business policy unit VI essay and DQ question

JOURNALOF BUSINESS LOGISTICS, Vol. 16, No. 1, 1995 65

LOGISTICS PARADIGMS: THE IMPACT OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY

by

Donald J. Bowersox

Michigan State University

and

Patricia J. Daugherty University of Georgia

The dynamic competition of the past decade has stimulated aggressive firms to consider a wide variety of ways to satisfy business requirements more efficiently. Many innovative business solutions are based on adoption and utilization of information technology. Today's level of information technology sophistication is capable of impacting alternative business strategy and organizational structural choice to a greater degree than ever before. Specific examples related to logistics are cited to illustrate how both strategy and structure are directly influenced by information technology. The prediction is that the logistics profession stands on the verge of significant paradigm shifts in structure and practice of management.

To initiate the discussion, key management concepts are defined and previous research is briefly reviewed. Then attention is directed to the emergence of strategic logistics management as an attractive option for gaining competitive advantage. A range of logistics strategies illustrate ways that firms may align logistical resources to achieve business objectives. Next some observations are offered regarding how organizational structure can be expected to change in response to specific strategic initiatives made possible by sophisticated information technology. The final section identified four paradigm shifts that appear reasonable given the impact of information technology on organizational structure.

ORGANIZATIONAL STRATEGY AND STRUCTURE

Organizational structure and strategy are highly interesting topics because they impact practices of management and performance. Strategy encompasses "the vital missions of an organization, the goals which must be attained, and the principal

66 BOWERSOX AND DAUGHERTY

ways in which the resources available are to be used."' Strategy development must also address the "match that an organization achieves among its skills and resources and the opportunities and threats in its external environment that enables it to achieve its goals and objectives."^ Many firms have recently changed their strategic focus to expand external cooperation in the form of strategic alliances with other channel members. If a firm's strategic decisions are to be implemented successfully, they must be consistent with and support the overall channel system. Closer relationships help to coordinate efforts and improve channel efficiency.

Organizational structure covers "formal allocation of work roles and the administrative mechanisms to control and integrate work activities including those which cross formal organizational boundaries."^ Structure has two critical components: (I) formal lines of authority and communication, and (2) the information and data that flow along those lines.'* Once formal roles are defined, information facilitates control and integration of ongoing activities. Because of the critical role of information in the structural arrangements of an organization, the advent of new and far reaching technology can be expected to have a lasting impact.

Researchers have extensively explored the relationship between organizational strategy and structure. The relationship has long been considered an academically relevant issue and research has made important contributions to providing better understanding regarding how strategic and structural factors impact organizational performance.

Some researchers argue that strategic choices determine structure.^ The general concept is that changes in market strategy and/or to product and service offerings will necessitate organization structure modification to accommodate new operational requirements. Certain strategies require unique organizations to support operational requirements. Other researchers^ suggest a reverse relationship. This school of development contends that "strategy depends upon structure." The general premise is that committing to a specific organizational structure limits the applicable range of future strategies. Firms may adjust management practice to accommodate environmental and organizational requirements.

The relationship between strategy and structure may in fact be situational. In other words, depending upon the situation, one may proceed or follow the other. From the viewpoint of this article, it is argued that strategic choice depends upon information technology adoption which in tum will necessitate organizational structure adaptation. To initiate the discussion, a brief review of the development

JOURNALOF BUSINESS LOGISTICS, Vol. 16, No. 1, 1995 67

of a strategic logistics orientation will help position the range of alternatives available to firms seeking to exploit infonnation technologies.

STRATEGIC LOGISTICS MANAGEMENT

Firms that use logistics strategically seek to exploit their unique competencies to gain and maintain competitive advantage. Strategic logistics management focuses corporate resources in a manner that achieves maximum value-added customer benefits. The potential for exploiting strategic logistics depends on a firm's ability to successfully integrate basic operational processes and generate a differentiated product or service. The product or service must be sufficiently unique to facilitate customer acceptance. The ideal is for the selling firm to achieve preferred supplier status.

