Logistics versus supply chain management: An international survey

Transcription

1 International Journal of Logistics Research and Applications ISSN: (Print) X (Online) Journal homepage: Logistics versus supply chain management: An international survey Paul D. Larson & Arni Halldorsson To cite this article: Paul D. Larson & Arni Halldorsson (2004) Logistics versus supply chain management: An international survey, International Journal of Logistics Research and Applications, 7:1, To link to this article: Published online: 12 May Submit your article to this journal Article views: 3103 View related articles Citing articles: 47 View citing articles Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at Download by: [ ] Date: 07 July 2016, At: 01:38

2 International Journal of Logistics: Research and Applications Vol. 7, No. 1, March 2004 Logistics Versus Supply Chain Management: An International Survey PAUL D. LARSON 1 * & ARNI HALLDORSSON 2 1 Iowa State University, College of Business, USA & 2 Copenhagen Business School, Department of Operations Management, Solbjerg Plads 3, DK-2000, Frederiksberg, Denmark ABSTRACT Supply chain management (SCM) remains an important topic among logistics managers, researchers and educators. This paper opens by describing four unique perspectives on the relationship between logistics and SCM. Next, the results of an international survey of logistics=scm experts are reported. Over 200 questionnaires were faxed to leading logistics educators in North America, Europe, South America and Asia. Based on these experts perceptions, cluster analysis confirms the existence of the four perspectives on logistics versus SCM relabelling, traditionalist, unionist and intersectionist. The paper closes with a discussion on implications of the four perspectives for educators, researchers and practitioners. Introduction For many logistics educators, researchers and practitioners, supply chain management (SCM) has been the grande passion of recent times. Academic journals have been launched (e.g. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal) or renamed (e.g. Journal of Supply Chain Management), SCM degree and certificate programmes have been created, professors and managers have been retitled, and research interests have shifted toward SCM. But, LaLonde (1997) asked: Does supply chain management really exist? Other authors caution that SCM may become just another management fad (Burgess, 1998), or even a parochial arena *Correspondence: Paul D. Larson, Iowa State University, College of Business, 300 Carver Hall, Ames, IA 50011, USA; pdl@iastate.edu International Journal of Logistics ISSN Print=ISSN X online # 2004 Taylor & Francis Ltd DOI: =

3 18 P. D. Larson & A. Halldorsson for a guild of specialist researchers (New, 1997). Amid this confusion, Skjoett- Larsen (1999) noted that the SCM concept is not well defined. According to Cooper et al. (1997), research is needed to define and expand the boundaries of supply chain management. The unclear conceptual boundaries of SCM make it difficult to design educational and research programmes in SCM without large overlap with other fields such as logistics, marketing, operations management and purchasing. Moreover, it is difficult if not impossible to implement SCM unless it is well defined. Where are the conceptual boundaries to be drawn in conducting research on or implementing SCM? Can research be done directly on SCM, or must the concept be broken down, for focus on its features? This paper attempts to put limits on the SCM concept, using logistics=scm experts ratings of key concepts, topics and techniques. This facilitates understanding of the features of SCM and its conceptual boundaries. The paper is organised as follows. Following the Introduction, the second section briefly discusses definitions of SCM from the literature, and develops four perspectives on the fit between SCM and logistics. The third section reports results of a survey of international experts. The paper ends with a discussion on implications of the study for logistics educators, researchers and practitioners. SCM Versus Logistics According to Stock & Lambert (2001), SCM is the integration of key business processes from end user through original suppliers that provides products, services, and information that add value for customers and other stakeholders. Christopher (1998) suggested a relationship view of SCM, defined as the management of upstream and downstream relationships with suppliers and customers to deliver superior customer value at less cost to the supply chain as a whole. The key is managing relationships similar to the systems idea of positive synergistic effects created through linkages rather than optimising individual components of the system. The systems approach focuses not only on the components (e.g. functions or activities), but also on how they are related. SCM has also inspired a new Council of Logistics Management (CLM) definition of logistics as that part of the supply chain process that plans, implements, and controls the efficient, effective flow and storage of goods, services, and related information from the point of origin to the point of consumption in order to meet customers requirements ( 2000). But there is lack of agreement on how SCM is related to logistics. Following are four conceptual perspectives on SCM versus logistics: traditionalist, relabelling, unionist and inter-sectionist. The perspectives are discussed briefly below and shown in Figure 1. The authors identified these perspectives while reading and discussing the growing SCM literature. Traditionalist The traditionalist positions SCM within logistics, i.e. SCM is one small part of logistics. Educators can easily accomplish this by adding a SCM lecture to the logistics management course, or by inserting a SCM chapter into a logistics textbook. Of course, logistics textbook authors who add a SCM chapter are not necessarily traditionalists. Stock & Lambert (2001) observed that the logistics

