خارج از زنجیره: مدیریت تامین از دیدگاه ارائه دهنده خدمات لجستیک

The last few years have seen increasing recognition of the work of logistics service providers, as well as the significance of functioning supply relationships. This paper proposes an alternative view of supply management that builds on the observation that traditional supply chain management focuses on logistics clients rather than the service providers themselves. The paper utilizes the 4 Resource Interaction tool to illustrate how a logistics service provider faces different idea structures and activated structures than its clients in three different markets. The resulting resource perceptions and preferred resource combinations create tensions and tradeoffs between the logistics service provider and its clients. Unchaining logistics from the conventional chain structures achieves a more comprehensive understanding of interactions between shippers and logistics service providers.

The integration and management of logistics and manufacturing are fundamental dimensions of interorganizational strategy (e.g., Pagh & Cooper, 1998). Indeed, observers are increasingly perceiving supply chains as essential representations of interorganizational relationships; some researchers even argue that competition has shifted from firm vs. firm competition towards supply chain vs. supply chain struggles (e.g., Ketchen & Hult, 2007). This development implies the growing importance of management of supply relationships. Previous work on supply chain management has focused on understanding how logistics can interact with strategy and structure in order to provide a manufacturing firm with a competitive advantage (cf. Stock, Greis & Kasarda, 1998). This concern has also started to cover the use of logistics resources (cf. Gadde et al., 2002 and Jahre et al., 2006). From a resource interaction standpoint (e.g., Håkansson and Waluszewski, 2002 and Wedin, 2001), the value of resources depends on their combinations with other resources, both inside and outside organizational boundaries. The basic rationale of the present paper is that mainstream supply chain management essentially builds on the strategies, structures and resource combinations that seem appropriate for manufacturers and retailers; that is, the organizations that are traditionally the supply chain's primary actors (cf. Lambert, Cooper & Pagh, 1998). The literature has not directed sufficient attention to the so-called support actors, such as logistics service providers, and their view of supply management. This is unfortunate given the importance of companies trying to understand, from the perspective of the other participating actors, how their relationships and networks function (cf. Håkansson & Ford, 2002: 138). Idea structures, which represent an actor's underlying knowledge, ideas, and goals, influence the actor's viewpoint. A clearer and more articulate idea structure enables the interacting parties to understand each other better (Baraldi and Waluszewski, 2005 and Håkansson and Waluszewski, 2002). The value chain model (Porter, 1985) is the field's dominant idea structure and provides the basic explanation behind the imbalanced focus on manufacturers and retailers in the supply chain literature. Like other areas of strategic management, the supply literature is “chained to the value chain,” to borrow a phrase from Normann (2001). Furthermore, idea structures have an intimate association with activated structures. The supply chain literature has a corresponding close association between the value chain model and the emphasis on supply chains. This study aims to unchain the logistics service provider from the value chain logic by addressing the following questions: What are the basic differences between the idea structures and the associated activated structures, guiding logistics service providers and their customers? How will such differences influence the perception and combination of resources in supply relationships? The well-known value chain model (Porter, 1985), and the more recent value network model (Stabell & Fjeldstad, 1998) represent two important idea structures in supply relationships. The common notion of supply chains and the more recent perspective of supply networks are regarded as the main activated supply structures. The 4 Resource Interaction framework (e.g., Håkansson & Waluszewski, 2002) is used for analyzing the structures. The study's main contribution is the explanation of how the dominating idea structures and activated structures delimit our understanding of logistics service providers' contribution to functioning supply relationships.

In the past, supply research has combined insights from both value configuration analysis and industrial network reasoning. Dubois et al., 2004 and Håkansson and Persson, 2004 refer to both dimensions when broadening the scope of existing supply chain interdependencies, while Huemer (2006) uses both approaches to discuss alternative views of value creation and supply network structures. The present study has used value configuration analysis and industrial network reasoning to further unchain logistics service providers from the traditional structures of supply chain management. Traditional supply chain management provides a limited view of supply relationships with roots in a conventional industrial logic, focusing on the physical product, chain relationships, and sequential interdependencies. This view offers a restricted understanding of firm boundaries and the scope of cooperative advantage. Arguably, acknowledgement of logistics service providers' own strategies, structures, and resource perceptions leads to better understanding of how the providers create value and interact with the strategies and structures of their clients. Managers are likely to feel that the value chain provides a powerful and influential idea structure; unchaining supply management conceptually is different from succeeding with supply management in practice, as the present case illustrates. When interacting with clients, logistics managers may acknowledge that their own business model differs from that of their clients. In other words, the traditional structures are good tools for logistics managers to understand how the clients perceive their business. However, these frameworks do not necessarily inform logistics firms about their own strategic development. This includes their resource strategies and trust-building efforts (for instance, how to balance interdependence between chains while maintaining their image as an independent neutral actor). The understanding of transportation, distribution, and logistics activities benefits from the value network's emphasis on mediation. The alternative framework of supply management that this paper outlines also indicates, more broadly, that there may be a need to reconsider the strategic management of logistics service providers. Research into various kinds of logistical and network set-ups, acknowledging multiple perspectives on idea structures, and associated activated supply structures may contribute to an understanding of how logistics actors create value. Accordingly, future research could consider different settings and take the perspective of different actors further. In this study, the logistics service provider encountered clients with three different interpretations of the value chain logic. A topic of interest, therefore, would be to consider how clients' characteristics influence the emergence of logistics networks. Such research could investigate what makes competing supply chains cooperate regarding logistics, and if increased demands on sustainability will force dominant value chain operations to cooperate with smaller actors in order to make logistics more environmentally friendly.