Adams2014 Collaboration

Journal of Business Logistics, 2014, 35(4): 299–317 doi: 10.1111/jbl.
12074
© Council of Supply Chain Management Professionals
Supply Chain Collaboration, Integration, and Relational

Technology: How Complex Operant Resources Increase
Performance Outcomes
Frank G. Adams1, Robert Glenn Richey Jr.2, Chad W. Autry3, Tyler R. Morgan2, and
Colin B. Gabler4
1
Mississippi State University
2
The University of Alabama
3
The University of Tennessee
4
Ohio University
ow firms coordinate efforts to collectively compete as supply chains is a key concern of supply chain management scholars and
H practitioners. One avenue, the development of collaborative relational capabilities that support supply chain integration, offers promise.
However, the effectiveness of collaboration as a supply chain resource has been questioned due to concerns associated with collaborative tech-
nologies, and thus prior research has called for a deeper examination of the role that technologies play in facilitating integration. Employing a
Service-Dominant Logic view of hierarchical resources, grounded in Resource Advantage Theory, this research tests a model subsuming
relationships between collaboration, integration, and interfirm coordination technologies, and their associated performance outcomes. A sample
of 282 supply chain managers from a variety of industries were surveyed, with proposed relationships examined employing structural equation
modeling. Test results indicate that collaboration and integration interact to form higher order resources that collectively influence firm perfor-
mance outcomes through interfirm coordination technologies.
Keywords: supply chain management; collaboration; integration; logistical service competence; resource advantage; Service-Dominant Logic;
technology
INTRODUCTION collaboration and integration. Furthermore, just as resources are

heterogeneously distributed among firms (Hunt and Morgan
For nearly two decades, scholars in strategic management, supply 1995) the value of individual resources differs based on a com-
chain management, logistics, and related fields have been con- plex hierarchy of resource types (Madhavaram and Hunt 2008).
cerned with how the development of interfirm relationships influ- As a result of these complexities, understanding the differen-
ences value creation (e.g., Hunt and Morgan 1995; Palmatier tial benefits of varied resource types and combinations is of great
et al. 2007; Palmatier 2008). Evidence suggests that relationship importance to scholars and practitioners, motivating calls for
development between supply chain participants facilitates value additional study of the outcomes associated with relational con-
creation by leveraging the resources that each firm brings to structs such as collaboration (Sanders 2007), and the role of
a relationship, enabling goods and services differentiation (Ulaga technology in achieving higher levels of integration (Daugherty
2003; Vargo and Lusch 2004). Additionally, relationships 2011). To address these calls, this study examines the roles of
foster the assembly and configuration of resource bundles that technology and relational resources in supply chain relationship
allow the parties to improve operational activities (Day outcomes. These issues are investigated via a Service-Dominant
1994; Esper et al. 2010), thereby allowing firms to serve custom- Logic (SDL) (Vargo and Lusch 2004, 2008) view grounded in
ers with higher efficiency and effectiveness (Slater and Narver Resource Advantage Theory (Hunt and Morgan 1996), with
2000). focus on the hierarchy of operant resources (Madhavaram and
Firms often attempt to achieve joint assembly of resources Hunt 2008). By blending these theoretical bases, the research
through relationship-oriented supply chain management technolo- explores how established interfirm relational resources—such as
gies (Richey et al. 2010b). Annual investments in such technolo- collaboration, integration and relationship-enabling technologies
gies have been estimated to total $6 billion, with a growth rate —combine to influence firm service and performance outcomes.
of 8.6% (Anderson and Dekker 2009). At the same time, tech- Stated more formally:
nologies are thought to have little value without appropriate
skill-based resources (Constantin and Lusch 1994), such as RQ1: How do complex combinations of relational
resources—such as collaboration and integration—alter
the influence that those relational resources exert on
Corresponding author: supply chain performance outcomes?
Frank G. Adams, Assistant Marketing Professor, Department of RQ2: What role do relationship enabling technologies play
Marketing, Quantitative Analysis & Business Law, Mississippi State in achieving complex combinations between relational
University, PO Box 9582, 324-E McCool Hall, Mississippi State, MS resources?
39762, USA; E-mail: [email protected]
300 F. G. Adams et al.
CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT Composite relational operant resources
Resource hierarchy Collaboration

An example of a composite knowledge/skill-based operant
Hunt and Morgan’s (1995) Resource Advantage Theory1 (RA the- resource often cited in supply chain management literature is col-
ory) holds that superior performance accrues to firms that bundle laboration (Shore and Venkatachalam 2003; Richey et al. 2011).
resources of greater effectiveness and/or lower cost relative to Collaboration has been defined as:
competitors due to heterogeneously distributed resources within
markets (Hunt and Morgan 1996). RA theory has been character- [t]he ability to work across organizational boundaries to
ized as having a foundational influence on the development of build and manage unique value-added processes to better
Vargo and Lusch’s (2004) SDL paradigm (Madhavaram and Hunt meet customer needs. [Supply chain] collaboration
2008). The SDL holds that all value cocreated by firms and their involves the sharing of resources-information, people, and
customers is derived from both the customer’s estimation of value technology-among [supply chain] members to create syn-
and the firm’s application of resources to deliver associated value ergies for competitive advantage. Collaboration goes
propositions in the form of a differentiated service offering (Vargo beyond managing transactions for efficiency to managing
and Lusch 2004, 2008). Conceptualizations of SDL have generally relationships for creativity and continuous improvement.
relied on Constantin and Lusch’s (1994) classification of resources (Fawcett et al. 2008, 93)
into two basic forms: operant and operand. Operant resources tend
to be skill- and/or knowledge-based and all other resources tend to Other definitions of collaboration imply that companies share
be operand, holding limited value unless deployed in conjunction “the responsibility of exchanging common planning, manage-
with an appropriate operant resource. For example, the ability to ment, execution, and performance measurement information”
deliver the service of surgery to a patient is not a property embed- (e.g., Daugherty 2011, 22). Still others reflect a culture (Kim and
ded in the scalpels, sutures, or other equipment used, but is derived Lee 2010) of mutual dependence between parties (Simatupang
from the skill and experience of the physician(s). Characteristics, and Sridharan 2005) in a customer-focused business relationship
properties, and examples of operand and operant resources are (Walters 2008), motivated by common goals (Skipper et al.
illustrated in Table 1. 2008). These parties jointly share responsibilities, decisions,
Although operant resources are often intangible, they have consequences, and benefits arising from their relationship (Stank
been characterized as the fundamental unit of exchange (Vargo et al. 2001b).
and Lusch 2008; Gr€onroos and Voima 2012). Given the hetero- Strategically, Fawcett et al. (2011) maintain that a cultural
geneous distribution of skills and knowledge among actors in willingness to share information among supply chain partners is
competitive markets (Hunt and Morgan 1995; Ngo and O’Cass a precursor to a firm collaboration capability. They also find
2009; Maas et al. 2014), operant resources are a key element in that beyond strategy, an adequate technological connectivity
developing competitive advantage (Richey et al. 2010a; Siguaw among supply chain members also promotes collaboration
et al. 2014). Further, the imperfect mobility of knowledge and (Fawcett et al. 2011). From a relational view perspective, firms
skill-based assets make the advantage they provide more durable may seek interorganizational competitive advantages through
to those firms holding them in comparison to more tangible investing in mutually beneficial assets, knowledge/information,
resources (Barney 1991, 2012; Rungtusanatham et al. 2003). and resource capabilities or employing more effective gover-
Table 1 also defines and illustrates the hierarchical nature of nance mechanisms (Dyer and Singh 1998), balancing the coor-
operant resources proposed by Madhavaram and Hunt (2008): dination costs imposed on a firm by different forms of alliances
basic, composite, and interconnected. Basic operant resources with the gains available through such alliances (Gulati and
represent distinct individual skill-based resources of a firm, com- Singh 1998). Accordingly, collaboration in a supply chain rela-
posite operant resources are simple combinations of a firm’s tionship arises when the skills and knowledge of the employees
basic operant resources, and interconnected operant resources of different firms are leveraged to coordinate their efforts
consist of complex combinations of a firm’s operant resources, toward achieving common outcomes (Shore and Venkatachalam
requiring some form of synergistic or interactive effect between 2003; Richey et al. 2011).
composite or basic operant resources. The higher the classifica- Collaboration has been characterized as containing both inter-
tion of a given resource bundle within this hierarchy, the more nal and external dimensions that each require sharing of pro-
complex and potentially advantageous that resource bundle. The cesses and information (Barratt 2004; Sanders and Premus
operant resource hierarchy framework is an established theoreti- 2005), including elements of trust that are difficult to acquire and
cal lens for supply chain research, having been employed to that are accrued over time (Ellinger 2000; Corsten and Felde
study supply chain-related phenomena including demand and 2005). Consequently, collaboration represents a distinct, yet mul-
supply integration (Esper et al. 2010), customer orientation tidimensional, difficult to achieve resource, consistent with
(Blocker et al. 2011), value contextualization (Chandler and Var- Madhavaram and Hunt’s (2008) composite view of operant
go 2011), logistics value cocreation (Yazdanparast et al. 2010), resources.
and relational capabilities (Theoharakis et al. 2009). The precise manner by which collaboration influences firm
outcomes has recently been called into question. In particular,
how it may influence performance—or a firm’s financial,
marketing, operational, or customer service success relative to
1
Originally titled Comparative Advantage. competition—requires more attention (Daugherty 2011). Further,
Complex Relational Resource Combinations 301
Table 1: Key definitions of operant, operand, and hierarchical resources (after Constantin and Lusch 1994)
Resource type Characteristics Properties Example
Operand Material- or Produces effects only when acted on by other Lumber and a lathe
tool-based resources
Operant Skill-based Produces effects, or acts on other resources to The knowledge to use a lathe to carve lumber into
produce effects furniture components
Resource level Order Definition* Dimensions Characteristics Relationships Example
Basic operant Lowest “. . .the underlying, One or few Single-item or None Individual employee
resources lower level, resources per resource multi-item skills
that form the “building constructs
blocks” of higher Multi-item
order, operant constructs
resources . . . the skills tend to be
and knowledge of formative
individual employees”
Composite Intermediate “. . .a combination of Several per Single-item or (If any) Tend Individual skills of
operant two or more distinct, resource or multi-item to be multiple employees in
resources basic resources, with combinations constructs additive varying areas
low levels of of more than Multi-item (customer
interactivity” one uni- constructs management, supplier
dimensional tend to be management, manufacturing,
resource formative logistics) that may or
may not be coordinated
Interconnected Highest “. . .a combination of Several per Multiple Tend to be Highly coordinated
operant two or more distinct, resource or constructs interactive management of the
resources basic resources in combinations (either single- skills of multiple
which the lower order of more than or multi-item) employees in leveraging
resources significantly one uni- Multi-item supplier’s resources and
interact, thereby dimensional constructs the firm’s capabilities
reinforcing each other” resource may be either into offerings that match
formative or a customer’s needs better
reflective than a competitor’s offering
Note: *Madhavaram and Hunt (2008).
as with any form of alliance, collaboration would impose coor- is also frequently employed as a measure of advantage in firms
dination costs on a firm (Gulati and Singh 1998). Yet, the liter- and supply chains (Davis-Sramek et al. 2010; Fugate et al. 2010)
ature suggests that collaboration meets the definition of a because it can serve as an indication of increased functionality.
resource (Fugate et al. 2009; Chen et al. 2010), and RA theory Competency in logistics services may be viewed as a resource in
would imply that acquiring a superior resource should engender and of itself (Olavarrieta and Ellinger 1997), serving as an inter-
superior performance through competitive advantage (Hunt and mediate outcome through which firms can achieve competitive
Morgan 1995). Consequently, collaboration has been studied as advantage. Specifically, the reliable provision of time-and-place
an influence on superior performance for entire supply chain utility to customers is an important potential source of competi-
networks (Fugate et al. 2010; Cao and Zhang 2011). This view, tive advantage (Perrault and Russ 1974; Richey et al. 2007;
coupled with the need to further investigate the properties of Barney 2012).
collaboration in that relationship, motivates the first hypothesis Greater collaboration in supply chain relationships has been
of this research: found to allow collaborating firms to better define and execute
roles and responsibilities (Swink et al. 2007; Kim and Lee
H1a: Collaboration is positively associated with perceived 2010), reduce operating costs (Kahn et al. 2006), and enhance
firm performance. the provision of time-and-place utility to the customer (Randall
et al. 2010). The ability to provide such benefits has been
Firm performance outcomes are not the only means by which described in the supply chain literature as a logistics service
a firm may judge resource advantages. The ability to provide competency (Richey et al. 2007). The ability to develop logis-
higher levels of service to customers through logistics operations tics service competency through superior collaboration repre-
sents an important, intangible, knowledge-based skill of the service abilities that firms deliver through logistics, leading to
firm. Thus: the hypothesis:
H1b: Collaboration is positively associated with logistics H2b: Integration is positively associated with logistics
service competency. service competency.
Integration Relational operant resource interconnectivity

