Journal of Business Logistics, 2020, 1–24 doi: 10.1111/jbl.

12260
© 2020 The Authors. Journal of Business Logistics published by Wiley Periodicals LLC
on behalf of Council of Supply Chain Management Professionals
This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in
any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Why Collaborate in a Physical Internet Network?—Motives and

Success Factors
Michael Plasch1, Sarah Pfoser1, Markus Gerschberger2,3, Regina Gattringer4, and
Oliver Schauer1
1
Logistikum, University of Applied Sciences Upper Austria, Steyr
2
JRC LIVE, University of Applied Sciences Upper Austria, Steyr
3
Physical Internet Center, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta
4
Johannes Kepler University, Linz

T he vision of the Physical Internet (PI) involves both sharing logistics resources and information exchange within an open network. The
implementation of PI is seen as a promising contribution toward sustainable logistics. This paper investigates motives for and success fac-
tors in collaborating in a PI network. We apply an interpretive case-based research approach involving four shippers and three logistics service
providers (LSPs) that operate in a PI network. Motives are defined as the reasons that encourage an organization to enter the PI network. Suc-
cess factors are conditions required for organizations to continue collaborating in a PI network. This is the first PI study conducted in a multi-
industry context. The findings demonstrate the central and neutral orchestration of resources (i.e., physical, digital/intangible, and relational
resources) as a substantial and multi-faceted issue in PI and continuous PI collaboration. A well-accepted theory (Resource-Based View) and its
most recent extension (Resource Orchestration Theory—ROT) frame and guide our research. ROT informs the deployment of physical, digital/
intangible, and relational resources by a neutral orchestrator in a PI network. The knowledge of motives and success factors allows the develop-
ment of future user-oriented PI services that are likely to be accepted by shippers and LSPs.
Keywords: physical internet; collaboration; network; resources

INTRODUCTION
Organizational and procedural developments like increasingly
automated logistics activities cannot keep pace with the ever-
increasing sourcing and transport demand. Transport shipments
today have become smaller in volume and more frequent (Xing
et al. 2011), due to trends such as same-day-deliveries (B2C) or
just-in-time procurement (B2B). These trends result in progres-
sive decreases of efficiency and transport utilization as well as
warehouse resources. At the same time, emissions from freight
and logistics movements are still increasing and risk a failure to
reach zero emission targets—for example, based on the ETP
ALICE strategy aligned with the Paris Agreement (ALICE-ETP
2019). The Physical Internet (PI) is a cornerstone for reaching
the zero emission targets by reducing the environmental impact
of freight transport in fully utilized logistics networks.
The realization of the PI, in turn, requires a fundamental re-
organization in logistics that entails truly integrated processes
and horizontal collaboration, especially among potential competi-
tors (Montreuil 2011). In scientific discourse, conventional
approaches in logistics suddenly appear relatively small in scope
and easier to achieve compared to the vision of PI as a superor-
dinate, global, and open logistics network of networks. The
Corresponding author:
Michael Plasch, University of Applied Sciences Upper Austria,
Logistikum, Campus Steyr, Wehrgrabengasse 1-3, 4400 Steyr, Aus-
tria; E-mail: Michael.Plasch@fh-steyr.at
[Correction added on Nov 12, 2020: The author’s affiliation has
been updated.]
central issue, however, is to identify the building blocks and pre-
conditions needed to make the PI a reality. Businesses require
guidance on how to leverage and find ways for efficiency gains
in logistics and how to counteract unsustainability symptoms
such as idle capacity of assets and transport mode infrastructure
as well as insufficient and nonintegrated management (Simmer
et al. 2017). These unsustainability symptoms can be mitigated
by applying PI, as shown in a case study of two FMCG giants
in France (Sarraj et al. 2014). The two French FMCG’s involved
were able to increase fill rates by 17% and reduce CO2 emissions
by 60% (Rajahonka et al. 2019).
The above-mentioned case study had a single-industry focus
on companies with similar requirements and demands. But what
happens if shippers’ requirements are not similar but highly dif-
ferent—because of a multi-industry context? What makes schol-
ars confident that, for example, the efficiency of PI hubs,
infrastructure or service offerings are the most important factors
(Eftestøl-Wilhelmsson et al. 2019) for a successful PI? The mul-
ti-industry context and the corresponding disparity between ship-
pers’ requirements must not be disregarded for the PI. To further
enhance our understanding of the PI, it is necessary to investi-
gate open networks of networks comprising different logistics
requirements from various industries. Current literature on the PI
is focused predominantly on aspects such as the design of modu-
lar PI loading units (Landsch€ utzer et al. 2015) or PI hubs (e.g.,
Ballot et al. 2013; Montreuil et al. 2013b). In contrast, there is a
lack of understanding regarding the forming and performing
mechanisms of the collaborative ecosystem, and there are no
clear insights into how a specific group of interrelated companies
can collaborate and profit from a PI.
2 M. Plasch et al.
Therefore, the aim of this paper is to explore companies’
motives for entering a PI network and success factors for contin-
uous collaboration in a PI network. Motives are defined as rea-
sons that encourage an organization to become part of a PI
network, that is, the expectations and incentives that drive the
organizations to join the PI network (Herczeg et al. 2018). Suc-
cess factors represent requirements for continued collaboration in
the PI network. If these success factors are not present, the part-
ners will no longer value participation and potentially opt to
leave the PI network. The paper is driven by the following two
research questions:
RQ1: What motives prompt organizations to enter a PI
network?
RQ2: Which success factors must be met to collaborate
continuously in this network?
In order to address these questions, this research adopted a
resource-based view (RBV), as RBV has often been used as a
rationale to explain the formation of strategic alliances (Tsang
1998; Das and Teng 2000; Steiner et al. 2017) and we want to
understand what motivates companies to join a PI network.
Resource orchestration theory (ROT) (Helfat et al. 2009; Sirmon
et al. 2011), a recently emerging theory and relatively new exten-
sion of the resource-based view, states that an organization can
realize the full value of its resources only when its resources are
managed effectively. ROT is used as a theoretical frame to guide
our research, as the underlying idea of a PI network is to lever-
age companies’ resources efficiently.
This paper makes several key contributions: First, while there
is considerable research focusing on PI in single-industry set-
tings, to the best of our knowledge this is the first paper to
address a multi-industry setting. The PI network at hand is char-
acterized by a heterogeneous sample of cross-industrial compa-
nies including shippers from multiple industries (n = 4) and
logistics service providers varying in size, business region cover-
age, and specialization (n = 3). The attribute of sample hetero-
geneity is unique compared to previous PI research. This allows
us to consider multi-industry specifics in terms of transport sub-
strate, logistics service levels, and operations of involved compa-
nies. We therefore anticipated different collaboration issues
compared to previous research in single-industry settings.
Second, we provide the theoretical underpinning for what is
‘different’ when collaborating in PI and present our findings
based on ROT. It has recently been questioned whether current
theories sufficiently address the complex nature of collaboration
in supply chains or networks (Soosay and Hyland 2015). The
emerging ROT informs resource management in a PI network, as
it explains the role of an orchestrator to efficiently structure and
bundle resources. The paper offers explanations for phenomena
associated with the PI, especially for the element of central
orchestration, as well as the application of ROT in a new area
(Ladik and Stewart 2008). This enabled us to better qualify the
role of orchestration and the conclusions concerning the orches-
trators’ neutrality, centrality, and de-centrality.
Third, we contribute to the larger body of PI literature by
assessing the demand for PI services and the requirements for
participating in a PI network. In contrast to the abundance of
technical studies related to the supply of PI services (e.g.,
designing PI containers or developing decision support models),
there is a clear lack of market-related research into the demand
for PI. By assessing the industry’s motives and success factors
for participating in a PI network, this paper is one of the first to
reveal companies’ expectations toward their potential involve-
ment in a PI network. Knowing demands from different stake-
holders in a PI network—shippers as well as LSPs in this study
—will facilitate the design of future PI services. We provide
insights into companies’ readiness for PI involvement, going
beyond collaboration agreements. Rather, we aim to better
understand requirements that need to be satisfied by an
advanced network governance structure—based on this heteroge-
neous sample.
The remainder of this paper is structured as follows: The state
of the art regarding the PI and theoretical background is outlined
in the literature review, followed by the description of the
research design. Then, the main findings and discussions regard-
ing motives and success factors of a PI network in a multi-indus-
try setting are given, and propositions are derived. The last
section concludes this study by outlining theoretical and practical
implications, limitations, and future research directions.
ZOOMING IN TO SEE THE PROBLEM
The Physical Internet—literature review
In order to understand how a PI network might work and to
determine which theories might inform our research, we con-
ducted a literature review on PI. We used EBSCO Business
Source Premier, Google Scholar, and Science Direct for their
broad coverage of journals from multiple scientific fields. The
search string “Physical Internet” was applied in connection with
Boolean connectors (“AND logistics OR transport OR freight”)
to narrow down the results. In line with Darby et al. (2019), this
is the first obvious step in interpretive research.
The Physical Internet—a new type of collaboration model
The PI is a vision which uses today’s interdependent IT net-
works and the digital Internet environment as a role model to
reorganize freight transport (Montreuil 2011; Montreuil et al.
2013a). Collaboration plays a central role in the conception of
the PI. In the past, several types of collaboration models evolved
in logistics, each of which has distinct characteristics and operat-
ing principles (Pomponi et al. 2015). A myriad of different
names were attached to these collaboration models, including
transport marketplaces, alliances, coalitions, logistics pooling,
coopetition, synchromodality or the Physical Internet, to name
but a few (Pan et al. 2019).
The PI is one of the most recently developed models and can
be considered the most advanced type of logistics collaboration.
PI is seen to be advanced as it tries to utilize and combine the
advantages of several collaboration models by minimizing their
disadvantages. Partnerships in the PI aim for long-term relations,
as opposed to transport marketplaces, where short-term transac-
tions take place only to perform single transport requests
(Caplice 2007). Long-term collaboration is desirable, because it
involves mutual trust, increased commitment, and higher reliabil-
ity than short-term relationships (Humphries and Wilding 2004).
Physical Internet Network
Similar to a carrier alliance or coalition, the PI promotes an in-
tegrated and holistic view of freight transport, including and
combining all available transport capacity in a highly flexible
way (Pan et al. 2019), and therefore achieves higher overall uti-
lization. Compared with scheduling each transport request indi-
vidually, the integrated network approach of the PI provides a
more efficient transportation plan. Freight flows can be better
consolidated, which leads to a higher capacity and resource uti-
lization. Therefore, PI can promote integration as collaboration
may increase in range and intensity—broadening the partners’
arcs of integration (Frohlich and Westbrook 2001; Childerhouse
and Towill 2011).
An important principle which distinguishes the PI from other
logistics collaboration models is the fact that there is a central
orchestrator, that is, a neutral entity that is allowed to modify
transport constraints imposed by the shippers (Vanovermeire
et al. 2014). The orchestrator has a holistic view of all transport
demands and available resources in the network and is therefore
able to offer integrated services with optimized resource utiliza-
tion (van Riessen et al. 2015). In line with the PI, the related
concept of synchromodality also entails the idea of a central
orchestrator (Ambra et al. 2019). In synchromodality, however,
shippers book a-modal or mode-free transport services (Behdani
et al. 2016), which means that the shipper only determines basic
framework conditions (e.g., delivery time and price cap) but not
the transport mode. Such a-modal booking allows the central
orchestrator to make optimized decisions and real-time changes
to the transportation plan.
Synchromodality is already a quite advanced type of collabo-
ration (and could be a first step toward realizing the PI), but PI
is even more progressive. Unlike synchromodality, the PI also
incorporates highly modularized, standardized, and interoperable
transport (Pan et al. 2019). In the PI, freight is moved in similar
ways as data (packets)—smart, seamlessly within synchronized
corridors, and through hubs using the (open) networks of others
(Saenz 2016; Lemmens et al. 2019).
Interoperability between all players involved in the PI requires
revolutionized planning as well as selection and pricing strategies
in logistics networks with competitors engaging in collaboration
(i.e., coopetition). The vision of the PI also entails open and
shared networks, using standard technical protocols, dynamic
routing, deployment logics, controlling and optimizing intelli-
gence, modular containers, etc. (Montreuil 2009). All these ele-
ments contribute to a highly efficient transport network where
resources are optimally leveraged. The PI combines the fields of
supply chain collaboration and supply chain digitalization so that
(1) technologies such as cloud computing and smart factories,
and (2) collaboration and exchange among organizations in the
network are the main enablers in the approach to decentralized,
self-regulating value creation (Hofmann and R€ usch 2017).
Real-life examples of (emerging) PI networks
There already exist practical examples, that is, initiatives and
organizations, which are evolving toward a PI. The Belgian orga-
nization TRI-VIZOR proactively designs and operates horizontal
partnerships and collaborative communities among shippers by
bundling and synchronizing freight flows across multiple supply
networks. By bundling and synchronizing logistic activities
across their customers, TRI-VIZOR is able to create substantial
3
gains in cost, customer service, and sustainability. This is already
quite close to the concept of the PI, and TRI-VIZOR even calls
itself “the world’s first cross supply chain orchestrator.” Their
ultimate vision is to grow into a full-fledged PI architect and
trustee (TRI-VIZOR s.a.).
In France, a simulation-based experiment with real-life compa-
nies (including Carrefour, Casino, and their top 106 suppliers)
demonstrated that collaboration in a PI network allows for a
30% reduction of total induced costs and a 60% reduction of
greenhouse gas emissions, while offering the same service level
to customers and getting truck drivers back home every day (Sar-
raj et al. 2014). Contrary to our case study, the French experi-
ment had a single-industry focus, namely retail.
Procter & Gamble is another company that recognized the
potential benefits of PI very early and which is strongly dedi-
cated to the principles of PI. They realized horizontal collabora-
tion with the company Tupperware and thereby saved 150,000
truck-km by taking trucks off the road, saved more than 200 tons
of CO2, and increased fill rates from 55% to 85% (Muylaert and
Stofferis 2014). Furthermore, they used an orchestrating platform
called “Control Tower” to co-ordinate scheduling and vehicles’
movement, reducing empty truck shipments. Like Carrefour/
Casino, Procter & Gamble and Tupperware both originate in the
retail sector and constitute a single-industry example of an
emerging PI network. By contrast, our case study provides the
first multi-industry setting for a PI network.
Lacking understanding of PI motives and success factors
Scrutiny of the PI literature reveals that a variety of topics and
problems are covered by present research, including production,
distribution or inventory (see Table 1 for an overview). A more
comprehensive review of the PI literature can be found in Ambra
et al. (2019) or Sternberg and Norrman (2017). Several compo-
nents of PI, for example, pricing and auctions, cloud logistics or
synchromodality, have been defined and further developed by
existing studies.
It is worth noting that previous research on PI has strongly
focused on supply-side questions, for example, on designing
standardized, modularized containers (Landsch€ utzer et al. 2015;
Sallez et al. 2015) or decision-making models for running a PI
network (Darvish et al. 2016; Gontara et al. 2018; Chargui et al.
2019). In fact, the majority of the papers listed in Table 1 deal
with the development of planning models that support distribu-
tion planning, inventory management, production scheduling, etc.
The demand side, in contrast, has been widely neglected in PI
literature (Sternberg and Norrman 2017). For example, there are
no results and no insights into the determinants of partners’
(shippers and LSPs) demand for PI services, such as integrated
transport and logistics operations. Nor is there any market
research that deals with customers’ requirements and needs
regarding the participation in a PI network. However, market
research is essential to make informed business decisions and
develop user-centric offers. The present paper makes a substan-
tial contribution insofar as we identify motives and success fac-
tors that prompt LSPs and shippers to interact in a PI network.
Knowing the motives and success factors is of utmost impor-
tance in designing future PI services that meet customers’ expec-
tations. This will, in turn, encourage organizations to participate
in PI networks.
4 M. Plasch et al.

