Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
Relationships
Contributions to Management Science
www.springer.com/series/1505
A. Scholl M. J. Thannhuber
Balancing and Sequencing The Intelligent Enterprise
of Assembly Lines 2005. ISBN 978-3-7908-1555-9
1999. ISBN 978-3-7908-1180-3
C. Clarke
E. Canestrelli (Ed.) Automotive Production Systems
Current Topics and Standardisation
in Quantitative Finance 2005. ISBN 978-3-7908-1578-8
1999. ISBN 978-3-7908-1231-2
M. Ltke Entrup
W. Bhler/H. Hax/R. Schmidt (Eds.) Advanced Planning
Empirical Research in Fresh Food Industries
on the German Capital Market 2005. ISBN 978-3-7908-1592-4
1999. ISBN 978-3-7908-1193-3
U. M. Lwer
M. Bonilla/T. Casasus/R. Sala (Eds.) Interorganisational Standards
Financial Modelling 2006. ISBN 978-3-7908-1653-2
2000. ISBN 978-3-7908-1282-4
G. Reepmeyer
S. Sulzmaier
Risk-sharing
Consumer-Oriented Business Design
2001. ISBN 978-3-7908-1366-1 in the Pharmaceutical Industry
2006. ISBN 978-3-7908-1667-9
C. Zopounidis (Ed.)
New Trends in Banking Management E. Kasper
2002. ISBN 978-3-7908-1488-0 Internal Research
& Development Markets
U. Dorndorf 2006. ISBN 978-3-7908-1728-7
Project Scheduling
with Time Windows L. Coleman
2002. ISBN 978-3-7908-1516-0 Why Managers and Companies Take
Risks
B. Rapp/P. Jackson (Eds.) 2006. ISBN 978-3-7908-1695-2
Organisation and Work
Beyond 2000 M. A. Bader
2003. ISBN 978-3-7908-1528-3 Intellectual Property Management in
R&D Collaborations
M. Grossmann
2006. ISBN 978-3-7908-1702-7
Entrepreneurship in Biotechnology
2003. ISBN 978-3-7908-0033-3 David L. Cahill
H. M. Arnold Costumer Loyalty in Third Party
Technology Shocks Logistics Relationships
2003. ISBN 978-3-7908-0051-7 2007. ISBN 978-3-7908-1903-8
Logistics
Outsourcing
Relationships
Measurement, Antecedents,
and Effects of Logistics Outsourcing
Performance
Physica-Verlag
A Springer Company
Series Editors
Werner A. Mller
Martina Bihn
Author
Dr. Jan M. Deepen
Ahornallee 14
40468 Dsseldorf
Germany
jan.deepen@whu.edu
ISSN 1431-1941
This work is subject to copyright. All rights are reserved, whether the whole or part of the material is
concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broad-
casting, reproduction on microfilm or in any other way, and storage in data banks. Duplication of
this publication or parts thereof is permitted only under the provisions of the German Copyright
Law of September 9, 1965, in its current version, and permission for use must always be obtained
from Physica-Verlag. Violations are liable to prosecution under the German Copyright Law.
Physica-Verlag is a part of Springer Science+Business Media
springer.com
Physica-Verlag Heidelberg 2007
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, etc. in this publication does
not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant
protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
Production: LE-TEX Jelonek, Schmidt & V
ockler GbR, Leipzig
Cover-design: WMX Design GmbH, Heidelberg
SPIN 11916413 88/3180YL - 5 4 3 2 1 0 Printed on acid-free paper
To my parents, Marion and Reinhard Deepen
Foreword
1 Introduction............................................................................................. 1
1.1 Motivation ........................................................................................ 1
1.2 Goal .................................................................................................. 4
1.3 Structure............................................................................................ 5
2 Basic concepts.......................................................................................... 9
2.1 Logistics............................................................................................ 9
2.1.1 The nature of logistics ............................................................... 9
2.1.2 Status quo of logistics development ........................................ 16
2.1.3 Performance effects of the different levels of logistics
development............................................................................. 17
2.2 Logistics outsourcing...................................................................... 19
2.2.1 Origin and definition ............................................................... 19
2.2.2 Benefits and risks of logistics outsourcing .............................. 21
2.2.3 Markets for and providers of logistics outsourcing ................. 24
2.2.4 Status quo of logistics outsourcing research............................ 29
2.3 Logistics outsourcing relationships ................................................ 33
2.3.1 The terminology of partnerships.............................................. 34
2.3.2 Partnership development ......................................................... 36
2.3.3 Designing logistics outsourcing relationships ......................... 41
2.4 Research model............................................................................... 48
2.4.1 Identification of research needs ............................................... 48
2.4.2 Identification of research questions ......................................... 51
2.4.3 Procedure to answer the research questions ............................ 52
3 Theoretical framework......................................................................... 55
3.1 Theories suited to explain cooperation in logistics relationships ... 55
3.2 Introduction to selected theories..................................................... 56
3.2.1 New institutional economics and transaction cost theory........ 56
3.2.2 Social exchange theory............................................................ 62
3.2.3 Commitment trust theory...................................................... 69
3.2.4 Contingency approach ............................................................. 72
3.3 Theory integration .......................................................................... 79
XII Contents
References............................................................................................... 307
1 Introduction
1.1 Motivation
metimes they even cause their failure. Firms aiming purely at cost reduc-
tions will emphasize other aspects in the logistics outsourcing arrangement
than those intending to achieve service level increases. This is of particular
relevance to the design of logistics outsourcing relationships between LSPs
and their customers.
Only when the concept of logistics outsourcing performance, its meas-
urement, its effects as well as its antecedents are known and understood,
these problems can be overcome in logistics outsourcing practice. To do
so, a study conducted with the adequate scientific rigor as demanded by
MENTZER/KAHN (1995), proposing distinct hypotheses and then testing
them empirically is necessary. It thus is building on the findings of the re-
search conducted in previous years, consolidates it and develops new mod-
els that allow further insights for both academic research as well as the lo-
gistics practice.
Finally, a last deficit of current logistics research must be addressed in
this study. The efforts outlined above will facilitate a thorough and general
understanding of logistics outsourcing relationships and their effects on lo-
gistics outsourcing performance, as well as its effects on logistics- and
firm performance. However, the open questions concerning the importance
of the role of the context of the firm in the logistics outsourcing context
and the general applicability of the performance models remain (CHOW/
HEAVER/HENRIKSSON 1994; PFOHL/ZLLNER 1997). Answering
these questions, however, is of particular relevance as especially in the lo-
gistics outsourcing practice very few standardized outsourcing solutions
for complex processes and problems have been developed, thus hindering
further cost reductions.
To determine what outsourcing strategy has primacy in which context,
CHOW/HEAVER/HENRIKSSON (1994, p. 26) suggest the use of contin-
gency models of logistics performance which should include factors such
as the environment, the logistical features of the product range or the pro-
duction technology. While the contingency approach has been criticized in
the past for its mechanistic view that there is only one best structural an-
swer to any specific contextual situation and its lack of theory (HAGE
1974; SCHREYGG 1980), it can contribute to new insights. If ade-
quately used as a measure to understand the environmental contingency of
firms, it can point out that under certain circumstances, differences in or-
ganization structure and administrative practices have different implica-
tions for a firms performance.
4 1 Introduction
1.2 Goal
1.3 Structure
will guide further research efforts of the study. There, the procedure to an-
swer these questions is also outlined in detail.
Chapter 3 then presents the theoretical framework of the study. Three
different theories, transaction cost theory, social exchange theory, and
commitment-trust theory, and the contingency approach are all argued to
have explanatory value for logistics outsourcing research. Consequently,
each of them is presented in detail before an individual examination of its
explanatory value is performed. Chapter 3.3 then integrates the theories as
an important step for the further analyses.
In chapter 4, the antecedents and effects of logistics outsourcing per-
formance are discussed. Initially, the measurement of logistics outsourcing
performance is scrutinized and a bi-dimensional construct is conceptual-
ized. Then, the ten most relevant relationship antecedents of logistics out-
sourcing performance are derived from the literature review and the theo-
ries presented in chapter 3. First, they are conceptualized in chapter 4.2.1,
before in chapter 4.3.1 hypotheses on the causal linkages between the vari-
ables and logistics outsourcing performance as well as amongst themselves
are developed. This leads to the development of a comprehensive model of
logistics outsourcing performance in chapter 4.3.2. Thereafter, logistics
performance and firm performance are conceptualized. Consequently, the
effects of outsourcing performance on logistics performance are hypothe-
sized before the effects of the latter on firm performance follow, thus pro-
ducing a model of the entire logistics performance chain. Chapter 4.5 fi-
nally discusses potential moderating effects of internal and external
contingency variables on the models developed in the previous chapters.
Chapter 5 introduces the methodology of the research and the sample
characteristics. At first, it presents the survey design, including covariance
structure analysis as the method of choice in this study, the method of data
collection, the questionnaire design as well as questions concerning repre-
sentativeness and potential biases. It then continues with a discussion of
the methodological basis for the empirical analysis, including a detailed
discussion of fit criteria that serve to asses the quality of both measurement
and structural models. At the end of the chapter, the basics for model de-
sign and modifications are outlined.
The operationalization of the different constructs conceptualized in
chapter 4 is performed in chapter 6. Starting with the antecedents of logis-
tics outsourcing performance in chapter 6.1, all constructs of logistics out-
sourcing-, logistics-, and firm performance are operationalized in detail.
After having done this in individual chapters, the discriminant validity of
the constructs in the individual models is scrutinized in chapter 6.5, before
in chapter 6.6 the external and internal contingency variables are opera-
tionalized.
1.3 Structure 7
2.1 Logistics
The concept of logistics in its modern form dates back to the second half to
the 20th century (DEHLER 2001, p. 34; WEBER/KUMMER 1998, pp. 1-6).
Since then, it has developed into a widely recognized discipline of signifi-
cant importance to both theory and practice. As WALLENBURG (2004, p.
38) points out, this development is not yet completed, however, and the
debate on the true meaning of logistics and its exact specifications is still
ongoing:
Especially in the logistics industry it becomes apparent that neither a
standardized logistics concept nor a consistent notion of logistics exists.
While some reduce their understanding to simple transporting-, handling-,
and warehousing operations, others view logistics more broadly as a man-
agement function.
Logistics literature supports this finding of notional heterogeneity with a
multitude of different logistics definitions. Especially recognized is the
2005 definition by the Council of Supply Chain Management Professionals
(CSCMP 2005, p. 63), where logistics management is seen as part of sup-
ply chain management (SCM). It is the part that plans implements, and
controls the efficient, effective forward and reverse flow and storage of
goods, services, and related information between the point of origin and
the point of consumption in order to meet customers requirements. This
definition directly refers to the importance of economical considerations
(efficiency, effectiveness) and at the same time underscores the functional
character of logistics. Other definitions such as those of KLAUS (1993, p.
31) and WEBER/KUMMER (1994, p. 21) focus on process- or flow-
orientation and thereby emphasize conceptual components.
The apparent differences in the understanding of logistics and the result-
ing myriad of definitions are a direct consequence from logistics non-
academic origin. It rather developed as a practical phenomenon which has
gained increasing importance over the past decades for firms in various in-
dustries. As WEBER (2002, p. 4) points out, the basic function of logistics
10 2 Basic concepts
Level of logistics
knowledge Logistics as
supply chain management
4
Logistics as
2 coordinative function
Logistics as
1 functional specialization
Time
During the fourth and last phase of logistical development, logistics re-
mains a management function, but extends its scope beyond the boundaries
of the firm. Consequently, the concept of process or flow orientation is ex-
tended across the supply chain, encompassing now also suppliers and cus-
tomers, thus ideally spanning from source to sink. Logistics during this
phase, now being called supply chain management (SCM), aims at inte-
grating the entire supply chain.
This understanding of the concept of supply chain management as a
phase of logistical development is not undisputed. As LARSON/ HALL-
DORSSON (2004, pp. 1-7) point out, in the logistics science community ba-
sically four different views of SCM have developed over the years. These
include the traditionalist view which understands SCM as part of logis-
tics and the unionist view which considers logistics as part of SCM. Fur-
thermore, the re-labeling perspective believes that what is now SCM
was previously logistics. The fourth and intersectionist view finally sug-
2.1 Logistics 15
gests that logistics is not the union of logistics, marketing, operations, pur-
chasing etc. but rather includes strategic and integrative elements from all
these disciplines. Further insights into the diversity of understandings are
given by BECHTEL/JAYARAM (1997) who provide an extensive retrospec-
tive review of the literature and research on supply chain management.
In the light of this multitude of different understandings it is important
to establish that in this work, supply chain management is understood as
the most advanced phase of logistical development. While this conflicts
with several of the above presented views, it represents the current and
widespread understanding of logistics and SCM in Germany.
Starting point for the development towards supply chain management
was the further increasing demand of firms for more efficiency and effec-
tiveness. Since most of the internal optimization potentials had already
been exhausted, only those remained that resulted from the inefficient col-
laboration between firms being part of the same supply chain. The fact that
during this process the individual boundaries of the firm lost part of their
former dominant importance was fundamentally enabled by the tremen-
dous progress the information and communication technologies made.
Even though supply chains are part of every economy based on the divi-
sion of labor and therefore have already existed during the other phases of
logistical development, it is only during the fourth phase that they obtain a
widely recognized importance. Thus, what is new to this phase is the con-
centration on the supply chain and the introduction of inter-organizational
concepts aiming at the realization of optimizing potentials by targeting
gains in efficiency and effectiveness.
Due to the high complexity of the task and the divergent objective func-
tions the realization of an inter-organizational supply chain management is
accompanied by management problems.1 While in partnerships with low
intensity the focus is usually only on the adequate supply with information,
an increasing intensity requires adjustments in structures and processes as
well in order to prepare the former internal structures for the now inter-
organizational challenges.
The management tasks during this phase of logistical development are
considerable and complex. Together with the understanding of the need for
1 According to Wallenburg (2004, p. 43) problems arise because firms are usually
not only part of one supply chain, but of several. Therefore, firms can be faced
with different and incompatible goals for the supply chain management. Addi-
tionally, endeavors beneficial for one supply chain can be detrimental for an-
other. Even though, emphasizing the character of a supply chain rather than a
supply network is preferable, since the many linkages and connections between
the firms would lead to a degree of complexity that would not be manageable.
16 2 Basic concepts
Percentage
of firms
100
7 12
90
11
80 20
Phase 4
70 57
40 Phase 3
60 82
33 Phase 2
50
40 Phase 1
13
30
20 42 35 22 5
10 8
8 6
1999 2002 1999 2002
Current logistics Aspired logistics
development development
R2: 28.7%
Adaptiveness
0.54***
Level of 0.47***
Logistics Services
R2: 66.2%
0.47***
Market
Performance
Level of 0.50***
Logistics Costs
R2: 40.6%
0.24***
Financial
Performance
0.65*** Standardized regression weight with significance level
* Significant on 10%-level
** Significant on 5%-level
*** Significant on 1%-level
tics service provider generally can reduce the cost of logistics processes
and increase their quality (ELLRAM/COOPER 1990, pp. 2-9; LAMBERT/
EMMELHAINZ/GARDNER 1996, pp. 2-5; DEEPEN 2003, p. 121).
Logistics service providers (LSP) suitable for providing these services
today exist in abundance, reacting to the ever increasing demands of the
customers and the subsequently developing markets. Due to the fact that a
number of firms do not view logistics as a core competency or even if they
do, are willing to outsource them to a third party (DEEPEN 2003, pp. 140-
141), outsourcing has become a relevant option. However, since the needs
differ in every individual case, WALLENBURG (2004, p. 46) argues that
every firm must answer two important question before actually outsourc-
ing:
1. Which part of logistics shall be outsourced?
2. Who shall provide the service?
The first question is very fundamental in nature and has a strategic char-
acter, while the second primarily calls for the identification of the adequate
requirements in order to select the appropriate LSP. Due to the importance
of the first question, it will be analyzed in greater detail in chapter 2.2.2
which addresses the advantages and disadvantages of logistics outsourcing.
To allow insights towards the second question on who shall provide the
service, chapter 2.2.3 will first offer an overview of the current scope and
development of logistics outsourcing before introducing and discussing the
relevant types of logistics service providers (LSPs). Finally, chapter 2.2.4
will conclude the remarks on logistics outsourcing with an overview of the
current status quo of logistics outsourcing research.
After the initial outsourcing debate had a rather euphoric notion, realiza-
tion came over the years that outsourcing is accompanied by some disad-
vantages and risks (LYNCH/IMADA/BOOKBINDER 1994, p. 103; MCIVOR
2000, pp. 22-23; WENTWORTH 2003, pp. 57-58).
One of the most commonly cited risks is the loss of control
(BARDI/TRACEY 1991; LYNCH/IMADA/BOOKBINDER 1994, p. 103) and
WENTWORTH 2003, pp. 57-58), paired with the dependence on an LSP of-
24 2 Basic concepts
ten accompanying the relationship. The firm must rely on the LSP to fulfill
the service as agreed upon in the contract, but then depends on the LSP as
the very source for the data it needs for judging whether the levels of qual-
ity and service have been achieved or not (WENTWORTH 2003, pp. 57).
The same holds true for the LSPs truthful declaration of the costs incurred
when rendering the logistics service, which frequently is the base for the
price charged to the firm. This effect is aggravated in the case that a firm
outsources the entire logistics function, thereby losing its internal logistics
skills and hence its capabilities to judge the outsourcing performance. That
can be the origin for opportunistic behavior on the side of the LSP. If the
firm wants to limit the potential for opportunistic behavior, it must install
control mechanisms. As argued also in chapter 3.2.1, these will produce
transaction costs such as bargaining and control costs, which must be
added to the overall cost when making the outsourcing decision.
It has been pointed out in the previous chapter that outsourcing can re-
duce the complexity of business processes, enabling the firm to concen-
trate on its core business. It must be noted, however, that in the relation-
ship with the LSP coordination efforts between the parties are necessary,
adding some other form of complexity (WALLENBURG 2004, p. 48),
which, depending on the context of the relationship, could turn into a seri-
ous obstacle en route to successful outsourcing. The importance of consid-
ering the context of the firm and its implications will be further discussed
in chapter 3.2.4.
Other authors point to the complexity of outsourcing projects as one
immanent and significant disadvantage. According to MCIVOR (2000, pp.
24-26), the strategic dimension of outsourcing projects is often neglected,
leading to sub-optimal results based on the short term reasons of cost re-
duction and capacity issues. He concludes that problems frequently occur
because complex issues, such as a formal outsourcing process, an adequate
cost analysis and a thorough definition of the own core business have not
been paid sufficient attention.
The previous two chapters have introduced some of the complexity which
characterizes the recent logistics outsourcing debate. It must be observed
that the outlined advantages and disadvantages alone do not allow a gen-
eral statement that logistics outsourcing is always beneficial for the firm
in fact, a detailed analysis is needed for every single outsourcing decision.
Logistics outsourcing, however, today is an important phenomenon
within the business world. Following WALLENBURG (2004, p. 48), the ef-
2.2 Logistics outsourcing 25
outsourcing in 2005 and will further grow to 67% in the near future (2008-
2010). Again, the numbers for the U.S. are slightly lower at 44% in 2005
and 51% for 2008-2010.
The previously cited numbers point to an important trend. According to
LANGLEY/ALLEN/DALE (2004), the projected increase in logistics out-
sourcing has been slowing down over the last years. While in 2002 it was
40% per year, it decreased to 14% in 2003 and in 2004 was at just over
11%. This could either mean that firms take a more cautious approach to-
wards involvement with logistics service providers in general or that the
growth rate for the extent of use of logistics services provided by third par-
ties is stabilizing (LANGLEY/ALLEN/DALE 2004, p. 9).
When looking at what logistics services firms outsource, it becomes
evident that the activities most frequently outsourced are operational in na-
ture, such as warehousing, transportation, handling, or customs clearance,
while activities more strategic in nature or activities that are directly cus-
tomer-related have a lesser propensity to be outsourced (LANGLEY/ALLEN/
DALE 2004, pp. 9-10). Recent developments suggest that this is slowly
changing. According to BAUMGARTEN/WALTER (2000, pp. 22-29), an in-
creasing outsourcing of more complex activities can be observed, espe-
cially in previously neglected areas close to production and with a distinct
emphasis on the already outsourcing dominated procurement and distribu-
tion activities.
The estimates provided above demonstrate the significance of the mar-
ket for third party logistics services. Since the market has seen strong de-
velopment over the last two decades, the potential for further increase is
mainly limited to areas which so far have not been focused, such as activi-
ties close to production processes and complex contract logistics services.
It can be expected that the market is going to eventually stabilize on a
high level as recent research from LANGLEY/ALLEN/DALE (2004, p. 9) in-
dicates. This might be due to the fact that the overall market for logistics,
in-house as well as outsourced, is growing at a fairly slow rate, in line with
the respective domestic GDP, while the outsourcing trend has been ex-
panding rapidly. Since complete outsourcing of all logistics tasks does not
make sense in most cases (WALLENBURG 2004, p. 49), the degree of out-
sourcing can be expected to ultimately level off. This will mean that the
strong competition among logistics service providers, which could already
be observed in times of strong market growth, will even intensify over the
coming years.
As this and the preceding chapters have shown, logistics service provid-
ers play a decisive role logistics outsourcing context, since they ultimately
enable logistics outsourcing. Therefore, the different kinds of LSPs will be
introduced and discussed in detail in the following chapter.
2.2 Logistics outsourcing 27
After the market of logistics services and the different kinds of logistics
service providers have been introduced, in the following the status quo of
logistics outsourcing research will be presented.
As the previous chapters have shown, the scale and scope of logistics
outsourcing has been steadily growing over the last decades, creating mar-
kets of significant sizes and consequently creating opportunities for firms
which find themselves under ever increasing pressure to lower costs and
increase logistics performance. An end of the trend is not in sight. There-
fore, a high relevance of research in logistics outsourcing and its success
factors can be assumed.
It therefore does not come as a surprise that MENTZER/KAHN (1995, p.
242) find that logistics research is a growing and viable research area
by investigating the development of articles published in the Journal of
Business Logistics between its inauguration in 1978 and 1993. However,
they formulate substantial criticism on the quality of the overall empirical
logistics research conducted in these early years.
According to MENTZER/KAHN (1995, pp. 240-244) more than 53% of
the existing research is normative in nature and does not have empirical
content. 36% of the research includes case studies only and a mere 4% in-
volves hypothesis testing. According to MENTZER/KAHN (1995) this is ur-
gently needed for subsequent theory development and testing and is the
main driver of successful logistics research. They conclude that as of 1995,
the few studies that have included hypothesis testing procedures have
mostly not stood up to scientific rigor. Commonly, they fail to provide in-
formation on the reliability and validity of the data while at the same time
the statistical methods being utilized are limited in most cases to regression
or correlation analysis. According to ENGELBRECHT (2004, pp. 28-29), the
situation has not changed significantly until 2002. Therefore, the argument
of MENTZER/KAHN (1995, p. 244) still prevails which demands a more
rigorous and scientific approach including more hypotheses: If the disci-
pline is to become more theoretically rigorous, it must progress through
the framework and thus pursue more hypothesis testing studies. While
many researchers would prefer to pursue only exploratory research be-
cause of the flexibility in topic selection, ease of data analysis, and less
meticulous rigor, a maturing scientific discipline mandates a shift toward
greater hypothesis testing, more rigorous date analysis, and standard dis-
cussions of validity and reliability.
According to WALLENBURG (2004, p. 52), logistics research has always
shown a strong practice-orientation. In earlier years the focus was on func-
tional specialization, targeting almost exclusively individual competencies
30 2 Basic concepts
Chapter 2.2.4 has shown that the performance of logistics outsourcing pro-
jects cannot be explained by the extent of outsourced services only. Other
performance drivers, such as the right choice of the outsourced services,
34 2 Basic concepts
dens over some agreed upon time horizon. Several other definitions in-
clude further key characteristics such as information sharing, shared risks
and rewards, long-term focus, joint activities and the concept of trust
(DWYER/SCHURR/OH 1987; NOORDEWIER/JOHN/NEVIN 1990; GATTORNA
1991; ELLRAM 1995a).
According to LAMBERT/EMMELHAINZ/GARDNER (1999, p. 166), all
these definitions are incomplete. They address only some aspects of the
partnership and do not adequately emphasize the need for customization of
the relationship. LAMBERT/EMMELHAINZ/GARDNER (1996b, p. 28) there-
fore introduce an own definition which views a partnership as a tailored
business relationship based upon mutual trust, openness, shared risk, and
shared rewards that yields a competitive advantage, resulting in business
performance greater than would be achieved by the firms individually.
The above definition will be adopted as it is very comprehensive, ad-
dressing both behavioral and monetary aspects, and thus is displaying ex-
actly the understanding of partnerships in this study. This is especially im-
portant with respect to the later development of a logistics outsourcing
relationship model in chapter 4, which will contain a number of character-
istics that originate from this understanding of partnerships. The following
chapters will in detail analyze the development of such partnerships. Spe-
cial attention will first be given to the importance and the effects of part-
nership development, before in a second step the status quo of research on
the process of partnership development will be examined.
After the preceding chapter has pointed out the importance of partnerships
and their effects for the participating firms, in the following the status quo
of research on the process of partnership development will be introduced.
This process has been subject to substantial research. GARDNER/COOPER/
NOORDEWIER (1994, p. 137) developed a five stage strategic model of the
partnership building process. It includes choosing a partnership strategy in
the first step, then choosing one or more partners, designing the partner-
ship in the third and evaluating it in the fourth step and finally evaluating
the partnership strategy. ELLRAM (1995a, p. 12) presents a different and
yet quite similar five stage process for the development and evolution of
2.3 Logistics outsourcing relationships 39
Much has been written on the effect relationship marketing variables have
on the design of relationships. Of particular importance are the empirical
works that with adequate scientific rigor test hypotheses on the causal
linkages that influence buyer-seller relationships in general and that of the
customer and the LSP in particular, because they allow to gain deeper in-
sights on how relationships between different parties should be designed.
Through the early days of work in this field, this issue has primarily
been addressed on the general level. Works on buyer-seller relationships
include those of ANDERSON/NARUS (1984), ANDERSON/LODISH/WEITZ
(1987), ANDERSON/WEITZ (1989), HEIDE/JOHN (1990), NOORDEWIER/
JOHN/NEVIN (1990), HALLN/JOHANSON/SEYED-MOHAMED (1991),
ANDERSON/WEITZ (1992), HEIDE/JOHN (1992), HAN/WILSON/DANT
(1993), GANESAN (1994), MORGAN/HUNT (1994), WEITZ/JAP (1995), and
WILSON (1995).
