Expert answer:2 questions
Expert answer:1. Throughout the course, you have encountered definitions and theories related to leadership. You have also examined your organization and leaders through the Kouzes and Posner model and other relevant literature. As a final assignment, prepare a learning summary that incorporates the following: 1. Reflect on your definition of leadership. Has it changed? What has influenced the change or kept it the same? Reflect on 1-2 “Aha!” moments related to your eight-week study during this course. 2. What impact does the encounter with theoretical material have on your view of leadership relevant to your work in your organization? 3. What three recommendations do you propose for new or experienced leaders based on what you have assimilated into your understanding through this course. 4. Support your assertions, views, and recommendations with scholarly research. Your post should be at least 250 words and submitted in the text box (not as a Word document). You may also present your work as a PowerPoint presentation 2. Read the attached articles.. After reading the article associated with this week’s forum post answer the following question. What logistics strategy would you use in the managing of your supply chain if the threat of gridlock became a reality? Review all the articles you have read this session to respond to this question. If you come up with you own strategy give it a name – I want you to be creative here.
supply_chain_interfaces__defining_attributes_and_values_for_collaborative_logistics_management.pdf
the_threat_of_global_gridlock.pdf
Unformatted Attachment Preview
JOURNAL OF BUSINESS LOGISTICS, Vol. 29, No. 1, 2008
.
347
SUPPLY CHAIN INTERFACES: DEFINING ATTRIBUTES AND ATTRIBUTE
VALUES FOR COLLABORATIVE LOGISTICS MANAGEMENT
by
GunnarStefansson
University of Iceland, Iceland & Chalmers university of Technology, Sweden
and
Dawn M. Russell
Pennsylvania State University
BACKGROUND
Supply chain interfaces are areas where information or physical goods are exchanged hetween one trading
partner and another – where trading partners “interface” with one another to achieve the successful transfer of goods
or information. Interfaces, by their very nature, tend to be unique for each trading partner dyad. i.e. what works for
one dyad may not work for another depending on the nature of the goods and information being exchanged
Collaborative logistics management (CLM) is one area where interfaces play a key role in achieving success
because of the inter-enterprise nature of the processes required for execution.
In the logistics arena, and in CLM specifically, three important players in managing supply chain interfaces, and
the players studied in this work, are: (I) transportation carriers; (2) logistics service providers (LSPs)- and (3)
logistics service intermediaries (LSls). It is the processes of exchanging information and goods among these three
players and a buyer-seller trading partner dyad that are the context of this work. Understanding these processes has
become more and more important as the trend toward outsourcing transportation and logistics services has
strengthened. While outsourcing transportation and logistics services provides opportunity to buyers and sellers to
move their information and goods more efïectively and efficiently, it also adds complexity and potential bonleneck
areas to the flow of materials and information. Not surprisingly, the bottlenecks tend to be at the interfaces – the
areas of “exchange” of either information or goods.
In this work we focus on understanding: (1) What interfaces exist? and (2) How can we describe the interfaces
so that trading partners can begin to understand one another and build collaborative arrangements to improve supply
chain performance? In the balance of this paper we present literature relevant to supply chain interfaces, describe
our grounded theory approach to the work, present the results, provide insights for managers, summarize our
hndings, and discuss limitations and future research.
LITERATURE REVIEW
An interface description illustrates the various characteristics of the relationship and the design of the interfaces
IS to ensure a correct fit of the different attributes. A design of all products, whether hardware, software, process or
service, has an architecture that must be defined and described (Sanchez 2002). if the interface does not have a good
fit, the relationship runs the risk of being unsuccessful or ineffective.
348
.
STEFANSSON AND RUSSELL
The attributes in the interfaces can be tnany and depend on the subject in question. The interfaces between
different parties in an interorganizational relationship, between two physical units, such as products on a truck and a
load unit, between two or more information systems, or simply between two or more human beings; all have
different attributes and must be described in a distinct manner (Arnäs 2007).
For product architecture, Sanchez (2000) has described a framework of six different interfaces: (1) attachment,
(2) spatial, (3) transfer, (4) control and communication, (5) user, and (6) environmental. While Sanchez delmes
several important interfaces between components or activities in product architectures, this work takes a similar
approach in defining and describing the attributes in a collaborative logistics management environment.
In the context of this work, the interfaces between companies are not only related to handing over responsibility
and possession of goods and load units between partners, but include other flows that exist in most logistics
arrangements. Four different flows can be identified:
• A flow of material which is unidirectional in most cases since any returning material or waste is treated
as a separate flow.
