30competitive Advantage With Logistics Information Technology

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/0960-0035.htm
IJPDLM
42,1
Toward creating competitive

advantage with logistics
information technology
Benjamin T. Hazen and Terry Anthony Byrd

Aviation and Supply Chain Management,
Auburn University, Auburn, Alabama, USA
Abstract
Purpose Successfully implementing and exploiting the right information technologies is critical to
maintaining competitiveness in todays supply chain. However, simply adopting off-the-shelf
technologies may not necessarily induce this competitiveness unless the organization combines these
technologies with additional complimentary resources. This study draws on the logistics innovation
literature, resource-advantage theory, and the resource-based view of the firm with the purpose of
investigating performance outcomes of logistics information technology (LIT) adoption and the
proposed moderating effect of a complimentary resource. The paper posits that combining LIT with
positive buyer-supplier relationships may set the stage for organizations to achieve competitive
advantage.
Design/methodology/approach A meta-analysis of 48 studies that report outcomes of EDI or
RFID adoption was performed. Regression was used to investigate the moderating effect of the
buyer-supplier relationship on the relationship between LIT adoption and performance outcomes.
Findings The findings suggest that adoption of LIT promotes enhanced levels of effectiveness,
efficiency, and resiliency for the adopting firm and that the quality of the buyer-supplier relationship
moderates the degree of efficiency and resiliency realized via adoption.
Research limitations/implications The results of this study suggest that adoption of a logistics
innovation by itself may not necessarily produce a sustained competitive advantage. Instead, when
combined with complimentary firm resources, the innovation may yield a sustained competitive
advantage for the adopting firm.
Originality/value Logistics innovation needs greater theoretical development in the literature.
This research extends a foundational logistics innovation model by incorporating relevant theory to
propose and test an additional dimension of the model.
Keywords Information technology, Innovation, Resource-based view, Radio frequency identification,
Electronic data interchange, Meta-analysis, Competitive advantage
Paper type Research paper
1. Introduction
Information technology (IT) has emerged as one of the most popular categories of
technological innovation being implemented in the supply chain (Russell and Hoag,
2004). Indeed, IT is purported to be one of the most managerially-relevant research
topics in extant supply chain management (SCM) literature (Thomas et al., 2011).
International Journal of Physical
Distribution & Logistics Management
Vol. 42 No. 1, 2012
pp. 8-35
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
0960-0035
DOI 10.1108/09600031211202454
The authors would like to thank Robert Overstreet and Fred Weigel for their assistance
throughout this research effort. An earlier version of this paper was presented at the Pacific Asia
Conference for Information Systems in Brisbane, Australia. The authors would like to thank the
track chairs, anonymous reviewers, and session attendees for their valuable feedback, which
helped to strengthen this paper.
Although some firms have reported positive results from adoption of IT,
implementation can be risky and expensive, especially if the ramifications and
outcomes of such innovations are not fully understood by the adopting firm (Heinrich
and Simchi-Levi, 2005). Considering the Council of Supply Chain Managements
definition of logistics and Rogers (2003) definition of innovation, we define a logistics
information technology (LIT) innovation as an IT application that is perceived as new
to the organization of adoption that is used for planning, implementing, and/or
controlling procedures for the transportation and storage of goods and services from
the point of origin to the point of consumption. Organizations looking to adopt LIT are
often interested in understanding how adopting such technologies will aid in achieving
positive operational and strategic benefits. However, inconsistent findings in the
literature suggest that additional phenomena may moderate the relationship between
LIT adoption and positive performance outcomes (Narayanan et al., 2009).
The resource-based view (RBV) of the firm suggests that capital resources may be
utilized to create competitive advantage (Barney, 1991). Although off-the-shelf IT
usually does not directly induce competitive advantage, these technologies have been
shown to provide capabilities that may lead to enhanced measures of operational
performance (Kros et al., 2011; Wade and Hulland, 2004). This operational perspective is
based on the argument that the first-order effects of IT innovation adoption occur at the
functional/operational level via enhancing various aspects of efficiency, effectiveness,
and resiliency (Barua et al., 1995; Grant, 1991). However, when combined with additional
organizational resources, adoption of off-the-shelf information technologies may
provide the foundation for a firm to realize sustained competitive advantage (Mata et al.,
1995; Nevo and Wade, 2010; Ray et al., 2005). Thus, the RBV perspective provides an
adequate context in which to examine the value of LIT adoption.
