International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management

Logistics performance collaboration strategy and information sharing with

logistics capability as mediator variable (study in Gafeksi East Java Indonesia)
Indro Kirono, Armanu, Djumilah Hadiwidjojo, Solimun,
Article information:
To cite this document:
Indro Kirono, Armanu, Djumilah Hadiwidjojo, Solimun, (2019) "Logistics performance collaboration
strategy and information sharing with logistics capability as mediator variable (study in Gafeksi East
Java Indonesia)", International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, https://doi.org/10.1108/
IJQRM-11-2017-0246
Downloaded by University of Strathclyde At 21:28 10 June 2019 (PT)

Permanent link to this document:

https://doi.org/10.1108/IJQRM-11-2017-0246
Downloaded on: 10 June 2019, At: 21:28 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 82 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 4 times since 2019*

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-
srm:117974 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald
for Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission
guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company
manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as
well as providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and
services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the
Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for
digital archive preservation.

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

 The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
www.emeraldinsight.com/0265-671X.htm

QUALITY PAPER Logistics

performance
Logistics performance collaboration
strategy and information sharing
with logistics capability as
mediator variable (study in Received 11 February 2018
Revised 29 October 2018
Gafeksi East Java Indonesia) 28 January 2019
Accepted 26 February 2019

Indro Kirono
Faculty of Administrative Sciences, Brawijaya University, Malang, Indonesia
Downloaded by University of Strathclyde At 21:28 10 June 2019 (PT)

Armanu
Faculty of Administrative Sciences,
Muhammadiyah University of Gresik, Kebomas, Indonesia
Djumilah Hadiwidjojo
Faculty of Administrative Sciences, Brawijaya University, Malang, Indonesia, and
Solimun
Department of Statistics, Brawijaya University, Malang, Indonesia

Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to analyze the effect of collaboration, capability and information
sharing (IS) on logistic performance, the effect of collaboration and IS on capabilities, the effect of
collaboration on logistic performance through capabilities, the influence of IS on logistic performance through
capabilities and the effect of logistics capabilities on logistics performance.
Design/methodology/approach – This study uses a quantitative approach and is included in explanatory
research. This research uses cross section research design. The research populations are all companies
incorporated in GAFEKSI ( Joint Forwarder and Expedition Indonesia) of East Java. Sampling in this research
is by using a purposive sample. The sample of this study amounted to 47 forwarder and expedition
companies. Data analysis method used is partial least square.
Findings – Collaboration has a positive impact on capabilities (CAP); capability (LOC) positive impact on logistic
performance; collaboration does not directly affect the logistics performance; and construct capabilities (LOC) is
the mediation of IS in building business logistics performance. Increasing the intensity of IS has no direct
contribution to increased flexibility, and collaboration is driven by partnership and network, whereas CT (trust)
can be ignored, as it is not proven to make a dominant contribution to collaboration.
Originality/value – The novelty of this research is found in the strategic role of capabilities as the dominant
latent variable in building business performance of logistic companies. This study finds dual mediation,
where both mediations are expressed as full mediation, because the direct effect of mediator latent variables is
significant (Little et al., 2010; Hair et al., 1995).
Keywords Information sharing, Collaborator strategy, Logistic capability, Logistic performance
Paper type Research paper

1. Introduction
Logistics conditions in Indonesia from year to year have been gradually improving. This
can be seen from the logistics performance index (LPI) periodically issued by the World
Bank concerning the logistics index of 166 countries in the world known as LPI. The
company’s ability to create “value added” is necessary especially in winning the competition International Journal of Quality &
Reliability Management
in the market. In an effort to create “sustainable competitive advantage,” the company is © Emerald Publishing Limited
0265-671X
required to work more efficiently by implementing an integrated management concept of all DOI 10.1108/IJQRM-11-2017-0246
 IJQRM existing management functions. Nationally, logistics conditions are closely related to the
logistics performance of each company, especially companies engaged in logistics and
supply chain. Moreover, the existence of information sharing (IS) is believed to improve the
performance of a company. Information is a shared resource of those who collaborate and
are in supply chain. A research conducted by Kocoglu et al. (2011) find that there is influence
of integration/collaboration toward IS and supply chain performance and the role of IS in
achieving performance. The results show that supply chain integration has a positive effect
on IS and both have a positive effect on performance.
Although Indonesia’s LPI has increased, there are some things that still become logistical
weakness in Indonesia. According to the Indonesian Logistics Association, the phenomenon
that occurred in Indonesia is the high cost of logistics and the delay of delivery of goods.
The high cost of transportation and storage resulted in increased production costs, coupled
with internal company issues such as low performance of human resources and leadership.
For nearly 30 years, the companies have been increasingly concerned with logistics
Downloaded by University of Strathclyde At 21:28 10 June 2019 (PT)

activities (Tibben, 2010). This means that logistics is an important part of supply chain
network systems that should be a major concern in the evaluation of operational costs.
The shipping business has grown so rapidly and is closely related to the logistics process
(Perego et al., 2010), and transport costs have a contribution of between 25 and 50 percent
(Lancioni in Perego et al., 2010). This is because the process of transporting cargo and
documents using ships and aircraft is very complicated and requires a relatively expensive cost.
Nationally, logistics conditions are closely related to the logistics performance of each
company, especially companies engaged in logistics and supply chain. Logistics performance
reflects the performance of the organization associated with the ability to deliver goods and
services in the quantity and time in corresponding with customer’s demands. Logistics
performance is usually related to delivery service, logistics cost and tied-up capital. Delivery
services can be shared and measured as lead time and on-time delivery. Logistics costs, for
example, are transportation and supplies carried, while tied-up capital occurs in many
material flows, such as in raw materials and finished goods (Stock and Lambert, 2001).
Logistics distribution as a dominant component of business activity in the field of
logistics services requires efforts to improve its competitiveness. Increased competitiveness
in the field of logistics services has been conducted by many business organizations
through collaborative strategies, arguing that collaboration can increase market share,
improve customer service, share and lower product development costs, reduce risk, improve
product quality, improve skills and knowledge, and so on (Lewis, 1990; Parker, 2000;
McLaren et al., 2000; Holton, 2001; Bititci et al., 2004). According to Vereecke and Muylle
(2006), collaboration can lead to increased performance in the supply chain. Companies build
collaborative relationships with their supply chain partners to achieve efficiency, flexibility
and sustainable competitive advantage (Nyaga et al., 2010) that ultimately lead to improve
performance of the company.
In addition, the existence of IS is believed to improve the performance of the company.
Information is a shared resource of those who collaborate and are in the supply chain. Bititci
et al. (2004) states that IS works between fabrics: to build and enhance organizational
capabilities; to share effective information among partners can be an important driver of
collaborative effort; and improve performance in the supply chain (Prajogo and Olhager, 2012).
Collaboration is said to have three components reflected through partnership, trust and
network quality. Collaborative development is reinforced through the partnership
component because partnership is more likely to be transactional that determines the
position of collaboration Koschmann et al. (2012) and Seitanidi and Crane (2008), such as
dealing with negotiation, consensus, facilitating cooperation, uniting partner resource
capabilities and joining agreements to achieve profit targets (Gray and Stites, 2013).
Partnership also plays a role in strengthening collaboration (Austin and Seitanidi, 2012).
 Recognizing a number of obstacles that may thwart the strengthening of collaboration to Logistics
build a competitive business performance by creating a reliable logistic performance, the performance
focus of this study is on resources-based views (RBV ) as a strategic approach concept that
will be realized through collaboration to strengthen partnerships, quality network and
address governance problems through the development of potential trusts.
The RBV concept is used as a theoretical approach in assessing potential performance
capabilities to build competitiveness (Barney, 1991a). Associated with the concept of RBV, a
company is said to have the potential competitive advantages if it has the character, for
example, has the ability to respond (tangible) and has an advantage in imaging (intangible)
that will put the company in a different position with many other competitors. One form of
intangible asset that is empirically proven to build competitive advantages is the component
of knowledge-based resources ( Jugdev and Mathur, 2013).
The purpose of this research is to analyze how the influence between the factors that
affect the performance of logistics directly or intermediary from other factors, for example,
Downloaded by University of Strathclyde At 21:28 10 June 2019 (PT)