Using logistics strategically is not the typical starting point of a firm. Firms can be observed becoming progressively more sophisticated over time about leveraging logistics capabilities. The process of logistical sophistication has been observed moving along a continuum from a fragmented to an integrated to a strategic orientation.^

Initial logistical operations are typically fragmented. Managers realize that logistics can make significant contributions to overall performance. However, they often have difficulty gaining widespread support throughout their organization for establishing integrated operations. While working toward improved logistical performance, firms usually focus on evaluation and organizational integration of various groupings of logistical responsibilities with a goal of reducing operating cost. Intensifying domestic and foreign competition often acts as the driver that focuses attention on logistics competency.

As firms begin to realize increased efficiency resulting from improved logistics management, the natural emphasis is to seek greater integration of the value-added processes. Operational and organizational structure modifications begin to be guided by asset utilization. While a greater awareness of the importance of satisfying customers typically occurs as firms improve integrated control, service efforts usually are geared to achieve industry standards. In selected instances, firms recognize the importance of high quality customer service and seek to gain competitive advantage by becoming highly responsive. This initiative to seek out and fulfill customer

68 BOWERSOX AND DA UGHERTY

expectation is an important step toward managerial commitment and positioning to use logistics strategically.

With strategic logistics management, firms aggressively seek to exploit logistics competencies as a way and means to gain and maintain competitive advantage. Corporate resources are focused to provide value-added services to target customers. Value-added services become strategic resources when they are perceived to be sufficiently different and distinct enough by customers to generate loyalty. The full potential of strategic logistics uses basic competency as a platform for perfecting a differentiated logistical offering that achieves preferred supplier status. Long-term perspectives and strategic alliances become common. Under a strategic orientation, the goal is to gain and maintain competitive advantage.

This brief review outlines a development path that firms have been observed to follow when upgrading logistical operations. The elapsed time to move from a fragmented to strategic orientation may vary considerably. Technology adoption and the receptivity of management with respect to modifying business practices can greatly accelerate the speed at which firms progress toward a strategic orientation. To be fully effective, a firm's management must reconcile logistics initiatives with the overall strategic direction of the enterprise.

STRATEGY PERSPECTIVE

Firms can consider a broad range of strategic options when planning overall enterprise strategy. For example, Chrisman, Hofer, and Boulton^ identified: investment intensity; scope or domain; growth vector; distinctive competencies or resource deployments; types of competitive weapons; segment differentiation; and synergy as strategic components. Space constraints prevent in-depth review of this range of strategic alternatives. Competitive advantage is selected for closer examination because of the potential of logistics to contribute to business success in this highly critical area.

Porter's competitive strategy classification scheme offers a convenient starting point. Porter's classification offers three generic strategies: cost leadership, differentiation, and focused. The "notion underlying the concept of generic strategies is that competitive advantage is at the heart of any strategy, and achieving competitive advantage requires a firm to make a choice...about the type of competitive advantage it seeks to attain and the scope within which it will attain it."'°

JOURNALOF BUSINESS LOGISTICS, VoL 16, No. 1, 1995 69

Accordingly, firms must decide whether to stress cost or differentiation. The chances of achieving cost leadership while maintaining a highly differentiated offering at the same time are remote. Porter postulates that unless a firm selects a specific strategic orientation it will end up "stuck in the middle" and almost always experience inferior performance. Further, firms must decide whether to pursue competitive advantage across a broad range of industry segments or to focus on a narrow segment. A focused strategy exploits either low cost or differentiation within a specific industry segment or target customer group.

A long standing concept among logistics planners is the importance of balancing cost to service trade-offs. Trade-offs are of critical importance because it is not feasible to implement cost-minimizing strategies in conjunction with maximum service strategies. The balancing of effort toward cost or differentiation and the potential for segmental focus are consistent with Porter's typology. Rao, Stenger and Young have suggested that logistical focus can be framed similar to Porter's classification into three generic strategies—cost minimization, value-added maximization, and control/flexibility enhancement. Their classification is adopted for this presentation with slight modification because it facilitates linking logistics and overall enterprise strategy.''