As with any innovation, firms generally adopt LIT for the purpose of realizing
improved measures of performance. However, the logistics arena may present a unique
set of challenges because of the inherent inter- and intra-organizational
interdependencies required for the effective transportation and storage of goods and
services. Thus, adoption of LIT may not automatically translate into realized
improvements in performance for the adopting firm. For example, a study of electronic
data interchange (EDI) use in large German and US firms revealed a variety of
conflicting findings regarding the benefits of adoption (Reekers, 1994). Although EDI
was demonstrated to improve trading partner communication, data accuracy, and
customer service, other anticipated benefits such as reductions in inventory and
reductions in paperwork were not demonstrated. One explanation for these
inconsistencies may be found in lack of inter-organizational integration and/or forced
adoption by firms with more powerful market position (Reekers, 1994). This assertion
is supported by the work of Riggins and Mukhopadhyay (1994), whose research
suggests that firms that initiate inter-organizational systems should take into account
the costs and benefits of the system to their trading partners if both firms are to reap
maximum benefits of system implementation. These findings may be explained by
social exchange theory, which views the exchange relationship between specific actors
as being contingent upon rewarding reactions from others (Blau, 1964). When one firm is
coerced into adopting a collaborative technology that it believes will only benefit the
other organization, then it may not be motivated toward successful implementation and
usage. Conversely, firms who have cultivated a positive buyer-supplier relationship may
Logistics
information
technology
9
IJPDLM
42,1
10
view the adoption of a given LIT innovation as mutually beneficial and thus put forth the
effort and resources that are necessary to reap positive rewards.
The first purpose of this study is to integrate existing (and often contradictory)
research to draw conclusions regarding the nature of the relationship between LIT
innovation adoption and performance outcomes. Accordingly, this study asks:
RQ1. Do LIT innovations induce positive performance outcomes for the adopting
firm?
The second purpose of this study is to investigate whether the presence of a
complimentary firm resource, specifically a positive trading relationship, may enhance the
performance outcomes realized by LIT adoption. As such, our second research question is:
RQ2. How does the buyer-supplier relationship affect the relationship between LIT
adoption and performance outcomes?
To further develop these questions and adequately articulate the outcome of our
investigation, the remainder of this manuscript is organized as follows. First, we review
relevant background literature and develop hypotheses. The review begins with a
discussion of theories pertinent to logistics innovation diffusion, to include diffusion of
innovation theory, resource-advantage (R-A) theory, and RBV. Next, the artifacts used to
characterize LIT, namely EDI and radio frequency identification (RFID) are introduced.
We then briefly discuss Section 2.3 as cited in the literature, which leads to development
of our first set of hypotheses. Our conversation then turns to the proposed moderating
role of buyer-supplier relationships, which leads to our second set of hypotheses.
Because the purpose of this study is to not only integrate results of existing studies
(which are often conflicting) to draw meaningful conclusions, but also to test for
moderation, a meta-analysis method was deemed to be the most appropriate method to
employ (Glass, 1976; Hunter and Schmidt, 2004). We discuss the meta-analytic methods
used in this study to illustrate how extant empirical literature is utilized for analysis. The
results of the research are then presented. Finally, we discuss the findings, to include
practical and theoretical implications, and end with limitations and recommendations
for future research.
2. Background literature and hypotheses
2.1 Logistics innovation
Rogers (2003) offers a generalized model of the innovation diffusion process, which has
been used extensively as the basis of innovation research in the SCM field. Skipper et al.