to analyze the effect of collaboration, capability and IS on logistic performance, the effect of
collaboration and IS on capabilities, the effect of collaboration on logistic performance
through capabilities, the influence of IS on logistic performance through capabilities and the
effect of logistics capabilities on logistics performance. The novelty of this research is found
in the strategic role of capabilities as the dominant latent variable in building business
performance of logistic companies. This study finds dual mediation, where both mediations
are expressed as full mediation because the direct effect of mediator latent variables is
significant (Little et al., 2010; Hair et al., 1995).
Several previous studies have found partial relationship between variables as follows:
collaboration to capabilities by Andreeva and Ritala (2016), Carroll and Helfert (2015),
Chi et al. (2015), Iyer (2011), Oh and Rhee (2008), Parida et al. (2016) and Soosay et al. (2008);
collaboration to logistic performance by Laari et al. (2016), Pomponi et al. (2015), Ramanathan
et al. (2011), Rodrigues et al. (2015), Ryzhkova (2015) and Sandberg (2007); and capabilities to
logistic performance by Ralston et al. (2013), Yang (2016), Brekalo et al. (2013), Rungi (2014),
Chen et al. (2015) and Peter Omondi-Ochieng (2015). No previous study has comprehensively
studied the “Analysis of logistics performance collaboration strategy and information sharing
with logistics capability as mediating variable: a study on Gafeksi-East Java.”

2. Literature review
Suppy chain management is a concept that mainly focuses on the integration and
management of the sourcing, chaneling and control of raw materials using the perspective
of total system through various functions and supply layers (Monczka et al., 1994). A supply
chain is divided into three types of chains. First, goods are distributed from upstream to
downstream. Second, fund and other capitals are distributed from downstream to upstream.
Third, information can be distributed either from upstream to downstream or vice versa.
The term logistic refers to a set of continual functional activities within a production chain
to change raw materials into final products (Ballou, 1999). The term network quality covers
the effectiveness of a cooperation work in dealing with various components of a cooperation
including marketing IS and innovation development, which can be optimally utilized within
a framework of joint network to obtain mutual advancement.
Ganesan (1994) mentioned three components that form trust: the level of trust shared
among members of an organization that an agreed policy will be put into realization as
planned; supports toward the organization that the collaboration in the organization and
credible members will be able to achieve the pre-determined goals; and support that the
collaboration consists of honest people who are capable in providing benefits for the members.
Partnership is more commonly known as a cooperation which aims at achieving a certain
objective. In this context, IS is a factor that holistically bounds the elements of collaboration.
 IJQRM Logistic capability consists of internal aspects and external aspects. Within the internal
aspect, logistic should work closer with other functions in planning, coordinating and
integrating various across-function activities (Bowersox et al., 1999; Morash et al., 1996).
Logistics distribution as a dominant component of business activity in forwarding and
expedition businesses requires efforts to improve its competitiveness. The company’s goals,
besides creating competitive advantage in the long run, also create value for its customers.
Both are reflected in the concept of corporate performance. There are many factors that affect
both the poor performance of a company. One is how companies collaborate and share
information with other members in the supply chain so that companies can have good
capabilities, which ultimately can achieve optimal performance. Teams are first and foremost
functional sub-units designed to promote organizational work that is complex in terms of
quantity (i.e. high value) or quality (i.e. interconnected responsibilities) (Cameron and Green,
2015). Often, teams are necessary to address complex problems and deal with subject matter
that cannot be adequately addressed through an individual alone ( Jimerson and Wayman,
Downloaded by University of Strathclyde At 21:28 10 June 2019 (PT)

2012). Thus, teams are an important component of success (Fleming, 2013; Walker, 1994).
Collaboration is a collaboration to achieve something which cannot be done by only one
person or organization can do alone. Collaboration enhances the capabilities of all members
(Rowland, 2008). This is supported by research conducted by Nyaga et al. (2010) and
Simatupang and Sridharan (2002). Collaboration also resulted in improved performance in a
supply chain (Vereecke and Muylle, 2006).
IS is a factor that can strengthen the elements of collaboration as a whole and is one
important factor in improving company performance. The more differently the parties know
each other, the better they are in coordinating activities and building long-term business
relationships. Information is shared resources owned by collaborating parties and in the
supply chain to build and enhance organizational capability (Bititci et al., 2004). Therefore,
the more intensely companies share information with their partners, the company’s
capabilities will further enhance.
There have been many studies that showed the effect of collaboration and IS toward the
performance of the companies. Kocoglu et al. (2011) find an effect of integration/
collaboration on IS and supply chain performance and the role of IS in achieving
performance. Effective IS among partners can be an important driver of collaborative effort
and improve performance in supply chains (Prajogo and Olhager, 2012). Wu et al. (2014)
examine the relationship between collaboration, IS and supply chain performance. The
results show that IS and collaboration partially affect supply chain performance (Figure 1).

