UMI Number: 3093649
Copyright 2003 by
Gillyard, Angelisa Elisabeth
All rights reserved.
________________________________________________________
UMI Microform 3093649
Copyright 2003 ProQuest Information and Learning Company.
All rights reserved. This microform edition is protected against
unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.
____________________________________________________________
ProQuest Information and Learning Company
300 North Zeeb Road
PO Box
143 trang |
Chia sẻ: huyen82 | Lượt xem: 2733 | Lượt tải: 3
Tóm tắt tài liệu THE RELATIONSHIPS AMONG SUPPLY CHAIN CHARACTERISTICS, LOGISTICS AND MANUFACTURING STRATEGIES, AND PERFORMANCE, để xem tài liệu hoàn chỉnh bạn click vào nút DOWNLOAD ở trên
1346
Ann Arbor, MI 48106-1346
Copyright by
Angelisa Elisabeth Gillyard
2003
ii
ABSTRACT
Supply Chain Management (SCM) offers the possibility of increased customer
service while minimizing costs. Before choosing what type of supply chain strategy to
pursue, a firm must first evaluate the type of supply chain(s) in which it participates. The
type of functional strategies chosen should complement the type of supply chain(s) in
which the firm is a member. Certain manufacturing and logistics strategies are more
appropriate given the characteristics of the supply chain. This thesis explores the
relationships among supply chain characteristics, logistics and manufacturing strategies,
and firm performance. In addition, this study proposes an alternative logistics strategy
framework using the competitive priorities of cost, quality, delivery and flexibility.
Multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) was used to test the hypotheses.
Results indicate limited support for the notion that successful firms participating in agile
supply chains choose to emphasize different logistics and manufacturing strategies than
less successful firms in agile supply chains. The same holds true for firms participating
in lean supply chains. Results from the logistics strategy factor analysis demonstrated
that the proposed framework is not only a feasible one, but one that is effective at
describing the logistics strategy.
iii
Dedicated to my Mother and Father
iv
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
First and foremost, I would like to thank God for giving me the strength and
courage to pursue this degree and to see it to completion.
I thank my adviser, Martha Cooper, for her continued support and mentorship
throughout my matriculation in the doctoral program. Her encouragement has been
invaluable throughout this entire process.
I am grateful to my committee, Glenn Milligan and John Current, for their
continued support and cooperation. Their comments and suggestions have contributed
much to the improvement of this document.
I also wish to thank my family. Without their constant and unconditional love,
support and encouragement, I would not be who and where I am today.
Thanks are also extended to the other doctoral students who were by my side
throughout this journey. Their intellectual discussions and words of encouragement
made the doctoral program more enjoyable.
This research was supported in part by a grant from The Ohio State University’s
Alumni Grants for Graduate Research and Scholarship and the GE Faculty for the Future
Fellowship.
v
VITA
September 13, 1974 ………………………………Born - Atlanta, GA
1996 ………………………………………………B.S. Mathematics, Spelman College
1998 ………………………………………………M.S. Management, Georgia Institute of
Technology
2002 ………………………………………………M.A. Business Administration, The
Ohio State University
1998-2002 ………………………………………..Graduate Teaching and Research
Associate, The Ohio State University
PUBLICATIONS
"Career Patterns of Women in Logistics: Emphasis on Mentoring," Martha C. Cooper,
Cuneyt Eroglu, Angelisa Gillyard, Priyatabh P. Sharma, Council of Logistics
Management Conference Proceedings (CD-ROM), 2002. Cited in several trade
publications, including Inventory Management Report, New York, New York:
IOMA, December 1, 2002.
"Career Patterns of Women in Logistics," Martha C. Cooper, Angelisa Gillyard, and
Antuza Sandu, Council of Logistics Management Conference Proceedings, 2001.
Cited in several trade publications, including Inventory Reduction Report, New
York, New York: IOMA, December 2001, p. 10, and Managing Logistics, Issue
12-01, p.12.
vi
"Career Patterns of Women in Logistics," Martha C. Cooper and Angelisa Gillyard,
Council of Logistics Management Conference Proceedings, 2000, pp.75-97.
Cited in several trade publications, including Inventory Reduction Report, New
York, New York: IOMA, December 2000, pp.3, 5.
FIELDS OF STUDY
Major Field: Business Administration
Studies in Supply Chain Management
Minor: Logistics Management
vii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Abstract ………………………………………………………………… ii
Dedication ……………………………………………………………… iii
Acknowledgments ……………………………………………………… iv
Vita ……………………………………………………………………... v
List of Tables …………………………………………………………... ix
List of Figures ………………………………………………………….. xi
Chapters:
1 Introduction …………………………………… 1
2 Literature Review ……………………………... 10
Supply Chain Management …………………… 10
Hypotheses 1 – 4 ……………………… 19
Manufacturing Strategy ……………………….. 21
Hypotheses 5 – 8 ……………………… 24
Logistics Strategy …………………….……….. 25
Hypotheses 9 – 12 …………………….. 30
The Model …………………………………….. 34
Contributions ………………………………….. 36
3 Methodology ………………………………….. 38
Subjects ……………………………………….. 38
Instrumentation ……………………….……….. 39
Supply Chain Type……………………. 39
viii
Manufacturing Strategy ……………….. 40
Logistics Strategy …….……………….. 43
Performance ………….……………….. 45
Procedures …………………………………….. 46
Data Analysis …………………………………. 46
4 Results ………………………………………… 51
Description of the Sample …………………….. 51
Preliminary Analysis ………………………….. 52
Logistics Strategy …….……………….. 52
Manufacturing Strategy ……………….. 57
Supply Chain Characteristics …………. 59
Review and Tests of the Hypotheses ….. 69
Summary of the Results ……….……. 77
5 Summary and Conclusions ……………………. 78
Conclusions Drawn from the Research ……….. 78
Implications for Logistics and Supply Chain
Theory ………………………………… 79
Implications for Logistics and Supply Chain
Managers ……………………………… 80
Limitations of the Research …………………… 81
Suggestions for Future Research ……………… 82
Concluding Note ……………………………… 83
References ……………………………………………………………… 85
Appendices ……………………………………………………………... 89
Appendix A Email Sent to Subjects ………………………… 90
Appendix B Instructions for Internet Survey ……………….. 93
Appendix C Internet Version of Survey ……………………. 98
Appendix D Microsoft Word Version of Survey …………… 117
ix
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
2.1 Eight Supply Chain Processes Proposed by Lambert and
Cooper (2000) ………………………………………………… 12
2.2 Definitions of Supply Chain Management …………………… 14
2.3 Characteristics of Lean and Agile Supply Chains …………….. 17
2.4 Description of Logistics Strategies …………………………… 27
2.5 Proposed Logistics Strategy Framework ……………………… 30
3.1 Scales for Supply Chain Type ………………………………… 39
3.2 Logistics Strategy Scales for the Cost Priority ………………... 43
3.3 Logistics Strategy Scales for the Quality Priority …………….. 44
3.4 Logistics Strategy Scales for the Delivery Priority …………… 44
3.5 Logistics Strategy Scales for the Flexibility Priority ………… 45
3.6 Sample MANOVA Table for Manufacturing Strategy ……….. 48
3.7 Sample MANOVA Table for Logistics Strategy ……………... 49
4.1 Industries Represented ………………………………………... 52
4.2 Logistics Strategy Factors and Factor Loadings ……………… 54
4.3 Logistics Factors and Cronbach Alphas ………………………. 56
4.4 Manufacturing Strategy Factors and Factor Loadings ………... 58
x
4.5 Manufacturing Factors and Cronbach Alphas ………………… 59
4.6 Significant Correlations Among Supply Chain Characteristics . 61
4.7 MANOVA Results – Emphasis on Manufacturing Cost
Effectiveness as a Competitive Priority ………………………. 71
4.8 MANOVA Results – Emphasis on Logistics Cost
Effectiveness as a Competitive Priority ………………………. 71
4.9 Average Emphasis on Competitive Priorities Across All
Performance Levels …………………………………………… 72
4.10 MANOVA Results – Hypotheses 5-8 ………………………… 73
4.11 Average Emphasis on Manufacturing Priorities ……………… 74
4.12 MANOVA Results – Hypotheses 9-12 ……………………….. 76
4.13 Average Emphasis on Logistics Competitive Priorities ………. 76
xi
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page
1.1 Conceptual Model ………………………………………………… 8
1.2 Examples of Hypothesized Differences …………………………... 9
2.1 Strategy Formulation ……………………………………………… 22
2.2 Relationships Previously Tested in the Literature ………………… 32
2.3 Proposed Model …………………………………………………… 34
2.4 Components of Constructs in Model ……………………………… 35
2.5 Components of Performance Construct in Model ………………… 36
3.1 Expected Interaction Effects ……………………………………… 50
1
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
Reduced prices, superior product quality, excellent customer service, expanded
variety, and exceptional value are examples of the ever- increasing demands being placed
on businesses by their customers. How will companies satisfy the increasing number of
customer requirements? Many believe that the answer lies in supply chain management.
Supply chain management (SCM) has become an important topic of discussion among
managers and academicians alike. One definition for SCM is “the integration of key
business processes from end user through original suppliers that provides products,
services and information that add value for customers and other stakeholders” (Lambert
and Cooper 2000). Improved SCM can enhance customer service while maintaining low
costs. Having recognized these benefits of SCM, many successful firms are
implementing SCM principles to create and sustain their competitive advantage.
