International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management

The bullwhip effect in intra-organisational echelons

Gran Svensson

Article information:

Downloaded by AIRLANGGA UNIVERSITY At 21:18 26 April 2016 (PT)

To cite this document:

Gran Svensson, (2003),"The bullwhip effect in intra-organisational echelons", International Journal of
Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, Vol. 33 Iss 2 pp. 103 - 131
Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09600030310469135
Downloaded on: 26 April 2016, At: 21:18 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 65 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 3543 times since 2006*

Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:

(2000),"Measuring the bullwhip effect in the supply chain", Supply Chain Management: An International
Journal, Vol. 5 Iss 2 pp. 78-89 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/13598540010319993
(2007),"Understanding the causes of the bullwhip effect in a supply chain", International Journal of Retail
& Distribution Management, Vol. 35 Iss 4 pp. 308-324 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09590550710736229
(2013),"The service bullwhip effect", International Journal of Operations & Production Management,
Vol. 33 Iss 6 pp. 765-788 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IJOPM-10-2012-0402

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:135824 []

For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for
Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines
are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.

About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com

Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company
manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as
providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee
on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive
preservation.
*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

The Emerald Research Register for this journal is available at

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/researchregister

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
http://www.emeraldinsight.com/0960-0035.htm

The bullwhip effect in

intra-organisational echelons
Goran Svensson
School of Management and Economics, Vaxjo University, Vaxjo, Sweden

Downloaded by AIRLANGGA UNIVERSITY At 21:18 26 April 2016 (PT)

Keywords Logistics, Inventory control, Supply-chain management

Abstract This research applies the construct of bullwhip effect in a non-traditional context. It is
explored in intra-organisational echelons. It is argued that the bullwhip effect in a companys
inventory management of inbound and outbound logistics flows depends in part upon the gap
between the degree of speculation and postponement of business activities. It is also argued that the
bullwhip effect is caused by the value adding of business activities in supply chains. The study shows
that there is a potential bullwhip effect between companies inbound and outbound logistics flows,
i.e. two internal stocking levels. A see-saw model of the bullwhip effect, and a typology of the
bullwhip effect in intra-organisational echelons, are introduced. The term reversed bullwhip
effect is also introduced. Finally, a model of the bullwhip effect-scenarios in a dynamic business
environment positions these contributions in a wider theoretical and managerial context.

Introduction
Supply chain management (SCM) has been of interest for many years in
literature (Oliver and Webber, 1992; Jones and Riley, 1985, 1987; Houlihan,
1985, 1987; Snowdon, 1988). Stock (2000) states that SCM is an influential
ingredient in todays literature and thinking in the field of logistics. The
management of multiple relationships across the supply chain is often referred
to as SCM (Lambert et al., 1998). Alderson (1957, 1965) recognises the
interdependence between companies business activities in marketing
channels. Forrester (1958) also acknowledges the linkages between business
activities in marketing channels, e.g. in terms of the interactions between the
flows of information, materials, money, and manpower, and capital equipment.
Furthermore, Weld (1916) stresses the importance of addressing the
distribution channel as a whole. SCM addresses the supply chain from the
point of origin to the point of consumption (Mentzer et al., 2001; Lambert, 1992;
Cavinato, 1992). Furthermore, SCM requires co-operation and co-ordination
between companies activities and resources in a supply chain (Xu et al., 2001;
Holmstrom, 1997). Otherwise, the variability of business activities in a supply
chain tend to be amplified as it is moved upstream in the supply chain (Towill,
1996; Lee and Billington, 1992).
Lee et al. (1997a) write that the variance of orders may be larger than that of
sales and the distortion tends to increase as one moves upstream in the supply
chain. Lee et al. (1997b) claim that the information transferred tends to be
distorted and can misguide upstream members in their inventory and
production decisions. This phenomenon is referred to in literature as the

The bullwhip
effect

103
Received September
2001
Revised May 2002
and October 2002

International Journal of Physical

Distribution & Logistics Management
Vol. 33 No. 2, 2003
pp. 103-131
q MCB UP Limited
0960-0035
DOI 10.1108/09600030310469135

IJPDLM
33,2

Downloaded by AIRLANGGA UNIVERSITY At 21:18 26 April 2016 (PT)

104

bullwhip effect (Chen et al., 2000). In fact, practitioners and consultants have
striven to deal with the bullwhip effect, e.g. in the automotive, textile, and retail
industries. In the automotive industry the term just in time (e.g. Sugimore
et al., 1977; Toyoda, 1987) has been used, while in the textile and retail
industries the terms quick response (e.g. Stern et al., 1996) and efficient
consumer response (e.g. Kurt Salmon Associates, 1993; Fernie, 1994) have
been applied. These terms, or business philosophies, aim at reducing the
variability in supply chains, and in the end improve profitability, reduce costs
and increase the overall performance of the supply chain beyond judicial
boundaries as a whole.
Research objective and research question
The bullwhip effect indicates that the inventories in the supply chain tend to be
higher upstream than downstream, e.g. they are caused by factors such as
deficient information sharing, insufficient market data, deficient forecasts or
other uncertainties. Fransoo and Wouters (2000) writes that the bullwhip effect
refers to increasing variability of demand further upstream in the supply chain,
and conclude that the theory of measurement of the bullwhip effect in a
practical setting has received limited attention. The research of the bullwhip
effect has considered inter-organisational echelons, such as two echelons
between companies (e.g. Yu et al., 2001; Chen et al., 2000; Fransoo and Wouters,
2000; Kelle and Milne, 1999), or three/multi echelons between a sequence of
companies (e.g. McCullen and Towill, 2001; Jacobs, 2000; Metters, 1997; Lee
et al., 1997a, b), in supply chains. There is therefore a need for research of the
bullwhip effect on a companys internal inventories, e.g. between a companys
inbound and outbound logistics flows (i.e. two internal stocking levels). The
objective of this research is to explore the bullwhip effect on inventories in
internal echelons.
The process of rational decision making in companies inventory
management is in part based upon the postponement or speculation of
business activities. In some circumstances a company maintains higher levels
of inventories (i.e. speculation), while in others lower levels of inventories are
kept (i.e. postponement), in the inbound and outbound logistics flows. The
process of rational decision making is also influenced by the companies
business activities adding value in a value chain. Lee et al. (1997a) conclude
that the bullwhip effect results from the rational decision making between the
actors in a supply chain (i.e. inter-organisational echelons). This rational
decision making might also be based upon the relationship between actors
within a company (i.e. intra-organisational echelons), such as the actors in
charge of business activities dealing with procurement and physical
distribution. There is a need for research to explore the potential bullwhip
effect in intra-organisational echelons. This research is limited to companies
inventories in inbound and outbound logistics flows (i.e. two internal stocking
levels) and has been formulated as follows: Is there a bullwhip effect in the

Downloaded by AIRLANGGA UNIVERSITY At 21:18 26 April 2016 (PT)

inventories between a companys inbound and outbound logistics flows?. The

inventories of an inbound logistics flow are derived from the procurement of
materials and components from sub-contractors to be used in production. The
inventories of an outbound logistics flow refer to the point of physical
distribution of finished goods to satisfy other subcontractors, customer or
market demand.
Frame of reference
SCM is the overall frame of reference of this research on the bullwhip effect in
companies inbound and outbound logistics flows. SCM used to be simple
compared to what it is today (Levy and Grewal, 2000). Various definitions of
SCM appear in literature (see Table I).
SCM might be seen as a management philosophy that strives to integrate the
dependent activities, actors, and resources between the point of origin and the
point of final consumption. This means that SCM comprises different kinds of
dependencies in, between and across companies in marketing channels.
Mentzer et al. (2001) argue that the definitions of SCM can be classified into
three categories, namely: a management philosophy; the implementation of a
management philosophy; and a set of management processes.
Companies atomistic considerations (i.e. sub-optimisation of business
activities) in a supply chain cause the bullwhip effect to occur. The bullwhip
effect has gained interest in the field of SCM, since SCM requires holistic
considerations of the business activities in supply chains. The holistic
consideration of SCM from the point of origin to the point of consumption is
evident (see Table I). The co-operation and co-ordination between companies
activities and resources is necessary to avoid or minimise the variability
between business activities in the supply chain, such as ordering and sales, and
the inventories in inbound and outbound logistics flows. Otherwise, the
bullwhip effect might affect negatively the overall outcome or performance of
the supply chain. The frame of reference of this research is limited to and
underpinned by the principles of postponement (Alderson, 1950) and
speculation (Bucklin, 1965), the value chain concept (Porter, 1985), and the
bullwhip effect (Lee et al., 1997a, b).
The principles of postponement and speculation
It was previously stated that a bullwhip effect between a companys inbound
and outbound logistics flows should indicate a higher level of inventories in the
inbound logistics flows than in the outbound logistics flows, e.g. caused by
insufficient market data, deficient forecasts or other uncertainties. It could also
be explained by the effects or consequences of the principle of postponement
(Alderson, 1950) and the principle of speculation (Bucklin, 1965).
Alderson (1950, p. 1) writes: Postpone changes in form and identity to the
latest possible point in the marketing flow; postpone changes in inventory
location to the latest possible point in time. The postponement of companies