Collaboration
(X1)

H3
H1

Logistic
Capabilities
H4 performance
(Y1)
(Y2)

H2
H5

Figure 1.
Conceptual Information
research model sharing
(X2)
 Collaboration is a construct formed through a second-order latent to gain more information Logistics
about theoretical parsimony and based on the subgroup of theories that make it (Edwards, performance
2001), MacKenzie et al. (2005) and Edwards (2001) stated that high-order components are
useful as theoretical utility, in which case the more general constructs can be further
supported by specific dimensions, so they can be traced in more detail through the
development of more specific dimensions to explain the character of a more general
construct (Wetzels et al., 2009; Anders and Johnson, 2004). Thus, network quality, trust and
partnership are not included in the core hypothesis formulated but rather as supports of
theoretical utility to explain the dimensions of collaboration positioned as general construct
(MacKenzie et al., 2005). Thus, general construct collaboration is formed by more specific
theoretical concepts of network quality theory by Saxena (2005), and the theory of trust by
Gray and Stites (2013), Ansell and Gash (2007), Tauck et al. (1993), Anderson and Narus
(1990), Moorman et al., (1993) and Ganesan (1994). As for the theory of partnership, it is
obtained from Koschmann et al. (2012) and Austin and Seitanidi (2012). The causal
Downloaded by University of Strathclyde At 21:28 10 June 2019 (PT)

relationship between constructs in the model has a positive direction. That is, the stronger
or higher the weight of the preceding construct (the independent variable), the stronger or
higher is the weight of the following variable (dependent variable).
Logistics capability is that part of a firm’s resources – including all assets, competencies,
organizational processes, firm attributes, information, knowledge, etc. – which allow it to
conceive of and implement strategies that improve efficiency and effectiveness (Barney,
1991a). Logistics capability has been widely studied and measurement scales have been
developed to link capability with competitive advantage and superior firm performance
(Zhao et al., 2001; Ellinger et al., 2000; Lynch, 1998; Clinton and Closs, 1997; Eckert and
Fawcett, 1996; Morash et al., 1996; Bowersox et al., 1999; Global Logistics Research Team
(GLRT) at Michigan State University). These studies found that logistics activities affect
performance with regards to revenue enhancement as well as cost reduction. The use of
logistics capability as ameans to create differentiation was also investigated (Anderson and
Narus, 1990). These researchers found that logistics capability makes a major contribution
to corporate strategy and performance and sometimes provides competitive advantage.
However, the relationship between logistics capability and firm performance in the
e-commerce market environment has not been empirically investigated.
Logistics capability has become an important concept in supply chain and logistics. The
largest scale of study on logistics capability was done by Michigan State University GLRT
in 1995. They have chosen 17 general logistics capabilities from 32 possible logistics
capabilities into four groups including positioning capability, integration capability, agility
capability and measurement capability. Further, logistics capability can be defined from
different perspectives. Innovation capability is an important logistics capability (Morash,
2001; Morash et al., 1996). It is defined as the firm’s ability to continuously transform
knowledge and ideas into new products, processes and systems for the benefit of the firm
(Lawson and Samson, 2001; Yang, 2016). The rapidly changing market makes enterprises
face the biggest challenge, innovation, which is one of the important tools for enterprise to
keep their competitive advantage (Lin and Chen, 2008).

3. Conceptual framework
Logistics performance is influenced by collaboration and IS directly or through
capability that acts as mediator. According to Morash et al. (1996), the company’s
logistics performance is influenced by logistics capabilities. This is in accordance with
the resource based view theory proposed by Barney (1991b). Performance can also be
influenced by collaboration (Kocoglu et al., 2011; Wu et al., 2014; Vereecke and Muylle,
2006) and IS (Kocoglu et al., 2011; Prajogo and Olhager, 2012; Wu et al., 2014), either
directly or indirectly.
 IJQRM Comment from R1
The company builds a collaborative relationship with their supply chain partner to achieve
efficiency, flexibility and continuous competitive excellence (Nyaga et al., 2010). Collaboration
improves the capabilities of all of the members (Rowland, 2008). The influence of collaboration
on IS and the influence of collaboration on capability can be explained that IS is one of the core
elements from collaboration (Simatupang and Sridharan, 2002); thus:
H1. Collaboration significantly influences capabilities.
Information is mutual resources owned by the parties who collaborate in the chain supply to
build and improve its organizational capabilities (Bititci et al., 2004). Therefore, the more
intense the company with their partner, the better the company’s capabilities:
H2. IS significantly influences capabilities.
Collaboration improves the performance and supply chain (Vereecke and Muylle, 2006). Kocoglu
Downloaded by University of Strathclyde At 21:28 10 June 2019 (PT)

et al. (2011) found that there is integration/collaboration influence on the IS and the performance
of the supply chain as well as the role of IS in the achievement of performance. Wu et al. (2014)
examined the relationship between collaboration, IS, and the performance of the supply chain.
The results showed that IS and collaboration partially influence the performance of the supply
chain. The existence of collaboration can improve the company’s performance; thus:
H3. Collaboration significantly influences logistic performance.
Logistic capabilities influence a company’s performance (Morash et al., 1996). There were
many previous types of studies that discussed the influence of capability on the
performance (RBV theory; Barney, 1991b), and the results showed that capability
significantly influences the company’s performance. Therefore:
H4. Capability significantly influences logistic performance.
Kocoglu et al. (2011) found that there was integration/collaboration influence on the IS and the
performance of chain supply and the role of IS in the performance achievement. Sharing
effective information between the partners can be the important driver from a collaborative
effort and improve the performance in the supply chain (Prajogo and Olhager, 2012). Wu et al.
(2014) tested the relationship between collaboration, IS and the performance of the supply
chain. The results showed that IS and collaboration partially influence the performance of the
supply chain. The improvement of IS will increase the company’s performance; thus:
H5. IS significantly influences the logistic performance.

4. Methodology
This research uses quantitative approach (mainstream). Data of research variables are
measured quantitatively through the conversion of qualitative data into a number scale.
Researchers propose hypotheses and tested them through statistical techniques. The type of
hypothesis tested is the relationship hypothesis (associative). Therefore, this study includes
explanatory research (Comment from R5). The Research population is the entire company
corporated in the GAFEKS (Association of Indonesian Forwarder and Expedition) of East Java
region amounted to 67 companies. The sampling technique used in this research is
non-probability sampling where the population elements do not have the same opportunity to be
chosen as the sample (Indriantoro and Supomo, 2002). Meanwhile, the sample unit from this
research is 47 forwarder and expedition companies. The sampling collection in this research is
purposive sampling, that is, the sampling method with certain consideration which is considered
to be relevant and can represent the studied object (Effendi and Tukiran, 2012). The chosen
sample criteria are forwarder and the expedition company is older than 15 years, having the
 agency abroad, and having the service contract with some supporting companies such as Logistics
shipping, tracking, transportation, warehousing and fellow forwarders, and has a PPJK performance
(Customs Clearance Services Company) certificate. The data of this research were primary data
obtained from the questionnaires and documentation on organizational structure, service and
corporate development. The data analysis method used is partial least square (PLS). PLS is a
model of Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) equations based on components or variants. PLS
almost resembles regression, but more than that, it simultaneously combines the structural path
model (theoretical relationship between latent variables) as well as measures the path (the
relationship between the latent variable and its indicator). In the PLS, not all the weights of each
indicator are assumed to be equal to the latent variables, but they have varying weights, so the
lower weighted indicator will also contribute significantly to the latent variable score (Solimun
et al., 2017). This research is a predictive research which was conducted using a variance
approach in the form of PLS analysis. The latent variable goes linearly with the indicators.
Hence, the prediction of the values of the latent variable could be easily obtained, allowing the
Downloaded by University of Strathclyde At 21:28 10 June 2019 (PT)

prediction of latent variable under its influence to be easily measured as well.