(2009) examine the relationship between Rogers antecedents of innovation adoption
(relative advantage, compatibility, ease of use, trialability, and observability) and a
firms adoption of supply chain contingency planning processes, extending Rogers
work by proposing two additional antecedents (top management support and
centralization) from extant management information systems (MIS) literature (Moore
and Benbasat, 1991; Tornatzky and Klein, 1982). In addition, the IT implementation
model (Kwon and Zmud, 1987; Zmud and Apple, 1992) has been used by a variety of
authors to investigate IT diffusion within supply chain settings (Cooper and Zmud,
1990; Premkumar et al., 1994). As demonstrated above, many innovation diffusion
studies in the SCM context have focused on IT artifacts (Chen J.V. et al., 2009;
Germain et al., 1994; Patterson et al., 2003, 2004; Williams, 1994).
Although research in the MIS and SCM fields has expanded upon diffusion of
innovation theory to develop more discipline-specific conceptualizations of innovation
diffusion, the literature was previously scarce in offering a unified model of logistics
innovation. Grawes (2009) recent review of logistics innovation research suggests such
a model of logistics innovation and provides a basis for further research. As Grawes
(2009) review indicates, logistics innovation research has investigated a wide variety of
antecedents and outcomes. This model is shown in Figure 1.
Grawe (2009) proposes that diffusion of logistics innovation is positively related to a
firms competitive advantage. This proposition is rooted in R-A theory and based on a
critical survey of logistics innovation literature. As described by Hunt and Morgan
(1996), the R-A theory of competition posits that organizations seek competitive
advantage in the marketplace via obtaining a comparative advantage in resources,
which then leads to superior financial performance. However, this proposition and
accompanying model do not clearly address how a firm may create competitive
advantage from the adoption of logistics innovation. As suggested by Barney (1991) and
the RBV, a firm may only realize competitive advantage when it implements a value
creating strategy that is not being implemented by current or potential competitors.
Although adoption of a homogeneous and perfectly mobile resource (e.g. off-the-shelf
logistics innovations such as EDI, RFID, containerization, etc.) may induce a short-term
competitive advantage, such adoption likely will not foster sustained competitive
advantage unless paired with heterogeneous firm resources or characteristics.
This current research seeks to extend current SCM innovation diffusion literature,
and specifically the model presented by Grawe (2009), by investigating one
characteristic that may aid in fostering competitive advantage for a firm via
the adoption of logistics innovation. By examining the moderating effect of the
buyer-supplier relationship on the relationship between adoption of LIT and
performance outcomes, this study proposes the introduction of a key construct that
may strengthen the existing logistics innovation model. In doing so, we propose an
additional dimension to Grawes (2009) model that may bridge the gap between logistics
innovation adoption and competitive advantage. Considering both R-A theory and RBV,
we suggest that complementary firm resources, when combined with logistics
innovation adoption, may allow a firm to realize competitive advantage over other firms
who adopt the same logistics innovation yet do not possess additional complementary
Logistics
information
technology
11
Environmental factors
Organization of labor ()
Competition
Capital scarcity
Logistics innovation
Organizational factors
Knowledge
Technology
Relationship network factors
Financial resources
Management resources
Source: Grawe (2009, p. 364)
Competitive advantage
Logistics innovation diffusion
Figure 1.
antecedents and outcomes
IJPDLM
42,1
12
firm resources. In this study, we examine the effect of buyer-supplier relationships as a

potential complementary firm resource. If buyer-supplier relationships are found to
induce greater levels of effectiveness, efficiency, and/or resiliency, then it may provide
evidence to warrant additional empirical investigation of the moderating effect of
additional complimentary resources. This finding may suggest a slight modification to
Grawes (2009) model to account for the moderating effect of complimentary firm
resources.
The preceding discussion reveals how our study fits into the current body of SCM
innovation literature. Next, our discussion turns to the specific LIT innovations that
are investigated in this study.