The bullwhip
effect

105

IJPDLM
33,2

Source

Definition of SCM

Mentzer et al. (2001)

The systematic, strategic co-ordination 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

Lummus et al. (2001)

Includes the logistics flows, customer order management, the

production processes, and the information flows necessary to
monitor all the activities at the supply chain nodes

Mentzer et al. (2000)

The management of close interfirm relationships, and that

understanding partnering is important in developing
successful retail supply chain relationships

Min and Mentzer (2000)

To manage the flow of a distribution channel from the

supplier to the ultimate user

Lambert et al. (1998)

To maximise competitiveness and profitability for the

company as well as the whole supply chain network,
including the end-customer

Carter et al. (1995)

A co-ordinated approach for managing the flow of goods from

suppliers to ultimate consumers

Ellram and Cooper (1993)

An approach whereby the entire network, from the supplier

through to the ultimate customer, is analysed and managed in
order to achieve the best outcome for the whole system

Turner (1993)

A technique that looks at all the links in the chain from raw
materials suppliers, through the various levels of
manufacturing, to warehousing and distribution to the final
customer

Christopher (1992)

Supply chain is the network of organisations that are

involved, through upstream and downstream linkages, in the
different processes and activities that each produce value in
the form of products and services in the hands of the ultimate
consumer

Lambert (1992)

The supply chain is a single entity that aims at satisfying the

needs and wants of the customer, and eventually the ultimate
consumer

Cavinato (1992)

The supply chain consists of actively managed channels of

procurement and distribution and that it is made up of a
group of firms that adds value along the product flow from
original raw materials to final customer

Lee and Billington (1992)

Networks of manufacturing and distribution sites that

procure raw materials, transform them into intermediate and
finished products, and finally distribute the finished products
to customers
(continued)

Downloaded by AIRLANGGA UNIVERSITY At 21:18 26 April 2016 (PT)

106

Table I.
The meaning of
SCM

Downloaded by AIRLANGGA UNIVERSITY At 21:18 26 April 2016 (PT)

Source

Definition of SCM

Scott and Westbrook (1991)

The supply chain is used to refer to the chain linking each

element of the production and supply processes from raw
materials through to the end customer

Novack and Simco (1991)

Covers the flow of goods from the supplier through the

manufacturer and distributor to the end user

Langley and Holcomb (1992)

Focusing attention on the interactions of channel members to

produce an end product or service that will provide best
comparative value for the end user

Stevens (1990)

Controls the flow of material from suppliers, through the

value-adding processes and distribution channels, to
customers

Ritchie (1990)

Considers the supply chain to be a single entity and argues

that the end performance of delivering satisfaction to
customers will only be as good as the weakest link in the
supply chain

Ellram and Cooper (1990)

An integrating philosophy to manage the total flow of a

distribution channel from supplier to ultimate customer

Houlihan (1988)

Covers the flow of goods from supplier through manufacturer

and distributor to the end user

Jones and Riley (1985)

Deals with the total flow of materials from suppliers right

through to the end users

Oliver and Webber (1982)

The marketing channel should be seen as an integrated single

entity

business activities reduces the risk by moving the differentiation nearer to the
time of exchange. It provides a point of departure for a critical examination to
enhance the performance of companies business activities, and for a possible
reduction of the bullwhip effect, in a supply chain. Alderson (1950) states that
the principle of postponement is not an answer to every analytical problem, but
only a major instrument that can be derived from the view that sorting is an
essential function by both the seller and the buyer.
Bucklin (1965) argues that postponement of business activities is only half a
principle and that there must be a converse principle equally significant to a
channel structure, and states: The principle of speculation holds that changes
in form, and the movement of goods to forward inventories, should be made at
the earliest possible time in the marketing flow in order to reduce the costs of
the marketing system. The principle of speculation facilitates a counter-view
in relation to the principal of postponement and enhances a critical examination
to improve the performance of business activities and dealing with the
bullwhip effect. Bucklin (1965, p. 28) comments on the combination of
postponement and speculation of business activities as follows: A speculative

The bullwhip
effect

107

Table I.

IJPDLM
33,2

Downloaded by AIRLANGGA UNIVERSITY At 21:18 26 April 2016 (PT)

108

inventory will appear at each point in a distribution channel whenever its costs
are less than the net savings to both buyer and seller from postponement. In a
managerial context the ultimate goal is to achieve a balance and harmony
between the postponement and speculation of ones business activities. Both
principles contribute to explain the reasoning behind a companys inventory
management, and provide a platform for cost efficient inventory management
in order to deal with the bullwhip effect in supply chains.
The value chain concept
Previously, it has been stated that a bullwhip effect in a companys inbound
and outbound logistics flows should indicate a positive association between the
levels of inbound and outbound inventories, e.g. if the level of inventory
increases in the outbound logistics flows then the level of inventory also
increases in the inbound logistics flows. The disequilibrium between the points
of inventory in a supply chain might be caused by the value adding process in
companies different business activities. Therefore, the occurrence of the
bullwhip effect does not necessarily have to do with demand variability. It
could be explained by the effects or consequences of the value chain concept
(Porter, 1985). The value chain concept is a guide or tool for identifying
different ways of creating customer value (Porter, 1985, pp. 33-4): ... the value
chain disaggregates a firm into its strategically relevant activities... A firm
gains competitive advantage by performing these strategically important
activities more cheaply or better than its competitors. Generally, the value
chain concept shows that the value chain may be useful in terms of identifying
and understanding fundamental aspects to reach competitive strengths on the
market, and how these activities are tied together in order to create value for
the ultimate consumer. Specifically, the value chain concept identifies
strategically relevant activities that create value and costs in a specific
business. These value chain activities are divided into two broad types:
(1) primary activities, which involve in the physical creation of the product,
its sale, its transfer to the buyer and its aftersale activities; and
(2) support activities, which underpin the primary activities, and each other,
by providing purchased inputs, technology, human resources, and
various company activities.
This research is limited to the primary activities of inbound and outbound
logistics.
Often it is argued that each step in the value chain exists because it provides
or improves the value or adds value to the product and attributes value to the
ultimate consumer. Already at the beginning of this century, the idea of the
value-added process was recognised (Weld, 1916, p. 6): At each step an
increment of value is added by those who handle or transform the product.
The value-added approach contributes in part to the understanding of the
bullwhip effect between a companys inbound and outbound logistics flows.

Downloaded by AIRLANGGA UNIVERSITY At 21:18 26 April 2016 (PT)

The creation of value in value chains is often expressed as a successive or

stepwise process in which value increases along a value chain or consecutive
value chains, i.e. so-called value systems (Porter, 1985). From a financial point
of view, the inventory cost per unit is lower upstream than downstream, which
mitigates the effects or consequences of increased variability in the inventory
management upstream in the supply chain.
The bullwhip effect
The dependencies between actors, activities and resources cause negative
consequences when variability occurs upstream or downstream in the supply
chain. Sterman (1989) illustrates that misperceptions about information may
cause human behaviour to over-react. Variability in the business environment
is therefore troublesome to handle in a managerial context. Lee et al. (1997a)
state that the variability could be symptoms of excessive inventory, poor
product forecasts, insufficient or excessive capacities, poor customer service
due to unavailable products or long backlogs, uncertain production planning
(i.e. excessive revisions), and high costs for corrections, such as for expedited
shipments and overtime. Lee et al. (1997b) identify four major causes of the
bullwhip effect, namely demand forecast updating, order batching, price
fluctuation, and rationing and shortage gaming. Xu et al. (2001) present other
observations:
.
when the manufacturers forecasting errors are greater than those of the
retailers before collaboration, co-ordination will be effective in decreasing
the manufacturers safety stocks;
.
when the smoothing constant adopted by the retailer and manufacturer
determines the extent of the effect of co-ordination in terms of reducing
both safety stock and the variances of order releases; and
.
when co-ordination is effective in the case of either non-stationary or
stationary demand, though in some limiting situations the advantage is
greatly reduced.
The bullwhip effect can be mitigated by reduced lead times, revision of
reordering procedures, limitations of price fluctuations, and the integration of
planning and performance measurement (Lee and Billington, 1992; Towill,
1996; Fransoo and Wouters, 2000). Baljko (1999) writes that the bullwhip effect
in the supply chain may be eliminated through measures such as: shared
knowledge with suppliers and customers to better gauge demand, co-operation
with supply chain partners to determine what information is causing an
overreaction, and usage of internet-enabled technology and the application of
the web to speed communications and improve response time. Lee et al. (1997a)
develop a typology, based upon the causes of the bullwhip effect and the
remedies to discuss ways of controlling the bullwhip effect. It is based upon the
underlying co-ordination mechanism in terms of information sharing, channel
alignment, and operational efficiency. Demand information at a downstream