Cost Minimizing

In the cost minimization strategy, expense reduction is the overriding management objective. Firms utilizing this strategy aggressively pursue all available cost cutting measures throughout their operations and work to maximize efficiencies and economies of scale. To assure full realization of their objectives, it is common for firms seeking cost minimization to benchmark operations against industry participants with the goal of undercutting competitors. Service quality considerations, rather than being an overriding concern or guiding philosophy, are more likely to focus on meeting minimum industry requirements. These firms seek to attract a highly price sensitive segment of the market.

Value-Added Maximization

The second strategy, value-added maximization, involves accommodation of a high level of customer service requirements. The key is to isolate exactly what product or service attributes will be most valued by potential customers. To be successful at value-added maximization, the selling firm must differentiate its service.

70 BOWERSOX AND DAUGHERTY

A service sufficiently differentiated from competitive offerings is likely to position the selling firm to command a higher or premium price for its service. Buyer perceptions and satisfaction attributes are critical with respect to value-added maximization strategies. Buyers must perceive the service being offered as sufficiently unique to justify paying additional cost. Logistical efforts associated with value-added maximization strategies should be focused on achieving and maintaining requisite levels of service and quality. This mandates the development of advanced performance measurement systems and "fine tuning" of logistical operations to yield quality improvements.

Control/Adaptability

With the final strategy, control/adaptability enhancement, attention is focused on a clearly defined market segment or particular buying group. The selling firm places a premium on responding to needs of the target customer. To customize or tailor offerings for the changing requirements of target customers, the firm implementing the strategy must develop highly fiexible operations. Flexibility is achieved as a result of exacting logistical operations control. Vertical integration is one way of facilitating greater control. Modified organizational structure offers another way to achieve fiexibility. Organizations can be designed to facilitate fiexibility and responsiveness to accommodate and exploit change in either intemal or extemal environments.'^ The creation of a fiexible organizational stmcture can accelerate management response time. Another means for achieving flexibility is through developing alliances or partnerships with other channel participants. The extemal partner is often selected because of an ability to provide unique or specialized skills not available intemally.

Implementation of control/fiexibility enhancement strategies can be launched from either a cost minimization or value-added maximization base. For example, a specific transportation carrier may focus on a manufacturing subsegment that is primarily interested in absolute lowest price. This segment is seeking a no-frills, basic service offering. A different carrier may position its service to attract manufacturers seeking to establish a just-in-time or quick response operating environment. Such manufacturers should be willing to pay a premium to secure fast and reliable transportation services needed to support their inventory asset utilization goals. In such instances, the carrier may respond by developing a highly

JOURNALOF BUSINESS LOGISTICS, VoL 16, No. 1, 1995 71

tailored service package including sophisticated communication linkages such as electronic data interchange or satellite tracking.

The balance of the paper is focused on observations conceming how logistics strategic choice impacts both internal and channel organizational structure. Specifically, what dimensions of stmcture are likely to be associated with each of the three generic competitive logistics strategies?

STRUCTURAL ACCOMMODATIONS

As stated previously, strategic decisions can be expected to prompt the adoption of certain organizational stmctures and/or modification of existing stmcture. Strategy selection will infiuence both a firm's intemal and extemal organizational alignments. Intemal stmcture refers to the allocation or assignment of roles and relationships within the firm. Specific functional tasks must be coordinated to achieve efficiencies. For example, sales/marketing, accounting, manufacturing/operations, and logistics are interdependent and must be coordinated and controlled. Extemal stmctures involve interorganizational relationships such as boundary spanning alliances with trading partners/channel members. Sophisticated communication capabilities and the establishment of interorganizational operating guidelines are needed to support extemal integration.