Some of the most notable contributions have come from
ANDERSON/WEITZ (1989), ANDERSON/NARUS (1990), and MORGAN/
HUNT (1994). Not only have they been on the forefront of relationship
marketing research, but they also introduced new and important views on
the issue of how relationships ought to be designed. By doing so, they in-
troduced and structured a number of relationship marketing variables that
have later become important factors in logistics relationship research.
ANDERSON/WEITZ (1989, p. 311) examine the determinants of continu-
ity in conventional industrial channel dyads. They formulate a model in
whose center are trust, the degree of communication, and power imbal-
ance. Further constructs include goal congruence, cultural similarity,
stakes, age of the relationship, and the perceived continuity of the relation-
ship. The findings put forward by ANDERSON/WEITZ (1989, p. 319) show
that trust has an import impact on the stability of dyads and is influenced
among other factors by the degree of communication and the goal congru-
ence of the two parties.
Using a similar approach, ANDERSON/NARUS (1990, p. 44) develop a
model of distributor firm and manufacturer firm working partnerships.
They theorize that the communication between parties positively influ-
ences the level of trust, which in turn leads to increased cooperation. This
cooperation, which ANDERSON/NARUS (1990, p. 45) define as similar or
complementary coordinated actions taken by firms in interdependent rela-
tionships to achieve mutual outcomes with expected reciprocation over
2.3 Logistics outsourcing relationships 43
As this chapter will show, logistics research has only slowly and reluc-
tantly taken up the models proposed in the relationship marketing literature
and adapted them in parts for their own purposes. Yet, a number of open
questions that need to be addressed in further research still remain. The
first to explicitly examine trust and commitment in logistics alliances in a
hypotheses driven model was MOORE (1998, pp. 25-26).
2.3 Logistics outsourcing relationships 45
Logistics research has been receiving increasing academic attention for the
past two decades, triggered by the substantial changes in the worldwide
logistics markets and the accompanying need for a better and abstract un-
derstanding of the underlying mechanisms that drive logistics performance
and enable firms to gain competitive advantages. Following this develop-
ment the topic of logistics outsourcing has been of particular importance as
an ever increasing number of firms decided to utilize logistics service pro-
viders to deliver what in most cases was not seen as a core competence of
the respective firms. Consequently, an intensive debate developed over
possible benefits and risks associated with logistics outsourcing
(LIEB/MILLEN/VAN WASSENHOVE 1993; MCGINNIS/KOCHUNNY/ACKER-
MAN 1995). Unfortunately, the logistics outsourcing debate for the most
part neglected the importance of the relationship between customer and lo-
gistics service provider and thus cannot answer the question which per-
formance implications relationship formation has for the outsourcing ar-
rangement. Only recently works by MOORE (1998), KNEMEYER/MURPHY
(2004) and ENGELBRECHT (2004) have started to address this issue.
The majority of firms today are outsourcing at least parts of their logis-
tics activities to third parties. While those firms that currently do not out-
source broadly indicate that they are planning to do so, outsourcing firms
show considerable interest to expand their involvement with third parties
as argued in chapter 2.2.3.1. As this process evolves, relationships between
customers and LSPs are becoming closer and increasingly long-term ori-
ented (LAMBERT/EMMELHAINZ/GARDNER 1999; HOYT/HUQ 2000).
2.4 Research model 49
Knowing about this development, the question arises which factors truly
are important for the successful realization of outsourcing projects and
how they must be addressed to optimize outsourcing performance. One of
the most fundamental issues to be studied in this context is the formation
and design of the relationships between the parties involved in logistics
outsourcing. As argued in chapter 2.3.3.2, the logistics literature so far has
not adequately dealt with this problem. One explanation for this is that lo-
gistics outsourcing decisions presently are predominantly motivated by the
potential to cut costs while the significantly stronger effect to increase the
firms logistics performance through outsourcing as demonstrated by
DEHLER (2001, pp. 233-244) and ENGELBRECHT (2004, pp. 63-64) is
largely ignored.
Support for the finding of adequate ways for the designing of relation-
ships comes from research in the field of relationship marketing which ex-
plicitly focuses on this issue. The absence of specific logistics oriented re-
search on this topic of course is only relevant if the general results of
relationship marketing are not easily transferable to the relationships be-
tween customers and LSPs. That the outsourcing of logistics activities is a
complex matter has been established above the specificity of the proc-
esses, the long-term orientation of the contracts as well as the dependence
of the customer, resulting from the sometimes large investments involved
and the meaning of logistics performance for customer satisfaction all con-
tribute to this. A general and uncritical transfer of relationship marketing
findings to logistics research therefore is not possible. Instead, the applica-
bility of key relationship marketing concepts for the logistics context must
be examined in detail and therefore be one significant part of future logis-
tics research.
While the works by MOORE (1998), KNEMEYER/MURPHY (2004) and
ENGELBRECHT (2004) as well as numerous articles from relationship mar-
keting (ANDERSON/NARUS 1984; ANDERSON/LODISH/WEITZ 1987;
ANDERSON/WEITZ 1989; HEIDE/JOHN 1990; NOORDEWIER/JOHN/NEVIN
1990; HALLN/JOHANSON/SEYED-MOHAMED 1991; ANDERSON/WEITZ
1992; HEIDE/JOHN 1992; HAN/WILSON/DANT 1993; GANESAN 1994;
MORGAN/HUNT 1994; WEITZ/JAP 1995; WILSON 1995) have begun to in-
vestigate the link between the different variables influencing relationships,
much remains to be learned. One of the most important points is to reveal
which factors indeed are relevant in an outsourcing relationship. Addition-
ally, the question must be addressed to which extent if any perform-
ance effects can be traced back to the way the relationship between cus-
tomer and LSP is designed. So far, no approach exists that would combine
all relevant factors of relationship formation and the subsequential per-
50 2 Basic concepts
formance effects into a closed theoretical model with forecasting value for
both logistics theory and practice.
As shown in chapters 2.3.3.1 and 2.3.3.2, a number of researchers such
as ANDERSON/WEITZ (1989), ANDERSON/NARUS (1990), MORGAN/HUNT
(1994), MOORE (1998), KNEMEYER/MURPHY (2004) and ENGELBRECHT
(2004) have already addressed the issue of relationship formation. It must
be noted, however, that the theoretic foundation of the causal linkages be-
tween the different factors in some of these works is rather thin and does
not meet the requirements concerning adequate scientific rigor as formu-
lated by MENTZER/KAHN (1995). A future model encompassing the rele-
vant factors for logistics relationship formation must therefore rather be
derived from a solid theoretical basis. A good example is set by
WALLENBURG (2004, pp. 89-122) while other works, such as those of
CRUTCHFIELD (2001) and RANAWEERA/NEELY (2003), to the contrary ar-
gue virtually without a foundation in theory and instead concentrate on
variables that have been previously used in other research contexts. While
this of course is also an important part of research and model design, as-
suming causal linkages between variables solely on this basis without the
adequate theoretical foundation must leave open the questions whether an
observed interrelation truly is a causal linkage or merely a correlation.
Overcoming these deficits and thus pursuing a rigorous scientific approach
is a key goal of this work.
A major shortcoming of the current relationship literature is the lack of
context-related research. While numerous studies have been investigating
the buyer-supplier relationship by interviewing individual firms or dyads,
the resulting models have never been tested for potential moderating ef-
fects of contingency variables. This implicitly assumes that within the re-
spective studies, all analyzed relationships are similar and comparable.
However, this disregards the possibility that the various surveyed relation-
ships may be subject to entirely different contingencies, which potentially
could lead to significantly different results if modeled accordingly.
Possible implications that could result e.g. from either the concentration
on too few industries or the inclusion of too many industries in the sample
might therefore remain unnoticed, even though it could be expected that
the causal linkages between the relationship variables differ significantly.
This could for instance be the case between consumer and industrial goods
industries or between the suppliers of commodity goods and those of
highly specialized high-tech equipment. An example may be the central re-
lationship variable trust which might be of utmost importance in highly
customized relationships with a high dependence of the buyer on the
timely and error-free delivery of goods, while in a relationship that only
2.4 Research model 51
Substantive justification
Theory
Hypothesis Constructs
Methodology Measures
Analysis
Conclusion
In a first step, the idea for the research has been generated through ex-
tensive literature review and practical observations. This promoted the
substantive justification which led to the development of research ques-
tions and thus provides the impetus for the research endeavor.
In the next step, the theoretical foundation for the research will be built,
employing a pluralistic approach to adequately address the complexity of
the research questions. Utilizing the generated findings from theory and
the existing empirical research, the variables of the outsourcing relation-
ship model will then be conceptualized to subsequently derive hypotheses
on their causal linkages and performance effects.
54 2 Basic concepts
So far, no single theory exists that would be suitable to propose the opti-
mal way to manage relationships in general and between customers and
LSPs in particular in order to maximize performance outcomes.
As WALLENBURG (2004, pp. 61-62) puts it, the issue of relationship
formation would be simple under the assumption that firms act purely eco-
nomical and are not characterized by bounded rationality. Perfect contracts
between buyers and sellers could be agreed upon after customers would
have chosen the service provider purely on criteria of efficiency and effec-
tiveness. Central for the choice of the customer would only be the costs
and the corresponding service levels as well as the competence of the ser-
vice provider, which is the one critical determinant for the development of
costs and service levels in the future. Relationship factors, such as trust,
commitment or communication would not matter in this world of perfect
contracts in which purely rational decisions would determine whether a
service is produced in-house, outsourced to a service provider or if the ser-
vice provider must be changed in order to reduce costs or increase the ser-
vice level.
Just the introduction of bounded rationality adds a degree of complexity
to relationship management that severely complicates the issue. It there-
fore does not come as a surprise that no single theory as yet has been put
forward that would be widely accepted to explain how relationships should
be formed under which circumstances to maximize its outcome.
However, as described in the previous chapter, numerous authors have
addressed relationship formation and management. The theories employed
range from neo-classical approaches over industrial economics, new mi-
cro-economic theories (transaction cost analysis and principal agent the-
ory) and game theory to social exchange theory, the commitment-trust the-
ory, the contingency approach and the resource-based view.
Even though several remarkable works have originated by using one
theory only, recent years have seen an increase in research employing a
56 3 Theoretical framework
Transaction
costs
Market Cooperation Hierarchy
Transaction dimensions
(asset specificity, uncertainty, frequency)
work. The upcoming chapter will make further efforts to point out its ex-
planatory value to logistics relationship research.
Transaction cost theory views firms and markets as alternative forms for
coordinating a transaction and suggests that the exchange governance is
driven by the firms desire to minimize the direct and opportunity costs of
exchange (RINDFLEISCH/HEIDE 1997, p. 31). Thus, transaction cost theory
allows valuable insights on the choice of the form of coordination depend-
ing on the characteristics of a transaction and suggests circumstances un-
der which long-term relationships are preferable over other forms of coor-
dination for a transaction.
However, according to LAMBE/WITTMANN/SPEKMANN (2001, pp. 2-3)
one of transaction cost theorys basic premises is that the risk of partner
opportunism limits the effectiveness of relational governance in exchange
relationships. This is in strong contrast to the empirical findings of sev-
eral researchers who have shown that indeed relational control in the form
of norms or personal relations is often an effective means of governance
(ANDERSON/NARUS 1984; ANDERSON/NARUS 1990; DWYER/SCHURR/OH
1987; MORGAN/HUNT 1994; WILSON 1995). Additionally, doubt has been
cast on transaction cost theorys basic assumption of universal opportun-
ism, especially in relational exchange (HEIDE/JOHN 1992; MORGAN/HUNT
1994). It must therefore be ascertained that transaction cost theory is lim-
ited in its capacity to explain exchange governance in exchange relation-
ships in which the partners are actually able to develop relationship-based
governance over time (LAMBE/WITTMANN/SPEKMANN 2001, p. 3).
The implications of these findings for the explanatory value of transac-
tion cost theory for the formation and management of logistics relation-
ships is far-reaching. While the theory is obviously suited to explain why
customers and logistics service providers engage in cooperative arrange-
ments it can only be utilized to derive conclusions on the design of the ac-
tual relationship in a very limited fashion. These conclusions, however, are
a central aim of this study as formulated in research questions 1 and 2 (see
chapter 2.4.2), because it will be assumed that customer and LSP already
have decided upon entering a relationship. Thus, the question remaining is
not if a cooperative relationship should be formed, but rather how the par-
ties should act within it.
Long-term relationship between firms, based on trust and mutual coop-
eration, which are replacing the traditional adversarial relationships can
improve manufacturing firm performance (HOYT/HUQ 2000, p. 755). The
trust between the two parties can play a central role in this context. As
3.2 Introduction to selected theories 61
Communication
Commitment
Cooperation
Dependence
Satisfaction
Others
Norms
Trust
Author(s)
ANDERSON/NARUS (1984)
ANDERSON/NARUS (1990)
ANDERSON/HAKANSSON/JOHANSON
(1994)
ANDERSON/WEITZ (1989)
ANDERSON/WEITZ (1992)
DWYER/SCHURR/OH (1987)
FRAZIER (1983)
GASKI (1984)
GASSENHEIMER/HOUSTON/DAVIS
(1998)
GUNDLACH/ACHROL/MENTZER
(1995)
GUNDLACH/MURPHY (1993)
HEIDE (1994)
HEIDE/JOHN (1992)
HOUSTON/GASSENHEIMER (1987)
KNEMEYER/CORSI/MURPHY (2003)
KNEMEYER/MURPHY (2004)
LAMBERT/EMMELHAINZ/GARDNER
(1999)
LUSCH/BROWN (1996)
MALONI/BENTON (2000)
MOORE (1998)
MORGAN/HUNT (1994)
RING/VAN DE VEN (1994)
SCHURR/OZANNE (1985)
SKINNER/GASSENHEIMER/KELLEY
(1992)
SMITH/BARCLAY (1997)
68 3 Theoretical framework
TATE (1996)
WALLENBURG (2004)
WHIPPLE/FRANKEL/DAUGHERTY
(2002)
WILSON (1995)
YOUNG/WILKINSON (1989)
As Table 3-1 shows, the variables most often utilized in relationship re-
search include trust, commitment, dependence, cooperation, communica-
tion, norms, and satisfaction. Some of these are also very fitting for logis-
tics relationship research.
LALONDE/COOPER (1989) propose that, as trust evolves between cus-
tomers and LSPs, relationships turn into alliances. According to them, trust
is essential to overcome opportunism and achieve mutual advantage,
thereby fostering success of the exchange relationship. The same thoughts
are displayed when BOWERSOX/DAUGHERTY/DROGE/ROGERS/WARDLOW
(1989) find that successful logistics relationships are characterized by mu-
tual trust and commitment where both parties seek to establish jointly re-
warding exchange.
Other authors suggest that the variables cooperation and communication
are important for successful logistics relationships (GARDNER/COOPER
1988; ELLRAM/COOPER 1990). As logistics relationships extend beyond
transactional exchanges, parties are motivated to manage risk and uncer-
tainty through cooperation, thereby allowing them to receive benefits nor-
mally only attainable through vertical integration. This of course requires
the sharing of information, risks, and rewards in order to develop a mutu-
ally beneficial relationship.
Satisfaction generally also plays an important role in relationships
(HOMANS 1958; THIBAUT/KELLEY 1959; BLAU 1964). According to
LAMBE/WITTMANN/SPEKMANN (2001, p. 25), it provides an insight into a
relationships overall performance and thereby may serve as an operation-
alization of the success of the exchange relationship. Therefore, the satis-
faction of the parties with the outcome of a logistics outsourcing relation-
ship can be used as an approximation of its success (ANDERSON/NARUS
1990, p. 46) and thus is suited for answering research question 1 and 2 as
proposed in chapter 2.4.2.
Dependence, however, will not be analyzed in this study. While a sub-
stantial amount of research already exists that examines the importance of
dependence for relationships (ANDERSON/NARUS 1990; HALLN/JOHAN-
SON/SEYED-MOHAMED 1991; HEIDE 1994; LUSCH/BROWN 1996), this
study focuses on behavioral and attitudinal aspects of cooperative relation-
3.2 Introduction to selected theories 69
ships only and does not aim at analyzing the effects of power and depend-
ence in this context. This isolated examination of the effects of selected
aspects of exchange relationships will foster a better understanding of the
matter as a whole. Once this is accomplished, future research can add fur-
ther complexity and integrate additional variables such as power and de-
pendence.
Only when the causal linkages between the variables introduced above
will be further understood also in logistics relationships, the performance
drivers in logistics outsourcing arrangements can be identified. This would
consequently enable the adequate design of these relationships in the fu-
ture.
Termination
Acquiescence
Costs
+ +
Relationship + _ Propensity to
Benefits Relationship Leave
+ Commitment +
+ Trust +
Functional
Communication
Conflict
_ _
Opportunistic
Uncertainty
Behavior
Due to its theoretical proximity to social exchange theory, many of the ar-
guments proposed in chapter 3.2.2.2 concerning the explanatory value for
logistics relationship research also apply to the commitment-trust theory.
Following the argumentation of a large number of authors (DWYER/
SCHURR/OH 1987; ANDERSON/HAKANSSON/JOHANSON 1994; MORGAN/
HUNT 1994; RING/VAN DE VEN 1994; WILSON 1995; LAMBE/WITT-
MANN/SPEKMANN 2001), little doubt exists that commitment and trust are
central variables determining the success of exchange relationships. Since
contract logistics relationships as analyzed in this study are especially
characterized through a long-term orientation, based on cooperative rather
than arms length arrangements, the propositions of the commitment-trust
theory are particularly relevant (BOWERSOX/DAUGHERTY/DROGE/
ROGERS/WARDLOW 1989; LALONDE/ COOPER 1989; MOORE 1998;
LAMBERT/EMMELHAINZ/GARDNER 1999; MALONI/BENTON 2000; KNE-
MEYER/CORSI/ MURPHY 2003; WALLENBURG 2004).
The most remarkable achievement of MORGAN/HUNT (1994) is the in-
tegration of the mediating variables commitment and trust with several an-
tecedents and outcomes into a model which, empirically validated, allows
deep insights into the designing of successful relationships.
72 3 Theoretical framework
The previous chapters have already shown the importance of exchange re-
lationships. Moreover, it has been argued that since not all relationships
3.2 Introduction to selected theories 73
are the same, an influence of contingency variables may exist that deter-
mines the performance of relationships in different contexts. Exemplary
are the different transaction characteristics presented in chapter 3.2.1.2. It
can therefore be presumed that the performance of logistics relationships is
subject to moderating effects of different logistical contingency variables.
A possible explanation promising deeper insights into the matter is be-
ing offered by the contingency approach (also sometimes: contingency
theory) which has been extensively used to describe organizational struc-
tures under varying environmental conditions (KLEER 1991, p. 115;
PRASAD/TATA/MOTWANI 2001, p. 32).
However, in order to understand the explanatory value of the contin-
gency approach for logistics relationship research, it will be discussed
along with its strengths and limitations in the following chapters.
The origin of the contingency approach was the observation in the 1960s
that organizations show significantly different organizational structures
and behaviors. Opposing the dominant belief at the time whereby all or-
ganizations could be described by a few universal laws and theories, UDY
(1959) and HALL (1963) empirically found that substantial differences be-
tween organizations exist. Contingency theory was the attempt of organ-
izational theory to explain these differences (KIESER/KUBICEK 1978, p.
105). The central proposition of contingency theory is, aside from the as-
sumptions that there is no best way to organize and that any way of orga-
nizing is not equally effective (GALBRAITH 1973, p. 2), that differences in
structure and administrative practices of organizations depend on the na-
ture of the environment to which the organization relates (SCOTT 1992, p.
89). Hence, different forms of organization will have varying degrees of
efficiency depending on the environmental conditions. These demands of
the environment are also called context and, more specific, contingency or
situational variables.
Contingency variables encompass all potential factors that can internally
or externally affect an organization. Among the most discussed variables
in the early days of theory development were the size of the organization
and the utilized production technologies as internal factors. Results of the
debate were different schools of thought (KIESER/KUBICEK 1978, pp. 106-
108). Some of the initial findings include that larger organizations with
many employees are more bureaucratic than smaller organizations
(CAPLOW 1956; RUSHING 1966), that the choice of the production tech-
nology has an impact on the organization form (WOODWARD 1958) and
74 3 Theoretical framework
1980, p. 309). The premises that the organization has full power to change
the internal organizational structure at will and at the same time must ac-
cept the environment as given, without any possibility of influencing or
controlling it, further aggravate the criticism.
More disapproval was voiced due to the lack of theory in the contin-
gency approach (HAGE 1974, pp. 18-19). The approach indeed does not of-
fer law-like generalizations. It rather points out that under certain circum-
stances, differences in organization structure and administrative practices
have different implications for a firms performance.
A last point of criticism of the contingency approach is that it has too of-
ten been used in a quasi-causal way (KIESER/KUBICEK 1978, p. 135) to
ex-post rationalize exploratory results that ex-ante were not proposed by
theory-backed hypotheses. STAEHLE (1990, p. 51) therefore concludes that
the contingency approach can arbitrarily be used for contents of the most
different kinds which is its strength and weakness at the same time, but
therefore also constitutes a research approach rather than a theory.
After having introduced the contingency approach it must be concluded
that its main contribution is its demand to evaluate the structure of organi-
zations and its administrative practices on the grounds of the respective
context. The approach therefore must be understood as an idea or a frame-
work rather than a theory with all its implications.
Fig. 3-3. Relations between the organization and the environment from a logistical
viewpoint (PFOHL/ZLLNER 1997, p. 308)
The preceding discussion of chapter 3.2 raises the question whether or not
it is necessary to resort to four different theories in order to analyze logis-
tics outsourcing relationships. Furthermore, it must be examined which
explanatory value the combination of these theories has to offer with re-
spect to the research aims of this study. This chapter will address these
questions in the following.
Some studies analyzing inter-organizational relationships, both empiri-
cally and conceptually, have weaknesses in their theoretical foundation be-
cause they do not adequately address the suitability of the utilized theories
for the analyzed context. Omitting this argumentation means assuming a
generalizability of the results beyond the context the research was con-
ducted in, which should be avoided in order to prevent false interpretations
and conclusions.
As already mentioned above and discussed further in chapter 5.1, the
objects of research in this study are logistics outsourcing relationships be-
tween logistics service providers and their customers. Since a number of
different relationship designs exist, the focus here will be on long-term re-
lationships and their cooperative aspects as present in contract logistics ar-
rangements (see chapter 2.3.3.2).
Especially suited to analyze long-term logistics outsourcing relation-
ships is the commitment-trust theory. It explicitly centers on the analysis
of long-term relationships between firms and allows insights into the fac-
tors which determine outcome and performance of these arrangements.
80 3 Theoretical framework
strengths of the contingency approach will be used while its main weak-
nesses have no effect in this context.
The general suitability of the theories presented above for analyzing lo-
gistics outsourcing relationships does not necessarily constitute the im-
perative to actually use them all in this study. The necessity to do so rather
results from the complexity inherent in the relationships between custom-
ers and LSPs. To address this complexity, the theories have been explicitly
chosen collectively to develop a model of logistics outsourcing relation-
ships that aims at identifying from different perspectives the relevant fac-
tors influencing the performance of outsourcing relationships after the out-
sourcing decision has been made.
An important theory to explain the formation of cooperative relation-
ships is transaction cost theory which offers the economic approach for
analyzing logistics outsourcing relationships. Its main explanatory value in
the context of this study is the support in identifying factors that enable
partner firms to reduce transaction costs in the outsourcing relationship,
such as involvement and openness or that increase them, such as opportun-
ism.
However, transaction cost theory on its own cannot be sufficient to an-
swer the research questions posed in chapter 2.4.2 for two reasons. First,
existing relationships between customers and LSPs are analyzed for which
the decision between market, cooperation, and hierarchy has already been
taken in favor of cooperation. Second, these relationships are not based on
purely economical considerations only, but also involve social factors. To
identify these, transaction cost theory can contribute, but if used on its own
is not enough.
To identify the social factors and the causal linkages between them,
theories with an explicit social perspective are necessary. Social exchange
theory is particularly suited since its propositions for exchange relation-
ships can readily be adapted to logistics outsourcing relationships. Among
its main contribution are the factors commitment and trust, cooperation,
and communication as well as the insight that the more social exchange
evolves through the behavior of the parties involved, the more stable and
successful is the relationship.
The character of the relationship is also displayed in the commitment-
trust theory which is of significant importance in this study because it ex-
plicitly addresses long-term business relationships. By doing so, it suggests
a number of important factors beyond the central variables commitment
and trust that also influence outsourcing relationships such as shared val-
ues, functional conflict, and opportunism and emphasizes, as does social
exchange theory, the importance of communication and cooperation.
82 3 Theoretical framework
After this previous chapter has consolidated the theories and argued their
suitability, the following chapters will identify the relevant variables for
logistics outsourcing relationships and introduce hypotheses on their
causal linkages and performance effects. The previous chapter has pointed
out the explanatory value of four different theories for the designing of lo-
gistics outsourcing relationships and has indicated that a number of vari-
ables affect their performance outcomes. The following chapters will ex-
plore these direct performance effects of logistics outsourcing relationships
and will identify their antecedents on the basis of the proposed theories
and previous research. Aside from the conceptualization, hypotheses will
be generated that address the expected direct and indirect effects of these
variables on outsourcing performance.
In a second step, hypotheses on the anticipated effects of logistics out-
sourcing performance on logistics performance and firm performance will
be presented after the relevant variables will have been established. Fi-
nally, it will be analyzed which moderating effects can be expected from
both external and internal contingency factors on the models developed on
the basis of the different hypotheses.
The following two chapters will in detail discuss logistics outsourcing per-
formance. At first, chapter 4.1.1 will present the background of the concept
of logistics outsourcing performance, its connection to logistics perform-
ance and will argue for measuring it by focusing on its outcome. Then,
chapter 4.1.2 will conceptualize the construct on the basis of the under-
standing developed before and introduce its bi-dimensionality.
84 4 Antecedents and effects of logistics outsourcing performance
Hypothesized effect on
outsourcing performance
Variable Underlying theories Direct Indirect
Social Exchange Theory, Commitment-Trust Theory,
Cooperation Transaction Cost Theory 9
Communication Social Exchange Theory, Commitment-Trust Theory 9
Proactive Improvement Social Exchange Theory 9
Trust Social Exchange Theory, Commitment-Trust Theory 9
Relationship Commitment Social Exchange Theory, Commitment-Trust Theory 9
Functional Conflict Commitment-Trust Theory 9
Involvement Transaction Cost Theory 9
Opportunism Transaction Cost Theory, Commitment-Trust Theory 9
Shared Values Commitment-Trust Theory 9
Openness Transaction Cost Theory 9
Aside from the variables with direct effects, several important constructs
promise to have indirect effects that contribute to the overall explanatory
value of the resulting model.
