valueThis paper is the first to draw on research from various disciplines to investigate the use of mixed methods in logistics and supply chain management research. It examines its prevalence in the discipline, provides examples of its application from the supply chain management literature, prescribes how to implement mixed methods research, and describes the benefits and limitations of such designs.

PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to define and empirically develop measures to evaluate the extent of integration of seaport container terminals in supply chains.Design/methodology/approachA literature review identified four key variables hypothesized to be part of the higher‐order construct of "terminal supply chain integration (TESCI)". The hypotheses were theoretically justified a priori and data for operationalizing the conceptualized variables obtained via a large‐scale survey of container terminal operators. A model was developed and validated using confirmatory factor analysis.FindingsThe validated variables of the higher‐order construct of TESCI included "information and communication systems", "value‐added services", "multimodal systems and operations" and "supply chain integration practices".Research limitations/implicationsThe study develops measures from the standpoint of the container terminal (the centric supply chain actor). Supply chains involve a network of companies and it would be useful to obtain data as to integration from other supply chain participants. The usual caveats of cross‐sectional research apply and longitudinal case studies may provide supplementary information.Practical implicationsThere are valuable practical implications for container terminals that seek to measure the extent of integration into supply chains and for port users that place value on container TESCI in their choice and evaluation criteria.Originality/valueThe study is the first of its nature that attempts to provide a valid theoretical construct and empirical measures of seaport container TESCI. The study shifts container TESCI from an abstract concept to a theoretical construct with validated measures.

PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to propose optimization models for assisting in buyer‐supplier negotiations by effectively considering multiple factors and interrelationships among them.Design/methodology/approachThe approach used in the paper involves a combination of data envelopment analysis and multi‐criteria decision models.FindingsCategorizes suppliers into efficient and inefficient performers and identifies effective negotiation strategies with respect to cost, quality, and delivery performance.Originality/valueThis original contribution presents models, which buyers can utilize for effectively negotiating with suppliers across a variety of factors.

PurposeThe objective of this paper is to empirically examine the impact that different disposition strategies have on strategic performance in the reverse logistics process. This research also includes the role of the returns policy in the customer decision‐making process as a foundation for determining the appropriate disposition strategy.Design/methodology/approachA general review of the literature and depth interviews with logistics professionals following commonly employed investigative techniques provided the foundation for the study. A survey was developed and mailed to the senior supply chain operations professional at 400 companies in the auto parts industry resulting in 118 usable responses.FindingsThe current research shows that under instances of active resource commitment to reverse logistics programs, operations and supply chain managers may expect superior performance by choosing destroying, recycling, refurbishing, and/or remanufacturing of product.Practical implicationsIf firms focus on reverse logistics activities as a must do, a strategic approach that examines outcomes rather than day‐to‐day operations is suggested. If managers do not have adequate resource support for reverse logistics, they should destroy the product. The other disposition options all require significant resources in order to reclaim value from returns.Originality/valueTraditional strategy research has focused on the importance of a strategic fit between a firm's internal strengths and weaknesses and the external environment. In contrast, a resource approach stresses internal aspects of the firm. This study combines the two views along with examining the effects of resource commitment.

E‐commerce is such a new phenomenon that little research has addressed the effects it has on relationships in supply chains. A qualitative study was conducted with eight e‐commerce companies in order to construct theoretical relationships with which to develop a grounded theory of the impact of e‐commerce on managing supply chain relationships. The e‐commerce environment was perceived as highly uncertain, stemming from increased information visibility and dynamic market structures. A stronger emphasis on relationship management as part of business strategy enables managers to manage uncertainty better. Interestingly, increased information does not decrease the perception of uncertainty, but creates more uncertainty. As logistics is the function often involved with both information and relationship management within the supply chain, it may prove to be invaluable in helping firms succeed in this dynamic environment. Our research also found support for the application of transaction cost analysis and the resource dependence theory in explaining interorganizational relationship formation in e‐commerce.