Industrial Marketing Management 33 (2004) 37 – 44

A global supply chain framework

David J. Clossa,*, Diane A. Mollenkopf b
a
Department of Marketing and Supply Chain Management, Eli Broad College of Business, Michigan State University, N370 North Business Complex,
East Lansing, MI 48824-1122, USA
b
Department of Marketing and Supply Chain Management, Eli Broad College of Business, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824-1122, USA

Abstract

The relationship between supply chain competencies and performance has been somewhat elusive. The 21st Century Logistics
framework, developed at Michigan State University is currently assessed as to its global relevance, particularly relating to performance. A
sample of U.S. firms is compared to a sample of Australian and New Zealand firms to assess the robustness of the framework across different
business environments as well as to better understand the supply chain competencies/performance relationship. Results suggest that the
framework is reasonably robust across environments, although some improvements in future versions of the framework are suggested.
Additionally, results confirm that supply chain competencies do lead to improved performance. Interestingly, supply chain competencies
appear to be employed in different ways to create different performance advantages across the various business environments.
D 2003 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Supply chain competencies; Performance; Global supply chain framework

1. Introduction characteristic of leading logistics and supply chain organ-

The 21st Century Logistics framework, developed at
Michigan State University and introduced in 1999, builds
upon more than 15 years of research exploring leading
logistics practices. While prior research had included inter-
national considerations, lending support to the 21st Century
Logistics framework, the 21st Century Logistics framework
was constructed based on domestic (U.S.A.) data and inter-
views (Bowersox, Closs, & Stank, 1999). Since its intro-
duction, however, many authors have applied the framework
to international environments. For example, Mollenkopf and
Dapiran (1999) used the framework and survey instrument
to benchmark the logistics capabilities and competencies of
firms in Australia and New Zealand. Carranza, Maltz, and
Antun (2002) used the framework to discuss and compare
the logistics strategy of Argentinean firms. Morash and
Lynch (2002) investigated the relationship between public
policy and supply chain capabilities and performance in
three global regions: North America, Europe, and the Pacific
Basin.
The 21st Century Logistics framework allows managers
to identify and implement the competencies and capabilities
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +1-517-353-6381; fax: +1-517-432-1112.
E-mail address: closs@msu.edu (D.J. Closs).
izations. While much has been written in recent years about
the importance of supply chain management, its link to
superior operational and financial performance has
remained somewhat elusive. Even though it is intuitive that
superior supply chain performance should lead to improved
financial and competitive performance, ‘‘proof’’ has been
primarily anecdotal. However, the 21st Century Logistics
research made a contribution by confirming the relationship
between logistics best practice and firm performance for the
U.S. sample. Additional research since the initial framework
publication further substantiates the performance benefits of
supply chain logistical integration (Stank, Keller, & Closs,
2001).
However, such investigations have remained primarily
U.S. based and focused. Therefore, the purpose of this
research is to investigate the 21st Century Logistics frame-
work in a global context, using a specific international
sample to compare and assess its international relevance.
2. Background
The 21st Century Logistics framework (see Fig. 1)
identifies six firm competencies critical for logistics and
supply chain management. Each competency is composed

0019-8501/$ – see front matter D 2003 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.indmarman.2003.08.008
38 D.J. Closs, D.A. Mollenkopf / Industrial Marketing Management 33 (2004) 37–44
Fig. 1. The 21st Century Logistics framework.
of multiple underlying capabilities, which guide philoso-
phies and processes to complete specific logistics and
supply chain activities. The competencies leading to high
supply chain performance can be grouped into operational,
planning, and behavioral processes. Within the operational
process, firm competencies include customer integration,
internal integration, and supplier integration (whether ma-
terial or service suppliers). Customer integration builds
lasting distinctiveness with customers of choice. Internal
integration links internally performed work to support
customer requirements, and supplier integration links ex-
ternally performed work into a seamless congruency with
internal work processes.
The planning process includes competencies of technol-
ogy & planning integration and measurement integration.