Commitment and trust, proposed by social exchange and commitment-
trust theories, will have a number of indirect effects as they foster a closer
cooperation between the two parties. Direct effects on the two dimensions
of outsourcing performance, however, will not be hypothesized because
90 4 Antecedents and effects of logistics outsourcing performance
4.2.1.1 Cooperation
4.2.1.2 Communication
4.2.1.4 Trust
expectations held about the social order in general and specific interactions
in particular (LANE 2000, p. 10). According to GARFINKEL (1967, p. 173),
the grounds of trust are expectations of persistence, regularity, order, and
stability in the everyday and routine world. BLAU (1964, p. 93) further-
more states that social exchange requires trusting each other to discharge
specified obligations for services received in the past and substituting them
with unspecified obligations on future services, leading to the expectation
that in some form or the other they will be rewarded. Consequently, social
exchange is not seen as a singular, calculative process, but rather as an
open-ended conception of reciprocity (POWELL 1991).
In an attempt to consolidate the different assumptions of trust, the views
on its origin and the accompanying definitions, the following can be ob-
served: trust requires both the will of at least one party to trust the other
and additionally depends on the other partys trustworthy behavior
(WALLENBURG 2004, p. 107). Since trustworthy behavior is a complex is-
sue largely depending on the particular context, trust in this study will be
conceptualized along the line of the buying partys will to trust. This will-
ingness to trust corresponds to the above definition of
MOORMAN/ZALTMAN/DESHPAND (1992, p. 315) and directly leads to the
definition of DONEY/CANNON (1997, p. 36) that trust is the perceived
credibility and benevolence of a target of trust. This view, originally put
forward by GANESAN (1994, p. 3), will be underlying the understanding of
trust in this study as it addresses its most relevant aspects in two dimen-
sions: The first dimension of trust focuses on the objective credibility of an
exchange partner. It includes the expectation that the partners word or
written statement can be relied on (LINDSKOLD 1978). The second dimen-
sion, benevolence, marks the extent to which one partner is genuinely in-
terested in the other partners welfare and motivated to seek joint benefits.
This definition of trust is particularly suited for the context of third party
logistics relationships. Here, the customer turns to the LSP with some de-
gree of risk concerning the trust that the LSP will be able to perform effec-
tively and efficiently (credibility) and at the same time is interested in the
customers best interest (benevolence). The construct trust will in this
study consequently measure the degree of trust the customer has in the or-
ganization of the LSP.
4.2.1.5 Commitment
4.2.1.7 Involvement
4.2.1.8 Opportunism
This study will use the above stated definition of MORGAN/HUNT (1994,
p. 25) and understand shared values as the common believes of partners
about what behaviors, goals, and policies are important or unimportant,
appropriate or inappropriate, and right or wrong.
4.2.1.10 Openness
4.3.1.1 Cooperation
relationship and the more likely it is that the previously set expectations
are significantly exceeded. Therefore, the following two hypotheses will
be formulated:
4.3.1.2 Communication
While it has recently been established that innovation is critical to the suc-
cess of logistics service providers (FLINT/LARSSON/GAMMELGAARD/
MENTZER 2005, p. 113), LSPs proactive improvement as a manifestation
of its innovation orientation has received only very little attention, most
notably recently by ENGELBRECHT (2004, pp. 207-209) and WALLENBURG
(2004, pp. 102-103).
The hypothesis of the positive effect of the proactive improvement on
goal achievement in logistics outsourcing arrangements is supported by
transaction cost theory. As the LSP continues to optimize its services, the
customer will consequently experience lower enforcement costs than in a
situation without optimization in which the results would not have been as
satisfactory. Social exchange theory also suggests positive effects of pro-
active improvement on goal achievement. As cooperative behaviors be-
tween partners increase as a result of the anticipated reciprocity, the LSP
can expect to be rewarded for the improved services and therefore will
strive to optimize the outcome for the customer in its own interest, leading
to a higher goal achievement.
Apart from transaction cost and social exchange theories, it can also be
argued that the constant efforts of the LSP for proactive improvement will
eventually translate into increased goal achievement as ultimately the ac-
tivities will show measurable effects. This would only not be the case if
4.3 Formulation of a model of logistics outsourcing performance 109
the LSP would continuously fail in his efforts to produce some form of
improvement. However, in professional outsourcing arrangements this is
very unlikely.
These theoretical postulates are supported by recent empirical findings.
ENGELBRECHT (2004, p. 276) shows that proactive improvement of the
LSP has a strong positive causal effect on the goal achievement of out-
sourcing projects. This insight is backed by findings of STANK/GOLDSBY/
VICKERY/SAVITSKIE (2003, p. 43) who demonstrate that the relational per-
formance between customer and LSP positively influences both opera-
tional and cost performance of the outsourcing arrangements. With respect
to proactive improvement this is important, as STANK/GOLDSBY/
VICKERY/SAVITSKIE (2003, p. 32) measure relational performance with
three indicators, one of which is that the LSP makes recommendations for
continuous improvement on an ongoing basis.
The importance of proactive improvement for the goal achievement has
therefore been established. However, as argued in chapter 4.1, the overall
logistics outsourcing performance in this study will be measured also with
a second dimension indicating whether the acceded goals have been sig-
nificantly exceeded in terms of quality of service and costs. Since the pro-
active improvement through the LSP will lead to continuous improvement
of the service quality and/or cost reductions, it will be postulated that pro-
active improvement positively influences goal exceedance.
Not only will the improvements realized by the LSP lower transaction
costs below the levels expected by the customer, e.g. through lowering the
enforcement costs as sanctioning the LSP becomes less or un-important in
an environment where it aims at constantly delivering the best possible
service to the customer. Also, goal exceedance will be positively influ-
enced by proactive improvement because the efforts of the LSP going be-
yond the goals formulated in the contract will eventually lead to surpassing
them. In this context, proactive improvement is even more important for
goal exceedance than for goal achievement. For the achievement of the lat-
ter, it may suffice to only deliver the agreed upon service level. To exceed
these goals, however, the LSP must deliver either better service or lower
costs, preferably both together. Therefore, the following hypotheses can be
derived:
4.3.1.4 Trust
As chapter 4.2.1.4 has argued, trust is essential for virtually all interorgani-
zational relationships (ARROW 1975, p. 24) and is the cornerstone to the
strategic partnership (SPEKMAN 1988, p. 79). It is therefore included in
most relationship models as a fundamental building block (WILSON 1995,
p. 337). According to MORGAN/HUNT (1994, pp. 22-23) and the commit-
ment-trust theory, trust is a key mediating variable within effective rela-
tional exchanges.
Some empirical evidence exists that trust has a direct positive influence
on the performance of logistics outsourcing arrangements. KNEMEYER/
MURPHY (2004, p. 45) find support for their hypothesis that trust is posi-
tively related to the buyers perception of operations performance, while
they have to reject their hypotheses regarding the positive effects on both
channel and asset reduction performance. This is particularly interesting in
the light of the commitment-trust theory which does not postulate a direct
effect on relationship performance, but rather suggests indirect effects via
the causal linkages on constructs such as commitment, cooperation, and
functional conflict. Also, neither social exchange nor transaction cost theo-
ries theorize such a direct causal effect of trust on performance. Following
these argumentations, no direct effects of trust on logistics outsourcing
performance will be hypothesized in this study. Instead, its indirect effects
on outsourcing performance via other antecedents will be explored in the
following.
The commitment-trust theory suggests a strong influence of trust on re-
lationship commitment (MORGAN/HUNT 1994, p. 24). As relationships
characterized by trust are valued very highly, the parties will desire to
commit themselves to such relationships (HREBINIAK 1974). Also, since
relationship commitment means a significant degree of vulnerability, the
parties will also seek only trustworthy partners. This hypothesis is sup-
ported by social exchange theory, which explains the causal relationship
through the principle of generalized reciprocity, stating that mistrust leads
to mistrust, thereby reducing relationship commitment, and eventually
shifting the relationship to one of more direct short-term exchange
(MCDONALD 1981, p. 834).
A further outcome of trust suggested by the commitment-trust theory is
its positive effect on cooperation (MORGAN/HUNT 1994, p. 26). As already
the prisoners dilemma experiments of DEUTSCH (1960) show, the initia-
4.3 Formulation of a model of logistics outsourcing performance 111
4.3.1.5 Commitment
rimental effects of conflict take effect on the relationship, thereby also re-
ducing the positive effects high levels of cooperation have on the accom-
plishment of goals in general (STERN/REVE 1980) and on logistics out-
sourcing performance in particular. However, if the inevitable conflicts can
be solved amicably and functionally rather than becoming openly hostile,
the detrimental effects of the conflict on the important cooperative behav-
ior can be reduced. In this case, functional conflict potentially serves as a
means of clearing the air (ANDERSON/NARUS 1990, p. 45) and has
functional and productive consequences. Therefore, it can be hypothesized
that functional conflict has a positive effect on goal achievement.
Furthermore, functional conflict will also positively influence goal ex-
ceedance. When engaging in a logistics outsourcing arrangement with the
LSP, the customer will develop expectations about the service provided.
Part of these expectations will be the detrimental effects of conflicts,
which have been argued to be inevitable in relationships. If the level and
weight of these conflicts are now decreased beyond the expectations of the
customer, the goals set in the contract will not only be achieved, but even
exceeded as now levels of performance are reachable that under the ordi-
nary conflict level of average relationships without functional conflict
would never be.
While the relationship between functional conflict and outsourcing per-
formance has never been analyzed empirically, the research conducted by
SKINNER/GASSENHEIMER/KELLEY (1992, p. 185) supports the argumenta-
tion. Empirically, they find that the level of conflict has a negative impact
on both the level of cooperation displayed in the relationship and the cus-
tomers satisfaction with the relationship. As now functional conflict de-
creases the level of conflict in the relationship, the level of cooperation as
well as the customers satisfaction should rise. Hence, functional con-
flict will have beneficial consequences for the relationship. Consequently,
the hypotheses are as follows:
4.3.1.7 Involvement
4.3.1.8 Opportunism
opportunistic behavior will reduce trust, which in turn will have a negative
impact on the level of cooperation, as argued in chapter 4.2.1.4.
The hypotheses on opportunism consequently are the following:
The concept of shared values has been shown in chapter 4.2.1.9 to be im-
portant for exchange relationships research, since they have been indicated
to govern individual exchange relationships between firms (STINCHCOMBE
1986; SHAPIRO 1987). Also, they are important to exchange relationships
between customer and LSP because they foster organizational commit-
ment. MORGAN/HUNT (1994, p. 25) state that the organizational commit-
ment literature distinguishes between two kinds of commitment: one the
one hand that brought about by a person sharing, identifying with, or in-
ternalizing the values of the organization and on the other hand that
brought about by a cognitive evaluation of the instrumental worth of a
continued relationship which is determined through weighing up of the
gains and losses, plusses and minuses, or rewards and punishments.
Thus is becomes clear that a customer sharing the values of the LSP will
develop greater relationship commitment, which in turn is beneficial for
the relationship. Furthermore, as WILSON (1995, p. 338) points out, mutual
goals as a subset of shared values encourage both mutuality of interest
and stewardship behavior and therefore lead to increased cooperation be-
tween the parties.
DWYER/SCHURR/OH (1987, p. 21) theorize that shared values contribute
to the development of commitment and trust, two constructs of substantial
importance for the research conducted in this study. This thought is taken
up by MORGAN/HUNT (1994, p. 25) during the development of the com-
mitment-trust theory. Here, shared values are the only antecedent posited
to influence both key mediating variables commitment and trust, which
subsequently is also supported by empirical findings (MORGAN/HUNT
1994, p. 30). These effects of shared values will consequently be also hy-
pothesized in this study.
Beyond these two effects, the commitment-trust theory does not offer
further direct insights. However, it does suggest that the existence of
shared values among exchange partners leads to relationships that are more
4.3 Formulation of a model of logistics outsourcing performance 117
4.3.1.10 Openness
After ten variables with supposed direct or indirect effects on the two di-
mensions of logistics outsourcing performance have been conceptualized
in chapter 4.2.1, the preceding chapter 4.3 has introduced hypotheses on
the causal linkages between the variables. While for all ten variables mod-
eled as antecedents of outsourcing performance causal linkages with each
other are hypothesized, direct causal linkages on outsourcing performance
are only theorized for the constructs cooperation, proactive improvement,
and functional conflict. Table 4-1 summarizes the hypotheses put forward
until this point.
H9a Proactive improvement of the LSP has a positive effect on goal achievement.
H9b Proactive improvement of the LSP has a positive effect on goal exceedance.
120 4 Antecedents and effects of logistics outsourcing performance
H17 The involvement of the LSP has a positive effect on proactive improvement.
H19 H9b
H23 H28 H7 H6
H18 H26 Goal
H14b Exceedance
Functional
Conflict
H5
Opportunism H8 Communication
As it has been argued above, the design of the relationship between the
customer and the LSP is hypothesized to have a positive effect on the lo-
gistics outsourcing performance. The question of these performance ef-
fects, however, is only a strategic one if a connection can be shown be-
tween outsourcing performance and both the resulting logistics and firm
performance of the customer. If those direct or indirect linkages could not
be shown, the aspired finding of this study demanding customers to in-
crease the focus on the relationships with their LSPs would have to be re-
jected as the resources could be employed more efficiently elsewhere in
the firm.
Consequently, the relationship model introduced in chapter 4.3.2 must
be extended. Even though a study by DEHLER (2001) shows the existence
of some causal linkages between logistics performance and firm perform-
ance, with a study by ENGELBRECHT (2004) supporting these results, find-
ing also that logistics outsourcing performance positively influences logis-
tics performance, another empirical testing will be conducted in this study
to validate the results. This is justified both because of the strategic rele-
vance of the question to the research in this study and the open issues that
could not be addressed or resolved by the studies cited above, e.g. concern-
ing causal linkages that were found to be non-significant in either one of
the cited works or the connection between the two-dimensional outsourc-
ing performance construct and both logistics and firm performance. Also,
122 4 Antecedents and effects of logistics outsourcing performance
4.4.1.1 Conceptualization
Installing effective and cost efficient logistics processes is not an end in it-
self for firms, but rather an integral part of the effort to reach the overall
performance goals of the firm which most commonly are defined as finan-
cial objectives (ENGELBRECHT 2004, p. 225). Logistics outsourcing re-
search therefore draws its relevance from the implicit assumption that lo-
gistics performance has a measurable and relevant influence on firm
performance. As proposed in research question three in chapter 2.4.2, em-
pirical testing of this relationship is a central problem for logistics research
and thus will be further analyzed in this study.
The measurement of firm performance has received much attention in
business administration research, which is reflected in the multitude of dif-
ferent approaches suggested (BHARGAVA/DUBELAAR/RAMASWAMI 1994).
Fundamentally, it can be distinguished between hard and soft per-
formance measures (DALTON/TODOR/SPENDOLINI/FIELDING/PORTER
1989, p. 50), which DEHLER (2001, p. 226) terms objective and subjective.
Hard or objective performance criteria include sales, gross profit, pro-
duction or growth while soft or subjective measures rely on the indi-
128 4 Antecedents and effects of logistics outsourcing performance
4.4.2.1 Conceptualization
This chapter will introduce the hypotheses on the causal linkages between
the two factors of logistics performance and the three factors of firm per-
formance. It will theorize that a strong indication exists suggesting that lo-
gistics performance has a positive effect on the overall firm performance.
As mentioned above, this relationship has first been analyzed by
DEHLER (2001, pp. 226-244), the results later being confirmed by
ENGELBRECHT (2004, pp. 251-255). As Figure 4-4 demonstrates, they
found that while the level of logistics costs directly influences the financial
performance, the level of logistics services only directly affects the adap-
130 4 Antecedents and effects of logistics outsourcing performance
tiveness and the market performance of the firm. However, since the
causal linkages between adaptiveness, market performance and financial
performance are very strong, a powerful positive indirect effect from the
level of logistics services on the financial performance of the firm exists.
In fact, as DEHLER (2001, p. 242) points out, the total effect of the level of
logistics services on the financial performance is 0.405, while for the level
of logistics costs it is only 0.216, both significant at the 1%-level.
Adaptiveness Adaptiveness
0.54*** 0.31***
Financial Financial
Performance Performance
***: 1%-level of significance
**: 5%-level of significance
*: 10%-level of significance
Fig. 4-4. Firm Performance Model developed by DEHLER (2001, p. 241) and
ENGELBRECHT (2004, p. 254)
H34: The level of logistics services has a positive effect on market per-
formance.
H37: The level of logistics costs has a positive effect on market per-
formance.
4.4 Effects of logistics outsourcing performance 133
H38: The level of logistics costs has a positive effect on financial per-
formance.
After having investigated the causal linkages between logistics perform-
ance and firm performance, the following paragraphs will investigate the
relationships between the individual factors of firm performance. Causal
linkages will be theorized for the relation between adaptiveness, market
performance, and financial performance, accounting for the interdepend-
ent and sequential nature of the relationships between the factors.
The adaptiveness of a firm describes its capability to adjust to changes
in market demands. It enables the firm to adapt its products and services to
altered customer needs and to react flexibly to new market developments.
It can thus be expected that firms with high levels of adaptiveness can bet-
ter address the needs of their customers, thereby increasing customer satis-
faction which in turn is an important prerequisite for market performance.
It can therefore be argued that adaptiveness has a positive influence on
market performance.
Market performance and its revenue effects, which are determined at
large by the offered products and services as well as the corresponding
prices, in turn directly influences the economical success of the firm and
thereby its financial performance. This relationship has been shown in
several studies on customer satisfaction and customer loyalty (FORNELL
1992; ANDERSON/SULLIVAN 1993; RUST/ZAHORIK 1993; REICHELD
1996), performance measurement of marketing (AMBLER/KOKKINAKI
1997) and empirical success factor research such as the PIMS study
(BUZZEL/GALE 1987). The performance effects as demonstrated in these
studies stem from several effects: increasing customer loyalty leads to de-
creased customer acquisition costs, to higher customer profitability due to
longer relationships and to a higher tolerance towards increased prices
(REICHELD 1996), while strong growth and high market share also influ-
ence the economical performance of a firm positively (CAPON/FARLEY/
HOENIG 1990; SZYMANSKI/BHARADWAJ/VARADARAJAN 1993).
After the above presented argumentation, the following two hypotheses
can formally be introduced:
Adaptiveness
H33
Level of
H36 H39
Logistics Services
H34
Market
Performance
H37
Level of
H40
Logistics Costs
H38 H35
Financial
Performance
In chapters 4.3 and 4.4, three models have been developed that allow gen-
eral insights into the nature of logistics outsourcing performance on the
one hand and into the relationship between outsourcing performance, lo-
gistics performance, and firm performance on the other. While the ex-
planatory value of these models can be expected to be very high for the de-
signing of relationships between customers and LSPs, the analysis of the
role of moderating factors in line with research question number four is
promising to provide additional detailed knowledge. The following chapter
will provide some background information on the importance of moderat-
ing analyses and the selection of adequate variables before chapter 4.5.2
will introduce the conceptualization of the variables utilized in this study.
4.5 Moderating effects 135
tics services as they have become less attractive customers due to their par-
ticular logistics processes (LIEB 2005, p. 23).
Further evidence for the diversity of logistics outsourcing customers that
suggests the existence of moderating effects is brought forward by QUINN
(2005). He states that aspects, such as an increasing geographic complexity
caused by the level of the globalization of the customers operations, have
provoked LSPs to rethinking their organizational structures, developing
new capabilities and services, and collaborating more closely with their
customers (QUINN 2005, pp. 3-4). The same rethinking as initiated by the
geographical complexity can be found when the complexity of the custom-
ers products force the LSPs to develop new capabilities and services.
Summing up these observations, a clear indication is given that logistics
service providers have adapted their organizational structures as a reaction
to the heterogeneity of their potential customers. Consequently, it must be
assumed that this heterogeneity may be responsible for the necessity of dif-
ferent LSP behaviors in different outsourcing situations and contexts, thus
suggesting the existence of moderating effects especially in the models of
logistics outsourcing performance and logistics performance proposed in
chapters 4.3 and 4.4.
While the argumentation presented above has concentrated primarily on
the importance of moderating analyses in the context of logistics outsourc-
ing arrangements, the study at hand provides the opportunity to also test
the potential relevance of the contingency variables on the linkage between
logistics performance on firm performance. WEBER (2003, pp. 16-18) ar-
gues that depending on the differentiation potential of logistics services for
a firm, the impact of logistics performance on the firm performance varies.
While in spot market environments with clearly defined logistical require-
ments the differentiation potential through logistics service quality is very
limited while at the same time carrying the risk of producing unjustifiable
extra costs, logistics service quality may be the central differentiation fac-
tor in long-term relationship with changing and demanding logistical re-
quirements. This clearly indicates that depending on the context of the
firm, the effect of logistics performance on firm performance may vary.
Further support for this argumentation is provided in the following: Lo-
gistics performance is appreciated as a driver of firm performance by many
logistics executives (DEEPEN 2003, pp. 139-140). The degree of perceived
impact varies, however, from a majority that views logistics as strategi-
cally important for their firms to a minority that attributes only a lesser
strategic importance. It can be argued that executives that view logistics as
strategically important do so because they recognize its potential influence
on the firms performance and vice versa. Consequently, logistics per-
formance is understood by some firms as relatively unimportant for their
4.5 Moderating effects 137
Internal contingency variables are all those factors that describe the inter-
nal situation of the customer and which it can theoretically change inde-
pendently. They include the six variables derived from the contingency
approach: the product range, the firm size, the degree of logistics centrali-
zation as well as the asset specificity, the frequency and the processes ori-
entation.
The products constitute a central aspect of the customers internal situa-
tion. Decisive for the designing of outsourcing relationship should be the
range of products produced and the corresponding material value as these
properties determine the usability of logistics infrastructure for instance for
transportation, handling or warehousing processes. A further characteristic
of different products is their substitutability which determines the opportu-
nity of the customer to positively differentiate itself through logistics ex-
cellence.
A second internal contingency variable is the size of the organization.
With increasing size, the LSPs customer can be presumed to have a higher
number of production sites, a broader product range, and also a higher
sales volume. All three aspects should have implications for the designing
of logistics outsourcing relationships and the other models.
The final variable derived from the contingency approach is the internal
logistics organization. It is primarily the degree of centralization of logis-
tics decisions that affects the relationship with the LSP. A high degree of
centralization should not only accelerate the decision making processes as
it facilitates communication and cooperation between the employees in-
volved, but should also lead to a higher relationship intensity, while a low
degree of centralization should tend to impede or hinder relationship for-
mation.
As argued in chapter 3.2.1.2, also the asset specificity and the frequency
of the customers transactions constitute contingency variables. High asset
142 4 Antecedents and effects of logistics outsourcing performance
specificity implies the need for significant logistics investments on the side
of the LSP which might not be fully or entirely retrievable after a termina-
tion of the contract. Knowing about high levels of asset specificity should
therefore alter the customers behavior towards the LSP. Low levels might
indicate the possibility to switch LSPs with little cost and effort while high
levels point towards the economical necessity to remain in a given out-
sourcing arrangement as in an outsourcing arrangement with high asset
specificity, the LSP will demand a price premium for its additional risk. A
similar argumentation holds for the frequency, which has implications for
the amortization of transaction-specific investments. Customers with very
frequent transactions will seek longer and more intense relationships with
LSPs since economies of scale and lower average costs per transaction
substantially reduce transaction costs.
Another contingency variable to be tested in this study is the process
orientation of the customer. First shown by DEHLER (2001, pp. 220-226)
to have a positive influence on logistics performance, its moderating ef-
fects on outsourcing performance, logistics performance, and firm per-
formance will be analyzed. Process orientation implies the largely failure-
free flow of materials and information inside the organization and towards
its customers, excellent coordination between all partners required for the
production of the goods and generally an orientation towards the achieve-
ment of all partners joint goals. The higher the process orientation of the
firm, the higher is its level of logistics knowledge as presented in chapter
2.1.1. High process orientation can therefore be expected to positively af-
fect the linkage between relationship variables and the outsourcing per-
formance outcomes, while low process orientation must be presumed to
have detrimental effects.
The previous two chapters have introduced a variety of external and inter-
nal contingency variables that are supposed to have an influence on the ef-
fect relationship variables have on the logistics outsourcing performance
and furthermore on the relation between outsourcing performance, logis-
tics performance, and firm performance. Figure 4-6 gives an overview of
the hypothesized contingency variables, which will in detail be operation-
alized in chapter 6.6.
As argued above, no hypotheses will be developed for the moderating
effects these contingency variables potentially exert on the different per-
formance models. Instead, their effects will be subject to explorative test-
ing. This is justified both because of the absence of an adequate theory for
4.5 Moderating effects 143
this specific context and the still very immature state of research in this
field. This part of the study is therefore understood as an explorative step
which could serve as one of several starting points for future research in
this field.
Frequency
Process orientation
To test the hypotheses proposed in the previous chapter, the theoretical and
conceptual insights must be challenged with reality through an empirical
analysis. For this purpose, a large-scale survey was designed and con-
ducted. This addresses the demand of MENTZER/KAHN (1995, p. 244) dis-
cussed in chapter 2.4.3 to apply the adequate scientific rigor also in logis-
tics research which has also been the goal in previous chapters:
In chapter 2, the idea for the study has been generated, the literature has
been reviewed and reality has been observed, leading to a substantive justi-
fication of the research efforts. After in chapter 3 the theories have been
introduced that allow an insight into possible research directions, chapter 4
has seen the conceptualization of the research models as well as the devel-
opment of hypotheses which will form the backbone of the empirical
analysis.
The following chapter will focus on the methodological basis and the
data base of the study. Chapter 5.1 will establish the research object and
discuss possible research methods before introducing the questionnaire, its
development, and the subsequent data collection. The resulting data base
and the characterization will be presented in chapter 5.1.5. In the follow-
ing, between chapters 5.2 and 5.2.5, the methodological basis for the em-
pirical analysis will be set.
The selection of the method suitable to survey the data needed is directly
connected to the research aim as well as the utilized method of analysis.
Generally, several different statistical methods are suitable to analyze the
relationships between different factors. However, a method is only appro-
priate if it fulfills a certain set of criteria with respect to the problem
(PETER 1997, pp. 128-130; WALLENBURG 2004, p. 124), e.g. the research
aims of this study.