Table 1: Overview of PI literature

Applied research
Topic methodologies References

Conceptualization of PI Report, review Montreuil (2011); Montreuil et al. (2012); Sarraj et al.
(2014); Treiblmaier et al. (2016)
Detailed literature review of PI Literature review Ambra et al. (2019); Sternberg and Norrman (2017)
Standardized modular containers—space/volume Simulation Hofman et al. (2016); Sallez et al. (2015); Landsch€utzer
utilization, handling cost, intelligent containers. . . modeling, et al. (2015); Lin et al. (2014)
analytical
modeling
Inventory—optimized inventory levels, warehousing Simulation Ji et al. (2019); Yang et al. (2017a); Yang et al. (2017b);
services, reduced inventory costs, maximized modeling, Darvish et al. (2016); Pan et al. (2015)
utilization, etc. analytical
modeling
Distribution and transport—network optimization, Simulation Chargui et al. (2019); Ji et al. (2019); Gontara et al.
optimized routing, loading patterns, truck modeling, (2018); Fazili et al. (2017); Tran-Dang et al. (2017);
scheduling, etc. analytical Darvish et al. (2016); Venkatadri et al. (2016); Walha
modeling et al. (2016); Colin et al. (2015)
Production—intelligent and dynamic manufacturing Case study, Ji et al. (2019); Zhong et al. (2017); Zhong et al. (2016)
simulation
modeling
Dynamic pricing in PI Analytical modeling Qiao et al. (2019); Qiao et al. (2018); van Riessen et al.
(2017)
Auction trading in PI Analytical Kong et al. (2016); Othmane et al. (2014); Pan et al.
modeling, (2014)
mathematical
modeling
Interconnected city logistics Analytical Kubek and Wiez cek (2019); Zheng et al. (2019); Ben
modeling, Mohamed et al. (2017); Chen et al. (2017); Crainic and
simulation Montreuil (2016)
modeling
Cloud logistics platform Analytical modeling Zhang et al. (2016)
Synchromodality Modeling, review Lemmens et al. (2019); Ambra et al. (2019); van Riessen
et al. (2016)
Blockchain technology for PI Simulation Betti et al. (2019); Meyer et al. (2019)
Modeling,
Interviews
Horizontal collaboration in PI Literature review, Simmer et al. (2017)
Interviews

Theoretical background have a competitive advantage “when it is implementing a value

The RBV has often been used as a rationale to explain the for-
mation of strategic alliances (Tsang 1998; Das and Teng 2000;
Steiner et al. 2017). The RBV is therefore seen as appropriate
for this research as well, insofar as our objective is to describe
the formation of PI networks, which are strategic alliances in the
field of logistics and transport. The RBV will be used as a theo-
retical frame for this purpose (see Table 2 for an overview of the
theoretical foundation of the paper). The RBV (Wernerfelt 1984)
suggests that organizations gain competitive advantage through
the set of strategic resources and capabilities that are available to
them. According to Barney (1991), an organization is said to
creating strategy not simultaneously being implemented by any
current or potential competitors.” (p. 102). In order to gain a
competitive advantage, the organization’s resources should,
according to Barney (1991), be valuable, rare, imperfectly imita-
ble, and nonsubstitutable (VRIN resources).
The original focus of the RBV (Wernerfelt 1984; Barney
1991) was on organizations that act as individual and indepen-
dent units. However, collaboration enables organizations to
access and deploy additional resources and capabilities they can-
not access on their own (Zacharia et al. 2009). This brings a
competitive advantage to collaborating organizations. For this
reason, the RBV was soon extended to be used as a theoretical
Physical Internet Network 5