The definitions of collaboration cited in this research tend to
describe the role of the operant resources in coordinating their Constantin and Lusch (1994) suggested that operant resources
activities in supply chain relationships. However, the literature not only produce effects but may also do so by acting on one
has also considered other resources, such as integration, through another in a complex, synchronous fashion. Collaboration and
which firms may achieve strategic and operational efficiencies integration each entail coordinating activities and sharing infor-
through supply chain relationships (Richey et al. 2010b). mation between actors to improve efficiencies and outcomes
The term integration is sometimes used interchangeably with (Chen et al. 2009b; Richey et al. 2010b; Fawcett et al. 2011).
the related concepts of cooperation and collaboration. Indeed, Ri- Yet, these operant resources are also distinct, with definitions of
chey, Roath, Whipple, and Fawcett note that “the objective of collaboration often including cultural aspects (Dyer and Singh
integration is to achieve operational efficiencies and strategic 1998; Fawcett et al. 2011; Kim and Lee 2010), while definitions of
effectiveness in the supply chain through collaboration. Achiev- integration tend to focus on operational implementation, processes
ing this objective requires purposeful commitment and coordina- and activities (Chen et al. 2009a,b; J€
uttner et al. 2010). Research
tion with another firm’s functional areas and processes (Stank has found that supply chain practice is enhanced by cultural influ-
et al. 2001a)” (Richey et al. 2010a, 237–38). However, recent ences toward cooperative behaviors (Hult et al. 2004), suggesting
scholarship has also distinguished integration from other rela- that integration might be enhanced in firms with strong collabora-
tional constructs. tive cultures, that is, suggesting a moderating relationship
Chen et al. (2009b) explain that unlike collaboration or coop- (Preacher et al. 2007). When interacting, lower order operant
eration, integration involves restructuring firm processes to better resources may combine to form the highest order of operant
distribute, align, and utilize both internal and external resources. resources: interconnected operant resources (Madhavaram and
This reconfiguration is achieved through process and informa- Hunt 2008). Thus:
tional connectivity, and the simplification of activities. It is
important to consider integration in this research because of its H3: Collaboration forms an interconnected resource by
similarity to—and differences from—collaboration/cooperation as moderating the effects of integration in such a way
well as the recent calls for research to investigate the role of that:
technology and integration in interfirm process coordination H3a: As collaboration increases, the positive relationship
(Daugherty 2011). between integration and perceived firm performance
Because integration implies the configuration of processes to increases.
align the operational activities between specific entities (Chen H3b: As collaboration increases, the positive relationship
et al. 2009a), it represents an imperfectly mobile capability of a between integration and logistics service competency
firm specific to a particular relationship (Koufteros et al. 2012). increases.
Furthermore, the ability to align processes between supply chain
members represents an intangible asset embedded in the employ- Superior service through logistics implies that the firm is able
ees of the firm (J€uttner et al. 2010), and thus, integration may to structure a competent and efficient network that promotes cus-
enhance firm performance through the development of necessary tomer satisfaction (Yazdanparast et al. 2010). Additionally, the
capabilities (Chen et al. 2009b). Therefore, much like collabora- advantages accrued through superior logistics systems tend to be
tion, integration is a composite operant resource of the firm difficult for competitors to imitate (Lambert 1994). Dimensions
(Constantin and Lusch 1994; Madhavaram and Hunt 2008) that of logistics service competency include personnel contact quality,
should help a firm achieve superior performance (Hunt and Mor- order release quantities, information quality, ordering procedures,
gan 1995). This suggests: order accuracy, order condition, order quality, order discrepancy
handling, and timeliness (Mentzer et al. 2001). The ability to
H2a: Integration is positively associated with perceived provide these individual dimensions is an intangible asset that
firm performance. should increase customer satisfaction (Constantin and Lusch
1994) and, consistent with previous research, is part of develop-
In providing connectivity and simplicity, integration between ing a logistics service competency (Richey et al. 2007). Given
supply chain members reduces redundancy, helps manage that the dimensions collectively comprise logistics service com-
complexity, and helps improve the efficiency of interfirm rela- petency, logistics service competency may therefore be regarded
tionships (Chen et al. 2009b). Additionally, integration improves as an additional composite operant resource (Madhavaram and
information availability (Daugherty et al. 1995), increases effi- Hunt 2008).
ciency (Flynn et al. 2010), and enhances time-and-place utility By engendering satisfaction, logistics service competency
(Dr€oge et al. 2004) derived from supply chain relationships. As influences customer loyalty, which has been cited as one of the
a result, integration provides a means of improving the customer most crucial benefits that customer service can provide (Davis
and Mentzer 2006; Fugate et al. 2010) and which enhances over- faces within and between businesses, and the degree to which
all firm performance (Stank et al. 2003; Davis-Sramek et al. those technologies are employed by the firm (including the
2009; Richey et al. 2010b). Such relationships—where one vari- breadth and/or frequency of use of the technology). A firm
able shares covariance with another, through a third variable— might have high RTI if all of its employees regularly utilize a
meet the definition of a mediated relationship (Preacher et al. few technologies, if all of its employees occasionally utilize a
2007). Moreover, this research has conceptualized that collabora- wide range of technologies, and/or if different groups of its
tion and integration, as composite operant resources, precede employees each regularly employ a single, group-specific tech-
both performance and logistics service competency. This com- nology.
plex combination of composite operant resources suggests that: Lusch (2011) describes technologies as media through which
“service ecosystems”—including supply chains and associated
H4: Logistics service competency forms an interconnected resources—“(1) coproduce service offerings, (2) exchange ser-
operant resource when acted upon by collaboration vice offerings, and (3) cocreate value” (p. 15). Accordingly, one
and integration in such a manner that: would expect that operand resources such as RTI mediate the
H4a: Logistics service competency mediates the relation- influence of operant supply chain resources, such as collaboration
ship between collaboration and perceived firm perfor- and integration. Further, one would expect such a complex min-
mance. gling of resources to manifest only when collaboration and inte-
H4b: Logistics service competency mediates the relation- gration, as well as the interaction between them, are mediated by
ship between integration and perceived firm RTI. Such a complex combination of composite resources would
performance. comprise an interconnected resource under Madhavaram and
Hunt’s (2008) definition. Thus:
Scholars have tended to focus on operant resources, perhaps
owing to their ability to influence effects where operand H5: Relational technological intensity (an operand
resources cannot without the antecedent influence of an operant resource)—comprises an Interconnected operant
resource (Constantin and Lusch 1994). However, returning to the resource when acted upon by operant resources in
earlier example of operant/operand resource types, even the most such a manner that:
skilled physician may be limited by the surgical tools available; H5a: Relational technological intensity mediates the rela-
even a well-made kitchen knife will not produce the same results tionship between collaboration and perceived firm
as a scalpel. Thus, this research also considers operand resources performance.
through which collaboration, integration, and logistics service H5b: Relational technological intensity mediates the rela-
competency might be achieved, such as supply chain relational tionship between integration and perceived firm
technologies. performance.
H5c: Relational technological intensity mediates the inter-
Supply chain technology as an operand resource active effects of collaboration and integration in their
relationship with perceived firm performance.
Under Constantin and Lusch’s (1994) definition, technologies H5d: Relational technological intensity mediates the rela-
represent operand resources, being typically tangible (Lusch tionship between collaboration and logistics service
2011), static, and inert (Lusch et al. 2008) unless animated by an competency.
operant resource, such as a programmer or operator with applica- H5e: Relational technological intensity mediates the
ble skills. Research has provided an exploration of the role of relationship between integration and logistics service
technology on interfirm relationships (Deitz et al. 2007; Davis- competency.
Sramek et al. 2009; Autry et al. 2010; Davis and Golicic 2010). H5f: Relational technological intensity mediates the inter-
However, most recent studies of firms’ linking technologies have active effects of collaboration and integration in their
focused on employee attitudes toward technology, technology relationship with and logistics service competency.
use outcomes, or whether technologies can substitute for capabil-
ities such as integration or collaboration, rather than considering
technology as a resource in and of itself. Further, the role that
technology plays in enabling the influence of other constructs— METHODOLOGY
notably, integration—has been cited as an area of research that
requires attention (Daugherty 2011). Sample
Technological resources are heterogeneous (Hunt and Morgan
1995) and different functional areas of the firm have different A cross-sectional empirical survey was conducted using the In-
technological requirements (Coombs et al. 1998). Technology is ternet survey tool Zoomerang,2 a subscription service that allows
often directly beneficial to the firm in that its value is deter- users to develop surveys that are emailed double-blind to a
mined by the degree to which it is utilized, and/or the extent to potential participant panel retained by the host site. Respondents
which different types are used (Barney 1991). Thus, boundary- are selected based on characteristics/knowledge related to the
spanning technologies of the firm comprise a construct that may survey topics, and are awarded points that are redeemable for
be termed as Relational Technology Intensity (RTI). In this
study, RTI is defined as an operand resource consisting of the
2
number of technologies employed by the firm to enable inter- http://www.zoomerang.com/
various goods and services from Zoomerang for completing respondents’ actual interaction with their firm’s technical net-
surveys to which they are invited to participate. The company’s work. Respondents were disqualified if they were unable to
program allows researchers to create customized response panels assert that they used relationship-spanning technology at least
suitable for research purposes. several times per month and that they managed a boundary-span-
The use of Internet panels in academic research has been ning function at their firm. In addition, respondents were
criticized due to generalizability concerns. However, Internet screened based on their stated job title to apply a more conserva-
usage by businesspeople has increased substantially in recent tive standard for participation eligibility. This resulted in the
years and “[r]esearch has indicated that the use of Internet pan- removal of 1,440 individuals, resulting in a final sample frame of
els does not generally lead to negative or biased results, [or] 282 respondents. Descriptive information and sample statistics
results [different] from those collected through random mail are included in Table 2.
samples, provided that the target population holds the requisite
competencies needed for effective response (e.g., Dennis 2001; Measures
Deutskens et al. 2004; Pollard 2002)” (Autry et al. 2010,
526). Such data have also been increasingly utilized by supply As a tool, or operand resource, RTI is viewed in this research as
chain and logistics researchers: Autry et al. (2008, 2010), Jack the “scalpel” to the operant skills of a “supply chain surgeon.”
et al. (2010), Richey et al. (2010b), Grawe et al. (2011), and Given such a definition, measuring RTI as a formative construct
Zelbst et al. (2011). is appropriate. Formative measures may be viewed “as causing
Survey design followed the procedures prescribed by Dillman rather than being caused by the latent variable being measured
(2000). Survey items were based on prior literature and were by the indicators” (MacCallum and Browne 1993, 533). A key
slightly modified based on input taken from a panel of 25 execu- attribute distinguishing a formative measure is that changes in a
tives participating in a forum at a major U.S. university. The formative latent variable need not impact all indicators of that
Zoomerang panel yielded 1,722 responses from individuals who variable, while changes in any indicator will impose changes on
held managerial positions in manufacturing and service firms and the latent variable (Diamantopoulos 1999; Diamantopoulos and
had indicated that their job roles included using technology. The Winklhofer 2001). To construct a formative RTI index, a list of
goal was to identify individuals who were representative of their 27 supply chain relationship coordination technologies was
firm with respect to technology issues. Multiple respondents from developed from Richey et al. (2010b), and respondents were
the same small business unit were not allowed. Further, a quali- asked to indicate the degree to which they employed specific
fying question was employed to better understand the extent of coordination tools on a 1–5 Likert-style scale, where 1 = “not at
Table 2: Sample characteristics
Industry role NAICS industry HQ location Firm sales (U.S.$)
Manufacturer 160 Consumer goods 94 USA 241 Less than $1M 19

