Professional Documents
Culture Documents
317
Impact of logistics performance on organizational performance Supply Chain Management: An International Journal
Kenneth W. Green Jr, Dwayne Whitten and R. Anthony Inman Volume 13 · Number 4 · 2008 · 317 –327
a key supply chain focused function (Council of Supply Chain Rabinovich and Knemeyer (2006) identify a new breed of
Management Professionals, 2007). Organizational managers logistics-related firms: logistics service providers that support
are asked to focus attention and resources directly on supply internet supply chains. These logistics service providers help
chain functions such as logistics to bolster the competitiveness internet sellers integrate with the myriad of available logistics
of the supply chains. The managers are, however, ultimately firms to fulfill customer orders more effectively and efficiently
judged on the marketing and financial performance of their (Rabinovich and Knemeyer, 2006). Logistics service
organizations. providers establish relationships with both internet sellers
Does a supply chain focus lead to improved logistics and third-party logistics providers and integrate the selling
performance, which, in turn, results in improved and flow processes throughout the supply chain through the
organizational performance? It is our purpose to answer that provision of what Rabinovich and Knemeyer (2006, p. 90)
question. Building on the works of Schramm-Klein and call “hub functionalities.” Vaidyanathan (2005) describes a
Morschett (2006), Wisner (2003), and Bowersox et al. similar role for fourth-party logistics providers in more
(2000), we theorize a logistics performance model with traditional supply chain configurations such as those that link
logistics performance as the focal construct and supply chain manufacturers with ultimate customers. Lai and Cheng
management strategy as antecedent and marketing (2003) discuss the importance of a supply chain focus on the
performance (sales and market share growth) and financial part of transport logistics service providers as they function to
performance (return on investment and profit growth) as link suppliers, manufacturers, sellers, and customers
consequences. Data collected from a national sample of US throughout the supply chain. They argue that transport
manufacturers are used to assess the model following a logistics service providers must focus on supply chain
structural equation methodology. performance in addition to organizational performance.
A review of the related literature and discussion of the Morash and Clinton (1998) investigated the creation of
theorized model with incorporated hypotheses follow in the customer value through the supply chain integration
next section. The methodology employed in the study is then alternatives of collaborative closeness and operational
presented. The results of the scale assessment and the excellence. They illustrated models identifying logistics as
structural equation modeling results follow. The conclusions the unifying link intra-organizationally between the
section, which incorporates discussions of the contributions of production and marketing functions and inter-
the study, limitations of the study, suggestions for future organizationally between suppliers and customers. Analyzing
related research, and implications for practicing managers is data from almost 2,000 firms in the USA, Australia, Japan,
in the final section. and Korea, they found that efficient supply chains exhibit
operational excellence and responsive supply chains exhibit
collaborative closeness. Japanese and Korean firms were more
Literature review likely to integrate supply chains based on operational
Mentzer et al. (2001, p. 4) define a supply chain as “a set of excellence, while US and Australian firms were more likely
three or more entities (organizations or individuals) directly to integrate supply chains on the basis of collaborative
involved in the upstream and downstream flows of products, closeness.
services, finances, and/or information from source to Srivastava (2006) investigated the state of logistics and
customer.” Stank et al. (2005, p. 27) describe supply chain supply chain practices in India. He found that, while Indian
management as a “strategic level concept.” Ho et al. (2002) managers are well aware of the need to develop supplier
conceptualize SCM as having three core elements: partnerships, integrate and coordinate the flow of goods from
1 value creation; supplier’s supplier to ultimate customer, and share
2 integration of key business processes; and information among supply chain partners, the infrastructure
3 collaboration. necessary to facilitate such seamless integration is as yet
unavailable. There is pressure in emerging markets to rapidly
Based on this conceptualization, they define supply chain adopt logistics and supply chain integration practices in an
management as follows: effort to compete globally.