A theoretical model was developed based on a conceptual framework, which was later
presented in the form of a flowchart to explain the relationship between exogenous and
endogenous variables in this research as presented in Figure 2, which shows the operational
definition and the measurement of research constructs and dimensions.

X1.11 X1.12 X1.13 X1.14 X1.15

X1.21

X1.22
Network
Trust
quality X1.23
(X1.2)
(X1.1)
X1.24

Collaboration
Y2.1
(X1)

Y2.2
H3
H1
Y1.1 Y2.3
Logistic
Y1.2 Capabilities
H4 performance Y2.4
(Y1)
(Y2)
Y1.3 Y2.5

Y1.4 Y2.6
H2 H5
Partnership
Y1.5
(X1.3)

Information
sharing
(X2)

X1.31 X1.32 X1.33 X1.34

Figure 2.
Operational
research framework
X2.1 X2.2 X2.3 X2.4
 IJQRM The pattern was made based on the theoretical concept that forms it. Theoretical dimension
was measured using a five-point Likert scale: Scale 1 for “strongly disagree,” scale 2 for
“disagree,” scale 3 for “uncertain,” scale 4 for “agree” and scale 5 for “strongly agree” (see
Comment from R2, R3). Collaboration variable (X1) is measured through the second-order
construct, meanwhile other variables are measured through the first-order construct. The
detailed explanation of the research constructs can be seen in Table I.

5. Result and discussion

Reliability test
The four components of the test are presented in Table II. Based on Table I, the distribution
of Cronbach’s α values were above 0.70 for all constructs of this study, except the primary
construct collaboration (COL), which did not have a Cronbach’s α value because it did not
have an indicator, in which case the COL values were constructed by secondary constructs,
CN, CP and CT, which had been shown to have a value above 0.70. Hair et al. (1995) state
Downloaded by University of Strathclyde At 21:28 10 June 2019 (PT)

that the value of Cronbach’s α above 0.70 is a requirement as a reliable research construct.
Composite reliability calculations are based on the Dillon–Goldstein rho procedure,
which states that the construct is reliable if the index rho above 0.70 and declared a

Variable Indicator Dimension Reference

Collaboration (X1) Network Development of product innovation for business Sigala (2004), Saxena
Quality partners (X1.11) (2005)
Network development in other companies (X1.12)
Network development builds customers (X1.13)
Network development builds customers (X1.13)
Resources development activity for partner (X1.15)
Trust Components that make up commitment Ansell and Gash
strengthening (X1.21) (2007), Ganesan (1994),
The determinant that forms a good relationship Gray and Stites (2013),
(X1.22) Moorman et al. (1993),
Maintain long-term relationships (X1.23) Tauck et al. (1993)
Reliable attitudes prior to organizational interests
(X1.24)
Partnership Facilitating cooperation between partners (X1.31) Koschmann et al.
Combining partner resource capabilities (X1.32) (2012), Seitanidi and
Agreement reaches certain profit target (X1.33) Crane (2008), Gray
Act to make consensus together (X1.34) and Stites (2013)
Variable Dimension Reference
Information Build to improve organizational capabilities (X2.1) Bititci et al. (2004),
sharing (X2) Effective information sharing among partners (X2.2) Prajogo and Olhager
Become an important driver of collaborative effort (X2.3) (2012), Kocoglu et al.
Performance builds a supply chain for partners (X2.4) (2011)
Logistics Unique service has strategic added value (Y1.1) Yallwe and Buscemi
capabilities (Y1) Services have responsiveness (tangible) (Y1.2) (2014), Jugdev and
Having excellence image (intangible) (Y1.3) Mathur (2013),
Have knowledge-based resources (Y1.4) Brahma and
Having a service product that is not easily replicated (Y1.5) Chakraborty (2011)
Logistic On-time delivery service Stock and Lambert
performance (Y2) Sharing improves skills and knowledge of the partners (2001), Koufteros et al.
Sharing lowers product development costs (2002),
Table I. Performance improves customer service Parker (2000),
Constructs and Collaboration has succeeded in increasing market share McLaren et al. (2000),
dimensions of Reducing the cost of goods shipping to partners Holton (2001),
variables used Bititci et al. (2004)
 construct is not reliable if the index rho_A is below 0.70. The distribution of rho_A values Logistics
was above 0.70, thus reinforcing the previous Cronbach’s α results on the belief that the performance
research instrument was reliable.
The conclusion of reliable instruments was further reinforced by obtaining the average
variance extracted (AVE) value required at least 0.50 (Hair et al., 1995), which at the same
time gave assurance that the spread of loading factor reflects the construct of convergence
validity, had a variance position the lowest average of 0.774, so it could be concluded that all
instruments used in this study were reliable.

Validity test
Here is a table of Fornell–Larscher validity test. Based on the above table, it shows that the
evaluation of the LOP construct obtained the AVE root value of 0.952, which was still larger
than the cross-correlation distribution of the LOP construct to the LOP construct with LOC, LOP
with CN, LOP with CP, LOP with IS the distribution values, which were still smaller than 0.952,
Downloaded by University of Strathclyde At 21:28 10 June 2019 (PT)

so it could be concluded that the LOP construct was a valid discriminant (Table III).
The evaluation of the LOC construct with the AVE root value of 0.932 is still greater than the
cross-correlation value distribution of the corresponding constructs against a number of other
constructs, which can be read diagonally. The AVE root value of 0.932 from the LOC construct
is still larger than the LOC construct correlation to the LOP, found to be 0.904. On the vertical
side, the LOC construct correlated with CN of 0.586, LOC correlated with CP of 0.772, LOC
correlated with CT of 0.286 and LOC correlated with IS of 0.702. Based on the evaluation of the
diagonal cross-correlation distribution, the AVE root value of the LOP construct is still greater
than the correlation that can be constructed from the LOP construct against other constructs.
Thus, it can be concluded that the LOP construct is a valid discriminant.
The evaluation of the CN construct also shows that the AVE root value of 0.882
is still greater than the cross-correlation distribution of the CN construct to other constructs.
Thus, the CN construct is valid discriminant. Evaluation of the CP construct with AVE root
value of 0.880 also shows greater than 0.363, 0.772 and 0.766 horizontally, and also the AVE
root value of CP construct is greater than vertical correlation distribution, i.e. 0.880 is still
greater than 0.251 and 0.525. Thus, it can be concluded that CP sub-dimensional constructs
are valid discriminants.