2.2 LIT artifacts
One purpose of this research is to investigate the effect of LIT adoption on expected
performance outcomes. To begin, we sought an unbiased method for choosing the most
appropriate LIT artifacts for the focus of investigation. Ideally, our study would
investigate the entire population of IT that meet our definition of LIT. However,
as with any research endeavor, we were required to adopt a valid sampling technique in
order to study a representative sample of our target population. Purposive sampling is a
non-random sampling technique in which the researcher uses judgment in selecting
cases for a specific purpose (Neuman, 2006). This sampling technique is appropriate to
select unique cases that may be especially informative (Neuman, 2006). Berelson (1952)
suggests that revealing the focus of attention is one of the primary uses of content
analysis. As such, we adapted procedures for problem-driven content analysis
suggested by Krippendorff (2004) to determine which LIT artifacts may be most
appropriate and especially informative to study. In sum, this content analysis served as
our purposive sampling technique because we posit that the IT most common in the
SCM literature will likely offer the best insight into the nature of the population of LIT.
Krippendorffs (2004, p. 83) first component of content analysis involves unitizing,
which is defined as the systematic distinguishing of segments of text images,
voices, and other observables that are of interest to an analysis. In this study, we
sought to determine which LIT are often addressed as the primary artifact of interest in
the extant SCM literature. Accordingly, the unit of analysis is an article in a SCM
journal that investigated a specific LIT.
To locate articles that meet the above criteria, the top 20 SCM journals for research
usefulness as identified by Menachof et al. (2009, p. 151) were considered. These journals
are shown in Table I in alphabetical order. Of note, since the purpose of the content
analysis is to determine the most relevant IT artifacts in SCM literature,
interdisciplinary journal titles such as Harvard Business Review and Management
Science were not included. As such, 14 of the top 20 journals identified by Menachof et al.
(2009) were utilized for content analysis. The selected journals were searched via
ABI/INFORM Complete, Business Source Premier, and ScienceDirect databases.
A keyword search for information technology or information system was conducted
for each journal and the number of results was recorded. Titles and abstracts were then
reviewed to determine if a specific LIT was addressed as the primary focus of the article.
The nomenclature of the LIT artifact was then noted and the total number of articles per
journal that addressed LIT as a primary focus was recorded. Articles addressing the
general use of IT or loosely defined terms such as EBusiness were not counted.
Journal
European Journal of Operational Research
International Journal of Logistics Management
International Journal of Logistics: Research and
Applications
International Journal of Operations and
Production Management
International Journal of Physical Distribution
and Logistics Management
Journal of Business Logistics
Journal of Operations Management
Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management
Journal of Supply Chain Management: A Global
Review
Operations Research
Supply Chain Management Review
Supply Chain Management: An International
Journal
Transportation Journal
Transportation Research: Part E
Total
Term found in abstract/

citation
IT
innovationsa
169
16
25
1
1
0
1
0
17
95
14
109
45
43
12
18
14
16
4
3
3
1
3
1
1
0
0
29
32
39
4
8
1
2
0
0
0
0
0
41
21
11
668
7
4
4
125
2
2
0
19
2
1
1
11
EDI RFID
Note: aThe specific IT innovation was the primary focus of the article
At this point in the content analysis, we had compiled a listing of 28 unique IT

innovation artifacts in the logistics literature. Many of these technologies did not
receive much attention. For example, IT such as transportation routing systems and
knowledge management systems only emerged twice. However, this allowed the top
LIT to be easily identified. EDI and RFID emerged as the two LIT that are addressed
most often in the SCM literature, accounting for 32 percent of all articles in which IT is
the primary focus. Because they conform to our strict definition of LIT and they
together comprise nearly one-third of the SCM literature which addresses IT, we chose
to adopt EDI and RFID to represent LIT in our study. The results of this content
analysis are illustrated in Table I.
RFID is a type of automated data collection system that uses radio waves to identify
objects (Angeles, 2005). Interest in RFID applications in the supply chain has generated
a rapidly growing body of knowledge in recent years. Some posit that use mandates
from industry leaders such as Wal-Mart has quickly brought RFID to the attention of
academicians and practitioners alike (Visich et al., 2007). This has motivated many
authors to discuss cases of RFID implementation success and suggest anecdotal or
perceived outcomes of RFID adoption. Academicians are currently working to develop
the body of empirical literature investigating actual benefits derived from RFID use
(Visich et al., 2009).