SCM is the philosophy of management that involves the management and Chen and Paulraj (2004) proposed a research framework
integration of a set of selected key business processes from end user through
original suppliers, that provides products, services, and information that add
for supply chain management based upon the “collaborative
value for customers and other stakeholders through the collaborative efforts advantage” paradigm. The framework incorporates
of supply chain members (Ho et al., 2002, p. 4422). environmental uncertainty, strategic purchasing, information
technology, supply network structure, and logistics integration
Logistics is an important component of supply chain as impacting buyer-seller relationships and subsequently
management (Stank et al., 2005). The Council of Supply resulting in improved buyer and seller performance.
Chain Management Professionals (2007) defines logistics Managers have traditionally focused on improving the
management as “that part of Supply Chain Management that performance of the organizational entity for which they are
plans, implements, and controls the efficient, effective directly responsible. Supply chain management requires an
forward and reverse flow and storage of goods, services and external focus in which managers must consider the impact of
related information between the point of origin and the point organizational strategies on supply chain partners. Attempts
of consumption in order to meet customers’ requirements.” to optimize organizational performance may negatively impact
Both Stank et al. (2002) and Lin (2006) describe the overall supply chain performance, thus damaging the
importance of integrating the logistics processes of all supply competitive advantage of the chain (Chopra and Meindl,
chain partners to better serve the needs of ultimate customers. 2004; Meredith and Shafer, 2002).
Rodrigues et al. (2005, p. 1) identify logistics as “one of the According to Chopra and Meindl (2004), supply chain
largest costs involved in international trade.” performance is optimized only when an “inter-organizational,
318
Impact of logistics performance on organizational performance Supply Chain Management: An International Journal
Kenneth W. Green Jr, Dwayne Whitten and R. Anthony Inman Volume 13 · Number 4 · 2008 · 317 –327
inter-functional” strategic approach is adopted by all chain relationships and develop trust among supply chain partners
partners. Such an approach maximizes the supply chain to facilitate the integration of processes throughout the supply
surplus available for sharing by all supply chain members. chain from suppliers’ supplier to ultimate consumer/consumer
Meredith and Shafer (2002, p. 261) argue that “if each (Cohen and Roussel, 2005; Wisner, 2003). The logistics
segment of the supply chain is acting in a way to optimize its performance construct reflects the organization’s performance
own value, there will be discontinuities at the interfaces and as it relates to its ability to deliver goods and services in the
unnecessary costs will result. If an integrated view is taken precise quantities and at the precise times required by
instead, there may be opportunities in the supply chain where customers. Bowersox et al. (2000) incorporate performance
additional expense or time in one segment can save metrics such as customer satisfaction, delivery speed, delivery
tremendous expense or time in another segment.” dependability, and delivery flexibility. Marketing performance
Organizational strategies that support supply chain reflects the organization’s ability to increase sales and expand
strategies should strengthen the competitive position of the market share as compared to its competition (Green and
supply chain which, in turn, enhances performance of each of Inman, 2005; Green et al., 2006). Financial performance
the individual supply chain partners. While the link from reflects an organization’s profitability and return on
supply chain performance is theoretically justified, no investment as compared to its competition (Claycomb et al.,
empirical evidence related to the link was identified. 1999; Green et al., 2004; Green and Inman, 2005).
319
Impact of logistics performance on organizational performance Supply Chain Management: An International Journal
Kenneth W. Green Jr, Dwayne Whitten and R. Anthony Inman Volume 13 · Number 4 · 2008 · 317 –327
manufacturing performance and found them to be highly and strengthen the supply chain’s overall ability to delivery value
positively correlated. After surveying senior supply and to the ultimate customer. Shao and Ji (2006, p. 64) assert that
materials management professionals in the USA, Tan (2002) “logistics is the key to making and keeping customers.”
