This article was downloaded by: [Universidad Nacional Colombia]

On: 11 February 2013, At: 11:51

Publisher: Taylor & Francis
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

International Journal of Logistics

Research and Applications: A Leading
Journal of Supply Chain Management
Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cjol20

Logistics versus supply chain

management: An international survey
a b
Paul D. Larson & Arni Halldorsson
a
Iowa State University, College of Business, USA
b
Copenhagen Business School, Department of Operations
Management, Solbjerg Plads 3, DK-2000, Frederiksberg, Denmark
Version of record first published: 12 May 2010.

To cite this article: Paul D. Larson & Arni Halldorsson (2004): Logistics versus supply chain
management: An international survey, International Journal of Logistics Research and Applications: A
Leading Journal of Supply Chain Management, 7:1, 17-31

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13675560310001619240

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation
that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any
instructions, formulae, and drug doses should be independently verified with primary
sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings,
demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or
indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
 International Journal of Logistics: Research and Applications
Vol. 7, No. 1, March 2004

Logistics Versus Supply Chain

Management: An International
Survey
PAUL D. LARSON1* & ARNI HALLDORSSON2
Downloaded by [Universidad Nacional Colombia] at 11:51 11 February 2013

1
Iowa State University, College of Business, USA & 2Copenhagen
Business School, Department of Operations Management,
Solbjerg Plads 3, DK-2000, Frederiksberg, Denmark

ABSTRACT Supply chain management (SCM) remains an important topic among logistics
managers, researchers and educators. This paper opens by describing four unique
perspectives on the relationship between logistics and SCM. Next, the results of an
international survey of logistics=SCM experts are reported. Over 200 questionnaires were
faxed to leading logistics educators in North America, Europe, South America and Asia.
Based on these experts’ perceptions, cluster analysis confirms the existence of the four
perspectives on logistics versus SCM—relabelling, traditionalist, unionist and inter-
sectionist. The paper closes with a discussion on implications of the four perspectives for
educators, researchers and practitioners.

Introduction

For many logistics educators, researchers and practitioners, supply chain

management (SCM) has been the ‘‘grande passion’’ of recent times. Academic
journals have been launched (e.g. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal)
or renamed (e.g. Journal of Supply Chain Management), SCM degree and certificate
programmes have been created, professors and managers have been retitled, and
research interests have shifted toward SCM. But, LaLonde (1997) asked: ‘‘Does
supply chain management really exist?’’ Other authors caution that SCM may
become just another management fad (Burgess, 1998), or even a ‘‘parochial arena

*Correspondence: Paul D. Larson, Iowa State University, College of Business, 300 Carver Hall, Ames,
IA 50011, USA; E-mail: pdl@iastate.edu

International Journal of Logistics

ISSN 1367-5567 Print=ISSN 1469-848X online # 2004 Taylor & Francis Ltd
http:==www.tandf.co.uk=journals
DOI: 10.1080=13675560310001619240
 18 P. D. Larson & A. Halldorsson

for a guild of specialist researchers’’ (New, 1997). Amid this confusion, Skjoett-
Larsen (1999) noted that the SCM ‘‘concept is not well defined’’. According to
Cooper et al. (1997), ‘‘research is needed to define and expand the boundaries of
supply chain management’’.
The unclear conceptual boundaries of SCM make it difficult to design educa-
tional and research programmes in SCM without large overlap with other fields
such as logistics, marketing, operations management and purchasing. Moreover, it
is difficult if not impossible to implement SCM unless it is well defined. Where are
the conceptual boundaries to be drawn in conducting research on or implementing
SCM? Can research be done directly on SCM, or must the concept be broken down,
for focus on its features? This paper attempts to put limits on the SCM concept,
using logistics=SCM experts’ ratings of key concepts, topics and techniques. This
Downloaded by [Universidad Nacional Colombia] at 11:51 11 February 2013

facilitates understanding of the features of SCM—and its conceptual boundaries.

The paper is organised as follows. Following the Introduction, the second section
briefly discusses definitions of SCM from the literature, and develops four per-
spectives on the fit between SCM and logistics. The third section reports results of a
survey of international experts. The paper ends with a discussion on implications of
the study for logistics educators, researchers and practitioners.

SCM Versus Logistics

According to Stock & Lambert (2001), SCM ‘‘is the integration of key business
processes from end user through original suppliers that provides products,
services, and information that add value for customers and other stakeholders’’.
Christopher (1998) suggested a relationship view of SCM, defined as ‘‘the manage-
ment of upstream and downstream relationships with suppliers and customers to
deliver superior customer value at less cost to the supply chain as a whole’’. The
key is managing relationships—similar to the systems idea of positive synergistic
effects created through linkages—rather than optimising individual components of
the system. The systems approach focuses not only on the components (e.g. func-
tions or activities), but also on how they are related.
SCM has also inspired a new Council of Logistics Management (CLM) definition
of logistics as ‘‘that part of the supply chain process that plans, implements, and
controls the efficient, effective flow and storage of goods, services, and related
information from the point of origin to the point of consumption in order to meet
customers’ requirements (www.clm1.org=, 2000)’’. But there is lack of agreement on
how SCM is related to logistics. Following are four conceptual perspectives on SCM
versus logistics: traditionalist, relabelling, unionist and inter-sectionist. The per-
spectives are discussed briefly below and shown in Figure 1. The authors identified
these perspectives while reading and discussing the growing SCM literature.