Figure 1 illustrates the authors' perception of the infiuence of strategic choice upon a firm's intemal and extemal organizational stmcture. Each of the identified stmctural elements is discussed. It should be noted that the illustrations of stmcture provided are not intended to represent the only stmcture associated with a selected strategy. Rather, the authors hypothesize that the specific strategy is likely to require specific organizational accommodations.

Structural Dimensions Considered

Organizational structure involves the formal allocation of work roles and the accompanying mechanisms used to control and integrate work activities. Three structural components—formalization, centralization, and specialization—are of interest because they are commonly considered to be important infiuences on organization performance.'^

72 BOWERSOX AND DAUGHERTY

FIGURE 1

STRATEGIC CHOICE: INFLUENCE ON STRUCTURE

Strategic Orientation

Performance Goal

Cost Minimization

Value-Added Maximization

Control/ Adaptability Enhancement

Efficiency

Effectiveness

Flexibility

lYaditional Structural Representation

Internal External

Tight control of costs. Maximize output, economies of scale

Highly centralized and formalized. Low specialization.

Integration of the progress to achieve quality/differentiation.

Moderate levels of centralization and formalization. Moderate to high specialization.

Maximize local flexibility and responsiveness.

Decentralization and low formalization. High specialization.

Transaction oriented— Price shopping, use many vendors.

Relational exchange— Boundary spanning, partnerships.

Extended enterprise alliances—Customization or tailoring. Close coordination necessary.

JOURNALOF BUSINESS LOGISTICS, Vol. 16, No. 1, 1995 73

Formalization is the degree to which decisions and working relationships are governed by formal rules and standard policies and procedures.

Centralization refers to the locus of decision making authority and control within an organizational entity.

Specialization refers to the division of tasks and activities across positions within the system.

Strategic InHuence on Structure

Each of the three generic competitive strategies can be expected to require different structural accommodation. Each is discussed.

Cost Minimization Strategy

Cost minimization strategies seek to maximize efficiency. Efficiency is the desired outcome of a firm's initiatives to direct resource allocation. Profitability as a percentage of sales and return on investment are two measures commonly used to evaluate efficiency.

Historically, firms implementing cost minimization strategies have frequently developed high levels of intemal centralization and formaiization, and a relatively low level of specialization. A centralized structure with concentrated decision making facilitates common direction and helps coordinate efforts to achieve maximum cost control. The establishment of formal rules and procedures serve to routinize activities thus minimizing both risk and cost. Cost minimizing firms typically focus on quantity and rely on standardization in production and distribution processes to contain costs. Specialization—with a great number of "specialists" assigned a relatively narrow set of activities—is not generally associated with a strong cost-orientation. The cost-oriented emphasis on achieving as much standardization as possible eliminates or lessens the need for relying upon specialists to any great degree. Additionally, the expense of using specialized personnel is inconsistent with a strong cost-cutting orientation. In contrast, firms focusing on a differentiation strategy frequently maintain a staff of specialists to work closely with customers in providing tailored value-added services.

Extemal structuring for cost minimizing firms is likely to demonstrate a transaction-orientation. Because cost is the overriding concem, price shopping among suppliers is expected to be commonplace. Rather than trying to establish long-term

74 BOWERSOX AND DAUGHERTY

mutually rewarding buyer-seller relationships, firms seeking lowest cost will view each purchase situation as an isolated event. Such firms regularly use a wide variety of vendors. This strategy has at least a two-fold purpose: adequate supply is assured and, more importantly, the suppliers can be played off against one another to realize lowest net price.

Value-Added Maximization Strategy

Value-added maximization strategies seek effectiveness. Effectiveness is a measure of the relative success of a firm's products or programs in relation to competitors. Effectiveness can be assessed in terms of relative sales growth or market share compared to industry competitors.

A firm using value-added maximization strategies to achieve effectiveness is likely to exhibit moderate intemal centralization and formalization. Assuring product quality and differentiation are more important considerations than achieving overall lowest cost. Therefore, a certain level of formalization and central control are needed to help integrate the overall production and distribution operations, but such control does not need to be as stringent as in the case of cost minimizing strategies. Specialization is likely to be higher than with cost minimization strategies. Specialists possessing detailed knowledge about particular products or customers play a critical role in developing and guaranteeing the delivery of value-added products.