concluded that supply chain management practices positively Novack et al. (1992) and Schramm-Klein and Morschett
impact firm performance. Vickery et al. (1999) surveyed CEOs (2006) argue that logistics performance is a necessary
of firms in the office and residential furniture industry to assess prerequisite to marketing performance. The logistics
the relationships among supply chain flexibility measures of function creates place, time, quantity, and space value,
product, volume, launch, access and target market flexibility, which are essential to customer satisfaction (Novack et al.,
and measures of overall firm performance. They found volume 1992; Sheen and Tai, 2006). Wisner (2003) theorized a
flexibility to be positively correlated with all measures of positive association between logistics performance and
performance. Launch and target market flexibility were organizational performance. Schramm-Klein and Morschett
correlated with four of the six measures of performance. (2006) hypothesized positive associations between logistics
Product flexibility was related only to return on investment, quality and marketing and financial performance and found
and access flexibility only to market share. Tan et al. (2002) support for the hypotheses in a sample of 262 retailers. Based
collected data from 101 senior managers of US manufacturing upon the theoretical justification and empirical results,
firms to assess the relationship between supply chain hypotheses 4 and 5 are stated as follows:
management factors and firm performance measures. They H4. Logistics performance is positively associated with
found that the supply chain characteristics factor was
marketing performance.
negatively correlated with average selling price and positively
H5. Logistics performance is positively associated with
correlated with overall product quality and overall customer
financial performance.
service levels. Green et al. (2006) surveyed sales managers for
manufacturing firms and found positive links between supply While organizational managers must focus attention and
chain management strategy and both marketing and financial resources on supply chain functions such as logistics, their
performance. Based on the theoretical justification and primary concern remains improved organizational
supporting empirical evidence, the second and third performance. Specifically, managers work to improve
hypotheses are: marketing performance in terms of sales and market share
H2. A supply chain management strategy is positively growth. The growth of market share and sales growth should
associated with marketing performance. impact financial performance through improved revenue
H3. A supply chain management strategy is positively numbers. Anderson et al. (1994) found that marketing
associated with financial performance. performance, as measured by customer satisfaction, positively
Organizational strategies that support supply chain strategies impacts financial performance, as measured by return on
should strengthen the competitive position of the supply chain investment. Green et al. (2006) surveyed sales managers for
which, in turn, will enhance performance of each of the manufacturing firms and found a positive link between
individual supply chain partners. Although no empirically marketing performance and financial performance. In their
tested measure of supply chain performance was found, study of retailers, Schramm-Klein and Morschett (2006,
logistics performance focuses outside the manufacturing p. 283) hypothesized that “marketing performance has a
function on the manufacturer/customer relationship, and, as positive effect on company performance” and found that sales
Bowersox et al. (2000) describe it, logistics performance is a performance positively influenced financial performance.
reflection of supply chain superiority. Lin (2006, p. 257) Based on this theoretical justification and empirical
contends that logistics service providers work to integrate evidence, hypothesis 6 is stated as follows:
“business flow, physical flow, money flow, and information H6. Marketing performance is positively associated with
flow in the supply chain.” Such integration serves to financial performance.
320
Impact of logistics performance on organizational performance Supply Chain Management: An International Journal
Kenneth W. Green Jr, Dwayne Whitten and R. Anthony Inman Volume 13 · Number 4 · 2008 · 317 –327
321
Impact of logistics performance on organizational performance Supply Chain Management: An International Journal
Kenneth W. Green Jr, Dwayne Whitten and R. Anthony Inman Volume 13 · Number 4 · 2008 · 317 –327
Figure 2 Logistics performance measurement model with standardized correlation coefficients (relative x2 ¼ 2:02, GFI ¼ 0:83, CFI ¼ 0:94,
RMSEA ¼ 0:08)
scales was assessed using confirmatory factor analysis, as 0.08 (Garver and Mentzer, 1999), indicating sufficient
recommended by Gerbing and Anderson (1988). It was unidimensionality. Because the marketing performance scale
necessary to re-specify the supply chain management strategy includes only three items, it could not be subjected to a full
and logistics performance scales to achieve sufficient confirmatory factor analysis. It did, however, exceed the
unidimensionality. The supply chain management strategy requirements that all parameter estimates be of the proper
scale was reduced to six items and the logistics performance sign, significant, and greater than 0.70 as recommended by
scale to five items. Generally, items with standardized Garver and Mentzer (1999). The scale items used in the
coefficients less than 0.70 and items that contributed to analysis to follow are identified in Table I.