Cronbach’s α rho_A Composite reliability Average variance extracted (AVE)

LOP 0.974 0.975 0.980 0.907

LOC 0.950 0.950 0.964 0.869
CN 0.857 0.895 0.913 0.778
CP 0.853 0.858 0.911 0.774
CT 0.936 1.057 0.951 0.830 Table II.
IS 0.962 0.963 0.971 0.869 Reliability test result
COL 1.000 (Hasil Uji reliabilitas)

LOP LOC CN CP CT IS

LOP 0.952
LOC 0.904 0.932
CN 0.440 0.586 0.882
CP 0.766 0.772 0.363 0.880 Table III.
CT 0.234 0.286 0.327 0.251 0.911 Reliability test results
IS 0.662 0.702 0.496 0.525 0.042 0.932 (Hasil Uji reliabilitas)
 IJQRM The evaluation of the CT construct with AVE root of 0.911 shows a larger value compared
to the cross-correlation distribution of the corresponding construct to the other constructs
on the horizontal side, i.e. 0.234, 0.286, 237 and 0.251, and the AVE root of 0.911 is also
larger on the side vertical, i.e. IS relation with CT of 0.042. Thus, the CT sub-constructs are
valid discriminants.
The last evaluation of IS construct with AVE root of 0.932 is still larger than the cross-
correlation distribution of IS construct to other constructs spread horizontally from 0.882 up to
0.042. Distribution of vertical correlation data was not obtained, so based on the comparison of
AVE root values of the IS construct with the cross-correlation distribution of the IS construct to
other constructs, it is proved that the AVE root values is still greater than the distribution of the
IS values correlation with other constructs. Then it can be concluded that the IS construct is a
valid discriminant. Based on the evaluation of each construct, it is individually found all
constructs are valid discriminants, and then based on the Fornel–Larcker method, we got final
conclusion that research instrument used is valid discriminant. The following is the result of the
Downloaded by University of Strathclyde At 21:28 10 June 2019 (PT)

path’s research estimation. Next is the interpretation of the structural model. It can be stated that
the dependent variable of logistic performance (LOP) with R2 ¼ 0.823, and dependent variable
capabilities (LOC) is R2 ¼ 0.776 is lower than the dependent variable LOP. When compared to the
distribution of R2 and R2-adjusted values, it appears that the distribution of R2 values of LOP and
LOC is still greater than the distribution of R2-adjusted value. Thus, the variation in the
dependent variable values of LOC and LOP as dependent variable can be adequately explained
by the exogenous variable affecting it.
Based on Table IV, it can be seen that there was a strong indication which lead to the
formation of effect size pattern relationship; thus, this implies that the research model
described the role of mediation that needed to be evaluated at the next analysis stage.
Based on Table V, the relationship between variables can be explained as follows: first,
collaboration effect on capabilities was successfully answered, with a prediction parameter of
0.673. The results showed the value of t arithmetic of 7,488 with bootstrapping methods to be
500 samples obtained a table t of 1.96. Apparently, the t-value of the calculation is 7,488, which
is greater than the table t, 1.96. Thus, the statement that collaboration (COL) has a positive
impact on capabilities (CAP) can be supported by this research. Second, the influence of IS on
capabilities was successfully answered, with a prediction parameter of 0.289. The results
showed the value of t arithmetic of 3.157 with sample bootstrapping sample to 500 obtained
table t of 1.96. Apparently, the t-value of the calculation is 3.157 is greater than table t, 1.96.
Thus, the assertion that IS (ISR) positively impacts capabilities (CAP) can be supported by this
research. Third, the influence of capabilities (LOC) on logistic performance (LOP) successfully

Construct f_excluded f_included Effect size f

Table IV. LOP 0.823 0.810 0.073

Results of the analysis LOC 0.776 0.765 0.049
of effect size Cohen Average 0.800 0.788 0.060

Original sample Sample mean SD t-stats p-values Note

Table V. COL→LOP 0.112 0.154 0.266 0.420 0.337 Insignificant

Results of the COL→LOC 0.673 0.713 0.090 7.488 0.000 Significant
analysis of path LOC→LOP 0.774 0.736 0.261 2.964 0.002 Significant
coefficient IS→LOP 0.051 0.045 0.085 0.601 0.274 Insignificant
and significance IS→LOC 0.289 0.254 0.092 3.157 0.001 Significant
 answered this research, with a prediction parameter of 0.774. The result showed that t count Logistics
value 2,964, obtained through bootsrapping with total sample 500, got a table t equal to 1.96. It performance
turns out the t-value of the result of calculation is equal to 2,964, which is bigger than the
table t, 1.96. Thus, the statement that capabilities (LOC) have a positive impact on logistic
performance (LOP) can be supported by this research. Fourth, the search for the mediation
effect derived from the influence of collaboration (COL) on logistic performance (LOP) through
capabilities (LOC) successfully answered this research on full mediation type. The result of
this research shows that the t-value 2,331 (see Table IV ) is still bigger than table value t, 1.96.
Thus, this research proves that the construct capabilities (LOC) is the mediation of
collaboration in building the performance of logistic business (LOP). Fifth, the search for
mediation effect obtained from the influence of IS on logistic performance (LOP) through
capabilities (LOC) successfully answered this research on full mediation type. The result of
this research shows that a t-value equal to 3,070 (see Table IV ) is still bigger than the table
t-value, 1.96. Thus, this research proves that construct capabilities (LOC) is the mediation of IS
Downloaded by University of Strathclyde At 21:28 10 June 2019 (PT)

in establishing logistic business performance (LOP).

Based on Table VI, the following can be interpreted. First, the search for indirect
influence of collaboration (COL) on logistic business performance (LOP) through capabilities
(LOC) was significant based on the 5% confidence level, with t ¼ 2.331, which was still
bigger than table t, 1.96. In relation to the direct influence of collaboration on logistic
performance, which was not significant, the mediation relationship model obtained was full
mediation (Hair et al., 1995). Second, the search for indirect effect of IS on logistic
performance (LOP) through capabilities (LOC) was significant based on the 5% confidence
level, with a t-value of 3.070, which was still bigger than table t, 1.96. In relation to the direct
influence of IS on logistic performance (LOP), which was not significant, the mediation
model obtained was full mediation (Hair et al., 1995).
The update of this research was found on the strategic role of capabilities as the
dominant latent variable in building the business performance of logistic companies. This
study found a double mediation, in which both mediations were expressed as full mediation,
since the direct influence of the latent variable mediator was significant (Little et al., 2010;
Hair et al., 1995).

The role of double mediation building business performance

The result of t-value calculation showed t ¼ Z ¼ 2.2468, which was still bigger than table value
t ¼ Z ¼ 1.96, so mediation from collaboration indirectly influence through capabilities could be
proved based on a statistical test. In relation to the effect of collaboration on logistic performance
was not significant based on 5 percent test criterion, based on the condition, the relation
constructed from the mediation process was expressed as full mediation (Hair et al., 1995).
The findings of this study were in line with Mitrega et al. (2012), who derived empirical facts
that collaboration strengthens capabilities, where collaboration served to collaborate on inter-
company levels and inter-personal levels. The two functions above build the strengthening of
inter-company relationships in order to strengthen the unification of vision and mission, to
avoid conflicts that often occur because the incorporation of various interests into one
organization was not an issue that was easily realized (Mitrega et al., 2012) (Figure 3).