Traditionalist
The traditionalist positions SCM within logistics, i.e. SCM is one small part of
logistics. Educators can easily accomplish this by adding a SCM lecture to the
logistics management course, or by inserting a SCM chapter into a logistics text-
book. Of course, logistics textbook authors who add a SCM chapter are not
necessarily traditionalists. Stock & Lambert (2001) observed that the logistics
 Logistics Versus Supply Chain Management 19
Downloaded by [Universidad Nacional Colombia] at 11:51 11 February 2013

FIGURE 1. Perspectives on Logistics versus Supply Chain Management.

community has tended to view SCM as ‘‘logistics outside the firm’’. This reduces
SCM to a special type of logistics, external or inter-organisational logistics.
Traditionalist practitioners may create new ‘‘SCM analyst’’ positions within the
logistics group. SCM analysts would broaden the scope of logistics analysis, per-
haps linking the logistics effort to other functions within the firm, as well as other
firms in the supply chain.

Relabelling
The relabelling perspective simply renames logistics; what was logistics is now
SCM. Leenders & Fearon (1997) describe ‘‘logistics management, or supply chain
management’’ as an organisational strategy. Tan et al. (1998) discuss an evolution of
logistics into ‘‘integrated logistics’’, which is now often called ‘‘SCM’’. Moreover,
according to Jones & Riley (1985), SCM techniques ‘‘deal with the planning and
control of total materials flows from suppliers through end users’’. This notion of
SCM overlaps heavily with the CLM definition of logistics. More recently, Simchi-Levi
et al. (2000) confessed that they ‘‘do not distinguish between logistics and supply
chain management’’. They also use supply chain and logistics network as synonymous
terms. Relabelling narrows the scope of SCM, since SCM equals logistics. In the
world of logistics practice, last year’s ‘‘logistics analyst’’ may be this year’s ‘‘SCM
analyst’’, with no change in job description.
Gammelgaard & Larson (2001) reported results of a survey of supply chain
managers. The survey included the following open-ended question: ‘‘Please briefly
describe what a supply chain manager does’’. A large group of responses to this
question reflected the relabelling perspective (supply chain manager as logistics
manager). A selection of such responses follows. Following each definition, the
respondent’s industry is in parentheses. A supply chain manager ‘‘manages all of,
 20 P. D. Larson & A. Halldorsson

or a portion of, the process of getting the right product to the right place at the right
time in the right quantities for the right cost with the right quality’’ (multi-level
marketing or MLM company); ‘‘SCMs coordinate the flow between factory and the
customer’’ (consumer packaged goods manufacturer); SCM ‘‘innovates, transforms
logistics processes into strategic advantage’’ (retailer); ‘‘a supply chain manager
manages logistics activities within the supply chain’’ (logistics service provider).

Unionist
This perspective treats logistics as a part of SCM; SCM completely subsumes
logistics. Giunipero & Brand (1996) expressed this view with the following state-
ment: ‘‘SCM is more than logistics’’. In the extreme, SCM subsumes much of the
Downloaded by [Universidad Nacional Colombia] at 11:51 11 February 2013

traditional business school curriculum, including logistics, marketing, operations