What should companies do to maximize the benefits offered by SCM? One
answer lies in choosing the appropriate supply chain strategy. The appropriate supply
chain strategy should match the corporate strategy in order to “fit” within the company.
In addition, the supply chain strategy should complement the logistics and manufacturing
2
strategies in order to achieve superior performance. A dissonance among these strategies
could lead to building conflicting capabilities. As a result, companies will not realize the
complete benefits of SCM.
Strategic alignment between the corporate and supply chain strategies is essential
for the success of a company. A survey conducted by Ernst and Young LLP and Stevens
Institute of Technology revealed that only 13% of the respondents believed that their
supply chain practices were fully aligned with their business unit strategy. Only 47%
said that they were "somewhat" aligned with their business unit strategy (Tamas, 2000).
There are many reasons as to why a company might fail. One important reason according
Chopra and Meindl (2001) is: “A company may fail either because of a lack of strategic
fit or because its processes and resources do not provide the capabilities to support the
desired strategic fit.”
What exactly is meant by strategic fit? Chopra and Meindl (2001) give the
following definition:
“Strategic fit means that both the competitive and supply chain strategies
have the same goal. It refers to consistency between the customer
priorities that competitive strategy is designed to satisfy and the supply
chain capabilities that the supply chain strategy aims to build.”
The above definition of strategic fit can be expanded to include the manufacturing
and logistics strategies. The logistics and manufacturing strategies should be aligned
with the supply chain strategy in order to build the necessary capabilities to address
3
customer priorities. Thus, a lack of strategic fit can mean that a company wastes time
and valuable resources developing capabilities that will not satisfy current customers nor
win new customers.
Before choosing what type of supply chain strategy to pursue, a firm must first
evaluate the type of supply chain(s) in which it participates. One paradigm that has
evolved over the years consists of two types of supply chains: the lean and the agile.
Naylor, Naim and Berry (1999) define agility as “using market knowledge and a virtual
corporation to exploit profitable opportunities in a volatile market place” (pg. 108). They
define leanness as “developing a value stream to eliminate all waste, including time, and
to ensure a level schedule” (pg. 108).
Manufacturing strategy has been defined as the pattern of decisions that, over
time, enables a business unit to achieve a desired manufacturing structure, infrastructure
and set of specific capabilities. Typical manufacturing competitive priorities or strategies
are low cost, delivery, flexibility and quality (Hayes and Wheelwright 1984).
Unlike manufacturing strategy, logistics strategy literature has varying views on
what constitutes the typical logistics strategies. Bowersox and Daugherty (1987)
proposed a framework for logistics strategy classification. The three strategies they
articulated were the process, market, and channel strategies. McGinnis and Kohn (1990)
performed a factor analysis of logistics strategy where they identified four strategies: (1)
intensive logistics strategy; (2) integrated logistics strategy; (3) low integration strategy;
(4) low effectiveness logistics strategy.
4
The research presented in this dissertation suggests a logistics strategy framework
that parallels that of manufacturing strategy – cost, quality, delivery and flexibility – and
incorporates several of the scales previously developed by logistics researchers. This
framework attempts to designate the competitive priorities and capabilities that a firm
attempts to build through their logistics operations. Providing such a framework for
logistics strategy is an expected contribution of this research.
Research Design
Given the previously mentioned functional strategies and supply chain
characteristics, it follows that certain manufacturing and logistics strategies are more
appropriately used within certain supply chains. For example, it can be hypothesized that
given a lean supply chain, cost leadership manufacturing and logistics strategies are more
appropriate. Aimed at minimizing costs, the cost leadership strategies result in the same
efficiency capabilities that are valued in a lean supply chain. Firms exhibiting consistency
among the logistics strategy, manufacturing strategy and the type of supply chain should
experience higher levels of performance and competitive advantage than firms whose
strategies are not consistent with supply chain type. Improved performance should result
from the three entities guiding the firm’s actions toward the same objectives and goals
instead of toward conflicting goals. Therefore, the following research questions are
posed.
1. Are there distinct supply chain types?
2. What characteristics contribute most to supply chain type determination?
5
3. Among the supply chain types, do firms differ in the competitive priorities
that they choose to emphasize in their logistics and manufacturing operations?
4. Given a specific supply chain type, do higher performing companies
emphasize different competitive priorities than lower performing companies?
A conceptual model is shown for illustrative purposes only in Figure 1. This diagram is
not designed to imply causality but to conceptually link the areas of interest in this study.
Figure 2 shows the hypothesized differences between supply chain types and their
relative emphasis on two of the four competitive priorities for both logistics and
manufacturing strategies. For example, it is hypothesized that successful firms
participating in lean supply chains will emphasize the cost priority in their manufacturing
and logistics functions more than firms in lean supply chains experiencing poorer
performance. Similarly, successful firms in agile supply chains will emphasize flexibility
more than less successful firms in agile supply chains.
A web survey of logistics and supply chain executives who are members of the
Council of Logistics Management (CLM) and employed manufacturing firms was used to
gather the needed data. Because CLM is often considered to be the premier logistics
organization, it is believed that members have sufficient working knowledge of supply
chain, logistics and manufacturing issues within their organization to accurately complete
the survey. In addition, executives (possessing the title manager or above) were chosen
because their high-ranking position should afford them a fairly comprehensive view of
6
the firm and its functional priorities. The sampling frame includes manufacturing firms
from multiple industries. Scales from previous studies and articles were used to compose
the survey.
The respondents were divided into two initial groups, those participating in lean
supply chains and those participating in agile supply chains. Once the supply chain type
was determined, members of each type of supply chain were divided into high and low
performers. Multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) was performed to detect
differences in relative emphasis for the competitive priorities among the groups.
Contributions
This study makes several contributions to the literature. First, the characteristics
of lean and agile supply chains can be empirically supported to further the development
of supply chain management theory. Much of the literature to date is conceptual with
little empirical support. Secondly, an alternative framework for logistics strategy is
presented. The framework parallels that of manufacturing strategy and encourages
integrative research using the two strategies. In addition, the framework will enable
advanced understanding of logistics strategy and priorities. Lastly, the relationships
among the type of supply chain, logistics and manufacturing strategies and their relation
to perceived performance can be empirically examined, thereby advancing supply chain
theory development as well.
This study imparts several managerial implications as well. First, the financial impact
of choosing logistics and manufacturing priorities that complement their type of supply
7
chain is more clearly demonstrated. In addition, practitioners are able to better identify
what types of priorities they possess, the type of supply chain in which they participate
and the most complementary combinations of those priorities given their strategic intent
and resources.
8
Figure 1.1: Conceptual Model
Supply Chain
Type
Logistics
Strategy
Manufacturing
Strategy
Performance
9
Figure 1.2: Examples of Hypothesized Differences
Manufacturing/Logistics Cost
Performance
Low High
Lean
Agile
Average
Cost
Emphasis
Manufacturing/Logistics Flexibility
Performance
Low High
Agile
Lean
Average
Flexibility
Emphasis
10
CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
The following chapter will discuss the relevant literature concerning supply chain
management, manufacturing strategy and logistics strategy.
Supply Chain Management
Researchers and managers have debated for approximately the last 15 years about
the definition of supply chain management. Some believe that SCM is just integrated
logistics properly implemented. Others view SCM as the integration of more functions
than just logistics (e.g. manufacturing with marketing and R&D, etc.). Cooper, et al.
(1997) point out the need for “the integration of business operations in the supply chain
that goes beyond logistics.” Discussion with members of the Global Supply Chain
Forum (GSCF) resulted in the following definition of SCM:
“Supply Chain Management is the integration of key business processes
from end user through original suppliers that provides products, services
and information that add value for customers and other stakeholders”
Lambert and Cooper (2000).
11
The eight key processes identified are shown in Table 2.1. Each process is customer-
focused and aims to achieve superior product flows through the efficient use of
information along the supply chain.
12
Process Description of Process
Customer relationship
management
In the customer relationship management process, key customers are
identified and worked with closely to establish product and service
agreements that specify the levels of expected performance. Also,
customer service teams work with customers to further identify and
eliminate sources of demand variability.
Customer service
management
A single source of customer information is provided in this process. A
key point of contact for administering the product/service agreement is
established.
Demand management
Point-of-sale and “key” customer data is used to reduce uncertainty and
provide efficient flows throughout the supply chain.
Order fulfillment
Integration of the firm’s manufacturing, distribution and transportation
plans is performed in this process in order to guarantee timely and
accurately filled orders.
Manufacturing flow
management
Ideally, orders are processed on a just-in-time (JIT) basis where required
delivery dates drive production priorities. Furthermore, manufacturing
processes must be flexible enough to respond quickly to market changes.
Procurement
Long-term strategic alliances with a small core group of suppliers are
utilized in conjunction with rapid communication mechanisms (e.g. EDI,
Internet, etc.).
Product development
and commercialization
Customer Relationship Management is coordinated with this process to
identify customer-articulated and –unarticulated needs. Procurement is
involved in this process as well to select materials and suppliers.
Coordination with Manufacturing Flow Management is needed to
develop production technology and integrate into the best supply chain
flow for the product/market combination.
Returns
The Returns process enables identification of productivity improvement
opportunities.
Table 2.1: Eight Supply Chain Processes Proposed by Lambert and Cooper (2000).