Technology & planning integration refers to information
systems capable of supporting the wide variety of opera-
tional configurations needed to serve diverse market seg-
ments. Measurement integration refers to the development
of measurement systems that facilitate segmental strategies
and processes. Finally, in the behavioral process, relation-
ship integration refers to the ability to develop and maintain
a shared mental framework with customers and suppliers
regarding interenterprise dependency and principles of col-
laboration. Table 1 lists the capabilities and definitions for
each competency.
A major challenge to empirically demonstrate the rela-
tionship concerns how to measure firm ‘‘success.’’ Firm
performance must certainly incorporate financial measures,
but should also include broader measures. The 21st Century
Logistics framework was developed using a measurement
model that considers both firm and supply chain perfor-
mance using 13 logistics and supply chain variables repre-
senting five key performance areas. Customer service
focuses on the customer value-added including customer
satisfaction, product flexibility, and delivery speed. Cost
management focuses on the functional and integrated logis-
tics and supply chain cost components. A single, compre-
hensive measure of total landed logistics cost is used.
Quality reflects broader service measures used to enhance
customer loyalty, based on the logic that superior service
attracts and keeps key customers. The four quality measures
include delivery dependability, responsiveness, order flexi-
bility, and delivery flexibility. Productivity reflects how
effectively material and labor resources are used to provide
service, and includes information systems support, order fill
capacity, and advanced shipment notification. Finally, asset
management indicates how well a firm uses fixed assets and
working capital. This research includes two specific asset
utilization measures inventory turnover and return on assets
(ROA). Although these five categories and the individual
items can be measured quantitatively, the focus of this
research uses performance relative to competition as the
basis of cross-industry comparisons.
3. The current study
In the current study, the U.S. data gathered during the
21st Century Logistics research is compared with data
collected by Mollenkopf and Dapiran (1999) in Australia
and New Zealand (ANZ). The U.S. sample includes 284
responses from Council of Logistics Management (CLM).
The ANZ sample includes 193 responses from executives
in Australian and New Zealand firms. Details of the data
collection methodologies for both studies can be reviewed
 D.J. Closs, D.A. Mollenkopf / Industrial Marketing Management 33 (2004) 37–44
Table 1
Competency and capability definitions
Customer integration
Segmental focus Development of customer specific programs
designed to generate maximum customer success.
Relevancy Maintenance and modification of customer focus
to continuously match changing expectations.
Responsiveness Accommodation of unique and/or unplanned
customer requirements.
Flexibility Adaptation to unexpected operational
circumstances.
Internal integration
Cross-functional Operationalization of potentially synergistic
unification activities into manageable operational processes.
Standardization Establishment of cross-functional policies and
procedures to facilitate synchronous operations.
Simplification Identification, adoption, implementation, and
continuous improvement of best practice.
Compliance Adherence to established operational and
administrative policies and procedures.
Structural adaptation Extent to which the network structure and
deployment of physical assets has been modified
to facilitate integration.
Material/service supplier integration
Strategic alignment Development of a common vision of the total
value creation process and planning clarity
concerning shared responsibility.
Operational fusion Linkage of systems and operational interfaces to
reduce duplication, redundancy, and dwell while
maintaining operational synchronization.
Financial linkage Willingness to structure joint financial ventures
with suppliers to solidify goal attainment.
Supplier management Extended management to include hierarchical
structure of suppliers’ suppliers.
Technology and planning integration
Information Commitment and capability to facilitate supply
management chain resource allocation through seamless
transactions across the total order-to-delivery
cycle.
Internal Capability to exchange information across internal
communication functional boundaries in a timely, responsive, and
usable format.
Connectivity Capability to exchange information with external
supply chain partners in a timely, responsive, and
usable format.
Collaborative Customer collaboration to develop shared visions
forecasting and and mutual commitment to jointly generated
planning action plans.
Measurement integration
Functional The development of comprehensive functional
assessment performance measurement capability.
Activity-based and Adoption and commitment to activity-based
total cost costing, budgeting, and measurement of
methodology comprehensive identification of cost/revenue
contribution of a specific entity such as a product.