4 Logistics Versus Supply Chain Management 19 FIGURE 1. Perspectives on Logistics versus Supply Chain Management. community has tended to view SCM as logistics outside the firm. This reduces SCM to a special type of logistics, external or inter-organisational logistics. Traditionalist practitioners may create new SCM analyst positions within the logistics group. SCM analysts would broaden the scope of logistics analysis, perhaps linking the logistics effort to other functions within the firm, as well as other firms in the supply chain. Relabelling The relabelling perspective simply renames logistics; what was logistics is now SCM. Leenders & Fearon (1997) describe logistics management, or supply chain management as an organisational strategy. Tan et al. (1998) discuss an evolution of logistics into integrated logistics, which is now often called SCM. Moreover, according to Jones & Riley (1985), SCM techniques deal with the planning and control of total materials flows from suppliers through end users. This notion of SCM overlaps heavily with the CLM definition of logistics. More recently, Simchi-Levi et al. (2000) confessed that they do not distinguish between logistics and supply chain management. They also use supply chain and logistics network as synonymous terms. Relabelling narrows the scope of SCM, since SCM equals logistics. In the world of logistics practice, last year s logistics analyst may be this year s SCM analyst, with no change in job description. Gammelgaard & Larson (2001) reported results of a survey of supply chain managers. The survey included the following open-ended question: Please briefly describe what a supply chain manager does. A large group of responses to this question reflected the relabelling perspective (supply chain manager as logistics manager). A selection of such responses follows. Following each definition, the respondent s industry is in parentheses. A supply chain manager manages all of,

5 20 P. D. Larson & A. Halldorsson or a portion of, the process of getting the right product to the right place at the right time in the right quantities for the right cost with the right quality (multi-level marketing or MLM company); SCMs coordinate the flow between factory and the customer (consumer packaged goods manufacturer); SCM innovates, transforms logistics processes into strategic advantage (retailer); a supply chain manager manages logistics activities within the supply chain (logistics service provider). Unionist This perspective treats logistics as a part of SCM; SCM completely subsumes logistics. Giunipero & Brand (1996) expressed this view with the following statement: SCM is more than logistics. In the extreme, SCM subsumes much of the traditional business school curriculum, including logistics, marketing, operations management and purchasing. According to Konezny & Beskow (1999), the components of SCM are: logistics (inventory, warehousing, packaging, distribution, transportation, customer service, purchasing, production planning and demand forecasting); strategic planning; information technology; marketing; and sales. Others develop SCM as an interdisciplinary concept drawing on fields such as marketing, economics, logistics and organisational behaviour (Hobbs, 1996). Moreover, New (1997) concluded that it is important to study social, political and ethical aspects of SCM. For some authors, the term SCM alone is not enough! For instance, Sandelands (1994) defines total SCM as gathering and exploiting quality information for all business areas, such as finance, marketing, and human resource planning. Stock & Lambert (2001) suggest supply chain management is the management of eight key business processes: (1) customer relationship management, (2) customer service management, (3) demand management, (4) order fulfillment, (5) manufacturing flow management, (6) procurement, (7) product development and commercialization, and (8) returns. These processes subsume or include much of logistics, purchasing, marketing and operations management. According to Mentzer et al. (2001), all the traditional business functions should be included in the process of SCM. In their model of SCM, these traditional business functions are marketing, sales, research and development, forecasting, production, purchasing, logistics, information systems, finance and customer service. An organisation adopting the unionist perspective might start by creating a new high-level position: Director or Vice President of SCM. At a minimum, logistics, purchasing and some elements of marketing would report to this SCM executive. Under a broader unionist regime (e.g. Stock & Lambert, 2001; Mentzer et al., 2001), the top supply chain manager would have CEO-like responsibilities. Gammelgaard & Larson (2001) also found a large group of responses reflecting the unionist perspective (supply chain manager with broad duties). A selection of such responses follows. Again, following each definition, the respondent s industry is in parentheses. Supply chain managers are involved with managing the flow of products, services, information and money across an extended enterprise three or more companies: supplier, customer and focal company (supply chain consulting); works with procurement, manufacturing, sales and customer service groups to ensure optimised flow of materials from our suppliers through our customers (lubricant=chemical additive maker); this position should be able to view the sourcing of raw material, transportation inbound to plants, warehousing and