13
Taking a slightly different perspective, Ballou, et al. (2000) identifies three
dimensions of supply chain management. They are intra- functional coordination, inter-
functional coordination and inter-organizational coordination. Intra- functional
coordination refers to the administration of the activities and processes within the
logistics function of a firm. Inter-functional coordination refers to the coordination of
activities among the functional areas of the firm while inter-organizational coordination
refers to the coordination of supply chain activities that take place between legally
separate firms within the product- flow channel. Hence, the following definition for
supply chain management was proposed:
“The supply chain refers to all those activities associated with the
transformation and flow of goods and services, including their attendant
information flows, from the sources of raw materials to end users.
Management refers to the integration of all these activities, both internal
and external to the firm.”
Also emphasizing the importance of functional coordination and strategic
congruence, Mentzer, DeWitt, Keebler, Min, Nix, Smith and Zacharia (2001) define
supply chain management as:
“The systemic, strategic coordination of the traditional business functions and the
tactics across these business functions within a particular company and across businesses
within the supply chain, for the purposes of improving the long-term performance of the
individual companies and the supply chain as a whole.”
Other definitions of supply chain management are offered in Table 2.2.
14
Authors Definition
Tan et al. (1998)
SCM encompasses materials/supply management from the supply of basic raw
materials to final product (and possible recycling and re-use). SCM focuses on
how firms utilize their suppliers' processes, technology and capability to
enhance competitive advantage. It is a management philosophy that extends
traditional intra-enterprise activities by bringing trading partners together with
the common goal of optimization and efficiency.
Berry et al. (1994)
SCM aims at building trust, exchanging information on market needs,
developing new products, and reducing the supplier base to a particular OEM so
as to release management resources for developing meaningful, long term
relationships.
Jones and Riley (1985)
An integrative approach to dealing with the planning and control of the
materials flow from suppliers to end-users.
Saunders (1995)
External Chain is the total chain of exchange from original source of raw
material, through the various firms involved in extracting and processing raw
materials, manufacturing, assembling, distributing and retailing to ultimate end
customers.
Ellram (1991)
A network of firms interacting to deliver product or service to the end customer,
linking flows from raw material supply to final delivery.
Christopher (1992)
Network of organizations that are involved, through upstream and downstream
linkages, in the different processes and activities that produce value in the form
of products and services in the hands of the ultimate consumer.
Lee and Billington (1992)
Networks of manufacturing and distribution sites that procure raw materials,
transform them into intermediate and finished products, and distribute the
finished products to customers.
Kopczak (1997)
The set of entities, including suppliers, logistics services providers,
manufacturers, distributors and resellers, through which materials, products and
information flow.
Lee and Ng (1997)
A network of entities that starts with the suppliers’ supplier and ends with the
customers’ custom production and delivery of goods and services.
Table 2.2: Definitions of Supply Chain Management. Reproduced from Croom,
Simon, Pietro Romano and Mihalis Giannakis, “Supply Chain Management: An
Analytical Framework for Critical Literature Review,” European Journal of Purchasing
and Supply Management, Vol. 6, 2000, pp. 67-83.
15
Though these definitions differ slightly in wording, all communicate the importance of
integration, communication and coordination between functions and organizations that
will create value for the customer.
Other researchers have attempted to develop math models to address coordination
in the supply chain. Many of these models attempt to minimize inventory in the supply
chain. However, these analyses are dyadic in nature, examining the interaction of only
two supply chain members, a buyer and a supplier. Thus, the entire supply chain as given
by the previous definitions is not modeled using these analytical methods. In addition,
inventory is not the only consideration or motivation for supply chain coordination.
Thomas and Griffin (1996) reviewed the literature that uses math models to address
supply chain coordination issues.
Several authors have proposed frameworks for the design and control of supply
chains (Davis 1993; Beamon and Ware 1998; Bowman 1997; Sengupta and Turnbull
1996). However, much of this work is geared toward the manager and does not give
theoretical insights as to how supply chain management relates to functional strategies.
One of the goals of this study is to examine the relationship among the type of supply
chain a firm participates in and two of the firm’s functional strategies, namely their
manufacturing and logistics strategies.
One of the seminal papers on supply chain management provides a framework for
determining what type of supply chain is appropriate for a particular product. Fisher
(1997) recommends first examining a product’s demand nature in order to determine
what type of supply chain to use. Products fall into one of two categories according to
16
Fisher, primarily functional or primarily innovative products. Functional products have
stable demand, low profit margins and long life cycles. Innovative products have
unpredictable demand, short life cycles and higher profit margins. Functional products
require an efficient supply chain that minimizes cost while innovative products require a
responsive supply chain that maximizes speed and flexibility. Any other combination of
product type and supply chain type will result in inferior performance.
Akin to the efficient and responsive supply chains are the two supply chain
archetypes that have evolved in the literature, the lean and the agile supply chain. Naylor
et al. (1999) define agility as “using market knowledge and a virtual corporation to
exploit profitable opportunities in a volatile market place” (pg. 108). They define
leanness as “developing a value stream to eliminate all waste, including time, and to
ensure a level schedule” (pg. 108). Both types may be employed simultaneously in the
supply chain. Though both archetypes use market knowledge and are concerned with
waste elimination and lead-time compression, the two do have several differences.
Smooth demand and level scheduling are essential to the lean supply chain whereas
robustness and rapid reconfiguration capabilities are essential in the agile supply chain.
Metrics also have differing importance levels in the lean and agile supply chains. Both
paradigms share lead-time and quality as key metrics. However, service is a key metric
for the agile supply chain while costs are a key metric for the lean supply chain (Naylor
et al. 1999).
Christopher and Towill (2000) go so far as to outline the market qualifiers and
winners for the agile and lean supply chains. Market qualifiers are those characteristics
17
that enable a company to be considered by potential customers. Market winners are those
characteristics that lead a customer to choose to purchase from a particular company.
Quality, cost and short lead-time are the market qualifiers for the agile supply chain
whereas service is the market winner. Cost, however, is the market winner for the lean
supply chain and quality, service, and lead-time are market qualifiers. Christopher and
Towill (2000) also outline._. the distinguishing attributes for the lean and agile supply
chains. They are summarized in Table 2.3:
Distinguishing Attributes Lean Supply Agile Supply
Typical products Commodities Fashion goods
Marketplace demand Predictable Volatile
Product variety Low High
Product life cycle Long Short
Customer drivers Cost Availability
Profit margin Low High
Dominant costs Physical costs Marketability costs
Stockout penalties Long term contractual Immediate and volatile
Purchasing policy Buy goods Assign capacity
Information enrichment Highly desirable Obligatory
Forecasting mechanism Algorithmic Consultative
Table 2.3: Characteristics of Lean and Agile Supply Chains. Reproduced from
Christopher, Martin and Denis Towill “Supply chain migration from lean and functional to
agile and customized” Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, Vol. 5, No. 4
(2000), pp. 206-213.
In 2001, Harland, Lamming Zheng and Johnsen offer their own taxonomy of supply
networks. Their taxonomy is very similar to the efficient/responsive and lean/agile
18
paradigms, however they also include the issue of power in the channel. The four network
types established in their paper were the 1) dynamic/low degree of focal firm influence, 2)
dynamic/high degree of focal firm influence, 3) routinized/low degree of focal firm influence
and 4) routinized/high degree of focal firm influence. Both types of dynamic supply
networks operate under dynamic conditions and tended to compete primarily on innovation
rather than cost. Both types of routinized supply networks operated under stable conditions
and competed on cost minimization and quality improvement. Thus, the routinized network
can be likened to the lean or efficient supply chain type and the dynamic network can be
likened to the agile or responsive supply chain type. Mason-Jones et al. (2000) also outline
the market qualifiers and market winners for lean and agile supply chains. Quality, cost and
lead time are market qualifiers for the agile supply chain while service level is the market
winner for the agile supply chain. Quality, lead time, and service level are the market
qualifiers for the lean supply chain and cost is the market winner for the lean supply chain.
Christopher and Towill (2001) make the proposition that a company need not choose
to be exclusively lean or exclusively agile in their supply chain operations. Rather the
demand pattern for the product should determine the strategy. Firms may implement hybrid
strategies in which lean methods are used for the higher volume product lines that have stable
demand and agile methods are used for the slower moving product lines. A supply chain
may be lean up to the de-coupling point and agile downstream from the decoupling point.
Similarly, if a firm knows what the base level demand is for a product line, it can use lean
methods to manage that forecastable element and use agile methods to manage the less
predictable element.
19
Lamming et al. (2000) attempt to classify supply networks (or supply chains) using
several case studies. The type of product was used as the differentiator between the network
types. They found that the competitive priorities for supply networks of unique-innovative
products differed from those for functional products. Supply networks for unique-innovative
products focused on speed, flexibility, innovation and quality supremacy. Supply networks
for functional products focused on cost reduction and quality sustainability. Thus, there is
initial evidence suggesting the existence of different types of supply chains that require
different sets of competitive priorities from its members. According to Fisher (1997)
suppliers for efficient supply chains should be chosen based on cost and quality while
suppliers in responsive supply chains should be chosen based on speed, flexibility and
quality. Thus, the first set of hypotheses for this study are as follows:
H1: Companies participating in lean supply chains will emphasize cost as a
competitive priority in the manufacturing strategy more than companies
participating in agile supply chains.
H2: Companies participating in lean supply chains will emphasize cost as a
competitive priority in the logistics strategy more than companies
participating in agile supply chains.
H3: Companies participating in agile supply chains will emphasize flexibility as a
competitive priority in the manufacturing strategy more than companies
participating in lean supply chains.