Retailer 104 Electronics 38 Germany 7 $1–$10M 51
Wholesale/Distributor 18 Apparel 33 Japan 2 $10–$100M 129
Total 282 Business commodities 30 China 2 $100M–$1B 36
Food and beverage 25 UAE 1 More than $1B 39
Wholesale trade 20 Multiple 23 No response 9
Construction/Building 16 No Response 6 Total 282
Automotive 10 Total 282
Paper and printing 6
Other 25
Total 282
Respondent experience
Respondent title (years) Respondent education level Respondent role
Manager/GM/Sr. Manager 62 Less than 5 67 Some HS/diploma 19 Supplier 160

CEO/President/VP 51 5–10 78 Some college 98 Customer 122
Owner/Proprietor 42 11–20 64 College degree 97 Total 282
Technology Mgr./Analyst 29 21–30 36 Graduate work/degree 61
Logistics Manager 22 More than 30 32 No response 7
Procurement Manager 20 No response 6 Total 282
Other 56 Total 282
Total 282
Note: NAICS, North American Industry Classification System.

all” and 5 = “fully implemented.” The average score among is significantly different (Dv2(Ddf = 6) = 4,747, p < .01) than the
technology use was computed for each respondent to derive an latter. Thus, the tests suggest that CMV is not a threat to this
index of technology use intensity. sample. Following Armstrong and Overton (1977), nonresponse
Descriptive statistics of the sample indicated that, on average, bias concerns were addressed using wave analysis. Responses
9.6 items (SD 2.26) were unanswered and analysis suggests that from the first 25% of respondents were compared to those of the
these were not missing at random, but more closely resembled a last 25%, which revealed no significant differences in response
“missing sibling case” (Schafer and Graham 2002), that is, patterns. Thus, nonresponse bias was judged to be an insignifi-
respondents did not answer questions about specific technologies cant issue.
because the respondents did not use those technologies. There- Use of interaction terms raises a potential concern about mul-
fore, values for these missing data items were substituted with a ticollinearity between the variables. Consequently, variance
value of “1,” which corresponds to a report of not using a tech- inflation factor measures were estimated for all expected rela-
nology in the scale. A list of the supply chain management tech- tionships and, as shown in Table 4, all values were well below
nologies, means, and standard deviations of use of each type of 10.0, suggesting that multicollinearity is not an issue in this
technology can be found in Table 3. model (Fox and Monette 1992). Additionally, as the conceptual
Survey measures for the other constructs of interest were model called for moderation of mediated relationships by a
drawn from the literature: integration, collaboration, logistics continuous interaction term, a double-mean-centering technique
service competency, and firm performance (see Table 4). Inte- was applied to all items before estimating a measurement
gration was assessed using a nine-item scale from Closs and model (Lin et al. 2010).3
Savitskie (2003). Six items measuring the nontechnological The sample was split into two parts for validating the mea-
aspects of collaboration were adapted from a scale employed sures (Schumacker and Lomax 2010). A subsample of 101
by Stank et al. (2001a). The logistics service competency scale was randomly selected from the full sample for scale reduc-
was adapted from the nine-item outcome measure used by tion. To prevent sample specific issues, all steps to calculate
Stank et al. (1999), which was adapted from Lambert (1994). missing items were repeated to ensure that mean substitution
Firm performance was assessed using six items: market perfor- reflected only the subsample examined, rather than the full
mance, customer retention, sales growth, profit margin, sales sample.
revenue, and return on investment (ROI) (Pelham and Wilson As shown in Table 4, three items (Integ1, Integ3, and Integ8)
1995; Moorman and Rust 1999). A list of all items used in were dropped from the integration scale, and two items were
this research, along with their anchoring questions is included dropped from the collaboration scale (Colab2 and Collab3) due
in Table 4. to excessive interscale error correlation (Anderson and Gerbing
1988). The resulting model fit was acceptable (v2(df =
Control measure items 330) = 768.99, p < .01, comparative fit index [CFI] = .954; stan-
Just as resources are heterogeneously distributed, the benefits dardized root mean square residual [SRMR] = .077), and all
derived from leveraging resources tend to be heterogeneously measures loaded with acceptable effect (c > .6) on the expected
based on a firm’s position as a customer or a supplier (de variables. Reliability tests of scale items versus their expected
Chernatony et al. 1994). Also, the size of a firm might be variables indicate Cronbach’s a scores exceeding .91. Thus, con-
expected to contribute variance to the focal relationships. Larger vergent validity may be inferred.
firms might be expected to better afford—and therefore, more Following scale reduction using the subsample, the remainder
extensively employ—supply chain-coordination technologies of the sample (n = 181) was examined to verify validity and reli-
(Burke 2005), and firm size might be expected to confound ability before hypothesis testing. All missing data mean substitu-
measures of firm performance (Wu et al. 2006). Thus, controls tions were recomputed to reflect the characteristics of the balance
were included for firm size, based on number of employees, of the sample, before conducting confirmatory factor analysis.
volume of sales relative to competitors (Autry et al. 2010), and An interaction term, reflecting the expected moderation of inte-
respondent role—supplier or customer—in the trade relation- gration effects by collaboration effects was calculated. The
ship. covariance matrix estimated during scale reduction (plus the
Reliability and validity assessments