Relationships between different variables must be tested according to
the proposed hypotheses. These variables, which in this study are mainly
not directly observable, are called constructs. Examples are cooperation,
trust, and commitment. Therefore, a basic requirement for the suitability of
a research method is its ability to test causal relationships between con-
structs (criterion 1).
For the analysis of the relationships between latent variables, which
cannot be measured directly, these variables must be made measurable.
For this, indicators are utilized which are empirically observable and re-
flect the characteristics of latent variables. The measurement of these indi-
cators generally is subject to measurement errors which can lead to sub-
stantially wrong conclusion if they are not appropriately accounted for
(HOMBURG 1989, p. 20). The research method therefore must allow for the
consideration of measurement errors (criterion 2).
Since it is hypothesized that causal linkages not only exist between the
relationship variables and outsourcing performance but also among the re-
lationship variables themselves, these interdependencies must be able to be
considered by the method (criterion 3). In addition, simultaneous testing of
the hypotheses must be possible to estimate the overall quality of the
model (criterion 4).
Generally, different multivariate methods of analysis based on the prin-
ciple of regression analysis are potentially suitable to analyze causal rela-
tionships. Classical regression analysis, however, proves to be not suitable
for the research aims of this study with respect to the criteria introduced
above. It only allows the testing of single observed variables which re-
quires an earlier aggregation of the indicators e.g. via factor analysis. The
generated factors can then be tested for relationships without being able to
model measurement errors. Furthermore, causal linkages between exoge-
5.1 Survey design 147
One research aim of this study is the generalizability of its results. This re-
quires high external validity that can only be ensured through a large sam-
ple size which is also a prerequisite for using covariance structure analysis.
To obtain the large number of responses needed, an on-line survey was
used to collect the data. Being almost the modern version of traditional
hardcopy mail surveys, they carry similar advantages while at the same
time remedying many disadvantages associated with traditional survey re-
search (GRIFFIS/GOLDSBY/COOPER 2003, p. 238). Through a large-scale
survey, a large sample size can be collected with comparatively little effort
in terms of time and money (KINNEAR/TAYLOR 1996, pp. 331-342). The
on-line survey, which has empirically been found to lead to higher re-
sponse rates than mail surveys (GRIFFIS/GOLDSBY/COOPER 2003, p. 254)
is not subject to an interviewer bias which is caused when the informant is
biased through the interviewer (CAVUSGIL/ELVEY-KIRK 1998, p. 1165)
and which is common in personal interviews. Interviews were, be it per-
sonal or over the telephone, considered not suitable for this research also
due to their resource needs, as the length of the questionnaire exceeded
200 questions. Given this complexity, the on-line survey offers the respon-
dents the opportunity to flexibly choose the time and location for the an-
148 5 Methodology and sample characteristics
swering which should increase the response rate. The results could fur-
thermore be saved on-line, enabling respondents to stop answering and re-
suming at a later point in time, e.g. after a friendly reminder. However,
there are also drawbacks with any large-scale, questionnaire-based survey,
the most important being non-response (HART 1987, p.33). Not only does
it reduce the response rate, but more serious it must be established by the
researcher that non-respondents are no different than respondents via a
non-response bias test.
After the method of data collection had been established, the targeted
participants of the survey had to be specified. From a theoretical point of
view it would be desirable to question all employees of firms that are in
any way involved in a relationship with a LSP. However, this would mean
an extreme complexity in the data collection and also contains the problem
of data aggregation in the end as the combination of discrepant responses
of multiple informants is an unresolved issue (KUMAR/STERN/ANDERSON
1993, p. 1636). Furthermore, a dyadic examination, involving both the cus-
tomer firm and the LSP, could have been desirable but was decided
against. While the additional view of the LSP would have provided further
insights, the information from the customer will be sufficiently detailed
and reliable. Furthermore, a dyadic survey would also mean a considerably
higher effort for the data collection, increasing costs, and reducing the
amount of responses usable for the later analysis.
It was therefore decided to question individuals responsible for logistics
decisions of strategic business units as so-called key informants. This is
widely accepted and usual in empirical research (BAGOZZI/YI/PHILLIPS
1991, p. 423) as studies suggest that the information from different infor-
mants in one firm normally does not differ significantly if the informants
are selected carefully (JOHN/REVE 1982, p. 522).
However, it is not un-criticized (KUMAR/STERN/ANDERSON 1993, pp.
1635-1637). ERNST (2001, p. 87) states that relying on single informants
can lead to substantial measurement problems caused by different motiva-
tions or perceptions, restricted cognitive capabilities or diverging levels of
information among the informants. These problems occur especially when
informants do not possess the required information or are asked to answer
for the entire firm. A careful selection of the informants therefore poses a
major task for the success of the survey. Among the managers responsible
for the outsourcing and the relationship with the LSP it can be presumed
that sufficient knowledge for the answering of the questions concerning
the outsourcing arrangement exists and that they therefore are suitable key
informants. They were therefore targeted as the respondents for the on-line
survey.
5.1 Survey design 149
1 Both studies shared a total of 68 items, with this study on logistics outsourcing
relationships contributing further 94 items and the study on customer loyalty in
logistics another 47 items. The number of items therefore totalled 209, as op-
posed to 277 if both studies had been sent out separately.
150 5 Methodology and sample characteristics
As argued above, the target respondents for this study are logistics execu-
tives that are involved in achieving or responsible for overall logistics per-
formance and for relationships with logistics service providers. Many of
these logistics executives in Germany are members of the BVL (Bundes-
vereinigung Logistik), the largest German logistics association. Conse-
5.1 Survey design 151
In total, 579 logistics managers participated in the survey until its end in
December 2004. Considering the 3,402 contacts that were initially ap-
proached, this results in a response rate of 17.0%. Especially considering
the length of the questionnaire with 209 items, this response rate can be
regarded as very high (GREER/CHUCHINPRAKARN 1999, p. 76).
Some of the returned questionnaires displayed one ore more missing
values which must be remedied before a covariance structure analysis can
be performed. Different procedures have been suggested to deal with miss-
ing values (BYRNE 2001, pp. 289-291):
Listwise deletion eliminates all cases from the sample that have at least
one missing value, thus reducing the sample significantly. When using
pairwise deletion, cases with missing values are not entirely eliminated
from the sample, but only excluded from the particular analyses that use
the respective variables. Finally, imputation allows to manually insert the
missing value on different bases. Mean imputation substitutes the missing
value with the arithmetic average of the other cases, regression imputation
calculates the missing value on the basis of a regression equation of the
complete cases and pattern matching imputation, which is sometimes also
called hot-deck imputation (TSIKRIKTSIS 2005, p. 59), replaces the missing
value with an observed score from another case in the data for which the
response pattern across the variable is very similar.
To keep the database as complete and significant as possible, a two step
approach was undertaken. First, listwise deletion was utilized to eliminate
all cases in which at least on entire construct was missing which could not
be obtained from the respondent after sending a friendly personalized re-
quest via email. Consequently, 30 cases were removed from the sample,
leaving a total of 549 cases of which some still exhibited single or multiple
missing values. These missing values were estimated using the pattern
matching imputation. In total, 185 or 0.21% of all items were missing val-
ues and consequently were replaced with values that were taken from the
observed scores of very similar other cases.
To be able to generalize the empirical results, they must be representa-
tive with respect to the basic population. Therefore, it must be examined if
systematic differences exist between firms that have participated in the
survey and non-respondents. The potential distortion of the data is called
non-response-bias.
According to ARMSTRONG/OVERTON (1977, p. 397) it can be assumed
that non-respondents are similar to those firms that have participated very
late in the survey. Consequently, the sample was split into three parts of
equal size on the basis of the answering date. After that, the third of the
5.1 Survey design 153
firms that had answered early was compared to the third that had answered
late. A comparison by means of t-tests revealed that only three items out of
the 115 indicators which are part of the logistics outsourcing performance,
the logistics performance, and the firm performance models, exhibit sig-
nificant differences of the means on a 10% level. While no recognized
threshold value exists in literature, it can be assumed that a rate of less than
3% at a significance level of 10% is very satisfactory (WALLENBURG
2004, p. 134). Therefore, it can be concluded that no non-response bias ex-
ists.
To also rule out a potential informant bias, the informant competency
was assessed on the basis of the respondents personal information
(KUMAR/STERN/ANDERSON 1993, pp. 1645-1646). 75% of the respon-
dents are either general manager of the firm or logistics manager. Addi-
tionally, the average time the informants had already been in their current
position was just above 5 years with only 0.4% that had been there for less
than one year. Consequently, it can be presumed that the respondents are
highly qualified for completing the questionnaire, as they are logistics
managers and have sufficient organizational and functional experience.
The sample can therefore be assumed not to be informant biased.
The chosen industries are well represented. As Figure 5-1 indicates, the in-
dustries represented strongest are the automotive industry with 16%, retail-
ing with 15% and the electronics, precision mechanics and optics indus-
tries with 14%. Other manufacturing industries, such as chemicals and
plastics, consumer goods, or manufacturing systems construction are less
strong represented. Industries subsumed in the category other include
pulp and paper, construction, furniture, and several others.
Concerning the size of the business units, hereafter called firms for
reason of complexity reduction, it can be observed that the average reve-
nues are larger than the overall German average. Only 11% of the firms
have annual revenues of less than 50 Mio. , while 27% of the respondents
indicated revenues of more than 1 Bill. . 49% of the firms have revenues
between 101 Mio. and 1 Bill. . Since these firms are very evenly distrib-
uted in the sample, the overall results are very satisfactory.
154 5 Methodology and sample characteristics
Health- 16 27 51-100
care 9 Mio.
5
Consumer
9
Goods
15
16
Retail
8 14 101-250
Mio.
10 Manufacturing
14 Systems 501-1,000 19
Construction Mio.
Chemicals
and Plastics Electronics,
251-500 Mio.
Precision Mechanics
and Optics
Since one major goal of this study is the analysis of relationships be-
tween customers and logistics service providers, a very interesting point to
note are the reasons the firms indicated for the initial outsourcing decision.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Does not apply Fully applies
As displayed in Figure 5-2, the top four reasons for logistics outsourcing
are all cost related. The reduction of logistics costs is met with the highest
approval, followed by the goals to turn fixed costs into variable costs and
to level peaks. The objective to increase flexibility through outsourcing
ranks only fifth with an average of 4.0 which on the scale between 1 and 7
5.2 Methodological basis for the empirical analysis 155
is precisely the neutral anchor. Points that hint at increased service levels
are even less popular, with the increase of delivery capabilities in eighth
position and the goal to lower damage- and error ratios in ninth. This
clearly indicates that firms currently outsource logistics primarily to reduce
costs. Increases in flexibility and service levels are benefits that are noted
by the firms. However, their importance is perceived as significantly lower
for the outsourcing decision, which obviously is triggered first and fore-
most through cost reduction considerations.
A comparison of these results over time promises to yield further in-
sights. In his study on logistics outsourcing, ENGELBRECHT (2004, pp.
241-243) used the same indicators to asses the reasons for logistics out-
sourcing. Most notably, the top five reasons are the same in the two stud-
ies, with only the increase of process flexibility having moved up to the
number 4 reason in the recent survey. This may be interpreted as an in-
crease in cost orientation among the customers as now the top five reasons
are cost related. The rest of the indicators have mostly kept their position
with respect to the others, which suggests a rather stable motivational
situation among outsourcing firms that has not changed dramatically over
the past years. A further comparison of the results on the basis of the indi-
vidual result of the indicators is not possible, as ENGELBRECHT (2004)
employed a five point Likert-scale as opposed to the seven point scale used
in this study.
In this chapter, the statistical method will be introduced that will be util-
ized to analyze the gathered data. As it has been argued in chapter 5.1.1,
this will be covariance structure analysis, also called structural equation
modeling, causal modeling (BAGOZZI 1981a) or causal analysis
(HOMBURG 1989). Structural equation modeling is a multivariate statistical
method. On the basis of empirically measured covariances of observed,
manifest variables, it allows drawing conclusions on the dependence be-
tween underlying theoretical, latent variables (HOMBURG 1989, p. 2).
Structural equation modeling has its roots in path analysis, a method de-
veloped in biometrics to graphically illustrate causal relationship, which
was enhanced in the 1960s by researchers in sociology, the most notable
of whom are BLALOCK (1963), DUNCAN (1966), and DUNCAN/HALLER/
PORTES (1968). In the early 1970s the different approaches were ex-
panded into a general model which can be applied in any research on
causal relationships between latent variables through the works of
156 5 Methodology and sample characteristics
Latent, exogenous
variable
Fig. 5-3. Generic measurement model of a latent variable with reflective indica-
tors
Structural model
Measurement model of Measurement model of
latent, exogenous variable latent, endogenous variable
]
G1 x1 O1 O3 y1 H1
J
Exogenous Endogenous
variable [ variable K
G2 x2 O2 O4 y2 H2
Fig. 5-4. Complete causal model consisting of two measurement models and one
structural model (BACKHAUS/ERICHSON/PLINKE/WEIBER 2003, p. 350)
estimated on the basis of the empirical data. Then, the covariances between
the indicator variables are analyzed to draw conclusion on the causal link-
ages between the latent variables. This reduces the previously many rela-
tionships between the indicator variables to a significantly lower number
of relationships between latent variables, leading to interpretable models.
The parameter estimation is performed in order to see whether the em-
pirically derived covariance matrix fits the matrix resulting from the theo-
retically hypothesized model. The better the unknown parameters are esti-
mated, the lesser will the differences between the matrices be. For the
measurement and minimization of these differences, several discrepancy
and estimation functions are available that must be chosen with particular
care (BROWNE 1984, pp. 62-83; HOMBURG 1989, pp. 164-185; BACK-
HAUS/ERICHSON/PLINKE/WEIBER 2003, pp. 362-365).
In this study, the maximum-likelihood method (ML) will be utilized
which is recommended by HOMBURG/BAUMGARTNER (1995b, pp. 1101-
1102). It represents the international standard in marketing research
(BAUMGARTNER/HOMBURG 1996, pp. 149-150) because the ML-method
is particularly exact especially in comparison with the alternatives, the un-
weighted-least-squares (ULS) and the generalized-least-square (GLS)
methods. Its application requires a sufficiently large sample size, a multi-
variate normal distribution of the indicators and the scale of the observed
variables to be continuous (BYRNE 2001, p. 70). It must be noted, how-
ever, that the maximum-likelihood method is quite robust when the as-
sumption of normally distributed observed variables is violated and still
provides valid parameter estimations (BENTLER/CHOU 1987, p. 89;
BOOMSMA 1982, pp. 149-173). Especially the assumption of the continu-
ously scaled observed variables has been intensively discussed, as most of
the data used in structural equation modeling is typically measured with
Likert-scales, which are often implicitly viewed as continuously scaled,
but are in fact discontinuous (BYRNE 2001, pp. 70-71). However,
BOLLEN/BARB (1981, pp. 232-239) show that Likert-scales with less than
5 categories distort the parameter estimation, while for scales with 5 ore
more categories the effect is neglectable. Therefore, the Likert-scales used
in this study with 7 categories can be assumed suitable to fulfill the re-
quirement of continuously scaled data.
Reliable estimations of the model parameters are generally only possible
if the model can be identified. The model can be identified if the covari-
ance matrix of the indicators includes enough information for a clear speci-
fication of the model parameters. If there is another model leading to the
same estimation of parameters, the model cannot be identified
(BAGOZZI/BAUMGARTNER 1994, p. 390). Therefore, the number of pa-
rameters to be specified can be at the most as high as the number of equa-
160 5 Methodology and sample characteristics
5.2.3.1 Reliability
The observed score of a variable consists of the real score, the system-
atic error, and the random error (PETER 1979; PETER/CHURCHILL 1986).
With the increase of the random error component, the measure is becom-
ing more unreliable while the degree of systematic error does not at all re-
duce reliability as will be discussed in the following chapter.
Factors causing the random error are those that are irrelevant for the real
score, but nevertheless influence its measurement such as the order of
items, respondent fatigue, or the conditions of the measuring situation and
is best measured through either the test-retest stability or the internal con-
sistency (HEELER/RAY 1972, p. 361). While test-retest stability cannot be
measured due to the nature of this study, the internal consistency is thor-
oughly evaluated. It measures the correlation between the indicators of a
construct through the assessment of split halves (HEELER/RAY 1972, p.
361; HILDEBRANDT 1998, p. 88). It is the higher, the stronger the indica-
tors of a latent variable are correlated. If a significant part of the variance
of a construct is explained through the association of the indicators with
the latent variable, the influence of measurement errors simultaneously
must be smaller (HOMBURG/GIERING 1996, p. 6), leading to a more reli-
able measurement.
The reliability of the measurement is a necessary, yet not a sufficient
condition of validity. It is furthermore necessary to test for systematic er-
rors, which is done through the assessment of validity.
5.2.3.2 Validity
model has a high content validity if the indicators capture all relevant and
theoretically important key facets of the unobservable construct being
measured (CHURCHILL 1991, p. 490). Since assessing a scales content va-
lidity is necessarily qualitative rather than quantitative (PARASURAMAN/
ZEITHAML/BERRY 1988, p. 28), the demand of HEELER/RAY (1972, p.
361) will be followed in this study who suggest to apply common sense.
In this study, content validity will be ensured during the development of
the measurement model, rather than after conducting the survey
(NUNNALLY 1978, p. 92; CHURCHILL 1991, pp. 490-491).
Convergent validity according BAGOZZI/PHILLIPS (1982, p. 468) is the
degree to which two or more attempts to measure the same concept
through maximally dissimilar methods are in agreement. It exists if the
indicators measuring a latent variable exhibit a high correlation (PETER
1981, p. 136) and will be tested in this study through exploratory factor
analysis (HOMBURG/GIERING 1996, p. 8).
Discriminant validity refers to the degree to which measures of distinct
constructs differ (BAGOZZI/PHILLIPS 1982, p. 469), measured in terms of
the common variance. Therefore, the correlation of the indicators within
individual constructs must be significant and greater than the correlation of
the indicators between different constructs (FORNELL/LARCKER 1981, p.
41). Again, this is tested in this study through confirmatory factor analysis.
Finally, the nomological validity must be assessed. According to
BAGOZZI (1979, p. 14), it represents the degree to which predictions
based on a concept are confirmed within the context of a larger theory.
This refers to the degree that theoretically hypothesized relationships are
supported by the analysis of the empirical data, which requires a rigorous
theoretical framework for the research models (RUEKERT/CHURCHILL JR.
1984, p. 226; PETER/CHURCHILL 1986, p. 2). Nomological validity in this
study is ensured through the solid theoretical framework which was devel-
oped in chapter 3 on the basis of which the identification of relationships
between the latent variables is possible.
Reliability and validity criteria of the first generation are solely suited to
assess the quality of measurement models.
Criteria of the second generation, on the other hand, are based upon con-
firmatory factor analysis and are suited to assess both measurement and
structural models. While they are more powerful than the criteria of the
first generation (LONG 1983; GERBING/ANDERSON 1988), their focus is
slightly different. Consequently, a two-step process is suggested that uses
both sets of criteria complementarily. First, the measurement scales are as-
sessed through criteria of the first generation before in a second step,
measurement and structural models are tested with criteria of the second
generation.
planatory value. The eigenvalue equates the sum of the squared factor
loading over all indicators. Factors with eigenvalues below one explain
less variance than one indicator by itself and are eliminated. The scree-test
is complementary to the Kaiser criterion and allows the graphical determi-
nation of the number of factors to be extracted (BACKHAUS/ERICHSON/
PLINKE/WEIBER 2003, pp. 295-297). The factors are arranged in a coordi-
nate system in the order of decreasing eigenvalues. The graph takes on the
shape of a human elbow, whereby the elbow marks the position after
which the eigenvalues of the factors are too low to be extracted. Conse-
quently, only factors on the left hand side of the mark are extracted.
Based on the exploratory factor analysis, first assumptions can be made
on the validity of the measurement models. Convergent and discriminant
validity can be assumed when the indicators can be classified as belonging
to one factor and the association to other factors is low. This is the case if
factor loadings, which mathematically can be interpreted as regression co-
efficients, for one factor are higher than 0.4 (HOMBURG 1995, p. 93;
HOMBURG/GIERING 1996, p. 8) and have a significantly lower factor load-
ing on other factors. Within exploratory factor analysis, the determined
variance is also calculated. Validity can be supposed if the extracted factor
explains more than 50% of the variance of its indicators (HOMBURG/
GIERING 1996, p. 12)
Exploratory factor analysis represents a first step in the assessment of
the quality of measurement models which often leads to new insights con-
cerning the structure of the analyzed constructs. While this assesses the va-
lidity of the measurement, the reliability is assessed through coefficient al-
pha and item-to-total correlation.
Coefficient alpha, or Cronbachs alpha (CRONBACH 1951) is considered
one of the foundations of measurement theory (PETER 1979, p. 16) and
probably is the most widely used criterion of the first generation to assess
reliability (CARMINES/ZELLER 1979, p. 44; PETERSON 1994, p. 382;
FINN/KAYANDE 1997, pp. 262-263). The widespread use of coefficient al-
pha can be attributed to its easy calculation and interpretation. It measures
the internal consistency of the indicators of a factor and represents the
mean of all correlations derived when the items of a factor are divided into
two groups in all possible ways and then the sum of the two parts are cor-
related (CARMINES/ZELLER ,1979, p. 45; MALHOTRA 1993, p. 308;
HOMBURG/GIERING 1996, p. 8). The formula of coefficient alpha as pro-
posed by CRONBACH (1951, p. 299) is given below:
5.2 Methodological basis for the empirical analysis 165
Vi (2)
n i
D 1
n 1 Vt
Confirmatory factor analysis is the basis for the criteria of the second gen-
eration to assess the reliability of measurement and structural models. Con-
trary to the exploratory factor analysis, hypotheses on the relationships be-
tween indicators and factors are specified ex-ante. While the exploratory
factor analysis serves to empirically identify the presupposed factor struc-
ture, the confirmatory factor analysis evaluates it and indicates model fit.
For the evaluation of overall measurement and structural model fit, sev-
eral adaptation measures, fit criteria, and inference statistical measures
have been developed which according to HOMBURG/BAUMGARTNER
(1995a, p. 165) can be divided into global and local adaptation measures
as presented in Figure 5-5. For empirical studies, HOMBURG/BAUM-
GARTNER (1995a, pp. 171-172) suggest to focus on selected criteria with
exceptional explanatory value which will be introduced in the following
chapters.
5.2 Methodological basis for the empirical analysis 167
Adaptation measures
F2 n 1 F S , 6 (3)
is calculated with
1 (4)
df p q p q 1 r
2
degrees of freedom, while n denotes the sample size, p and q the number
of endogenous and exogenous indicator variables and r the number of pa-
rameters that have to be estimated. Under the condition that h0 is rejected,
the p-value denotes the probability of obtaining a F2-value above the ob-
served value. If the p-value is at least 0.05, h0 and therewith the model
cannot be rejected at the 5%-level (HOMBURG/GIERING 1996, p. 10).
The F2-test has also been criticized. On the one hand, the sample size
has a strong influence on the F2-value. As BAGOZZI/YI (1988, p. 77) point
out, the probability to reject the model rises with the increase of the sample
size. On the other hand, the test measures the absolute correctness of the
model while the aim of a model as such is not to be a perfect mirror image
of reality, but an abstract approximation. Consequently, the F2-value even
increases significantly in complex models if only parts of the empirical co-
variance matrix S do not correspond to the covariance matrix of the
model 6 .
The shortcomings of the F2-test are overcome in the second inference
statistical measure RMSEA. The root-mean-squared error of approxima-
tion was developed by STEIGER/LIND (1980) and is one of the most com-
mon adaptation measures. In contrast to the F2-test, it does not measure the
absolute correctness, but rather the approximation of the hypothesized
model to the observed data (HOMBURG/BAUMGARTNER 1995a, p. 166). It
is calculated by the equation:
F 2 df (5)
RMSEA
df (n 1)
5.2 Methodological basis for the empirical analysis 169
GFI 1
tr 6 1 S I
2 (6)
tr 6 1 S
2
Values of the AGFI range from zero to one. Some researchers have
typically used a value of 0.8 as cut-off value (SHARMA 1996, p. 159),
while others demand a more rigorous level of at least 0.9
(HOMBURG/BAUMGARTNER 1995a, p. 168). While the model of logistics
outsourcing performance in this study is complex and contains a high
number of indicators as several measurement models were newly devel-
oped, still the more rigid demand of 0.9 as a minimum value will be fa-
voured in order to ensure the adequate scientific rigor.
As the explanatory value of the F2-test is quite limited as argued above,
the F2-value will be considered in relation to the number of degrees of
freedom df (F2/df). This enables to account for the influence of the degrees
of freedom and consequently of the model complexity which leads COTE
(2001, p. 87) to demand the use of this measure especially in complex
models. HOMBURG (1995, p. 84) proposes a quotient smaller than 3 to ac-
cept the model. While only rarely a higher adjusted F2-value is considered
acceptable in literature, it is sometimes proposed that only a level under
2.5 indicates a satisfactory model fit (HOMBURG/BAUMGARTNER 1995a, p.
172).
The descriptive and inference statistical measures described above be-
long to the stand-alone measures which asses the model on an isolated ba-
sis. Incremental measures which are based on the work of BENTLER/
BONETT (1980) in contrast assess the fit of the model in comparison to a
basic model. Here, all indicators are generally assumed to be independent
variables, leaving the basic model without explanatory value. A classical
incremental measure is the NFI (normed fit index). Since it does not con-
sider the degrees of freedom and is influenced by the sample size
(BEARDEN/SHARMA/TEEL 1982; BENTLER/MOOIJAART 1989), it is only
rarely used anymore. Therefore, the CFI (comparative fit index) will be
used in this study (HU/BENTLER 1995, p. 85). It does consider the degrees
of freedom and indicates how the quality of the model is improved by
changing from the basic model to the relevant model. It is calculated with
the formula:
max^F r2 df r ;0` (8)
CFI
max^F b2 df b ; F r2 df r ;0`
F b2 F r2 (9)
df b df r
TLI 2
F b
1
df b
The denominations used in the formula above are equal to those of the
CFI. The TLI, whose values yield a range between 0 and 1, has a satisfac-
tory value when exceeding 0.9 (HOMBURG/BAUMGARTNER 1995a, p. 168;
GARVER/MENTZER 1999, p. 41). While it was not explicitly designed to
assess the parsimony of models, it does reward simpler models with a
higher value and can therefore be used to identify parsimonious models
with low complexity and a high model fit.
Local adaptation measures
Contrary to the global adaptation measures, local adaptation measures are
not designed to assess the goodness-of-fit of both measurement and struc-
tural models but rather focus on one model type only.