management and purchasing. According to Konezny & Beskow (1999), the com-
ponents of SCM are: logistics (inventory, warehousing, packaging, distribution,
transportation, customer service, purchasing, production planning and demand
forecasting); strategic planning; information technology; marketing; and sales.
Others develop SCM as an interdisciplinary concept drawing on fields such as
marketing, economics, logistics and organisational behaviour (Hobbs, 1996).
Moreover, New (1997) concluded that it is important to study social, political and
ethical aspects of SCM. For some authors, the term ‘‘SCM’’ alone is not enough! For
instance, Sandelands (1994) defines total SCM as ‘‘gathering and exploiting quality
information for all business areas, such as finance, marketing, and human resource
planning’’.
Stock & Lambert (2001) suggest ‘‘supply chain management is the management
of eight key business processes: (1) customer relationship management, (2) custo-
mer service management, (3) demand management, (4) order fulfillment, (5)
manufacturing flow management, (6) procurement, (7) product development and
commercialization, and (8) returns’’. These processes subsume or include much of
logistics, purchasing, marketing and operations management. According to
Mentzer et al. (2001), ‘‘all the traditional business functions should be included in
the process of SCM’’. In their model of SCM, these traditional business functions
are marketing, sales, research and development, forecasting, production, pur-
chasing, logistics, information systems, finance and customer service.
An organisation adopting the unionist perspective might start by creating a new
high-level position: Director or Vice President of SCM. At a minimum, logis-
tics, purchasing and some elements of marketing would report to this SCM
executive. Under a broader unionist regime (e.g. Stock & Lambert, 2001; Mentzer
et al., 2001), the top supply chain manager would have CEO-like responsibilities.
Gammelgaard & Larson (2001) also found a large group of responses reflecting
the unionist perspective (supply chain manager with broad duties). A selection of
such responses follows. Again, following each definition, the respondent’s industry
is in parentheses. Supply chain managers are involved with ‘‘managing the flow of
products, services, information and money across an extended enterprise—three or
more companies: supplier, customer and focal company’’ (supply chain consult-
ing); ‘‘works with procurement, manufacturing, sales and customer service groups
to ensure optimised flow of materials from our suppliers through our customers’’
(lubricant=chemical additive maker); ‘‘this position should be able to view the
sourcing of raw material, transportation inbound to plants, warehousing and
 Logistics Versus Supply Chain Management 21

receipt, setting of raw material stock levels, finished goods stock level at plants,
transportation to distribution centre (DC) or customer, stock level replenishment at
DCs’’ (casket manufacturer).

Inter-sectionist
Giunipero & Brand (1996) hinted at this idea with the following statement: ‘‘SCM
is not a subset of logistics but is a broad strategy which cuts across business pro-
cesses both within the firm and through the channels’’. The intersection concept
suggests SCM is not the union of logistics, marketing, operations management,
purchasing and other functional areas. Rather, it includes strategic, integrative
Downloaded by [Universidad Nacional Colombia] at 11:51 11 February 2013

elements from all of these disciplines. For instance, in the purchasing area, nego-
tiating a long-term arrangement is a strategic element and transmitting a purchase
order is tactical. The supply chain manager would be involved in the negotiations,
but not the purchase order transmission. Similarly, in the logistics area, hiring a
third-party logistics (3PL) provider is a strategic decision, while picking and
packing in the warehouse are tactical. At the intersection, SCM co-ordinates cross-
functional efforts across multiple firms. SCM is strategic, not tactical.
In practice, inter-sectionist organisations may appoint a supply chain council,
consisting of key executives across functions (e.g. logistics, marketing and pur-
chasing) and institutions (e.g. manufacturer, retailer and 3PL). The council would
break down barriers to SCM and seek opportunities to apply SCM concepts to
improve overall supply chain performance. A small, consultative SCM group,
operating in a staff (rather than a line) capacity, would also be indicative of the
inter-sectionist perspective. Logistics, marketing, operations and purchasing do not
report to SCM. Rather, these departments draw on the SCM group for research,
intelligence and consulting support.
Despite a growing base of literature and experience, there appears to be no
consensus on the relation between logistics and SCM. Cooper et al. (1997) recognise
multiple perspectives on logistics versus SCM, noting ‘‘practitioners and educators
have variously addressed the concept of supply chain management (SCM) as an
extension of logistics, the same as logistics, or as an all-encompassing approach to
business integration’’. They also suggest that SCM ‘‘can be the management of all
business processes’’. Thus, the next section reports results of a survey on how an
international group of experts perceives SCM vis-a
-vis logistics.

International Survey of Experts

Methods
A selection of published articles and leading texts in logistics management (e.g.
Lambert et al., 1998; Stock & Lambert, 2001), purchasing and supply management
(e.g. Leenders & Fearon, 1997) and SCM (e.g. Christopher, 1998; Handfield &
Nichols, 1999) were studied to develop an initial list of topics and techniques in
logistics and SCM. Working independently, the researchers created lists of
topic=technique items. Combining these lists yielded over 120 items. This list was
trimmed to 88 survey items, through discussion and consensus of the researchers,
since some items seemed nearly identical. Appendix A lists the 88 items and
 22 P. D. Larson & A. Halldorsson

Appendix B shows the questionnaire. Respondents were asked to rate the impor-
tance of each of these items twice (once for a Logistics Management course and
once for a SCM course), on scales from zero (no importance) to five (very high
importance).
The three-page survey was transmitted via fax to 208 logistics educators, all
members of the CLM. Survey recipients were from North America, Europe, South
America and Asia. As a response incentive, survey respondents were invited to
write their names on their responses—and be entered in a drawing for US$ 300.
Respondents were also invited to request a summary of the survey results. Follow-
ups were done via e-mail, then regular mail. A total of 98 usable surveys was
received, for a response rate of 47.1%.
Experience of the respondents, as logistics=SCM educators, ranges from 1 to 35
Downloaded by [Universidad Nacional Colombia] at 11:51 11 February 2013

years and averages 12.9 years. While 73.5% of these educators have taught graduate
level logistics management courses, 81.6% have taught logistics management at the
undergraduate level. On the other hand, only 45.9 and 50.0% of the respondents
have taught SCM courses at the graduate and undergraduate level, respectively.
The schools employing these educators have an average of 120.3 students enrolled
in logistics=SCM programmes, and the number of students enrolled in these pro-
grammes ranges from zero to 750. Geographically, the respondents are from four
continents, as follows: 69 from North America, 21 from the European Community,
five from South America and one from Asia.