Table 2: Theoretical foundation of the paper PI network. We therefore see ROT as an especially promising
theoretical frame for this research.
The RBV has been criticized for focusing too much on the
Theoretical support
characteristics of resources and for neglecting the question of
for motives and
how to use the resources to create competitive advantage (Priem
Basic notion of the success factors in a
and Butler 2001). This shortcoming of RBV has also been found
Theory theory PI network
in an empirical study by Hansen et al. (2004), who state: “[. . .]
Resource- An organization gains Through the what a firm does with its resources is at least as important as
based view advantage through its participation in a PI which resources it possesses.” (p. 1280). ROT accounts for this
(RBV) set of resources network the deficiency of RBV as it analyzes how utility and costs can be
(RBV) ? additional organization is able optimized through resource orchestration (see Table 2).
resources can be to generate a ROT has been applied by several authors in various contexts.
utilized through competitive Liu et al. (2016) used ROT to highlight the importance of align-
strategic relationships advantage ing physical supply chain processes and information technology,
in an interconnected while Ketchen et al. (2014) used ROT to describe how resource
network (extended orchestration shortfalls provoke product recalls. Cui and Pan
RBV) (2015) explore how manufacturers develop capabilities for e-
Resource The full value of an Within the PI commerce adoption by using ROT as a theoretical frame.
orchestration organization’s network the Another example is Wong et al. (2018), who followed ROT to
theory resources can only be management of explain how sustainable development strategies can orchestrate
(ROT) realized if the partner resources supply chain resources.
resources are must be effectively ROT postulates that the right alignment of resources is crucial
structured, bundled, orchestrated by a to generate a competitive advantage. This reflects the philosophy
and leveraged central platform of the PI, where resources are efficiently handled and aligned
efficiently (i.e., orchestrated) by a neutral platform (Ballot et al. 2014). A
neutral platform can be described as a nonpartisan trustee, not
involved in the operational area, whose task is to “maximize the
total synergy gains of the network while keeping its impartiality”
(Cipres and de la Cruz 2019, 211). The neutral platform (orches-
frame explaining the occurrence of strategic alliances and collab- trator) can be either physical, digital, or both and connects manu-
oration between different organizations (Eisenhardt and Schoon- facturers, retailers, and logistics providers, allowing them to
hoven 1996; Tsang 1998; Das and Teng 2000). interoperate as partners in a truly automated and seamless envi-
The RBV involves resources and capabilities, which have pre- ronment (Shin 2019).
viously been defined as “all assets, capabilities, organizational Zacharia et al. (2011) describe four characteristics that an
processes, firm attributes, information, knowledge, etc. controlled orchestrator of logistics networks should have. These four char-
by the firm that enable the firm to conceive of and implement acteristics are as follows: standardization, visibility, neutral arbi-
strategies that improve its efficiency and effectiveness” (Barney trator, and collaborator. The notion of the PI calls for the same
1991, p. 101). Different types of logistics resources (including characteristics. Standardization (e.g., standardized data and pro-
physical resources like technology or equipment and digital/in- cesses, but this could also be modular PI loading units) is needed
tangible resources like knowledge and relational resources) can to improve the efficiency of processes and facilitate the consoli-
be subject of a RBV analysis (Karia et al. 2015). By entering a dation of freight transport. Visibility means the ability to see
strategic collaboration, organizations gain access to network extensive parts of the supply chain. Most organizations only see
resources that are external resources that are embedded in the their immediate partners in their supply chain. In contrast, the PI
interorganizational collaboration networks (Gulati 1999). Access orchestrator is able to see the entire network (Ambra et al.
to network resources can be valuable for organizations as this 2019). Due to its role as neutral arbitrator, participants in the net-
allows them to use additional assets, that is, assets which they do work will develop trust and competing organizations might be
not have on their own. Managing these resources in an inter-firm encouraged to share information via the orchestrator. In this
setting will improve the efficiency and effectiveness of a trans- sense, the orchestrator acts as a collaborator, as he enables PI
portation system. Increased efficiency and effectiveness are seen participants to find opportunities and create synergies (Dyer et al.
as the biggest promises of PI, making the RBV is a highly appli- 2004). All of the four aforementioned characteristics must be
cable frame for PI-related research. present to fulfill the role of an orchestrator (Zacharia et al.
A recently emerging theory and relatively new extension of 2011).
the resource-based view is the so-called resource orchestration In the scholarly discussion, an extended field of competences
theory (ROT) (Helfat et al. 2009; Sirmon et al. 2011). ROT for orchestration is attributed to LLPs (Lead Logistics Providers)
places special emphasis on an organization’s attempt to manage and 4PLs (Fourth Logistics Providers). These service providers
resources effectively in order to create maximum value. The role offer versatile services, have expertise in building network col-
of resource management to effectively structure, bundle, and laboration, and match complementary skills of other LSPs. This
leverage companies’ resources is at the center of resource orches- generation of new LSPs acts as orchestrators. A distinctive fea-
tration theory (Sirmon et al. 2011) as well as the core idea of a ture in terms of neutrality is the principle of “non-asset-based”
6 M. Plasch et al.
orchestration. This notion refers to the fact that a 4PL may work
with its own capacities in the network and therefore cannot be
seen as neutral (Fulconis and Pache 2018).
Previous PI literature suggests two different governance princi-
ples for how orchestration can work in a PI network (Sternberg
and Norrman 2017). First, the orchestrator may be a neutral
entity or trustee (Rajahonka et al. 2019), setting the basic frame-
work conditions for collaboration, such as pricing and bidding
models. In this case, the orchestrator only monitors and enforces
the conditions, but the PI participants act self-rationally in orga-
nizing the freight transport (Sternberg and Norrman 2017, 747).
Second, the orchestrator may act as central (and also neutral)
control tower, who gathers data about all the transport demand
and available capacities in the network, and uses them to opti-
mize the transport flows (Ambra et al. 2019). The second princi-
ple complies more precisely with the idea of ROT to effectively
structure, bundle, and leverage companies’ resources; it also cor-
responds to the principle of neutral and “non-asset-based”
orchestration. This is why, in the following, we will use the
notion of a “central orchestrator” rather than a merely “neutral
orchestrator.”
In summary, leveraging companies’ resources by a central and
neutral entity to increase utilization is a core consideration of PI.
ROT therefore appears to be an especially promising theoretical
frame to guide and inform this research.
AN INTERPRETIVE RESEARCH APPROACH TO
UNDERSTANDING MOTIVES AND SUCCESS FACTORS
The interpretive research approach prioritizes understanding of
motives, meanings, reasons, and experiences that are time- and
context-bound. The different company cultures and strategies in
a PI network are context-dependent by nature and therefore pose
difficulties for the positivist approach and its emphasis on con-
text-free generalization (Hudson and Ozanne 1988). In line with
Welch’s two-by-two classification, we strongly emphasize con-
textualization rather than causal explanation (Welch et al. 2011).
Therefore, our research corresponds to Stake’s interpretive sense-
making dimension (Stake 2010), and we follow his research
design (see Figure 1).
Deriving criteria for selecting case study companies
A vision like PI cannot be realized with a single-industry focus,
and we wanted our sample to contain a selection of shippers
from various distinct industries (selection criteria: multiple
industries). As our aim was to understand why companies do
(not) manage and utilize logistics resources in an inter-firm set-
ting in order to improve efficiency and effectiveness, we
selected shippers with varying logistics demands (e.g., truck uti-
lization; sending full-truck-loads or less-than-truckloads; ware-
house utilization; high or low) and LSPs varying in size,
business region coverage, and specialization. In order to have
the chance to understand each actor’s subjective experience, cul-
ture, and motivation and to give a detailed description, we lim-
ited our sample to one participant per industry and one small,
medium, and large LSP each.
The resulting sample heterogeneity is unique compared to pre-
vious PI research (which is mainly single-industry focused;
Ambra et al. 2019). The strategy of using heterogeneous samples
is not only common in survey research, but also used for qualita-
tive approaches (as suggested by Strauss and Corbin 1998;
Mason 2002; Robinson 2014). The rationale for gaining a hetero-
geneous sample is that similarities that were found across a
diverse group of cases are more likely to be generalizable than
similarities found in a homogenous group of cases. Therefore, a
heterogeneous sample ensures that results are generalizable, as it
helps to provide evidence that findings are not limited to a par-
ticular group, time, or place under observation.
Selection and description of case study companies
An overview of the criteria and logic underlying the selection of
case study companies can be found in Tables 3 and 4. A more
detailed description is given in the following descriptions.
Food Inc.: This company is one of the most successful Euro-
pean food retailers with an annual turnover of four billion
Euros in 2017. It employs more than 10,000 people across
480 Austrian retail stores with seven domestic retail brands.
The following topics are of growing importance in its strat-
egy: its carbon footprint (with respect to CSR requirements);
increasing customer expectations for product variety and bet-
ter, tailored but free-of-charge services; increasing pressure
from e-commerce and new concepts in brick-and-mortar
retailing (e.g., click & collect); the opportunities presented by
digitization (e.g., the Physical Internet). On the operational
level, the company runs its own fleet of trucks and a large
inventory-handling infrastructure throughout Europe. Food
Inc. constantly aims to reduce its costs by increasing capacity
utilization (its own fleet and warehouse infrastructure) and
more efficient processing (mainly focused on transports and
storage). Due to an ever-increasing number of stock-keeping
units and domestic products, the challenge to ship full truck
loads outbound from the distribution centers to its own stores
is becoming more and more challenging. Shipments are
becoming more frequent and more granular in volume, with a
higher mix of SKU’s.
Packaging Inc.: As a leading glass packaging manufacturer
in Europe (680 employees and 180 million Euros turnover in
2017), the company is the most important supplier of glass
packaging for the domestic beverage and food industry, and
offers a full range of products tailored to customer-driven
needs. From two regional company sites, products are sold
domestically as well as to selected export markets within a
selling radius limited to 500 km. Four central topics play an
important role in the company’s strategy: (1) digitization in
all its forms, (2) the liberalization of glass recycling, (3) the
process of keeping pace with global market leaders (and cus-
tomers), and (4) the creation of competitive advantage. A key
aim is to achieve full transparency along the supply chain in
order to stay competitive by means of predictability, agility,
and flexibility. Digitization and transparency are seen to speed
up and simplify service operations, that is, cradle-to-cradle
principles as well as return and recall campaigns. The
Physical Internet Network
Figure 1: Research design.
company aims to reduce logistics, storage, and handling costs
for fast and reliable delivery. Cost reduction is challenging
due to the bulky nature of the products and dedicated cus-
tomer quantities, which makes the utilization of warehouses
challenging. Reduced expected customer lead times can also
result in less than full truckload shipments. A further aim is
7
to strategically cooperate with complementary businesses to
gain access to markets that are currently not attractive due to
the high logistics costs or complexity involved.
Paper Inc.: This family-owned company is global innovation
leader in the development, production, and distribution of spe-
cialty and functional paper (2,300 employees and a
8 M. Plasch et al.
780 million Euros turnover in 2017). Through effective inter-
action of people, knowledge, and technology, the company
offers innovative products, outstanding service and tailor-
made solutions for the tobacco, pharmaceutical, food, and
label industries, employing more than 2,300 people at ten pro-
duction and/or printing sites both domestically and abroad.
The company has high process competence in its supply chain
through carefully selected partnerships with reliable suppliers.
Developing the service component is of high importance and
involves, for example, transparency on delivery status, fast
response times, safety stock, and smaller transport loads
(trend toward LTL due to working capital optimizations of
customers). The trend toward customer-specific products in
combination with smaller transport loads and the need to pro-
duce continuously and in larger lots have led to higher levels
of mixed inventory on stock. Therefore, production planning
and inventory control are key challenges for Paper Inc. In
order to achieve the flexibility to handle varying customer
demands, Paper Inc. frequently has access inventory space. In
serving call-off-customers, the company is currently trying to
build up partner networks for optimizing handling and access-
ing external warehouses. Therefore, the company takes a posi-
tive attitude toward relationship building with complementary
companies and new business model development.
Automation Inc.: This global player specializes in the
automation industry, offering products, powertrain solutions,
complete automation systems, and engineering services and
supporting tools as a one-stop-shop. Automation Inc. operates
with 300 employees in four business units, generating
130 million Euros in turnover (2017). The company supports
the entire machine development process—from the initial idea
to aftersales, from the machine control system to the drive
shaft. In the company’s view, digitization is the most impor-
tant driver of productivity. Thus, the progress of B2C (e.g.,
through Amazon.com) is increasingly in demand in the B2B
sector. The company wants to take into account both internal
and external competitive pressure to stay highly competitive.
Due to increasing customer specialization and globalization,
the focus regarding optimization initiatives is on logistics and
transport costs. Due to the company’s project-related business,
transports are irregular, nonrecurring, noncombinable (due to
varying delivery times and locations) and, therefore, mainly
less than a full truck load. More agile, transparent, customer-
specific, and cost-efficient logistics services could generate
additional competitive advantages. Aside from smart factory,
the concept of Physical Internet is regarded as an important
topic for the company. The company is convinced that con-
tributing in collaborative networks makes sense and strength-
ens the innovation leadership role.
LSP 1: As a specialist for a wide range of transport and
logistics services as well as network and contract logistics in
Central and Eastern Europe, the company currently employs
2,700 people at 85 locations in 17 countries. It reached a turn-
over of 480 million Euros in 2017. Logistics outsourcing is
one of the core competences of the company, which does
business mainly in Central and Eastern Europe. Regarding the
optimization of a customer’s logistics processes as an external
partner, the focus is on cost reduction through new models of
interaction and processing. Regarding digitization, the
company is particularly interested in being an active part of
this change, gaining market know-how and further reducing
costs by turning fixed into variable costs and increasing
capacity utilization. Furthermore, it is hoped that lead times
can be shortened and transparency can be increased along the
supply chain, especially through learning from and/or with
customers.
LSP 2: This company with 200 employees and a 120 mil-
lion Euros turnover (2017) is (1) a logistics service provider
in the traditional sense, (2) a specialist for holistic logistics
and warehouse logistics projects, and (3) a logistics hub
between Western to Central and Eastern to Central Europe.
In the process of organizing and performing forwarding ser-
vices, the company uses its own resources, for example,
storage capacity, information systems, and logistics expertise
as well as group-wide resources, including a truck fleet and
a parcel service hub network. Due to digital transformation,
the company has the role of an enabler in logistics issues
for SMEs. In order to withstand competitive pressure and to
keep up with the global players, the company maintains and
develops collaborations with complementors and pays close
attention to quality, good service, transparency, and innova-
tion. The aim is to further advance the provision of new ser-
vices to the customer and thereby remain an attractive
shipping partner. By envisioning new business models, the
company strategically aims at gaining access to additional
resources, inter-firm partnerships, and markets. The company
focuses on reducing costs by standardizing interfaces,
increasing automation as well as consolidation and capacity
utilization.
LSP 3: This family-owned business (with 10 employees and
eight million Euros turnover in 2017) has dedicated its focus
on rail and combined transport, independent of the geographic
region, by pursuing efforts to shift truck transport volumes to
rail. In its 25 years of business, 60% of transports have been
performed by rail. At the same time, the company is experi-
encing ever-increasing competitive pressure, especially among
major customers. The management of cost structures and
strategies for coping with market liberalization and deregula-
tion continue to increase in importance. Regarding its readi-
ness for digitization, the company is keen to know its status
and what it takes to be well prepared for the future. Hence,
clear guidelines and framework conditions are desirable, and
the company wants to counteract the high uncertainty in the
corporate environment through innovative thinking and the
willingness to open up (even within the industry) among mar-
ket players. In a broader sense, accessing new markets are
considered to be possible due to collaborative resource access
and joint reduction of empty runs in certain segments of their
transport logistics network.
Data gathering
We collected data from several sources of information (see
Table 5), that is, based on (1) two workshops with more than 40
participants, (2) seventeen in-depth semi-structured interviews
with companies’ key decision makers, and (3) by using archival
data on transport routes, warehouse utilization, and shipment
demands over the period of a full fiscal year.
Physical Internet Network 9

Table 3: Selection criteria and involved shippers

Industry Food Packaging Paper Automation

Selection criteria
Truck utilization FTL (outbound) FTL LTL LTL
LTL (inbound)
Warehouse utilization High High Low Low
Name of Case Study company Food Inc. Packaging Inc. Paper Inc. Automation Inc.
ID# S#1 S#2 S#3 S#4

Table 4: Selection criteria and involved logistics service providers

Logistics service provider LSP 1 LSP 2 LSP 3

Selection criteria
Size Large Medium Small
Specialization Transport & logistics services Logistics services Rail-related logistics
services
Business region Central Europe to Eastern Western and Eastern Europe to Central From Central Europe
Europe Europe outwards
Name of Case Study LSP 1 LSP 2 LSP 3
Company
ID# L#1 L#2 L#3

An initial workshop was conducted to bring all case study
companies together and study their perceptions, opinions, and
beliefs regarding the formation and continuity of a PI network.
The workshop setting allowed us to observe the case study com-
panies’ interactions and social dynamics. Group discussions were
conducted to elicit companies’ viewpoints regarding their vision
of a PI. The initial workshop was the starting point for a first
series of interviews in which employees of each case study com-
pany were interviewed to reveal the interviewees’ individual per-
spectives concerning motives to enter a PI network and success
factors to maintain collaboration in this network. Each interview
started with a brief explanation of the research, followed by an
assurance of confidentiality and anonymity. All interviews were
recorded.
Especially in the first round of interviews, short, broad, and
open-ended questions (see the interview guide in the Appendix)
were used in order to develop the framework of the study. At
least two researchers were present for all interviews. Interviews
took place at the companies’ premises and in a setting maximiz-
ing comfort for the interview partner (the interview partners
picked whether they wanted to conduct the interview in their
office, the cafeteria, a seminar room, etc. One interview even
took place outdoors, on a bench in front of the company’s pre-
mises).
After the first round of interviews, individual motives and suc-
cess factors were compiled in a generic first- and high-level
framework. A second workshop was then conducted to condense
this framework in order to explain the relevance of single
motives and success factors. Worksheets were filled-in by the
case study companies for that purpose, and a moderated discus-
sion took place. Additionally, an agreement was reached on
which archival data were to be provided by all partners and in
what form. This was followed by a second round of interviews
which focused on detailed questions regarding specific motives
to enter and success factors to collaborate continuously in a PI
network (see the interview guidelines in the Appendix). Finally,
all network partners provided archival data for a full fiscal year.
These data sources enabled the research team to develop a dee-
per and richer understanding of each case study company’s posi-
tion in terms of a PI environment. Due to the interpretative
nature of this research, aiming at understanding each individual
actor as well as the case study companies’ motives and required
success factors in detail, the objective was not to survey a large
sample of companies but to develop a research design that tells
the story of how performed steps fit together (Pratt 2009).
Data analysis and synthesis
Following Stake (2010), research involves both analysis (the tak-
ing things apart) and synthesis (the putting things together). In
order to take things apart, the team of researchers started with
intratextual analysis: The synthesis of the findings in the focal
domain (=PI network under investigation in this study) is used
as guidance to interpret the text in the relevant context for each
interview partner (Darby et al. 2019). In this phase, we read and
reread the interview transcripts for each interview partner to cap-
ture each informant’s story in full contextual detail.
This intratextual analysis was followed by interpreting across
interview partners but still within each specific company. We aimed
to identify common storylines between the narratives in order to
increase the level of abstraction (Prasad 2017). This sorting is a core
part of our interpretive analysis. Coding is a frequently used method
10 M. Plasch et al.

Table 5: Development of findings

Data gathering stage Setting Outcome

Initial workshop
First round of
interviews
Second workshop
Second round of
interviews
Concluding workshop
Workshop with 18 managers from twelve potential
case study companies; (1) Theoretical input; (2)
Interactive discussion rounds about initial
expectations in a “world cafe” setting; moderated
discussion, tape-recorded and transcribed
Central question: What do you expect from
participating in a Physical Internet network?
Total of seven interviews; semi-structured interview
guide with (1) Introduction (explanation, assurance
of confidentiality and anonymity) and (2) Broad,
open-ended questions [see interview guide—
Appendix]; tape-recorded and transcribed
Workshop with 14 participants (two from each case
study company); case study companies worked in
pairs to fill in worksheets about motives and success
factors—first- and high-level framework from the
interviews was the worksheet basis; moderated
discussion
Total of ten interviews; semi-structured interview
guide with (1) Introduction (2) Specific questions
about motives and success factors [see interview
guide—Appendix]; tape-recorded and transcribed
Workshop with 14 participants (two from each case
study company); (1) Presentation of research results
including conclusions from archival data analysis
(2) Interactive discussion and validation of results
with case study companies
• A set of expectations on the PI vision
(performance, technology and procedures, see
Appendix)
• Identification of five broad topics that determine a
PI network (the PI-(service) provider, warehouse
network, contracting, transport unit & data carrier,
in- and outbound network)
• A signed commitment of seven companies to join
the case study research process
• Identification of company-specific perspectives on
motives to enter and success factors to
continuously collaborate in a PI network
• A generic first and high-level framework on
motives and success factors (see Appendix)
• An agreement on the provision of archival data
(i.e., transport routes, warehouse utilization,
shipment demands) of each case company
• Seven completed worksheets with case study
companies’ detailed explanations on motives and
success factors for PI network collaboration
• Notes from the discussion
• Specification of interview partners for second
round of interviews
• In-depth information on motives and success
factors
• Collected verbatim quotes—related to worksheets
on motives and success factors from workshop 2
• Selected verbatim quotes as provided in the
manuscript result section
• Validation of findings from interpretive analysis
(intratextual/interview level and
intertextual/company level)

in qualitative research; it facilitates the sorting and can be structured
by the research question, a concept map, and the “clusters of
patches” that begin to emerge (Stake 2010). In our research, we fol-
lowed the approach of structuring codes along research questions.
For the intertextual as well as the interpretive analysis on the com-
pany level, several rounds of thematic analysis and discussions
within the research team took place. The team consisted of two
senior faculty members and two PhD candidates, with both PhD
candidates working exclusively for this research.
DATA ANALYSIS AND SYNTHESIS
The data analysis and synthesis aimed to derive motives and suc-
cess factors by means of an intratextual (interview level) and
intertextual (across company level) analysis, feeding into the
development of the following propositions.
From expectations for the PI vision to an aggregated set of
motives and success factors