3
Descriptive statistics of the sample indicated that only 170 of the In double-mean-centering, all scale item values are mean-cen-
282 sample respondents had provided complete answers to all tered, and the product of the mean-centered-measures comprising
the items, with an average of 3.9 (SD 2.07) items missing per the moderator interaction term are centered again after calculat-
respondent. Analysis indicated that these data were missing at ing the interaction. Using this technique, tests of relationships
random and, because the average number of missing items per between independent, mediating, moderating, and dependent
respondent was low, mean substitution of the data was deemed variables employ latent variables reflecting mean-centered items,
appropriate (Schafer and Graham 2002). but the item reflecting the interaction is comprised of the product
To assess the threat of common method variance (CMV), a of double-mean-centered items. Double-mean-centering not only
one-factor test was employed (Podsakoff et al. 2003). Comparing reduces undesirable effects of potential multicollinearity between
the fit results of a model including a single factor on which all moderator variables and continuous interaction measures, but it
items are loaded (v2(df = 560) = 7,279, p < .01), against that of a is also more robust to violations of nonnormality assumptions
model in which items load on their expected variables (v2(df = than other techniques for calculating moderator interaction terms
554) = 2,532, p < .01), the former demonstrates an inferior fit that (Lin et al. 2010).
Table 3: Exploratory factor analysis results: relationship technology types (n = 282)
Code Technology Min Max Mean SD
RTI1 Advance Planning and Scheduling Systems (APS) 1 5 2.85 1.547

RTI2 Automated Materials Handling Equipment 1 5 2.6 1.473
RTI3 Automatic Replenishment Systems (VMI/QR/ECR etc.) 1 5 2.65 1.505
RTI4 Capacity Resource Planning (CRP) 1 5 2.55 1.53
RTI5 Collaborative Production Management Systems (CPM) 1 5 2.48 1.488
RTI6 Customer Relationship Management Systems (CRM) 1 5 3.07 1.472
RTI7 Customer Replenishment Planning Systems (CRP) 1 5 2.65 1.455
RTI8 Distribution Resource Planning (DRP) 1 5 2.55 1.528
RTI9 E-Procurement (EP) 1 5 2.84 1.535
RTI10 Electronic Data Interchange (EDI or EFT) 1 5 3.12 1.532
RTI11 Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) 1 5 2.61 1.539
RTI12 Geographic Information Systems (GIS) 1 5 2.37 1.478
RTI13 Intelligent Agent Purchasing Systems 1 5 2.24 1.396
RTI14 Internet/Extranets 1 5 3.6 1.516
RTI15 Lean Manufacturing Systems (LMS) 1 5 2.65 1.596
RTI16 Manufacturing Resource Planning (MRP or MRP II) 1 5 2.86 1.649
RTI17 Network Management Systems 1 5 3.05 1.549
RTI18 Operations/Logistics Scheduling Systems (OSS) 1 5 2.79 1.621
RTI19 Order Management Systems (OMS) 1 5 2.91 1.578
RTI20 Performance Management Systems (PMS) 1 5 2.69 1.565
RTI21 Physical Distribution Management Systems (PDM) 1 5 2.63 1.587
RTI22 Point of Sale (POS) 1 5 3.17 1.607
RTI23 Quality Measurement Systems (QMS) 1 5 2.93 1.605
RTI24 Radio Frequency Identification 1 5 2.14 1.452
RTI25 Transportation Management Systems (TMS) 1 5 2.45 1.58
RTI26 Transportation Scheduling Systems 1 5 2.56 1.593
RTI27 Warehouse Management Systems (WMS) 1 5 2.94 1.619
interaction term) was compared to a covariance matrix implied between variables (Schumacker and Lomax 2010). Following
by the balance of the sample using LISREL 8.8 (SSI, Skokie, establishment of the psychometric properties of the measures, the
IL). Model fit was adequate (v2(df = 351) = 768.99, p < .01, sample covariance matrix from the measurement model was
CFI = .967; SRMR = .0648), as was loading strength of all mea- fitted to a covariance matrix implied by the conceptual model
sures on their expected variables (c > .6). Further, all scale reli- (see Figure 1) to test the hypothesized relationships. All test
abilities were sufficient (Cronbach’s a > .87). results are provided in Table 6.
To test discriminant validity, the correlations between variables
were compared to the square root of each scale’s average of vari- Direct operant resource effects
ance extracted (AVE). Divergent validity exists when the square Collaboration shows a positive relationship with both perfor-
root of AVE of a given variable exceeds the correlation between mance (c = .193, p < .05), and logistics service competency
different variables (Fornell and Larker 1981). Table 5 presents (c = .287, p < .01), offering support for H1a and H1b. In a simi-
the means, standard deviations, intervariable correlations, and lar manner, H2a and H2b were supported, with integration dem-
AVEs for each variable of interest for the balance of the sample. onstrating positive, significant relationships with both
The square root of AVE values of each variable exceed the value performance (c = .428, p < .01) and logistics service competency
of the correlations of each variable’s correlation with other vari- (c = .625, p < .01). Further, both collaboration (c = .295,
ables,4 thus discriminant validity can be inferred. p < .01) and integration (c = .286, p < .01) demonstrated signifi-
cant correlations with RTI.
Hypothesis tests
Operant resource interactions
SEM was employed for this analysis because of its ability to The third hypothesis suggests that collaboration exerts a moder-
simultaneously estimate complex, multistage relationships ating influence on integration’s relationship with both perfor-
mance (H3a) and logistic service competency (H3b). The
interaction term has a significant relationship with the covari-
4
Square root of AVE is not calculated for RTI because this ance between integration and RTI (c = .150, p < .05), as well
formative variable relies on an index rather than internal correla- as the covariance between integration and perceived perfor-
tion. mance (c = .153, p < .05), but is not related to the covariance
Table 4: Measures, loadings, reliabilities, and collinearity diagnostics
Measures and reliabilities
Scale Dimension Item code Question Item load Reliability VIF Source
Position Supplier Splr Industry role (Manufacturer/Wholesales-

Distributor/Retailer)
Firm size Number of SizeEmp Relative to the other companies in your Richey and
(control) employees industry, how many employees does Autry
your company have? (2009)
Value of SizeSal Where does your company rank, versus
sales others in your industry, in annual sales?
Supply Please indicate the extent to which you .873 1.48 Closs and
chain agree or disagree with the following Savitskie
integration statements. (2003)
Internal
integration
Integ1 My company maintains an integrated Dropped
database to facilitate information sharing.
Integ2 My company maintains an access method .703
to facilitate information sharing.
Integ3 The information available to me in my Dropped
company is available immediately
when needed.
Integ4 The information available to me in my .742
company is formatted to facilitate use.
Integ5 My company effectively shares operational .788
information between departments.
Integ6 My firm’s logistics information systems .805
capture real-time data.
External
integration
Integ7 My firm obtains information directly from .722
customers to facilitate operational planning.
Integ8 My firm is willing to share strategic Dropped
information with selected customers.
Integ9 My firm is willing to share strategic .624
information with selected suppliers.
Collaboration The following questions assess .898 1.48 Stank et al.
your company’s ability to learn and (2001b)
use information. Please indicate the
extent to which you agree or disagree
with the following statements.
Collab1 My company effectively shares operational .711
information externally across supply
chain relationships.
Collab2 My company experiences improved Dropped
performance by integrating
operations with partners.
Collab3 My company has increased Dropped
operational flexibility through
our supply chain relationships.
Continued.
Table 4: (Continued)
Measures and reliabilities
Scale Dimension Item code Question Item load Reliability VIF Source
Collab4 Our managers attend .885

interorganizational meetings,
that are not required, to help
the company image.
Collab5 Our managers attend interorganizational .904
information/training sessions that
are encouraged but not required to attend.
Collab6 Our managers participate in joint .822
firm collaborative planning sessions.
Logistics To what extent do you agree or disagree .952 NA Stank
service with the following statements? et al.
capability Our use of supply chain technology in (1999)
our key business processes has resulted in:
LogSrv1 Shorter order to delivery cycle times. .880
LogSrv2 More on-time deliveries to customers. .863
LogSrv3 More on-time deliveries to business .760
partners.
LogSrv4 Greater overall order accuracy. .827
LogSrv5 Fewer overall partial shipments. .847
LogSrv6 Quicker to-market development of .805
new products/services.
LogSrv7 Inventory reductions. .797
LogSrv8 Higher overall customer satisfaction. .855
LogSrv9 Reduced total logistics cost. .845
Performance How does your company .897 NA Moorman
compare to competitors? and Rust
(1999)
Pelham
and
Wilson,
(1995)
Market Perf1 Our market share is _____ than our .765
performance main competitors.
Customer Perf2 Our customer retention is _____ than .769
retention our main competitors.
Sales growth Perf3 Our sales growth is _____ than our .827
main competitors.
Profit margin Perf4 Our overall profit margin is _____ than .718
the competition.
Sales revenue Perf5 Our overall sales revenues is _____ than .870
the competition.
ROI Perf6 Our overall ROI on IT .629
investment is _____ than the competition.
Note: IT, information technology; ROI, return on investment.
between integration and logistics service competency (c = .007, Resource mediation tests
p > .05), providing support for H3a, but not for H3b. However, The hypothesized relationships resemble the second moderated
the discussion presented earlier suggests that these relationships mediation case discussed by Preacher et al. (2007). To test the
are also dependent on mediation by relational technological contribution of these alternative models, v2 difference tests were
intensity. used to compare the fit of the direct effects model (Model 1), a
Table 5: Means, standard deviations, and correlations
Variable Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
(1) Relational tech intensity 2.67 1.177 (NA)

(2) Collaboration 4.34 1.391 .542** (.81)
(3) Integration 4.57 1.246 .485** .569** (.73)
(4) Performance 4.66 .982 .390** .487** .505** (.77)
(5) Logistic service competency 4.81 1.179 .455** .607** .684** .456** (.83)
Note: **p ≤ .01 (bolded numbers) on the diagonal are the square root of the average variance extracted.
Figure 1: Conceptual model.