• A flow of resources such as vehicles or load units, e.g. containers, pallets, etc., which is bidirectional
because the units have to go back to the point of departure later on.
• A flow of data and information which is bidirectional within and between companies,
• Finally, a monetary flow which is unidirectional from receiver to shipper and other parties providing
difterent kinds of services.
In addition to tbese flows, processes and enabling technologies exist to integrate the parties and activities in
logistics arrangements (Akkermans et al. 2003).
Much of the discussion on integration of supply chains across enterprises has been associated witb the Supply
Chain Management (SCM) debate in recent years (Christopher 1998; Cooper et al. 1997; Kahn and Mentzer 1996;
Larson and Rogers 1998; Morash and Clinton 1998; Skjött-Larsen et al. 2003; Stank et al. 2001). SCM involves the
integration of processes as Lambert et al. (1998) indicates in his defmition of SCM:
“The integration of business processes from end user through original suppliers, that provides products,
services, and information that add value for customers. ”
,
The SCM efforts are much more intense as you move downstream in the supply chain and it is not common to
have more extended integration than between l” tier or at the most 2″** tier suppliers (Porter 1997; Mattsson 1998;
Kok and Wildeman 1999, Skjott-Larsen et al. 2003). Structured arrangement of interfaces together with standardized
process descriptions can make the design ofthe arrangement easier. Instead of ad-hoc solutions for each partner, an
interface model should preferably be applied because it makes the adoption quicker as the involved parties have a
framework to follow.
The need for integration ofthe processes in the interface between the parties is one ofthe major issues in SCM
when it comes to exchange of information, material and resources seamlessly between the involved parties. The
main goal of SCM is not to control different parties throughout the supply chain, but to make collaborative
management possible by integration of business processes and activities, and to be capable of monitoring events by
effective information exchange and thereby make it possible to deliver value to the customers with less cost to the
supply chain as a whole (Christopher 1998).
Building up and maintaining relationships between the LSPs and their customers is difficult and requires a lot of
administration (Ackennan 1996; Bagchi and Virum 1998; Cooper 1994; Gibson 1993; Sink 1997). One ofthe
reasons is that many ofthe customers have different demands and they, like their customers, do things in different
ways. Therefore, information exchange regarding how data arc exchanged (technology), what data or information
are to be exchanged (contents), what activities are supposed to be carried out by whom, what resources to use, and
other processes need to be identified to meet the varying customer demands.
One must not forget that when the distribution is outsourced, the interface outward, to the receiver of goods, is
transferred from the shipper’s own work force to the third-party operator. Therefore, interface integration is a vital
JOURNAL OF BUSINESS LOGISTICS, Vol. 29, No. 1,2008
‘
,
349
issue for the shipper in order to ensure that an appropriate service level is kept and that the perfonnance towards its
customers is satisfactory. Accordingly, having effective tracking and tracing systems for monitoring operation status
in place is of great importance.
Considering the network approach, according to Gadde et at. (2003) interacting is the most fundamental activity
of a company. Linking activities between two companies is valuable because it gives both companies the
opportunity to rationalize operations that are important and that extend beyond the ownership boundaries. The
conditions for the efficiency and effectiveness are determined by the way activities and resources are related to those
in other chains, and this calls for a network perspective (Gadde and Hâkansson 2001 ).
The network approach has its departure in that firms operate in context of interconnected business
relationships, forming networks (Gadde et al. 2003). A business network can be defined as a set of two or more
connected business relationships, in which each exchange relation is between business firms that arc conceptualized
as collective actors (Emerson 1981). The function of business relationships can be characterized with three essential
components: activities, actors, and resources (Anderson et al. 1994; Hâkansson 1987; Hâkansson and Snehota
1989). Activities are performed by actors who activate resources. Activities link resources to each other and change
or exchange resources through use of other resources. Activities performed by two actors can be adapted to each
other so that their combined efficiency is improved (Frazier et al. 1988). The business relationships between the
firms affect the nature and the outcome of the firms’ actions and their potential sources of efficiency and
effectiveness (Hâkansson and Snehota 1995).
Resources are controlled by actors that have certain knowledge of the resources (Hâkansson 1987). Two
different activities can be identified; transformation activities and transaction activities. Transformation activities
are carried out within the control of a single actor and change or refine a resource by using another resource, e.g.
during some value-added activities in a warehouse or distribution center. Activities carried out between actors are
referred as transaction activities. These activities coordinate the dependencies that exist between the different actors’
transformation activities (von Corswant2003).