The bullwhip
effect

109

IJPDLM
33,2

Downloaded by AIRLANGGA UNIVERSITY At 21:18 26 April 2016 (PT)

110

site is transmitted upstream in a timely fashion with information sharing. The

co-ordination of pricing, transportation, inventory planning, and ownership
between the upstream and downstream actors in the supply chain refers to
channel alignment. Improved performance, e.g. reduced costs and shortened
lead times, may be achieved through increased operational efficiency.
Chen et al. (2000) quantify the bullwhip effect in a two-stage supply chain
consisting of a single retailer and a single manufacturer based upon a model
that includes two factors, namely demand forecasting and order lead times.
This research illustrates that the bullwhip effect can in part be decreased by
centralising demand information. McCullen and Towill (2001) study a threeechelon supply chain consisting of overseas warehouses (US), a central
finished-goods warehouse, and a UK factory. The results from the supply chain
modelling and the dynamic simulation show four material flow principles,
which can be used to reduce the bullwhip effect, namely control system, time
compression, information transparency, and echelon elimination. Kelle and
Milne (1999) study the bullwhip effect and consider three basic elements of a
supply chain, namely, the purchase order of individual retailers, the aggregate
orders of the retailers, and the suppliers ordering/producing policy. This
research illustrates how demand correlation can decrease the variability of
aggregate orders, and how autocorrelation in buyers orders can smooth the
suppliers ordering policy. It is concluded that the negative effect of high
variability and uncertainty can be decreased by small frequent orders.
Metters (1997) considers multiple companies operating as a serial supply
chain. In this context, end user demand forms the demand for the last company
in the supply chain, but the demand for upstream companies is formed by the
companies in the immediate downstream supply chain. The demand
seasonality and forecast error can increase as one proceeds up the supply
chain. The results of the study indicate that the importance of the bullwhip
effect to a company differs greatly depending upon the specific business
context. Eliminating the bullwhip effect can increase the product profitability
by 10-30 percent. Fransoo and Wouters (2000) argue that the increased demand
variability in supply chains, i.e. the bullwhip effect, is troublesome to measure
in a managerial context and discusse conceptual measurement problems, and
describe experiences in handling with some of these problems in industrial
projects. Empirical results of measurements of the bullwhip effect in two
supply chains are presented. The outcome of this research is a method to
document and define various ways of measuring the bullwhip effect. Yu et al.
(2001) show the benefits of supply chain partnerships through a case study
based upon information sharing. The supply chain actors may gain benefits in
terms of reductions in inventory levels and cost savings from forming
partnerships with another. It is argued that supply chain partnerships can
mitigate deficiencies associated with decentralised control and reduce the
bullwhip effect.

Downloaded by AIRLANGGA UNIVERSITY At 21:18 26 April 2016 (PT)

Xu et al. (2001) examine the improvement of supply chain co-ordination

through more effective information exchange and consistent forecasting. The
result illustrates the negative impact that independent activities performed by
actors of a traditional supply chain have on order release volatility and forecast
error volatility. Xu et al. (2001) show when and to what extent order and
forecast fluctuations can be controlled through collaboration within the supply
chain. The study shows that the bullwhip effect of order releases and
amplifications of safety stock increase within the supply chain even when level
demand patterns with no trend and seasonality are stressed.
Methodology
This research was performed as a non-sponsored and unsolicited mail survey.
Initially, two independent representatives at each company were contacted, in
order to collect separately data for the companies inbound and outbound
logistics flows. The selection of the companies studied was based upon an
identified population (SCB, 1999) in the Swedish vehicle industry (i.e. mostly
sub-contractors in the industry).
Companies in the industry having more than 20 employees were included in
the population. The population consisted of 251 companies and thus 502
executives were selected for the survey. Two matched questionnaires (i.e. one
each concerning the inbound and outbound logistics flows) were developed. Each
company and each respondent was initially contacted by phone in order to select
the two most suitable executives at each company for each questionnaire. A
questionnaire was sent to each of the executives. The selected executives for the
inbound questionnaire, which contained items dealing with the inventories in the
inbound logistics flows, were mainly the purchasing manager or logistics
manager. In the outbound logistics flows the manager in charge of the
production or sales in each company was primarily selected.
In a few companies (approximately 10 per cent) a single executive responded
to both questionnaires, due to the lack of other suitable executives available. In
these cases, the executives received the second questionnaire (i.e. the one
regarding outbound logistics flows) after a delay of two to three weeks in an
attempt to have independent observations from these executives regarding the
inventories in the companies inbound and outbound logistics flows.
A substantial amount of work was performed in the preparation,
implementation and conclusion of the mail survey. For example, each
respondent was briefly introduced to the research project to stimulate his or
her interest and willingness to participate in the survey. In addition, a brief
telephone interview was performed with each of them (approximately five
minutes) in order to have a notion about each companys empirical context
(i.e. in terms of the inbound or outbound logistics flows). Those executives
who did not answer the questionnaire were contacted again by telephone in
order to stimulate their interest to fill in the required answers. The
carefulness in this part of the research led to the achievement of a
satisfactory response rate. A total of 93.2 per cent of the companies responded

The bullwhip
effect

111

IJPDLM
33,2

Downloaded by AIRLANGGA UNIVERSITY At 21:18 26 April 2016 (PT)

112

to at least one of the two questionnaires. A total of 418 responses (total response
rate: 83.2 per cent) was collected from the identified population. The responses
collected for the questionnaires of the inbound logistics flows from subcontractors were 214 units (response rate: 85.3 per cent). The responses collected
for the questionnaires of the outbound logistics flows to customers were 204 units
(response rate: 81.3 per cent).
An analysis of non-response bias was performed in order to clarify if the nonresponse bias in the survey might affect the results of this study, and if there
were any differences between the companies who answered or participated in the
survey, and the few who did not. The analysis of non-response bias included all
non-response companies that did not answer either of the two questionnaires
used. The principal reasons why they did not participate in the survey was either
that they were too occupied at the time of the research, that they had a policy to
never participate in surveys, or simply that they were not interested in
participating. A non-parametric test (chi square-test: Pearson) was used for the
analysis of non-response bias, using such variables as the number of employees
and the total company sales. There existed no significant difference (significance
, 5 per cent) between obtained responses and non-responses.
Hypotheses
A bullwhip effect between a companys inbound and outbound logistics flows
should indicate a higher level of inventories in the inbound logistics flows than
in the outbound logistics flows. In addition, a bullwhip effect in a companys
inbound and outbound logistics flows should indicate a positive association
between the levels of inventories. For example, if the level of inventory
increases in the outbound logistics flows then the level of inventory also
increases in the inbound logistics flows. Therefore, two hypotheses have been
formulated as follows:
H0a. There is no difference between companies inventories in the inbound
and outbound logistics flows
H0b. There is no association between companies inventories in the inbound
and outbound logistics flows
Empirical findings
A selection of univariate, bivariate, and multivariate statistical techniques was
used to analyse the collected data on inventories from the companies inbound
and outbound logistics flows (e.g. Norusis, 1993, 1994). A total of 13 items were
used to measure and estimate the inventories in the companies inbound and
outbound logistics flows (see the Appendix). Initially, these items were
structured according to three pre-specified dimensions, namely inventory
turnover (i.e. B1-B6), lead time (i.e. B7-B11) and inventory trend (i.e. B12 and
B13). A variety of items based upon various dimensions have been applied in
order to test the stability and randomness of the collected answers.