6 Logistics Versus Supply Chain Management 21 receipt, setting of raw material stock levels, finished goods stock level at plants, transportation to distribution centre (DC) or customer, stock level replenishment at DCs (casket manufacturer). Inter-sectionist Giunipero & Brand (1996) hinted at this idea with the following statement: SCM is not a subset of logistics but is a broad strategy which cuts across business processes both within the firm and through the channels. The intersection concept suggests SCM is not the union of logistics, marketing, operations management, purchasing and other functional areas. Rather, it includes strategic, integrative elements from all of these disciplines. For instance, in the purchasing area, negotiating a long-term arrangement is a strategic element and transmitting a purchase order is tactical. The supply chain manager would be involved in the negotiations, but not the purchase order transmission. Similarly, in the logistics area, hiring a third-party logistics (3PL) provider is a strategic decision, while picking and packing in the warehouse are tactical. At the intersection, SCM co-ordinates crossfunctional efforts across multiple firms. SCM is strategic, not tactical. In practice, inter-sectionist organisations may appoint a supply chain council, consisting of key executives across functions (e.g. logistics, marketing and purchasing) and institutions (e.g. manufacturer, retailer and 3PL). The council would break down barriers to SCM and seek opportunities to apply SCM concepts to improve overall supply chain performance. A small, consultative SCM group, operating in a staff (rather than a line) capacity, would also be indicative of the inter-sectionist perspective. Logistics, marketing, operations and purchasing do not report to SCM. Rather, these departments draw on the SCM group for research, intelligence and consulting support. Despite a growing base of literature and experience, there appears to be no consensus on the relation between logistics and SCM. Cooper et al. (1997) recognise multiple perspectives on logistics versus SCM, noting practitioners and educators have variously addressed the concept of supply chain management (SCM) as an extension of logistics, the same as logistics, or as an all-encompassing approach to business integration. They also suggest that SCM can be the management of all business processes. Thus, the next section reports results of a survey on how an international group of experts perceives SCM vis-a-vis logistics. International Survey of Experts Methods A selection of published articles and leading texts in logistics management (e.g. Lambert et al., 1998; Stock & Lambert, 2001), purchasing and supply management (e.g. Leenders & Fearon, 1997) and SCM (e.g. Christopher, 1998; Handfield & Nichols, 1999) were studied to develop an initial list of topics and techniques in logistics and SCM. Working independently, the researchers created lists of topic=technique items. Combining these lists yielded over 120 items. This list was trimmed to 88 survey items, through discussion and consensus of the researchers, since some items seemed nearly identical. Appendix A lists the 88 items and