Original sample (O) Sample mean (M) SD (STDEV ) t-stats p-values

COL→LOC→LOP 0.521 0.534 0.224 2.331 0.010

IS→LOC→LOP 0.224 0.177 0.073 3.070 0.001
Notes: Results of the analysis of indirect effect collaboration (Col) and information sharing (IS) significance Table VI.
toward logistic performance (LOP) Table indirect effect
 IJQRM
Collaboration
(COL)

0.430
p 0.337
0.673
p 0.000

Figure 3.
Moderation Logistic
by full mediation Capabilities 0.774
performance
(LOC) p 0.002
COL-LOC-LOP (LOP)

Chang and Chen (2013) get empirical evidence that IS is a construct that moderates the
Downloaded by University of Strathclyde At 21:28 10 June 2019 (PT)

organization capabilities; the same thing with the findings of this research is that
collaboration can be integrated in order to build the capacity of the organization in building
the company’s logistics performance. Zollo and Winter (2002) associate capabilities as
dynamic forces in order to build the competitiveness of the company in the future. Other
researchers (Eisenhardt and Martin, 2000) reinforce previous arguments, which the
continuity of the organizational capabilities component needs to be continuously enhanced
in order to build, integrate and consolidate available resources for strengthening business
performance in order to stabilize the firm’s market value.
Thus, based on some of the views of the researcher above, it can be concluded that the
findings of this research on the effort to build the capability of business organization capabilities,
so the research finding that capabilities can act as mediators proved significant is the first
empirical fact, that is, the role of capabilities is very strategic and synergizes with collaboration.
A second finding of this research is the acquisition of a dual mediation role of organizational
capabilities that serves as a driver for exogenous IS constructs. Figure 2 presents the
moderation of capabilities with full mediation of collaboration that indirectly affects logistics
company performance through capabilities. It can be concluded that successful capabilities are
also a mediator of IS, so this research gets a dual mediation role of construct capabilities (LOC)
against two exogenous variables, which are collaboration and IS (Figure 4).
IS is a process of knowledge transformation that will strengthen the capability of an
organization by means of new production and new technology (Zahra and George, 2002). The
process of technology transfer is sourced from IS, which will proceed in order to strengthen
the organization’s capability to strengthen competitive capability (Zahra and George, 2002).

Logistic
Capabilities 0.774
performance
(LOC) p 0.002
(LOP)

0.289
p 0.001
0.051
p 0.274

Figure 4. Information
Moderation by full sharing
mediation IS-LOC-LOP (IS)
 The result of this research obtains the empirical fact and becomes an important finding from Logistics
this research, i.e. IS only has one path that is in the form of indirect relation from information performance
build performance of logistic business through capability. Therefore, it is no longer
necessary to debate about the direct relationship between information and direct
relationships with business performance because if the direct relationship between IS and
business performance is called partial mediation, then there is the possibility that the direct
path of relationship becomes stronger compared to the path through mediation, so the path
of indirect relationship still needs to question its role.
Thus, this study finds a form of full mediation relationship is a satisfied condition that IS
is successfully integrated with collaboration as an exogenous variable that shares the same
path as IS. Thus, the integration of the two antecedent latent variables of collaboration and
IS into a single force that constitutes capability is a reasonable contribution to suggest that
capability is a latent major variable that is the key to success for logging the performance of
a logistics company in Indonesia.
Downloaded by University of Strathclyde At 21:28 10 June 2019 (PT)

This study has the limitations of methodology and theoretical concepts to build predictions
on the role of future business enterprise logistics performance. This research activity needs to
be studies with longitudinal data source and methodology, so that the behavior and character
of entrepreneur partner can be mapped in a more dynamic framework covering a longer
period of time, so that the change of dynamics of entrepreneur behavior can be mapped more
concretely and validly. This study uses questionnaire data during the period of this study in
2016, so that the possibility of changing the behavior of partner entrepreneurs on a number of
factors that can change weaken or strengthen capability cannot be analyzed, so it is necessary
to do further research on the same theoretical model in the coming year, to answer the
possibility of change in the character of the business partner.

6. Conclusion
Based on the research, it can be concluded that: collaboration (COL) has a positive impact on
capabilities (CAP); capability (LOC) positive impact on logistic performance (LOP);
collaboration (Col) does not directly affect the logistics performance (LOP); and construct
capabilities (LOC) is the mediation of IS in building business logistics performance (LOP).
Increasing the intensity of IS has no direct contribution to increased flexibility, and
collaboration is driven by partnership and network, whereas CT (trust) can be ignored, as it
is not proven to make a dominant contribution to collaboration.
The suggestions for the next researcher are as follows: first, strengthening of
collaboration has contribution to company capability, hence future research should be done
comparison between collaboration in a foreign and national logistics company so that the
model of collaboration analysis will be more sharp. Second, further research should be done
with a larger sample of classification on third-party logistics (3Pl) types of companies so that
other collaborative models can be known. Third, future research should focus on the second-
order latent variable IS in addition to second-order latent collaboration so as to strengthen
the company’s capability in increasing power competitiveness.

Comment from R4
These research results gave the practical implication in the form of valuable interview that
can be used by the registered company in Gafeksi of East Java region in which its corporation
is intended to improve the logistic performance between the companies. For the company, the
research results can be considered in relation to the improvement of logistics performance,
collaboration and the company’s ability. In addition, for practicality, this research theoretically
gives a positive contribution to the development of research concerning collaboration,
capability and IS on the performance of the company’s logistic. This research also gives the
implication for the knowledge of logistic management study and operational study.
 IJQRM References
Anders, G. and Johnson, M.D. (2004), “Determining attribute importance in a service satisfaction
model”, Journal of Service Research, Vol. 7 No. 2, pp. 124-141.
Anderson, J.C. and Narus, J.A. (1990), “A model of distributor firm and manufacturer firm working
partnerships”, Journal Marketing, Vol. 54 No. 1, pp. 42-58.
Andreeva, T. and Ritala, P. (2016), “What are the sources of capability dynamism? Reconceptualizing
dynamic capabilities from the perspective of organizational change”, Baltic Journal of
Management, Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 238-259.
Ansell, C. and Gash, A. (2007), “Collaborative governance in theory and practice”, Journal of Public
Administration Research and Theory, Vol. 18 No. 4, pp. 543-571.
Austin, J.E. and Seitanidi, M.M. (2012), “Collaborative value creation: a review of partnering between
nonprofits and businesses: part I: value creation spectrum and collaboration stages”, Nonprofit
and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, Vol. 41 No. 5, pp. 726-758.
Ballou, R.H. (1999), “Business logistics/supply chain management: planning, organizing, and
Downloaded by University of Strathclyde At 21:28 10 June 2019 (PT)