Comprehensive Establishment of cross-enterprise and overall
metrics supply chain performance standards and
measures.
Financial impact Direct linkage of supply chain performance to
financial measurement such as EVA, RONA, etc.
39
Table 1 (continued)
Relationship integration
Role specificity Clarity concerning leadership process and
establishment of shared versus individual
enterprise responsibility.
Guidelines Rules, policies, and procedures to facilitate
interenterprise collaboration, leverage, and
conflict resolution.
Information sharing Willingness to exchange key technical, financial,
operational, and strategic information.
Gain/risk sharing Framework and willingness to apportion fair share
reward and penalty.
Source: Bowersox et al. (1999).
in the original publications (Bowersox et al., 1999; Mol-
lenkopf & Dapiran, 1999). While the 21st Century Logis-
tics research provided evidence of a positive relationship
between supply chain competency and firm performance,
which was further elaborated by Stank et al. (2001), the
current research compares the U.S. results with ANZ
results to determine the robustness across international
boundaries. While many other countries could be used, it
was felt that the use of ANZ firms offered some unique
advantages although there are some limitations. The pri-
mary advantages include a common language, similar legal
systems and cultures, and the geographies are distant
enough to not have extensive cultural interchange, as
would be the case of the United States and Canada. One
of the primary limitations, although this too presents some
interesting comparisons, is that the firms in the U.S. tend
to be significantly larger than those in ANZ and often
represent corporate headquarters where ANZ firms often
represent divisions.
First, reliabilities, Table 2 summarizes the item-to-total
correlations and principal component scores for the two
sample groups. While Stank et al. (2001) validated the
scales for the U.S., study, it is useful to reevaluate the
scales for the two samples. While the principal component
scores vary across the two samples, the scores meet minimal
levels of 0.30 and above in all cases (Hair, Anderson,
Tatham, & Black, 1995). Thus, all of the scales reflect
unidimensional characteristics. Construct reliabilities are
also satisfactory as coefficient alphas meet or exceed 0.70
in all but one instance (Nunnally, 1978). Interestingly the
coefficient alphas for the ANZ sample tend to be lower than
for the U.S. sample. This suggests that perhaps the items did
not resonate as clearly with the ANZ respondents as with
U.S. respondents. Item-to-total correlations exceed 0.30
(Dunn, Seaker, & Waller, 1994) in all cases, although once
again the ANZ sample scores tend to be somewhat lower
than the U.S. sample. The general conclusion is that while
the scales were developed using the U.S. sample, the scales
also work in ANZ but the fit could be improved through
some refinement.
The first analysis focuses on comparing firm competen-
cies in each region with relative performance measures. The
six competencies are used as independent variables in a
40 D.J. Closs, D.A. Mollenkopf / Industrial Marketing Management 33 (2004) 37–44

Table 2 In both the U.S. and ANZ models, 30% or more of the
Reliabilities, item-to-total correlation, and principal components scores
variation in overall logistics performance is explained by
Items Principal Item-to-total Cronbach each model. For the U.S. sample, both customer integration
component correlation alpha
and internal integration explain substantial overall logistics
scores
performance, whereas only customer integration explains
Customer integration .87 .78
substantial logistics performance for the ANZ sample. In
Segmental focus .87 .80 .75 .60
Relevance .86 .82 .74 .63 both regions it is clear that firms that focus on serving
Responsiveness .85 .80 .72 .62 customers with unique and profitable logistics offerings gain
Flexibility .81 .72 .67 .52 advantages in performance throughout the supply chain.
Internal integration .84 .79 This suggests that firms that develop and apply logistics
Cross-functional unification .77 .73 .63 .54
and supply chain capabilities to meet the specific needs of
Standardization .81 .67 .68 .50
Simplification .76 .77 .62 .60 key customers achieve higher performance in both the U.S.