Concerning the measurement models the question must be answered
how a factor j is measured through the sum of its indicators i. To assess
this, the composite reliability (CR) and the average variance extracted
(AVE) will be used. Both also allow an evaluation of the convergent valid-
ity of the indicators.
The composite reliability [ j measures the internal consistency of a
group of indicators (BAGOZZI/YI 1988, p. 80). It is measured by the for-
mula:
172 5 Methodology and sample characteristics
2 (10)
Oij I jj
CR [ j i
2
Oij I jj T ii
i i
Here, Oij represents the estimated factor loading, I jj the estimated vari-
ance of the latent variable and T ii the estimated variance of the associated
measurement error. The value of composite reliability ranges from one to
zero, whereat value higher than 0.6 indicate a good model fit (BAGOZZI/YI
1988, p. 82; HOMBURG/BAUMGARTNER 1995a, p. 170).
The average variance extracted can be calculated with the following
formula from FORNELL/LARCKER (1981, p. 46), again with slightly
adapted notation:
(11)
O I 2
ij jj
AVE [ j i
Oij2 I jj T ii
i i
The notation of the formula is the same as for the composite reliability.
Like many of the indices introduced above, it takes on a value between 0
and 1, while only values above 0.5 can be considered satisfactory
(HOMBURG/BAUMGARTNER 1995a, p. 170). Values below 0.5 would indi-
cate that the measurement errors would explain more of the variance of the
indicators than the factor itself (WALLENBURG 2004, p. 151).
If composite reliability and/or the average variance extracted lie below
the proposed threshold value, they can be improved by eliminating indica-
tors with low indicator reliability from the measurement model as long as
content validity is guaranteed (see chapter 5.2.3.2). Indicator reliability as-
sesses the reliability of the individual indicators used for the measurement
of the construct and indicates the share of the indicator explained through
the factor (BAGOZZI/YI 1988, p. 80); the remaining variance is caused by
the measurement error. The indicator reliability (IR), sometimes also
called individual item reliability, is calculated with the formula whose de-
nomination again is the same as in composite reliability and average vari-
ance extracted:
5.2 Methodological basis for the empirical analysis 173
Oij2 I jj (12)
IR xi
Oij2 I jj T ii
1995a, pp. 170-171). However, for this criterion, no threshold value will
be proposed as its level largely depends on the condition whether the
model is aiming at completely explaining a latent variable or if only se-
lected influencing factors are included in the model (HOMBURG/BAUM-
GARTNER 1995a, p. 170).
CAIC lowest
ECVI lowest
Adaptation F2/df 3 Criteria of the
of the
measurement TLI 0.9 second generation
model and GFI 0.9
the structural
model AGFI 0.8
CFI 0.9
RMSEA 0.08
Adaptation of the
Squared multiple correlation (R2)
structural model
It must be pointed out that single adaptation measures falling below the
threshold value must not automatically lead to the rejection of a model
(HOMBURG/BAUMGARTNER 1995a, p. 172). For the evaluation of the
models, an overall picture of the model, its specific context, and the multi-
ple adaptation measures should also be taken into account. In this sense, a
number of authors (FORNELL/LARCKER 1981; BAGOZZI/YI 1988;
HOMBURG/BAUMGARTNER 1995a) point out that threshold value must
only be understood as recommendations and that the overall judgment of a
model has to based on the analysis of all available information, including
5.2 Methodological basis for the empirical analysis 175
reliability and the average variance extracted are used as well as global
measures. For the latter it must be observed, however, that RMSEA, GFI,
AGFI, CFI, and TLI require at least one degree of freedom to be estimated.
If several of the criteria are clearly not met, further indicators must be
eliminated on the basis of their indicator reliability. Resulting from this
last step, a final measurement model tested for both reliability and conver-
gent validity is obtained.
While the procedure proposed by HOMBURG/GIERING (1996) is espe-
cially appealing because of its rigidity, it does not explicitly consider the
importance of the content of the indicators during the operationalization of
the constructs. As WALLENBURG (2004, p. 155) points out, content valid-
ity may be compromised if indicators are eliminated for purely statistical
reasons only. He therefore suggest to handle the procedure proposed by
HOMBURG/GIERING (1996) more flexibly under certain circumstances.
Therefore, in this study it will be paid attention to the fact that after the
elimination of indicators from a construct the content validity will still be
ensured.
WALLENBURG (2004, p. 155) furthermore suggests to parallelize the
first two steps of the procedure. While the sequential procedure has the ad-
vantage of low complexity in the operationalization process, it does carry
the danger that the elimination of indicators on the basis of convergent va-
lidity as measured through the item-to-total correlation, leads to the elimi-
nation of very reliable indicators and this even though the valid meas-
urement of a construct depends strongly on the reliable measurement of the
indicators. If, on the other hand, both steps are carried out in parallel, the
elimination of items cannot only be based on the item-to-total correlation,
but also on the results of the exploratory factor analysis and of the indica-
tor reliability. Consequently, the elimination of indicators is always based
on both reliability and validity considerations. This procedure will also be
applied in this study.
If the data contains relationships between variables that have not been
included in the model, this will directly lead to a lower model fit. Evidence
for this can be found in the modification indices which are stated by the
statistics program AMOS. For each fixed parameter specified, they repre-
sent the drop in overall F2-value if the parameter were to be specified
freely in a subsequent run (BYRNE 2001, p. 90). The model fit can be in-
creased by including formerly not hypothesized relationships into the
model. However, this is not always an adequate procedure. The modifica-
tions must only be carried out if the observed relationships are plausible
and can be explained by theory (BACKHAUS/ERICHSON/PLINKE/WEIBER
2003, p. 380). Otherwise, the model might be over-specified and tailored
to the data, leading to a situation in which the results cannot be replicated
with a different data set. The results could therefore not be generalized. In
this case, the former confirmatory character of covariance structure analy-
sis is altered to a rather exploratory method of analysis (BYRNE 2001, p.
91) which is not desirable.
High complexity of a model due to the attempt to maximize explanatory
value is another factor that potentially leads to low model fit. The com-
plexity of a model increases disproportionately with the number of vari-
ables, since aside from the hypothesized relationships also the interde-
pendencies between the independent variables must be modeled in the
structural model. KAUFMANN (2001, pp. 177-178) indicates that beyond
20-30 indicators and 7 variables, sufficient model fit can only rarely be
achieved. If a model does not show sufficient fit, it can be improved by
eliminating individual variables and the hypothesized causal linkages with
other variables from the model. However, as WALLENBURG (2004, p. 156)
points out, this may only be done if the variable has no significant direct
influence on the explained variables and therefore has no explanatory
value for the structural model. In the case where all explaining variables
have a significant influence, model complexity can be reduced by splitting
the model in two or more separate parts as long as the variables analyzed
in the different partial models are not dependent on each other.
If the options to improve the model fit introduced above do not suffice,
the model must be rejected. Then, an empirical insight into the hypotheses
is not possible. Consequently, sufficient fit does only indicate that the
model allows statistically valid conclusions on whether the hypotheses
must be rejected or not.
6.1.1 Cooperation
Please indicate your level of agreement with the following statements on your
relationship with this LSP
Indicator 1 The goals of our relationship were jointly set by us and our LSP.
Indicator 2 Our approach to doing business or organizing activities is very similar to our LSP.
Indicator 3 In the relationship with our LSP, we always pull together in the same direction.
Indicator 4 When problems or questions arise during this outsourcing relationship, we make
decisions together with our LSP to get to adequate solutions.
Indicator 5 If one partner exercises his power in the relationship, he does it in an appropriate way.
Indicator 6 In our business relationship, both parties fully respect each other.
Indicator 7 Our employees are working together with the LSP to secure the relationship's success
even beyond the previously established responsibilities.
Indicator 8 The LSP is cooperating with us very well.
While the exploratory factor analysis reveals that all indicators load on
one factor, the explained factor variance fails to meet the threshold value
of 50%. Furthermore, the average variance extracted indicates the insuffi-
cient reliability of the indicators. Consequently, indicators 1, 5, and 7 hav-
ing the lowest indicator reliability were eliminated from the measurement
model. This results in a measurement model with almost satisfactory fit.
However, RMSEA (0.137) and F2/df (11.03) are still insufficient. Further
analysis showed that the correlation between the error terms of indicator 8
and those of the indicators 2, 4, and 6 were very high. Since furthermore
indicator 8 has the same general notion as indicator 3, indicator 8 was also
removed from the measurement model.
The resulting measurement model for cooperation with the indicators 2,
3, 4 and 6 displayed in Table 6-3 shows very good adaptation measures
and requires no further modification.
6.1.2 Communication
(2004) could not be used due to an overlap with other constructs used in
this research.
In the pre-test interviews, it was also suggested to include a second indi-
cator to measure the quantitative aspects of the information exchange in
the relationship. Consequently, indicator 3 was developed which measures
the communication intensity between the two parties.
shows very good adaptation measures and can therefore be accepted with-
out further modification as a very satisfactory measurement model for the
construct of communication.
Table 6-7. Indicators for the measurement of the construct proactive improvement
Please indicate your level of agreement with the following statements on the
improvement of logistics systems.
Indicator 1 The LSP puts strong effort into continously optimizing logistics processes.
Indicator 2 The LSP continuously makes suggestions for improvements of activities, even those
outside its direct responsibility.
Indicator 3 When the situation changes, the LSP by itself modifies the logistics activities and
processes, if this is useful and necessary.
Indicator 4 The LSP shows initiative by approaching us with suggestions for improvement.
Indicator 5 The LSP shows a high level of innovation.
Table 6-8. Adaptation measures for the construct proactive improvement (5 indi-
cators)
Information on the factor proactive improvement (5 indicators)
Coefficient alpha 0.92 AGFI 0.97
Explained variance 69.59% CFI 1.00
F/df 2.959 RMSEA 0.060
TLI 0.99 Composite reliability 0.92
GFI 0.99 Average variance extracted 0.70
Information on the indicators
Item-to-total correlation Indicator reliability t-value of factor loadings
Indicator 1 0.75 0.61 -
Indicator 2 0.74 0.60 19.53
Indicator 3 0.80 0.70 21.39
Indicator 4 0.84 0.81 23.39
Indicator 5 0.82 0.76 22.64
Table 6-9. Adaptation measures for the construct proactive improvement (4 indi-
cators)
Information on the factor proactive improvement (4 indicators)
Coefficient alpha 0.91 AGFI 1.00
Explained variance 71.65% CFI 1.00
F/df 0.561 RMSEA 0.000
TLI 1.00 Composite reliability 0.91
GFI 1.00 Average variance extracted 0.72
Information on the indicators
Item-to-total correlation Indicator reliability t-value of factor loadings
Indicator 2 0.74 0.60 -
Indicator 3 0.78 0.69 20.78
Indicator 4 0.85 0.83 23.15
Indicator 5 0.81 0.75 21.88
6.1.4 Trust
6.1.5 Commitment
Table 6-16. Indicators for the measurement of the construct functional conflict
Please indicate your level of agreement with the following statements on your
relationship with this LSP
Indicator 1 When problems occur we always solve them jointly.
Indicator 2 Especially when solving problems, the exchange of information between the LSP and us
is working very well.
Indicator 3 When problems occur, it is always the same party tackling and solving them.
Indicator 4 When problems occur, the discussion frequently gets out of hand and ends in an
exchange of harsh words.
Indicator 5 Differences of opinion between the LSP and us have significantly decreased the
productivity of our working relationship.
Indicator 6 Differences of opinion between the LSP and us are viewed as "just part of doing
business" and offer potential benefits for both parties involved.
Indicator 7 Differences when cooperating with this LSP are always settled smoothly.
Table 6-17. Adaptation measures for the construct functional conflict (5 indica-
tors)
Information on the factor functional conflict (5 indicators)
Coefficient alpha 0.81 AGFI 0.98
Explained variance 50.45% CFI 1.00
F/df 2.049 RMSEA 0.044
TLI 0.99 Composite reliability 0.82
GFI 0.99 Average variance extracted 0.48
Information on the indicators
Item-to-total correlation Indicator reliability t-value of factor loadings
Indicator 1 0.73 0.71 -
Indicator 2 0.76 0.81 23.25
Indicator 5 0.47 0.25 11.96
Indicator 6 0.43 0.23 11.34
Indicator 7 0.64 0.51 18.38
Table 6-18. Adaptation measures for the construct functional conflict (3 indica-
tors)
6.1.7 Involvement
6.1.8 Opportunism
not, the customer will potentially be deceived in the dimensions of its own
logistics service capabilities or the true level of logistics costs, both being
very detrimental. The same is true if the LSP continuously exaggerated its
requirements to get what it really needs. Measured through indicator 4, this
behavior may be viewed by some as simply being pragmatic, while the
majority will perceive it as dishonest and opportunistic. Indicator 5 is
measuring an even stronger version of this dishonesty. If the LSP is doing
anything within its means to further its own interest, the relationship will
be characterized by this opportunism and suffer in the long run. Finally,
indicator 6 (reverse coded) was introduced to assess whether the customer
perceives that the LSP feels the importance of honesty in the relationship.
Should the relationship be characterized by this understanding, the risk of
opportunistic behavior will be substantially reduced.
The measurement model with six indicators was first tested with the cri-
teria of the first generation. While the exploratory factor analysis extracted
only one factor, the explained variance failed to meet the required value
with only 45.19%. The confirmatory factor analysis, as portrayed in Table
6-22, furthermore showed that several other adaptation measures, like the
F2/df and the RMSEA were significantly higher than considered accept-
able, while others, such as the TLI, the AGFI and the average variance ex-
tracted, were slightly too low.
also the indicator reliability of the reverse coded indicator 6 had dropped
to only 0.27, this indicator was also eliminated from the model.
The resulting measurement model with four indicators is presented in
Table 6-23. All adaptation measures show satisfactory values. The meas-
urement model can therefore be accepted without any further modifica-
tions.
Table 6-24. Indicators for the measurement of the construct shared values
Please indicate the level of agreement you believe exists between you and your
LSP on the following issues
Indicator 1 If an employee is discovered to have engaged in unethical behavior that results primarily
in personal gain, he should be promptly reprimanded.
Indicator 2 In business relationships, companies should not only consider their own short-term
advantages, but also keep an eye on the long-term benefits for both parties involved.
Indicator 3 The employees on both sides have fully understood the goals of the relationship and act
accordingly.
Indicator 4 The goals of the relationship are defined clearly and are being pursued equally by both
parties.
Indicator 5 The basic understanding of our relationship is the same for both sides.
Table 6-25. Adaptation measures for the construct shared values (5 indicators)
Table 6-26. Adaptation measures for the construct shared values (4 indicators)
Information on the factor shared values (4 indicators)
Coefficient alpha 0.84 AGFI 0.99
Explained variance 59.38% CFI 1.00
F/df 1.521 RMSEA 0.031
TLI 1.00 Composite reliability 0.86
GFI 1.00 Average variance extracted 0.62
Information on the indicators
Item-to-total correlation Indicator reliability t-value of factor loadings
Indicator 2 0.49 0.27 -
Indicator 3 0.73 0.66 12.11
Indicator 4 0.78 0.81 12.48
Indicator 5 0.72 0.64 12.02
6.1.10 Openness
dicated that it will have the role of an important antecedent for cooperative
and sustainable relationships, since important relationship variables such
as commitment and trust will be facilitated by high levels of openness.
Since so far, openness has not been used as a construct in exchange rela-
tionship models, a new scale for its measurement had to be developed. A
suitable framework is found in the empirical work of GUPTA (1987, p.
488), which showed that openness between corporate executives and stra-
tegic business unit managers has a positive impact on the effectiveness of
strategy implementation. Openness in that context according to GUPTA
(1987, p. 479) depends on four factors: the relationship must be open, in-
formal, and must allow for spontaneous and open exchange of information
and ideas. These four aspects, which were adapted from the scale proposed
by GUPTA (1987, p. 499) for the measurement of openness, as well as two
additional indicators form the six-indicator measurement model, are pre-
sented in Table 6-27.
Table 6-30. Indicators for the measurement of the construct goal achievement
Please indicate your level of agreement with the following statements on how
satisfied you are with the relationship between this LSP and your company
Indicator 1 Our LSP completely fulfills the goals and expectations we jointly set prior to this logistics
outsourcing relationship.
Indicator 2 We are very satisfied with our LSP.
Indicator 3 The relationship with our LSP is very good.
Indicator 4 Our LSP delivers its services always with the required quality.
Indicator 5 Our LSP delivers its services always in the required time.
Indicator 6 Through this cooperation, our logistics costs have been reduced to the level we
expected.
Table 6-31. Adaptation measures for the construct goal achievement (6 indicators)
Information on the factor goal achievement (6 indicators)
Coefficient alpha 0.89 AGFI 0.83
Explained variance 64.13% CFI 0.95
F/df 14.411 RMSEA 0.156
TLI 0.92 Composite reliability 0.89
GFI 0.93 Average variance extracted 0.58
Information on the indicators
Item-to-total correlation Indicator reliability t-value of factor loadings
Indicator 1 0.79 0.71 -
Indicator 2 0.85 0.89 30.92
Indicator 3 0.83 0.85 29.44
Indicator 4 0.79 0.69 24.68
Indicator 5 0.70 0.53 19.91
Indicator 6 0.39 0.15 9.40
which is also very much related to the quality of the service (indicator 4)
and the overall satisfaction with it (indicator 2).
The resulting measurement model presented in Table 6-32 showed ex-
cellent adaptation measures. The measurement model can therefore be ac-
cepted without any further modifications.
Table 6-32. Adaptation measures for the construct goal achievement (4 indicators)
Information on the factor goal achievement (4 indicators)
Coefficient alpha 0.93 AGFI 0.98
Explained variance 78.26% CFI 1.00
F/df 2.729 RMSEA 0.056
TLI 1.00 Composite reliability 0.94
GFI 1.00 Average variance extracted 0.78
Information on the indicators
Item-to-total correlation Indicator reliability t-value of factor loadings
Indicator 1 0.81 0.71 -
Indicator 2 0.91 0.92 31.56
Indicator 3 0.87 0.84 29.16
Indicator 4 0.79 0.66 23.74
Goal exceedance has been argued in chapter 4.1 to measure whether the
logistics outsourcing performance of the LSP has significantly exceeded
the goals and expectations set by the customer with regards to the out-
sourcing arrangement. In order to do so, the LSP must engage in activities
going substantially beyond to what is needed to achieve the goals fixed in
the contract. Among those activities and behaviors, customer orientation,
innovation, and pro-activeness were identified.
Since the construct goal exceedance has never been utilized in a logis-
tics outsourcing context before, a new scale was developed. It will be
based on the concept of goal achievement introduced in the previous chap-
ter, for which the relevant performance aspects of logistics outsourcing
have been identified. For a significant exceedance of the goals and expec-
tations of the customer, the performance in these different aspects, namely
quality of service and cost reductions, must go beyond those originally tar-
geted. However, for the goal achievement, also the aspects of overall satis-
faction and relationship quality were introduced. Since they constitute uni-
versal measures, referring to the state of the relationship in general rather
than the level of goal exceedance, they are not included in the exceedance
scale.
208 6 Construct operationalization
Resulting from this argumentation, four indicators were selected for the
measurement of the construct of goal exceedance which are displayed in
Table 6-33.
Table 6-33. Indicators for the measurement of the construct goal exceedance
Please indicate your level of agreement with the following statements on your
satisfaction with your cooperation with this LSP
Indicator 1 The goals and expectations we jointly set prior to entering this relationship have been
significantly exceeded.
Indicator 2 We are significantly more satisfied with the quality of the LSP services than we
expected.
Indicator 3 Our expectations concerning the reduction of costs through this relationship were
significantly exceeded.
Indicator 4 The relationship between actual costs for provided services and the overall service
performance is much better than expected.
Table 6-34. Adaptation measures for the construct goal exceedance (4 indicators)
Information on the factor goal exceedance (4 indicators)
Coefficient alpha 0.85 AGFI -0.05
Explained variance 58.98% CFI 0.73
F/df 188.642 RMSEA 0.585
TLI 0.19 Composite reliability 0.82
GFI 0.79 Average variance extracted 0.55
Information on the indicators
Item-to-total correlation Indicator reliability t-value of factor loadings
Indicator 1 0.69 0.81 -
Indicator 2 0.70 0.84 25.46
Indicator 3 0.62 0.25 12.21
Indicator 4 0.75 0.39 16.23
Table 6-35. Adaptation measures for the construct goal exceedance (3 indicators)
Table 6-36. Indicators for the measurement of the construct level of logistics ser-
vices
How does your company's performance on logistics service compare to your
competitors?
Indicator 1 Order lead times
Indicator 2 Delivery times.
Indicator 3 Ability for on-time delivery.
Indicator 4 Delivery reliability.
Indicator 5 Degree of delivery flexibility.
Indicator 6 Degree of damage- and error-free logistical activities.
0.157 are considerably higher than the required threshold values of 3.0 and
0.08 respectively.
To improve the measurement model, indicator 3 was eliminated due to
the high correlations of its error term with those of the indicators 1, 4, and
6. Apparently, respondents could not adequately differentiate between the
ability for on-time delivery and related aspects, such as delivery reliability
and order lead times.
Table 6-37. Adaptation measures for the construct level of logistics services (6
indicators)
Information on the factor level of logistics services (6 indicators)
Coefficient alpha 0.90 AGFI 0.83
Explained variance 59.84% CFI 0.94
F/df 14.448 RMSEA 0.157
TLI 0.89 Composite reliability 0.90
GFI 0.93 Average variance extracted 0.60
Information on the indicators
Item-to-total correlation Indicator reliability t-value of factor loadings
Indicator 1 0.70 0.54 -
Indicator 2 0.76 0.65 18.54
Indicator 3 0.75 0.68 18.98
Indicator 4 0.78 0.71 19.29
Indicator 5 0.74 0.61 17.97
Indicator 6 0.60 0.39 14.27
While the elimination of indicator 3 did improve the values of F2/df and
RMSEA somewhat, they still did not meet the required threshold. Conse-
quently, with indicator 1 another item was eliminated from the measure-
ment model. Its error term displayed a very high correlation with the error
term of indicator 2 as well as correlations with the error terms of indicators
4 and 5. This suggests that order lead times and delivery times are very
hard for the respondents to distinguish or in their understanding resemble
related concepts. Therefore, the elimination is justified also on grounds of
content validity.
The resulting measurement model, displayed in Table 6-38, showed
very good adaptation measures. The measurement model with four indica-
tors is therefore accepted without any further modification.
6.3 Logistics performance 213
Table 6-38. Adaptation measures for the construct level of logistics services (4
indicators)
Table 6-39. Indicators for the measurement of the construct level of logistics costs
Table 6-40. Adaptation measures for the construct level of logistics costs (5 indi-
cators)
Information on the factor level of logistics costs (5 indicators)
Coefficient alpha 0.75 AGFI 0.84
Explained variance 39.12% CFI 0.90
F/df 14.242 RMSEA 0.155
TLI 0.80 Composite reliability 0.75
GFI 0.95 Average variance extracted 0.38
Information on the indicators
Item-to-total correlation Indicator reliability t-value of factor loadings
Indicator 1 0.64 0.73 -
Indicator 2 0.53 0.36 12.50
Indicator 3 0.51 0.48 14.04
Indicator 4 0.43 0.17 8.87
Indicator 5 0.47 0.22 9.93
While the elimination of indicator 4 improved the model fit, the meas-
urement model still was not satisfactory. The same adaptation which were
not sufficient before failed to meet the thresholds again. Indicator 5, which
measured the cost for logistics personnel, only had an indicator reliability
of 0.18. Since these costs are also part of the overall transportation and
warehousing costs as well as the ratio of logistics costs to total revenue
which are measured in indicators 1 through 3, indicator 5 was also elimi-
nated.
The resulting measurement model with three indicators showed very
good adaptation measures in almost all dimensions. Explained variance
and average variance extracted both exceed the requested minimum val-
ues. Only the indicator reliability of indicator 2 is with 0.27 below the pro-
posed 0.4. Since the other criteria are satisfactory and it is desirable for
content validity to measure both transportation and warehousing costs, the
indicator was maintained in the three-indicator measurement model. It was
therefore accepted without any further modifications.
Table 6-41. Adaptation measures for the construct level of logistics costs (3 indi-
cators)
Information on the factor level of logistics costs (3 indicators)
Coefficient alpha 0.74 AGFI *
Explained variance 54.51% CFI *
F/df * RMSEA *
TLI * Composite reliability 0.76
GFI * Average variance extracted 0.52
* At only 3 indicators, the measurment model has no degrees of freedom. This value can therefore not be calculated.
In chapter 4.4.2 it has been pointed out that the measurement of firm per-
formance has received much attention in business administration research,
which is also reflected in the multitude of different scales and measure-
ment approaches available (BHARGAVA/DUBELAAR/RAMASWAMI 1994).
For this study, the three factors of adaptiveness, market performance, and
financial performance have been selected as dimensions of the construct of
firm performance. While they have originally been developed in the mar-
keting domain (RUEKERT/WALKER JR./ROERING 1985; IRVING 1995), they
216 6 Construct operationalization
were adapted for the logistics context by DEHLER (2001) and modified by
ENGELBRECHT (2004). In both studies, they have demonstrated their suit-
ability and therefore will be utilized in this research with only minor modi-
fications. It must be noted, however, that as argued in chapter 4.4.2, due to
the disadvantages of objective performance criteria in large-scale survey
research with individual respondents filling out questionnaires, only sub-
jective performance measures will be used in this study. The constructs are
presented in the following chapters.
6.4.1 Adaptiveness
Table 6-44. Indicators for the measurement of the construct market performance
Table 6-45. Adaptation measures for the construct market performance (6 indica-
tors)
Information on the factor market performance (6 indicators)
Coefficient alpha 0.90 AGFI 0.38
Explained variance 58.91% CFI 0.77
F/df 61.403 RMSEA 0.332
TLI 0.62 Composite reliability 0.89
GFI 0.73 Average variance extracted 0.58
Information on the indicators
Item-to-total correlation Indicator reliability t-value of factor loadings
Indicator 1 0.71 0.35 -
Indicator 2 0.69 0.33 11.51
Indicator 3 0.68 0.36 11.92
Indicator 4 0.68 0.52 13.64
Indicator 5 0.77 0.88 16.05
Indicator 6 0.78 0.88 16.06
Table 6-46. Adaptation measures for the construct market performance (4 indica-
tors)
Information on the factor market performance (4 indicators)
Coefficient alpha 0.85 AGFI 0.99
Explained variance 61.73% CFI 1.00
F/df 0.989 RMSEA 0.000
TLI 1.00 Composite reliability 0.84
GFI 0.99 Average variance extracted 0.57
Information on the indicators
Item-to-total correlation Indicator reliability t-value of factor loadings
Indicator 1 0.77 0.65 -
Indicator 2 0.75 0.60 23.85
Indicator 3 0.71 0.68 15.34
Indicator 6 0.57 0.41 13.72
For the measurement of firm performance, the return on sales with respect
to the competition is used as a subjective performance indicator. This re-
flects a compromise between the explanatory value of the performance in-
dicator and the availability of information to the respondent. More precise
performance indicators, such as return on equity, were not used due to
their sometimes scarce utilization in practice and the additional informa-
tion challenge it would have posed for the respondent.