Conclusion and validation
Once we had identified a clear story for each company, the final
phase of the analysis was the interpretative analysis across compa-
nies aiming to identify commonalities and differences in this setting.
Finally, what remained was the question: “did we get it right?”
(Stake 1995). Therefore, we initiated a third workshop where we
presented and discussed our findings with companies involved.
During the initial workshop with twelve potential case compa-
nies, the team of researchers identified a set of initial expecta-
tions for the PI vision (see Appendix). These initial expectations
include performance aspects (e.g., better-utilized storage and
transport capacities, high delivery readiness, and on-time deliver-
ies), technological aspects (e.g., modular and intelligent contain-
ers, tracking, and tracing) but also procedural aspects (e.g.,
bundling of material flow and holistic network view). The initial
Physical Internet Network
expectations reflect the case study companies’ assumptions and
beliefs toward a PI network. In the course of the case studies,
the initial expectations were refined and developed further to
determine motives and success factors. At this initial stage, five
broad topics associated with the potential realization of a PI
emerged: (1) the PI-(service) provider, (2) warehouse network,
(3) contracting, (4) transport unit and data carrier, and (5) in-
and outbound network. The initial workshop closed with a
signed commitment of seven companies to join the research pro-
cess and become a case company.
After the initial workshop, the first round of interviews was
conducted, which facilitated intratextual insights (=on the level
of the individual interview) into the case study companies’ posi-
tions on the PI. We sorted statements from the interview tran-
scripts and abstracted motives from statements which reflected
“reasons for entering a PI network.” Using the same logic, we
abstracted success factors those statements that reflected “frame-
work conditions required to effectively collaborate in the PI net-
work.” Through this abstraction process, the interview results
were aggregated into a generic first- and high-level framework.
In the course of a second workshop, the first- and high-level
framework was developed into a set of nine specific motives and
13 specific success factors (see Appendix). Most of the motives
result from the need to cope with external demands (e.g., com-
petitive pressure, policies and regulations, cost pressure, flexibil-
ity requirements).
In a second round of interviews, the motives and success fac-
tors were elaborated in more detail. The analysis of interview
transcripts allowed the consolidation and in-depth understanding
of each motive and success factor leading to our propositions as
presented in the findings section below.
FINDINGS
Based on intertextual and interpretive analysis from interview
transcripts and additional workshop notes, this section shows
data by means of power quotes in order to support our findings
(Pratt 2009; Fawcett et al. 2014) related to motives and success
factors for PI collaboration. Corresponding proof quotes (see col-
umn two) for each motive and success factor (see column one)
and how they guided us to derive our propositions are presented
in Tables 6 and 7.
According to collaboration literature, a distinct management of
interdependencies between firms participating in relational net-
works can result in cost reduction and overall improved business
performance (Zacharia et al. 2009). Although benefits of collabo-
ration appear to be synergistic in nature, even across enterprises
(Sanders and Premus 2005), there is little insight into new busi-
ness model development based on multi-industry network collab-
oration. Research on the logistics service industry shows that
collaboration and the use of external relations contribute to inno-
vation of LSPs, but so far contrary to our approach—as our
research emphasizes open network members, focusing specifi-
cally on LSP’s customers (Bellingkrodt and Wallenburg 2013).
Our analysis shows that businesses certainly face “cost pres-
sure” (“Reduction of logistics, storage and handling costs of a
high priority to us” [I#1]; “Common cost reduction between dif-
ferent process levels” [L#3]) and “competitive pressure”
11
(“Existing overall conditions result in competitive pressure for
our business” [L#2]). Beyond that, companies are also driven by
envisioning “integration and collaborative business strategy” as
stated by L#2—“our company’s service quality, transparency and
innovations are only achievable when collaborating and realizing
best possible integration with partners”—as well as “innovation
and business model development strategy” (“In PI we see an
opportunity to co-develop a future business model” [I#3]). Com-
panies are convinced that LSP business models will be subject to
change. Real-time demand and supply expectations need to be
covered with efficient processes at a high level of quality. As a
countermeasure against the pressure from market players, LSP
businesses in particular consider collaboration agreements to
remain competitive against other players. Costs and competitive
advantage affect shippers and LSPs likewise, which make busi-
ness efforts toward a PI network more compelling, as PI promises
to tackle these challenges. This motivates our first proposition:
Proposition 1: Shippers and LSPs enter a PI network,
because they expect to gain a competitive advantage.
Improving the efficiency and effectiveness of a transportation
system is the overall goal of the PI. In the context of PI,
resources according to RBV can be transport assets, such as
trucks or warehouses, and the capacity of these transport assets.
Today, the access to and exploitation of big data is another type
of resource that can lead to a competitive advantage as suggested
by RBV (Yu et al. 2018). Notably, transport assets or big data
will not meet the VRIN criteria, unless an organization enters a
PI network. For example, an organization can fully exploit the
potential of its empty truck or warehouse capacity or transport
information, if it is part of a network where other partners can
take advantage of these resources and reward the resource-own-
ing organization.
Without the PI network, capacity or transport information
would not be valuable as defined by Barney (1991), because
these resources would not enable the organization to improve its
efficiency. Outside the PI network, the resources are neither rare
nor imperfectly imitable, because many companies have empty
truck capacities. However, participation in the consortium
ensures that these empty truck capacities are optimally utilized
without adding disproportionate efforts, and full utilization of
transport assets is indeed rare and imperfectly imitable in the
transport sector (Montreuil 2011). This is in line with I#2’s state-
ment—“without established access to new and non-utilized
resources in networks, realized through LSP partners, the busi-
ness performance is potentially at risk.” Regarding PI networks,
LSPs aim to “look beyond own business horizon, in order to cer-
tainly not miss to gain access to additional resources” [L#2] and
“see several potentials left to collaboratively gaining access to
non-utilized partner resources in the market” [L#3].
Unused shipper’s storage capacities in a PI network can also
be made available to LSPs. PI resources can also be regarded as
nonsubstitutable: The intelligent combination and provision of
resources creates a nonsubstitutable setting of partners’ poten-
tials. There is no equivalent condition which provides compara-
ble efficiency and optimization. The following statements
indicate the meaning of resource access in terms of “know-how”
12 M. Plasch et al.

Table 6: Motives to enter a PI network—Proof Quotes [from second round of interviews]

Motives and [link to

proposition] Interviewee proof quotes

Cost pressure “Reduction of logistics, storage and handling costs is of a high priority to us.” [I#1]
Means transport and “We work hard to reduce costs due to real-time supply and demand information in our transport
logistics costs [P1] network.” [I#2]
“We focus on cost reduction through increased capacity utilization and more efficient processing—
especially when it comes to transport and logistics operations.” [I#3]
“Due to increasing customer specialization and internationalization/globalization, the focus is on logistics
and transport costs.” [I#4]
“Given the shortage of freight space, cost pressure is constantly challenging for us. Fixed costs need to
be managed thoroughly and requires efforts for increased utilization.” [L#1]
“In fact, we prioritize cost reduction through various sets of activities such as standardization of
interfaces, IT-issues, automation and consolidation.” [L#2]
“Realizing potentials for cost reduction in our business means: Competitive advantage.” [L#3]
“Refining models for common cost reduction between different process levels is our main motive.” [L#3]
Logistics resource “We consider access to enhanced logistics resources and competences and aim to match activities in
access/expansion network management with partners.” [I#1]
From both shippers’ and “Without logistics networks and established access to new and non-utilized resources in networks, we see
LSPs perspective [P2] our business performance at risk.” [I#2]
“As an involved partner company, we are motivated by the possibility to collaborate to use each other’s
access to resources and gain important advantage.” [I#3]
“Expected potentials are seen diverse but, access and expansion through a more effective bundling of
cargos is a clear target in our operations.” [L#1]
“If we do not look beyond our business horizon, we certainly miss to gain access to additional
resources.” [L#2]
“In our market, there are several possibilities left to collaboratively gaining access to non-utilized partner
resources.” [L#3]
Competitive pressure “Logistics changed in its core meaning for many businesses, especially when we take e-commerce and
Due to a competitive new concepts (i.e., Click & Collect) offered by competition: There is also a stronger connection between
logistics context [P1] online and traditional retail and competing service providers.” [I#4]
“There is internal and external but mainly external competitive pressure, which has to be managed to
perform on a top level.” [I#2]
“As a countermeasure against the pressure from market players, we consider diverse collaboration
agreements in order to remain competitive against global players.” [I#3]
“Within the existing overall conditions our business experiences competitive pressure naturally and it is
difficult to keep up with global players.” [L#2]
“Notably it is the case that pressure from competition increases, especially regarding our major
customers.” [L#3]
Policies and regulations “Clear regulatory guidelines and supportive PI framework conditions are expected. . .: At present, they are
Relevant for enforcing PI not there. Not for shippers, not for LSPs. This is an impulse for re-think the CMR, the regulations for
implementation Speed up international carriage of goods.” [I#1]
the transition to greener “There will be regulations that require greener transport activities in our network. We consider each and
and cleaner assets’ every initiative from our service providers relevant as it supports both our emission targets and the
utilization [P3] utilization aspect.” [I#3]
“Being faster and more flexible also means offering alternative routes and operational latitude which are
blocked by legal regulations (e.g., breaks and rest times).” [L#1]
“There is the need for change or at least adaptation of specific regulations that to-date hinder operational
collaboration between service providers. As this can be the first step, we will take part.” [L#3]

Continued.
Physical Internet Network 13

Table 6: (Continued)