SCM Versus Logistics

Table 1 lists 34 survey items that these experts rated significantly more important
for SCM compared to logistics. Items pertaining to management of cross-functional
and inter-organisational relationships (e.g. conflict management, channel manage-
ment, partnering, teamwork) appear high on this list. Moreover, items linked to
strategic purchasing [e.g. early supplier involvement (ESI), supplier development
and selection=evaluation, supply management, single versus multiple sourcing] are
prominent on the SCM list. It is interesting that WWW=Internet and information
technology are also perceived as more important for SCM than logistics. Finally, the
appearance of ‘‘strategic management’’ and ‘‘core competence’’ high on the list
brings up an important question: Is one implication of SCM a downgrade in the
strategic role of logistics?
Table 1 also lists 16 items rated significantly more important for logistics
compared to SCM. It is no surprise to see several classic logistics functions
(warehousing, transportation, facility location, inventory management, and order
processing) on this list. Other items reflect very specific logistics activities, decisions
and tools [e.g. picking and packing, Free on board (FOB) origin=destination ship-
ping terms, warehouse management systems (WMS), reorder point (ROP), cross-
docking, tracking and tracing, bar coding and distribution requirements planning
(DRP)]. In this composite of experts’ perceptions, logistics is not subsumed by SCM.
For the remaining 38 survey items, there were no significant differences in
importance between logistics and SCM. Moreover, the top 10 lists, for SCM and
logistics, share seven common items (see Table 2). This large number of items
implies considerable content overlap in logistics and SCM courses. Still, the three
sets of items—34 for which SCM > logistics, 16 for which logistics > SCM, 38 for
which SCM ¼ logistics—support the intersection perspective. SCM has some
 Logistics Versus Supply Chain Management 23

TABLE 1. Logistics Versus SCM: Significantly Different Items1,2,3

SCM > Logistics Items t-Statistics Logistics > SCM Items t-Statistics
Conflict management 8.81 Picking and packing
9.17
Early supplier involvement (ESI) 8.04 Warehousing
7.80
Supply chain management (SCM) 7.83 Transportation
7.70
Supplier development 7.19 FOB origin=destination
7.70
Channel management 6.72 Warehouse management systems
6.19
Partnering=partnership=alliances 6.57 Logistics management
6.11
Strategic management 6.34 Facility location
6.01
Supplier selection=evaluation 5.87 Deregulation
5.91
Supply management 5.86 Reorder point (ROP) model
4.68
SCOR model 5.36 Cross-docking
4.30
Teamwork 5.24 Tracking and tracing
4.23
Core competence 5.15 Foreign trade zones (FTZ)
4.10
Downloaded by [Universidad Nacional Colombia] at 11:51 11 February 2013

WWW=Internet 4.98 Inventory management
3.70

Bullwhip effect 4.84 Bar coding
3.07
Single versus multiple sourcing 4.75 Order processing
2.91
Electronic funds transfer (EFT) 4.62 Distribution requirements
2.77
planning
Enterprise resource planning 4.43
(ERP)
Negotiation 4.33
Governance structure 3.71
Marketing 3.62
Forecasting 3.55
Contracts 3.53
Information technology 3.48
Vendor-managed inventory (VMI) 3.43
Manufacturing 3.26
Total cost of ownership (TCO) 3.12
E-commerce 3.05
Re-engineering 3.01
Flexibility 2.95
Dis-intermediation 2.91
Globalisation 2.89
Time-based competition 2.88
Retailing 2.87
Purchasing 2.79
1
H0: SCM importance 7Logistics importance ¼ 0.
2
Listed in descending order by |t-statistic|.
3
Alpha ¼ 0.01 criterion for statistical significance.

unique content, logistics retains some unique content, yet there is substantial
overlap between the two areas.
Note that ‘‘supply chain management’’ is the top-rated SCM item. This item
serves as a validity check, in addition to its value in differentiating logistics from
SCM. It is comforting that this item is the highest-rated SCM item, implying the
respondents devoted close attention to the survey questions. What could be more
important to SCM than SCM?
Table 3 shows the tendency for educators to be teaching either both under-
graduate and graduate-level SCM courses—or not to be teaching SCM at all. t-Tests
were used to compare the most experienced SCM educators (both undergraduate
and graduate-level courses taught) with the least experienced (neither graduate nor
undergraduate courses taught), in terms of item importance for SCM. The only
significant difference found (at the 0.05 level) was for the ‘‘logistics management’’
 24 P. D. Larson & A. Halldorsson