Operant Resources Operand Resources Value Outcomes
Firm
Performance
CollaboraƟon
RelaƟonal
Technology
Intensity
IntegraƟon
LogisƟc
iƟ
Service
Competency
Composite Resources Interconnected Resource Effects
case where RTI partially mediated the relationships of collabora- (b = .056, p > .05), nor logistic service competency (b = .067,
tion and integration with performance and logistics service com- p > .05), RTI has significant total effects on both perceived per-
petency (Model 2), and a case where RTI fully mediated those formance (b = .145, p ≤ .05) and logistic service competency
relationships (Model 3). As illustrated in Table 7, v2 difference (b = .286, p < .01), thus providing partial support for H5. Alter-
tests indicate that the direct effects model is not significantly dif- natively, H4 is not supported, as total effects do not suggest that
ferent than a partially mediated model, and that the fully medi- logistics service competency contributes a mediating effect to the
ated model is significantly different than both the direct effects covariance between RTI and perceived firm performance
and partially mediated effects models. Given an alternative, SEM (b = .109, p > .05).
practice recommends employing a more parsimonious model The results suggest that RTI, an operant resource, partially
over a less parsimoniously fitting one (Schumacker and Lomax helps leverage operant resources—in this case, collaboration and
2010), thus it is appropriate to interpret the relationships sug- integration—to produce affects. Further, the dependency of
gested by a partially mediated model. integration’s relationship with perceived firm performance and
When fitted to a covariance matrix implying mediation of logistics service competency on collaboration in this study is
antecedents by RTI, collaboration has a significant relationship consistent with a hierarchical view of resources (Madhavaram
with RTI (c = .297, p < .01), as does integration (c = .281, and Hunt 2008). This also supports the case that resources are
p < .01), and the interaction term of collaboration and integration not merely additive, but in complex combination, achieve higher
(c = .149, p < .05). Further, while RTI demonstrates no signifi- levels of value. Figure 2 illustrates the relationships and test
cant relationship with neither perceived firm performance results.
310
Table 6: Structural equation loadings
Direct effects model Partial mediation model
Direct t-Value p-Value df=354 Direct t-Value p-Value Indirect t-Value p-Value Total t-Value p-Value df=351 Results
Collab ? Perf .193 2.17 .03 .197 2.03 .04 .237 3.18 .00 .434 5.82 .00 H1a Supported
Collab ? LogSrv .287 3.91 .00 .268 3.52 .00 .383 5.13 .00 .651 8.73 .00 H1b Supported
Collab ? RTI .295 3.76 .00 .297 3.77 .00 .297 3.98 .00
Integ ? Perf .428 4.57 .00 .411 3.23 .00 .108 1.45 .15 .519 6.96 .00 H2a Supported
Integ ? LogSrv .625 7.77 .00 .602 7.24 .00 .038 0.51 .61 .640 8.58 .00 H2b Supported
Integ ? RTI .286 3.65 .00 .281 3.54 .00 .281 3.77 .00
ClbNtg ? Perf .153 2.36 .02 .161 2.43 .02 .078 1.04 .30 .083 1.11 .27 H3a Partially
Supported
ClbNtg ? LogSrv .007 0.14 .89 .003 0.07 .95 .003 0.04 .97 .006 0.08 .94 H3b Not
Supported
LogSrv ? Perf .049 0.42 .68 .060 0.81 .42 .109 1.47 .14 H4 Not
Supported
RTI ? Perf .056 0.65 .51 .145 1.97 .05 H5a Partially
Supported
RTI ? LogSrv .067 0.94 .35 .286 3.83 .00 H5b Partially
Supported
ClbNtg ? RTI .150 2.63 .01 .149 2.62 .01 .149 2.62 .01 H5c/d Supported
Splr ? Perf .006 0.10 .92 .005 0.08 .93 .005 0.07 .95 Control
Splr ? LogSrv .102 1.80 .07 .098 1.85 .07 .098 1.31 .19 Control
Splr ? RTI .100 1.75 .08 .101 1.75 .08 .101 1.35 .18 Control
SizEmp ? Perf .075 1.01 .31 .092 1.19 .24 .092 1.23 .22 Control
SizEmp ? LogSrv .038 0.63 .53 .056 0.88 .38 .056 0.75 .45 Control
SizEmp ? RTI .278 4.16 .00 .278 4.16 .00 .278 3.73 .00 Control
SizSal ? Perf .187 2.55 .01 .198 2.60 .01 .198 2.65 .01 Control
SizSal ? LogSrv .154 2.60 .01 .158 2.66 .01 .158 2.12 .03 Control
SizSal ? RTI .064 1.01 .31 .065 1.02 .31 .065 0.87 .38 Control
Note: Bold-underlined values indicate structural path loadings significant at the p < .05 level.
F. G. Adams et al.
Table 7: Mediation tests and Lusch’s SDL (2004, 2008), and in complex combination
may amplify the influence of those resources. Jointly, these find-
ings yield several potential implications for theory, practice, and
Model v2 df Dv2 Ddf p-Value
future research.
Model 1: Direct 758.492 354
relationships Theoretical implications
Model 2: Partially 756.745 351
mediated relationships Collaboration and integration
Model 3: Fully 851.461 361 Collaboration and integration are typically viewed as operant
mediated resources, but are also distinguished by definitions that suggest cul-
relationships tural characteristics (Kim and Lee 2010) and operational activities
Model difference (1 vs. 2) 1.75 3.00 .63 (Chen et al. 2009b). When accounting for total effects, the results
Model difference (2 vs. 3) 94.72 10.00 .00 demonstrate a relationship between collaboration and both logistics
Model difference (1 vs. 3) 92.97 7.00 .00 service competency and RTI greater than that of integration, while
integration demonstrates a stronger relationship with perceived per-
formance than collaboration. While these terms have been used
DISCUSSION interchangeably in the past, the observed differences in collabora-
tion’s and integration’s relationships with other variables observed
These tests of operand and operant resource interactions support here suggests that they are conceptually distinct, even though they
some previous findings, suggesting that collaboration and occupy the same tier of Madhavaram and Hunt’s (2008) hierarchy.
integration are positively related to market-based and financial
performance, as well as logistics service competency. More Operand resource characteristics
importantly, the results also suggest that collaboration and A key distinction that Constantin and Lusch (1994) make between
integration can yield company benefits consistent with a operant and operand resources is the inability of operand resources
resource-advantage-based hierarchical view of operant resources to produce such effects on without the influence of at least one oper-
(Madhavaram and Hunt 2008). Additionally, these results suggest ant resource acting upon it. Consistent with this logic, RTI—as an
that operant resources may yield such advantages through oper- operand resource—is conceptualized in this study as a delivery
and resource delivery mechanisms. Operand resources—such as vehicle for collaboration and integration to influence the outcome
relationship-management technologies—are seen to enable oper- variables that we measured, including logistics service competency.
ant resources to achieve their effects, consistent with Vargo’s Nonetheless, in this model, an operand resource (RTI) acted upon
Figure 2: Results of model relationship results.