20
H4: Companies participating in agile supply chains will emphasize flexibility as a
competitive priority in the logistics strategy more than companies
participating in lean supply chains.
Tan, Kannan, Handfield and Ghosh (1999) attempted to link certain supply chain
management practices with firm performance. In particular, they examined the effects of
quality management, supply base management and customer relations practices on firm
financial performance. They found that some aspects of quality management – use of
performance data in quality management, management commitment to quality, involvement
of quality department, and social responsibility of management -- all were positively related
to firm performance. Managing the supply base was found to have a significant impact on
firm growth but not on overall performance. Customer relations was positively associated
with firm performance, indicating the need for firms to have a customer orientation.
Customer orientation is also highlighted in many of the supply chain management definitions
presented earlier in this section. The significance of supply base management highlights the
need for companies to actively manage their supply chain to maximize their performance. As
Mentzer et al. (2001) said, a supply chain will exist whether a firm actively manages it or not.
Fewer managers are letting the supply chains be controlled through external forces but are
taking proactive roles in the supply chain management process. This proactive stance
indicates the increased need for a greater understanding of supply chain management and
how it affects a firm’s functions.
21
Cavinato (1999) attempted to link how logistics is viewed in a supply chain
management context to the five stages of strategic management. He was attempting to show
how different managerial skills and outlooks are required in the different stages of strategic
management. Thus, firms need to match their management of logistics to their current
strategic outlook. The advantage of acknowledging the current state of a firm is that it can
also examine how to move to the next developmental level. The five stages are basic
financial planning, forecast-based planning, externally oriented planning, strategic
management and knowledge-based business. The Knowledge-based business has a process
view and sees supply chain strategy as it affects the overall firm and each particular product.
Thus, in order to move to becoming a knowledge-based firm, firms must recognize how their
supply chain management activities affect each individual function as well as each individual
product line. Logistics and manufacturing strategies, in particular, are significantly affected
by supply chain management activities. The strategic orientation of the firm will determine
how these functions are managed.
Manufacturing Strategy
Manufacturing strategy has been defined as the pattern of decisions that, over
time, enable a business unit to achieve a desired manufacturing structure, infrastructure
and set of specific capabilities (Hayes and Wheelwright 1984). As seen in Figure 2.1,
manufacturing strategy and other functional strategies cannot be determined in isolation.
Changing customer demands and competitive environments necessitate the careful
22
consideration of each decision since the wrong decision can have dire long-term
consequences. The typical manufacturing competitive priorities are low cost, delivery,
flexibility and quality.
ENVIRONMENT
CORPORATE STRATEGY
STRATEGIC BUSINESS UNIT STRATEGIES
FUNCTIONAL STRATEGY FORMULATION
Manufacturing Other Functional Areas
IMPLEMENTATION
Manufacturing Other Functional Areas
Figure 2.1: Strategy Formulation. Adapted from Leong, Snyder, and Ward, “Research
in the Process and Content of Manufacturing Strategy” International Journal of
Management Science, Vol. 18, No. 2, (1990), pp. 109-122.
23
Williams et al. (1995) examine manufacturing strategy, business strategy and firm
performance in a mature industry (broadwoven fabric industry). Williams, et al. (1995)
find a significant relationship between manufacturing and business strategy. They also
find that businesses that choose higher levels of differentiation emphasized innovative
manufacturing processes, product quality and variety of product offerings.
Ward et al. (1995) examine manufacturing strategy, business environment and
performance among Singaporean firms. They find that high performers emphasize
different manufacturing competitive priorities than low performers. The typical
business/competitive environment factors considered are munificence, dynamism and
complexity (not included in their study). Munificence refers to the extent to which an
environment supports growth of organizations within it. Dynamism refers to the
unpredictable change in environmental conditions faced by firms. Complexity refers to
the heterogeneity and range of an organization’s activities.
Ward et al. (1995) find that higher environmental dynamism is associated with
higher emphasis on delivery performance, flexibility and quality. In particular, low
performers focus on flexibility, delivery, quality and cost reductions in the presence of
high dynamism while high performing firms focused only on delivery, quality and
flexibility. In addition, low performers focused on cost reduction and differentiation
when in the face of increased competition while high performers emphasized only
differentiation through delivery performance. Thus, there is not one particular strategy
that is appropriate in all circumstances. The results from these previous studies lead to
the next set of hypotheses:
24
H5: High performing companies in lean supply chains will emphasize cost as a
competitive priority for the manufacturing strategy more than low
performing companies in lean supply chains.
H6: High performing companies in agile supply chains will emphasize cost as
a competitive priority for the manufacturing strategy less than low
performing companies in agile supply chains.
H7: High performing companies in agile supply chains will emphasize
flexibility as a competitive priority for the manufacturing strategy more
than low performing companies in agile supply chains.
H8: High performing companies in lean supply chains will emphasize
flexibility as a competitive priority for the manufacturing strategy less
than low performing companies in lean supply chains.
25
Logistics Strategy
Though the manufacturing strategy literature has very well defined competitive
priorities, the logistics strategy literature is not as conclusive to date. Bowersox and
Daugherty (1989) proposed a framework for logistics strategy classification. The three
strategies they articulated were the process, market and channel strategies. The process-
based strategy is concerned with managing a broad group of logistics activities as a
value-added chain. Emphasis is on achieving efficiency from managing purchasing,
manufacturing, scheduling, and physical distribution as an integrated system. The
market-based strategy is concerned with managing a limited group of logistics activities
for a multidivisional single business unit or across multiple business units. The logistics
organization seeks to make joint product shipments to common customers for different
product groups and seeks to facilitate sales and logistical coordination by a single order-
invoice. The channel-based strategy is concerned with managing logistics activities
performed jointly with dealers and distributors. The strategic orientation places a great
deal of attention on external control. Significant amounts of finished inventories are
typically maintained forward or downstream in the distribution channel. These strategies,
however, are very descriptive in nature and do not attempt to identify the competitive
priorities or capabilities that a firm may attempt to exploit or develop through their
logistics operations.
26
Clinton and Closs (1997) attempt to identify the underlying factors for the
process/market/channel classification. They find that the framework is “promising.”
However, significant overlap among the strategies was observed though the relative
emphasis on activities (e.g. alliances, planning, control, etc.) differed slightly. Thus, a
more illuminating framework is needed for logistics strategy.
McGinnis and Kohn (1990) performed a factor analysis study of logistics strategy.
Four strategies were identified: (1) intensive logistics strategy; (2) integrated logistics
strategy; (3) low integration strategy; (4) low effectiveness logistics strategy. Definitions
of these strategies can be found in Table 2.4.
27
Strategy Description
Intensive Logistics Strategy
Highest emphasis on customer service
commitment, coordinated logistics,
integrated customer service and logistics
coordination effectiveness.
Integrated Logistics Strategy
Highest emphasis on integrated computer
systems and also emphasized coordinated
logistics, integrated customer service and
logistics coordination effectiveness.
Low Integration Strategy
Low emphasis on integrated computer
systems and logistics coordination
effectiveness with moderate emphasis on
customer service commitment, coordinated
logistics and integrated customer service.
Low Effectiveness Logistics Strategy
Low emphasis on customer service
commitment, coordinated logistics and
logistics coordination effectiveness with
moderate emphasis on computer system and
customer service integration.
Table 2.4: Descriptions of Logistics Strategies Determined by McGinnis and Kohn
(1990), “A Factor Analytic Study of Logistics Strategy” Journal of Business Logistics,
Vol. 11, No. 2, pp. 41-63.
Similarly, these four strategies also are data driven and do not explain the logistics
capabilities a firm may try to develop or exploit in order to enhance or maintain their
competitive advantage.
McGinnis and Kohn in 1993 examined the relationships between logistics
strategy, organizational environment and time competitiveness. Using both the
28
Bowersox and Daugherty (1989) and the McGinnis and Kohn (1990) frameworks for
logistics strategy, they found that competitive responsiveness, dynamism and hostility
affect logistics strategy. They also found that high levels of dynamism, hostility and
competitive responsiveness were associated with the Intensive Logistics Strategy. The
Process and Market strategies are emphasized in the Intensive Logistics Strategy and
customer service and logistics coordination are high priorities.
Some authors attempted to identify the logistics capabilities a firm may possess
and their relationship to other variables. Lynch, Keller and Ozment (2000) studied the
effects of logistics capabilities and corporate strategy on firm performance. They
examined process capabilities, value-added service capabilities, cost leadership strategy,
and differentiation strategy. Their results indicated that process capabilities were
positively linked to a cost leadership strategy while value-added service capabilities were
positively linked to a differentiation strategy. Firms that exhibited a “match” between
their capabilities and strategy had better performance than those who did not exhibit such
a “match.” Their results support the notion that one strategy is not applicable in all
competitive situations.
Morash, Drửge and Vickery (1996) examined the relationship between logistics
capabilities and performance. The capabilities were grouped into two areas, demand-
oriented and supply-oriented capabilities. Demand-oriented capabilities included pre-sale
and post-sale customer service, delivery speed, delivery reliability and responsiveness to
target market(s). Supply-oriented capabilities included widespread and selective
distribution coverage, and low total cost distribution.
29
Among the capabilities studied, the demand-oriented capabilities were ranked
higher in importance and implementation than supply-oriented capabilities. Only four
capabilities were linked to performance: delivery speed, delivery reliability,
responsiveness and low cost distribution. These capabilities closely mirror the
competitive priorities used in manufacturing strategy literature.