TABLE 2. SCM and Logistics Top 10 Lists

SCM Item Mean Rating Logistics Item Mean Rating
Supply chain management 4.95 Customer service 4.78
Information technology 4.70 Logistics management 4.75
Customer service 4.66 Inventory management 4.65
Alliances 4.57 Transportation 4.61
e-commerce 4.56 Information technology 4.50
Cycle time reduction 4.49 Cycle time reduction 4.40
Channel management 4.43 Warehousing 4.34
Inventory management 4.39 e-commerce 4.30
WWW=Internet 4.35 Supply chain management 4.27
Globalisation 4.33 Third-party logistics 4.27
Logistics management 4.33
Downloaded by [Universidad Nacional Colombia] at 11:51 11 February 2013

item. The least experienced group rated this item significantly more important for a
SCM course than did the most experienced group (4.66 versus 4.21). Apparently,
more experienced educators downgrade the prominence of logistics in SCM, per-
haps to broaden the focus of SCM.

Classifying Logisticians
Two indices were created to classify logisticians in terms of their perceptions on
SCM and logistics management content. The first index, abs, is the sum of the
absolute value of differences between importance for SCM and importance for
logistics, across all survey items (i.e. abs ¼ sum|SCMi 7logisticsi|, for i ¼ 1 to 88).
Logisticians with low abs scores are relabellers, since they perceive relatively little
difference between logistics and SCM. The second index, raw, is the sum of the raw
differences between importance for SCM and importance for logistics, across all
survey items [i.e. raw ¼ sum(SCMi 7logisticsi), for i ¼ 1 to 88]. Logisticians with
high raw scores are unionists, since they perceive a relatively large difference
between SCM and logistics, usually in favour of SCM. Those logisticians with high
abs scores but low raw scores are inter-sectionists. Like the unionists, these educators
see substantial differences between SCM and logistics. However, in the inter-
sectionist view, the differences are more balanced, in favour of neither SCM nor
logistics. Some topic=technique items are tilted toward SCM (e.g. conflict man-
agement), while others lean toward logistics (e.g. transportation). Finally, tradi-
tionalists tend to have high negative raw scores. They perceive a relatively large
difference between SCM and logistics, generally in favour of logistics.
Cluster analysis was used to place individual respondents into groups, based
on the two indices defined above. Ward’s hierarchical clustering procedure was

TABLE 3. SCM Teaching Experience of

Respondents
Undergraduate

Graduate No Yes Total

No 31 20 51
Yes 16 29 45
Total 47 49 96
Chi-square ¼ 6.09 ( p-value ¼ 0.014).
 Logistics Versus Supply Chain Management 25

conducted on the squared Euclidean distances (Hair et al., 1987). Inspired by con-
ceptual derivation of the four perspectives model, the researchers opted for for-
mation of four clusters. Hypothetically, one cluster should naturally form around
each of the four perspectives on logistics versus SCM.
Figure 2 reveals formation of four clusters, each reflecting one of the four
perspectives. The clustering algorithm identified 50 relabellers, 22 unionists, 16
traditionalists and seven inter-sectionists. Thus, the empirical results support the
four perspectives model of logistics versus SCM.

Research Interests and Methods

Downloaded by [Universidad Nacional Colombia] at 11:51 11 February 2013

The survey also asked the logistics experts=educators to list their top three research
interests and to rate the importance of seven research methods for pursuing those
interests. The most prevalent research interests were SCM, e-business, transporta-
tion, customer service and relationships. About one-third of the topics mentioned

FIGURE 2. Logistics Versus SCM.

 26 P. D. Larson & A. Halldorsson

TABLE 4. Preferred Research Methods

Method Mean—Total Mean—NA Mean—EC M&K1
Survey 3.78 3.86 3.52 54.3%
Interview 3.78 3.72 4.203 13.8%
Case study 3.76 3.54 4.244 3.2%
Archival=secondary data 3.33 3.38 3.20 9.6%
Simulation=modelling2 3.08 2.98 3.00 19.2%
Focus groups 2.29 2.15 2.38 n=a
Experiment 2.07 1.95 2.10 n=a
1
M&K ¼ Mentzer & Kahn (1995) study on methodology used in the Journal of Business Logistics
from 1978 to 1993.
2
Math modelling was 4.3% and simulation was 14.9% in the Mentzer & Kahn study.
3
NA–EC: t ¼
2.10 ( p-value ¼ 0.042).
Downloaded by [Universidad Nacional Colombia] at 11:51 11 February 2013