Motives and [link to

proposition] Interviewee proof quotes

Know-how access “Our goal in terms of accessing know-how is diverse as it concerns innovative technologies, logistics
Knowledge collaboratively processes, operational collaboration as well as know-how in simulation and transport modeling.” [I#2]
improves PI network “Digitization, smart factory, physical internet, interconnected logistics etc. are considered important topics
partners [P2] for the company. We want to contribute and are motivated by the cooperation network and the potential
knowledge profit.” [I#4]
“Learning from and with the customer is an important part of development and constant benchmarking
and source of know-how access.” [L#2]
“Transportation-wise, our company is already very specific in terms of a know-how basis: But we expect
some more new aspects in collaboration.” [L#3]
Flexibility requirements “It is a logistics demand: We require increased efficiency of processing in terms of hub-utilization, last-
Driven by customer mile deliveries and general cargo transport.” [I#3]
demands on both ends “We want to improve in terms of flexibility—which means planning reliability, complementarity and
[P3] agility. Especially the mode complementarity within the open network will result in being more flexible
as a service provider. This is what drives us.” [L#2]
Network and/or market “Access to markets which are currently not attractive due to high logistics costs or complexity (e.g.,
expansion and within a selling/operating radius greater than 500 km).” [I#2]
internationalization “Our company pursues new sustainable ideas in the field of warehousing (especially sharing concepts)
An open network implies which enable the development of new market’s business models. The central aim is that we would like
these relational resources to expand our network and better utilize our storage capacities” [I#4]
[P2] “Our expansion strategy involves to acquire experience and market networks to cover peak demands.”
[L#1]
“In this context we see the opportunity to find (international) strategic partners with experience in areas
where the company itself is not yet specialized.” [L#2]
“New opportunities and/or new markets which are currently not possible due to operational and strategic
barriers are in focus for us.” [L#3]
Integration and “We focus on collaborative practices and try to find sustainable ideas based on exchange and integration
collaborative business with organizations along the supply/value network.” [I#3]
strategy “Full transparency through enhanced integration in the supply chain/network offers the following
Which follow the PI vision competitive advantages: predictability, agility, and flexibility.” [I#1]
in reality [P1] “Competitive advantage result from good quality, good service, transparency and innovations of the
company: Parts of that is only achievable when collaborating and realize best possible integration.”
[L#2]
“Not only systems integration but collaborative mechanisms need to be in place to improve transparency
along the supply chain network.” [L#1]
Innovation and business “A particular aspect from a service point of view is the acceleration and simplification of returns
model development processing and recall actions—involving value chain partners.” [I#1]
strategy “When you take the increasing importance of carbon footprint for businesses. To achieve this, it requires
Which make partners involvement of all partners within our network.” [I#4]
capable for PI [P1] “In our current situation we see an opportunity to co-develop a future business model especially with
regard to B2C.” [I#3]
“We believe that new and additional innovative solutions result in competitive advantage: Our company
wants to act as a customer and solution-oriented manufacturer and reliable industry partner.” [I#4]
“Our company wants to expand its leading role in terms of logistics innovations within the
organization/group. [I#1]
“According to our business strategy we strive to be able to develop our operations and processes, to be
open for collaboration, to offer new products/services and thereby to be an attractive partner for
shippers.” [L#2]
“The goal is to deliver the perfect total package for the customers. This is our business model
development strategy. The service component becomes more important (e.g., transparency of delivery
status, fast response times, assurance of safety stock, etc.).” [I#2]
“We are convinced that our LSP business models will be subject to change. We are not afraid of
innovating.” [L#2]
14
Table 7: Success factors to collaborate continuously—Proof Quotes [from second round of interviews]
Success factors and [link to
proposition]
Trust-building measures
Against increasing competitive
thinking
For reliable data exchange [P4]
Open used infrastructure
Characterizing warehouse hubs and
transport capacities
Comprising aligned handling and
usage of container units [P5]
Central orchestrator
Acts as neutral control and
coordination entity
Uses standards and compatible
interfaces for decision making
Applies contracts, participation
scheme and pricing model for
operational execution and fair
network collaboration
Enables certification and ongoing
quality assurance of network
partners [P4]
Operational transport system (for PI
reality)
Mechanisms for alignment, full
network transparency and
monitoring
Measurable display of open network
performance (financial and
ecological KPIs)
Control levers for tracing and
documenting operational process
excellence [P5]
Strategic alignment (toward PI
reality)
Maintaining private partners’
autonomy despite the alignment in
the network
Enabling business development and
performing value streams
Envisioning physical, digital/
intangible and relational resource
alignment [P5]
M. Plasch et al.
Interviewee proof quotes
“The establishment of trust between partners in the network is essential. It should be based on
facts that are derived from the system or the collaboration platform.” [L#2]
“Mutual trust is considered on a new level. Partners are more transparent in terms of their
business processes and customer structure. This is ok, but we want to be sure that we share
data with trusted partners in the network.” [L#1]
“Transparency on exchange data, openness, information exchange protocols, data truth and the
question who owns the data exchanged in the PI network: This is what concerns us and
requires management, measures and regulation.” [I#4]
“Sure, we aim to use other available hubs and transport options within the network and would
be ready to align our processes as a result: However, we expect compensation if we split or
change well organized transport operations to share with other partners.” [I#1]
“It affects the practical suitability and alignment of shared and commonly used transport
infrastructure. It needs to be insured that the containers and data carriers used on or in the
transport unit. Otherwise, higher utilization is not achievable.” [L#2]
“With open used infrastructure in the network, our LSP systems and processes—that illustrate
our and other available resources—require synchronized and aligned processes and ERP
planning.” [L#3]
“Our continuous engagement would require a clearing instance—a neutral role in the PI network
that orchestrates partners’ resources and coordinates, which partner gets which order using an
intelligent and fair mechanism” [I#4]
“In relation to data exchange we consider uniform and functioning standards for communication
and uniform interfaces. That only guarantees clear decision making on transport constraints and
smooth communication.” [L#2]
“On the one hand, contracts shall secure the declared participation for partners in the network.
On the other hand, fair accounting should be achieved—executed by a neutral entity—with
agreed unit prices, as well as with transparent and flexible pricing models.” [L#1]
“What if a partner in not qualified (anymore) to be part of the network due to particular
reasons? An initial assessment is obligatory. Only if the results are objectively measurable and
performance indicators of partners can be compared, the platform is able to assess the quality
of performance.” [I#1]
“For example, continuous goods flows monitoring throughout the entire network could have a
positive effect on network controlling and monitoring performance and service settlement.”
[I#3]
“If the platform system can transparently calculate and show prices, costs and orders,
demonstrate compliance regarding delivery time and quality, it should be able to show what is
available for each partner compared to others in certain time periods.” [I#1]
“A well-functioning control logic would be important. If I were to communicate the utilization
rate (of my warehouse or my fleet) to the platform, it would have to synchronize, control it
and calculate the synergy potentials.” [I#2]
“Referring to autonomy which implies independence in a way. We, as a partner and network
entity, want to be able to have a certain freedom within the network—aside from the necessary
control of a neutral acting instance. We commit ourselves to align our strategy and resources
but want to react to changes ourselves or decline decisions in certain scenarios.” [L#1]
“As a provider of freight transport and logistics services, we have an ability to strive and
implement emissions-reduction solutions and to gain more efficiency in our value streams.
Aligning our strategy and resources for PI, we pursue this central goal in our LSP/transport
sector.” [L#2]
“We need to start cooperating. If we were to combine our disciplines, synchronize data and
efforts, act as good complementors, we would be much better in developing our businesses and
value streams collaboratively. We would be ready to make the first steps early on.” [L#3]
Physical Internet Network
and “relational resources”: Profiting from PI processes, opera-
tional collaboration as well as accessing know-how in simulation
and transport modeling [I#2]; The access to specialized know-
how that for example stems from LSP partners’ experience in
areas where the company itself is not yet specialized [L#2].
We therefore propose the following:
Proposition 2: Shippers and LSPs enter a PI network,
because they wish to gain access to the network’s
resources
Improving the efficiency and effectiveness of a transportation
system is the overall goal of a PI network. Existing studies on
collaboration to foster efficiencies refer to shipper collaborations
that aim to efficiently utilize capacities and improve shipment
processes in terms of weight and volume dimensions (Verdonck
et al. 2013; Suzuki and Lu 2017). In this regard, in a PI, resources
such as truck capacities or warehouse capacities are leveraged—
in contrast to the current situation, in which enormous capacities
remain unused: “It is a requirement to increase the efficiency of
processing in terms of truck, warehouse and hub-utilization, last-
mile deliveries and general cargo transport” [I#3]. This means
that the resources are efficiently shared between organizations to
increase overall utilization in the network in order to satisfy trans-
port demands by continuously lowering operational expenses.
This aspect complies with “demand collaboration”—understood
as a collaborative willingness to engage in inter-firm relationships
and adapt an innovative view on doing operations (Kahn et al.
2006). Similar to existing research, service providers try to lower
operational expenses by efficiently sharing transport resources
(i.e., inventory, terminal and vehicle consolidation (Cruijssen
et al. 2010; Dai and Chen 2012) and logistics service exchange
€
(Ergun et al. 2007; Ozener et al. 2011)).
Similarly, data (i.e., information resources) will be leveraged
within the network to facilitate efficient processes, thereby reduc-
ing logistics costs. “Flexibility requirements,” on the one hand,
stand for the LSPs’ motive to meet the challenging requirements
of shippers with higher planning reliability and agility. The
demand for higher flexibility was described by L#2: “We want
to improve in terms of flexibility—which means planning relia-
bility, complementarity and agility. Especially the mode comple-
mentarity within the open network will result in being more
flexible as a service provider. This is what drives us.” On the
other hand, “policies and regulations” as described by I#1
—“Clear regulatory guidelines and supportive PI framework con-
ditions are expected. . .: At present, they are not there. Not for
shippers, not for LSPs. This is an impulse for re-think the CMR,
the regulations for international carriage of goods.”—have to be
created to allow a joint and more efficient management of trans-
port logistics processes and use of resources.
This leads to our third proposition:
Proposition 3: Shippers and LSPs enter a PI network,
because they expect their transport logistics processes
and resources to be more efficient.
After understanding shippers’ and LSPs’s motives better with
respect to why they would enter a PI network, we wanted to
15
discover success factors that need to be present in order to col-
laborate continuously in a PI network. Success factors in P4 and
P5 of our framework provide insights into what a central orches-
tration involves and into the alignment in a PI network as a basis
for continuous collaboration.
Collaboration literature shows that elements of trust are diffi-
cult to acquire between multiple firms (Adams et al. 2014) and
emphasizes the importance of trust from a network perspective
(“network trust”) (Whipple et al. 2013). “Trust-building mea-
sures” as a relationship-building factor in networks or alliances
(Fawcett et al. 2008), which counteract competitive thinking and
support reliable data exchange, were of central importance to all
PI network partners. I#4 stated: “Our continuous engagement
would require a clearing instance—a neutral role in the PI net-
work that orchestrates partners’ resources and coordinates, which
partner gets which order using an intelligent and fair mecha-
nism.” The “central orchestrator” as a new role in a PI network
collaboration, objectively deciding on facts without personal
motives, is widely seen as the key success factor in order to fos-
ter trust among partners and maintain a successful PI network.
In line with prior research efforts, the capabilities of a central
orchestrator cover the encouragement of standardized processes
and improved network visibility (Zacharia et al. 2011). This role
of a catalyst to encourage change from a neutral position has the
potential to facilitate the process of successful partner collabora-
tion in value networks (Stubbs 2004; Christopher 2005; Sch-
weizer 2005; Wind et al. 2009). This neutral orchestration of
partners’ resources and decision making relies on the use of con-
tracts, standards, compatible interfaces, participation schemes,
and a pricing model for executing operational transportation
plans and fair network collaboration. The principle of “no-asset-
based” service provision can be considered as the factor separat-
ing LLPs and 4PLs from “pure” neutral orchestrators (Fulconis
and Pache 2018). Central/Neutral orchestrators act as dematerial-
ized assemblers of resources and competencies, without having
(their) own physical assets. In a developed PI network, gain-shar-
ing mechanisms (Um and Kim 2019) are expected to ensure that
resource-owning organizations are compensated adequately for
providing their capacities: “On the one hand, contracts shall
secure the declared participation for partners in the network. On
the other hand fair accounting should be achieved—executed by
a neutral entity—with agreed unit prices, as well as with trans-
parent and flexible pricing models” [L#1].
This results in our fourth proposition:
Proposition 4: The presence of a neutral entity that
orchestrates the resources is a critical success factor in
a PI network.
In the context of a PI, physical resources (e.g., warehouse or
transport capacities) and digital resources (e.g., information and
data exchange) must be coordinated appropriately. This align-
ment of resources refers to “openly used infrastructure,” “opera-
tional transport system,” and “strategic alignment” as success
factors for continuous collaboration in a PI. Alignment further
means open resources (i.e., warehouse hubs and transport capaci-
ties) as well as proper handling and use of container units. An
aligned IT system potentially provides full network transparency,
16
monitors measurable network performance KPIs, and records
operational processes—as stated in the following quotes: “LSP
systems and processes—that illustrate our and other available
resources—require synchronized and aligned processes and ERP
planning” [L#3]; “It affects the practical suitability and alignment
of shared and commonly used transport infrastructure” [L#2].
Alignment deals with fuzzy boundaries between involved part-
ners and leads to a degree of abstraction of digital resources
(Ndede-Amadi 2004; Sanders 2005; Tunzelmann 2010), that is,
operations, logistics, and strategic planning data. If “continuous
goods flows monitoring throughout the entire network could
have a positive effect on network controlling and monitoring per-
formance and service settlement” [I#3], the transmission and pro-
cessing of information between participating PI partners is vital
(Sanders 2005). Yet, to understand alignment in the context of a
PI, it is important to consider the strategic alignment of busi-
nesses and their information systems (IS) to improve organiza-
tional performance using IS-based resources (Kearns and Lederer
2000). This indicates the way in which PI operations and activi-
ties, including resource alignment and transparency of informa-
tion within the network, should be managed: “If the platform
system can transparently calculate and show prices, costs and
orders, demonstrate compliance regarding delivery time and qual-
ity, it should be able to show what is available” [I#1]. The physi-
cal and information resources throughout the PI network can
support the network’s strategic orientation and emphasize the
importance of the central orchestrator role (as seen in P4) (Kehoe
et al. 2007). Referring to the alignment of resources and a
increased level of information sharing in a PI, our final proposi-
tion is therefore:
Proposition 5: The appropriate alignment of physical
and digital resources is a critical success factor in a PI
network.
Drawing on the above-discussed findings and their relation to
existing literature, a theoretical framework is presented in Fig-
ure 2. This highlights the motives and success factors identified
among four shippers and three LSPs operating in a PI network.
According to the framework, propositions 1–3 relate to RQ1 and
indicate motives that encourage an organization to become part
Figure 2: Framework of motives for entering and success factors for remaining in a PI network.
M. Plasch et al.
of a PI network. Propositions 4 and 5 relate to RQ2 and indicate
success factors as conditions required by organizations to collab-
orate continuously in a PI network. Figure 2 summarizes the five
propositions.
CONCLUSIONS, IMPLICATIONS, AND FUTURE
RESEARCH DIRECTIONS