The measurement model adapted from ENGELBRECHT (2004, pp. 229-
231) contains three indicators. Aside from the return on sales in the last
year (indicator 1), the average return on sales in the last three years is also
measured (indicator 2) to incorporate a view on a longer trend. Finally, the
development of the return on sales as a measure for the operative perform-
ance of the business is also taken into account (indicator 3). Together,
these three indicators reflect the status quo and the development of the
overall financial performance of the firm.
Table 6-47. Indicators for the measurement of the construct financial performance
Indicator 1 Our return on sales last year with respect to our competition was...
Indicator 2 Our average return on sales over the past three years with respect to our competition
was...
Indicator 3 The development of our return on sales during the past three years with respect to our
competition was...
sults. The measurement model therefore is fully satisfactory and can be ac-
cepted without any modifications.
Table 6-48. Adaptation measures for the construct market performance (3 indica-
tors)
Information on the factor financial performance (3 indicators)
Coefficient alpha 0.95 AGFI *
Explained variance 85.29% CFI *
F/df * RMSEA *
TLI * Composite reliability 0.95
GFI * Average variance extracted 0.85
* At only 3 indicators, the measurment model has no degrees of freedom. This value can therefore not be calculated
Table 6-49. Adaptation measures for the model logistics outsourcing performance
Factor (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12)
Factor AVE 0.57 0.61 0.72 0.71 0.64 0.67 0.88 0.54 0.62 0.59 0.79 0.66
(1) Cooperation 0.57 -
(2) Communication 0.61 0.71 - squared correlations
(3) Proactive Improvement 0.72 0.38 0.26 -
(4) Trust 0.71 0.71 0.61 0.35 -
(5) Commitment 0.64 0.64 0.46 0.28 0.56 -
(6) Functional Conflict 0.67 0.77 0.83 0.34 0.78 0.56 -
(7) Involvement 0.88 0.25 0.29 0.05 0.16 0.21 0.27 -
(8) Opportunism 0.54 0.39 0.29 0.22 0.44 0.29 0.37 0.05 -
(9) Shared Values 0.62 0.57 0.53 0.29 0.52 0.41 0.63 0.10 0.32 -
(10) Openness 0.59 0.64 0.74 0.27 0.63 0.47 0.82 0.27 0.28 0.51 -
(11) Goal Achievement 0.79 0.49 0.42 0.29 0.64 0.47 0.55 0.10 0.31 0.45 0.43 -
(12) Goal Over-Achievement 0.66 0.27 0.16 0.29 0.25 0.22 0.22 0.04 0.15 0.21 0.15 0.29 -
Table 6-55. Indicators for the measurement of the construct environmental com-
plexity
Please indicate your level of agreement with the following statements about the
present situation of your company
Indicator 1 Our customers vary significantly in size, resulting in considerably different sales volumes.
Indicator 2 The orders of our customers are very unevenly distributed and differ depending on the
specific order or season.
Indicator 3 Compared to our competitors, we have to deliver our products to a very large number of
different locations.
Indicator 4 Compared to our competitors, we are working together with a very large number of
LSPs.
changes in both the own competition and the relationships with the cus-
tomers as well as possible shifting perceptions of the customers on the im-
portance of logistics. Following the argumentation of chapter 4.5.2.1,
changes in the competitive landscape are measured through the competi-
tive pressure in the customers industry (indicator 1). Changes in the rela-
tionships with customers result among other factors from concentration
(indicator 2). The more powerful the customers, the more demanding they
will be. Finally, the importance of logistics for the customers is assessed
through indicators 3 and 4. As the importance of high logistics perform-
ance is growing and is increasingly viewed as a source of competitive ad-
vantage, the demand on the customers logistics processes continuously
increases.
Table 6-56. Indicators for the measurement of the construct environmental dy-
namics
Please indicate your level of agreement with the following statements about the
present situation of your company
Indicator 1 The pressure of competition in our industry is very high.
Indicator 2 In our customers' industries we see strong tendencies of concentration.
Indicator 3 The importance of logistics in the eyes of our customers is increasing steadily.
Indicator 4 Our customers increasingly view a very good logistics performance as important, making
it a competitive advantage for us.
While the four indicators presented in Table 6-56 seem to grasp several
aspects of environmental dynamics as conceptualized by KLEER (1991, pp.
121-122), an exploratory factor analysis reveals that the indicators load on
two distinct factors. One is comprised of indicators 3 and 4 and has an ex-
plained variance of 78.6% and a coefficient alpha of 0.88. While these
values are very satisfactory and the factor is therefore well suited for a
moderating analysis, its character changed somewhat from the original in-
tention. Upon the linguistical analysis of the construct, it is thus renamed
to importance of logistics for the customer, representing an importance
facet of environmental dynamics on its own.
The remaining two indicators 1 and 2 only exhibit an explained vari-
ance of 32.0% and a coefficient alpha of 0.49. This is not sufficient for the
treatment of the factor as an own construct. For the further analysis of
moderating effects on the basis of environmental dynamics, each indicator
must therefore be considered independently. In this study, the focus will be
on indicator 1 as it reflects one important aspect of the dynamics in the
customers industry by focusing on the pressure of competition. The focus
of the construct thus changes slightly away from the pure environmental
dynamics and towards the intensity of competition.
6.6 Contingency factors 229
Table 6-62. Indicators for the measurement of the construct asset specificity
Please indicate your level of agreement with the following statements on the
specific investments your LSP had to make for this relationship
Indicator 1 To supply us with logistics services, our LSP had to make significant investments
(transportation equipment, warehouses, etc.) that it can only use for us.
Indicator 2 The business processes our LSP has set up for our cooperation are so uniquely fitted to
our needs that he could not use them for another customer and its products.
Indicator 3 In order to supply us with logistics services, our LSP had to train its employees in such a
particular way that they could not use these skills for other customers.
Table 6-63. Adaptation measures for the construct asset specificity (3 indicators)
Information on the factor asset specificity (3 indicators)
Coefficient alpha 0.68 AGFI *
Explained variance 43.41% CFI *
F/df * RMSEA *
TLI * Composite reliability 0.69
GFI * Average variance extracted 0.43
* At only 3 indicators, the measurment model has no degrees of freedom. This value can therefore not be calculated.
Table 6-64. Indicators for the measurement of the construct process orientation
Please indicate your level of agreement with the following statements about your
internal logistics organization
Indicator 1 Our Business Unit has a very smooth, continuous, quick and largely failure-free flow of
material and information.
Indicator 2 Our Business Unit is managed in a very flow- or process-oriented way.
Indicator 3 Our Business Unit's degree of flow or process orientation is significantly higher than that
of our competitors.
Indicator 4 All business processes are very well coordinated.
Indicator 5 In our Business Unit a large number of individual interests exists that impede the direct
achievement of all our objectives.
While an exploratory factor analysis only extracted one factor, the ad-
aptation measures are slightly worse than those reported by DEHLER
(2001, p. 174) and ENGELBRECHT (2004, p. 189) who also used the con-
struct. Especially the F2/df (6.256) and the RMSEA (0.098) are substan-
tially higher than the recommended values proposed in chapter 5.2.4.3.
6.6 Contingency factors 235
Table 6-65. Adaptation measures for the construct process orientation (5 indica-
tors)
Table 6-66. Adaptation measures for the construct process orientation (4 indica-
tors)
Information on the factor process orientation (4 indicators)
Coefficient alpha 0.79 AGFI 0.98
Explained variance 51.20% CFI 1.00
F/df 1.945 RMSEA 0.042
TLI 0.99 Composite reliability 0.78
GFI 1.00 Average variance extracted 0.48
Information on the indicators
Item-to-total correlation Indicator reliability t-value of factor loadings
Indicator 1 0.66 0.65 -
Indicator 2 0.72 0.82 18.20
Indicator 3 0.52 0.35 13.83
Indicator 5 0.45 0.23 10.95
slightly lower than recommended at 0.48 and the indicator reliability of in-
dicators 3 and 5 are below the recommended value of 0.4. In the light of
the other satisfactory measures, however, the measurement model is ac-
cepted without any further modifications.
7 Structural models
This chapter will discuss the empirical findings on the effects of the ante-
cedents developed in chapter 4.2 on the two dimensions of logistics out-
sourcing performance. Furthermore, it will examine the influence of logis-
tics outsourcing performance on logistics performance and subsequently
the effect of logistics performance on firm performance as suggested in
chapter 4.4. Finally, the moderating effects of different contingency vari-
ables introduced in chapter 4.5 will be analyzed.
In the following three chapters, first the basic model derived from the em-
pirical analyses of the hypotheses put forward in chapter 4.3.2 on the ante-
cedents and dimensions of logistics outsourcing performance will be pre-
sented. Due to insufficient model fit, a simplified model will be developed
in chapter 7.1.2 which will be discussed in detail in chapter 7.1.3.
When the relationships between the antecedents and the two dimensions of
logistics outsourcing performance are modeled as suggested by the hy-
potheses in Table 4-1, the model presented in Figure 7-1 results. It consists
of the 9 antecedents proposed in chapter 4.2 and the two dimensions of lo-
gistics outsourcing performance. As argued in chapter 6.5.1, the only ante-
cedent not to be part of the basic model is functional conflict due to the
lack of its discriminant validity.
238 7 Structural models
Commitment
Goal
Cooperation
Achievement
Trust
Involvement
Openness
Proactive Goal
Improvement Exceedance
Opportunism
This model shows insufficient model fit when using the maximum-
likelihood estimation function. While the F2/df, TLI, CFI, and RMSEA all
show values well within the desired range or above the respective thresh-
old, both the GFI and the AGFI are well below the desired value of 0.9.
However, this must not automatically require the model to be rejected, es-
pecially since an AGFI of 0.8 is sometimes proposed as sufficient (see
chapter 5.2.4.2). As several authors point out (FORNELL/LARCKER 1981;
BAGOZZI/YI 1988; HOMBURG/BAUMGARTNER 1995a), a model can also
be accepted if the majority of fit indices show good adaptation measures
and only a few are below the required threshold. This is the case with the
Basic Model. However, in such cases, special attention should be paid to
the CFI as the single most important index as it accounts for sample size
(BENTLER 1990; BYRNE 1994). Yet, since GFI and AGFI at 0.87 and 0.85
are substantially below the required 0.9, it must be assumed that the model
contains room for improvement.
The insufficient model fit does not result from forgetting causal link-
ages between the factors that compose the model. The statistics program
AMOS used to calculate the model does not identify any causal linkages in
its Modification Indices section which could be included into the model
and would at the same time be theoretically justified. Instead, a number of
7.1 Antecedents and dimensions of logistics outsourcing performance 239
The construct of involvement poses a valid starting point for the simplifica-
tion of the structural model. As it was pointed out in chapter 6.1.7, it is
measured by a single indicator only since it showed in the development of
the measurement model that the scale originally developed was not satis-
factory. In the calculation of the 9-factor basic model, the modification in-
dices as stated by the statistics program AMOS suggest that some reasons
for the insufficient model fit can be attributed directly to the construct of
involvement. The modification index for including a relationship between
involvement and shared values is 57.5, for including involvement and
openness it is 68.8. However, since no theoretical foundations exist that
would suggest an inclusion of these two causal linkages, they may not be
included in the model. When analyzing the modification indices between
the error term of involvement and the error terms of the other 8 antecedents
of logistics outsourcing performance, several further high correlations are
found. Altogether, it is apparent that the construct of involvement is di-
rectly responsible for significant amounts of complexity in the 9-factor ba-
sic model.
However, to reduce model complexity, only those factors may be elimi-
nated that have no or very little influence on the explanatory power of the
model, e.g. the squared multiple correlation R2 of both goal achievement
and goal exceedance. As Table 7-2 indicates, this is not a problem in this
case. The elimination of the factor involvement, leading to a simplified 8-
factor model, does not only exhibit better adaptation measures in all di-
240 7 Structural models
Table 7-2. Fit comparison of the basic and the simplified model
Adaptation measures R
Goal Goal
Model F/df TLI GFI AGFI CFI RMSEA CAIC ECVI
Achievement Exceedance
Basic Model 2,264 0.94 0.87 0.86 0.95 0.048 2290.4 3,172 60.9% 34.5%
8-Factor Model 2,062 0.95 0.89 0.87 0.96 0.044 2052.4 2,777 63.4% 35.1%
H22
Commitment
H13
H10 H1a
H21 Goal
H11 Cooperation
Achievement
Trust
H20 H9a
H6
H4
H27
H3
Shared Values H24 Communication
H25 H26
H7 H1b
Openness H19
H8
H18 Proactive Goal
H23 Improvement Exceedance
H9b
Opportunism
After the reduction of the model to 8 antecedents directly and indirectly in-
fluencing the two dimensions of logistics outsourcing performance, the
model is taking on a distinct, three level structure that can be seen in Fig-
ure 7-2. Five antecedents, namely shared values, trust, commitment, open-
ness, and opportunism, form a block of behavioral and attitudinal variables
that only indirectly, namely through their direct effects on the two action
variables cooperation and proactive improvement, affect the two dimen-
sions of logistics outsourcing performance, goal achievement and goal ex-
ceedance. The factor communication takes on a mediating position be-
tween the behavioral/attitudinal variables and the action variables as
proposed in chapter 4.3.1.2.
242 7 Structural models
0.15****
Commitment
0.22**** R2: 63.4%
0.67**** 0.77****
0.15** Goal
0.42**** Cooperation
Achievement
Trust
n.s.
0.17****
0,15**** 0.24****
0.36****
0.80****
Shared Values 0.23**** Communication
0.72**** 0.69****
-0.19* 0.33****
Openness
-0.28**** n.s.
Proactive Goal
-0.27**** Improvement Exceedance
-0.36****
0.32****
R2: 35.1%
H30 H31
Adaptation measures R
Logistics Logistics
Model F/df TLI GFI AGFI CFI RMSEA
Services Costs
Logistics Performance 2.540 0.97 0.96 0.94 0.98 0.053 10.8% 7.3%
Before the individual results of the model will be discussed in the next
chapter, it must be mentioned, however, that within the model the object of
analysis changes. While for the two dimensions of logistics outsourcing
performance only the relationship of the customer to its single most impor-
tant LSP is analyzed, the two dimensions of logistics performance investi-
gate the entire logistics performance of the customer. Aside from the most
important relationship to one LSP, this also includes all other relationships
with third parties as well as all logistics processes still produced in-house.
7.2 Effects of logistics outsourcing performance 249
The model must therefore be viewed as a partial model only which can
be expected to deliver significantly lower squared multiple correlations
(R2) than the logistics outsourcing performance model. The results will be
discussed in the following chapter.
R2: 10.8%
0.21**** 0.20****
R2: 7.3%
Hypothesis H29 examines the direct influence that goal achievement ex-
erts on the level of logistics services. Model results indicate support for this
hypothesis with a standardized parameter value of 0.18 at the 0.1%-level
of significance. This finding demonstrates that the achievement of the
goals that were specified between the customer and the LSP has a direct
and lasting positive influence on the firms logistics performance. This
confirms the rather intuitive insight that the specifications of the contract
between the parties will set the limit for the service performance of the
LSP at a level where it will be beneficial for the customer. However, re-
calling the change in the object of analysis, the strength of the path at 0.18
is remarkable as it displays the high relevance of the most important LSP
for the customers overall level of logistics services.
250 7 Structural models
The next hypothesis H30 implies that goal achievement has a direct posi-
tive effect also on the level of logistics costs. The model provides support
also for this hypothesis with a path coefficient of 0.21 with a level of sig-
nificance of 0.1%. This relationship, which is even slightly stronger than
the effect of goal achievement on the level of logistics services, indicates
that when the goals and expectations of the customer concerning the out-
sourcing arrangement are met, the level of logistics costs can be decreased
significantly. Summing up the above discussion on hypotheses H29 and
H30, it is clear that goal achievement is a significant driver of both dimen-
sions of logistics performance, making this outsourcing relationship an
important strategic issue.
After having pointed out the importance of goal achievement, goal ex-
ceedance as the second dimension is analyzed. Consistent with theory, hy-
pothesis H32 finds support, proposing that goal exceedance has a positive
effect on the level of logistics costs. The path coefficient of 0.10 is signifi-
cant at the 10% level. This finding suggests that an over-performance on
the side of the LSP does indeed lead to a reduction of the logistics costs.
However, compared to the other effects, the influence is not particularly
strong. This may be attributable to the fact that in current logistics out-
sourcing arrangements the price for the service, and therewith the costs for
the customer, are exactly specified in the contract. Improvements reduce
the price for the customer and simultaneously the revenue of the LSP.
Consequently, the LSP has no incentive to proactively further reduce the
costs, unless it is directly motivated, e.g. by being allowed to keep a share
of the reduced costs. While this practice is becoming increasingly popular,
it by no means has become an established industry standard.
The importance of goal exceedance, which as pointed out above is pri-
marily driven by the proactive improvement of the LSP, is further demon-
strated by the findings on hypothesis H31. The standardized parameter
value for the effect of goal exceedance on the level of logistics services is
0.20 at the 0.1%-level of significance. This indicates that by exceeding the
goals in the single most important logistics outsourcing arrangement, the
logistics service level of the customer is significantly increased. Appar-
ently, the surpassing of the expectations of the customer though the LSP
provides higher levels of logistics quality and process flexibility which in
turn significantly influence the customers overall logistics service quality.
7.2 Effects of logistics outsourcing performance 251
After the previous chapter has established the importance of logistics out-
sourcing for the overall logistics performance, this chapter will analyze the
connection between the latter and the individual firm performance. Fol-
lowing the argumentation from chapter 4.4.2.2, both dimensions of logis-
tics performance are proposed to have direct effects on all three dimen-
sions of firm performance.
Following the hypotheses developed earlier, both the level of logistics ser-
vices and the level of logistics costs are supposed to exert positive effects
on the three dimensions of firm performance, adaptiveness, market per-
formance and financial performance. Additional, positive direct effects
were proposed from adaptiveness on market performance as well as from
the latter to financial performance. The resulting eight hypotheses are dis-
played in Figure 7-6.
252 7 Structural models
Adaptiveness
H33
Level of
H36 H39
Logistics Services
H34
Market
Performance
H37
Level of
H40
Logistics Costs
H38 H35
Financial
Performance
Firm Performance 3.586 0.94 0.92 0.89 0.95 0.069 12.9% 50.4% 22.3%
large responsible for the high values of F in this model. However, since
no theoretical evidence would suggest a correlation between the two fac-
tors, it will be abstained from including a correlation and from modifying
the model in this or any other direction.
The results of the full model analysis provide some very interesting in-
sights into the effect of logistics performance on firm performance. In to-
tal, seven out of the eight hypotheses developed in chapter 4.4.2.2 found
support while only one had to be rejected. The findings presented in Figure
7-7 substantially advance the models proposed by DEHLER (2001, p. 241)
and ENGELBRECHT (2004, p. 254) by providing empirical evidence for
several causal linkages their empirical data failed to support.
Hypothesis H33 examines the direct influence the level of logistics ser-
vices exerts on the adaptiveness of the customer. This hypothesis is sup-
ported by the empirical findings with a standardized parameter value of
0.33 at the 0.1%-level of significance. This suggests that through improv-
ing their logistics service capabilities, firms indeed enhance flexibility to
react to changes in the market and in particular sharpen their ability to an-
swer to changes in product volumes demanded by the customers.
The positive effect of the level of logistics services is also visible in the
findings on hypothesis H34 which analyzed its effects on market perform-
ance. This relationship was found to be particularly strong with a path co-
efficient of 0.55 again at the 0.1%-level of significance. Apparently, mar-
ket performance, which depends very strongly on the satisfaction of the
customer with a purchased product or service, is driven not only by the
primary capability of the firm to produce the product or service, but to a
large degree also by its secondary capability to properly distribute it.
Beyond these two hypotheses, hypothesis H35 also proposed a positive
effect of the level of logistics services on the financial performance of the
firm. However, this relationship was found not to be significant. Evidently,
higher logistics performance levels today do not enable firms to increase
prices to an extent that would be reflected in a directly increased financial
performance. This, however, is an indicator for the supposition that logis-
tics so far is viewed also by the customers of the customer as a hygiene
factor which has to be fulfilled in an acceptable manner but gives little
room for differentiation that would translate into substantially increased
prices. Therefore, apart from the direct effects the level of logistics services
has on the market performance, logistics do not offer direct effects on the
financial performance.
254 7 Structural models
R2: 12.9%
Adaptiveness
0.33****
Level of
0.14*** 0.24****
Logistics Services
R2: 50.4%
0.55****
Market
Performance
0.21****
Level of
Logistics Costs 0.43****
n.s.
0.15**** R2: 22.3%
Financial
Performance
0.65**** Standardized regression weight with significance level
n.s. Not significant
* Significant on 10%-level
** Significant on 5%-level
*** Significant on 1%-level
**** Significant on 0.1%-level
Aside from the effect of the level of logistics services, hypotheses were
also developed for the level of logistics costs. Hypothesis H36 proposed a
direct positive effect from the level of logistics costs on the adaptiveness of
the firm. This is supported by the empirical finding of a path coefficient of
0.14 which is significant at the 1%-level. As argued in chapter 4.4.2.2,
higher levels of logistics costs lead to less flexibility and short term ma-
neuverability of the firm. These restrictions can obviously be reduced by
lowering the logistics costs, leading to higher flexibility and therewith to
more adaptiveness on the part of the customer.
The level of logistics costs also increases a firms market performance.
Support for the corresponding hypothesis H37 was found in a standardized
parameter coefficient of 0.21 between the two constructs, significant at the
0.1%-level. This suggests that through lowering logistics costs, firms are
indeed enabled to substantially lower their overall product costs, highlight-
ing the high impact of logistics costs on total costs. Lower product costs
directly enable prices reductions, leading to higher customer satisfaction,
which is the main prerequisite for higher market performance.
Lower levels of logistics costs finally also lead to a higher financial per-
formance of the firm. This was proposed in hypothesis H38 and supported
by the finding of a path coefficient of 0.15 at the 0.1%-level of signifi-
cance. Evidently, the supposed direct mathematical relationship between
lower logistics costs and lower total costs exists. Since financial perform-
ance is a function of sales and costs, it increases by the same amount as the
7.2 Effects of logistics outsourcing performance 255
logistics costs are overall reduced. The fact that the effect is not particu-
larly strong was to be expected as for the majority of products the share of
the logistics costs of the total product cost is substantial and yet other costs
like raw material and production costs are often significantly higher.
Beyond the hypotheses discussed above, two further hypotheses were
developed to grasp the relationship between adaptiveness, market per-
formance and financial performance. Hypothesis H39 examined the effect
of adaptiveness on market performance. Support for the positive effect
was found as reflected in a path coefficient of 0.24 at the 0.1%-level of
significance. Apparently, higher levels of adaptiveness enable firms to
adapt their products or services to altered customers needs and thereby to
react flexibly to market developments. Therefore, adaptiveness enables a
better addressing of customer needs and thereby the increase of customer
satisfaction, which in turn is an important prerequisite for market perform-
ance.
Finally, hypothesis H40 proposed a positive effect of market perform-
ance on financial performance. This hypothesis is supported by the em-
pirical findings. The standardized parameter value is very strong with 0.43
at the 0.1%-level of significance. Evidently, firms with higher market per-
formance indeed enjoy higher customer loyalty, leading to decreased cus-
tomer acquisition costs, to higher customer profitability due to longer and
stronger relationships, and to a higher tolerance towards price increases.
Furthermore, strong growth and higher market shares of course also posi-
tively influence the economical performance of the firm.
After having tested the eight hypotheses, it can be assessed that both
dimensions of logistics performance have measurable, direct, and strong
effects on the three dimensions of firm performance. An overview of the
hypotheses can be found in Table 7-8.
tics performance. For this matter, the total effects of both the level of logis-
tics services and the level of logistics costs must be explored which can be
found in Table 7-9. Since the most important figure for most firms is the
bottom line, the financial performance, the individual importance of the
two dimensions is decided just there.
The analysis shows that both dimensions have a distinct positive total
effect on the financial performance of the firm. While the effect of the
level of logistics costs at 0.26 is slightly larger than the one of the level of
logistics services at 0.23, it must be noted that they are almost equally
strong. This must lead to the conclusion that when determining a firms lo-
gistics strategy, not only cost reductions through logistics should be aimed
at. Rather, similar attention should be given to increasing the level of logis-
tics services, since via their effect on both adaptiveness and market per-
formance they have a substantial indirect effect on financial performance.
Therefore, firms that only view the cost reduction potential of logistics
gamble away the potential positive effects of increased logistics service
levels. This particularly has implications for logistics outsourcing ar-
rangement, which as argued above, today are most often engaged with the
clear motivation of the customer to reduce costs while the potential to in-
crease service levels only plays a minor role if at all.
The effect described above was not found by DEHLER (2001, p. 242),
who reported a total effect of the level of logistics services on the financial
performance of 0.41 and of the level of logistics costs of 0.22. This may be
a statistical effect since in the model proposed in this study, seven out of
the eight hypotheses were found to be significant while DEHLER (2001)
only found five to be significant. It may also be, however, that this finding
means that in the four years between the two studies, the field of logistics
has substantially advanced. As logistics as such and the offerings of LSPs
have become increasingly standardized and commoditized, the focus of the
firms may have shifted towards the price of the services. In this light, it is
not surprising to find the increased importance of the logistics costs as re-
flected in the total effects, where the costs now appear to have an even
slightly bigger impact than the services. However, further analysis is
needed to investigate this potential trend which cannot be performed in this
thesis.
7.3 Contingency variables 257
After the previous chapters have discussed the dimensions and antecedents
of logistics outsourcing performance as well as the effect of outsourcing
performance on logistics performance and the effect of logistics perform-
ance on firm performance in detail, the question remains whether the cor-
responding three models are moderated by the contingency variables
which were introduced in chapter 4.5.2. The next chapters will present ex-
plorative empirical findings and in the following discuss external and in-
ternal contingency variables for each of the three models separately. For
the analyses, the procedure and method for moderating analyses described
in chapter 5.2.5.3 will be followed.