4
NA–EC: t ¼
2.28 ( p-value ¼ 0.025).

were related to inter-organisational issues, including SCM. Table 4 summarises the

respondents’ ratings of the usefulness of various methods for conducting their
research, on a scale of one to five.
Surprisingly, case studies and interviews are rated as highly as surveys.
Compared with a previous study on articles published in the Journal of Business
Logistics from 1978 to 1993 (Mentzer & Kahn, 1995), there is a clear shift in emphasis
from quantitative towards qualitative research approaches. Table 4 also com-
pares mean responses from North American (NA) and European Community (EC)
scholars. It is notable that the Europeans rated qualitative (case study and inter-
view) methods significantly more useful than their North American counterparts.
Thus, the world-wide logistics research community might anticipate discovery of
new aspects of logistics and SCM reality, and more qualitative theory-building
research. As Ellram (1996) concludes, ‘‘case studies are excellent for theory build-
ing, for providing detailed explanations of ‘best practices,’ and providing more
understanding of data gathered’’.

Conclusions

Results of the survey provide support for the four perspectives model, i.e. logis-
ticians can be clustered into four groups on the logistics versus SCM issue. The final
section builds on this empirical finding, with implications for logistics educators,
researchers and practitioners.

Implications for Logistics Educators

The four perspectives on logistics vis-a
-vis SCM suggest a variety of responses to the
SCM phenomenon by logistics educators. As the name implies, relabellers are likely
to teach the same old logistics management course under a new name: ‘‘SCM’’.
Unionists might remove logistics management from the curriculum—and cover
the essentials of logistics in a new SCM course; or, they may retain the logistics
management course, and create a SCM course to develop further the cross-
functional, inter-organisational nature of ‘‘strategic’’ logistics and related functional
areas (e.g. marketing, purchasing and operations management). In the extreme, a
 Logistics Versus Supply Chain Management 27

unionist might campaign to restructure (and rename) the College of Business

Administration as the ‘‘College of SCM’’. Inter-sectionists would champion an
interdisciplinary SCM major, perhaps with team-taught, cross-functional SCM
courses split into modules. These modules may be aligned with traditional func-
tions (e.g. logistics and marketing) or positioned at functional interfaces. Finally,
traditionalists would either do nothing at all, or simply add a SCM lecture to the
logistics management course.
A number of interesting research questions remain on integrating SCM into the
logistics group or academic department—and into business schools. Can tradi-
tionalists and unionists work together in the logistics=SCM department? (Recall
that the former position SCM entirely within logistics, while the latter do the
opposite.) Traditionalists may resist the opportunity to become ‘‘Professors of
Downloaded by [Universidad Nacional Colombia] at 11:51 11 February 2013

SCM’’. How should inter-sectionists go about selling SCM to key interface dis-
ciplines, such as marketing and operations management? Indeed, is logistics the
right discipline to lead the SCM charge?
The survey results also offer guidance for the educator teaching both SCM and
logistics management. Some topics and techniques seem to be best covered in a
logistics management course (e.g. transportation), while others fit better in SCM
(e.g. conflict management). Still other topics and techniques appear at the inter-
section of logistics and SCM (e.g. customer service and inventory management).
Educators could use the survey as a tool to assist in making each course unique,
while showing students the links between SCM and logistics.

Implications for Logistics Researchers

Among the researcher’s challenges in SCM is to put boundaries on the study. Each
of the four perspectives implies different boundaries for SCM research. For
instance, relabelling and traditionalism imply narrow definitions of SCM, while
unionism and inter-sectionism suggest broad definitions. These issues are closely
related to unit of analysis. Should SCM research focus on the dominant firm in a
supply chain, the dyadic relationship between a key supplier and buyer, a triadic
relationship between supplier, buyer and logistics service provider, the entire
supply chain, or comparisons between two or more supply chains?
Mentzer et al. (2001) offer considerable guidance on the unit of analysis issue
through specification of different types of supply chains. A supply chain is comprised
of ‘‘three or more companies directly linked’’, and a basic supply chain consists of
‘‘a company, an immediate supplier, and an immediate customer’’. Further, an
extended supply chain includes ‘‘suppliers of the immediate supplier and customers of
the immediate customer’’, and an ultimate supply chain includes ‘‘all the companies
involved in all the upstream and downstream flows . . . from the initial supplier to the
ultimate customer’’. These supply chain types can be viewed as viable, alternative
units of analysis for SCM research.
A current research need is to complement conceptual work and surveys on SCM
with more longitudinal in-depth research of SCM in action, where case studies and
interviews would provide the main sources of evidence. While Skjoett-Larsen
(1999) observed a tendency toward use of positivistic methods in logistics research,
the current study found that logistics researchers view case studies and interviews
as useful as surveys. Focus on only a few cases can be very useful in logistics
 28 P. D. Larson & A. Halldorsson

research. According to Gummesson (1991), ‘‘if you want to understand in depth the
mechanisms of change you need not study a large number of cases’’.
The quantitative, survey research reported in this paper confirms the existence of
four perspectives on logistics versus SCM. Future research, using qualitative
methods, should further explore differences between the four perspectives—and
their implications for implementation of SCM. For instance, in-depth interviews
could be used to understand better why logisticians are drawn to the various
perspectives. In addition, focus group discussions, at meetings such as the annual
CLM conference, could uncover intuitive and=or theoretical arguments supporting
the various perspectives.
Downloaded by [Universidad Nacional Colombia] at 11:51 11 February 2013