Since Hayes and Wheelwright (1984) describe strategy as the pattern of decisions
that, over time enable a business unit to achieve a desired manufacturing structure,
infrastructure and set of specific capabilities, logistics strategy can similarly be viewed as
the pattern of decisions that enable a business unit to achieve specific logistics
capabilities. Therefore, based on this extension of the manufacturing strategy definition
and the studies previously mentioned, logistics strategy can be possibly be classified
using a framework that parallels manufacturing strategy, consisting of cost, quality,
delivery and flexibility. Using the capabilities listed by Morash et al. (1996), the
following categories of logistics strategy can be created:
30
Logistics Strategy Logistics Capabilities*
Cost
Low total cost distribution
Quality
Pre-sale customer service, Post-sale customer service
Delivery
Delivery speed, delivery reliability
Flexibility
Responsiveness to target market, widespread distribution,
selective distribution
Table 2.5: Proposed Logistics Strategy Framework
* Logistics Capabilities taken from Morash, Droge and Vickery “Strategic Logistics
Capabilities for Competitive Advantage and Firm Success” Journal of Business Logistics,
Vol 17, No. 1 (1996), pp. 1-22.
Given the studies previously discussed, it is reasonable to believe that the
competitive priorities emphasized in logistics strategy are also related to the type of
supply chain in which a firm participates and firm performance. Thus the following
hypotheses are tested in this dissertation:
H9: High performing companies in lean supply chains will emphasize cost as a
competitive priority for the logistics strategy more than low
performing companies in lean supply chains.
31
H10: High performing companies in agile supply chains will emphasize cost as
a competitive priority for the logistics strategy less than low performing
companies in agile supply chains.
H11: High performing companies in agile supply chains will emphasize
flexibility as a competitive priority for the logistics strategy more
than low performing companies in agile supply chains.
H12: High performing companies in lean supply chains will emphasize
flexibility as a competitive priority for the logistics strategy less
than low performing companies in lean supply chains.
Figure 2.2 gives a comprehensive view of the relationships that have already been
examined in the existing literature. By examining the figure, it is evident that there is a
gap in the literature where the relationships among supply chain type, logistics and
manufacturing strategies and firm performance have not been investigated. The intent of
this study is to fill this gap and contribute empirical evidence to support the importance
of these relationships.
32
Miller (1988)
Morash, et al. (1996)
Ward, et al. (1995)
McGinnis and Kohn (1993)
Williams, et al. (1995)
Figure 2.2: Relationships Previously Tested in the Literature
33
Figure 2.2: Relationships Previously Tested in the Literature
Environment
Corporate Strategy
Supply Chain Type
Logistics
Strategy
Manufacturing
Strategy
Performance
34
Figures 2.3 to 2.5 illustrate the proposed model (diagram is for descriptive
purposes only) with the components of each construct.
Supply Chain
Type
Logistics
Strategy
Manufacturing
Strategy
Performance
Figure 2.3: Proposed Model
35
Supply Chain
Type
Lea
n
Agile
Logistics
Strategy
Quality Delivery Flexibility Cost
Manufacturing
Strategy
Quality Delivery Flexibility Cost
Figure 2.4: Components of Constructs in Model
36
Contributions
This study aims to make several contributions to the literature. First, the
characteristics of lean and agile supply chains can be empirically supported to further the
development of supply chain management theory. Much of the literature to date is
conceptual with little empirical support. Secondly, a concise framework for logistics
priorities is presented. The intended framework parallels that of manufacturing strategy
and encourages integrative research using the two strategies. In addition, the framework
enables advanced understanding of logistics strategy and priorities. Lastly, the
relationships among the type of supply chain, logistics and manufacturing priorities and
firm performance (compared to competitors) are empirically examined, thereby
advancing supply chain theory development as well.
Performance
ROI ROA ROS ROI
Growth
ROA
Growth
ROS
Growth
Figure 2.5: Components of Performance Construct in Model
37
This study imparts several manageria l implications as well. First, the financial impact
of choosing logistics and manufacturing priorities that complement their type of supply
chain is more clearly demonstrated. Practitioners will also be able to better identify what
types of priorities they possess, the type of supply chain in which they participate and the
most complementary combinations of those priorities given their strategic intent and
resources.
38
CHAPTER 3
METHODOLOGY
The results of a cross- industry survey of logistics and supply chain executives was
used to analyze the relationships between supply chain, logistics and manufacturing
strategies. A brief description of the targeted participants, definitions of each construct
and the scales used to measure the construct are presented. A description of data
analysis procedures follows.
Subjects
A convenience sample of subjects was taken using the mailing list provided by
the Council of Logistics Management (CLM). The mailing list was purged of firms that
were not manufacturing firms. The subjects targeted all possessed high-ranking
management positions in logistics or supply chain management.
A web page containing the survey was created where participants responded to
the survey electronically. Appendix 1 contains a copy of the survey used.
39
Instrumentation
The survey was developed largely using scales that have been used previously in
the literature. Respondents answered all questions with respect to a particular product
line in their company, which they were asked to identify. Respondents were asked to
choose the product line that contributes the most sales volume for their company or
division. Demographic information about the company or division and the respondent
was also collected.
Supply Chain Type
The scales used for supply chain management characteristics were developed
using the characteristics of lean and agile supply chains offered by Christopher and
Towill (2000). Some scales for supply chain characteristics were measured using a five-
point anchored scale. They include:
1 2 3 4 5
Marketplace Demand Predictable Volatile
Product Variety Low High
Product Life Cycle Long Short
Profit Margin High Low
Information Enrichment Obligatory Highly Desirable
Table 3.1: Scales for Supply Chain Type
40
Other questions asked on a five-point Likert scale used strongly agree to strongly
disagree as anchors. They include:
1. Our main product line is a commodity good.
2. Cost is an order winner for our product.
3. Availability is an order winner for our product.
4. Our dominant costs are physical costs.
5. Our dominant costs are marketability costs.
6. Our main purchasing policy from suppliers is to buy goods.
7. Our main purchasing policy from suppliers is to purchase capacity.
8. Our main forecasting mechanism is algorithmic.
9. Our main forecasting mechanism is consultative.
Manufacturing Strategy
The operational definition of manufacturing strategy that was used is the relative
emphasis placed on a competitive priority (cost, quality, delivery and flexibility) by the
manufacturing function in order to sell the company’s product line identified by the
respondent. Scales from Ward et al. (1995) and Ward et al. (1998) were used to measure
manufacturing priorities. The following priorities were assessed using a five-point Likert
scale from no emphasis to extreme emphasis: (The Cronbach alphas listed are from
Ward et al, 1998.)
41
Cost (Cronbach alpha = 0.80)
1. Production cost
2. Labor productivity
3. Capacity utilization
4. Reducing inventory
5. Cost
6. Productivity
Quality (Cronbach alpha = 0.72)
1. High product performance
2. High durability (long life) of product
3. High product reliability
4. Ease (cost and time) to service product
5. Promptness in solving customer complaints
6. Conformance to final product design specification
Delivery (Cronbach alpha = 0.79)
1. Short delivery time
2. Delivery on due date (ship on time)
3. Reduce production lead time
4. On-time delivery
5. Promptness in solving customer complaints
6. Production cycle time
42
Flexibility (Cronbach alpha = 0.70)
1. Large number of product features or options
2. Ability to introduce new products into production quickly
3. Ability to adjust capacity rapidly within a short time period
4. Ability to make design changes in the product after production has started
There is additional evidence to support the use of the aforementioned scales to
measure manufacturing strategy. Scannel, Vickery and Drửge (2000) measured
flexibility, quality and cost using slightly different but similar scales that attempted to
capture the same underlying dimensions of the flexibility, quality, and cost competitive
priorities. Flexibility was captured using four items; mix flexibility, volume flexibility,
changeover flexibility and modification flexibility. Mix flexibility was defined as “the
ability to produce effectively a wide variety of different products at a point in time.” Mix
flexibility is similar to having a large number of product features and options in Ward et
al (1998). Volume flexibility was defined as “the ability to increase or decrease
effectively aggregate production in response to customers,” which is similar to the ability
to rapidly adjust capacity mention in Ward et al. (1998). Changeover flexibility was
defined as “the ability of a manufacturing system to implement effectively and additions
and subtractions to the product mix over time that result from new product
introductions,” which is akin to introducing new products into production quickly by
Ward et al. (1998).
43
Logistics Strategy
The operational definition of logistics strategy used is the relative emphasis
placed on a competitive priority (cost, quality, delivery and flexibility) by the logistics
function in order to sell the company’s line of products identified by the respondent.
Because logistics strategy scales have not been organized within this type of framework,
Cronbach alphas were not applicable from past studies. Questions adapted from previous
studies were asked in which respondents indicated the relative importance of each scale,
similar to the manufacturing strategy measures. Scales from previous studies were used
and questions asked using a five-point Likert scale ranging from no emphasis to extreme
emphasis. The following tables indicate the scales that were used and their source from
the pre-existing literature.
Author (Year) Cost
McGinnis and Kohn (1993)
ã Achieving maximum efficiency from distribution.
ã Gain control over activities that result in purchasing
and distribution costs.