Compliance .83 .83 .70 .68 and ANZ. U.S. firms also clearly gain by linking internal
Structural adaptation .70 .72 .55 .56 activities, such as reducing duplication and increasing align-
Supplier integration .83 .68 ment. Neither sample revealed a significant statistical asso-
Strategic alignment .83 .65 .67 .44
ciation between supplier, technology/planning, measurement
Operational fusion .87 .63 .73 .39
Financial linkage .70 .75 .52 .49 nor relationship integration with overall logistics perfor-
Supplier management .85 .81 .70 .57 mance. As discussed by Stank et al. (2001), this could be
Technology and planning .86 .77 because these competencies do not influence a firm’s overall
Information management .86 .84 .74 .64 logistics performance. More likely, however, is the explana-
Internal communication .87 .82 .76 .63
tion that these competencies are not substantial differentia-
Connectivity .87 .85 .61 .66
Collaborative .77 .61 .74 .42 tors of logistics and supply chain performance, at least based
forecasting and planning on current measures. This observation might suggest one of
Measurement integration .80 .78 two conclusions. The first is that internal integration is not
Functional assessment .76 .77 .68 .56 a necessary competency in ANZ. A more likely interpreta-
Activity-based and .84 .82 .57 .65
tion is that ANZ firms are smaller and have historically
total cost methodology
Comprehensive metrics .85 .75 .52 .55 achieved internal integration through internal relationships
Financial impact .71 .77 .69 .57 that are not possible due to the size and geographic spread
Relationship integration .85 .74 of U. S. firms.
Role specificity .86 .71 .73 .49 To provide a clearer picture of the role of the six
Guidelines .85 .76 .71 .55
competencies in affecting logistics performance, Table 3
Information sharing .82 .80 .67 .60
Gain/risk sharing .78 .76 .62 .53 also reports the multiple regression results for both samples
Overall logistics performance .82 .86 when using each performance measure individually as a
Advanced shipping notification .42 .56 .35 .48 dependent variable. Each of the models is statistically
Customer satisfaction .76 .63 .65 .54 significant. For the U.S. sample, supply chain integration
Delivery dependability .74 .70 .61 .60
competencies explain 10% or more of the performance
Delivery speed .66 .64 .53 .53
Delivery time flexibility .67 .63 .54 .54 variance related to customer satisfaction, delivery speed,
Inventory turns .44 .53 .38 .47 logistics cost, delivery dependability, responsiveness, deliv-
Information systems support .47 .47 .40 .38 ery flexibility, order fill capability, advanced shipment
Low logistics costs .47 .60 .40 .51 notification, and inventory turns. For the ANZ sample,
Order fill capacity .61 .76 .48 .67
supply chain integration competencies explain 10% or more
Order flexibility .56 .62 .45 .52
Product flexibility .46 .59 .34 .49 of the performance variance for all 13 measures of logistics
(customization) performance. This is true even though in five of the analyses
Responsiveness to .64 .72 .49 .63 no individual competency is statistically significant. This
key customers suggests that the regression model is unable to partition the
Return on assets (ROA) .34 .53 .29 .45
explained variance across the six competencies in the ANZ
Key: U.S. scores/ANZ scores sample as clearly as it does in the U.S. sample.
For both samples, customer integration is the most
series of regression models with each performance measure common significant predictor variable relative to the other
treated as a dependent variable. An overall logistics perfor- logistics competencies. For both samples it is a significant
mance measure—the combination of the 13 performance predictor for product customization, responsiveness, order
measures—is also used in the analysis. Table 3 reports the flexibility, and delivery flexibility. In the U.S. sample,
results of all regression models. Standardized beta coeffi- customer integration is also a significant predictor of cus-
cients are shown in the table for all significant ( P < .05) tomer satisfaction and delivery speed, whereas it is a
variables. Model significance is also reported in the R2 significant predictor for advanced shipment notification in
column. All R2 values are significant at P < .001. the ANZ sample.