This paper delivered an explanation of motives and success fac-
tors to collaborate in a PI network. Case study companies were
contrasted—for a state of having no active business interaction
between the actors against, their involvement within a PI net-
work, conditioned by substantial data exchange, sharing ware-
house and transport facilities, and the development of
collaborative, measurable network performance processes. The
results show manifestations of motives and success factors of
case study companies in a potential PI setting. The identified
success factors “central orchestrator” and “alignment of
resources” clearly indicate that a central and neutral control and
coordination body is crucial for collaborating successfully in a
PI. The task of this central orchestrator is to regulate the partner-
ships and economic exchanges in the PI network: This involves
contracts, standards and compatible interfaces, a participation
scheme, and a pricing model for executing operational trans-
portation plans.
Control of network performance and quality is a central
requirement for organizations to collaborate continuously under
fair network collaboration conditions. To achieve the appropriate
alignment of resources, findings suggest the establishment of an
efficient and fair governance structure that features these PI oper-
ations and activities, including resource alignment. In terms of
RBV, we showed that traditionally NON-VRIN resources like
transport and warehouse capacity can become VRIN in a PI net-
work setting. Resource orchestration theory was used as a theo-
retical frame, revealing the idea of the resource orchestrator
(Zacharia et al. 2011) to be especially applicable in a PI network
setting. The key motives we identified, that is, “access to net-
work resources,” “competitive advantage,” and “efficient pro-
cesses,” are nothing out of the ordinary and can be found in
non-PI settings as well. Nevertheless, in an open PI network the
Physical Internet Network
leverage to address these key motives is significantly higher. The
following subsections illustrate the implications and limitations
of this study and indicate potential directions for future research.
Theoretical implications
Existing PI literature lacks theoretical grounding; theoretical
development in the field of PI is therefore urgently needed. Our
paper addresses this need inasmuch as we are the first to apply a
well-established theory (RBV) and an emerging theory (ROT) to
the context of PI (Figure 3).
RBV is a seminal theory used in a myriad of studies on mani-
fold topics of strategic management. For research applying RBV,
the originator of RBV—Birger Wernerfelt—recommends gaining
a profound understanding for what is actually considered as
resources (Lockett et al. 2008). In an interview, Wernerfelt stated
that researchers tend to focus on explaining the effects of
resources, but neglect understanding the nature of different
resources (Lockett et al. 2008). Since we apply RBV to a new
topic (PI), we tried to define the nature of the resources relevant
in the context of PI.
Our case study revealed that the following three types of
resources prove to be important for organizations entering a PI
network:
• Physical resources (e.g., case companies frequently mentioned
access to warehouse and transport capacities as desirable net-
work resources)
• Digital/intangible resources (e.g., data and knowledge are rele-
vant resources in the PI network to create efficiency and inno-
vation among collaborating companies)
• Relational resources (e.g., business relations can be used for
network and market expansion)
The assumption that VRIN resources yield a competitive
advantage is of central significance in RBV (Barney 1991). The
results of our study contribute to understanding the foundation of
VRIN criteria. Resources do not have to meet the VRIN criteria
innately; VRIN criteria can be developed over time. Some of an
organizations’ resources only become valuable, rare, imperfectly
imitable, and nonsubstitutable when the organization enters a PI
network. The reason for this is that these resources (e.g., ware-
house capacities) can be fully utilized only in the PI network.
Efficiency is increased, leading to additional return on invest-
ment. Horizontal collaboration and participation in a PI network
can therefore enable resources to meet the VRIN criteria (and
create competitive advantage).
Although RBV previously proved to be appropriate for
explaining the formation of strategic alliances and collaboration
between different organizations (as seen in, e.g., Eisenhardt and
Schoonhoven 1996; Tsang 1998; Das and Teng 2000), this the-
ory has some major shortcomings. It has been criticized for pre-
dominantly focusing on the question of which resources are
critical for an organization’s success, while neglecting the ques-
tion of how to use these resources (Priem and Butler 2001; Han-
sen et al. 2004). This is also reflected in a review written by
Wernerfelt himself, 10 years after publishing the initial idea of
RBV (Wernerfelt 1995). In this review, Wernerfelt (1995)
acknowledged that the governance structure within which
17
Figure 3: Theoretical underpinning of collaboration in a PI net-
work.
organizations can leverage their resources was missing from his
original work. Our paper addresses this missing piece inasmuch
as we present how the PI network, especially by means of the
neutral orchestrator, can provide the governance structure
required to efficiently leverage resources. The logistics environ-
ment has become increasingly digitized and collaborative in
recent years, which is also reflected by new concepts such as PI.
We show how RBV and the idea of a PI fit together and comple-
ment each other, thus providing a missing link for the further
development of RBV in this new, digitized, and collaborative
world of logistics.
To explain the governance structure in a PI, we used a second
theory, ROT, which turned out to be particularly useful for
understanding the deployment of logistics resources and capabili-
ties in a PI network. We extended the notion of the resource
orchestrator as stipulated by ROT to the context of PI and
thereby revealed a new field of application for this emerging the-
ory. Our work thus supports the dissemination of ROT as a rele-
vant new theory. Our results contribute to the further
understanding and application of ROT, as the case study reveals
some distinct success factors for the effective orchestration of
resources (e.g., open infrastructure, strategic alignment, and trust-
building measures). Additionally, we complement existing work
on resource orchestration in logistics, which currently focuses
exclusively on the function and capabilities of third-party logis-
tics providers (3PLs) (e.g., Dollet and Dıaz 2011; Zacharia et al.
2011; Shaharudin et al. 2014). In comparison with 3PLs as well
as LLPs and 4PLs, the role of the network orchestrator in a PI is
more progressive and comprehensive. The case study reveals the
expectations concerning this advanced network orchestrator. For
example, case study companies expect efficient processes by
bundling and leveraging resources appropriately, as they need to
cope with increasing cost pressure and flexibility requirements.
Practical implications
We began with the problem that managers require answers as to
how the PI can work in practice and how potential PI users esti-
mate their demand and expectations from this specific network
concept. Our paper presents the first effort in PI literature to
study the collaboration between logistics service providers and
shippers from multiple industries. We provide guidance for prac-
titioners that companies which strive for more efficient logistics
processes or enhanced access to network partners’ resources
18
show appropriate motives to join a PI network. Managers need
to consider their organizations’ collaboration readiness (i.e., com-
petency fitness, willingness to collaborate and share data, and
technological compatibility) for joining a PI and may expect an
efficient alignment of resources and an evidence-based transport
logistics planning as well as decision making (performed by a
central orchestrator through a PI platform). Managers should
consider that their organizations’ resources become valuable,
rare, imperfectly imitable, and nonsubstitutable when collaborat-
ing within a PI network. This is because resources can be better
utilized and managed in a complementary way with those from
other network partners—including multi-industry and LSP com-
panies alike.
In the long term, new servitization models may appear (e.g.,
Gruchmann et al. 2020) that are based on the fact that transport
users need the functionality of assets rather than the assets them-
selves (Neely 2008). This implies that it is not the transport
resources (e.g., pallet space on a specific truck) that is sold, but
that instead a specific service is offered (e.g., instant transporta-
tion service from A to B). A development toward servitization
will lead to more efficient logistics processes in the PI network
(P3). This refers to the dematerialized assembling of resources
and competencies in PI orchestration. Utilization and resource
productivity will still play an important role for the resource
owner in this servitization scenario, but not for the LSPs, who
will then only use the functionality of the resources, but not own
them (P2). The orchestrator—for example, a platform or entity—
relies on monitoring plans and performs on the basis of a
dynamic assembly of partners’ resources.
Regarding the orchestrator’s role, managers may expect a neu-
tral driving force that acts on the basis of potential platform
intelligence for the purpose of managing data optimization pro-
cesses through algorithms, standardized data structures, and inte-
grated protocols. The implementation of the central orchestrator
—in whatever form or hierarchical structure—is a decisive fac-
tor. The fact that this inhibits an enormous potential is evident
inasmuch as the network described here is only one part of a net-
work in wider networks, according to the PI vision.
This “network of networks,” as a concept, also initiates discus-
sions on the centralization or decentralization tendencies of
developing the PI (Ambra et al. 2019). Practitioners can benefit
from the understanding that PI is meant to unite multi-industry
partners, can collaborate, and more fully unfolds its effect when
PI network partners—who adapt their business models and their
operations of propriety resources—rise in numbers. Another
implication of relevance and potential value to managers is the
fact that collaboration in a PI network mitigates interdependence
risks. This is facilitated by developing inter-firm relation-specific
assets, inter-firm knowledge-sharing routines, complementary
resource endowment, and effective governance in the PI network
(Dyer and Singh 1998). Thus, the PI provides suitable mecha-
nisms for supply chain collaborative risk management (Friday
et al. 2018).
This research also provides strong recommendations for policy
makers, such as industry associations, governments, and suprana-
tional organizations, to develop PI policies, regulations, and stan-
dards based on what needs to be achieved to bring PI networks
to life.
M. Plasch et al.
Limitations and future research
This exploratory study has several limitations that call for further
research. First, this study is an initial attempt to empirically
examine motives for entering and success factors for remaining
in a PI network. Further research is needed to examine motives
and success factors in different PI networks with respect to net-
work size, actors, and culture. Second, longitudinal research is
needed to understand whether the expected benefits truly materi-
alize (e.g., in KPIs) and the identified success factors remain suc-
cess factors. Third, as we limited our study to the specific multi-
industry context and the corresponding companies’ requirements,
it would be interesting to see whether the propositions also hold
in other multi-industry settings. Although we selected cases
deliberately to achieve a heterogeneous sample, we cannot con-
clude that the findings are transferable to all firms without adjust-
ments or rule out interpretation bias regarding the investigated
phenomenon.
Further research is required in the following directions: (1)
The establishment of the resource orchestrator’s role and valid
gain-sharing mechanisms have to attract future PI network mem-
bers by highlighting upfront what they expect from joining. (2)
The development of knowledge on business models and operat-
ing models relevant in a PI context will help to make the vision
and the way collaboration takes place in the network more tangi-
ble. (3) The identification of companies’ organizational readiness
and maturity (Kl€ otzer and Pflaum 2017) in terms of PI can
ensure that the promised benefits can be realized and are not
endangered because of internal company shortcomings. (4) The
investigation of the foundation of VRIN criteria through a high
and well-aligned balance between PI network resources.
Facing the current challenges and mismanagement with respect
to sustainability in recent decades, the PI might serve as an evo-
lutional concept for future sustainable and open transport logis-
tics networks and sharing-economy actors (Gerwe and Silva
2020).
REFERENCES
Adams, F.G., Richey, R.G., Autry, C.W., Morgan, T.R., and
Gabler, C.B. 2014. “Supply Chain Collaboration, Integration,
and Relational Technology: How Complex Operant Resources
Increase Performance Outcomes.” Journal of Business
Logistics 35(4):299–317.
ALICE-ETP. 2019. “A Framework and Process for the
Development of a Roadmap towards Zero Emissions
Logistics 2050”.
Ambra, T., Caris, A., and Macharis, C. 2019. “Towards Freight
Transport System Unification: Reviewing and Combining the
Advancements in the Physical Internet and Synchromodal
Transport Research.” International Journal of Production
Research 57(6):1606–23.
Ballot, E., Montreuil, B., and Meller, R.D. 2014. The Physical
Internet. Paris: La documentation Francaise.
Ballot, E., Montreuil, B., and Thivierge, C. 2013. Functional
Design of Physical Internet Facilities: A Road-Rail Hub.
Montreal: CIRRELT.
Physical Internet Network
Barney, J. 1991. “Firm Resources and Sustained Competitive
Advantage.” Journal of Management 17(1):99–120.
Behdani, B., Fan, Y., Wiegmans, B., and Zuidwijk, R. 2016.
“Multimodal Schedule Design for Synchromodal Freight
Transport Systems.” European Journal of Transport and
Infrastructure Research 16(3):424–44.
Bellingkrodt, S., and Wallenburg, C.M. 2013. “The Role of
External Relationships for LSP Innovativeness: A
Contingency Approach.” Journal of Business Logistics 34
(3):209–21.
Ben Mohamed, I., Klibi, W., Labarthe, O., Deschamps, J.-C.,
and Babai, M.Z. 2017. “Modelling and Solution Approaches
for the Interconnected City Logistics.” International Journal
of Production Research 55(9):2664–84.
Betti, Q., Khoury, R., Halle, S., and Montreuil, B. 2019.
“Improving Hyperconnected Logistics with Blockchains and
Smart Contracts.” IT Professional 21(4):25–32.
Caplice, C. 2007. “Electronic Markets for Truckload
Transportation.” Production and Operations Management 16
(4):423–36.
Chargui, T., Bekrar, A., Reghioui, M., and Trentesaux, D. 2019.
“Proposal of a Multi-agent Model for the Sustainable Truck
Scheduling and Containers Grouping Problem in a Road-Rail
Physical Internet Hub.” International Journal of Production
Research 58:5477–501.
Chen, C., Pan, S., Wang, Z., and Zhong, R.Y. 2017. “Using
Taxis to Collect Citywide E-commerce Reverse Flows: A
Crowdsourcing Solution.” International Journal of Production
Research 55(7):1833–44.
Childerhouse, P., and Towill, D.R. 2011. “Arcs of Supply Chain
Integration.” International Journal of Production Research 49
(24):7441–68.
Christopher, M. 2005. Logistics and Supply Chain Management:
Creating Value-Adding Networks. London: Pearson
Education.
Cipres, C., and de la Cruz, M.T. 2019. “The Physical Internet
from Shippers Perspective”. In Towards User-centric
Transport in Europe: Challenges, Solutions and
Collaborations, edited by B. M€ uller, and G. Meyer, 203–21.
Cham: Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.
1007/978-3-319-99756-8_14
Colin, J.-Y., Nakechbandi, M., and Mathieu, H. 2015.
“Management of Mobile Resources in Physical Internet
Logistic Models”. In Proceedings of the 4th International
Conference on Advanced Logistics and Transport (ICALT),
323–26. Piscataway, NJ: IEEE.
Crainic, T.G., and Montreuil, B. 2016. “Physical Internet
Enabled Hyperconnected City Logistics.” Transportation
Research Procedia 12:383–98.
Cruijssen, F., Borm, P., Fleuren, H., and Hamers, H. 2010.
“Supplier-Initiated Outsourcing: A Methodology to Exploit
Synergy in Transportation.” European Journal of Operational
Research 207(2):763–74.
Cui, M., and Pan, S.L. 2015. “Developing Focal Capabilities for
E-commerce Adoption: A Resource Orchestration
Perspective.” Information and Management 52(2):200–209.
Dai, B., and Chen, H. 2012. “Mathematical Model and
Solution Approach for Carriers’ Collaborative Transportation
Planning in Less than Truckload Transportation.”
19
International Journal of Advanced Operations Management
4(1–2):62–84.
Darby, J.L., Fugate, B.S., and Murray, J.B. 2019. “Interpretive
Research: A Complementary Approach to Seeking
Knowledge in Supply Chain Management.” The International
Journal of Logistics Management 30(2):395–413.
Darvish, M., Larrain, H., and Coelho, L.C. 2016. “A Dynamic
Multi-plant Lot-sizing and Distribution Problem.”
International Journal of Production Research 54(22):6707–
17.
Das, T.K., and Teng, B.-S. 2000. “A Resource-Based Theory of
Strategic Alliances.” Journal of Management 26(1):31–61.
Dollet, J.N., and Dıaz, A. 2011. “Supply Chain Orchestration for
the Luxury Alcoholic Beverage Sector.” IUP Journal of
Supply Chain Management 8(3):42–65.
Dyer, J.H., Kale, P., and Singh, H. 2004. “When to Ally and
When to Acquire.” Harvard Business Review 82(7–8):108–
15.
Dyer, J.H., and Singh, H. 1998. “The Relational View:
Cooperative Strategy and Sources of Interorganizational
Competitive Advantage.” Academy of Management Review 23
(4):660–79.
Eftestøl-Wilhelmsson, E., Sankari, S., and Bask, A. 2019.
Sustainable and Efficient Transport: Incentives for Promoting
a Green Transport Market. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar
Publishing.
Eisenhardt, K.M., and Schoonhoven, C.B. 1996. “Resource-
Based View of Strategic Alliance Formation: Strategic and
Social Effects in Entrepreneurial Firms.” Organization
Science 7(2):136–50.
Ergun, O., Kuyzu, G., and Savelsbergh, M. 2007. “Reducing
Truckload Transportation Costs through Collaboration.”
Transportation Science 41(2):206–21.
Fawcett, S.E., Magnan, G.M., and McCarter, M.W. 2008. “A
Three-Stage Implementation Model for Supply Chain
Collaboration.” Journal of Business Logistics 29(1):93–112.
Fawcett, S.E., Waller, M.A., Miller, J.W., Schwieterman, M.A.,
Hazen, B.T., and Overstreet, R.E. 2014. “A Trail Guide to
Publishing Success: Tips on Writing Influential Conceptual,
Qualitative, and Survey Research.” Journal of Business