Lambert and Burduroglu
(2000)
ã Competitiveness of price
Self-generated
ã Transportation cost
ã Labor productivity
ã Capacity utilization
ã Inventory reduction
Table 3.2: Logistics Strategy Scales for the Cost Priority
44
Author (Year) Quality
Lambert and
Burduroglu
(2000)
ã Accuracy of filling orders
ã Supplier absorbs cost of freight and handling on returns due to
shipping damages or product shipped in error
ã Adequate advance notice of price changes
ã Quality/durability of packaging
ã Supplier’s adherence to your specific shipping instructions
Table 3.3: Logistics Strategy Scales for the Quality Priority
Author (Year) Delivery
McGinnis and
Kohn (1993)
ã Achieving coordinated physical distribution to customers served
by several business units
Lambert and
Burduroglu
(2000)
ã Length of promised lead times on ASAP or emergency orders
ã Ability to expedite emergency orders
ã High fill rate on ad promotional orders
ã High fill rate on normal reorders
ã Length of promised lead times on normal orders
ã Length of promised lead times on ad/promotional orders
Self-generated
ã Short delivery/ transportation time
ã Delivery on due date
ã Wide geographic range of delivery
Table 3.4: Logistics Str._.ngly
Disagree
Disagree
No
Opinion
Agree
Strongly
Agree
Our main purchasing policy from
suppliers is to buy goods.
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
No
Opinion
Agree
Strongly
Agree
We rely primarily on mathematical
models as our main forecasting
mechanism.
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
No
Opinion
Agree
Strongly
Agree
We rely primarily on managerial
experience as our main forecasting
mechanism.
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
No
Opinion
Agree
Strongly
Agree
Maintaining a level production
schedule is critical to maintaining
profitability for this product line.
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
No
Opinion
Agree
Strongly
Agree
Using end customer consumption
data is critical to maintaining
profitability for this product line.
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
No
Opinion
Agree
Strongly
Agree
When choosing suppliers, they must
be able to rapidly adjust their
capacity to meet our needs.
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
No
Opinion
Agree
Strongly
Agree
Months Approximately how long is
the average product life
cycle for this product line? Years
What is your contribution
margin for this product line?
(check one)
less than 5%
106
less than 5%
greater than 5% and less than or
equal to 10%
greater than 10% and less than or
equal to 20%
greater than 20% and less than or
equal to 40%
greater than 40% and less than or
equal to 60%
What is your contribution
margin for this product line?
(check one)
greater than 60%
Cost of materials or services
Delivery speed
Delivery reliability
Flexibility of supplier to adjust
rapidly to significant changes in
our orders
When choosing suppliers,
rank in order from most
important (1) to least
important (5) the following
characteristics:
Quality of materials
Our average stock-out rate is approximately % for this product line.
Our average forecast error at the time production is committed is
approximately % for this product line.
The lead-time required for a made-to-order product is days for this
product line. N/A
The product variety for this product line is approximately variants.
The average forced end-of-season or end-of-life markdown, as a
percentage of full price is approximately % for this product line.
N/A
107
E. The following questions are intended to assess your
LOGISTICS competitive priorities. Please indicate the degree
of emphasis that your company/division currently places on
the following activities to remain competitive in the product
category listed in Part A.
Achieve maximum efficiency
from distribution.
No
Emphasis
Very Little
Emphasis
Moderate
Emphasis
Strong
Emphasis
Extreme
Emphasis
Gain control over activities that
result in purchasing and
distribution costs.
No
Emphasis
Very Little
Emphasis
Moderate
Emphasis
Strong
Emphasis
Extreme
Emphasis
Improve competitiveness of
price
No
Emphasis
Very Little
Emphasis
Moderate
Emphasis
Strong
Emphasis
Extreme
Emphasis
Minimize transportation cost No
Emphasis
Very Little
Emphasis
Moderate
Emphasis
Strong
Emphasis
Extreme
Emphasis
Increase labor productivity No
Emphasis
Very Little
Emphasis
Moderate
Emphasis
Strong
Emphasis
Extreme
Emphasis
Increase capacity utilization No Emphasis
Very Little
Emphasis
Moderate
Emphasis
Strong
Emphasis
Extreme
Emphasis
Reduce inventory No Emphasis
Very Little
Emphasis
Moderate
Emphasis
Strong
Emphasis
Extreme
Emphasis
Improve accuracy of filling
orders
No
Emphasis
Very Little
Emphasis
Moderate
Emphasis
Strong
Emphasis
Extreme
Emphasis
We absorb the cost of freight
and handling on returns due to
shipping damages or products
shipped in error.
No
Emphasis
Very Little
Emphasis
Moderate
Emphasis
Strong
Emphasis
Extreme
Emphasis
We give adequate advance
notice of price changes to our
customers.
No
Emphasis
Very Little
Emphasis
Moderate
Emphasis
Strong
Emphasis
Extreme
Emphasis
108
Quality/durability of packaging No Emphasis
Very
Little
Emphasis
Moderate
Emphasis
Strong
Emphasis
Extreme
Emphasis
Adherence to our customers'
specific shipping instructions
No
Emphasis
Very
Little
Emphasis
Moderate
Emphasis
Strong
Emphasis
Extreme
Emphasis
Achieve coordinated physical
distribution to customers served
by several business units
No
Emphasis
Very
Little
Emphasis
Moderate
Emphasis
Strong
Emphasis
Extreme
Emphasis
Reduce length of promised lead
times on emergency/ASAP orders
for our customers
No
Emphasis
Very
Little
Emphasis
Moderate
Emphasis
Strong
Emphasis
Extreme
Emphasis
Ability to expedite
emergency/ASAP orders for our
customers
No
Emphasis
Very
Little
Emphasis
Moderate
Emphasis
Strong
Emphasis
Extreme
Emphasis
High fill rate on ad/promotional
orders for our customers
No
Emphasis
Very
Little
Emphasis
Moderate
Emphasis
Strong
Emphasis
Extreme
Emphasis
High fill rate on normal reorders No
Emphasis
Very
Little
Emphasis
Moderate
Emphasis
Strong
Emphasis
Extreme
Emphasis
Reduce length of promised lead
times on normal orders
No
Emphasis
Very
Little
Emphasis
Moderate
Emphasis
Strong
Emphasis
Extreme
Emphasis
Reduce length of promised lead
times on ad/promotional orders to
our customers
No
Emphasis
Very
Little
Emphasis
Moderate
Emphasis
Strong
Emphasis
Extreme
Emphasis
Short delivery/transportation time
to our customers
No
Emphasis
Very
Little
Emphasis
Moderate
Emphasis
Strong
Emphasis
Extreme
Emphasis
109
Delivery on due date to our
customers
No
Emphasis
Very
Little
Emphasis
Moderate
Emphasis
Strong
Emphasis
Extreme
Emphasis
Wide geographic range of delivery
for our customers
No
Emphasis
Very
Little
Emphasis
Moderate
Emphasis
Strong
Emphasis
Extreme
Emphasis
Logistics system responsiveness No Emphasis
Very
Little
Emphasis
Moderate
Emphasis
Strong
Emphasis
Extreme
Emphasis
Quick and effective response to
changing customer needs
No
Emphasis
Very
Little
Emphasis
Moderate
Emphasis
Strong
Emphasis
Extreme
Emphasis
Quick and effective response to
changing supplier needs
No
Emphasis
Very
Little
Emphasis
Moderate
Emphasis
Strong
Emphasis
Extreme
Emphasis
Accommodating customers' special
requests
No
Emphasis
Very
Little
Emphasis
Moderate
Emphasis
Strong
Emphasis
Extreme
Emphasis
Developing or maintaining specific
logistics strategies to deal with
distinct customers
No
Emphasis
Very
Little
Emphasis
Moderate
Emphasis
Strong
Emphasis
Extreme
Emphasis
High fill rate on emergency/ASAP
orders
No
Emphasis
Very
Little
Emphasis
Moderate
Emphasis
Strong
Emphasis
Extreme
Emphasis
Our ability to handle defective
product returns
No
Emphasis
Very
Little
Emphasis
Moderate
Emphasis
Strong
Emphasis
Extreme
Emphasis
Our ability to rapidly adjust
capacity
No
Emphasis
Very
Little
Emphasis
Moderate
Emphasis
Strong
Emphasis
Extreme
Emphasis
Are any of your logistics activities
outsourced? None Some All
110
F. The following questions explore the PERFORMANCE of your
firm. Indicate your business's position on the following
dimensions over the past three years compared to your key
competitors with respect to the product line identified in Part
A.
Return on
Investment (ROI)
Significantly
Lower
Approximately
Equal
Significantly
Higher
Growth in ROI Significantly
Lower
Approximately
Equal
Significantly
Higher
Return on sales
(ROS)
Significantly
Lower
Approximately
Equal
Significantly
Higher
Growth in ROS Significantly
Lower
Approximately
Equal
Significantly
Higher
Return on Assets Significantly
Lower
Approximately
Equal
Significantly
Higher
Profits as a percent
of sales
Significantly
Lower
Approximately
Equal
Significantly
Higher
Sales growth Significantly
Lower
Approximately
Equal
Significantly
Higher
Market share Significantly
Lower
Approximately
Equal
Significantly
Higher
Market share
growth
Significantly
Lower
Approximately
Equal
Significantly
Higher
111
Net income before taxes Significantly
Lower
Approximately
Equal
Significantly
Higher
Product performance Significantly
Lower
Approximately
Equal
Significantly
Higher
Product features Significantly
Lower
Approximately
Equal
Significantly
Higher
Product conformance to
specifications
Significantly
Lower
Approximately
Equal
Significantly
Higher
Product durability Significantly
Lower
Approximately
Equal
Significantly
Higher
Product serviceability Significantly
Lower
Approximately
Equal
Significantly
Higher
Product attractiveness as
perceived by the customer
Significantly
Lower
Approximately
Equal
Significantly
Higher
Overall product quality as
perceived by the customer
Significantly
Lower
Approximately
Equal
Significantly
Higher
G. This section is designed to collect demographic information
about your company. Please answer the following questions
with your best estimate if exact data are not available.