METHODOLOGY
A grounded theory approach (GTA) was employed for this qualitative study due to the newness of studying
supply chain interfaces. It is important to distinguish between GTA, also known as the constant comparative method
(Glaser and Strauss 1967; Strauss and Corbin 1990. 1998), and grounded theory itself While a grounded theory,
“theory emerging from the data.” is the possible outcome of using a grounded theory approach, one might use the
grounded theory approach without producing a grounded theory (Bryant 2002). For instance. Mallalieu and Palan
(2006) used a grounded theory approach, not to develop new theory, but rather to elaborate on existing ideas to
develop a conceptual model of adolescent shopping competence. Thus, for clarity, the term “grounded theory
approach” (GTA) is used hereafter as this paper is specifically concerned with the approach, rather than the theory
itself.
GTA was introduced and developed in the 196O’s by Barney Glaser and Anselm Strauss who specifically aimed
at developing capacities for generating theory in social sciences (Bryant 2002; Douglas 2003). The objective of
GTA IS to produce accurate and useftil results by “grounding” the theory in empirical observations or data (Montano
and Dillon 2005) through a systematic approach to data collection and analysis (Van Maanen 1979). A critical
cornerstone of GTA, constant comparison (Glaser and Strauss 1967; Locke 2001), allows researchers to discern
differences in patterns between comparable units, discover the categories that differentiate the units, and. ultimately,
generate hypotheses and theoretical assessments (Mohrman et al. 2003). Specifically, constant comparison allows
researchers to analyze data and consolidate them into categories that, in turn, are continually updated and changed as
additional data are reviewed (Montano and Dillon 2005). This process of developing emergent categories suggested
by the data is known as “coding of data,” which continues until no new concepts or categories emerge and the data
are considered saturated (Glaser and Strauss 1967). The theory generated can then be verified by respondents, by
coworkers of the researcher, by the applicability of the theory to the greater population, or by other means (Tilbury
andWalford 1996).
^
STEFANSSON AND RUSSELL
The aim of coding is to arrive at systematically derived core categories that become the focal concepts that
account for most of the variance in these data, thus contributing towards theoretical development (Douglas 2003).
Coding involves constant comparisons of data pertaining to individuals, between answers from the same individual,
between responses and categories, and between categories, as well as between any other factors that seem relevant to
the researcher (Charmaz 2000). It represents the operations of labeling fragments of data through various
developmental stages by which data are broken down, conceptualized, and put back together in new ways (Strauss
and Corbin 1990, p. 57, cited in Douglas 2003). As coding progresses, theory generation occurs around one or more
core categories with evidence of properties of these categories, and so patterns of behavior to be found in the
research phenomenon studied (Douglas 2003).
Three stages of coding are essential to GTA. Throughout the three stages of GTA coding, the researcher should
be asking two formal – not preconceived – questions while constantly comparing incident to incident, and coding
and analyzing (Glaser 1992, p. 4, cited in Douglas 2003): (1) what is the chief concern or problem of the people in
the substantive area, and what accounts for most of the variation in the problem? and (2) what category or wbat
property of what category does this incident indicate? Also, it needs to be remembered that when coding and
analyzing data, it is not data themselves that develops conceptual categories and their properties, and so the
emergent substantive theory (Douglas 2003). Rather. GTA is often linked to existing substantive theories,
particularly in providing direction to developing relevant categories and integrating data (Glaser and Strauss 1967).
In this research, we conducted exploratory interviews to better understand the nature of supply chain interfaces
and the attributes that need to be defined to address the bottleneck issues at the interfaces. From these interviews, we
developed a framework of attributes to be defined at the interfaces. Coding of the data was initially informed by the
Sanchez (2000) framework for dissecting product design. Building on Sanchez (2000) and adapting to the CLM
environment, the categories that emerged in this work describe issues of relationships that need to be addressed to
conduct CLM.
A standard, open-ended interview guide was developed from a review of the literature. The guide was pre-tested
with academic reviewers and industry practitioners familiar with this area. The interview guide was semi-struetured
to allow for flexibility during the interview to explore new issues introduced by participants.
Interviews were conducted on-site at the company facility, each lasting approximately two hours. At each
company, people with responsibilities in information technology management and/or logistics management were
interviewed. Table 1 shows a summary of interview participants by industry, size and functional area.