Value-added maximizing firms are interested in establishing ongoing relationships with select trading partners. Quality considerations transcend price when choosing preferred suppliers. These firms enter into partnership-type arrangements to ensure continuing availability and to continuously improve quality. Boundary spanning relationships based on increased cooperation and information sharing between trading partners are encouraged by firms seeking value-added relationships because they decrease uncertainty and risk while yielding overall productivity and quality improvements.

ControltAdaptability Enhancement Strategy

Flexibility is the prime objective of firms seeking to implement control/ adaptability enhancement strategies. Flexibility refers to a firm's ability to successfully accommodate changing conditions and to exploit new opportunities. Flexibility can be focused to achieve a variety of operating attributes such as the

JOURNAL OF BUSINESS LOGISTICS, VoL 16, No. 1, 1995 75

ability to support new product introductions, ability to respond to special service requests, or by the range of innovative services offered to target customers.

Control/adaptability strategies have traditionally been associated with decentralized structure and relatively low levels of formalization. The implementation of decentralized structure pushes decision-making authority to the lower levels of an organization in an effort to increase employee involvement. This empowerment and encouragement of individual units to become more innovative and to make faster decisions in response to new situations is at the core of flexibility. Similarly, with lower levels of formalization, individual units are not overly constrained by rigid rules and prescribed actions. They are positioned to capitalize on new opportunities. However, firms following a control/adaptability enhancement strategy are likely to exhibit greater levels of specialization than firms that seek either cost minimizing or value-added maximizing strategies. The use of specialists serves to facilitate rapid response to changing markets and new customer requests.

Channel structuring under control/adaptability enhancement strategies seeks to develop close relationships. Because the objective is to maximize responsiveness, strategic or extended enterprise alliances are encouraged. This facilitates close coordination between trading partners and precise customization or tailoring of products and services. Firms with this strategic perspective seek to establish long-term cooperative relationships with channel partners.

IMPACT OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY AND NEW CORPORATE PARADIGMS

Traditionally centralization (or decentralization) has been viewed as an important consideration in explaining corporate performance. Within centralized firms, one or a very few top managers usually retain most of the decision-making authority. Conversely, middle and lower level managers in decentralized firms are viewed as being empowered to make decisions. As noted above, relative degree of centralization/decentralization appears to be one of the traditional organization structure paradigms associated with strategy selection. Increasingly, evidence suggests that advances in information technology and widespread availability of low cost, high power communications are dramatically altering the importance that organization structure and, more specifically, centralization currently play in strategic implementation.

76 BOWERSOX AND DA UGHERTY

While centralization is often associated with efficiency, it is also associated with rigidity resulting in lower levels of innovation and adaptability.'^ The decision to implement centralized organizational structure is frequently prompted by a desire to maintain close operational control. Given available information technology, it is no longer necessary to support centralized operations to maintain adequate control. Information capabilities can accomplish similar results whether operating from a highly centralization or decentralized organizational posture.

Jack Shewmaker, formerly vice chairman and CEO of Wal-Mart, credits communication and information management as being significant factors in Wal- Mart's success. His position is that people at all organization levels need to receive information and understand how to use it. He also discounts the myth of the "infallibility of central management," stating that "Wal-Mart concluded that they needed centralized direction and decentralized application."'^ Chances for success are greatly improved when management provides overall direction or guidance and allows flexibility in day-to-day decision making throughout the organization.

Information technology offers structural alternatives that facilitate centralized strategic planning and day-to-day execution on a decentralized basis. However, the overall communication system must be designed to facilitate input and overall control. The task is to figure out what each individual knows that the rest of us don't know but should.

This discussion supports the hypothesis that as firms become more committed to differentiation strategies they will tend to seek organization structures that facilitate flexibility. Such organizational adaptations are not likely to fit the traditional centralized vs. decentralized paradigm.