After having completed the necessary first step of the analyses on the
moderating effects, a number of potential moderators have been identified.
In the further analyses, the effects of these moderating variables on the
four individual paths between cooperation and proactive improvement and
the two dimensions of logistics outsourcing performance are examined in
detail. It shows that even though the F2-difference in the first step of the
analyses suggested the existence of moderated paths, the individual analy-
ses presented in Table 7-11 find that only very few moderations exist.
The relationship between cooperation and goal achievement is moder-
ated by environmental complexity, environmental dynamics, and uncer-
tainty. In all cases the path, which in the original model has a standardized
parameter value of 0.77 significant at the 0.1%-level, is slightly stronger
when the external contingency variables specification is low. This sug-
gests that an increasingly difficult situation for the customer of the LSP as
caused by a more complex, more dynamic, or more uncertain environment
weakens the effect of cooperation on goal achievement. In such environ-
ments, which can be e.g. the consequence of a demanding customer struc-
ture, logistically complex manufacturing processes, or increased competi-
tive pressure, external factors disturb the relationship between customer
and LSP and thus impede cooperative behavior. Consequently, the effect
of cooperation on goal achievement is lower than in the following cases:
When environmental complexity, environmental dynamics, and uncertainty
are lower, both parties can better concentrate on the logistics outsourcing
arrangement as less interferences influence the relationship, which can be
characterized in this case as more stable. Hence, the cooperation can un-
fold its full potential in creating solutions and fostering the achievement of
goals that with adversarial or non-cooperative behavior would not be at-
tainable.
For the relationship between the cooperation and goal exceedance, a
strong moderating effect of the importance of logistics to the customer was
7.3 Contingency variables 259
Table 7-13 gives an overview of the moderating effects found in the de-
tailed analyses. With higher levels of asset specificity, the causal linkages
between proactive improvement and the two dimensions of outsourcing
performance become stronger. The path coefficient from proactive im-
provement on goal achievement is negative at -0.04 for low levels of asset
specificity, while for high levels it is 0.13, both being significant at the
0.1%-level of significance. Similarly, under low asset specificity the path
coefficient from proactive improvement on goal exceedance is 0.23, while
under high specificity it is 0.40, again significant at the 0.1%-level. This
indicates that with higher levels of asset specificity, the proactive im-
provement of the LSP has a substantially stronger effect on the outsourcing
performance, e.g. because its impact under the influence of more complex
products, processes, or customer demands is significantly higher than for
goods with low asset specificity. Processes and products with high asset
specificity require the LSP to develop individualized and specialized solu-
tions. This may cause a deeper engagement by the service provider com-
pared to standard solutions, which then fosters an increased effect of the
proactive improvement on the performance dimensions.
The only other contingency variable that exhibits measurable moderat-
ing effects is the degree of logistics centralization of the LSPs customer.
The path from cooperation to goal exceedance is moderated: While the
standardized parameter value is 0.20 at the 1%-level of significance for
low levels of centralization, it is 0.44 significant at the 0.1%-level of sig-
nificance for high levels of centralization. This suggests that the more cen-
tralized the customer and LSP can work together, the more important is the
cooperation between the parties to reach outsourcing performance. Both
parties may find it easier there to cooperate, to coordinate their activities,
and to collaborate.
7.3 Contingency variables 263
Cooperation on Low - - - - - -
Goal Achievment High - - - - - -
again, it is not the aim of this study to explain why the moderating effects
frequently are found to be non-significant, this seems to be a valuable topic
for further analysis.
In chapter 4.5.1 it was established that it is highly relevant to test for po-
tential moderating effects of both external and internal contingency vari-
ables also in the logistics performance model presented in chapter 7.2.1.2.
Consequently, chapter 7.3.2.1 will discuss the effects of external contin-
gency variables, while chapter 7.3.2.2 will analyze the effects of internal
contingency variables.
Logistics Performance
Logistics Performance
In chapter 4.5.1, it was proposed that the causal linkages between the di-
mensions of logistics performance and those of firm performance are mod-
erated by both external and internal contingency variables. In the following
two chapters, first the effects of the external variables will be discussed in
7.3 Contingency variables 267
chapter 7.3.3.1, before in chapter 7.3.3.2 the moderating effects of the in-
ternal variables will be presented.
As Table 7-17 shows, four out of the five external contingency variables
display significant differences in F-values and therewith indicate the exis-
tence of moderating effects. Solely the importance of logistics to the cus-
tomer does not seem to have a moderating influence.
Table 7-17. Moderating effects of external contingency variables on the firm per-
formance model
Firm Performance
As Table 7-18 indicates, only five out of a total of 40 paths are moder-
ated. These effects will be discussed in the following. For the variable en-
vironmental complexity, a moderating effect is found on the relationship
between adaptiveness and market performance. While it is not significant
for high levels of complexity, for low levels the path coefficient is 0.36 sig-
nificant at the 0.1%-level. Since the strength of the relationship in the
original model is 0.24, this suggests that adaptiveness and the associated
flexibility have a stronger impact on the firm performance dimensions in
situations characterized by low complexity. This may be due to the fact
that as environmental complexity decreases, firms may find it easier to
adapt to their environment and to address the needs and demands of their
own customers in a more appropriate way, thus leading to an increased
market performance.
Similar observations can be made for the moderating effects of envi-
ronmental dynamics. Here, the relationship between adaptiveness and
market performance is moderated in the same fashion. For high levels of
dynamics, the strength of the path coefficient is only 0.12 at the 5%-level
of significance, while it is 0.37, significant at the 0.1%-level, for low envi-
ronmental dynamics. As for complexity, is seems as though the impact of
flexibility on market performance is distinctly stronger in more stable and
predictable environments as firms find it easier to adapt to their environ-
ment.
The effect of the level of logistics costs on adaptiveness is also moder-
ated by the environmental dynamics. While the effect under high dynamics
268 7 Structural models
is not significant, for low levels it is significant at the 0.1% level with a
strength of 0.30 and thus substantially stronger than in the main model
where the path coefficient is only 0.14. This suggests that the impact of lo-
gistics costs reductions on the adaptiveness of a firm is particularly strong
in stable and predictable environments. This may be due to the fact that
especially in stable and thus predictable environments, the price of its own
products and services becomes increasingly important for the customer of
the LSP as its own customers choices increase due to better planning op-
portunities. The price, determined to a significant portion by the level of
logistics costs, therefore takes on an important part also in the flexibility to
react to the changing demands of the market the lower the costs, the
more flexible can the customer react.
In the same direction goes the finding on the moderating effect of uncer-
tainty. Here, the standardized parameter value for the effect of the level of
logistics services on the market performance is 0.65 for low uncertainty
and 0.50 for high levels, both significant at the 0.1%-level. Seemingly, un-
der conditions of lower uncertainty the effect of service level changes on
market performance is stronger. The more uncertain and unstable the envi-
7.3 Contingency variables 269
ronment, the less important apparently is the level of logistics services for
market performance and the more important become other factors that
were not subject of research in this study. Apparently, the customers of the
LSPs customer find these other factors more important with increasing
levels of uncertainty. Therefore, the level of logistics services seems to be
a substantially stronger driver of the purchasing decision in stable and pre-
dictable environments, while under stronger uncertainty, other motivations
prevail.
A final moderating effect comes from the industry of the customer.
Here, only a single moderation can be found in the Manufacturing Systems
Construction industry. All other industries do not show any significant
moderating effects. However, in the Manufacturing Systems Construction
industry the relationship between adaptiveness and market performance is
moderated. For this industry it has a standardized parameter value of 0.52,
for the remaining industries it is 0.21, both significant at the 0.1%-level.
Building on the above findings of this chapter that showed that especially
in situations with lower environmental complexity and dynamics this effect
can be observed, it can be argued that the Manufacturing Systems Con-
struction industry compared to other industries is in such a rather stable
and predictable situation. Consequently, the impact of adaptiveness on
market performance there is stronger than on average.
For the moderating effect of external contingency variables on the firm
performance model it must be concluded that while some moderations
were detected, the vast majority of paths are not moderated. Therefore,
only very limited evidence for the relevance of contingency variables in
this context was found. Hence, the model is very robust against moderating
effects and therefore is rather generally applicable.
After the firm performance model has proven to be quite robust in the
analyses of the external contingency variables, the test of internal variables
revealed that only products and asset specificity exert a significant influ-
ence, while no moderating effects could be detected for the remaining four
variables. The differences in the F-values and the corresponding signifi-
cance levels are presented in Table 7-19.
Especially the variable products with a total of four shows a large num-
ber of moderating effects (see Table 7-20). The effect of the level of logis-
tics costs on adaptiveness, 0.14 in the original model, is 0.29 at the 0.1%-
level of significance for a low logistical complexity of the product range
and not significant for a high complexity. This suggests that the less com-
270 7 Structural models
plex the product range, the higher is the impact of logistics costs reduc-
tions for the adaptiveness of the firm.
Table 7-19. Moderating effects of internal contingency variables on the firm per-
formance model
Firm Performance
it can also be argued that firms displaying market performance which pro-
duce commodities and other logistically simple products have smaller
profit margins than other firms.
A last moderating effect is found for the variable asset specificity on the
causal linkage between the level of logistics services and adaptiveness.
While its path coefficient is 0.20 and significant at the 1%-level for high
asset specificity, it is 0.47 at the 0.1%-level of significance for low asset
specificity. Apparently, the impact of the level of logistics services on
adaptiveness is strongest when the asset specificity is low. This suggests
that the less specific the logistics processes of the customer are, the higher
is the impact of the outsourced services on the flexibility of the customer.
Vice versa, very specific assets hinder the customer in developing addi-
tional adaptiveness as logistics processes tend to be more complex and dif-
ficult to handle.
Summing up the discussion of this chapter, it must again be remarked
that the vast majority of causal linkages are not moderated by internal con-
tingency variables. This is substantially less evidence for the relevance of
272 7 Structural models
The following chapters will summarize the findings of this study, present
managerial implications and will develop recommendations for further re-
search on the basis of questions that either could not be addressed in this
study or that only emerged during its course.
line survey with 209 items. 579 managers responded, giving the study a re-
sponse rate of 17.0%. After correcting the database for missing values, a
total of 549 usable cases remained. The data was analyzed using covari-
ance structure analysis. Recommendations and standards from literature
concerning the conduct of empirical studies, as well the analyses and fit
criteria were rigorously obeyed.
In the following, the four research questions will be individually ad-
dressed and the key results presented.
The empirical analysis found support for all four hypotheses. Goal
achievement influences almost equally strong the two dimensions of logis-
tics performance. The effect of goal exceedance on the level of logistics
services is even slightly stronger than the respective effect of goal
achievement, while its effect on the level of logistics costs is measurable,
but notably weaker. These findings suggest that goal achievement is an
important facilitator of logistics performance by increasing both the ser-
vice level and reducing the overall logistics costs. Goal exceedance is of
utmost importance to firms that want to increase the level of logistics ser-
vices through outsourcing, as it has an even stronger effect than the goal
achievement.
With the model, 10.8% of the variance of the level of logistics services
and 7.3% of the level of logistics costs can be explained through the two
dimensions of logistics outsourcing performance. Since this is only a par-
tial model focusing only on the most important LSP of the customer, the
effect of logistics outsourcing performance over all relationships can le-
gitimately be assumed to be substantially higher, indicating an even higher
strategic importance of the issue than the above presented results originally
suggest.
The second part of research question three contains the testing of the
model that hypothesized the effect of logistics performance on firm per-
formance. Logistics performance was measured with the two dimensions
presented above, while firm performance is a tri-dimensional construct
consisting of adaptiveness, market performance, and financial perform-
ance.
The findings of existing literature on the model could be confirmed and
substantially extended. The level of logistics services strongly influences
the adaptiveness and the market performance of the firm, while the effect
on the financial performance is not significant. The level of logistics costs
on the other hand has a moderate effect on the financial performance and
on the adaptiveness of the firm. Furthermore, it has an effect of medium
strength on the market performance. As expected, the adaptiveness has a
medium effect on the market performance, which in turn has a strong ef-
fect on the financial performance.
These results allow new insights into the importance of logistics per-
formance. While only the level of logistics costs have a direct effect on the
important aspect of financial performance, the total effect on it exerted by
the level of logistics services is almost as strong as those of the level of lo-
gistics costs due to the indirect effects via the firms adaptiveness and
market performance. Therefore it must be concluded that while the level of
logistics costs, which as has been shown above are significantly affected
by logistics outsourcing, are an important aspect, customers must also at-
278 8 Summary and results
tend to the level of logistics services. The lever this aspect of logistics pro-
vides is virtually as strong as the one of cost reductions. Consequently, ne-
glecting it would mean giving away a vast potential.
As discussed already in the introduction to this study, the role of the in-
fluence of contingency variables on the models presented above remains
unclear. Therefore, research question four was developed:
the reasons why certain moderating effects did not find any support, in to-
tal 150 or 85.2%, was not subject of this study. However, it will be an in-
teresting field for future research as the results found in the context of this
research question are not fully satisfactory.
While it was not the explicit goal of this study to develop recommenda-
tions for the practice, the key findings have several managerial implica-
tions that will be discussed in the following:
Firms must realize the potential of logistics outsourcing and should extent
their efforts.
Logistics outsourcing serves to reduce the overall logistics costs of the
firm, thereby conserving resources that can be utilized elsewhere, and on
the other hand strengthens the logistics service levels of the firm. Both as-
pects are important differentiators in a world that is characterized by in-
creasing competition. Logistics outsourcing should therefore be a relevant
option for the firms as its implementation and extension promises signifi-
cant potential.
Logistics outsourcing performance has different facets depending on the
focus, the results of the outsourcing arrangement will differ.
In an outsourcing arrangement, the customer can achieve its goals or ex-
ceed them. Both is possible simultaneously, but it can also occur detached
from each other. Through goal achievement, the logistical service levels
will increase, while the level of logistics costs decreases. However, the
goal exceedance has an even higher effect on the logistical service levels
firms that focus on increasing their service levels should therefore always
expect their LSP to exceed their expectations. This will also further reduce
the costs, but not as strong as the initial goal achievement: most of the cost
reduction potential is raised by the LSP already on the basis of the original
agreement.
The true driver of the outsourcing performance is the relationship with the
LSP, not the extent of outsourced logistics processes.
Factors such as cooperation between customer and LSP, communica-
tion, openness, trust, shared values between the partners, but also the
commitment of the customer to the relationship, and the constant proactive
improvement of the processes through the LSP make the outsourcing ar-
rangement more successful. Opportunism of the LSP is always detrimen-
280 8 Summary and results
tal. The customer must focus on the relationship when outsourcing the
most critical part of outsourcing starts after the decision to outsource has
been made. The customer needs a holistic and detailed understanding of
the relationship, because all factors are important. Depending on the goals
of the customer, the focus may change: if cost reductions are the ultimate
aim, it may be sufficient to select an LSP that achieves the goals that are
expected by the customer. If the goals are significant increases of the logis-
tics service levels, the customer must choose an LSP that continuously im-
proves the logistics processes proactively.
Logistics performance is a main driver of firm performance. However,
most firms do not raise its full potential.
The reduction of logistics costs is the most common motivation for out-
sourcing. To a certain degree, this motivation and its according actions are
justified, as it directly leads to a higher financial performance of the cus-
tomer. At the same time, it also increases the firms flexibility to react to
changing market needs and increases the market performance. Since it is
also easy to measure, it does not surprise that it is the most prominent rea-
son for outsourcing.
The potential of logistics service level increases, however, is substan-
tially underestimated as the current, strongly cost-oriented logistics out-
sourcing motivation among firms has shown. While it is more difficult to
measure progress in this field, its potential benefits are vast. It does not di-
rectly influence the bottom line of the firm, but it increases the firms
flexibility and the market performance substantially stronger than cost re-
ductions. Through those performance increases, it has a total effect on the
financial performance that is almost as strong as those of cost reductions.
That does not mean that firms should not aim at reducing their logistics
costs. But it does mean that a lot of additional potential can be raised if the
firms also try to increase their logistics service levels. While this may take
more intense efforts in the short run, it does promise financial rewards in
the long run. One of the main levers is the proactive improvement of the
LSP. If the customer selects an LSP that displays high levels of continuous
improvement in the first place or succeeds in improving the current LSPs
behavior which according to WALLENBURG (2003) usually is not very
far developed in terms of proactive improvement then the higher goal
exceedance that also leads to higher levels of logistics services may be
reachable with comparably little efforts.
The models proposed in this study apply generally and for all firms in
manufacturing and retail industries the specific context of the firm only
has a very limited impact.
8.3 Recommendations for further research 281
The argument that certain firms are just different than others has lost a
lot of its weight in the logistics context. The research has shown that in-
deed, some contingency variables moderate individual aspects of the per-
formance models that means, however, that the remaining parts of the re-
spective model is not moderated. Furthermore, in almost 90% of the cases,
the models are not moderated at all. This means that firms should carefully
keep in mind what their particular situation is a framework is offered by
the external and internal contingency variables developed in this study. But
when deciding what decision is appropriate in their particular context, the
firms should remember that the performance models and the consequent
implications that were introduced in this chapter, apply for almost all con-
texts and individual situations.
The findings of this study do not only offer insights into managerial impli-
cations, but also allow recommendations for further research. They will be
discussed in the following:
The relationship variables identified in this study have high explanatory
power for the outsourcing performance with a R2 of goal achievement of
63.4% and of goal exceedance of 35.1%. The question remains which
variables account for the remaining variance. Further research is needed to
establish which other aspects, such as the technical implementation of the
outsourcing, may provide additional explanatory value. This is especially
relevant with respect to the goal exceedance, whose squared multiple cor-
relation is substantially lower than that of goal achievement.
The dimensions of logistics outsourcing performance have been shown
to positively influence the two dimensions of logistics performance. How-
ever, the squared multiple correlations were not found to be particularly
high with 10.8% for the level of logistics services and 7.3% for the level of
logistics costs. The model must therefore be considered a partial model. In
this study, only the relationship between the customer and its most impor-
tant LSP was examined. It remains to be shown how much of the remain-
ing variance can be explained if more, preferably all, relationships to other
LSPs are included in the model. Furthermore, the role of the logistics
processes that have remained in-house could be integrated into the model,
thus allowing for a total model of a firms logistics performance.
In this study, a total of seven significant effects of the dimensions of lo-
gistics performance on the three dimensions of firm performance have
been found. This marks a substantial increase compared to the findings of
282 8 Summary and results
DEHLER (2001) and ENGELBRECHT (2004) who used very similar scales
but only found five significant effects and considerably different total ef-
fects. The reasons for these deviations represent very fertile ground for fur-
ther research. Whether the concept of logistics as understood by the firms
has simply farther evolved or the commoditization and standardization of
logistics processes and services has altered the importance of logistics
costs and service levels for the firm performance, only a detailed analysis
of the changes of the concept of logistics over time and the changing de-
mands of the market, both with respect to buyers and suppliers, enables a
fundamental understanding of this development.
The number of moderating effects of contingency variables in this study
has been extremely small with respect to the potentially possible number.
Only 14.8% of the possible effects were found to moderate the different
causal linkages significantly. This must be attributed on the one hand to
the fact that the variables conceptualized by KLEER (1991), which were
operationalized for this study, have failed to work out as expected. It must
now be examined whether this is attributable to either an insufficient op-
erationalization or conceptualization. Furthermore, it may be that better re-
sults concerning moderating effects could be obtained if not only the con-
text of the customer were targeted. Also, contingency variables focusing
on the relationship between the LSP and its customer as well as the context
of the LSP alone could supply further insights. Through this research, the
initial findings of this study that certain aspects of the relationship between
customer and LSP as well as its performance implications could be ex-
tended.
Finally, it must be noted that all results put forward in this study have
been reached on the basis of a survey that was conducted with German re-
spondents only. In a world that is characterized by an ever increasing glob-
alization of the markets, driven by better communication methods, less re-
strictions for foreign trade, and a general internationalization of firms both
with respect to purchasing and selling of goods and services, it must be ex-
amined if these results also hold in other regional and cultural environ-
ments. Studies in different countries would enable an insight into regional
differences that could be a valuable insight for firms dealing with the real-
ity of internationalization.
Appendix: Questionnaire
WHU-BVL-Studie:
"Erfolg durch Logistik-Outsourcing"
Khne-Zentrum fr Logistikmanagement
WHU - Otto-Beisheim-Hochschule
Burgplatz 2, 56179 Vallendar
Bitte lesen Sie die folgenden Hinweise, bevor Sie den Frage-
bogen ausfllen:
x Bitte fllen Sie alle Fragen so gut wie mglich aus, auch wenn
manche Fragen hnlich erscheinen. Dies ist aus methodischen Grn-
den ntig. Wenn Sie die genaue Antwort nicht kennen, bitten wir Sie
bewut um Ihre subjektive Einschtzung.
Wichtig: Bitte beziehen Sie sich ab hier immer auf den fr Sie wich-
tigsten Logistikdienstleister!
Mit der Art und Weise des Umgangs sind wir sehr { { { { { { {
zufrieden.
Konflikte in der Zusammenarbeit mit diesem LDL { { { { { { {
werden immer reibungslos beigelegt.
Die Beziehung zu diesem LDL kann man als sehr gut { { { { { { {
bezeichnen.
Dieser LDL gibt eigene Einsparungen aus verbesserten { { { { { { {
Prozessablufen etc. in angemessenem Umfang an
uns weiter.
Dieser LDL bereichert sich auf unsere Kosten. { { { { { { {
Wir fhlen uns durch diesen LDL fair behandelt. { { { { { { {
Wir profitieren in gleichem Mae vom Outsourcing wie { { { { { { {
dieser LDL.
Inwieweit stimmen Sie den folgenden Aussagen hinsichtlich Trifft gar Trifft voll
Ihres Verhltnisses zu Ihrem Logistikdienstleister zu? nicht zu zu
Dieser LDL hlt immer die Zusagen, die er uns macht. { { { { { { {
Dieser LDL ist bei auftretenden Problemen immer offen { { { { { { {
und ehrlich zu uns.
Dieser LDL ist sehr vertrauenswrdig. { { { { { { {
Dieser LDL ist stark daran interessiert, dass wir { { { { { { {
erfolgreich sind.
Auch Dinge, die wir nicht oder nur unter groem { { { { { { {
Aufwand kontrollieren knnen, erledigt dieser LDL
Bei wichtigen Entscheidungen bercksichtigt der LDL { { { { { { {
auch unsere Interessen.
Wir verteidigen diesen LDL, wenn er durch Mitglieder { { { { { { {
unseres Unternehmens oder durch Personen von
Wir wrden es persnlich sehr bedauern, wenn wir die { { { { { { {
Geschftsbeziehung mit diesem LDL aufgeben
Wir fhlen uns persnlich angegriffen, wenn dieser LDL { { { { { { {
durch Mitglieder unseres Unternehmens oder durch
Wir haben den festen Willen, die Beziehung so lange { { { { { { {
wie mglich aufrechtzuerhalten.
Appendix: Questionnaire 287
Inwieweit stimmen Sie den folgenden Aussagen zur Trifft gar Trifft voll
Kooperation mit diesem Logistikdienstleister zu? nicht zu zu
Die Ziele unserer Zusammenarbeit wurden von uns und { { { { { { {
diesem LDL gemeinsam festgelegt.
Hinsichtlich der Art und Weise, zusammen zu arbeiten, { { { { { { {
Geschfte zu machen und Projekte durchzufhren,
Dieser LDL und wir ziehen in allen Belangen an einem { { { { { { {
Strang.
Wenn auf bergeordneter Ebene noch Probleme oder { { { { { { {
Unklarheiten hinsichtlich der Outsourcing-Kooperation
auftauchen, fllen wir notwendigen Entscheidungen
gemeinsam mit dem LDL.
Wenn im Rahmen unserer Geschftsbeziehung einer { { { { { { {
der Partner seine Macht ausspielt, geschieht das in
einer angemessenen Art und Weise.
In unserer Geschftsbeziehung respektieren sich beide { { { { { { {
Seiten vollkommen.
Auch abseits der vorher festgelegten Zustndigkeiten { { { { { { {
arbeiten unsere Mitarbeiter mit dem LDL zusammen,
um den Erfolg der Kooperation sicherzustellen.
Die Kooperation mit diesem LDL funktioniert sehr gut. { { { { { { {
Inwieweit beschreiben die folgenden Aussagen die Trifft gar Trifft voll
relevanten Teilschritte auf dem Weg zum Outsourcing? nicht zu zu
Einige Fhrungskrfte in unserem Unternehmen sind { { { { { { {
gegen die Outsourcing-Entscheidung.
Auf Seiten der operativen Mitarbeiter in unserem { { { { { { {
Unternehmen gibt es viele Widerstnde gegen das
Outsourcing-Projekt.
Zwischen dem LDL und uns treten immer wieder { { { { { { {
Konflikte auf der Managementebene auf.
Auf der operativen Ebene kommt es hufig zu Problem { { { { { { {
oder Konflikten zwischen unseren Mitarbeitern und
denen des LDL.
Insgesamt ist die Beziehung zu diesem LDL sehr { { { { { { {
konfliktreich.
288 Appendix: Questionnaire
Inwieweit beschreiben die folgenden Aussagen die Trifft gar Trifft voll
laufende Zusammenarbeit mit diesem Logistikdienstleister? nicht zu zu
Wir besprechen mgliche Probleme und { { { { { { {
Verbesserungen regelmig mit den verantwortlichen
Mitarbeitern des LDL.
Der Austausch von Informationen zwischen unseren { { { { { { {
Mitarbeitern und denen dieses LDL verluft sehr gut.
Um unsere gesteckten Ziele zu erreichen, sind viele { { { { { { {
Treffen und Gesprche mit diesem LDL notwendig.
Wenn wir Informationen mit diesem LDL austauschen, { { { { { { {
sind diese immer relevant fr das Vorankommen des
Projektes bzw. unserer Geschftsbeziehung.
Der Austausch von Informationen zwischen diesem { { { { { { {
LDL und uns findet immer sofort statt, sobald sie zur
Verfgung stehen.
Auf die Informationen, die zwischen uns und diesem { { { { { { {
LDL ausgetauscht werden, knnen sich beide Seiten
vollkommen verlassen.
Die Art und Weise, wie wir mit diesem LDL { { { { { { {
Informationen austauschen, ist besonders gut dazu
geeignet, Probleme in beiderseitigem Interesse zu
lsen.
Inwieweit stimmen Sie den folgenden Aussagen zu dem Trifft gar Trifft voll
Verhltnis bzw. der Zusammenarbeit mit diesem nicht zu zu
Logistikdienstleister zu?