an operant resource (logistics service competency). While we This implies a need for managers both within the firm (across func-
acknowledge that causal ordering cannot be established from this tional interfaces) and across firm boundaries to work together to find
sample or research design, this observation runs counter to the joint solutions during supply chain technology selection, and to pro-
accepted conceptualization of the properties of “skill-based” oper- vide continuous and thoughtful feedback during implementation
ant and “thing-based” operand resources developed by Constantin processes.
and Lusch (1994). All too often members of different firms of functional areas
However, the ability of technological systems to store informa- fail to take ownership during the formative stages of technology
tion and independently “act” within certain preestablished or pro- products, leading to a lack of willingness to embrace the solu-
grammed parameters has radically increased in the last few tions that follow (or worse, allowing room to levy blame when
decades. Operand resources, such as automated customer service implementation fails). These cultural barriers can be overcome if
and logistics management systems, are being designed with such the responsibility for collaborative/integrative technology is
complex responsive capabilities as to conceptually distance the decentralized from the firm’s information technology group and
influences of the operant resources behind them (programmers). dispersed into the relevant functional departments, where joint
Although the operant influence of programmers are still at work accountability is distributed for success or failure. Such an
in the computer programs that spontaneously adjust customer approach will also tend to keep members of cross-functional
preference notifications (Amazon), conduct mass fleet route opti- work teams engaged during the critical implementation phase,
mization (Wal-Mart), and facilitate customer music selection when the projects are in greatest danger of failure.
(Pandora), the actual decisions regarding the handling of these To this end, a key implication is that the operations-level
service delivery activities are being executed long after the oper- employees challenged with driving integration, not just supply
ant resources have been applied. Thus, as this decision-making chain managers, must become involved in the collaborative
capacity of technological systems becomes increasingly complex, efforts to create connectivity with supply chain members from
an important question is, “At what point must scholars and man- adoption to launch, and on through to integration. While both
agers begin to view the operant-operand distinction as a continu- integration and collaboration demonstrated statistically significant
ous characteristic of resources, rather than as a categorical one?” relationships with perceived performance and logistics service
capability in this study, neither operant resource is as strongly
Operand resource hierarchies related with the outcomes as is their interaction. The underlying
Given the role that RTI played as a mediator between operant premise is important; firms seeking to build technological bridges
resources in this research; another question surfaces as to the nat- between supply chain members, whether internal or external,
ure of complex operand resource combinations. Hunt and Morgan must at the same time focus on the firm’s operational integration
(1995) indicate that resources are heterogeneously distributed and with those cooperating firms. The employees chiefly concerned
may open opportunities for competitive advantage when properly with administrating the integration between supply chain mem-
bundled (1996). The role that technology plays in supply chain bers’ operations must therefore be aware of external units’ strate-
and logistics management has been extensively researched, but as gic missions, directions, and activities, to prevent technological
noted, research tends to focus on operant resources. This begs the misalignment. Thus, a form of collaborative planning akin to that
question of whether there are bundles of particular operand supply often seen in firms’ CPFR or other collaborative efforts would
chain relational technologies that are more efficacious than others, also be well-suited to the deployment of supply chain technology,
whether any such differences may be industry specific, and wherein joint information sharing, goal sharing, and planning
whether such technology combinations are subject to a resource drive the technology project through to fruition. Such meetings
hierarchy just as operant resource skills are. should become a monthly calendar item for firms seeking to unify
their supply chain operations through technological connections.
Managerial implications
Limitations and future research
Despite several recent studies’ attempts to understand the inter-
play of operant and operand resources in the supply chain, their As with most empirical studies, this research has limitations.
combination and joint impact on supply chain practice have thus First, the data examined are cross-sectional, and therefore, any
far been poorly understood. Returning to our notional metaphor causal effects of operand and operant resource investment are
of the surgeon and scalpel: we suggest that though the supply obscured; future research should examine the benefits that oper-
chain technology solutions held by firms in the supply chain are ant and operand resources yield over time. Particularly, given
the tools implicitly manipulated by supply chain managers when that the sample was divided to execute scale reduction, the small
tending to their companies’ “illnesses,” it is the more basic but size of this sample is a limitation of the research, and future rep-
intangible operant resources of collaboration and integration that lications should include larger samples to achieve greater power
enable these systems to address the “symptoms” of inefficiency and generalizability. Additionally, although this research included
and ineffectiveness to facilitate a “cure.” respondents from both buyers and sellers, it did not examine sup-
Thus, modern firms cannot simply go it alone when assessing ply chain relationships in the context of linked dyads. Future
their technology portfolios and seeking new or advanced solutions. research should examine how the framework applies to all parties
Rather, managers must both acquire the technology that best fits the within linked relationships to clarify the effects.
firm’s particular supply chain strategies and tactics, and also work The sample frame of this study features firms from a variety
to develop and foster the operational knowledge required for supply of nations, but it is not a globally generalizable sample. Because
chain employees to more capably use that technology (integration). supply chain practice is so often global in scope, future research
should collect data from enough cultural regions to offer a better Autry, C., Grawe, S.J., Daugherty, P.J., and Richey, R.G. 2010.
statement about the how these differences impact supply chains. “The Effects of Technological Turbulence and Breadth on
Similarly, this study represents a broad range of industries, but Supply Chain Technology Acceptance and Adoption.”
future research should determine if there are industry-specific Journal of Operations Management 28(6):522–36.
differences in outcomes from varying levels of the operant and Autry, C.W., Skinner, L.R., and Lamb, C.W. 2008.
operand resources explored here. Additionally, firm size (mea- “Interorganizational Citizenship Behaviors: An Empirical
sured as both relative number of employees and relative volume Study.” Journal of Business Logistics 29(2):53–74.
of sales) had varying relationships with the mediating and Barney, J. 1991. “Firm Resources and Sustained Competitive
outcome variables, suggesting that research is needed on the Advantage.” Journal of Management 17(1):99–120.
effects of RTI based on firm size. Barney, J. 2012. “Purchasing, Supply Chain Management and
Additional limitations are related to the measures used in this Sustained Competitive Advantage: The Relevance of
study. At the time these data were collected, the survey instru- Resource-Based Theory.” Journal of Supply Chain
ments used were the most current and generally accepted by the Management 48(2):3–6.
academy. Recent research, however, has offered a new means of Barratt, M. 2004. “Understanding the Meaning of Collaboration
measuring collaboration (Cao and Zhang 2011). Replications or in the Supply Chain.” Supply Chain Management: An
extensions of this study are needed to see if more current survey International Journal 9(1):30–42.
instruments yield similar results to those reported here, particu- Blocker, C.P., Flint, D.J., Myers, M.B., and Slater, S.F. 2011.
larly given calls to more thoroughly investigate the value of “Proactive Customer Orientation and Its Role for Creating
collaboration in supply chain research (Daugherty 2011). Customer Value in Global Markets.” Journal of the Academy
The managerial and theoretical implications of this research of Marketing Science 39(2):216–33.
suggest other future research directions. Differences in the influ- Burke, K. 2005. “The Impact of Firm Size on Internet Use in
ence that collaboration and integration each have on perfor- Small Businesses.” Electronic Markets 15(2):79–93.
mance here require investigation. The differences in the Cao, M., and Zhang, Q. 2011. “Supply Chain Collaboration:
relationships between these variables and the mediating and Impact on Collaborative Advantage and Firm Performance.”
outcome variables cannot be definitively interpreted in this case. Journal of Operations Management 29(3):163–80.
However, such differences beg questions about how collabora- Chandler, J.D., and Vargo, S.L. 2011. “Contextualization and
tion and integration differ, and whether such differences repre- Value-in-Context: How Context Frames Exchange.”
sent another distinction in Madhavaram and Hunt’s operant Marketing Theory 11(1):35–49.
resource hierarchy. Additionally, the managerial implications Chen, H., Daugherty, P.J., and Landry, T.D. 2009a. “Supply
indicate that both collaboration and integration resources should Chain Process Integration: A Theoretical Framework.”
be leveraged at both managerial and employee levels. However, Journal of Business Logistics 30(2):27–46.
the sample does not include multiple respondents from individ- Chen, H., Daugherty, P.J., and Roath, A.S. 2009b. “Defining and
ual firms, representing multiple managerial levels. Thus, future Operationalizing Supply Chain Process Integration.” Journal
studies should include both managers and employees of the of Business Logistics 30(1):63–83.
same firms in their samples to assess whether there are differ- Chen, H., Tian, Y., Ellinger, A.E., and Daugherty, P.J. 2010.
ences in the relationship between performance outcomes and “Managing Logistics Outsourcing Relationships: An
both collaboration and integration based on differences in the Empirical Investigation in China.” Journal of Business
level of the respondent. Logistics 31(2):279–99.
How and why firms successfully compete collectively is one of de Chernatony, L., Daniels, K., and Johnson, G. 1994.
the questions that lies at the heart of research in supply chain man- “Competitive Positioning Strategies Mirroring Sellers’ and
agement. Exploring the means by which firms leverage their ability Buyers’ Perceptions?” Journal of Strategic Marketing 2(3):
to collaborate, and how those means and abilities relate to the per- 229–48.
formance outcomes that all firms pursue is one step toward under- Closs, D.J., and Savitskie, K. 2003. “Internal and External
standing how these relationships operate. It will also enable firms Logistics Information Technology Integration.” International
to realize where investments can contribute to the success of these Journal of Logistics Management 14(1):63–76.
supply chain relationship networks. Constantin, J.A., and Lusch, R.F. 1994. Understanding Resource
Management. Oxford, OH: The Planning Forum.
Coombs, R., McMeekin, A., and Pybus, R. 1998. “Toward the
REFERENCES Development of Benchmarking Tools for R&D Project
Management.” R&D Management 28(3):175–86.
Anderson, J.C., and Gerbing, D.W. 1988. “Structural Equation Corsten, D., and Felde, J. 2005. “Exploring the Performance
Modeling in Practice: A Review and Recommended Two- Effects of Key-Supplier Collaboration: An Empirical
Step Approach.” Psychological Bulletin 103(3):411–23. Investigation Into Swiss Buyer-Supplier Relationship.”
Anderson, S.W., and Dekker, H.C. 2009. “Strategic Cost International Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics
Management in Supply Chains, Part 1: Structural Cost Management 35(6):445–61.
Management.” Accounting Horizons 23(2):201–20. Daugherty, P.J. 2011. “Review of Logistics and Supply Chain
Armstrong, S.J., and Overton, T.S. 1977. “Estimating Non- Relationship Literature and Suggested Research Agenda.”
Response Bias in Mail Surveys.” Journal of Marketing International Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics
Research 14(3):396–402. Management 41(1):16–31.
Daugherty, P.J., Ellinger, A.E., and Rogers, D.S. 1995. Fawcett, S.E., Wallin, C., Allred, C., Fawcett, A.M., and
“Information Accessibility: Customer Responsiveness and Magnan, G.M. 2011. “Information Technology as an Enabler
Enhanced Performance.” International Journal of Physical of Supply Chain Collaboration: A Dynamic Capabilities
Distribution & Logistics Management 25(1):4–17. Perspective.” Journal of Supply Chain Management 47(1):38–
Davis, B., and Mentzer, J.T. 2006. “Logistics Service Driven 59.
Loyalty: An Exploratory Study.” Journal of Business Flynn, B.B., Huo, B., and Zhao, X. 2010. “The Impact of
Logistics 27(2):53–73. Supply Chain Integration on Performance: A Contingency
Davis, D.F., and Golicic, S.L. 2010. “Gaining Comparative Configuration Approach.” Journal of Operations Management
Advantage in Supply Chain Relationships: The Mediating 28(1):58–71.
Role of Market-Oriented IT Competence.” Journal of the Fornell, C., and Larker, D.F. 1981. “Evaluating Structural
Academy of Marketing Science 38(1):56–70. Equation Models With Unobservable Variables and
Davis-Sramek, B., Droge, C., Mentzer, J.T., and Myers, M.B. Measurement Error.” Journal of Marketing Research 18
2009. “Creating Commitment and Loyalty Behavior Among (1):39–50.
Retailers: What Are the Roles of Service Quality and Fox, J., and Monette, G. 1992. “Generalized Collinearity
Satisfaction.” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science Diagnostics.” Journal of the American Statistical Association
37(4):440–54. 87(417):178–83.
Davis-Sramek, B., Germain, R., and Iyer, K. 2010. “Supply Chain Fugate, B.S., Davis-Sramek, B., and Goldsby, T.J. 2009.
Technology: The Role of Environment in Predicting Performance.” “Operational Collaboration Between Shippers and Carriers in
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 38(1):42–55. the Transportation Industry.” International Journal of
Day, G.S. 1994. “The Capabilities of Market-Driven Logistics Management 20(3):425–47.
Organizations.” Journal of Marketing 58(4):37–52. Fugate, B.S., Mentzer, J.T., and Stank, T.P. 2010. “Logistics
Deitz, G., Hansen, J., and Richey, R.G. 2007. “Coerced Performance: Efficiency, Effectiveness and Differentiation.”
Integration: The Effects of Retailer Supply Chain Mandates on Journal of Business Logistics 31(1):43–62.
Supply Stock Returns.” International Journal of Physical Grawe, S.J., Daugherty, P.J., and Roath, A.S. 2011. “Knowledge
Distribution and Logistics Management 39(10):814–25. Synthesis and Innovative Logistics Processes: Enhancing
Dennis, J. 2001. “Are Internet Panels Creating Professional Operational Flexibility and Performance.” Journal of Business
Respondents? A Study of Panel Effects.” Marketing Research Logistics 32(1):69–80.
13(1):34–38. Gr€onroos, C., and Voima, P. 2012. “Critical Service Logic:
Deutskens, E., DeRuyter, K., Wetzels, M., and Oosterveld, P. Making Sense of Value Creation and Co-Creation.” Journal
2004. “Response Rate and Response Quality of Internet- of the Academy of Marketing Science 41(2):133–50.
Based Surveys: An Experimental Study.” Marketing Letters Gulati, R., and Singh, H. 1998. “The Architecture of
15(1):21–36. Cooperation: Managing Coordination Costs and Appropriation
Diamantopoulos, A. 1999. “Viewpoint — Export Performance Concerns in Strategic Alliances.” Administrative Science
Measurement: Reflective Versus Formative Indicators.” Quarterly 43(4):781–814.
International Marketing Review 16(6):444–57. Hult, G., Ketchen, D., and Slater, S. 2004. “Information
Diamantopoulos, A., and Winklhofer, H.M. 2001. “Index Processing, Knowledge Development, and Strategic Supply
Construction With Formative Indicators: An Alternative to Chain Performance.” Academy of Management Journal 47
Scale Development.” Journal of Marketing Research 38 (2):241–53.
(2):269–77. Hunt, S.D., and Morgan, R.M. 1995. “The Comparative
Dillman, D.A. 2000. Mail and Internet Surveys: The Tailored Advantage Theory of Competition.” Journal of Marketing 59
Design Method. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons. (2):1–15.
Dr€oge, C., Jayaram, J., and Vickery, S.K. 2004. “The Effects of Hunt, S.D., and Morgan, R.M. 1996. “The Resource-Advantage
Internal Versus External Integration Practices on Time-Based Theory of Competition: Dynamics, Path Dependencies, and
Performance and Overall Firm Performance.” Journal of Evolutionary Dimensions.” Journal of Marketing 60(4):
Operations Management 22(6):557–73. 107–14.
Dyer, J.H., and Singh, H. 1998. “The Relational View: Cooperative Jack, E.P., Powers, T.L., and Skinner, L. 2010. “Reverse
Strategy and Sources of Interorganizational Competitive Logistics Capabilities: Antecedents and Cost Savings.”
Advantage.” Academy of Management Review 23(4):660–79. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics
Ellinger, A.E. 2000. “Improving Marketing/Logistics Cross- Management 40(3):228–46.
Functional Collaboration in the Supply Chain.” Industrial uttner, U., Christopher, M., and Godsell, J. 2010. “A Strategic
J€
Marketing Management 29(1):85–96. Framework for Integrating Marketing and Supply Chain
Esper, T.L., Ellinger, A.E., Stank, T.P., Flint, D.J., and Moon, Strategies.” International Journal of Logistics Management
M. 2010. “Demand and Supply Integration: A Conceptual 21(1):104–26.
Framework of Value Creation Through Knowledge Kahn, K.B., Maltz, E.N., and Mentzer, J.T. 2006. “Demand
Management.” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science Collaboration: Effects on Knowledge Creation, Relationships,
38(1):5–18. and Supply Chain Performance.” Journal of Business
Fawcett, S.E., Magnan, G.M., and McCarter, M.W. 2008. “A Logistics 27(2):191–221.
Three-Stage Implementation Model for Supply Chain Kim, D., and Lee, R.P. 2010. “Systems Collaboration and
Collaboration.” Journal of Business Logistics 29(1):93–112. Strategic Collaboration: Their Impacts on Supply Chain
Responsiveness and Market Performance.” Decision Sciences Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Lee, J., and Podsakoff,
41(4):955–81. N.P. 2003. “Common Method Biases in Behavioral
Koufteros, X., Vickery, S.W., and Dr€ oge, C. 2012. “The Effects Research: A Critical Review of the Literature and
of Strategic Supplier Selection on Buyer Competitive Recommended Remedies.” Journal of Applied Psychology
Performance in Matched Domains: Does Supplier Integration 88(5):879–903.
Mediate the Relationships?” Journal of Business Logistics 48 Pollard, D. 2002. A User’s Guide to Measure Theoretic
(2):93–115. Probability. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
Lambert, D. 1994. “Logistics Cost, Productivity and Performance Preacher, K.J., Rucker, D.D., and Hayes, A.F. 2007. “Addressing
Analysis.” In The Logistics Handbook, edited by P. Robeson, Moderated Mediation Hypotheses: Theory, Methods and
and W. Copacino, 261–302. New York, NY: The Free Press. Prescriptions.” Multivariate Behavioral Research 42(1):185–
Lin, G., Wen, Z., Marsh, H.W., and Lin, H. 2010. “Structural 227.
Equation Models of Latent Interactions: Clarification of Randall, W.S., DeFee, C., and Brady, S.P. 2010. “Value
Orthogonalizing and Double-Mean-Centering Strategies.” Propositions of the U.S. Trucking Industry.” Transportation
Structural Equation Modeling 17(3):374–91. Journal 49(3):5–23.
Lusch, R.L. 2011. “Reframing Supply Chain Management: A Richey, R.G., and Autry, C.W. 2009. “Assessing Interfirm
Service-Dominant Logic Perspective.” Journal of Supply Collaboration/Technology Investment Tradeoffs: The Effect
Chain Management 47(1):14–18. of Technological Readiness and Organizational Learning.”
Lusch, R.L., Vargo, S.L., and Wessels, G. 2008. “Toward a International Journal of Logistics Management 20(1):
Conceptual Foundation for Service Science: Contributions 30–56.
From Service-Dominant Logic.” IBM Systems Journal 47 Richey, R.G., Daugherty, P.J., and Roath, A. 2007. “Firm
(1):5–14. Technological Readiness and Complementarity: Capabilities
Maas, S.M., Herb, S., and Hartmann, E. 2014. “Supply Chain Impacting Logistics Service Competency and Performance.”
Services From a Service-Dominant Perspective: A Content Journal of Business Logistics 28(1):195–228.
Analysis.” International Journal of Physical Distribution & Richey, R.G., Hilton, C.B., Harvey, M.G., Beitelspacher, L.S.,
Logistics Management 44(1/2):58–79. Tokman, M., and Moeller, M. 2011. “Aligning Operant
MacCallum, R.C., and Browne, M.W. 1993. “The Use of Causal Resources for Global Performance: An Assessment of Supply
Indicators in Covariance Structure Models: Some Practical Chain Human Resource Management.” Journal of
Issues.” Psychological Bulletin 114(3):533–41. Management & Organization 17(3):364–82.
Madhavaram, S., and Hunt, S.B. 2008. “The Service-Dominant Richey, R.G., Roath, A.S., Whipple, J.M., and Fawcett, S.E.
Logic and a Hierarchy of Operant Resources: Developing 2010a. “Exploring a Governance Theory of Supply Chain
Masterful Operant Resources and Implications for Marketing Management: Barriers and Facilitators to Integration.” Journal
Strategy.” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 36 of Business Logistics 31(1):237–56.
(1):67–82. Richey, R.G., Tokman, M., and Dalela, V. 2010b. “Examining
Mentzer, J.T., Flint, D.J., and Hult, T.M. 2001. “Logistics Collaborative Supply Chain Technologies: A Study of
Service Quality as a Segment Customized Process.” Journal Intensity, Relationships and Resources.” Journal of the
of Marketing 65(4):82–104. Academy of Marketing Science 38(1):71–89.
Moorman, C., and Rust, R.T. 1999. “The Role of Marketing.” Rungtusanatham, M., Salvador, F., Forza, S.C., and Choi, T.Y.
Journal of Marketing 63(4):180–97. 2003. “Supply-Chain Linkages and Operational Performance:
Ngo, L.V., and O’Cass, A. 2009. “Creating Value Offerings via A Resource-Based-View Perspective.” International Journal
Operant Resource-Based Capabilities.” Industrial Marketing of Operations & Production Management 23(9):1084–99.
Management 38(1):45–59. Sanders, N.R. 2007. “The Benefits of Using e-Business
Olavarrieta, S., and Ellinger, A.E. 1997. “Resource-Based Technology: The Supplier Perspective.” Journal of Business
Theory and Strategic Logistics Research.” International Logistics 28(2):177–207.
Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics Management Sanders, N.R., and Premus, R. 2005. “Modeling the Relationship
27(9/10):559–87. Between Firm IT Capability, Collaboration, and
Palmatier, R.W. 2008. “Interfirm Relational Drivers of Customer Performance.” Journal of Business Logistics 26(1):1–23.
Value.” Journal of Marketing 72(4):76–89. Schafer, J.L., and Graham, J.W. 2002. “Missing Data: Our
Palmatier, R.W., Dant, R.P., and Grewal, D. 2007. “A View of the State of the Art.” Psychological Methods 7
Comparative Longitudinal Analysis of Theoretical (2):147–77.
Perspectives of Interorganizational Relationship Performance.” Schumacker, R.E., and Lomax, R.G. 2010. A Beginner’s Guide
Journal of Marketing 71(4):172–94. to Structural Equation Modeling. New York, NY: Routledge.
Pelham, A.M., and Wilson, D.T. 1995. “A Longitudinal Study of Shore, B., and Venkatachalam, A. 2003. “Evaluating the
the Impact of Market Structure, Firm Structure, Strategy, and Information Sharing Capabilities of Supply Chain Partners: A
Market Orientation Culture on Dimensions of Small-Firm Fuzzy Logic Model.” International Journal of Physical
Performance.” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science Distribution & Logistics Management 33(9):804–24.
24(1):27–43. Siguaw, J.A., Gassenheimer, J.B., and Hunter, G.L. 2014.
Perrault, W.D., and Russ, F. 1974. “Physical Distribution “Consumer Co-Creation and the Impact on Intermediaries.”
Service: A Neglected Aspect of Marketing Management.” International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics
MSU Business Topics 22(Summer):37–45. Management 44(1/2):6–22.
Simatupang, T.M., and Sridharan, R. 2005. “The Collaboration SHORT BIOGRAPHIES