Logistics 35(1):1–16.
Fazili, M., Venkatadri, U., Cyrus, P., and Tajbakhsh, M. 2017.
“Physical Internet, Conventional and Hybrid Logistic
Systems: A Routing Optimisation-Based Comparison using
the Eastern Canada Road Network Case Study.” International
Journal of Production Research 55(9):2703–30.
Friday, D., Ryan, S., Sridharan, R., and Collins, D. 2018.
“Collaborative Risk Management: A Systematic Literature
Review.” International Journal of Physical Distribution and
Logistics Management 48(3):231–53.
Frohlich, M.T., and Westbrook, R. 2001. “Arcs of Integration:
An International Study of Supply Chain Strategies.” Journal
of Operations Management 19(2):185–200.
Fulconis, F., and Pache, G. 2018. “Supply Chain Monitoring:
LLPs and 4PL Providers As Orchestrators.” Procedia –
Social and Behavioral Sciences 238:9–18.
Gerwe, O., and Silva, R. 2020. “Clarifying the Sharing
Economy: Conceptualization, Typology, Antecedents, and
Effects.” Academy of Management Perspectives 34(1):65–96.
20
Gontara, S., Boufaied, A., and Korbaa, O. 2018. “Routing the
PI-Containers in the Physical Internet using the PI-BGP
Protocol”. In Proceedings of the 15th International
Conference on Computer Systems and Applications, 1–8.
Piscataway, NJ.
Gruchmann, T., Pratt, N., Eiten, J., and Melkonyan, A. 2020.
“4PL Digital Business Models in Sea Freight Logistics: The
Case of FreightHub.” Logistics 4(2):10.
Gulati, R. 1999. “Network Location and Learning: The Influence
of Network Resources and Firm Capabilities on Alliance
Formation.” Strategic Management Journal 20(5):397–420.
Hansen, M.H., Perry, L.T., and Reese, C.S. 2004. “A Bayesian
Operationalization of the Resource-Based View.” Strategic
Management Journal 25(13):1279–95.
Helfat, C.E., Finkelstein, S., Mitchell, W., Peteraf, M., Singh, H.,
Teece, D., and Winter, S.G. 2009. Dynamic Capabilities:
Understanding Strategic Change in Organizations. Hoboken:
John Wiley & Sons.
Herczeg, G., Akkerman, R., and Hauschild, M.Z. 2018. “Supply
Chain Collaboration in Industrial Symbiosis Networks.”
Journal of Cleaner Production 171:1058–67.
Hofman, W., Punter, M., Bastiaansen, H., Cornelisse, E., and
Dalmolen, S. 2016. “Semantic Technology for Enabling
Logistics Innovations—Towards Intelligent Cargo in the
Physical Internet.” International Journal of Advanced
Logistics 5(2):58–69.
Hofmann, E., and R€usch, M. 2017. “Industry 4.0 and the Current
Status As Well As Future Prospects on Logistics.” Computers
in Industry 89:23–34.
Hudson, L.A., and Ozanne, J.L. 1988. “Alternative Ways of
Seeking Knowledge in Consumer Research.” Journal of
Consumer Research 14(4):508–21.
Humphries, A.S., and Wilding, R.D. 2004. “Long Term
Collaborative Business Relationships: The Impact of Trust
and C 3 Behaviour.” Journal of Marketing Management 20
(9–10):1107–22.
Ji, S.-F., Peng, X.-S., and Luo, R.-J. 2019. “An Integrated Model
for the Production-Inventory-Distribution Problem in the
Physical Internet.” International Journal of Production
Research 57(4):1000–1017.
Kahn, K.B., Maltz, E.N., and Mentzer, J.T. 2006. “Demand
Collaboration: Effects on Knowledge Creation, Relationships,
and Supply Chain Performance.” Journal of Business
Logistics 27(2):191–221.
Karia, N., Wong, C.Y., Asaari, Muhammad Hasni, Hassan, Abu,
and Lai, K.-H. 2015. “The Effects of Resource Bundling on
Third-Party Logistics Providers’ Performance.” International
Journal of Engineering Business Management 7(2):1–14.
Kearns, G.S., and Lederer, A.L. 2000. “The Effect of Strategic
Alignment on the Use of IS-Based Resources for Competitive
Advantage.” The Journal of Strategic Information Systems 9
(4):265–93.
Kehoe, D.F., Dani, S., Sharifi, H., Burns, N.D., and Backhouse,
C.J. 2007. “Demand Network Alignment: Aligning the
Physical, Informational and Relationship Issues in Supply
Chains.” International Journal of Production Research 45
(5):1141–60.
Ketchen, D.J., Wowak, K., and Craighead, C.W. 2014.
“Resource Gaps and Resource Orchestration Shortfalls in
M. Plasch et al.
Supply Chain Management: The Case of Product Recalls.”
Journal of Supply Chain Management 50(3):6–15.
otzer, C., and Pflaum, A. 2017. “Toward the Development of
Kl€
a Maturity Model for Digitalization within the Manufacturing
Industry’s Supply Chain.” Proceedings of the 50th Hawaii
International Conference on System Sciences, 4210–19.
Kong, X.T.R., Chen, J., Luo, H., and Huang, G.Q. 2016.
“Scheduling at an Auction Logistics Centre with Physical
Internet.” International Journal of Production Research 54
(9):2670–90.
Kubek, D., and Wiez cek, P. 2019. “An Integrated Multi-Layer
Decision-Making Framework in the Physical Internet Concept
for the City Logistics.” Transportation Research Procedia
39:221–30.
Ladik, D.M., and Stewart, D.W. 2008. “The Contribution
Continuum.” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science
36(2):157–65.
Landsch€ utzer, C., Ehrentraut, F., and Jodin, D. 2015.
“Containers for the Physical Internet: Requirements and
Engineering Design Related to FMCG Logistics.” Logistics
Research 8(1):305.
Lemmens, N., Gijsbrechts, J., and Boute, R. 2019.
“Synchromodality in the Physical Internet—Dual Sourcing
and Real-Time Switching between Transport Modes.”
European Transport Research Review 11(1):71.
Lin, Y.-H., Meller, R.D., Ellis, K.P., Thomas, L.M., and Lombardi,
B.J. 2014. “A Decomposition-Based Approach for the Selection
of Standardized Modular Containers.” International Journal of
Production Research 52(15):4660–72.
Liu, H., Wei, S., Ke, W., Wei, K.K., and Hua, Z. 2016. “The
Configuration between Supply Chain Integration and
Information Technology Competency: A Resource
Orchestration Perspective.” Journal of Operations
Management 44(1):13–29.
Lockett, A., O’Shea, R.P., and Wright, M. 2008. “The
Development of the Resource-Based View: Reflections from
Birger Wernerfelt.” Organization Studies 29(8–9):1125–41.
Mason, J. 2002. Qualitative Researching. London: SAGE
Publications Inc.
Meyer, T., Kuhn, M., and Hartmann, E. 2019. “Blockchain
Technology Enabling the Physical Internet: A Synergetic
Application Framework.” Computers and Industrial
Engineering 136:5–17.
Montreuil, B. 2009. “Physical Internet Manifesto: Globally
Transforming the Way Physical Objects Are Handled, Moved,
Stored, Realized, Supplied and Used.” http://www.physica
linternetinitiative.org. Accessed 11, 2012.
Montreuil, B. 2011. “Toward a Physical Internet: Meeting the
Global Logistics Sustainability Grand Challenge.” Logistics
Research 3(2–3):71–87.
Montreuil, B., Meller, R.D., and Ballot, E. 2013a. “Physical
Internet Foundations”. In Service Orientation in Holonic and
Multi Agent Manufacturing and Robotics, edited by T.
Borangiu, A. Thomas, and D. Trentesaux 151–66. Berlin,
Heidelberg: Springer, Berlin Heidelberg.
Montreuil, B., Meller, R.D., Thivierge, C., and Montreuil, Z.
2013b. Functional Design of Physical Internet facilities: A
Unimodal Road-Based Crossdocking Hub. Montreal:
CIRRELT.
Physical Internet Network
Montreuil, B., Rouges, J.-F., Cimon, Y., and Poulin, D. 2012.
“The Physical Internet and Business Model Innovation.”
Technology Innovation Management Review 2(6):32–37.
Muylaert, K., and Stofferis, L. 2014. “Driving Sustainability
through Horizontal Supply Chain Collaboration.” http://
www.co3-project.eu/wo3/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/CO3-
conference-Koen-PG-BIC-20140528.pdf. Accessed 06, 2020.
Ndede-Amadi, A.A. 2004. “What Strategic Alignment, Process
Redesign, Enterprise Resource Planning, and E-commerce
Have in Common: Enterprise-Wide Computing.” Business
Process Management Journal 10(2):184–99.
Neely, A. 2008. “Exploring the Financial Consequences of the
Servitization of Manufacturing.” Operations Management
Research 1(2):103–18.
Othmane, I.B., Rekik, M., and Mellouli, S. “Impact of Shipper
Collaboration on Carriers Selection in Reputation-Based
Transportation Auctions”. In Proceedings of 1st International
Physical Internet Conference (IPIC 2014), Quebec, Canada.
(cpfr) state of the art. Journal of Enterprise Information
Management, 838–71.
€
Ozener, € Ergun, O.,
O.O., € and Savelsbergh, M. 2011. “Lane-
Exchange Mechanisms for Truckload Carrier Collaboration.”
Transportation Science 45(1):1–17.
Pan, S., Nigrelli, M., Ballot, E., Sarraj, R., and Yang, Y. 2015.
“Perspectives of Inventory Control Models in the Physical
Internet: A Simulation Study.” Computers and Industrial
Engineering 84:122–32.
Pan, S., Trentesaux, D., Ballot, E., and Huang, G.Q. 2019.
“Horizontal Collaborative Transport: Survey of Solutions and
Practical Implementation Issues.” International Journal of
Production Research 57:5340–5361.
Pan, S., Xu, X., and Ballot, E. 2014. “Auction Based Transport
Services Allocation in Physical Internet: A Simulation
Framework”. In Proceedings of 1st International Physical
Internet Conference (IPIC 2014).
Pomponi, F., Fratocchi, L., and Rossi Tafuri, S. 2015. “Trust
Development and Horizontal Collaboration in Logistics: A
Theory Based Evolutionary Framework.” Supply Chain
Management: An International Journal 20(1):83–97.
Prasad, P. 2017. Crafting Qualitative Research: Beyond
Positivist Traditions. New York: Routledge.
Pratt, M.G. 2009. “From the Editors: For the Lack of a
Boilerplate: Tips on Writing Up (and Reviewing) Qualitative
Research.” Academy of Management Journal 52(5):856–62.
Priem, R.L., and Butler, J.E. 2001. “Is the Resource-Based
“View” a Useful Perspective for Strategic Management
Research?” Academy of Management Review 26(1):22–40.
Qiao, B., Pan, S., and Ballot, E. 2018. “Revenue Optimization
for Less-Than-Truckload Carriers in the Physical Internet:
Dynamic Pricing and Request Selection.” Computers and
Industrial Engineering 139:105563.
Qiao, B., Pan, S., and Ballot, E. 2019. “Dynamic Pricing Model
for Less-Than-Truckload Carriers in the Physical Internet.”
Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing 30(7):2631–43.
Rajahonka, M., Bask, A., Yawar, S.A., and Tinnil€a, M. 2019.
“The Physical Internet As Enabler of New Business Models
Enhancing Greener Transports and the Circular Economy”. In
Sustainable and Efficient Transport. Edward Elgar Publishing
(pp. 70–94). https://doi.org/10.4337/9781788119283.00015
21
van Riessen, B., Negenborn, R.R., and Dekker, R. 2015.
“Synchromodal Container Transportation: An Overview of
Current Topics and Research Opportunities”. In
Computational Logistics. Vol. 9335, edited by F. Corman, S.
Voß, and R.R. Negenborn, 386–97. Cham: Springer
International Publishing.
Robinson, O.C. 2014. “Sampling in Interview-Based Qualitative
Research: A Theoretical and Practical Guide.” Qualitative
Research in Psychology 11(1):25–41.
Saenz, M.J. 2016. “The Physical Internet: Logistics
Reimagined?”. http://www.scmr.com/article/the_physical_inte
rnet_logistics_reimagined. Accessed 06, 2018.
Sallez, Y., Montreuil, B., and Ballot, E. 2015. “On the
Activeness of Physical Internet Containers”. In Service
Orientation in Holonic and Multi-agent Manufacturing, edited
by T. Borangiu, A. Thomas, and D. Trentesaux, 259–69.
Cham: Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.
1007/978-3-319-15159-5_24
Sanders, N.R. 2005. “IT Alignment in Supply Chain
Relationships: A Study of Supplier Benefits.” Journal of
Supply Chain Management 41(2):4–13.
Sanders, N.R., and Premus, R. 2005. “Modeling the Relationship
Between Firm IT Capability, Collaboration, and
Performance.” Journal of Business Logistics 26(1):1–23.
Sarraj, R., Ballot, E., Pan, S., and Montreuil, B. 2014.
“Analogies between Internet Network and Logistics Service
Networks: Challenges involved in the Interconnection.”
Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing 25(6):1207–19.
Schweizer, L. 2005. “Concept and Evolution of Business
Models.” Journal of General Management 31(2):37–56.
Shaharudin, M.R., Zailani, S., and Ismail, M. 2014. “Third Party
Logistics Orchestrator Role in Reverse Logistics and Closed-
Loop Supply Chains.” International Journal of Logistics
Systems and Management 18(2):200–15.
Shin, N. 2019. “Creating Shared Value from Collaborative
Logistics Systems: The Cases of ES3 and Flexe.”
Proceedings of the 5th International Workshop on Socio-
Technical Perspective in IS Development (STPIS’19), 91–109.
Simmer, L., Pfoser, S., Grabner, M., Schauer, O., and Putz, L.-
M. 2017. “From Horizontal Collaboration to the Physical
Internet—A Case Study from Austria.” International Journal
of Transport Development and Integration 1(2):129–36.
Sirmon, D.G., Hitt, M.A., Ireland, R.D., and Gilbert, B.A. 2011.
“Resource Orchestration to Create Competitive Advantage:
Breadth, Depth, and Life Cycle Effects.” Journal of
Management 37(5):1390–1412.
Soosay, C.A., and Hyland, P. 2015. “A Decade of Supply Chain
Collaboration and Directions for Future Research.” Supply
Chain Management: An International Journal 20(6):613–30.
Stake, R.E. 1995. The Art of Case Study Research. Thousand
Oaks: Sage.
Stake, R.E. 2010. Qualitative Research: Studying How Things
Work. New York: Guilford Press.
Steiner, B., Lan, K., Unterschultz, J., and Boxall, P. 2017.
“Applying the Resource-Based View to Alliance Formation in
Specialized Supply Chains.” Journal of Strategy and
Management 10(3):262–92.
Sternberg, H., and Norrman, A. 2017. “The Physical Internet—
Review, Analysis and Future Research Agenda.” International
22
Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics Management
47(8):736–62.
Strauss, A., and Corbin, J. 1998. Basics of Qualitative Research
Techniques. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications Inc.
Stubbs, C. 2004. “Partnering in the New Economy.” European
Business Journal 16(3):113–19.
Suzuki, Y., and Lu, S.-H. 2017. “Economies of Product
Diversity in Collaborative Logistics.” Journal of Business
Logistics 38(2):115–29.
Tran-Dang, H., Krommenacker, N., and Charpentier, P. 2017.
“Containers Monitoring through the Physical Internet: A
Spatial 3D Model Based on Wireless Sensor Networks.”
International Journal of Production Research 55(9):2650–63.
H. Treiblmaier, K. Mirkovski, and P.B. Lowry (eds.). 2016.
“Conceptualizing the Physical Internet: Literature Review,
Implications and Directions for Future Research”.19.
TRI-VIZOR. s.a. “Our Vision”. http://www.trivizor.com/vision/.
Accessed 06, 2018.
Tsang, E.W.K. 1998. “Motives for Strategic Alliance: A
Resource-Based Perspective.” Scandinavian Journal of
Management 14(3):207–21.
Um, K.-H., and Kim, S.-M. 2019. “The Effects of Supply Chain
Collaboration on Performance and Transaction Cost
Advantage: The Moderation and Nonlinear Effects of
Governance Mechanisms.” International Journal of
Production Economics 217:97–111.
van Riessen, B., Negenborn, R.R., and Dekker, R. 2016. “Real-
Time Container Transport Planning with Decision Trees
Based on Offline Obtained Optimal Solutions.” Decision
Support Systems 89:1–16.
van Riessen, B., Negenborn, R.R., and Dekker, R. 2017. “The
Cargo Fare Class Mix Problem for an Intermodal Corridor:
Revenue Management in Synchromodal Container
Transportation.” Flexible Services and Manufacturing Journal
29(3–4):634–58.
Vanovermeire, C., S€ orensen, K., van Breedam, A.,
Vannieuwenhuyse, B., and Verstrepen, S. 2014. “Horizontal
Logistics Collaboration: Decreasing Costs through Flexibility
and an Adequate Cost Allocation Strategy.” International
Journal of Logistics Research and Applications 17(4):339–55.
Venkatadri, U., Krishna, K.S., and Ulk€ € u, M.A. 2016. “On
Physical Internet Logistics: Modeling the Impact of
Consolidation on Transportation and Inventory Costs.” IEEE
Transactions on Automation Science and Engineering 13
(4):1517–27.
Verdonck, L., Caris, A.N., Ramaekers, K., and Janssens, G.K.
2013. “Collaborative Logistics from the Perspective of Road
Transportation Companies.” Transport Reviews 33(6):700–719.
von Tunzelmann, N. 2010. “Alignment, Misalignment and
Dynamic Network-Based Capabilities.” Network Dynamics in
Emerging Regions of Europe (pp. 3–22). World Scientific.
https://doi.org/10.1142/9781848163744_0001.
Walha, F., Bekrar, A., Chaabane, S., and Loukil, T.M. 2016. “A
Rail-Road PI-Hub Allocation Problem: Active and Reactive
Approaches.” Computers in Industry 81:138–51.
Welch, C., Piekkari, R., Plakoyiannaki, E., and Paavilainen-
M€antym€aki, E. 2011. “Theorising from Case Studies: Towards a
Pluralist Future for International Business Research.” Journal of
International Business Studies 42(5):740–62.
M. Plasch et al.
Wernerfelt, B. 1984. “A Resource-Based View of the Firm.”
Strategic Management Journal 5(2):171–80.
Wernerfelt, B. 1995. “The Resource-Based View of the Firm:
Ten Years After.” Strategic Management Journal 16(3):171–
74.
Whipple, J.M., Griffis, S.E., and Daugherty, P.J. 2013.
“Conceptualizations of Trust: Can We Trust Them?” Journal
of Business Logistics 34(2):117–30.
Wind, Y.J., Fung, V., and Fung, W. 2009. “Network
Orchestration: Creating and Managing Global Supply Chains
without Owning Them”. Wharton School Pub. The network
challenge: strategy, profit, and risk in an interlinked world
299.
Wong, C.W.Y., Wong, C.Y., and Boon-itt, S. 2018. “How Does
Sustainable Development of Supply Chains Make Firms
Lean, Green and Profitable? A Resource Orchestration
Perspective.” Business Strategy and the Environment 27
(3):375–88.
Xing, Y., Grant, D.B., McKinnon, A.C., and Fernie, J. 2011.
“The Interface between Retailers and Logistics Service
Providers in the Online Market.” European Journal of
Marketing 45(3):334–57.
Yang, Y., Pan, S., and Ballot, E. 2017a. “Innovative Vendor-
Managed Inventory Strategy Exploiting Interconnected
Logistics Services in the Physical Internet.” International
Journal of Production Research 55(9):2685–2702.
Yang, Y., Pan, S., and Ballot, E. 2017b. “Mitigating Supply
Chain Disruptions through Interconnected Logistics Services
in the Physical Internet.” International Journal of Production
Research 55(14):3970–83.
Yu, W., Chavez, R., Jacobs, M.A., and Feng, M. 2018. “Data-
Driven Supply Chain Capabilities and Performance: A
Resource-Based View.” Transportation Research Part E:
Logistics and Transportation Review 114:371–85.
Zacharia, Z.G., Nix, N.W., and Lusch, R.F. 2009. “An Analysis
of Supply Chain Collaborations and Their Effect on
Performance Outcomes.” Journal of Business Logistics 30
(2):101–23.
Zacharia, Z.G., Sanders, N.R., and Nix, N.W. 2011. “The
Emerging Role of the Third-Party Logistics Provider (3PL)
As an Orchestrator.” Journal of Business Logistics 32(1):40–
54.
Zhang, Y., Liu, S., Liu, Y., and Li, R. 2016. “Smart Box-
Enabled Product-Service System for Cloud Logistics.”
International Journal of Production Research 54(22):6693–
6706.
Zheng, L., Beem, P., and Bae, K.H.G. 2019. “Assessment of the
Physical Internet Enabled Urban Logistics using Agent-Based
Simulation.” International Journal of Logistics Systems and
Management 33(4):441.
Zhong, R.Y., Gong, H., Xu, C., and Lu, S. 2016. “Physical
Internet-Enabled Manufacturing Execution System for
Intelligent Workshop Production.” International Journal of
Signal Processing, Image Processing and Pattern Recognition
9(6):121–32.
Zhong, R.Y., Xu, C., Chen, C., and Huang, G.Q. 2017. “Big
Data Analytics for Physical Internet-Based Intelligent
Manufacturing Shop Floors.” International Journal of
Production Research 55(9):2610–21.
Physical Internet Network 23