standardized residuals with values greater than 3.00 or less Alpha and construct-reliability values greater than or equal
than 2 3.00 were deleted (Raykov and Marcoulides, 2000). to 0.70 and a variance-extracted measure of 0.50 or greater
The supply chain management strategy and logistics indicate sufficient scale or factor reliability (Garver and
performance scales, as re-specified, and the financial Mentzer, 1999). The alpha, construct-reliability, and
performance scale yielded goodness-of-fit index (GFI) variance-extracted values for each of the scales exceeded the
values greater than 0.90 (Ahire et al., 1996), non-normed-fit recommended values indicating sufficient reliability.
index (NNFI) and comparative-fit index values greater than Convergent validity for the supply chain management
0.90 (Garver and Mentzer, 1999), and root mean square strategy, logistics performance, and financial performance was
error of approximation (RMSEA) values between 0.05 and assessed using the normed-fit index coefficient as
322
Impact of logistics performance on organizational performance Supply Chain Management: An International Journal
Kenneth W. Green Jr, Dwayne Whitten and R. Anthony Inman Volume 13 · Number 4 · 2008 · 317 –327
recommended by Ahire et al. (1996), with values greater than Table II Descriptive statistics and correlations
0.9 indicating strong validity. The NFI for each of the scales
exceeds the 0.90 level, indicating sufficient convergent Mean SD
validity. When the NFI is unavailable, as for the marketing A. Descriptive statistics (n 5 142)
performance scale, Garver and Mentzer (1999) recommend Supply chain management strategy
reviewing the magnitude of the parameter estimates for the (SCMS) 4.91 1.18
individual measurement items to assess convergent validity Logistics performance (LP) 5.42 .93
with statistical significance of an estimate indicating a weak Financial performance (FP) 4.63 1.22
condition of validity and an estimate greater than 0.7 Marketing performance (MP) 4.55 1.30
indicating a strong condition. The parameter estimates for
the marketing performance items exceeded the criteria. All B. Correlation matrix (n 5 142) SCMS LP FP MP
scales exhibit convergent validity. SCMS 1.000
Discriminant validity was assessed using a x2 difference test LP 0.230 * 1.000
*
for each pair of scales under consideration, with a statistically FP 0.193 * 0.243
* * 1.000
*
significant difference in x2 indicating validity (Garver and MP 0.248 * 0.225
* * 0.706
* * * 1.000
Mentzer, 1999; Ahire et al., 1996; Gerbing and Anderson,
Note: * *Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (two-tailed)
1988). All possible pairs of the study scales were subjected to
x2 difference tests with each pairing producing a statistically
significant difference, indicating sufficient discriminant
validity. Predictive validity was assessed by determining A structural assessment of the full measurement model
whether the scales of interest correlate as expected with indicates that the measurement model fits the data moderately
other measures (Ahire et al., 1996; Garver and Mentzer, well with a relative chi-square (x2/degrees of freedom) of 2.02,
1999). A review of the correlation matrix (Table II) for the a RMSEA of 0.08, a GFI of 0.83, an NFI of 0.91, and a CFI
study values supports claims of predictive validity for each of 0.94. The full measurement model is displayed in Figure 2.