Downloaded by AIRLANGGA UNIVERSITY At 21:18 26 April 2016 (PT)

Characteristics of multivariate analyses

The data collected was also analysed statistically using factor analysis. A
confirmatory approach and an R factor analysis was applied on the collected
data (e.g. Norusis, 1994 and Hair et al., 1992). A component model was used to
summarise the original variance of the variables in a minimum number of
factors. An orthogonal solution was applied to extract the factors in such a way
that the factor axes were maintained at right angles to one another. The
orthogonal approach of Varimax was used to rotate the initial factor solution,
which focused on simplifying the columns of the factor matrix. In addition, the
orthogonal rotation procedure was applied, since it eliminates the collinearity
between factors. Factors that have eigenvalues greater than one were
considered as significant. These factors have been selected and included in the
final factor solutions. Factor loadings above 0.3 were interpreted as significant
in the tables (Hair et al., 1992, p. 239).
Characteristics of the factor analyses for the inventories in companies inbound
and outbound logistics flows
The factor solutions for the companies inbound and outbound inventories
account approximately for 71.2 per cent to 73.4 per cent of the total variance.
The communalities for the variables are within the range from 0.59 to 0.80.
Factor loadings above 0.3 are significant (Hair et al., 1992, p. 239). From each
questionnaire, eight items remain in the final factor solutions. Factor scores are
computed for each factor in order to be used in the section where the
association between the companies inventories in inbound and outbound
logistics flows are tested.
Factor analysis inventory items in the inbound logistics flows
The outcome of the factor analysis (see Table II) of the items in the inbound
questionnaire on inventories turned out to be significant (KMO 0:475;
Bartletts test: approx. Chi-square 156:194; df 28; sig: 0:000). Four
factors were identified:
(1) Factor 1 consists of the variables B1 and B3, which represent the
highest/lowest inventory turnovers in the inbound logistics flows, and is
labelled inbound inventory turnover.
(2) Factor 2 consists of the variables B7 and B9, which represent the
shortest/longest lead times from sub-contractors, and is labelled inbound
lead times.
(3) Factor 3 consists of the variables B2 and B8, which represent the highest
inventory turnovers and the shortest lead times. This factor is labelled
inbound turnover/lead time.
(4) Factor 4 consists of the variables B12 and B13, which represent the
trends for the lead times and the inventory levels. This factor is labelled
inbound inventory level trends.

The bullwhip
effect

113

IJPDLM
33,2

Downloaded by AIRLANGGA UNIVERSITY At 21:18 26 April 2016 (PT)

114

Table II.
Factor analysis of
inventory items in
the inbound
logistics flows

Item

Factor
3

Communality
per variable

B3.
B1.
B7.
B9.
B8.
B2.

0.881
0.852
20.025
20.059
20.076

0.021
20.097
0.884
0.788
20.003

0.088
2 0.005
0.140
2 0.320
0.822

2 0.031
0.055
0.062
0.005
2 0.131

0.785
0.738
0.806
0.727
0.698

0.161
20.038
0.060

20.096
0.078
20.015

0.738
0.097
2 0.111

0.113
0.821
0.801

0.593
0.691
0.658

19.2

17.9

17.1

16.9

19.2

37.1

54.3

71.2

Lowest inventory turnovers

Highest inventory turnovers
Shortest lead times
Longest lead times
Share of shortest lead times
Share of highest inventory
turnovers
B12. Lead time trend
B13. Inventory level trend
Total explained variance per
factor (per cent)
Cumulative explained total
variance (per cent)

Factor analysis inventory items in outbound logistics flows

The outcome of the factor analysis (see Table III) of the items in the outbound
questionnaire on inventories turned out to be significant (KMO 0:556;
Bartletts test: approx. Chi-square 152:192; df 28, sig: 0:000). Four
factors were identified:
(1) Factor 1 consists of the variables B1 and B3, which represent the
highest/lowest inventory turnovers in the inbound logistics flows, and is
labelled outbound inventory turnover.
(2) Factor 2 consists of the variables B7 and B9, which represent the
shortest/longest lead times from sub-contractors, and is labelled
outbound lead times.
(3) Factor 3 consists of the variables B2 and B10, which represent the
highest inventory turnovers and the longest lead times. This factor is
labelled outbound turnover/lead time.
Factor
Item

Table III.
Factor analysis of
inventory items in
the outbound
logistics flows

B1. Highest inventory turnovers

0.876 2 0.043
0.063 2 0.154
B3. Lowest inventory turnovers
0.876
0.037
0.142
0.100
B9. Longest lead times
20.033
0.879 20.064
0.025
B7. Shortest lead times
0.029
0.808
0.254
0.034
B10. Share of longest lead times
0.003
0.183
0.787
0.169
B2. Share of highest inventory turnovers
0.233 2 0.014
0.779 2 0.167
B13. Inventory level trend
20.007
0.083 20.210
0.820
B12. Lead time trend
20.045 2 0.022
0.221
0.796
Total explained variance per factor (per cent) 19.9
18.4
17.7
17.5
Cumulative explained total variance (per cent) 19.9
38.3
56.0
73.4

Community
per variable
0.798
0.799
0.778
0.719
0.682
0.689
0.723
0.685

Downloaded by AIRLANGGA UNIVERSITY At 21:18 26 April 2016 (PT)

(4) Factor 4 consists of the variables B12 and B13, which represent the
trends for the lead times and the inventory levels. This factor is labelled
outbound inventory level trends.
Differences and associations between inbound and outbound inventories
The comparisons between the inventories in companies inbound and outbound
logistics flows are analysed in this section (i.e. H0a and H0b). The differences are
tested by the aid of three different statistical bivariate tests (e.g. Norusis, 1993).
One parametric test is applied, namely the paired samples t-test. In addition,
two non-parametric tests are applied as a complement, namely the sign test and
the Wilcoxon matched pairs signed-ranks test. The associations or the so-called
correlations are tested by the aid of three different statistical bivariate
correlations tests (e.g. Norusis, 1993). One parametric test is applied, namely
the Pearson correlation coefficient. In addition, two non-parametric tests are
applied as a complement, namely the Spearman rank correlation coefficient and
the Kendall rank correlation coefficient.
It has been shown above that different dimensions and various items have
been used to estimate the inventories in companies inbound and outbound
logistics flows. In addition, different scales have been used in order to evaluate
the stability and the randomness of the statistical outcomes shown in
Tables IV-VI. The following abbreviations are used:
P1

= paired samples t-test;

= Wilcoxon matched pairs signed-ranks test;

= sign test;

= Pearson correlation coefficient;

= Spearman rank correlation coefficient;

= Kendall rank correlation coefficient;

= correlation (the direction of a significant association: (+) positive/(2)

negative);

= a significant difference or correlation of 5 per cent or less; and

**

= a significant difference or correlation of 1 per cent or less.

The three inventory dimensions in the bivariate analyses are inventory

turnover, lead time and inventory level trend in the companies inbound and
outbound logistics flows. These dimensions are used to categorise the bivariate
analyses performed in order to find the potential differences and the potential
associations between companies inbound and outbound logistics flows.
Significant differences and significant correlations between the inbound and
the outbound inventories of the three dimensions are illustrated in the

The bullwhip
effect

115

Table IV.
Inventory turnovers
in inbound and
outbound logistics
flows

Note: See text for explanation of Table

(2 )
(2 )
(2 )
(2 )
(2 )

65.1
41.2
15.0
14.7
4.3

B1.
B2.
B3.
B4.
B5.

Highest inventory turnovers

Share of highest inventory turnovers
Lowest inventory turnovers
Share of lowest inventory turnovers
Average inventory turnover

Inbound
184.9
52.7
64.5
19.1
4.5

(+)
(+)
(+)
(+)
(+)

Outbound

Outbound
Inventory turnover

Variable
Item

Factor

**
**
*

P1
**
**
**

**
**

Difference
W
S1

0.715**
0.165
0.888**
0.163
0.316**

P
0.880**

0.329**
0.136*
0.293**
0.141
0.260**

S
0.435**
0.186*
0.376**
0.187
0.316**

Association
K

Association
K
S
0.101
0.142

116

Inbound
Inventory turnover

Downloaded by AIRLANGGA UNIVERSITY At 21:18 26 April 2016 (PT)

+
+
+

C
+

IJPDLM
33,2

Variable

Factor

(+/2)
(2)
(+)
(2)
(+)

10.7 (+/2 )
32.8 (+)
53.4 (2)
29.1 (+)
3.5 (2)

Outbound

Outbound
Lead time

Inbound

B7. Shortest lead times

4.5
B8. Share of shortest lead times
23.3
B9. Longest lead times
73.8
B10. Share of longest lead times
17.9
B11. Average lead time
3.8
Note: See text for explanation of Table

Item

Inbound
Lead time

*
*
**

P1
**
**
**

*
**
**

Difference
W
S1

0.046
0.052
0.338**
0.073
0.214**

P
0.277**

Downloaded by AIRLANGGA UNIVERSITY At 21:18 26 April 2016 (PT)

0.187**
0.101
0.181**
0.134*
0.167**

Association
K

0.238**
0.132
0.254**
0.178*
0.206**

+
+
+

C
+

Association
K
S
0.166*
0.245*

The bullwhip
effect

117

Table V.
Lead times in
inbound and
outbound logistics
flows

Table VI.
Inventory trends in
inbound and
outbound logistics
flows
4.6 (+)
3.5 (+)
3.6 (2 )