7 22 P. D. Larson & A. Halldorsson Appendix B shows the questionnaire. Respondents were asked to rate the importance of each of these items twice (once for a Logistics Management course and once for a SCM course), on scales from zero (no importance) to five (very high importance). The three-page survey was transmitted via fax to 208 logistics educators, all members of the CLM. Survey recipients were from North America, Europe, South America and Asia. As a response incentive, survey respondents were invited to write their names on their responses and be entered in a drawing for US$300. Respondents were also invited to request a summary of the survey results. Followups were done via , then regular mail. A total of 98 usable surveys was received, for a response rate of 47.1%. Experience of the respondents, as logistics=scm educators, ranges from 1 to 35 years and averages 12.9 years. While 73.5% of these educators have taught graduate level logistics management courses, 81.6% have taught logistics management at the undergraduate level. On the other hand, only 45.9 and 50.0% of the respondents have taught SCM courses at the graduate and undergraduate level, respectively. The schools employing these educators have an average of students enrolled in logistics=scm programmes, and the number of students enrolled in these programmes ranges from zero to 750. Geographically, the respondents are from four continents, as follows: 69 from North America, 21 from the European Community, five from South America and one from Asia. SCM Versus Logistics Table 1 lists 34 survey items that these experts rated significantly more important for SCM compared to logistics. Items pertaining to management of cross-functional and inter-organisational relationships (e.g. conflict management, channel management, partnering, teamwork) appear high on this list. Moreover, items linked to strategic purchasing [e.g. early supplier involvement (ESI), supplier development and selection=evaluation, supply management, single versus multiple sourcing] are prominent on the SCM list. It is interesting that WWW=Internet and information technology are also perceived as more important for SCM than logistics. Finally, the appearance of strategic management and core competence high on the list brings up an important question: Is one implication of SCM a downgrade in the strategic role of logistics? Table 1 also lists 16 items rated significantly more important for logistics compared to SCM. It is no surprise to see several classic logistics functions (warehousing, transportation, facility location, inventory management, and order processing) on this list. Other items reflect very specific logistics activities, decisions and tools [e.g. picking and packing, Free on board (FOB) origin=destination shipping terms, warehouse management systems (WMS), reorder point (ROP), crossdocking, tracking and tracing, bar coding and distribution requirements planning (DRP)]. In this composite of experts perceptions, logistics is not subsumed by SCM. For the remaining 38 survey items, there were no significant differences in importance between logistics and SCM. Moreover, the top 10 lists, for SCM and logistics, share seven common items (see Table 2). This large number of items implies considerable content overlap in logistics and SCM courses. Still, the three sets of items 34 for which SCM > logistics, 16 for which logistics > SCM, 38 for which SCM ¼ logistics support the intersection perspective. SCM has some

8 Logistics Versus Supply Chain Management 23 TABLE 1. Logistics Versus SCM: Significantly Different Items 1,2,3 SCM > Logistics Items t-statistics Logistics > SCM Items t-statistics Conflict management 8.81 Picking and packing 9.17 Early supplier involvement (ESI) 8.04 Warehousing 7.80 Supply chain management (SCM) 7.83 Transportation 7.70 Supplier development 7.19 FOB origin=destination 7.70 Channel management 6.72 Warehouse management systems 6.19 Partnering=partnership=alliances 6.57 Logistics management 6.11 Strategic management 6.34 Facility location 6.01 Supplier selection=evaluation 5.87 Deregulation 5.91 Supply management 5.86 Reorder point (ROP) model 4.68 SCOR model 5.36 Cross-docking 4.30 Teamwork 5.24 Tracking and tracing 4.23 Core competence 5.15 Foreign trade zones (FTZ) 4.10 WWW=Internet 4.98 Inventory management 3.70 Bullwhip effect 4.84 Bar coding 3.07 Single versus multiple sourcing 4.75 Order processing 2.91 Electronic funds transfer (EFT) 4.62 Distribution requirements 2.77 planning Enterprise resource planning 4.43 (ERP) Negotiation 4.33 Governance structure 3.71 Marketing 3.62 Forecasting 3.55 Contracts 3.53 Information technology 3.48 Vendor-managed inventory (VMI) 3.43 Manufacturing 3.26 Total cost of ownership (TCO) 3.12 E-commerce 3.05 Re-engineering 3.01 Flexibility 2.95 Dis-intermediation 2.91 Globalisation 2.89 Time-based competition 2.88 Retailing 2.87 Purchasing H 0 : SCM importance 7Logistics importance ¼ 0. 2 Listed in descending order by t-statistic. 3 Alpha ¼ 0.01 criterion for statistical significance. unique content, logistics retains some unique content, yet there is substantial overlap between the two areas. Note that supply chain management is the top-rated SCM item. This item serves as a validity check, in addition to its value in differentiating logistics from SCM. It is comforting that this item is the highest-rated SCM item, implying the respondents devoted close attention to the survey questions. What could be more important to SCM than SCM? Table 3 shows the tendency for educators to be teaching either both undergraduate and graduate-level SCM courses or not to be teaching SCM at all. t-tests were used to compare the most experienced SCM educators (both undergraduate and graduate-level courses taught) with the least experienced (neither graduate nor undergraduate courses taught), in terms of item importance for SCM. The only significant difference found (at the 0.05 level) was for the logistics management