study variable. The study variables are positively correlated The individual measurement scales are considered sufficiently
with the coefficients significant at the 0.01 level. unidimensional, reliable and valid and the fit of the
323
Impact of logistics performance on organizational performance Supply Chain Management: An International Journal
Kenneth W. Green Jr, Dwayne Whitten and R. Anthony Inman Volume 13 · Number 4 · 2008 · 317 –327
measurement model is considered sufficient to support Generally, the results support the proposition that the
further assessment of the structural model. adoption of a supply chain management strategy leads to
improved supply chain performance, as measured by logistics
Structural equation modeling results performance, which in turn leads to improved organizational
Summary values for the study variables were computed by performance. It is very difficult to measure overall supply
averaging across the items in the scales. Descriptive statistics chain performance directly. The logistics function, however, is
and the correlation matrix for the summary variables are an externally focused supply chain function that has global, as
presented in Table II. All correlation coefficients are positive well as local, implications for managers in the manufacturing
and significant at the 0.01 level. sector.
Figure 3 illustrates the model with the structural equation While the performance of manufacturing managers
modeling results specified in the LISREL 8.8 output. The continues to be evaluated based on organization-level
relative x2 (x2/degrees of freedom) value of 2.02 is less than metrics related to the sales, market share, and profitability
the 3.00 maximum recommended by Kline (1998). The root of the organization, the results of this study support the
mean square error of approximation (0.08) equals the contention that manufacturing managers make decisions that
recommended maximum of 0.08 (Schumacker and Lomax, directly support supply chain performance which will, in turn,
2004). While NNFI (0.93) is above the recommended 0.90 enhance organizational performance. This expectation that
level (Byrne, 1998), the GFI (0.83) is not. These indices, local managers first be concerned with and make decisions
however, are more heavily impacted by a relatively small that strengthen the supply chain is relatively new and may be
sample size, and, as Byrne (1998) points out, the comparative difficult for local managers to embrace. In this supply chain
fit index (CFI) and incremental fit index (IFI) are more era, however, success of the organization depends upon the
appropriate when the sample size is small. The CFI (0.94)
success of the supply chain or chains in which the
and IFI (0.94) both exceed the recommended 0.90 level
organization operates as a partner. These results support the
(Byrne, 1998).
propositions that organizations now compete globally at the
Four of the study hypotheses are supported by the
supply chain level, that organizational performance depends
standardized estimates and associated t-values. The
directly on supply chain performance, and that local
relationship between SCMS and logistics performance (H1)
manufacturing managers focus on and make decisions that
is significant at the 0.05 level with an estimate of 0.23 and t-
enhance supply chain performance. In short, local
value of 2.52. The estimate of 0.21 for the relationship
optimization now depends on global optimization. This is a
between supply chain management strategy and marketing
performance (H2) is significant at the 0.05 level with a t-value relatively new mindset but, as the results indicate, an
of 2.34. The relationship between supply chain management important one for manufacturing managers.
strategy and financial performance (H3) is not significant with
an estimate of 0.00 and t-value of .04. The relationship Conclusions
between logistics performance and marketing performance
(H4) is significant at the 0.05 level with a standardized The theorized logistics performance model fits the data
estimate of 0.18 and an associated t-value of 2.02. The moderately well providing support for four of the six study
relationship between logistics performance and financial hypotheses. As the focal construct, logistics performance is
performance (H5) is not significant with a standardized positively impacted by supply chain management strategy and
estimate of 0.09 and t-value of 1.35. The relationship between directly impacts marketing performance which, in turn,
marketing performance and financial performance is impacts financial performance. These results support the
significant at the 0.01 level with a standardized estimate of positive relationship between logistics performance and
0.69 and a t-value of 7.67. organizational performance within the manufacturing sector.
Figure 3 Theorized logistics performance structural model with standardized coefficients. t-Values are shown in parentheses (relative x2 ¼ 2:02,
GFI ¼ 0:83, CFI ¼ 0:94, RMSEA ¼ 0:08)
324
Impact of logistics performance on organizational performance Supply Chain Management: An International Journal
Kenneth W. Green Jr, Dwayne Whitten and R. Anthony Inman Volume 13 · Number 4 · 2008 · 317 –327
325
Impact of logistics performance on organizational performance Supply Chain Management: An International Journal
Kenneth W. Green Jr, Dwayne Whitten and R. Anthony Inman Volume 13 · Number 4 · 2008 · 317 –327
Gerbing, D.W. and Anderson, J.C. (1988), “An updated Morash, E.A. and Clinton, S.R. (1997), “The role of
paradigm for scale development incorporating transportation capabilities in international supply chain
unidimensionality and its assessment”, Journal of management”, Transportation Journal, Vol. 36 No. 3,
Marketing Research, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 186-92. pp. 5-17.