Implications for Logistics Practitioners

Logistics practitioners must define ‘‘SCM’’ and adopt a perspective on SCM versus
logistics. Such an exercise will facilitate the process of hiring new employees, along
with interaction with suppliers, customers and logistics service providers. There is
danger in entering negotiations on SCM matters before all parties share a common
definition of the term. At a minimum, all supply chain participants should under-
stand each other’s perspective on SCM.
SCM implementation is dramatically different, depending on management’s
perspective on SCM versus logistics. Relabellers can implement SCM by simply
altering employees’ titles. Unionists have the challenging task of creating a SCM line
organisation and changing many reporting relationships within the firm. Thus,
unionist implementations are most likely to be met with considerable resistance to
the changes. Inter-sectionists can start small, adding a SCM staff function available
on a project basis throughout the firm. Little or no change in current reporting
relationships would be required.
Assume an organisation plans to improve supply chain performance by imple-
menting ‘‘SCM’’. To implement SCM effectively, the organisation needs all impor-
tant supply chain participants (suppliers, customers, logistics service providers) on
board. Assume further that this focal organisation has adopted a unionist per-
spective on SCM versus logistics. What if customers are relabelers (SCM ¼
logistics), suppliers believe SCM ¼ purchasing, and logistics service providers are
inter-sectionists? Will SCM work in this supply chain? Perhaps the first event
should be a management workshop, attended by key executives across functions
and firms in the supply chain. One important outcome of this workshop would be
the adoption of a common perspective and definition of SCM.

REFERENCES

BURGESS, R. (1998) Avoiding supply chain management failure: lessons from business process
re-engineering, International Journal of Logistics Management, 9, (1), pp. 15–23.
CHRISTOPHER, M. (1998) Logistics and Supply Chain Management, 2nd edn (London, UK, Financial
Times, Prentice Hall).
COOPER, M.C., LAMBERT, D.M. & PAGH, J.D. (1997) Supply chain management: more than a new
name for logistics, International Journal of Logistics Management, 8, (1), pp. 1–13.
ELLRAM, L.M. (1996) The use of case study method in logistics research, Journal of Business Logistics,
17, (2), pp. 93–138.
GAMMELGAARD, B. & LARSON, P.D. (2001) Logistics skills and competencies for supply chain
management, Journal of Business Logistics, 22, (2), pp. 27–50.
 Logistics Versus Supply Chain Management 29

GIUNIPERO, L.C. & BRAND, R.R. (1996) Purchasing’s role in supply chain management, International
Journal of Logistics Management, 7, (1), pp. 29–38.
GUMMESSON, E. (1991) Qualitative Methods in Management Research (London, Sage Publications).
HAIR, J.F., ANDERSON, R.E. & TATHAM, R.L. (1987) Multivariate Data Analysis, 2nd edn (New York,
Macmillan).
HANDFIELD, R.B. & NICHOLS, E.L., JR (1999) Introduction to Supply Chain Management (Upper Saddle
River, NJ, Prentice Hall).
HOBBS, J.E. (1996) A transaction cost approach to supply chain management, Supply Chain
Management, 1, (2), pp. 15–27.
JONES, T.C. & RILEY, D.W. (1985) Using inventory for competitive advantage through supply chain
management, International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, 15, (5), pp. 16–27.
KONEZNY, G.P. & BESKOW, M.J. (1999) Third-party Logistics: Improving Global Supply Chain
Performance (Minneapolis, Piper Jaffray Equity Research).
LALONDE, B.J. (1997) Supply chain management: Myth or reality?, Supply Chain Management
Review, 1, (1), pp. 6–7.
LAMBERT, D.M., STOCK, J.R. & ELLRAM, L.M. (1998) Fundamentals of Logistics Management (Boston,
Downloaded by [Universidad Nacional Colombia] at 11:51 11 February 2013