Der LDL war frhzeitig und umfassend eingebunden. { { { { { { {
Fr das mit diesem LDL durchgefhrte Outsourcing ist { { { { { { {
ein funktionsbergreifendes Projektteam verantwortlich,
in dem alle relevanten Funktionen unseres
Unternehmens vertreten sind.
Die auf beiden Seiten fr das Outsourcing { { { { { { {
verantwortlichen Mitarbeiter arbeiten sehr gut
zusammen.
Den alltglichen Austausch zwischen uns und diesem { { { { { { {
LDL kann man als informell bezeichnen.
Wenn Fragen oder Probleme auftreten, knnen wir { { { { { { {
diesen LDL spontan kontaktieren und sofort
gemeinsam beginnen, an Lsungen zu arbeiten.
Die Beziehung zwischen uns und diesem LDL ist sehr { { { { { { {
offen.
Wir tauschen mit diesem LDL auch sehr sensitive { { { { { { {
Daten aus, wenn wir uns dadurch einen Vorteil
erhoffen.
Wenn eine der beiden Parteien mit etwas nicht { { { { { { {
zufrieden ist, sagen wir uns das klar und deutlich.
Der LDL ist immer vollkommen offen und ehrlich zu { { { { { { {
uns.
Appendix: Questionnaire 289
Inwieweit stimmen Sie den folgenden Aussagen zu Ihrem Trifft gar Trifft voll
Verhltnis bzw. der Zusammenarbeit mit diesem nicht zu zu
Logistikdienstleister zu?
Dieser LDL und wir bewltigen auftretende Problem { { { { { { {
immer gemeinsam.
Der Informationsaustausch bei der Behandlung von { { { { { { {
Problemen funktioniert sehr gut.
Wenn Probleme in der Zusammenarbeit mit diesem { { { { { { {
LDL auftauchen, werden sie immer von derselben der
beiden Parteien angefasst und beseitigt.
Wenn es zwischen dem LDL und uns zu Problemen { { { { { { {
kommt, wird die Diskussion oft unsachlich und auch
durch den Austausch von "Unfreundlichkeiten" geprgt.
Probleme zwischen dem LDL und uns haben in der { { { { { { {
Vergangenheit die Produktivitt unserer Beziehung
stark beeintrchtigt.
Probleme zwischen dem LDL und uns werden als { { { { { { {
Chance verstanden, die beiden Partnern die
Mglichkeit zu Verbesserungen erffnen.
Inwieweit treffen die folgenden Aussagen auf die Trifft gar Trifft voll
persnlichen Beziehungen zwischen Mitarbeitern Ihres nicht zu zu
Unternehmens und denen des Logistikdienstleisters zu?
Wir pflegen viele persnliche Kontakte mit diesem { { { { { { {
LDL.
Die Zusammenarbeit mit diesem LDL klappt auch auf { { { { { { {
der persnlichen Ebene sehr gut.
Wenn wir die Beziehung zu diesem LDL beenden { { { { { { {
wrden, wrden ich oder einige meiner Mitarbeiter und
Kollegen einen guten Geschftsfreund verlieren.
Wir haben enge persnliche Beziehungen zu { { { { { { {
Mitarbeitern dieses LDL.
Inwieweit treffen folgende Aussagen auf Ihren Trifft gar Trifft voll
Hauptansprechpartner beim Logistikdienstleister zu? nicht zu zu
Diese Person ist sehr vertrauenswrdig. { { { { { { {
Diese Person macht keine falschen Versprechen. { { { { { { {
Diese Person besitzt groes Know-how und ist ein { { { { { { {
guter Manager.
Diese Person spricht die gleiche Sprache wie wir. { { { { { { {
Diese Person bercksichtigt auch unsere Interessen { { { { { { {
und Bedrfnisse.
Inwieweit treffen folgende Aussagen zur Verbesserung Trifft gar Trifft voll
Ihrer Logistiksysteme durch diesen Logistikdienstleister zu? nicht zu zu
Der LDL arbeitet intensiv daran, die Logistikprozesse { { { { { { {
fortlaufend zu optimieren.
Der LDL gibt uns laufend Anste zu Verbesserungen { { { { { { {
auch auerhalb seines direkten
Zustndigkeitsbereiches.
Bei vernderten Rahmenbedingungen modifiziert der { { { { { { {
LDL aus eigenem Antrieb die Logistiksysteme bzw. -
ablufe soweit sinnvoll und notwendig.
Der LDL spricht uns aus Eigeninitiative mit { { { { { { {
Verbesserungsvorschlgen an.
Dieser LDL ist generell sehr innovativ. { { { { { { {
Inwieweit treffen folgende generelle Aussagen zu diesem Trifft gar Trifft voll
Logistikdienstleister zu? nicht zu zu
Der LDL bietet insgesamt einen exzellenten Service. { { { { { { {
Die Leistungen des LDL sind hervorragend. { { { { { { {
Der LDL bietet eine sehr hohe Qualitt. { { { { { { {
Inwieweit treffen die folgenden Fragen bzgl. Ihrer Trifft gar Trifft voll
Zufriedenheit ber die Zusammenarbeit mit diesem nicht zu zu
Logistikdienstleister zu?
Die Ziele und Erwartungen, die wir im Vorfeld der { { { { { { {
Zusammenarbeit festgelegt hatten, wurden in
deutlichem Mae bertroffen.
Unsere Anforderungen an die Qualitt der Leistungen { { { { { { {
dieses LDL sind deutlich positiv bertroffen worden.
Unsere Logistikkosten sind auf Grund der { { { { { { {
Zusammenarbeit mit diesem LDL deutlich niedriger als
erwartet.
Die tatschlichen Kosten sind im Verhltnis zur { { { { { { {
erbrachten Gesamtleistung wesentlich besser, als wir
es vorher erwartet htten.
Inwieweit treffen folgende Aussagen zur bisherigen und Trifft gar Trifft voll
zuknftigen Zusammenarbeit mit diesem nicht zu zu
Logistikdienstleister zu?
Wir werden diesen LDL auch zuknftig weiter nutzen. { { { { { { {
Aus heutiger Sicht gehen wir davon aus, vorhandene { { { { { { {
Vertrge mit dem LDL bei deren Auslaufen zu
verlngern.
Wenn wir mit unserem heutigen Wissen nochmals vor { { { { { { {
der ursprnglichen Entscheidung ber die
Zusammenarbeit mit diesem LDL stnden, wrden wir
die Geschftsbeziehung erneut eingehen.
Wir werden die Leistungen, die wir von diesem LDL in { { { { { { {
Anspruch nehmen, bei Auslaufen des Vertrages hchst
wahrscheinlich nicht neu ausschreiben, sondern direkt
mit diesem LDL verhandeln.
Appendix: Questionnaire 291
Inwieweit treffen folgende Aussagen zu Ihrer Einstellung Trifft gar Trifft voll
gegenber diesem Logistikdienstleister zu? nicht zu zu
Wir haben in der Organisation angeregt, diesen LDL fr { { { { { { {
zuknftige Projekte bevorzugt zu bercksichtigen.
Ich erwhne diesen LDL gegenber Kollegen hufig { { { { { { {
sehr positiv.
Ich empfehle diesen LDL auch nach auen hin hufig { { { { { { {
weiter.
Wir empfehlen diesen LDL hufig weiter. { { { { { { {
Inwieweit treffen folgende Aussagen bzgl. der Investitionen Trifft gar Trifft voll
in die Geschftsbeziehung zu? nicht zu zu
Wir haben viel Arbeitszeit (Mannjahre) investiert, die { { { { { { {
umsonst wre, wenn wir den LDL wechseln wrden.
Wir haben hohe Sachinvestitionen gettigt, die { { { { { { {
erheblich an Wert verlieren wrden, wenn wir den LDL
wechselten.
Wir haben hohe Investitionen in IT-Systeme gettigt, { { { { { { {
die erheblich an Wert verlieren wrden, wenn wir den
LDL wechselten.
Wir haben sehr viel in die Weiterentwicklung des LDL { { { { { { {
investiert.
Wir haben viel Arbeitszeit (Mannjahre) in die { { { { { { {
Integration unserer Prozesse mit denen des LDL
investiert, die umsonst wre, wenn wir den LDL
wechseln wrden.
Bitte geben Sie den Grad der bereinsstimmung an, den Sehr niedrige Sehr hohe
berein- berein-
Sie in den folgenden Fragen zwischen Ihrem Unternehmen
stimmung stimmung
und diesem Logistikdienstleister vermuten:
Mitarbeiter, die nur auf den eigenen Vorteil bedacht { { { { { { {
sind anstatt den Vorteil der Firma zu verfolgen, sollten
zurechtgewiesen werden.
In Beziehungen sollten Unternehmen nicht nur auf den { { { { { { {
eigenen kurzfristigen Vorteil bedacht sein, sondern
vielmehr den langfristigen Nutzen fr die beteiligten
Unternehmen im Auge haben.
Die Mitarbeiter beider Seiten haben die Ziele der { { { { { { {
Zusammenarbeit vollstndig verstanden und handeln
auch danach.
Die Ziele der Zusammenarbeit sind vollkommen klar { { { { { { {
definiert und werden von beiden Unternehmen in
gleicher Art und Weise verfolgt und angestrebt.
Das grundlegende Verstndnis ber die Art der { { { { { { {
Zusammenarbeit ist bei beiden Seiten sehr hnlich und
kompatibel.
Inwieweit treffen folgende generelle Aussagen zu diesem Trifft gar Trifft voll
Logistikdienstleister zu? nicht zu zu
Die Preise dieses LDL sind im Vergleich zu anderen { { { { { { {
LDL sehr gnstig.
Das Preis-Leistungs-Verhltnis bei diesem LDL ist sehr { { { { { { {
gut.
Die Preise dieses LDL sind im Vergleich zur { { { { { { {
Eigenerstellung sehr gnstig.
292 Appendix: Questionnaire
Inwieweit treffen folgende Aussagen zur bisherigen und Trifft gar Trifft voll
zuknftigen Zusammenarbeit mit diesem nicht zu zu
Logistikdienstleister zu?
In Zukunft wird dieser LDL einen greren Anteil an { { { { { { {
unserem Auftragsvolumen erhalten.
Beim Outsourcing anderer als der bisherigen { { { { { { {
Logistikleistungen werden wir diesen LDL bevorzugt
bercksichtigen.
Neue Leistungen werden wir zunchst diesem LDL { { { { { { {
anbieten, bevor wir sie ausschreiben.
In den nchsten Jahren werden wir strker auf diesen { { { { { { {
LDL zurckgreifen als bisher.
Inwieweit beschreiben die folgenden Aussagen die Trifft gar Trifft voll
laufende Zusammenarbeit mit diesem Logistikdienstleister? nicht zu zu
Dieser LDL verndert manchmal Fakten so, dass sich { { { { { { {
seine Interessen besser begrnden und vertreten
lassen.
Was der LDL uns gegenber als seine momentanen { { { { { { {
Aktivitten und Leistungen fr uns angibt, entspricht
immer der Realitt.
Um seine eigenen Ziele besser zu erreichen, verspricht { { { { { { {
uns der LDL manchmal Dinge, die er spter berhaupt
nicht einhlt.
Wenn der LDL mit uns ber seine Bedrfnisse spricht, { { { { { { {
bertreibt er manchmal, um seine Ziele besser zu
erreichen.
Dieser LDL wrde alles in seiner Macht stehende tun, { { { { { { {
um seine eigenen Ziele zu erreichen.
Dieser LDL hat das Gefhl, dass sich im Umgang mit { { { { { { {
uns Ehrlichkeit lohnt.
Inwieweit treffen folgende Aussagen zu Ihrer Einstellung Trifft gar Trifft voll
gegenber diesem Logistikdienstleister zu? nicht zu zu
Meiner Meinung nach haben wir zuviel investiert, um { { { { { { {
einen Abbruch der Geschftsbeziehung in Betracht zu
ziehen.
Auch wenn wir es wollten, wre es sehr schwierig, die { { { { { { {
Geschftsbeziehung zu diesem LDL aufzugeben.
Wir fhlen uns verpflichtet, die Geschftsbeziehung zu { { { { { { {
diesem LDL aufrechtzuerhalten.
Dieser LDL hat zuviel in die Beziehung investiert, als { { { { { { {
dass wir ihm einen Abbruch der Geschftsbeziehung
zumuten knnten.
Appendix: Questionnaire 293
Inwieweit treffen folgende Aussagen zu Alternativen und Trifft gar Trifft voll
Ihrer Abhngigkeit von diesem Logistikdienstleister zu? nicht zu zu
Es gibt viele alternative LDL, die gleichwertige { { { { { { {
Leistungen bei gleichen Kosten anbieten knnen.
Es gibt viele alternative LDL, die gleichwertige { { { { { { {
Leistungen bei hheren Kosten anbieten knnen.
Es gibt viele alternative LDL, die gleichwertige { { { { { { {
Leistungen bei niedrigeren Kosten anbieten knnen.
Dieser LDL beeinflusst die Qualitt und Zuverlssigkeit { { { { { { {
unserer Logistikprozesse so sehr, dass sein Wegfall
uns sehr stark treffen wrde.
Bei einem Wechsel des LDL wrden insbesondere die { { { { { { {
neuen Verhandlungen sehr viel Aufwand verursachen.
Die Suche und Auswahl eines gleichwertigen LDL ist { { { { { { {
sehr aufwendig.
Wir knnen diesen LDL leicht ersetzen. { { { { { { {
Ein kurzfristiger Wechsel dieses LDL wre mit sehr viel { { { { { { {
Aufwand verbunden.
Inwieweit beschreiben die folgenden Aussagen die Trifft gar Trifft voll
spezifischen Investitionen, die fr den Logistikdienstleister nicht zu zu
in Ihrem Fall notwendig waren?
Um Logistikdienstleistungen fr uns zu erbringen, { { { { { { {
musste der LDL hohe Investitionen (Transportmittel,
Lagerhuser o..) ttigen, die er ausschlielich fr uns
verwenden kann.
Der LDL kann die fr uns entwickelten { { { { { { {
Geschftsablufe nicht ohne groe Vernderungen fr
einen anderen Kunden verwenden.
Damit der LDL Leistungen fr uns erbringen kann, { { { { { { {
musste er seine Mitarbeiter so schulen, dass sie dieses
Wissen bei einem anderen Kunden nicht verwenden
knnten.
Die Investitionen, die dieser LDL fr unsere Beziehung { { { { { { {
in Menschen, Prozesse oder Vermgenswerte ttigen
musste, werden sich sehr schnell amortisieren.
$FKWXQJ%LWWHEHDQWZRUWHQ6LHGLHIROJHQGHQ)UDJHQLQ%H]XJDXI
,KU8QWHUQHKPHQXQG,KUH.XQGHQ
294 Appendix: Questionnaire
Inwieweit beschreiben die folgenden Aussagen die Trifft gar Trifft voll
momentane Situation Ihres Unternehmens? nicht zu zu
Unser Absatzvolumen ist von Kunde zu Kunde sehr { { { { { { {
unterschiedlich.
Das Bestellverhalten unser Kunden ist sehr { { { { { { {
uneinheitlich und schwankt je nach Auftrag oder Saison
betrchtlich.
Verglichen mit unseren Wettbewerbern mssen unsere { { { { { { {
Produkte an eine hohe Anzahl von Lieferpunkten
geliefert werden.
Verglichen mit unseren Wettbewerbern greifen wir auf { { { { { { {
eine sehr groe Anzahl von Logistikdienstleistern
zurck.
Der Verdrngungswettbewerb innerhalb unserer { { { { { { {
Branche ist sehr stark.
In den Branchen unserer Kunden sind starke { { { { { { {
Konzentrationstendenzen zu beobachten.
Die Bedeutung der Logistik nimmt in den Augen { { { { { { {
unserer Kunden immer weiter zu.
Eine sehr gute Logistik wird von unseren Kunden { { { { { { {
zunehmend als wichtig empfunden und ist deswegen
fr uns ein groer Wettbewerbsvorteil.
Inwieweit beschreiben die folgenden Aussagen das Trifft gar Trifft voll
Produktprogramm Ihres Unternehmens? nicht zu zu
Wir fertigen ein sehr breites Produktprogramm mit { { { { { { {
einer Reihe von unterschiedlichen Produkten.
Unsere Produkte sind so wertvoll, dass sie besondere { { { { { { {
logistische Manahmen erfordern.
Unsere Produkte sind so unterschiedlich, dass fr sie { { { { { { {
sehr viele unterschiedliche Transport-, Umschlag-
und/oder Lagerprozesse konzipiert werden mssen.
Fr unsere Produkte gibt es echte Alternativen am { { { { { { {
Markt, so dass wir uns ber eine erstklassige Logistik
positiv herausstellen knnen.
Appendix: Questionnaire 295
Inwieweit treffen die folgenden eher grundstzlichen Trifft gar Trifft voll
Aussagen zur Ausgestaltung der Logistik Ihrer nicht zu zu
Geschftseinheit zu?
Entscheidungen zu logistischen Fragen werden in { { { { { { {
unserem Unternehmen sehr zentral gefllt.
Unsere Geschftseinheit beherrscht einen { { { { { { {
reibungslosen, durchgngigen, schnellen und
strungsarmen Material- und Informationsfluss.
Unsere Geschftseinheit wird insgesamt sehr fluss- { { { { { { {
bzw. prozessorientiert gefhrt.
Unsere Geschftseinheit besitzt einen deutlich hheren { { { { { { {
Grad an Fluss- bzw. Prozessorientierung als unsere
Wettbewerber.
Smtliche Prozesse der Leistungserstellung sind in { { { { { { {
unserer Geschftseinheit gut aufeinander abgestimmt.
Es existieren in unserer Geschftseinheit zahlreiche { { { { { { {
Einzelinteressen, die der Erreichung der Ziele unserer
Geschftseinheit im Wege stehen.
Wie schtzen Sie die Logistikleistung Ihrer Sehr viel Sehr viel
Geschftseinheit im Vergleich zum Wettbewerb ein? schlechter besser
Durchlaufzeiten { { { { { { {
Lieferzeit { { { { { { {
Lieferfhigkeit { { { { { { {
Liefertreue { { { { { { {
Lieferflexibilitt und Reaktionszeiten (Zeit, Menge) { { { { { { {
Schadens- und Fehlerfreiheit der logistischen Prozesse { { { { { { {
Wie schtzen Sie den Markterfolg Ihrer Geschftseinheit Sehr viel Sehr viel
im Vergleich zum Wettbewerb ein? schlechter besser
Kundenzufriedenheit { { { { { { {
Kundennutzen { { { { { { {
Bindung bestehender Kunden { { { { { { {
Gewinnung/Akquisition von Neukunden { { { { { { {
Erreichung des angestrebten Wachstums { { { { { { {
Erreichung des angestrebten Marktanteils { { { { { { {
296 Appendix: Questionnaire
Wie schtzen Sie die Flexibilitt Ihrer Geschftseinheit im Sehr viel Sehr viel
Vergleich zum Wettbewerb ein? schlechter besser
Anpassung der Produkte/Dienstleistungen an neue { { { { { { {
Kundenbedrfnisse
Reaktion auf neue Entwicklungen am Markt { { { { { { {
Nutzung neuer Marktchancen { { { { { { {
Wie verhlt sich Ihrer Einschtzung nach die Sehr viel Sehr viel
Umsatzrendite Ihrer Geschftseinheit im Vergleich zum schlechter besser
Wettbewerb?
Unsere Umsatzrendite war im letzten Geschftsjahr im { { { { { { {
Vergleich zu unseren Wettbewerbern...
Unsere Umsatzrendite war im Durchschnitt der letzten { { { { { { {
drei Geschftsjahre im Vergleich zu der unserer
Wettbewerber...
Die Entwicklung unserer Umsatzrendite war in den { { { { { { {
letzten drei Jahren im Vergleich zu der unserer
Wettbewerber...
Vielen Dank, dass Sie den Fragebogen bis hierhin ausgefllt haben!
Welcher Branche gehrt Ihre Geschftseinheit an? (Bitte nur eine Branche ankreuzen.)
Wie gro ist das Umsatzvolumen Ihrer Geschftseinheit derzeit? (in Mio. / Jahr)
bis 10 { 11-24 { 25-50 { 50-100 {
100-250 { 250-500 { 500-1.000 { ber 1.000 {
Appendix: Questionnaire 297
Fllen Sie die folgenden Fragen bitte wieder fr den gleichen Lo-
gistikdienstleister aus, fr den Sie zuvor auch schon die Fragen be-
antwortet haben.
Bitte fllen Sie die folgenden Felder aus, damit wir Sie bzgl. Ihres Danke-
schns kontaktieren knnen oder heften Sie eine Vistenkarte an. Bitte ge-
ben Sie auf jeden Fall Name und E-Mail-Adresse an. Falls Sie sich fr das
Buch entscheiden, bentigen wir auch Ihre Anschrift.
Nachname: ___________________________________________
Vorname: ___________________________________________
E-Mail-Adresse: ___________________________________________
Unternehmen: ___________________________________________
Strae: ___________________________________________
Postleitzahl: ___________________________________________
Ort: ___________________________________________
Telefon: ___________________________________________
Falls Sie Anmerkungen oder Kritik haben, knnen Sie uns das im Folgen-
den gerne mitteilen:
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
Table 2-1. Key logistics outsourcing related research since 1999 ..........30
Table 3-1. Variables frequently used in relationship research ................67
Table 4-1. Overview of the hypotheses on the logistics outsourcing
performance model ..............................................................119
Table 6-1. Indicators for the measurement of the construct
cooperation...........................................................................182
Table 6-2. Adaptation measures for the construct cooperation
(8 indicators) ........................................................................182
Table 6-3. Adaptation measures for the construct cooperation
(4 items) ...............................................................................183
Table 6-4. Indicators for the measurement of the construct
communication.....................................................................184
Table 6-5. Adaptation measures for the construct communication
(6 indicators) ........................................................................185
Table 6-6. Adaptation measures for the construct communication
(4 indicators) ........................................................................185
Table 6-7. Indicators for the measurement of the construct
proactive improvement ........................................................186
Table 6-8. Adaptation measures for the construct proactive
improvement (5 indicators)..................................................187
Table 6-9. Adaptation measures for the construct proactive
improvement (4 indicators)..................................................187
Table 6-10. Indicators for the measurement of the construct trust..........188
Table 6-11. Adaptation measures for the construct trust
(6 indicators) ........................................................................189
Table 6-12. Adaptation measures for the construct trust
(4 indicators) ........................................................................190
Table 6-13. Indicators for the measurement of the construct
commitment .........................................................................190
Table 6-14. Adaptation measures for the construct commitment
(4 indicators) ........................................................................191
Table 6-15. Adaptation measures for the construct commitment
(3 indicators) ........................................................................192
302 List of tables
Anderson, E. and B. Weitz (1992): The Use of Pledges to Build and Sus-
tain Commitment in Distribution Channels, in: Journal of Marketing Re-
search, Vol. 29 (February 1992): pp. 18-34.
Bovet, D. (1991): Logistics Strategies for Europe in the Nineties, in: Plan-
ning Review, Vol. 19 (4): pp. 12-15 and 46-48.
Bradley, P. (1994a): Contract Logistics: It's All About Costs, in: Purchas-
ing (October 1994): pp. 56A3-A14.
Bradley, P. (1994b): Cozy up, but stay tough, in: Purchasing (March 17th,
1994): pp. 47-51.
Byrne, P. (1993): A new road map for contract logistics, in: Transporta-
tion & Distribution, Vol. 34 (4): pp. 58-62.
Child, J. (1973): Organizations: A Choice for Man, in: J. Child: Man and
Organization. London: pp. 234-257.
Coase, R. H. (1937): The Nature of the Firm, in: Economica, Vol. 4: pp.
386-405.
Cravens, D. W. (1995): The changing role of the sales force, in: Market-
ing Management, Vol. 4 (2): pp. 48-57.
CSCMP (2005): Supply Chain and Logistics Terms and Glossary. Belle-
vue.
Farley, J. U. (1964): Why Does "Brand Loyalty" Vary Over Products, in:
Journal of Marketing Research (JMR), Vol. 1 (4): pp. 9-14.
Hart, S. (1987): The Use of the Survey in Industrial Market Research, in:
Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 3 (1): pp. 25-38.
Hennart, J.-F. (1993): Explaining the Swollen Middle: Why Most Trans-
actions are a Mix of 'Market' and 'Hierarchy', in: Organization Science,
Vol. 4 (4): pp. 529-547.
Hu, L.-t. and P. M. Bentler (1999): Cutoff Criteria for Fit Indexes in Co-
variance Structure Analysis: Conventional Criteria Versus New Alterna-
tives, in: Structural Equation Modeling, Vol. 6 (1): pp. 1-55.
John, G. and T. Reve (1982): The Reliability and Validity of Key Infor-
mant Data from Dyadic Relationships in Marketing Channels, in: Jour-
nal of Marketing Research, Vol. 19 (4): pp. 517-524.
Lane, C. (2000): Theories and Issues in the Study of Trust, in: C. Lane
and R. Bachmann: Trust within and between Organizations. Oxford: pp.
1-30.
References 333
Lieb, R. C. (2005): The 3PL Industry: Where It's Been, Where It's Going,
in: Supply Chain Management Review, Vol. 9 (6): pp. 20-27.
Lindskold, S. (1978): Trust Development, the GRIT Proposal, and the Ef-
fects of Conciliatory Acts on Conflict and Cooperation, in: Psychologi-
cal Bulletin, Vol. 85 (4): pp. 772-793.
Penrose, E. T. (1959): The Theory of the Growth of the Firm. New York.
Pfohl, H.-C. and W. Zllner (1997): Organization for logistics: The con-
tingency approach, in: International Journal of Physical Distribution &
Logistics Management, Vol. 27 (5/6): pp. 306-320.
Picot, A. (1991): Ein neuer Ansatz zur Gestaltung der Leistungstiefe, in:
Zeitschrift fr betriebswirtschaftliche Forschung, Vol. 43 (4): pp. 336-
357.
Sheffi, Y. (1990): Third Party Logistics: Present and Future Prospects, in:
Journal of Business Logistics, Vol. 11 (2): pp. 27-39.
Steiger, J. H. and J. C. Lind (1980): Statistically based tests for the num-
ber of common factors, Paper presented at the Annual Spring Meeting
of the Psychonometric Society. Iowa City.
Tosi, H., R. Aldag and R. Storey (1973): On the Measurement of the En-
vironment: An Assessment of the Lawrence and Lorsch Environmental
Uncertainty Subscale, in: Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 18 (1):
pp. 27-36.