Green, K.W. Jr and Inman, R.A. (2005), “Using a just-in- Morash, E.A. and Clinton, S.R. (1998), “Supply chain
time selling strategy to strengthen supply chain linkages”, integration: customer value through collaborative closeness
International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 43 No. 16, versus operational excellence”, Journal of Marketing: Theory
pp. 3437-53. and Practice, Vol. 6 No. 4, pp. 104-20.
Green, K.W. Jr, McGaughey, R. and Casey, K.M. (2006), Nahm, A.Y., Vonderembse, M.A. and Koufteros, X.A.
“Does supply chain management strategy mediate the (2004), “The impact of organizational culture on time-
association between market orientation and organizational based manufacturing and performance”, Decision Sciences,
performance?”, Supply Chain Management: An International Vol. 35 No. 4, pp. 579-607.
Journal, Vol. 11 No. 5, pp. 407-14. Novack, R.A., Rinehart, L.M. and Wells, M.V. (1992),
Green, K.W. Jr, Medlin, B. and Whitten, D. (2004), “Rethinking concept foundations in logistics management”,
“Developing optimism to improve performance: an Journal of Business Logistics, Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 233-67.
approach for the manufacturing sector”, Industrial Oliver, N. and Delbridge, R. (2002), “The characteristics of
Management & Data Systems, Vol. 104 No. 2, pp. 106-14. high performing supply chains”, International Journal of
Hair, J.F. Jr, Black, W.C., Babin, B.J., Anderson, R.E. and Technology Management, Vol. 23 Nos 1-3, pp. 60-73.
Tatham, R.L. (2006), Multivariate Data Analysis, 6th ed., Podsakoff, P.M. and Organ, D.W. (1986), “Self-reports in
Pearson Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ. organizational research: problems and prospects”, Journal
Harmon, H.A., Brown, G., Widing, R.E. II and Hammond, of Management, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 531-44.
K.L. (2002), “Exploring the sales manager’s feedback to a Rabinovich, E. and Knemeyer, A.M. (2006), “Logistics
failed sales effort”, Journal of Business & Industrial service providers in Internet supply chains”, California
Marketing, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 43-55. Management Review, Vol. 48 No. 4, pp. 84-108.
Ho, D.C.K., Au, K.F. and Newton, E. (2002), “Empirical Raykov, T. and Marcoulides, G.A. (2000), A First Course in
research on supply chain management: a critical review and Structural Equation Modeling, Lawrence Erlbaum
recommendations”, International Journal of Production Associates, Mahwah, NJ.
Research, Vol. 40 No. 17, pp. 4415-30. Rodrigues, A.M., Bowersox, D.J. and Calantone, R.J. (2005),
Klassen, R.D. and Jacobs, J. (2001), “Experimental “Estimation of global and national logistics expenditures:
comparison of web, electronic and mail survey 2002 data update”, Journal of Business Logistics, Vol. 26
technologies in operations management”, Journal of No. 2, pp. 1-15.
Operations Management, Vol. 19, pp. 713-28. Schramm-Klein, H. and Morschett, D. (2006), “The
Kline, R.B. (1998), Principles and Practice of Structural relationship between marketing performance, logistics
Equation Modeling, Guilford Press, New York, NY. performance and company performance for retail
Lai, K. and Cheng, T.C.E. (2003), “Supply chain companies”, International Review of Retail, Distribution and
performance in transport logistics: an assessment by Consumer Research, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 277-96.
service providers”, International Journal of Logistics: Schumacker, R.E. and Lomax, R.G. (2004), A Beginner’s
Research and Applications, Vol. 6 No. 3, pp. 152-64. Guide to Structural Equation Modeling, Lawrence Erlbaum
Lambert, D.M., Cooper, M.C. and Pagh, J.D. (1998), Associates, Mahwah, NJ.