 D.J. Closs, D.A. Mollenkopf / Industrial Marketing Management 33 (2004) 37–44 41

Table 3
Multiple regression results for U.S. and ANZ samples
Dependent variables Supply chain logistics competency
Customer Internal Material/service Technology and Measurement Relationship R2
integration integration supplier integration planning integration integration integration
Overall performance .31 .31 .28 .30 .36
Customer Service
. Customer satisfaction .26 .18 .16 .11
. Product customization .43 .28 .30 .20 .09 .13
. Delivery speed .33 .10 .14
Cost management
. Total landed logistics cost .41 .16 .17
Quality
. Delivery dependability .50 .20 .26 .13 .13
. Responsiveness .48 .37 .21 .12 .17
. Order Flexibility .24 .28 .05 .16
. Delivery flexibility .34 .29 .11 .11
Productivity
. Information systems support .61 .25 .36 .19
. Order fill capacity .35 .12 .19
. Advanced ship notification .46 .31 .26 .10 .20
Asset management
. Inventory turns .32 .42 .10 .17
. ROA .25 .06 .12
Cell values represent standardized beta coefficients and indicate the statistically significant relative influence of that competency variable on the performance
measure.
R2 value is significant at P=.05.
Numbers on the left of each column represent U.S. results; numbers on the right represent ANZ results.

Internal integration is the second most dominant predic-
tor for both samples. For U.S. firms, it is a significant
predictor of logistics cost, delivery dependability, order fill
capacity and inventory turns; but is only significant in
predicting product customization and inventory turns in
the ANZ sample.
As reported by Stank et al. (2001), the U.S. regression
results related to relationship, measurement, and supplier
integration indicate significant negative associations with
certain individual performance measures. Analyses of the
slope of the bivariate relationships between the variables in
question indicate that these competencies individually have
a slight positive impact on firm performance but when
combined with another dominant competency, the weak
relationships may be moderated such that the magnitude
or direction of its effect on the dependent variable is
reversed. Further analysis and theory development is needed
to establish the reasons behind such moderation. No such
effect is noticed in the ANZ sample, but again, five of the
models fail to identify any individual competency as a
significant predictor of performance. This suggests that
theory development is needed to further clarify the under-
lying causes of logistics performance.
Since the 21st Century Logistics research identified five
performance categories using 13 measures, a path analysis
approach next investigated the relative impact of the com-
petencies on the performance measure. This approach illus-
trates more fully than regression the relationships between
logistics competencies and performance. Fig. 2 presents
three sets of models for the categories where reasonably
good-fitting models were obtained: customer service, pro-
ductivity, and asset management.
For the customer service measures, customer integration
and internal integration play a role for both U.S. and ANZ
firms. For the United States, customer integration signifi-
cantly predicts product flexibility (customization), while
internal integration significantly predicts delivery speed. In
contrast, for the ANZ firms, customer integration and
internal integration are both predictors of product flexibility.
The significant covariation between the independent varia-
bles suggests the interrelated nature of the two types of
integration. Firms that focus on creating customer integra-
tion competencies to provide high levels of customer service
seem to need to develop high levels of internal integration in
order to deliver on the customer service promise.
The productivity models illustrate interesting differences
between the U.S. and ANZ firms. For U.S. firms, customer
integration, internal integration and technology/planning
integration are jointly involved in improved productivity.
For the ANZ firms, customer integration is replaced by
relationship integration, to work with internal integration
and technology/planning integration in creating more pro-
ductive firms. For both groups, a significant amount of
variation in information systems support is explained by the
combination of three independent variables. Order fill
capacity is also partially explained in the U.S. model, while
advance ship notification is partially explained in the ANZ
model. Once again, the significant covariance levels be-
tween the independent variables suggest the interrelated
nature of developing logistics competencies.
42 D.J. Closs, D.A. Mollenkopf / Industrial Marketing Management 33 (2004) 37–44

Fig. 2. Comparative path analyses. Standardized path coefficients are presented, P < .05. Coefficients of determination are presented above each dependent
variable. Various measures of fit are presented with each model.

The final model presented in Fig. 2 focuses on the asset
management variables. In the United States, internal and
relationship integration are both facilitate improved asset
management. The role of relationship integration in this
model suggests that it contributes to improved ROA not just
at the firm level, but also across the supply chain. While the
ANZ model does not provide a particularly good-fit of the
data, it is included for comparison purposes with the U.S.
model. For ANZ firms, internal integration appears to be the
sole contributor to a firm’s improved performance in asset
management. The lack of relationship integration in this
model is perhaps indicative of the stage of supply chain
development or evolution amongst ANZ firms, as compared
to U.S. firms.