9 24 P. D. Larson & A. Halldorsson TABLE 2. SCM and Logistics Top 10 Lists SCM Item Mean Rating Logistics Item Mean Rating Supply chain management 4.95 Customer service 4.78 Information technology 4.70 Logistics management 4.75 Customer service 4.66 Inventory management 4.65 Alliances 4.57 Transportation 4.61 e-commerce 4.56 Information technology 4.50 Cycle time reduction 4.49 Cycle time reduction 4.40 Channel management 4.43 Warehousing 4.34 Inventory management 4.39 e-commerce 4.30 WWW=Internet 4.35 Supply chain management 4.27 Globalisation 4.33 Third-party logistics 4.27 Logistics management 4.33 item. The least experienced group rated this item significantly more important for a SCM course than did the most experienced group (4.66 versus 4.21). Apparently, more experienced educators downgrade the prominence of logistics in SCM, perhaps to broaden the focus of SCM. Classifying Logisticians Two indices were created to classify logisticians in terms of their perceptions on SCM and logistics management content. The first index, abs, is the sum of the absolute value of differences between importance for SCM and importance for logistics, across all survey items (i.e. abs ¼ sum SCM i 7logistics i, for i ¼ 1 to 88). Logisticians with low abs scores are relabellers, since they perceive relatively little difference between logistics and SCM. The second index, raw, is the sum of the raw differences between importance for SCM and importance for logistics, across all survey items [i.e. raw ¼ sum(scm i 7logistics i ), for i ¼ 1 to 88]. Logisticians with high raw scores are unionists, since they perceive a relatively large difference between SCM and logistics, usually in favour of SCM. Those logisticians with high abs scores but low raw scores are inter-sectionists. Like the unionists, these educators see substantial differences between SCM and logistics. However, in the intersectionist view, the differences are more balanced, in favour of neither SCM nor logistics. Some topic=technique items are tilted toward SCM (e.g. conflict management), while others lean toward logistics (e.g. transportation). Finally, traditionalists tend to have high negative raw scores. They perceive a relatively large difference between SCM and logistics, generally in favour of logistics. Cluster analysis was used to place individual respondents into groups, based on the two indices defined above. Ward s hierarchical clustering procedure was TABLE 3. SCM Teaching Experience of Respondents Undergraduate Graduate No Yes Total No Yes Total Chi-square ¼ 6.09 ( p-value ¼ 0.014).

10 Logistics Versus Supply Chain Management 25 conducted on the squared Euclidean distances (Hair et al., 1987). Inspired by conceptual derivation of the four perspectives model, the researchers opted for formation of four clusters. Hypothetically, one cluster should naturally form around each of the four perspectives on logistics versus SCM. Figure 2 reveals formation of four clusters, each reflecting one of the four perspectives. The clustering algorithm identified 50 relabellers, 22 unionists, 16 traditionalists and seven inter-sectionists. Thus, the empirical results support the four perspectives model of logistics versus SCM. Research Interests and Methods The survey also asked the logistics experts=educators to list their top three research interests and to rate the importance of seven research methods for pursuing those interests. The most prevalent research interests were SCM, e-business, transportation, customer service and relationships. About one-third of the topics mentioned FIGURE 2. Logistics Versus SCM.