“Supply chain management: implementation issues and Shao, X. and Ji, J. (2006), “Reconfiguration of
research opportunities”, The International Journal of Logistics pharmaceutical logistics operations in China: an empirical
Management, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 1-19. study”, Transportation Journal, Vol. 45 No. 4, pp. 52-66.
Lambert, D.M. and Harrington, T.C. (1990), “Measuring Sheen, G. and Tai, C. (2006), “A study on decision factors
nonresponse bias in customer service mail surveys”, Journal and third party selection criterion of logistics outsourcing:
of Business Logistics, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 5-25. an exploratory study of direct selling industry”, The Journal
Larson, P.D. (2005), “A note on mail surveys and response of American Academy of Business, Cambridge, Vol. 9 No. 2,
rates in logistics research”, Journal of Business Logistics, pp. 331-7.
Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 211-22. Srivastava, S.K. (2006), “Logistics and supply chain practices
Larson, P.D. and Halldorsson, A. (2004), “Logistics versus in India”, VISION – The Journal of Business Perspective,
supply chain management: an international survey”, Vol. 10 No. 3, pp. 69-79.
International Journal of Logistics: Research and Applications, Stank, T.P., Davis, B.R. and Fugate, B.S. (2005), “A strategic
Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 17-31. framework for supply chain oriented logistics”, Journal of
Lin, C. (2006), “Influencing factors on the innovation in Business Logistics, Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 27-45.
logistics technologies for logistics service providers in Stank, T.P., Keller, S.B. and Closs, D.J. (2002),
Taiwan”, The Journal of American Academy of Business, “Performance benefits of supply chain logistical
Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 257-63. integration”, Transportation Journal, Vol. 41 Nos 2/3,
Mentzer, J.T., DeWitt, W., Keebler, J.S., Min, S., Nix, N.W., pp. 32-46.
Smith, C.D. and Zacharia, Z.G. (2001), “Defining supply Tan, K.C. (2002), “Supply chain management: practices,
chain management”, Journal of Business Logistics, Vol. 22 concerns, and performance issues”, Journal of Supply Chain
No. 2, pp. 1-25. Management, Vol. 38 No. 1, pp. 42-53.
Meredith, J.R. and Shafer, S.M. (2002), Operations Tan, K.C., Lyman, S.B. and Wisner, J.D. (2002), “Supply
Management for MBAs, 2nd ed., Wiley, New York, NY. chain management: a strategic perspective”, International
326
Impact of logistics performance on organizational performance Supply Chain Management: An International Journal
Kenneth W. Green Jr, Dwayne Whitten and R. Anthony Inman Volume 13 · Number 4 · 2008 · 317 –327
Journal of Operations and Production Management, Vol. 22 Wisner, J.D. (2003), “A structural equation model of supply
No. 6, pp. 614-31. chain management strategies and firm performance”,
Vaidyanathan, G. (2005), “A framework for evaluating third- Journal of Business Logistics, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 1-26.
party logistics”, Communications of the ACM, Vol. 48 No. 1,
pp. 89-94.
Vickery, S., Clanatone, R. and Dröge, C. (1999), “Supply
chain flexibility: an empirical study”, Journal of Supply
Chain Management: A Global View of Purchasing and Supply,
Vol. 35 No. 3, pp. 16-23. Corresponding author
Vokurka, R.J. and Lummus, R.R. (2000), “The role of just-in-
time in supply chain management”, The International Dwayne Whitten can be contacted at: contacted at: dwhitten
Journal of Logistics Management, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 89-98. @mays.tamu.edu
327