APPENDIX

INTERVIEW GUIDELINES

Round Questions/Procedure

First round of Instructions for the interviewee

interviews Introduction
Interviewee background
Main Research Question
Reference to initial expectations from first workshop

Broad open-ended questions:

• What managerial and strategic aspects drive you and your company to enter an open logistics network?
• Which framework conditions must be in place for a successful collaboration with other shippers/LSPs?
Postinterview comments
Second round of Instructions for the interviewee
interviews Introduction
Interviewee background
Main Research Question
Reference to (aggregated) set of motives and success factors from second workshop

Specific questions:
• What is the strategic position of your company concerning the PI vision?
• When you look at this set of motives to enter a PI network, can you elaborate in detail what aspects apply
to your company?
• When you look at these success factors to collaborate continuously in the PI network, can you elaborate in
detail what aspects are relevant to your company in this matter?
• To what extent is the PI development in general relevant for your company’s field of business?
• Are there any particular issues that may influence a realization of PI in the future?
Postinterview comments

EXPECTATIONS ON THE PI VISION—RETRIEVED FROM INITIAL WORKSHOP

Aspect Expectation

Performance Utilized transport capacities

On-time delivery
Flexibility for shippers and logistics service providers
High delivery readiness
Utilized storage capacities
Technology Modern hub/warehouse logistics
Uniform standards and regulations
Comprehensive data exchange
Simple and technology-supported communication and processing
Tracking and Tracing
Standardized containers
Modular containers
Communicating/Intelligent containers
Procedures Bundling of material flows
Cross-company solutions
Comprehensive data and information exchange
Holistic network view
24 M. Plasch et al.

AGGREGATED SET OF MOTIVES AND SUCCESS FACTORS—RETRIEVED FROM THE SECOND WORKSHOP

Motives Success factors

Cost pressure Trust-building measures combatting increasing competitive thinking

Logistics resource access/expansion Functioning standards and compatible interfaces
Competitive pressure Trusted data exchange
Policies and regulations Full network transparency and monitoring
Know-how access Measurable increase in the economic and ecological logistics process
performance
Flexibility requirements Central and neutral control and coordination body
Network and/or market expansion and Open warehouse hubs and transport relations
internationalization
Integration and collaborative business strategy Fair network collaboration through a participation scheme (contract) and pricing
model
Innovation and business model development strategy Certification and ongoing quality assurance of network partners
Maintaining private partners’ autonomy in the network
Practical handling of transport units and infrastructure
Control levers for operational process excellence
Business development and performing value streams

SHORT BIOGRAPHIES

Michael Plasch received Bachelor’s and Master’s degrees in “International Logistics Management” and “Supply Chain Management”
and is a PhD candidate at the Johannes Kepler University Linz. Michael is research project manager at University of Applied Sciences
Upper Austria at Logistikum Steyr in the department “Supply Chain Management,” leading the research area “collaboration and compe-
tition in supply chains”. His research interests include supply chain collaboration, coopetition, and supply chain networks.

Sarah Pfoser obtained her diploma in Management and Applied Economics at the Johannes Kepler University Linz. She is a PhD
candidate at the University of Bremen, Germany, studying the acceptance of sustainable freight transport strategies. Sarah is working as
a researcher at the University of Applied Sciences Upper Austria at Logistikum Steyr. In the previous years, she has acquired and man-
aged several internationally and nationally funded research projects on the topic of sustainable freight transport.

Markus Gerschberger is visiting professor at the Supply Chain and Logistics Institute at Georgia Tech and professor for supply
chain management at University of Applied Sciences Upper Austria. Markus heads the research department “Supply Chain Manage-
ment” at Logistikum Steyr and the Josef-Ressel-Centre for real-time network visibility. His research interests are in the areas of supply
chain visibility, supply chain complexity, risk, and resilience.

Regina Gattringer is Head of the Institute of Strategic Management at the Johannes Kepler University, Linz. She holds a PhD in
Social and Economic Sciences. Her current research interests focus on inter-organizational collaborations, open foresight, open innova-
tion, and strategic management in the context of digitalization and value networks. She has extensive experience in the implementation
of inter-organizational collaborations.

Oliver Schauer studied law at the Johannes Kepler University Linz and completed an executive postgraduate program at LIMAK
Johannes Kepler University Business School. He is professor at the University of Applied Sciences Upper Austria, School of Business
and Management, with emphasis on the fields of sustainable transport, Physical Internet and Logistics 4.0 and head of studies of the
master program “Digital Transport- and Logistics-Management.”