In what industry does your
company participate? (Check
all that apply)
Appliance
112
Appliance
Automotive
Building Materials
Chemicals/Plastics
Computer Hardware
Electronics
Food Related
Metals/Metal Working
Office Equipment
Paper & Packaging
Petroleum
Pharmaceuticals
Textiles/Clothing
Wholesale/Retail
Other (Please Specify):
In what industry does your
company participate? (Check
all that apply)
Manufacturing
Merchandising
Other (Please specify):
What is the nature of your
company's primary
business?
Less than 100 Employees What is the total number of
employees in your company/
division? 101-500 Employees
113
501-2,500 Employees
2,501-10,000 Employees
10,001-30,000 Employees
30,001-50,000 Employees
Over 50,001 Employees
Less than 5 years old
5-15 years old
16-35 years old
36-70 years old
How old is your company?
over 70 years old
Leanness (cost efficiency)
Mostly leanness
Equally leanness and agility
Mostly agility
Agility (flexibility and
responsiveness)
Our supply chain for this
product line primarily
emphasizes: (choose one)
Don't know
less than $1 Million (M)
greater than $1M and less than or
equal to $5M
greater than $5M and less than or
equal to $10M
greater than $10M and less than or
equal $50M
What is your company's
annual gross sales dollars?
(check one)
greater than $50M and less than or
equal to $100M
114
greater than $100M and less than
or equal to $500M
greater than $500M and less than
or equal to $1 Billion
greater than $1 Billion and less
than or equal to $5 Billion
greater than $5 Billion and less
than or equal to $10 Billion
Over $10 Billion
Market Leader
Dominant Player (Top 5)
What is your companys
overall position in the
primary market targeted by
the product line listed in Part
A? Other
One
Two to five
Six to ten
Eleven to twenty
More than twenty
How many major
competitors are there in the
primary market targeted by
the product line listed in Part
A?
No opinion
Less than one year
1-3 years
4-6 years
7-15 years
16-25 years
How long have you been
with this company?
over 25 years
Please give your title and a brief description of your position
responsibilities (e. g. manager of all North American manufacturing).
115
Less than one year
1-3 years
4-6 years
7-15 years
16-25 years
How long have you held
your current position?
over 25 years
Yes Would you like a copy of the
study results?
No
If so, please provide your contact information below or send an
email to mailto:gillyard.1@osu.edu?subject=Study Results Request
Name
Address 1
Address 2
Address 3
Address 4
City
State
Zip
Email
Address
116
Submit
Thank you for your participation
117
Appendix D
Microsoft Word/PDF Version of Survey
118
STRATEGY AND SUPPLY CHAIN CHARACTERISTICS
This survey is intended to capture selected information about your manufacturing and logistics
strategies as well as how your company operates within your supply chain. Understanding the
relationships between these strategies and your supply chain can help determine better paths to
profitability. In addition, completing this survey will enable you to condu ct a succinct audit of your own
strategies without the intense data requirements and high costs of a lengthy audit. All responses to this
questi onnaire will remain strictly confidential. Results will be reported on an aggregate level only.
If you are not sure of an answer to a question, please provide your best estimate.
Please answer all questions, since incomplete questionnaires create serious problems in data
analysis. Please submit your responses via the website or you may also print the survey and return the
completed questionnaire via mail or fax per the information given below. We would be happy to send you
a copy of the results of the study if desired. Simply provide your contact information at the end of the
survey or send an email to agillyard@rhsmith.umd.edu to submit your request.
Your participation in this important research is greatly appre ciated!
THANK YOU!
You may direct questions and concerns to:
Angelisa E. Gillyard, Assistant Professor Glenn Milligan, Professor
Department o f Logistics, Business and Public Policy Department of Management Sciences
Robert H. Smith School of Business Max M. Fisher College of Business
University of Maryland The Ohio State University
College Park, MD 20740 Columbus, OH 43210
Email: ag illyard@rhsmith.umd.edu Email: milligan.3@osu.edu
Tel.: (301) 405-4105 / Fax: (301) 405-0146
Martha C. Cooper, Professor John Current, Professor
Department of Marketing and Logistics Department of Management Sciences
Max M. Fisher College of B usiness Max M. Fisher College of Business
The Ohio State University The Ohio State University
Columbus, OH 43210 Columbus, OH 43210
Email: cooper.7@osu.edu Email: current.1@osu.edu
119
STRATEGY AND SUPPLY CHAIN CHARACTERISTICS
General Instructions and Information
1. Individual responses to this questionnaire will be kept strictly confidential.
2. If you are not sure of the answer to a question, please provide your best estimate. There
are no right or wrong answers.
3. For questions which require an answer expressed in currency or percentages, please
answer in whole dollars or percentages (e.g. $1000 or 25%).
You may direct questions and concerns to:
Angelisa E. Gillyard, Assistant Professor Glenn Milligan, Professor
Department of Logistics, Business and Public Policy Department of Management Sciences
Robert H. Smith School of Business Max M. Fisher College of Business
University of Maryland The Ohio State University
College Park, MD 20740 Columbus, OH 43210
Email: agillyard@rhsmith.umd.edu Email: milligan.3@osu.edu
Tel.: (301) 405-4105 / Fax: (301) 405-0146
Martha C. Cooper, Professor John Current, Professor
Department of Marketing and Logistics Department of Management Sciences
Max M. Fisher College of Business Max M. Fisher College of Business
The Ohio State University The Ohio State University
Columbus, OH 43210 Columbus, OH 43210
Email: cooper.7@osu.edu Email: current.1@osu.edu
120
A. Please describe the product line category (e.g. pet food) that contributes most to the sales volume
of your company/division.
B. Please answer the following questions regarding the product category mentioned in the previous
question.
Approximately how many markets are targeted by this product line? _____ markets
Is the product for the primary market an ___ industrial good or a ___ consumer good?
Is the product for the primary market : ___ customized
___ mass customized
___ mass produced?
Are there multiple brands within this product line? ___ Yes ___ No
Is the primary brand in this product line a ___“name brand” or ___“generic?”
Not
familiar at
all
Somewhat
familiar
Fully
aware
How familiar are you with your company’s
production priorities for this product line?
(circle one)
1 2 3 4 5
How familiar are you with your company’s
logistics priorities for this product line?
(circle one)
1 2 3 4 5
Indicate the importance of the following priorities to the end customer for the product line
mentioned above by assigning a percentage value to each priority. (100% = most important;
Total = 100%)
a. Customization ____
b. Delivery reliability ____
c. Delivery speed ____
d. Design/innovation ____
e. Price/cost ____
f. Product features ____
g. Quality ____
h. Service ____
i. Time to market ____
j. Other (Please specify)
_________________ ____
Total 100%
121
C. The following questions are intended to assess your MANUFACTURING competitive priorities. Please
indicate the degree of emphasis that your company/division currently places on the following activities to remain
competitive in the product category listed in Part A (circle one for each).
No
Emphasis
Very Little
Emphasis
Moderate
Emphasis
Strong
Emphasis
Extreme
Emphasis
Reduce unit costs 1 2 3 4 5
Reduce material costs 1 2 3 4 5
Reduce overhead costs 1 2 3 4 5
Reduce inventory level 1 2 3 4 5
Increase labor productivity 1 2 3 4 5
Increase capacity utilization 1 2 3 4 5
Reduce defective rates 1 2 3 4 5
Improve product performance 1 2 3 4 5
Improve vendor’s quality 1 2 3 4 5
Implement quality control circles 1 2 3 4 5
Obtain ISO certification 1 2 3 4 5
Improve product reliability 1 2 3 4 5
Improve product durability (long life) 1 2 3 4 5
Increase ease (cost and time) to service
product 1 2 3 4 5
Improve conformance of final product to
design specification
1 2 3 4 5
Reduce manufacturing lead time 1 2 3 4 5
Reduce procurement lead time 1 2 3 4 5
Reduce new product development cycle 1 2 3 4 5
122
No
Emphasis
Very Little
Emphasis
Moderate
Emphasis
Strong
Emphasis
Extreme
Emphasis
Reduce setup/changeover time 1 2 3 4 5
Maintain a large number of product
features or options 1 2 3 4 5
Improve ability to introduce new products
into production quickly 1 2 3 4 5
Improve ability to adjust capacity rapidly
within a short time period 1 2 3 4 5
Improve ability to make design changes in
the product after production has started 1 2 3 4 5
Increase delivery reliability 1 2 3 4 5
Increase delivery speed 1 2 3 4 5
Improve pre-sales service and technical
support 1 2 3 4 5
Improve after-sales service 1 2 3 4 5
Have short delivery time 1 2 3 4 5
Ensure delivery on due date 1 2 3 4 5
Please identify the most influential entities in your supply chain for
the product line identified in Part A (check all that apply).
_____ Second Tier Suppliers
_____ First Tier Suppliers
_____ Manufacturer (Us)
_____ Distributor/Wholesaler
_____ Retailer
Who in your supply chain receives real-time or frequent updates of
end customer point of sale data for this particular product line?