11 26 P. D. Larson & A. Halldorsson TABLE 4. Preferred Research Methods Method Mean Total Mean NA Mean EC M&K 1 Survey % Interview % Case study % Archival=secondary data % Simulation=modelling % Focus groups n=a Experiment n=a 1 M&K ¼ Mentzer & Kahn (1995) study on methodology used in the Journal of Business Logistics from 1978 to Math modelling was 4.3% and simulation was 14.9% in the Mentzer & Kahn study. 3 NA EC: t ¼ 2.10 ( p-value ¼ 0.042). 4 NA EC: t ¼ 2.28 ( p-value ¼ 0.025). were related to inter-organisational issues, including SCM. Table 4 summarises the respondents ratings of the usefulness of various methods for conducting their research, on a scale of one to five. Surprisingly, case studies and interviews are rated as highly as surveys. Compared with a previous study on articles published in the Journal of Business Logistics from 1978 to 1993 (Mentzer & Kahn, 1995), there is a clear shift in emphasis from quantitative towards qualitative research approaches. Table 4 also compares mean responses from North American (NA) and European Community (EC) scholars. It is notable that the Europeans rated qualitative (case study and interview) methods significantly more useful than their North American counterparts. Thus, the world-wide logistics research community might anticipate discovery of new aspects of logistics and SCM reality, and more qualitative theory-building research. As Ellram (1996) concludes, case studies are excellent for theory building, for providing detailed explanations of best practices, and providing more understanding of data gathered. Conclusions Results of the survey provide support for the four perspectives model, i.e. logisticians can be clustered into four groups on the logistics versus SCM issue. The final section builds on this empirical finding, with implications for logistics educators, researchers and practitioners. Implications for Logistics Educators The four perspectives on logistics vis-a-vis SCM suggest a variety of responses to the SCM phenomenon by logistics educators. As the name implies, relabellers are likely to teach the same old logistics management course under a new name: SCM. Unionists might remove logistics management from the curriculum and cover the essentials of logistics in a new SCM course; or, they may retain the logistics management course, and create a SCM course to develop further the crossfunctional, inter-organisational nature of strategic logistics and related functional areas (e.g. marketing, purchasing and operations management). In the extreme, a

12 Logistics Versus Supply Chain Management 27 unionist might campaign to restructure (and rename) the College of Business Administration as the College of SCM. Inter-sectionists would champion an interdisciplinary SCM major, perhaps with team-taught, cross-functional SCM courses split into modules. These modules may be aligned with traditional functions (e.g. logistics and marketing) or positioned at functional interfaces. Finally, traditionalists would either do nothing at all, or simply add a SCM lecture to the logistics management course. A number of interesting research questions remain on integrating SCM into the logistics group or academic department and into business schools. Can traditionalists and unionists work together in the logistics=scm department? (Recall that the former position SCM entirely within logistics, while the latter do the opposite.) Traditionalists may resist the opportunity to become Professors of SCM. How should inter-sectionists go about selling SCM to key interface disciplines, such as marketing and operations management? Indeed, is logistics the right discipline to lead the SCM charge? The survey results also offer guidance for the educator teaching both SCM and logistics management. Some topics and techniques seem to be best covered in a logistics management course (e.g. transportation), while others fit better in SCM (e.g. conflict management). Still other topics and techniques appear at the intersection of logistics and SCM (e.g. customer service and inventory management). Educators could use the survey as a tool to assist in making each course unique, while showing students the links between SCM and logistics. Implications for Logistics Researchers Among the researcher s challenges in SCM is to put boundaries on the study. Each of the four perspectives implies different boundaries for SCM research. For instance, relabelling and traditionalism imply narrow definitions of SCM, while unionism and inter-sectionism suggest broad definitions. These issues are closely related to unit of analysis. Should SCM research focus on the dominant firm in a supply chain, the dyadic relationship between a key supplier and buyer, a triadic relationship between supplier, buyer and logistics service provider, the entire supply chain, or comparisons between two or more supply chains? Mentzer et al. (2001) offer considerable guidance on the unit of analysis issue through specification of different types of supply chains. A supply chain is comprised of three or more companies directly linked, and a basic supply chain consists of a company, an immediate supplier, and an immediate customer. Further, an extended supply chain includes suppliers of the immediate supplier and customers of the immediate customer, and an ultimate supply chain includes all the companies involved in all the upstream and downstream flows...from the initial supplier to the ultimate customer. These supply chain types can be viewed as viable, alternative units of analysis for SCM research. A current research need is to complement conceptual work and surveys on SCM with more longitudinal in-depth research of SCM in action, where case studies and interviews would provide the main sources of evidence. While Skjoett-Larsen (1999) observed a tendency toward use of positivistic methods in logistics research, the current study found that logistics researchers view case studies and interviews as useful as surveys. Focus on only a few cases can be very useful in logistics