4. Implications
The differences between the U.S. and ANZ results
should not be interpreted as failings of the 21st Century
Logistics framework. On the contrary, the differences pro-
vide substantial insight into the different logistical capabil-
ities and performance realizations across different business
environments. Understanding these differences can provide
 D.J. Closs, D.A. Mollenkopf / Industrial Marketing Management 33 (2004) 37–44
some meaningful guidance for decision makers operating
globally as well as offering suggestions for the refinement of
model competencies and capabilities.
Interesting comparisons can be made across several of
the competencies. First, customer integration plays a signif-
icant role in firm performance for both U.S. and ANZ firms.
This is exhibited in the initial regression analysis for overall
performance. More interesting, however, are the specific
regression results that demonstrate the role of customer
service in six U.S. and five ANZ different performance
measures, which tend to be grouped into customer service
and quality measures. For the U.S. firms, customer integra-
tion leads to improved customer service as measured by
customer satisfaction, product customization, and delivery
speed. For the ANZ firms, customer integration is signifi-
cantly related only to product customization. This is prob-
ably a reflection of the niche marketing approach that many
antipodean firms take in serving overseas markets, as well
as their distance from most markets, thus, making delivery
speed a relatively unimportant performance objective. Sim-
ilarities across the two samples are most apparent in the
performance measures relating to quality. Analysis reveals
that for both the U.S. and ANZ firms, customer integration
is a significant predictor of responsiveness, order flexibility,
and delivery flexibility.
Second, while internal integration is very important to
U.S. firms, it does not seem to be as important a predictor of
performance for ANZ firms. This can be somewhat
explained by the size differences between firms in the two
countries, as suggested earlier. Because ANZ firms tend to be
smaller than their U.S. counterparts, internal integration may
present less of a hurdle for firms to overcome in improving
their logistics and supply chain performance. Because of
their small size, they tend to be market niche players in the
global arena, thus, explaining their focus on customer
integration. Also, because of their small size, they tend to
have fewer production or distribution sites than their U.S.
counterparts. This allows a substantial degree of internal
integration to be achieved through personal and geographic
proximity. So, while internal integration is critical for larger
firms and geographies, it is not as apparent a factor in smaller
firms and geographies. However, attributing the difference
between U.S. and ANZ firms solely to the size factor is
probably naı̈ve and simplistic. ANZ firms have traditionally
been very commodity focused, and are ‘‘younger’’ than
many of their corresponding U.S. firms in terms of logistics
and supply chain evolution. Environmental differences in the
two regions are certain to play a role also. The geography and
population dispersion of the antipodean countries are very
different from the U.S., making for different configurations
of firms and supply chain networks. These results suggest
that customer integration is important in both environments
but that there should be a mediating consideration for
internal integration in terms of size of firm or market.
Third, customer integration, internal integration, technol-
ogy/planning integration, and relationship integration all
43
contribute to improved productivity across the two samples.
While these differences are detected in the individual
regression analyses, they become more evident in the path
analyses. Most interesting to observe is how companies in
the two samples use the capabilities to create different
results. For example, U.S. companies use internal integra-
tion to improve order fill capacity, whereas ANZ firms use
internal integration to facilitate improved information sys-
tems support. Another interesting observation is to note
how interrelated the competencies are in improving firm
performance. These interrelationships are most evident in
the productivity path analysis. This suggests that these
competencies and underlying capabilities cannot be devel-
oped in a vacuum. Improved logistics and supply chain
performance is very dependent on a firm’s ability to create
competencies across the three contexts (operational, plan-
ning, and relational).
5. Conclusion
The common lesson to be gleaned from the comparison
of U.S. and ANZ firms is a reaffirmation of the logistics
competencies/performance relationships. High levels of lo-
gistics competencies do lead to superior logistics perfor-
mance. The differences across these two samples suggest
that firms in different operating environments will focus on
different capabilities to improve their logistics performance.