controlling the supply chain”, Business Logistics Management, Pearson Prentice Hall, Upper
Saddle River, NJ.
Barney, J. (1991a), “Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage”, Journal of Management,
Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 99-120.
Barney, J. (1991b), “Looking inside for competitive advantage”, Academy of Management Executive,
Vol. 9 No. 4, pp. 49-51.
Bititci, U.S., Martinez, V., Albores, P. and Parung, J. (2004), “Creating and managing value in
collaborative networks”, International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management,
Vol. 34 Nos 3/4, pp. 251-268.
Bowersox, D.J., Closs, D.J. and Stank, T.P. (1999), “21st century logistics: making supply chain
integration a reality”, Council of Logistics Management, Michigan State University, MI.
Brahma, S.S. and Chakraborty, H. (2011), “From industry to firm resources: resource-based view of
competitive advantage”, IUP Journal of Business Strategy, Vol. 8 No. 2, pp. 7-21.
Brekalo, L., Albers, S. and Delfmann, W. (2013), “Logistics alliance management capabilities:
where are they?”, International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, Vol. 43
No. 7, pp. 529-543.
Cameron, E. and Green, M. (2015), Making Sense of Change Management: A Complete Guide to the
Models, Tools and Techniques of Organizational Change, 4th ed., Kogan Page Publishers, London.
Carroll, N. and Helfert, M. (2015), “Service capabilities within open innovation: revisiting the
applicability of capability maturity models”, Journal of Enterprise Information Management,
Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 275-303.
Chang, C.H. and Chen, Y.S. (2013), “Green organizational identity and green innovation”, Management
Decision, Vol. 51 No. 5, pp. 1056-1070.
Chen, Y.T., Dultra-de-Lima, R.G., Csillag, J.M. and Oyadomari, J.C.T. (2015), “Does the competitive
orientation really lead to emphasis on different internal capabilities?”, International Journal of
Operations & Production Management, Vol. 35 No. 7, pp. 1075-1096.
Chi, M., Zhao, J. and George, J.F. (2015), “Mediation and time-lag analyses of e-alignment and
e-collaboration capabilities”, Industrial Management & Data Systems, Vol. 115 No. 6, pp. 1113-1131.
Clinton, S.R. and Closs, D.J. (1997), “Logistics strategy: does it exist?”, Journal of Business Logistics,
Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 19-44.
Eckert, J.A. and Fawcett, S.J. (1996), “Critical capability for logistics excellence: people, quality, and
time”, Proceedings of the Council of Logistics Management, Vol. 3, pp. 183-197.
Edwards, J.R. (2001), “Multidimensional constructs in organizational behavior research: an integrative
analytical framework”, Organizational Research Methods, Vol. 4 No. 2, pp. 155-174.
Effendi, S. and Tukiran (2012), Metode Penelitian Survei, LP3ES, Jakarta.
 Eisenhardt, K.M. and Martin, J.A. (2000), “Dynamic capabilities: what are they?”, Strategic Management Logistics
Journal, Vol. 21 Nos 10‐11, pp. 1105-1121. performance
Ellinger, A.E., Daugherty, P.J. and Keller, S.B. (2000), “The relationship between marketing/logistics
interdepartmental integration and performance in US manufacturing firms: an empirical study”,
Journal of Business Logistics, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 1-22.
Fleming, P. (2013), The Art of Middle Management in Secondary Schools: A Guide to Effective Subject
and Team Leadership, Routledge, London.
Ganesan, S. (1994), “Determinants of longterm orientation in buyer-seller relationships”, Journal
Marketing, Vol. 58 No. 2, pp. 1-19.
Gray, B. and Stites, J.P. (2013), Sustainability through Partnerships: Capitalizing on Collaboration,
Network for Business Sustainability, London, ON, p. 110.
Hair, F., Anderson, R., Tatham, R. and Black, W. (1995), Multivariate Data Analysis with Readings,
4th ed., Prentice-Hall, London.
Holton, J.A. (2001), “Building trust and collaboration in a virtual team”, Team Performance
Downloaded by University of Strathclyde At 21:28 10 June 2019 (PT)

Management: An International Journal, Vol. 7 Nos 3/4, pp. 36-47.

Indriantoro, N. and Supomo, B. (2002), Metode Penelitian Bisnis, BPFE, Yogyakarta.
Iyer, K.N.S. (2011), “Demand chain collaboration and operational performance: role of IT analytic capability
and environmental uncertainty”, Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 81-91.
Jimerson, J.B. and Wayman, J.C. (2012), “Branding educational data use through professional learning:
findings from a study in three school districts”, paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the
American Educational Research Association, Vancouver.
Jugdev, K. and Mathur, G. (2013), “Bridging situated learning theory to the resource-based view of project
management”, International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, Vol. 6 No. 4, pp. 633-653.
Kocoglu, I., Imamoglu, S.Z., Ince, H. and Keskin, H. (2011), “The effect of supply chain integration on
information sharing: enhancing the supply chain performance”, Procedia Social and Behavioral
Sciences, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 1630-1649.
Koschmann, M., Kuhn, T. and Pfarrer, M. (2012), “A communicative framework of value in crosssector
partnerships”, Academy of Management, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 1-64.
Koufteros, X.A., Vonderembse, M.A. and Doll, W.J. (2002), “Examining the competitive capabilities of
manufacturing firms”, Structural Equation Modeling, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 256-282.
Laari, S., Solakivi, T. and Toyli, J. (2016), “Performance outcomes of environmental collaboration:
evidence from Finnish logistics service providers”, Baltic Journal of Management, Vol. 11 No. 4,
pp. 430-451.
Lawson, B. and Samson, D. (2001), “Developing innovation capability in organisations: a dynamic
capabilities approach”, International Journal of Innovation Management, Vol. 5 No. 3, pp. 377-400.
Lewis, D.J. (1990), Partnership for Profit: Structuring and Managing Strategic Alliances, The Free Press,
New York, NY.
Lin, M.J.J. and Chen, C.J. (2008), “Integration and knowledge sharing: transforming to long-term competitive
advantage”, International Journal of Organizational Analysis, Vol. 16 Nos 1/2, pp. 83-108.
Little, J.P., Safdar, A., Wilkin, G.P., Tarnopolsky, M.A. and Gibala, M.J. (2010), “A practical model of
low-volume high-intensity interval training induces mitochondrial biogenesis in human skeletal
muscle: potential mechanisms”, The Journal of Physiology, Vol. 588 No. 6, pp. 1011-1022.
Lynch, C. (1998), “Social movements and the problem of globalization”, Alternatives: Global, Local,
Political, Vol. 23 No. 2, pp. 149-173.
McLaren, T., Head, M. and Yuan, Y. (2000), “Supply chain collaboration alternatives: understanding the
expected cost and benefits”, Internet Research: Electronic Networking Applications and Policy,
Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 348-364.
MacKenzie, D.I., Nichols, J.D., Royle, J.A., Pollock, K.H., Bailey, L.L. and Hines, J.E. (2005), Occupancy
Estimation and Modeling: Inferring Patterns and Dynamics of Species Occurrence, Elsevier,
San Diego, CA.
 IJQRM Mitrega, M., Forkmann, S., Ramos, C. and Henneberg, S.C. (2012), “Networking capability in business
relationships – concept and scale development”, Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 41
No. 5, pp. 739-751.
Monczka, R.M., Trent, R.J. and Callahan, T.J. (1994), “Supply base strategies to maximize supplier
performance”, International Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 42-54.
Moorman, R.H., Niehoff, B.P. and Organ, D.W. (1993), “Treating employees fairly and organizational
citizenship behavior: sorting the effects of job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and
procedural justice”, Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, Vol. 6 No. 3, pp. 209-225.
Morash, E.A. (2001), “Supply chain strategies, capabilities, and performance”, Transportation Journal,
Vol. 41 No. 1, pp. 37-54.
Morash, E.A., Droge, C.L.M. and Vickery, S.K. (1996), “Strategic logistics capability for competitive
advantage and firm success”, Journal of Business Logistics, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 1-22.
Nyaga, G., Whipple, J. and Lynch, D. (2010), “Examining supply chain relationships: do buyer and
supplier perspectives on collaborative relationships differ?”, Journal of Operations Management,
Downloaded by University of Strathclyde At 21:28 10 June 2019 (PT)

Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 101-114.