Index: A Measure for Supply Chain Collaboration.”
International Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics Frank G. Adams (PhD The University of Alabama) is an
Management 35(1):44–62. Assistant Marketing Professor at Mississippi State University’s
Skipper, J., Craighead, C., Byrd, T., and Rainer, R. 2008. College of Business, specializing in Supply Chain Management
“Towards a Theoretical Foundation of Supply Network and Relational Governance Strategy. His research has been pub-
Interdependence and Technology-Enabled Coordination lished in The International Journal of Transitions and Innovation
Strategies.” International Journal of Physical Distribution Systems, Journal of Business Logistics, The International Journal
and Logistics Management 38(1):39–56. of Physical Distribution and Logistics Management, and Supply
Slater, S.F., and Narver, J.C. 2000. “Intelligence and Superior Chain Management: An International Journal. Dr. Adams
Customer Value.” Journal of the Academy of Marketing received his PhD in 2012 and his MBA in 2008 also from The
Science 28(1):120–27. University of Alabama, and a BA in 1997 from Mississippi State
Stank, T.P., Crum, M., and Arango, M. 1999. “Benefits of University. Prior to entering academe, Dr. Adams worked as an
Interfirm Coordination in Food Industry Supply Chains.” operations and logistics manager in the medical device industry.
Journal of Business Logistics 20(2):21–41.
Stank, T.P., Goldsby, T.J., Vickery, S.K., and Savitskie, K. 2003. Robert Glenn Richey Jr. (PhD The University of Oklahoma)
“Logistical Service Performance: Estimating Its Influence on is a Professor of International Marketing and Supply Chain Man-
Market Share.” Journal of Business Logistics 24(1):27–55. agement and the Morrow Faculty Excellence Fellow at The Uni-
Stank, T.P., Keller, S.B., and Closs, D.J. 2001a. “Performance versity of Alabama’s Culverhouse College of Commerce and
Benefits of Supply Chain Logistical Integration.” Business Administration. His current international and domestic
Transportation Journal 41(2/3):32–46. research interests include: relationship governance; green and
Stank, T.P., Keller, S.B., and Daugherty, P.J. 2001b. “Supply reverse logistics; manufacturer–distributor–retailer resource deci-
Chain Collaboration and Logistical Service Performance.” sion making; and supply chain risk preparedness and recovery.
Journal of Business Logistics 22(1):29–48. Dr. Richey has published over 60 articles in peer-reviewed SCM
Swink, M., Narasimhan, R., and Wang, C. 2007. “Managing logistics, marketing, management, international business, and
Beyond the Factory Walls: Effects of Four Types of Strategic operations management scholarly journals, and he serves on
Integration on Manufacturing Plant Performance.” Journal of seven editorial review boards. Prior to entering academe, Dr. Ri-
Operations Management 25(1):148–64. chey worked for 10 years in industry.
Theoharakis, V., Sajtos, L., and Hooley, G. 2009. “The Strategic
Role of Relational Capabilities in the Business-to-Business Chad W. Autry (PhD University of Oklahoma) is the Wil-
Service Profit Chain.” Industrial Marketing Management 38 liam J. Taylor Professor of Supply Chain Management at The
(8):914–24. University of Tennessee. His professional background includes
Ulaga, W. 2003. “Capturing Value Creation in Business experience in retail and restaurant operations management. Dr.
Relationships: A Customer Perspective.” Industrial Marketing Autry’s research focuses primarily on socially responsible and
Management 32(8):667–93. collaborative relationship integration within and across firms. He
Vargo, S.L., and Lusch, R.F. 2004. “Evolving to a new is author of over 50 journal articles and is a coauthor of the
Dominant Logic for Marketing.” Journal of Marketing 68 recent book, Global Macrotrends and Their Impact on Supply
(1):1–17. Chain Management. Dr. Autry is currently Co-editor in Chief of
Vargo, S.L., and Lusch, R.F. 2008. “Service-Dominant Logic: the Journal of Supply Chain Management, and serves on the
Continuing the Evolution.” Journal of the Academy of review boards of several other academic and managerial publica-
Marketing Science 36(1):1–10. tions.
Walters, D. 2008. “Demand Chain Management+Response
Management=Increased Customer Satisfaction.” International Tyler R. Morgan (MBA The University of Alabama) is fin-
Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics Management ishing his PhD in marketing with a focus on supply chain man-
38(9):699–725. agement at The University of Alabama. His research interests
Wu, F., Yeniyurt, S., Kim, D., and Cavusgil, S.T. 2006. “The include B2B relationships, big data, information technology,
Impact of Supply Chain Technology on Supply Chain international supply chain issues, sustainable supply chain man-
Capabilities and Firm Performance: A Resource-Based agement, and transparency. He has published his research in the
Overview.” Industrial Marketing Management 35(4): International Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics
493–504. Management, International Journal of Logistics Management,
Yazdanparast, A., Manuj, I., and Swartz, S.M. 2010. “Co- Journal of Services Marketing, and other academic outlets. Addi-
Creating Logistics Value: A Service-Dominant Logic tionally, he has presented his supply chain management research
Perspective.” International Journal of Logistics Management at domestic and international conferences.
21(3):375–403.
Zelbst, P.J., Green, K.W., Jr., Sower, V.E., and Abshire, R.D. Colin B. Gabler (PhD The University of Alabama) is an
2011. “Radio Frequency Identification Technology Utilization Assistant Professor of Marketing at Ohio University. His
and Organizational Agility.” Journal of Computer Information research focuses on sustainable approaches to business strategy
Systems 52(1):24–33. and organizational factors that facilitate it. He also has a research
interest in retail, pricing, and sales management. His work has Research, International Journal of Logistics Management, Jour-
been published in Industrial Marketing Management, Psychology nal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, Journal of Market-
& Marketing, Journal of Service Research, Journal of Services ing Channels, and Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice,
Marketing, Journal of Business Logistics, Journal of Business among others.