TABLE 1
THE INTERVIEW PARTICIPANTS
Logistics
X
IT*
X
X
X
Employees
Carrier
Turnover’
4
1,600
Third-party
Carrier
2,500
20,000
X
Third-party
LSP/Carrier
250
2,800
X
15 500
X
X
X
X
Type
Third-party
Industrv’
Carrier
Third-party
40
17,000
Third-party
LSP/Carrier
1,100
Third-party
LSP
44
Third-party
LSP
367
1 500
Third-party
LSP
500
4,000
Third-party
1,975
4,700
Third-party
LSP
LSP
6,000
35,000
X
Third-party
LSI
9
X
Third-party
LSI
LSP/LSI
n.a.^
2.756
50
1,400
40,100
X
Third-party
” 640
X
X
X
X
X
X
JOURNAL OF BUSINESS LOGISTICS, VoL 29, No. J, 2008
351
TABLE I (continued)
Supplier/Buyer
Machinery
8
75
X
Supplier/Buyer
Machinery
70
250
X
Supplier/Buyer
Machinery
85
790
X
X
Supplier/Buyer
Machinery
4,000
45,000
X
Supplier/Buyer
Mechanical
X
Mechanical
1,200
1,500
11,000
Supplier/Buyer
18,000
X
Supplier/Buyer
200,000
222
80,000
Supplier/Buyer
Automobile
Electronics
2,500
X
X
Supplier/Buyer
Supplier/Buyer
Electronics
Plastics
40,000
50,000
68
X
X
Supplier/Buyer
Plastics
670
800
X
X
Supplier/Buyer
Fumiture
4,533
36,400
X
X
Supplier/Buyer
Furniture
11,000
76,000
X
Supplier/Buyer
Paper prod.
3,333
15,000
Supplier/Buyer
Clothes
460
4,000
Supplier/Buyer
Food
7
50
Supplier/Buyer
Food
88
740
X
Supplier/Buyer
Food
56
530
X
Supplier/Buyer
Food
100
800
X
Supplier/Buyer
Pharmac.
15.000
60,000
X
233
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Which kind of business the company finds itself in, either operation type or main sector. LSP = Logistics Service Provider LSI = Ueistics
Service Intermediate.
*
The total turnover in million Euros.
The total quantity of employees in the company, not just the branch in question (if more than one branch).
The ftinction of the participating respondent. Logistics manager or IT manager.
n.a. = data not available.
In the design of our study, we have taken measures to increase construct validity. The first measure is that we
have always tried to use multiple sources of evidence. In most of the situations at least two different sources of
evidence have been used, e.g. interviews and observations, or interviews and documentation of additional materials,
such as company documents, reports, and presentation materials were provided by most of the participants. Another
measure that was taken was to send drafts of written reports back to the respondents for review and comment.
Finally, relevant literature on interfaces, supply chain collaboration, and logistics management was examined. As
indicated by Golicic et al. (2002), multiple data sources, including interviews, company documentation and a
literature review, allows for triangulation in the data analysis and lends support for the developing theory in a GTA
methodological approach.
Participating firms were selected based on their position as leaders in differing aspects of logistics management.
This purposive sampling process allowed target companies that would provide similar and contrasting insights to be
selected. Leadership was determined through a literature search, trade association presentations and memberships,
and identification from industry peers regarding the involvement and capabilities of the selected tlrms. The
interviews occurred with more than 47 managers from 33 companies in various industries, both acting as third-party
servtce providers and suppliers or buyers of intermediary and fmished goods. This number of interviews is much
higher than the 8 respondent minimum suggested by McCraken (1988) and highlights the ability for this exploratory
study to provide insights into logistics management.
STEFANSSON AND RUSSELL
352
RESULTS
”
The exploratory interviews resulted in an identification of the interfaces that exist in ordinary logistics business
arrangements and how they can be described in terms of attributes of each interface.
The characteristics of the interfaces identified have been categorized into two distinct groups:
1. Physical Interfaces, which are interfaces that describe goods and resource flow with process and activity
integration.
2. Information Interfaces, which describe information flow and data and information content together with
information technology integration.
We have identified 14 interfaces, 10 information interfaces and four physical interfaces among shipper,
receiver, transportation carrier, logistics service provider (LSP). and logistics service intermediate (LSI). These
interfaces are indicated by an “X” on the collaborative logistics management (CLM) model shown in Figure 1
(Stefansson 2006). The CLM framework is used as a model on which to show the interfaces as it is a …
Purchase answer to see full
attachment
How it works
- Paste your instructions in the instructions box. You can also attach an instructions file
- Select the writer category, deadline, education level and review the instructions
- Make a payment for the order to be assignment to a writer
- Download the paper after the writer uploads it
Will the writer plagiarize my essay?
You will get a plagiarism-free paper and you can get an originality report upon request.
Is this service safe?
All the personal information is confidential and we have 100% safe payment methods. We also guarantee good grades