Irwin=McGraw-Hill).
LEENDERS, M.R. & FEARON, H.E. (1997) Purchasing and Supply Management, 11th edn (Chicago,
Irwin).
MENTZER, J.T., DEWITT, W., KEEBLER, J.S., MIN, S., NIX, N.W., SMITH, C.D. & ZACHARIA, Z.G. (2001)
What is supply chain management?, in: MENTZER, J.T. (Ed.) Supply Chain Management
(Thousand Oaks, CA, Sage Publications), pp. 1–25.
MENTZER, J.T. & KAHN, K.B. (1995) A framework of logistics research, Journal of Business Logistics,
16, (1), pp. 231–250.
NEW, S.J. (1997) The scope of supply chain management research, Supply Chain Management, 2, (1),
pp. 15–22.
SANDELANDS, E. (1994) Building supply chain relationships, International Journal of Physical
Distribution & Logistics Management, 24, (3), pp. 43–44.
SIMCHI-LEVI, D., KAMINSKY, P. & SIMCHI-LEVI, E. (2000) Designing and Managing the Supply Chain
(Boston, Irwin=McGraw-Hill).
SKJOETT-LARSEN, T. (1999) Supply chain management: a new challenge for researchers and
managers in logistics, International Journal of Logistics Management, 10, (2), pp. 41–53.
STOCK, J.R. & LAMBERT, D.M. (2001) Strategic Logistics Management, 4th edn (Boston, Irwin=
McGraw-Hill).
TAN, K.C., KANNAN, V.R. & HANDFIELD, R.B. (1998) Supply chain management: supplier per-
formance and firm performance, International Journal of Purchasing and Materials Management,
34, (3), pp. 2–9.
www.clm1.org=, accessed 23 March 2000.

Appendix A: The 88 Survey Items

ABC analysis (80=20 rule) Materials requirements planning (MRP)
Activity-based costing Negotiation
Automatic replenishment Order processing
Bar coding Organisational structure
Benchmarking Outsourcing
Bullwhip effect Partnering=partnership=alliances
Channel management Picking and packing
Conflict management Point of sale (POS)
Contracts Postponement=speculation
Core competence Procurement cards
Cross-docking Product life cycle (PLC)
Customer service Productivity
Cycle time reduction Profitability
Deregulation Purchasing
Dis-intermediation Push versus pull
Distribution requirements planning (DRP) Quality function deployment (QFD)
Early supplier involvement (ESI) Re-engineering
E-commerce Reorder point models
Efficient consumer response (ECR) Request for quotation (RFQ)
(continued)
 30 P. D. Larson & A. Halldorsson

Electronic data interchange (EDI) Retailing

Electronic funds transfer (EFT) Reverse logistics
Enterprise resource planning (ERP) SCOR model
Environmental=green concerns Single versus multiple sourcing
Facility location Statistical process control (SPC)
Financial considerations Strategic management
Flexibility Supplier development
FOB origin=destination Supplier selection=evaluation
Forecasting Supply chain management (SCM)
Foreign trade zones (FTZs) Supply management
Globalisation Systems approach
Governance structure (relation=transaction) Teamwork
Human resource management Third-party logistics (3PL)
Information technology Time-based competition
Inventory management Total cost of ownership (TCO)
Downloaded by [Universidad Nacional Colombia] at 11:51 11 February 2013

ISO 14000 Total quality management (TQM)

ISO 9000 Tracking and tracing
Just-in-time (JIT) Transportation
Learning curve Universal product code (UPC)
Legal issues Value-added network (VAN)
Logistics management Vendor-managed inventory (VMI)
Logistics provider development Warehouse management systems (WMS)
Logistics provider selection=evaluation Warehousing
Manufacturing Wholesaling
Marketing WWW=Internet

Appendix B: The Questionnaire

Please indicate how important you believe it is to cover each of the following
topics, tools and techniques in a Logistics Management course and a Supply
Chain Management (SCM) course, from 0 to 5, as defined below.

0 ¼ no importance 2 ¼ low importance 4 ¼ high importance

1 ¼ very low importance 3 ¼ medium importance 5 ¼ very high importance

Topic=Tool=Technique Importance for Logistics Importance for SCM

Item 1 (see Appendix A) 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5
Item 2 (see Appendix A) 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5
.. 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5
. 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5
Item 88 (see Appendix A) 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5

Please fill in the following blanks with best estimates about your own experience.

I have been a Logistics=SCM Educator for ____ years.

I have taught ___ graduate level and ___ under-graduate Logistics Management courses.
I have taught ___ graduate level and ___ under-graduate SCM courses.
My current school first offered an SCM course in 19___.
In addition to CLM, I am a member of (check all that apply):
___ NAPM ___ APICS ___AST&L ___ other: ______________
At my school, approximately ___ students are enrolled in the SCM=Logistics program
My top 3 research interests are: 1. __________________________________;
2. _________________________________________; 3. ________________________________________
 Logistics Versus Supply Chain Management 31

As you pursue these research interests, please rate the usefulness of the
following research methods, from 0 (not useful) to 5 (extremely useful).
Method Usefulness
Archival=Secondary Data 0 1 2 3 4 5
Case Study 0 1 2 3 4 5
Experiment 0 1 2 3 4 5
Focus Groups 0 1 2 3 4 5
Interview 0 1 2 3 4 5
Simulation=Modeling 0 1 2 3 4 5
Survey 0 1 2 3 4 5
Downloaded by [Universidad Nacional Colombia] at 11:51 11 February 2013