(Check all that apply)
_____ Second Tier Suppliers
_____ First Tier Suppliers
_____ Manufacturer (Us)
_____ Distributor/Wholesaler
_____ Retailer
We use point of sale data primarily to: (check one) ____ Manage inventory ____ Determine production scheduling
123
D. Please indicate the response that most closely applies to the product category listed in Part A (circle one
for each).
Marketplace Demand Stable 1 2 3 4 5 Volatile
Product Variety (# of distinct products in
the product line) Low 1 2 3 4 5 High
Product Life Cycle Long 1 2 3 4 5 Short
Profit Margin High 1 2 3 4 5 Low
Information Sharing Obligatory 1 2 3 4 5 Optional
Strongly Disagree Disagree
No
Opinion Agree
Strongly
Agree
This product line is a commodity good.
1 2 3 4 5
Price is an order winner for our product. 1 2 3 4 5
Availability is an order winner for our
product. 1 2 3 4 5
Our dominant costs are production,
distribution and storage costs. 1 2 3 4 5
Our dominant costs are obsolescence and
stock out costs. 1 2 3 4 5
Our main purchasing policy from suppliers is
to purchase capacity. 1 2 3 4 5
Our main purchasing policy from suppliers is
to buy goods. 1 2 3 4 5
We rely primarily on mathematical models as
our main forecasting mechanism. 1 2 3 4 5
We rely primarily on managerial experience
as our main forecasting mechanism. 1 2 3 4 5
124
Strongly Disagree Disagree
No
Opinion Agree
Strongly
Agree
Maintaining a level production schedule is
critical to maintaining profitability for this
product line.
1 2 3 4 5
Using end customer consumption data is
critical to maintaining profitability for this
product line.
1 2 3 4 5
When choosing suppliers, they must be able
to rapidly adjust their capacity to meet our
needs.
1 2 3 4 5
Approximately how long is the average product life
cycle for this product line? ______ months ______ years
What is your contribution margin for
this product line? (check one)
___ less than 5%
___ greater than 5% and less than or equal to 10%
___ greater than 10% and less than or equal to 20%
___ greater than 20% and less than or equal to 40%
___ greater than 40% and less than or equal to 60%
___ greater than 60%
When choosing suppliers, rank in
order from most important (1) to least
important (5) the following
characteristics:
____ Cost of materials or services
____ Delivery speed
____ Delivery reliability
____ Flexibility of supplier to adjust rapidly to significant changes in
our orders
____ Quality of materials
Our average stock-out rate is approximately _______ % for this product line.
Our average forecast error at the time production is committed is approximately _______ % for this product line.
The lead-time required for a made-to-order product is _______ days for this product line. ___ N/A
The product variety for this product line is approximately _________ variants.
The average forced end-of-season or end-of-life markdown, as a percentage of full price is approximately
______ % for this product line. ____ N/A
125
E. The following questions are intended to assess your LOGISTICS competitive priorities. Please indicate
the degree of emphasis that your company/division currently places on the following activities to remain
competitive in the product category listed in Part A (circle one for each).
No
Emphasis
Very Little
Emphasis
Moderate
Emphasis
Strong
Emphasis
Extreme
emphasis
Achieve maximum efficiency from
distribution. 1 2 3 4 5
Gain control over activities that result in
purchasing and distribution costs. 1 2 3 4 5
Improve competitiveness of price 1 2 3 4 5
Minimize transportation cost 1 2 3 4 5
Increase labor productivity 1 2 3 4 5
Increase capacity utilization 1 2 3 4 5
Reduce inventory 1 2 3 4 5
Improve accuracy of filling orders 1 2 3 4 5
We absorb the cost of freight and
handling on returns due to shipping
damages or products shipped in error.
1 2 3 4 5
We give adequate advance notice of price
changes to our customers. 1 2 3 4 5
Quality/durability of packaging 1 2 3 4 5
Adherence to our customers’ specific
shipping instructions 1 2 3 4 5
Achieve coordinated physical distribution
to customers served by several business
units
1 2 3 4 5
Reduce length of promised lead times on
emergency/ASAP orders for our
customers
1 2 3 4 5
126
No Emphasis
Very Little
Emphasis
Moderate
Emphasis
Strong
Emphasis
Extreme
emphasis
Ability to expedite emergency/ASAP
orders for our customers 1 2 3 4 5
High fill rate on ad/promotional orders for
our customers 1 2 3 4 5
High fill rate on normal reorders 1 2 3 4 5
Reduce length of promised lead times on
normal orders 1 2 3 4 5
Reduce length of promised lead times on
ad/promotional orders to our customers 1 2 3 4 5
Short delivery/transportation time to our
customers 1 2 3 4 5
Delivery on due date to our customers 1 2 3 4 5
Wide geographic range of delivery for our
customers 1 2 3 4 5
Logistics system responsiveness 1 2 3 4 5
Quick and effective response to changing
customer needs 1 2 3 4 5
Quick and effective response to changing
supplier needs 1 2 3 4 5
Accommodating customers’ special
requests 1 2 3 4 5
Developing or maintaining specific
logistics strategies to deal with distinct
customers
1 2 3 4 5
High fill rate on emergency/ASAP orders 1 2 3 4 5
Our ability to handle defective product
returns 1 2 3 4 5
Our ability to rapidly adjust capacity 1 2 3 4 5
Are any of your logistics activities
outsourced? ___ None ___ Some ___ All
127
F. The following questions explore the PERFORMANCE of your firm. Indicate your business’s position
on the following dimensions over the past three years compared to your key competitors with respect to the
product line identified in Part A (circle one for each).
Significantly
Lower
Approximately
Equal
Significantly
Higher
Return on investment (ROI) 1 2 3 4 5
Growth in ROI 1 2 3 4 5
Return on sales (ROS) 1 2 3 4 5
Growth in ROS 1 2 3 4 5
Return on Assets 1 2 3 4 5
Profits as a percent of sales 1 2 3 4 5
Sales growth 1 2 3 4 5
Market share growth 1 2 3 4 5
Market share 1 2 3 4 5
Net income before taxes 1 2 3 4 5
Product performance 1 2 3 4 5
Product features 1 2 3 4 5
Product conformance to specifications 1 2 3 4 5
Product durability 1 2 3 4 5
Product serviceability 1 2 3 4 5
Product attractiveness as perceived by
the customer 1 2 3 4 5
Overall product quality as perceived
by the customer 1 2 3 4 5
128
G. This section is designed to collect demographic information about your company. Please answer
the following questions with your best estimate if exact data are not available.
In what industry does your company participate? (Check all that apply)
___ Appliance ___ Electronics ___ Petroleum
___ Automotive ___ Food Related ___ Pharmaceuticals
___ Building Materials ___ Metals/Metal Working ___ Textiles/Clothing
___ Chemicals/Plastics ___ Office Equipment ___ Wholesale/Retail
___ Computer Hardware ___ Paper & Packaging
___ Other (Please specify): _______________
What is the nature of your company’s primary business?
___ Manufacturing
___ Merchandising
___ Other (Please specify): ________________
What is the total number of employees in your company/division?
___ Less than 100 Employees
___ 101-500 Employees
___ 501-2,500 Employees
___ 2,501-10,000 Employees
___ 10,001-30,000 Employees
___ 30,001-50,000 Employees
___ Over 50,001 Employees
How old is your company?
___ Less than 5 years old
___ 5-15 years old
___ 16-35 years old
___ 36-70 years old
___ over 70 years old
129
Our supply chain for this product line
primarily emphasizes: (choose one)
_____ Leanness (cost efficiency)
_____ Mostly leanness
_____ Equally leanness and agility
_____ Agility (flexibility and responsiveness)
_____ Mostly agility
_____ Don’t Know
What is your company’s annual gross sales dollars? (check one)
___ less than $1 Million (M)
___ greater than $1M and less than or equal to $5M
___ greater than $5M and less than or equal to $10M
___ greater than $10M and less than or equal $50M
___ greater than $50M and less than or equal to $100M
___ greater than $100M and less than or equal to $500M
___ greater than $500M and less than or equal to $1 Billion
___ greater than $1 Billion and less than or equal to $5 Billion
___ greater than $5 Billion and less than or equal to $10 Billion
___ Over $10 Billion
What is your company’s overall position in the primary market targeted by the product line listed
in Part A?
___ Market Leader ___ Dominant Player (Top 5) ___ Other
How many major competitors are there in the primary market targeted by the product line listed
in Part A?
___ One
___ Two to five
___ Six to ten
___ Eleven to twenty
___ More than twenty
___ No opinion
130
How long have you been with this company?
___ Less than one year
___ 1-3 years
___ 4-6 years
___ 7-15 years
___ 16-25 years
___ over 25 years
Please give your title and a brief description of your position responsibilities (e.g. manager of all
North American manufacturing).
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
How long have you held your current position?
___ Less than one year
___ 1-3 years
___ 4-6 years
___ 7-15 years
___ 16-25 years
___ over 25 years
Would you like a copy of the study results? ___ Yes ___ No
If so, please provide your contact information below or send an email to
agillyard@rhsmith.umd.edu.
Name __________________________________________________________
Address 1 _______________________________________________________
Address 2 _______________________________________________________
Address 3 _______________________________________________________
Address 4 _______________________________________________________
City ___________________ State ________________ Zip ________
Email Address ____________________________________________________
THANK YOU FOR YOUR PARTICIPATION!!!
._.
Các file đính kèm theo tài liệu này:
- CH1198.PDF