13 28 P. D. Larson & A. Halldorsson research. According to Gummesson (1991), if you want to understand in depth the mechanisms of change you need not study a large number of cases. The quantitative, survey research reported in this paper confirms the existence of four perspectives on logistics versus SCM. Future research, using qualitative methods, should further explore differences between the four perspectives and their implications for implementation of SCM. For instance, in-depth interviews could be used to understand better why logisticians are drawn to the various perspectives. In addition, focus group discussions, at meetings such as the annual CLM conference, could uncover intuitive and=or theoretical arguments supporting the various perspectives. Implications for Logistics Practitioners Logistics practitioners must define SCM and adopt a perspective on SCM versus logistics. Such an exercise will facilitate the process of hiring new employees, along with interaction with suppliers, customers and logistics service providers. There is danger in entering negotiations on SCM matters before all parties share a common definition of the term. At a minimum, all supply chain participants should understand each other s perspective on SCM. SCM implementation is dramatically different, depending on management s perspective on SCM versus logistics. Relabellers can implement SCM by simply altering employees titles. Unionists have the challenging task of creating a SCM line organisation and changing many reporting relationships within the firm. Thus, unionist implementations are most likely to be met with considerable resistance to the changes. Inter-sectionists can start small, adding a SCM staff function available on a project basis throughout the firm. Little or no change in current reporting relationships would be required. Assume an organisation plans to improve supply chain performance by implementing SCM. To implement SCM effectively, the organisation needs all important supply chain participants (suppliers, customers, logistics service providers) on board. Assume further that this focal organisation has adopted a unionist perspective on SCM versus logistics. What if customers are relabelers (SCM ¼ logistics), suppliers believe SCM ¼ purchasing, and logistics service providers are inter-sectionists? Will SCM work in this supply chain? Perhaps the first event should be a management workshop, attended by key executives across functions and firms in the supply chain. One important outcome of this workshop would be the adoption of a common perspective and definition of SCM. REFERENCES BURGESS, R. (1998) Avoiding supply chain management failure: lessons from business process re-engineering, International Journal of Logistics Management, 9, (1), pp CHRISTOPHER, M. (1998) Logistics and Supply Chain Management, 2nd edn (London, UK, Financial Times, Prentice Hall). COOPER, M.C., LAMBERT, D.M. & PAGH, J.D. (1997) Supply chain management: more than a new name for logistics, International Journal of Logistics Management, 8, (1), pp ELLRAM, L.M. (1996) The use of case study method in logistics research, Journal of Business Logistics, 17, (2), pp GAMMELGAARD, B.& LARSON, P.D. (2001) Logistics skills and competencies for supply chain management, Journal of Business Logistics, 22, (2), pp