Interestingly, customer integration seems to be the most
important competency between both sets of firms. This
confirms the supply chain emphasis of a customer-focus.
The relevance of the 21st Century Logistics framework
has been demonstrated in a limited international environ-
ment through this comparison of U.S. and ANZ firms.
While the magnitude and/or relative importance of specific
competencies to particular performance measures may vary
across settings, the model has repeatedly supported the
logistics competency/performance relationship.
Managers seeking to leverage supply chain processes to
enhance performance need to understand the relative im-
portance of the various competencies in each particular
operating arena. The needs of key customers may vary
across international borders, and the means to developing
an effective fulfillment and replenishment process may also
vary across international locations.
From an academic standpoint, the 21st Century Logistics
framework has been shown to be robust across international
samples. It appears to be robust across at least two relatively
different cultures. Equally important, the model appears to be
robust across size and business scale differences, suggesting
that it can be applied in a variety of environments to gain
knowledge and understanding of how firms develop and
employ their logistics competencies to create performance
advantages in their respective marketplaces. The research
does demonstrate that while customer and internal integra-
tion are critical for high performance supply chains, the
44 D.J. Closs, D.A. Mollenkopf / Industrial Marketing Management 33 (2004) 37–44
internal integration in smaller firms can be achieved through
relationships. The model, however, is not without its limi-
tations. The measures employed in assessing firm capabili-
ties need to be refined to better transcend size differences in
firms, and also to transcend supply chain ‘‘language’’ differ-
ences. This issue came out during the research phase in
Australia and New Zealand, when many willing participants
reported that they did not understand the technical language
used in the survey instrument. Language was not a problem
for U.S. respondents. In addition, additional measures will
need to incorporate notions of organizational complexity and
even a firm’s supply chain complexity. The explanations
throughout this paper suggest that these organizational issues
may vary substantially across business environments, and act
as moderators in the competencies/performance relation-
ships. The challenge for future researchers will be to further
refine and clarify the model and its measures so as to provide
clearer insights into the competency/performance relation-
ships across more operating and cultural settings.
References
Bowersox, D. J., Closs, D. J., & Stank, T. P. (1999). 21st century logistics:
Making supply chain integration a reality. Oak Brook, IL: Council of
Logistics Management.
Carranza, O., Maltz, A., & Antun, J. P. (2002). Linking logistics to strategy
in Argentina. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics
Management, 32(6), 480 – 496.
Dunn, S. C., Seaker, R. F., & Waller, M. A. (1994). Latent variables in
business logistics research: Scale development and validation. Journal
of Business Logistics, 15(2), 145 – 172.
Hair, J. F., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., & Black, W. C. (1995). Multi-
variate data analysis. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Mollenkopf, D. A., & Dapiran, G. P. (1999). World class logistics: How
well do Australian/New Zealand firms perform? Council of Logistics
Management Annual Conference, Toronto, Canada.
Morash, E. A., & Lynch, D. F. (2002). Public policy and global supply
chain capabilities and performance: A resource-based view. Journal of
International Marketing, 10(1), 25 – 51.
Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory (2nd ed.). New York:
McGraw-Hill.
Stank, T. P., Keller, S. B., & Closs, D. J. (2001). Performance benefits of
supply chain logistical integration. Transportation Journal, 41(2/3),
32 – 46.
Dr. David Closs is the John H. McConnell Professor of Business Admin-
istration in the Department of Marketing and Supply Chain Management at
Michigan State University. Dr. Closs has numerous publications in the
logistics and supply chain area, and is a coauthor of 21st Century Logistics:
Making Supply Chain Integration a Reality, and Supply Chain Logistics
Management.
Dr. Diane Mollenkopf is Assistant Professor in the Department of
Marketing and Supply Chain Management at Michigan State University.
She has many years of industry experience in the logistics field, and
has worked extensively overseas. Her research interests include logistics
and supply chain integration, and environmentally responsible logistics.
She has consulted and researched with numerous corporations, and her
work has appeared in business logistics journals and many overseas
publications.