SOME LIKELY CHANGES IN LOGISTICS ORGANIZATION

Forces at work suggest that logistical organization structure will increasingly change to accommodate strategic posture. The following paradigm shifts reflect some likely trends and directions.

More IVansparent Logistics Organization Structure

Firms will attempt to strategically exploit information capabilities to an even greater degree in the future. As this occurs, firms will place less focus on establishment of traditional command and control organizational structures. Instead they will rely

JOURNALOF BUSINESS LOGISTICS, Vol. 16, No. 1, 1995 77

upon information and greater utilization of specialists. Peter Drucker believes that "decentralization into autonomous units will surely be even more critical than it is now."'^ Specialists will be used extensively within the decentralized firms and will rely upon information to "direct and discipline their own performance through organized feedback from colleagues, customers, and headquarters." Drucker calls this an information-based organization. Information and information networking will be the key to organizational coordination. The direct impact upon logistics organizations of the future may be a reduction in formal structure with an increase in the networking of specialists.

More Strategic Alliances

Information capabilities will also encourage firms to develop more extensive extemal relationships in the future. Changing attitudes and corporate philosophies have made firms more receptive to entering into longer-term relationships and strategic alliances. As noted by Bowersox article, although alliance arrangements were "virtually unheard of a decade ago, such agreements are now spreading as a way of lowering distribution and storage operating costs . . . these ventures offer opportunities to dramatically improve the quality of customer service."'^

Executives at many firms have realized that it is no longer necessary to maintain total intemal control over all phases of operations. Logistics strategies can be implemented and performance goals realized through closer interactions and boundary spanning relationships with trading partners.

Much of the growth in outsourcing and extemal alliances will result from advances in communications capabilities including electronic data interchange (EDI). The availability of timely, accurate information will allow firms to coordinate inter-organizational activities.

Increased and Focused Emphasis on Performance Measurement

More firms—whether they have centralized or decentralized structures—are likely to move toward distributing or empowering decision-making authority throughout the organization. As this occurs, maintaining control will require revised methods or practices of management. Firms can be expected to place greater emphasis in the future on monitoring and measuring performance.

The extent and type of performance measurement is likely to vary according to strategic orientation. More specifically, the types and extent of intemal and extemal

78 BOWERSOX AND DAUGHERTY

performance measuretnent are likely to be most sophisticated with firms utilizitig control/adaptability enhancement strategies. Cost-oriented firms can be expected to focus on internal measures and perform only minimal or basic external measurement. Value-added maximizing and control/adaptability enhancement firms will need to be more sensitive to customer satisfaction and quality measurement.

Greater Reliance on Time-Based Strategies

The key to gaining competitive advantage today—and more so in the future—will be the effective management of time. Firms will increasingly become aware of the advantages to be gained from "compressing time" throughout the order cycle. Competitive advantage can be achieved by developing the capabilities to quickly develop, manufacture, and distribute products.

McGinnis and Kohn note that "time responsiveness is a significant component of logistics strategy. Designing and managing logistics strategies to achieve time responsiveness requires that the coordination and integration of logistics activities not be over structured."'^ Because of the potential competitive advantage associated with time, select firms will focus efforts toward building responsiveness and fiexibility into their operations. Organizational structures will be revamped as often as necessary to accommodate implementation of time-based strategies and affect closer linkages with external trading partners.

CONCLUSION

As the previous discussion illustrates, information technology has significantly impacted logistics strategy practices and organizational structural choices in recent years. Further, even more dramatic changes are anticipated in the future as firms seek to exploit unique logistics competencies to gain and maintain competitive advantage.

Four specific trends were identified representing changes that are likely to be made in logistical organization structure in order to accommodate future service demands and maximize organizational flexibility. Those trends include the development of more transparent logistics organization structure; more strategic alliances; increased and focused emphasis on performance measurement; and greater reliance on time-based strategies. Advanced information capability is the key ingredient critical to the support of each of these strategic practices.