Oh, J. and Rhee, S.K. (2008), “The influence of supplier capabilities and technology uncertainty on
manufacturer-supplier collaboration: a study of the Korean automotive industry”, International
Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 28 No. 6, pp. 490-517.
Parida, V., Oghazi, P. and Cedergren, S. (2016), “A study of how ICT capabilities can influence dynamic
capabilities”, Journal of Enterprise Information Management, Vol. 29 No. 2, pp. 179-201.
Parker, H. (2000), “Inter-firm collaboration and the new product development process”, Industrial
Management & Data Systems, Vol. 100 No. 6, pp. 255-260.
Perego, E., Missier, F.D., Porta, M. and Mosconi, M. (2010), “The cognitive effectiveness of subtitle
processing”, Media Psychology, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 243-272.
Peter Omondi-Ochieng (2015), “Gross national income, football workers and national football team
performances: a logistic regression analysis”, Team Performance Management, Vol. 21 Nos 7/8,
pp. 405-420.
Pomponi, F., Fratocchi, L. and Tafuri, S.R. (2015), “Trust development and horizontal collaboration in
logistics: a theory based evolutionary framework”, Supply Chain Management: An International
Journal, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 83-97.
Prajogo, D. and Olhager, J. (2012), “The effect of supply chain information integration on logistics
integration and firm performance”, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 135
No. 1, pp. 514-522.
Ralston, P.M., Grawe, S.J. and Daugherty, P.J. (2013), “Logistics salience impact on logistics capabilities
and performance”, The International Journal of Logistics Management, Vol. 24 No. 2, pp. 136-152.
Ramanathan, U., Gunasekaran, A. and Subramanian, N. (2011), “Supply chain collaboration
performance metrics: a conceptual framework”, Benchmarking: An International Journal, Vol. 18
No. 6, pp. 856-872.
Rodrigues, V.S., Harris, I. and Mason, R. (2015), “Horizontal logistics collaboration for enhanced supply
chain performance: an international retail perspective”, Supply Chain Management: An
International Journal, Vol. 20 No. 6, pp. 631-647.
Rowland, S. (2008), “What is collaboration? Collaborative for neighbourhood transformation”,
Performance Management: An International Journal, Vol. 7 Nos 3-4, pp. 11-13.
Rungi, M. (2014), “The impact of capabilities on performance”, Industrial Management & Data Systems,
Vol. 114 No. 2, pp. 241-257.
Ryzhkova, N. (2015), “Does online collaboration with customers drive innovation performance?”,
Journal of Service Theory and Practice, Vol. 25 No. 3, pp. 327-347.
Sandberg, R. (2007), “Logistics collaboration in supply chains: practice vs. theory”, The International
Journal of Logistics Management, Vol. 18 No. 2, pp. 274-293.
 Saxena, G. (2005), “Relationships, networks and the learning regions: case evidence from the Peak Logistics
District National Park”, Tour Management, Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 277-289. performance
Seitanidi, M.M. and Crane, A. (2008), “Implementing CSR through partnerships: understanding the
selection, design and institutionalisation of nonprofit-business partnerships”, Journal of
Business Ethics, Vol. 85 No. 1, pp. 413-429.
Sigala, M. (2004), “The ASP-Qual model: measuring ASP service quality in Greece”, Managing Service
Quality: An International Journal, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 103-114.
Simatupang, T.M. and Sridharan, R. (2002), “The collaborative supply chain”, International Journal of
Logistics Management, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 15-30.
Solimun, Fernandes, A.A.R. and Nurjannah, N. (2017), Pemodelan Persamaan Struktural (SEM)
Pendekatan WarpPLS, UB Press, Malang.
Soosay, C.A., Hyland, P.W. and Ferrer, M. (2008), “Supply chain collaboration: capabilities for continuous
innovation”, Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 160-169.
Stock, J.R. and Lambert, D.M. (2001), Strategic Logistics Management, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Downloaded by University of Strathclyde At 21:28 10 June 2019 (PT)

Tauck, C., Wilkinson, S. and Moore, R.G. (1993), “Marketing hotels: using global distribution systems”,
Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, Vol. 34 No. 6, pp. 80-89.
Tibben, P.A. (2010), “Top management team diversity and firm performance (master’s thesis)”,
Utrecht University.
Vereecke, A. and Muylle, S. (2006), “Performance improvement through supply chain collaboration in
Europe”, International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 26 No. 11, pp. 1176-1198.
Walker, R.B.J. (1994), “Social movements/world politics”, Millennium: Journal of International Studies,
Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 659-700.
Wetzels, M., Odekerken-Schröder, G. and Van Oppen, C. (2009), “Using PLS path modeling for assessing
hierarchical construct models: guidelines and empirical illustration”, MIS Quarterly, pp. 177-195.
Wu, I.L., Chuang, C.H. and Hsu, C.H. (2014), “Information sharing and collaborative behaviors in
enabling supply chain performance: a social exchange perspective”, International Journal of
Production Economics, Vol. 148 No. C, pp. 122-132.
Yallwe, A.H. and Buscemi, A. (2014), “An era of intangible assets”, Journal of Applied Finance and
Banking, Vol. 4 No. 5, pp. 17-26.
Yang, C.C. (2016), “Leveraging logistics learning capability to enable logistics service capabilities and
performance for international distribution center operators in Taiwan”, The International
Journal of Logistics Management, Vol. 27 No. 2, pp. 284-308.
Zahra, S.A. and George, G. (2002), “The net-enabled business innovation cycle and the evolution of
dynamic capabilities”, Information Systems Research, Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 147-150.
Zhao, M., Dröge, C. and Stank, T.P. (2001), “The effects of logistics capabilities on firm performance:
customer-focused versus information-focused capabilities”, Journal of Business Logistics, Vol. 22
No. 2, pp. 91-107.
Zollo, M. and Winter, S.G. (2002), “Deliberate learning and the evolution of dynamic capabilities”,
Organization Science, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 339-351.

Further reading
Lancioni, R. (2000), “New developments in supply chain management for the millennium”, Industrial
Marketing Management, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 1-6.

Corresponding author
Indro Kirono can be contacted at: indro.ub.jp@gmail.com

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com