B6. Trend inventory turnover

B12. Trend lead time
B13. Trend inventory size

Note: See text for explanation of Table

Inbound
4.5 (2)
3.2 (2)
3.8 (+)

Outbound

Outbound
Trend

Item

Variable

Factor

*
*

P1
*
*

Difference
W
S1

0.230**
0.233**
0.205**

P
0.191*

0.232**
0.226**
0.176**

Association
K

0.259**
0.254**
0.207**

Association
K
S
0.136*
0.206*

118

Inbound
Trend

Downloaded by AIRLANGGA UNIVERSITY At 21:18 26 April 2016 (PT)

+
+
+

C
+

IJPDLM
33,2

Downloaded by AIRLANGGA UNIVERSITY At 21:18 26 April 2016 (PT)

Tables IV-VI. Note that an asterisks (i.e. *) is used to indicate a significance

level of 5 per cent or less in terms of differences or associations between
variables. Two asterisks (i.e. **) are used to indicate a significance level of 1 per
cent or less. The symbols plus and minus within brackets in the tables (i.e.
+ or 2) illustrate if the mean value is lower or higher in the inbound or
outbound logistics flows (see also the Appendix). The factor scores saved in the
factor analyses are used in the bivariate analyses.
There is a higher inventory turnover revealed in the companies outbound
logistics flows than in the inbound logistics flows (see Table IV). In addition,
the companies that have a high level of outbound inventory turnover tend to
have a high level of inbound inventory turnover and vice versa.
The lead times are shorter in the outbound logistics flows than in the
inbound logistics flows (see Table V). In addition, the companies that have
short lead times in the outbound logistics flows tend to have short lead times in
the inbound logistics flows, and vice versa.
The inventory level trends are slightly downwards in both the inbound and
outbound logistics flows (see Table VI). In addition, there is an association
between the inventory trends in the inbound and outbound logistics flows. The
companies overall inventories are higher in the inbound logistics flows than in
the outbound logistics flows.
The empirical findings indicate that the inventories upstream in the supply
chain tend to be higher and associated with the downstream inventories in the
supply chain. Apparently, there is a potential bullwhip effect between inbound
and outbound logistics flows. This implies that the companies in a managerial
context have to consider upstream activities in the supply chain when they are
striving to improve their performance in the interface towards their present and
potential customers, and vice versa. Finally, there are significant correlations
between the inventory factors identified in the inbound and outbound logistics
flows and the size of the company. For example, larger companies have a
higher inventory turnover and more upward lead-time trends and inventory
level trends than do smaller companies in the inbound logistics flows. In
addition, larger companies have a higher inventory turnover, shorter lead times
and more upward lead-time trends and inventory level trends than do smaller
companies in the outbound logistics flows.
Theoretical and managerial implications
The fact that the bullwhip effect potentially exists between companies inbound
and outbound logistics flows means that companies apply to a larger extent the
principle of postponement in outbound logistics flows, and apply to a larger
extent the principle of speculation in inbound logistics flows.
The gap between speculation and postponement
The bullwhip effect in a companys inventory management of inbound and
outbound logistics flows depends upon the gap between speculation and

The bullwhip
effect

119

IJPDLM
33,2

Downloaded by AIRLANGGA UNIVERSITY At 21:18 26 April 2016 (PT)

120

postponement of business activities (see Figure 1). In a managerial context, the

bullwhip effect is eliminated if there is no gap between the degree of
speculation and postponement of business activities in a companys inventory
management of inbound and outbound logistics flows. No gap between the
degree of speculation and postponement of business activities does not
necessarily represent an ideal situation, since the bullwhip effect only refers to
the increased variability upstream in a supply chain. Therefore, the bullwhip
effect has to be judged in the context of the overall performance of inventory
management in the supply chain. Other aspects of importance in the inventory
management of inbound and outbound logistics flows, beside the bullwhip
effect, are the leanness, responsiveness, and agility of business activities. These
are crucial issues to be taken into consideration, since there is added a value
(and costs too) for each business activity performed in the supply chain.
The rationale for a companys application of postponement (Alderson, 1950)
and speculation (Bucklin, 1965) in the inbound and outbound logistics flows
might also be explained by the value chain concept (Porter, 1985), which
indicates that there is an adding of value in a companies successive business
activities. Consequently, the finished goods have generated costs that usually
represent a higher value. The financial cost of the inventories is higher in the
outbound logistics flows, which force companies to be more restrictive in
maintaining these inventories. The value-adding process is more important
than the bullwhip effect itself.
The see-saw model of the bullwhip effect
In this research, the gap between the degree of speculation and postponement
of business activities in inventory management is assumed to influence the
bullwhip effect between a companys inbound and outbound logistics flows.
The empirical findings of this research indicate that there are associations and
differences between a companys inventories in the inbound and outbound
logistics flows, which indicate a potential bullwhip effect. In a managerial
context it is preferable to maintain a balance between the speculation and
postponement of business activities in order to reduce the impact of the
bullwhip effect in the supply chain. The importance of the relationship between
the degree of speculation and postponement of business activities in a

Figure 1.
The bullwhip effect the
gap between speculation
and postponement of
business activities

Downloaded by AIRLANGGA UNIVERSITY At 21:18 26 April 2016 (PT)

companys inventory management of inbound and outbound logistics flows

may be described through the see-saw model of the bullwhip effect (see
Figure 2).
On the one hand, if there is a high degree of speculation (i.e. a low degree of
postponement) in inbound logistics flows and a high degree of postponement
(i.e. a low degree of speculation) in outbound logistics flows, then the bullwhip
effect is high (i.e. an upstream unbalanced see-saw scenario). On the other hand,
if there is a low degree of speculation (i.e. a high degree of postponement) in
inbound logistics flows and a low degree of postponement (i.e. a high degree of
speculation) in outbound logistics flows, then the bullwhip effect might also be
interpreted as being high (i.e. an downstream unbalanced see-saw scenario).
The latter is a kind of reversed bullwhip effect in a supply chain (see Figure 3).
It may occur when there are uncertainties upstream in the supply chain, e.g.
limited production capacity, product quality deficiencies, unreliable
deliveries/transports or inaccurate information sharing. Finally, if there is a
balance in the degree of speculation (or postponement) between inbound and
outbound logistics flows, then by definition there is no bullwhip effect.

The bullwhip
effect

121

A typology of the bullwhip effect

The bullwhip effect is usually explored in terms of increased upstream
variability, but under some circumstances the supply chain variability may
also increase downstream in the supply chain. It is therefore important to
extend the meaning of the bullwhip effect to consider both downstream and
upstream variability caused by the gap (or unbalance) between companies
speculation and postponement of business activities in the inventory

Figure 2.
The see-saw model of the
bullwhip effect

Figure 3.
A typology of the
bullwhip effect based
upon the postponement
and speculation of
business activities in
intra-organisational
echelons

IJPDLM
33,2

Downloaded by AIRLANGGA UNIVERSITY At 21:18 26 April 2016 (PT)

122

management of the supply chain. The balance between the degree of

speculation and postponement of business activities in a companys inbound
and outbound logistics flows may reduce the impact on both the bullwhip effect
and the reversed bullwhip effect in a supply chain. The latter is an extension of
the construct of bullwhip effect. In some circumstances, it may be appropriate
for a company to let the bullwhip effect to occur, when, for example, there is a
temporary uncertainty upstream in the supply chain due to unforeseen changes
in the supply chain network structure. Likewise, it may be appropriate to let the
reversed bullwhip effect occur, when for example, there is a temporary
uncertainty downstream in the supply chain due to extraordinary happenings
in the competitive environment in the marketplace. This motivates the
introduction of the construct of reversed bullwhip effect.
A typology of the bullwhip effect is introduced (see Figure 3) that classifies a
set of potential bullwhip effects in intra-organisational echelons. The typology
consists of two intra-organisational echelons, namely a companys inbound and
outbound logistics flows. Each echelon is divided into the principle of
speculation and the principle of postponement of business activities.
The typology of the bullwhip effect focuses on the degree of equilibrium
between the principles of postponement and speculation in a companys
inventory management of business activities in inbound and outbound
logistics flows. The typology consists of four cells (see Figure 3). In each cell
there is illustrated a bullwhip effect. Each cell in the typology has unique
characteristics that separate them from each other. On the one hand a bullwhip
effect signifies that the principle of speculation dominates a companys
inventory management of business activities to a larger extent in the inbound
logistics flows (i.e. the inventories are higher) than in the outbound logistics
flows (i.e. the inventories are lower). This is the traditional approach of the
bullwhip effect in supply chains. On the other hand, a reversed bullwhip effect
represents a non-traditional approach of the bullwhip effect in supply chains.
This signifies that the principle of speculation dominates a companys
inventory management of business activities to a larger extent in the outbound
logistics flows (i.e. the inventories are higher) than in the inbound logistics
flows (i.e. the inventories are lower). A no bullwhip effect signifies that there is
a balance between a companys inventory management of business activities in
inbound and outbound logistics flows. This means that the principle of
speculation (or postponement) dominates equally in a companys inventory
management of business activities in inbound and outbound logistics flows. As
indicated previously, the typology may be applicable in an inter-organisational
context too. This means that the dimensions may be changed to an interorganisational context. The dimension of upstream replaces the dimension of
inbound logistics flows. The dimension of downstream replaces the dimension
of outbound logistics flows. The different bullwhip effects are interpreted in the
same way as for the intra-organisational context.