Adams2014 Collaboration

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Adams2014 Collaboration

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Adams2014 Collaboration

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Journal of Business Logistics, 2014, 35(4): 299–317 doi: 10.1111/jbl.

Supply Chain Collaboration, Integration, and Relational

INTRODUCTION collaboration and integration. Furthermore, just as resources are

CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT Composite relational operant resources

Resource hierarchy Collaboration

Resource type Characteristics Properties Example

Resource level Order Deﬁnition* Dimensions Characteristics Relationships Example

Note: *Madhavaram and Hunt (2008).

Integration Relational operant resource interconnectivity

Table 2: Sample characteristics

Industry role NAICS industry HQ location Firm sales (U.S.$)

Manufacturer 160 Consumer goods 94 USA 241 Less than $1M 19

Manager/GM/Sr. Manager 62 Less than 5 67 Some HS/diploma 19 Supplier 160

Note: NAICS, North American Industry Classiﬁcation System.

Reliability and validity assessments

Table 3: Exploratory factor analysis results: relationship technology types (n = 282)

Code Technology Min Max Mean SD

RTI1 Advance Planning and Scheduling Systems (APS) 1 5 2.85 1.547

Table 4: Measures, loadings, reliabilities, and collinearity diagnostics

Measures and reliabilities

Position Supplier Splr Industry role (Manufacturer/Wholesales-

Measures and reliabilities

Collab4 Our managers attend .885

Note: IT, information technology; ROI, return on investment.

Table 5: Means, standard deviations, and correlations

Variable Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

(1) Relational tech intensity 2.67 1.177 (NA)

Figure 1: Conceptual model.

Composite Resources Interconnected Resource Effects

Table 6: Structural equation loadings

Direct effects model Partial mediation model

Figure 2: Results of model relationship results.

Simatupang, T.M., and Sridharan, R. 2005. “The Collaboration SHORT BIOGRAPHIES

You might also like