JOURNALOF BUSINESS LOGISTICS, Vol. 16, No. J, 1995 79

NOTES

'David J. Hall and Maurice A. Saias, "Strategy Follows Structure!" Strategic Management Journal 1, no. 1 (1980): 149-163.

^C. W. Hofer and D. E. Schendel, Strategy Formulation: Analytical Concepts (St. Paul, Minn.: West Publishing, 1978).

•'John Child, "Organizational Structure, Environment and Performance: The Role of Strategic Choice," Sociology 6, no. 1 (1972): 1-22.

'̂ Alfred D. Chandler, Strategy and Structure (Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1962), p. 14.

^Same reference as Note 4; William G. Egelhoff, "Strategy and Structure in Multi-national Corporations: A Revision of the Stopford and Wells Model," Strategic Management Journal 9, no. 1 (1988): 1-14; and R. P. Rumelt, Strategy, Structure, and Economic Performance (Boston, Mass.: Harvard University-Division of Research, Graduate School of Business, 1974).

**Same reference as Note 1.

^Donald J. Bowersox and Patricia J. Daugherty, "Achieving and Maintaining Logistics Leadership—Logistics Organizations of the Future," in Proceedings of the Annual Conference of the Council of Logistics Management 1 (Oak Brook, 111.: Council of Logistics Management, 1989), pp. 59-72.

^James J. Chrisman, Charles W. Hofer, and William R. Boulton, "Toward A System for Classifying Business Strategies," Academy of Management Review 13, no. 3 (1988): 413-428.

Michael E. Porter, Competitive Advantage: Creating and Sustaining Superior Performance (New York: The Free Press, 1985); and Competitive Strategy: Techniques for Analyzing Industries and Competitors (New York: The Free Press, 1980).

'°Porter 1985 reference in Note 9.

''Kant Rao, Alan J. Stenger, and Richard R. Young, "Corporate Framework for Developing and Analyzing Logistics Strategies," in Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Council of Logistics Management 1 (Oak Brook, 111.: Council of Logistics Management, 1988), pp. 243-262.

80 BOWERSOX AND DAUGHERTY

' 2 R . L . Ackoff, "Towards Flexible Organizations," International Journal of Management Science 5, no. 6 (1977): 649-662.

'^Orville C. Walker, Jr., and Robert W. Ruekert, "Marketing's Role in the Implementation of Business Strategies: A Critical Review and Conceptual Framework," Journal of Marketing 51 (July 1987): 15-33.

''*Same reference as Note 13 and Dan R. Dalton, William D. Todor, Michael J. Spendolini, Gordon J. Fielding, and Lyman W. Porter, "Organization Structure and Performance: A Critical Review," Academy of Management Review 5, no. 1 (1980): 49-64.

'^Jay L. Johnson, "Intemal Communication: A Key to Wal-Mart's Success," Direct Marketing (November 1989): 68, 72-73.

'^Peter F. Drucker, "The Coming of the New Organization," Harvard Business Review 66, no. 1 (January-February 1988): 45-53.

'^Donald J. Bowersox, "The Strategic Benefits of Logistics Alliances,"//arvard

Business Review 68, no. 4 (July-August 1990): 36-45.

'^Michael A. McGinnis and Jonathan W. Kohn, "A Factor Analytic Study of Logistics Strategy," Journal of Business Logistics 11, no. 2 (1990): 41-63.

ABOUT THE AUTHORS

Donald J. Bowersox is the John H. McConnell University Professor of Business Administration in the Eli Broad Graduate School of Management at Michigan State University. He has authored more than 100 articles and bopks including Logistical Management, Strategic Marketing Channel Management, Leading Edge Logistics: Competitive Positioning for the 1990s, and Logistical Excellence: It's Not Business as Usual.

Patricia J. Daugherty is an assistant professor of marketing and distribution in the Terry College of Business at the University of Georgia. She has published in a number of academic joumals.