Downloaded by AIRLANGGA UNIVERSITY At 21:18 26 April 2016 (PT)

A model of bullwhip effect scenarios in a dynamic business environment

The typology of the bullwhip effect (see Figure 3) based upon the
postponement and speculation of business activities in intra-organisational
echelons may be used to classify a focal companys bullwhip effect scenario
between inbound and outbound logistics flows. It may be used for teaching and
training purposes, as well as to position and compare the outcome of other
replicating studies of the bullwhip effect in the automotive industry. The
typology may be positioned into wider theoretical and managerial contexts,
such as the generic dependencies in the business environment and a network
approach (see Figure 4).
There are three generic categories of dependencies (Svensson, 2002) between
buyers and sellers in the marketplace of interest for the typology of the
bullwhip effect, namely:
(1) time dependence;
(2) functional dependence; and
(3) relationship dependence.
The relevance of time dependence is motivated by the fact that time issues have
become increasingly important in the management of recent marketing
channels in different industries that emphasise leanness (Lambert et al., 1998).
For example, the automotive industry is influenced by just-in-time principles
(Sugimore et al., 1977; Toyoda, 1987). Time dependence may be divided into
time compression and order response on one hand, and agility, the ability to
change direction, on the other. There is also a functional dependence between
companies (Bucklin, 1966; Alderson, 1954; Stigler, 1951). Functional
dependence refers to where companies business activities are specialised
and complement each other in channels or networks. There is a relationship
dependence between companies business activities (Hakansson and Snehota,
1995; Morgan and Hunt, 1994; Gronroos, 1990; Bucklin, 1966; Alderson, 1954;
Stigler, 1951). Relationship dependence refers to business activities being
dependent upon the interaction process between companies in marketing
channels. These generic dependencies create a dynamic business environment
on a micro level. These dependencies influence and may be incorporated into
the context of the typology of the bullwhip effect in Figure 3.
The network model (Hakansson, 1987; Hakansson and Snehota, 1995)
consists of three components, such as actors, activities, and resources. This
model contributes to the overall context of the typology of the bullwhip effect.
Actors may be a company, a group of companies, an individual, or a group of
individuals. Activities are different business functions performed in the
business environment. Resources are the tangible and intangible assets for
actors to perform business activities. This means that actors consume
resources when activities are performed. These components are
interdependent, which means that as one change the others change to some

The bullwhip
effect

123

IJPDLM
33,2

Downloaded by AIRLANGGA UNIVERSITY At 21:18 26 April 2016 (PT)

124

Figure 4.
A model of bullwhipeffect scenarios in a
dynamic business
environment

extent. These three components influence and may be incorporated into the
context of the typology of the bullwhip effect in Figure 3.
Based upon the previous theoretical frameworks and proposed
incorporations into the context of the typology of the bullwhip effect in
Figure 3, a model of bullwhip effect scenarios in a dynamic business

Downloaded by AIRLANGGA UNIVERSITY At 21:18 26 April 2016 (PT)

environment is introduced in Figure 4. The model considers the generic

dependencies between business activities and the components of the network
model, in a dynamic business environment. The model becomes dynamic since
its various components are interdependent with the dimensions of speculation
and postponement of business activities. This means that a change in one of the
components may have an impact on the others, and vice versa. The model
considers the generic dependencies between the business activities, the type of
logistics flows, and the components of the network model, in the business
environment.
This model suggests that a bullwhip-effect scenario occurs when the
degree of speculation in the inbound logistics flows in relation to the degree
of postponement in the outbound flows is stronger. The impact of the
generic dependencies on the actors, the activities, and the resources is
stronger in the inbound logistics flows (than in the outbound logistics flows)
based upon high levels of dependencies between them in the dynamic
business environment. A reversed-bullwhip-effect scenario occurs when the
degree of speculation in the inbound logistics flows in relation to the degree
of postponement in the outbound flows is weaker. The impact of the generic
dependencies on the actors, the activities, and the resources is weaker in the
inbound logistics flows (than in the outbound logistics flows) based upon
low levels of dependencies between them in the dynamic business
environment. A no-bullwhip-effect scenario occurs when the degree of
speculation in the inbound logistics flows in relation to the degree of
postponement in the outbound flows is equal. The impact of the generic
dependencies on the actors, the activities, and the resources is equal in the
inbound and outbound logistics flows based upon the levels of dependencies
between them in the dynamic business environment.
Conclusions and suggestions for further research
This research applied the construct of bullwhip effect in a non-traditional
context. It was explored in intra-organisational echelons, i.e. two internal
stocking levels. It is argued that the bullwhip effect in a companys inventory
management of inbound and outbound logistics flows depends in part upon the
gap between the degree of speculation and postponement of business activities.
It is also argued that the bullwhip effect is caused by the value adding of
business activities in supply chains. The study showed that there is a potential
bullwhip effect between companies inbound and outbound logistics flows. A
see-saw model of the bullwhip effect, and a typology of the bullwhip effect in
intra-organisational echelons, were introduced. The term reversed bullwhip
effect was also introduced. Finally, a model of the bullwhip-effect scenarios in
a dynamic business environment positioned these contributions in a wider
theoretical and managerial context. This model is applicable in an intra- and
inter-organisational context.

The bullwhip
effect

125

IJPDLM
33,2

Downloaded by AIRLANGGA UNIVERSITY At 21:18 26 April 2016 (PT)

126

Based upon the multivariate and bivariate analyses of this research, the null
hypotheses H0a and H0b. It is concluded that companies inventories are
significantly higher in the inbound logistics flows than in the outbound
logistics flows. In addition, the variability between the inventories in
companies inbound and outbound logistics flows tends to pull in the same
direction. It is therefore interpreted that the empirical findings of this research
indicate a potential bullwhip effect in intra-organisational echelons based upon
companies inbound and outbound logistics flows.
This research has been limited to the difference and association between two
intra-organisational echelons. The relative change of the size of variability
between inbound and outbound logistics flows has been beyond the scope of
this research. Therefore, further research might explore this specific limitation
in intra-organisational echelons. Further research may also be dedicated to
exploring the impact of the principles of postponement and speculation on the
occurrence of the bullwhip effect in intra- and inter-organisational multiechelons in supply chains across industries. Causes of the bullwhip effect have
to be explored beyond current theoretical contexts, such as the application of
other non-traditional theoretical concepts and frameworks. The dynamic
business environment may be considered in terms of the generic dependencies
in a network context.
References
Alderson, W. (1950), Marketing efficiency and the principle of postponement, Cost and Profit
Outlook, Vol. 3 No. 4, September.
Alderson, W. (1954), Factors governing the development of marketing channels, in Clewett, R.
(Ed.), Marketing Channels for Manufactured Products, Richard D. Irwin, Inc., Homewood,
IL, pp. 5-34.
Alderson, W. (1957), Marketing Behavior and Executive Action: A Functionalist Approach to
Marketing Theory, Richard D. Irwin, Inc., Homewood, IL.
Alderson, W. (1965), Dynamic Marketing Behavior: A Functionalist Theory of Marketing, Richard
D. Irwin, Inc., Homewood, IL.
Baljko, J.L. (1999), Experts warns of bullwhip effect, Electronic Buyers News, No. 1170,
26 July.
Bucklin, L.P. (1965), Postponement, speculation and the structure of distribution channels,
Journal of Marketing Research, February, pp. 26-31.
Bucklin, L.P. (1966), A Theory of Distribution Channel Structure, University of California,
Berkeley, CA.
Carter, J.R., Ferrin, B.G. and Carter, C.R. (1995), The effect of less-than-truckload rates on the
purchase order lot size decision, Transportation Journal, Vol. 34 No. 3, pp. 35-44.
Cavinato, J.L. (1992), A total cost/value model for supply chain competitiveness, Journal of
Business Logistics, Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 285-301.
Chen, F., Drezner, Z., Ryan, J.K. and Simchi-Levi, D. (2000), Quantifying the bullwhip effect in a
simple supply chain: the impact of forecasting, lead times, and information, Management
Science, Vol. 46 No. 3, pp. 436-43.