14 Logistics Versus Supply Chain Management 29 GIUNIPERO, L.C. & BRAND, R.R. (1996) Purchasing s role in supply chain management, International Journal of Logistics Management, 7, (1), pp GUMMESSON, E. (1991) Qualitative Methods in Management Research (London, Sage Publications). HAIR, J.F., ANDERSON, R.E. & TATHAM, R.L. (1987) Multivariate Data Analysis, 2nd edn (New York, Macmillan). HANDFIELD, R.B. & NICHOLS, E.L., JR (1999) Introduction to Supply Chain Management (Upper Saddle River, NJ, Prentice Hall). HOBBS, J.E. (1996) A transaction cost approach to supply chain management, Supply Chain Management, 1, (2), pp JONES, T.C.& RILEY, D.W. (1985) Using inventory for competitive advantage through supply chain management, International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, 15, (5), pp KONEZNY, G.P. & BESKOW, M.J. (1999) Third-party Logistics: Improving Global Supply Chain Performance (Minneapolis, Piper Jaffray Equity Research). LALONDE, B.J. (1997) Supply chain management: Myth or reality?, Supply Chain Management Review, 1, (1), pp LAMBERT, D.M., STOCK, J.R. & ELLRAM, L.M. (1998) Fundamentals of Logistics Management (Boston, Irwin=McGraw-Hill). LEENDERS, M.R. & FEARON, H.E. (1997) Purchasing and Supply Management, 11th edn (Chicago, Irwin). MENTZER, J.T., DEWITT, W., KEEBLER, J.S., MIN, S., NIX, N.W., SMITH, C.D. & ZACHARIA, Z.G. (2001) What is supply chain management?, in: MENTZER, J.T. (Ed.) Supply Chain Management (Thousand Oaks, CA, Sage Publications), pp MENTZER, J.T. & KAHN, K.B. (1995) A framework of logistics research, Journal of Business Logistics, 16, (1), pp NEW, S.J. (1997) The scope of supply chain management research, Supply Chain Management, 2, (1), pp SANDELANDS, E. (1994) Building supply chain relationships, International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, 24, (3), pp SIMCHI-LEVI, D., KAMINSKY, P.& SIMCHI-LEVI, E. (2000) Designing and Managing the Supply Chain (Boston, Irwin=McGraw-Hill). SKJOETT-LARSEN, T. (1999) Supply chain management: a new challenge for researchers and managers in logistics, International Journal of Logistics Management, 10, (2), pp STOCK, J.R. & LAMBERT, D.M. (2001) Strategic Logistics Management, 4th edn (Boston, Irwin= McGraw-Hill). TAN, K.C., KANNAN, V.R. & HANDFIELD, R.B. (1998) Supply chain management: supplier performance and firm performance, International Journal of Purchasing and Materials Management, 34, (3), pp accessed 23 March Appendix A: The 88 Survey Items ABC analysis (80=20 rule) Activity-based costing Automatic replenishment Bar coding Benchmarking Bullwhip effect Channel management Conflict management Contracts Core competence Cross-docking Customer service Cycle time reduction Deregulation Dis-intermediation Distribution requirements planning (DRP) Early supplier involvement (ESI) E-commerce Efficient consumer response (ECR) Materials requirements planning (MRP) Negotiation Order processing Organisational structure Outsourcing Partnering=partnership=alliances Picking and packing Point of sale (POS) Postponement=speculation Procurement cards Product life cycle (PLC) Productivity Profitability Purchasing Push versus pull Quality function deployment (QFD) Re-engineering Reorder point models Request for quotation (RFQ) (continued)

15 30 P. D. Larson & A. Halldorsson Electronic data interchange (EDI) Electronic funds transfer (EFT) Enterprise resource planning (ERP) Environmental=green concerns Facility location Financial considerations Flexibility FOB origin=destination Forecasting Foreign trade zones (FTZs) Globalisation Governance structure (relation=transaction) Human resource management Information technology Inventory management ISO ISO 9000 Just-in-time (JIT) Learning curve Legal issues Logistics management Logistics provider development Logistics provider selection=evaluation Manufacturing Marketing Appendix B: The Questionnaire Retailing Reverse logistics SCOR model Single versus multiple sourcing Statistical process control (SPC) Strategic management Supplier development Supplier selection=evaluation Supply chain management (SCM) Supply management Systems approach Teamwork Third-party logistics (3PL) Time-based competition Total cost of ownership (TCO) Total quality management (TQM) Tracking and tracing Transportation Universal product code (UPC) Value-added network (VAN) Vendor-managed inventory (VMI) Warehouse management systems (WMS) Warehousing Wholesaling WWW=Internet Please indicate how important you believe it is to cover each of the following topics, tools and techniques in a Logistics Management course and a Supply Chain Management (SCM) course, from 0 to 5, as defined below. 0 ¼ no importance 2 ¼ low importance 4 ¼ high importance 1 ¼ very low importance 3 ¼ medium importance 5 ¼ very high importance Topic=Tool=Technique Importance for Logistics Importance for SCM Item 1 (see Appendix A) Item 2 (see Appendix A) Item 88 (see Appendix A) Please fill in the following blanks with best estimates about your own experience. I have been a Logistics=SCM Educator for years. I have taught graduate level and under-graduate Logistics Management courses. I have taught graduate level and under-graduate SCM courses. My current school first offered an SCM course in 19. In addition to CLM, I am a member of (check all that apply): NAPM APICS AST&L other: At my school, approximately students are enrolled in the SCM=Logistics program My top 3 research interests are: 1. ; 2. ; 3.

16 Logistics Versus Supply Chain Management 31 As you pursue these research interests, please rate the usefulness of the following research methods, from 0 (not useful) to 5 (extremely useful). Method Usefulness Archival=Secondary Data Case Study Experiment Focus Groups Interview Simulation=Modeling Survey