Downloaded by AIRLANGGA UNIVERSITY At 21:18 26 April 2016 (PT)

Christopher, M. (1992), Logistics: The Strategic Issues, Chapman & Hall, London.
Ellram, L.M. and Cooper, M.C. (1990), Supply chain management, partnerships and the shipperthird party relationships, International Journal of Logistics Management, Vol. 4 No. 2,
pp. 1-10.
Ellram, L.M. and Cooper, M.C. (1993), Characteristics of supply chain management and the
implications for purchasing and logistics strategy, International Journal of Logistics
Management, Vol. 4 No. 2, pp. 1-10.
Fernie, J. (1994), Quick response: an international perspective, International Journal of Physical
Distribution & Logistics Management, Vol. 24 No. 6, pp. 38-46.
Forrester, J.W. (1958), Industrial dynamics: a major breakthrough for decision makers,
Harvard Business Review, Vol. 58 No. 1, pp. 37-66.
Fransoo, J.C. and Wouters, M.J.F. (2000), Measuring the bullwhip effect in the supply chain,
Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 78-89.
Gronroos, C. (1990), Service Management and Marketing, ISL Forlag, Goteborg.
Hair, J.F. Jr, Anderson, R.E., Tatham, R.L. and Black, W.C. (1992), Multivariate Data Analysis with
Readings, Macmillan Publishing Company, New York, NY.
Hakansson, H. (Ed.) (1987), Industrial Technological Development: A Network Approach,
Croom-Helm, London.
Hakansson, H. and Snehota, I. (1995), Developing Relationships in Business Networks, Routledge,
London.
Holmstrom, J. (1997), Product range management: a case study of supply chain operations in the
European grocery industry, Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, Vol. 2
No. 3, pp. 107-15.
Houlihan, J.B. (1985), International supply chain management, International Journal of Physical
Distribution and Materials Management, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 22-38.
Houlihan, J.B. (1987), International supply chain management, International Journal of Physical
Distribution and Materials Management, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 51-66.
Houlihan, J.B. (1988), International supply chains: a new approach, Management Decision,
Vol. 26 No. 3, pp. 13-19.
Jacobs, F.R. (2000), Playing the distribution game over the Internet, Production and Operations
Management, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 31-9.
Jones, T.C. and Riley, D.W. (1985), Using inventory for competitive advantage through supply
chain management, International Journal of Physical Distribution and Materials
Management, Vol. 15 No. 5, pp. 16-26.
Jones, T.C. and Riley, D.W. (1987), Using inventory for competitive advantage through supply
chain management, International Journal of Physical Distribution and Materials
Management, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 94-104.
Kelle, P. and Milne, A. (1999), The effect of (s, S) ordering policy on the supply chain,
International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 59, pp. 113-22.
Kurt Salmon Associates (1993), Efficient Consumer Response: Enhancing Consumer Value in the
Grocery Industry, Food Marketing Institute, Washington, DC.
Lambert, D.M. (1992), Developing a customer-focused logistics strategy, Asia Pacific
International Journal of Business Logistics, Vol. 5 No. 3, pp. 12-19.
Lambert, D.M., Cooper, M.C. and Pagh, J.D. (1998), Supply chain management: implementation
issues and research opportunities, International Journal of Logistics Management, Vol. 9
No. 2, pp. 1-19.

The bullwhip
effect

127

IJPDLM
33,2

Downloaded by AIRLANGGA UNIVERSITY At 21:18 26 April 2016 (PT)

128

Langley, C.J. Jr and Holcomb, M.C. (1992), Creating logistics customer value, Journal of
Business Logistics, Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 1-27.
Lee, H. and Billington, C. (1992), Managing supply chain inventory: pitfalls and opportunities,
Sloan Management Review, Vol. 33 No. 3, pp. 65-73.
Lee, H.L., Padmanabhan, V. and Whang, S. (1997a), The bullwhip effect in supply chains, Sloan
Management Review, Vol. 38 No. 3, pp. 93-102.
Lee, H.L., Padmanabhan, V. and Whang, S. (1997b), Information distortion in a supply chain: the
bullwhip effect, Management Science, Vol. 43 No. 4, pp. 546-58.
Levy, M. and Grewal, D. (2000), Guest editors overview of the issue: supply chain management
in a networked economy, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 76 No. 4, pp. 415-29.
Lummus, R.R., Krumwlede, D.W. and Vokurka, R.J. (2001), The relationship of logistics to
supply chain management: developing a common industry definition, Industrial
Management & Data Systems No. 108/8, pp. 426-31.
McCullen, P. and Towill, D. (2001), Achieving lean supply through agile manufacturing,
Integrated Manufacturing Systems, Vol. 12 No. 7, pp. 524-33.
Mentzer, J.T., Min, S. and Zacharia, Z.G. (2000), The nature of interfirm partnering in supply
chain management, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 76 No. 4, pp. 549-68.
Mentzer, J.T., DeWitt, W., Keebler, J.S., Min, S., Nix, N.W., Smith, C.D. and Zacharia, Z.G. (2001),
Defining supply chain management, Journal of Business Logistics, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 1-25.
Metters, R. (1997), Quantifying the bullwhip effect in supply chains, Journal of Operations
Management, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 89-100.
Min, S. and Mentzer, J.T. (2000), The role of marketing in supply chain management,
International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, Vol. 30 No. 9,
pp. 765-87.
Morgan, R.M. and Hunt, S.D. (1994), The commitment-trust theory of relationship marketing,
Journal of Marketing, Vol. 58 No. 3, pp. 20-38.
Norusis, M.J. (1993), SPSS for Windows: Base System Users Guide Release 6.0, SPSS Inc.,
Chicago, IL.
Norusis, M.J. (1994), SPSS Professional Statistics 6.1, SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL.
Novack, R.A. and Simco, S.W. (1991), The industrial procurement process: a supply chain
perspective, Journal of Business Logistics, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 145-67.
Oliver, R.K. and Webber, M.D. (1992), Supply-chain management: logistics catches up with
strategy, in Christopher, M. (Ed.), Logistics: The Strategic Issues, Chapman & Hall,
London, pp. 63-75.
Porter, M.E. (1985), Competitive Advantage: Creating and Sustaining Superior Performance, Free
Press, New York, NY.
Ritchie, P. (1990), McDonalds: a winner through logistics, International Journal of Physical
Distribution & Logistics Management, Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 21-4.
SCB (1999), Statistiska Centralbyran, Stockholm.
Scott, C. and Westbrook, R. (1991), New strategic tools for supply chain management,
International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, Vol. 21 No. 1,
pp. 23-33.
Snowdon, M. (1988), Moving towards a single market, International Journal of Technology
Management, Vol. 3 No. 6, pp. 643-55.
Sterman, J.D. (1989), Modeling managerial behavior: misperceptions of feedback in a dynamic
decision making experiment, Management Science, Vol. 35 No. 3, pp. 321-39.

Downloaded by AIRLANGGA UNIVERSITY At 21:18 26 April 2016 (PT)

Stern, L.W., El-Ansary, A.I. and Coughlan, A.T. (1996), Marketing Channels, Prentice-Hall
International, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Stevens, G.C. (1990), Successful supply-chain management, Management Decision, Vol. 28
No. 8, pp. 25-30.
Stigler, G.J. (1951), The division of labor is limited by the extent of the market, The Journal of
Political Economy, Vol. LIX, June, pp. 185-93.
Stock, J.R. (2000), Editorial, International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics
Management, Vol. 30 No. 9, p. 729.
Sugimore, Y., Kusunoki, K., Cho, F. and Uchikawa, S. (1977), Toyota production system and
Kanban system: materialization of just-in-time and respect-for-human system,
International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 15 No. 6, pp. 553-64.
Svensson, G. (2002), The theoretical foundation of supply chain management: a functionalist
theory of marketing, International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics
Management, Vol. 32 No. 9, pp. 734-54.
Towill, D. (1996), Time compression and the supply chain a guided tour, Supply Chain
Management: An International Journal, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 15-27.
Toyoda, E. (1987), Toyota: First Fifty Years in Motion, Kodansha International, Tokyo.
Turner, J.R. (1993), Integrated supply chain management: whats wrong with this picture?,
Industrial Engineering, Vol. 25 No. 12, pp. 52-5.
Weld, L.D.H. (1916), The Marketing of Farm Products, The Macmillan Company, New York, NY.
Xu, K., Dong, Y. and Evers, P.T. (2001), Towards better coordination of the supply chain,
Transportation Research, Part E 37, pp. 35-54.
Yu, Z., Yan, H. and Cheng, T.C.E. (2001), Benefits of information sharing with supply chain
partnerships, Industrial Management & Data Systems, Vol. 101 No. 3, pp. 114-21.

The bullwhip
effect

129

IJPDLM
33,2

Appendix
The univariate outcome for each item for the inbound logistics flows is shown in Table AI, and
for each item for the outbound logistics flows in Table AII. The items have been translated from
Swedish into English. Therefore, minor bias of the significance of each item may have appeared
in the translation from one language to the other.

Item

Table AI.
The univariate
outcome of
inventory items in
the inbound
logistics flows

B1. Our companys highest inventory turnovers

in the in the inbound logistics flows are . . .? 185 65.1
20
12
7.1
53.8
B2. The highest inventory turnovers in the
inbound logistics flows from sub-contractors
correspond to approximately _____ per cent
of the total inventories in the inbound
logistics flows
176 41.2
35
10
0.4 2 1.0
B3. Our companys lowest inventory turnovers in
the inbound logistics flows are . . .?
178 15.0
2
1
13.0 171.6
B4. The lowest inventory turnovers in the
inbound logistics flows from sub-contractors
correspond to approximately _____ per cent
of the total inventories in the inbound
logistics flows
169 14.7
10
10
2.8
8.5
B5. How high or low is your companys average
inventory turnover in the inbound logistics
flows?
208
4.3
4
4
2 0.1
0.1
B6. The trend for our companys inventory
turnover in the inbound logistics flows is . . .? 209
4.6
5
5
2 0.5
0.3
B7. Our companys shortest lead times in the
inbound logistics flows from sub-contractors
are approximately _____ day(s)
191
4.5
3
1
3.7
16.2
B8. The shortest lead times in the inbound
logistics flows from sub-contractors
correspond to approximately _____ per cent
of total purchases
187 23.3
15
10
1.4
1.2
B9. Our companys longest lead times in the
inbound logistics flows from sub-contractors
are approximately _____ day(s)
191 73.8
50
90
3.7
19.5
B10. The longest lead times in the inbound
logistics flows from sub-contractors
correspond to approximately _____ per cent
of total purchases
188 17.9
10
10
1.9
4.2
B11. How short or long are your companys
average lead times in the inbound logistics
flows from sub-contractors?
211
3.8
4
4
0.2
0.3
B12. The trend for our companys lead-times in
the inbound logistics flows is . . .?
212
3.5
3
4
0.1
0.7
B13. The trend for our companys inventory level
in the inbound logistics flows is . . .?
211
3.6
4
4
2 0.9 2 0.1
Notes: N = number of observations; Mn = mean; Me = median; Md = mode; Sk = skewness;
Ku = kurtosis

Downloaded by AIRLANGGA UNIVERSITY At 21:18 26 April 2016 (PT)

130

Mn

Me

Md

Sk

Ku

Downloaded by AIRLANGGA UNIVERSITY At 21:18 26 April 2016 (PT)

Item
B1. Our companys highest inventory turnovers
in the in the outbound logistics flows are . . .?
B2. The highest inventory turnovers in the
outbound logistics flows to customers
correspond to approximately _____ per cent
of the total inventories in the outbound
logistics flows
B3. Our companys lowest inventory turnovers in
the outbound logistics flows are . . .?
B4. The lowest inventory turnovers in the
outbound logistics flows to customers
correspond to approximately _____ per cent
of the total inventories in the outbound
logistics flows
B5. How high or low is your companys average
inventory turnover in the outbound logistics
flows?
B6. The trend for our companys inventory
turnover in the outbound logistics flows
is . . .?
B7. Our companys shortest lead times in the
outbound logistics flows to customers are
approximately _____ day(s)
B8. The shortest lead times in the outbound
logistics flows to customers correspond to
approximately _____ per cent of total sales
B9. Our companys longest lead times in the
outbound logistics flows to customers are
approximately _____ day(s)
B10. The longest lead times in the outbound
logistics flows to customers correspond to
approximately _____ per cent of total sales
B11. How short or long are your companys
average lead times in the outbound logistics
flows to customers?
B12. The trend for our companys lead times in
the outbound logistics flows is . . .?
B13. The trend for our companys inventory level
in the outbound logistics flows is . . .?

Mn

Me

Md

156

184.9

30

52

Sk
6.6

Ku

The bullwhip
effect

51.8

131
143

52.7

50

50

2 0.1

2 1.3

148

64.5

9.1

92.9

142

19.1

10

2.2

3.9

198

4.5

2 0.0

2 0.6

198

4.5

0.1

0.8

166

10.7

8.4

78.0

157

32.8

20

0.9

2 0.5

163

53.4

30

30

3.8

15.7

155

29.1

20

1.1

2 0.1

202

3.5

0.2

2 0.6

202

3.2

2 0.3

0.8

202

3.8

0.0

0.3

Notes: N = number of observations; Mn = mean; Me = median; Md = mode; Sk = skewness;

Ku = kurtosis

Table AII.
The univariate
outcome of
inventory items in
the outbound
logistics flows

Downloaded by AIRLANGGA UNIVERSITY At 21:18 26 April 2016 (PT)

This article has been cited by:

1. Artur wierczek. 2014. The impact of supply chain integration on the snowball effect in the transmission
of disruptions: An empirical evaluation of the model. International Journal of Production Economics 157,
89-104. [CrossRef]
2. Florian Klug. 2013. The internal bullwhip effect in car manufacturing. International Journal of Production
Research 51, 303-322. [CrossRef]
3. Ranjan Bhattacharya, Susmita Bandyopadhyay. 2011. A review of the causes of bullwhip effect in a supply
chain. The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology 54, 1245-1261. [CrossRef]
4. Robert Hinson. 2010. The value chain and e-business in exporting: Case studies from Ghanas nontraditional export (NTE) sector. Telematics and Informatics 27, 323-340. [CrossRef]
5. Ertunga C. zelkan, Metin akanyldrm. 2009. Reverse bullwhip effect in pricing. European Journal of
Operational Research 192, 302-312. [CrossRef]
6. Ertunga C. zelkan, Churlzu Lim. 2008. Conditions of reverse bullwhip effect in pricing for pricesensitive demand functions. Annals of Operations Research 164, 211-227. [CrossRef]
7. Gran Svensson, Gran Svensson. 2008. / . Journal of Global Academy of Marketing
Science 18, 1-18. [CrossRef]
8. Christine WyciskManagement Department of Business Studies and Economics, Institute for Strategic
CompetenceManagement, University of Bremen, Bremen, Germany Bill McKelveyUCLA Anderson
School of Management, Los Angeles, California, USA Michael HlsmannManagement Department
of Business Studies and Economics, Institute for Strategic CompetenceManagement, University of
Bremen, Bremen, Germany. 2008. Smart parts supply networks as complex adaptive systems: analysis
and implications. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management 38:2, 108-125.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
9. Gran SvenssonOslo School of Management, Oslo, Norway. 2007. A formula of consensus in theoretical
descriptions of the reality spectrum. European Business Review 19:3, 248-256. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
10. Jeff Hoi Yan YeungDepartment of Decision Sciences and Managerial Economics, Faculty of Business
Administration, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Shatin, Hong Kong, People's Republic of China
Willem SelenInstitute for Logistics and Supply Chain Management, Victoria University, Melbourne,
Australia Zhou DemingDepartment of Decision Sciences and Managerial Economics, Faculty of Business
Administration, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Shatin, Hong Kong, People's Republic of
China Zhang MinDepartment of Decision Sciences and Managerial Economics, Faculty of Business
Administration, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Shatin, Hong Kong, People's Republic of China.
2007. Postponement strategy from a supply chain perspective: cases from China. International Journal of
Physical Distribution & Logistics Management 37:4, 331-356. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
11. Rob Darlington, Shahin Rahimifard. 2006. Improving supply chain practices for minimizing waste
in chilled ready-meal manufacture. Food Manufacturing Efficiency 1:10.1616/fme.2006.1.issue-1, 15-23.
[CrossRef]
12. Gran SvenssonHalmstad University, Halmstad, Sweden. 2005. The multiple facets of the bullwhip
effect: refined and redefined. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management 35:10,
762-777. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
13. Amit SachanManagement Development Institute, Gurgaon, India, and Subhash DattaOperations
Management Area, Management Development Institute, Gurgaon, India. 2005. Review of supply chain

Downloaded by AIRLANGGA UNIVERSITY At 21:18 26 April 2016 (PT)

management and logistics research. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management
35:9, 664-705. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]