EDI is a technology used to exchange information and data across organizations
(Germain and Droge, 1995) and may be defined as, business to business transfer of
repetitive business processes involving direct routing of information from one computer
to another without human interference, according to predefined information formats and
rules (Holland et al., 1992, p. 539). Unlike RFID, EDI research has spanned the last two
Logistics
information
technology
13
Table I.
Results of content
analysis
IJPDLM
42,1
14
decades and is widely viewed as a relatively mature technology (Narayanan et al., 2009).
However, although the literature is insightful in examining many phenomena
surrounding EDI (e.g. antecedents to adoption, implementation techniques, etc.), the
quantitative academic literature investigating actual operational benefits is not
well assimilated and sometimes inconclusive (Ahmad and Schroeder, 2001;
Narayanan et al., 2009).
In this study, we combine EDI and RFID into a single unit of analysis that we label
LIT. No one sample is ever perfectly reflective of the population. However, because
these technologies are widely used in logistics and meet our definition of LIT, we
believe that EDI and RFID may be representative of most LIT artifacts. We chose to
study two LITs in lieu of just one for two specific reasons. First, research into the
performance outcomes of just one LIT may limit the genralizability of conclusions
drawn from this study. Although we are still careful to generalize our results to all LIT,
the study of just one technology would limit our ability to generalize even further.
Second, the study of more than one LIT will provide more data for analysis. We
propose that combining these LITs into one unit of analysis may be appropriate
provided the performance outcomes of each are shown to be statistically homogenous
(which will be demonstrated later in this manuscript). The expected benefits of these
LITs are discussed in the following section.
2.3 Expected performance outcomes of LIT adoption
A variety of expected performance outcomes of LIT adoption are touted in the
literature. As such, many EDI and RFID diffusion studies even suggest that
anticipation of benefits derived from the implementation of LIT is a key antecedent to
adoption (Crum et al., 1996; Premkumar, 2003). Benefits investigated in the literature
range from reduced order cycle times and inventory levels (Leonard and Davis, 2006) to
reduced labor costs and increased profits (Samad et al., 2010). Some suggest that this
wide range of benefits related to LIT adoption seems to have perpetuated many
inconsistencies in construct development and measurement in the literature
(Narayanan et al., 2009). This problem is exacerbated by the fact that LIT research
is published in academic journals representing nearly 100 different subject categories
(Irani et al., 2010). Therefore, in order to adequately investigate our research questions,
these outcomes must be organized in such a way as to allow for proper analysis. To
this end, we adopt and modify a typology of performance outcomes proposed in recent
literature (Karimi et al., 2007).
Although each individual technology boasts a unique set of anticipated benefits, we
suggest that the vast majority of the performance outcomes (both anticipated and
actual) resulting from the adoption of any LIT may be categorized into one of three
higher order outcomes. We define a performance outcome as any result that affects a
business function of the organization, whether in a positive or negative manner.
Examples of specific performance outcomes in the literature are offered in Table II.
In this study, we adapt a typology used by Karimi et al. (2007) to classify performance
outcomes within one of the following three categories:
(1) Efficiency. Encompasses performance outcomes that reduce cost, reduce cycle
time, or increase productivity.
(2) Effectiveness. Encompasses performance outcomes that improve decision
making, improve planning, improve resource management, or improve delivery.
Performance category
Performance outcome
Reduce processing costs
Improve equipment utilization
Improve planning process
Improve responsiveness
Facilitate decision making
Improve relationship with trading partner
Decrease number of administrative employees
Reduce cycle times
Increase productivity
Enhance channel cooperation
Reduce delivery of incorrect product
Efficiency
X
Effectiveness
Resiliency
Logistics
information
technology
X
X
X
X
15
X
X
X
X
X
X
(3) Resiliency. Encompasses performance outcomes that build flexibility into

infrastructure, encourage differentiation of products and services, or establish
or maintain external linkages to multiple customers and suppliers.
Of note, we use resiliency in our topology, whereas Karimi et al. (2007) instead use
flexibility. We use resiliency in our study in lieu of flexibility because resiliency
accounts for creating both redundancy and flexibility (Christopher and Peck, 2004;
Sheffi, 2005; Sheffi and Rice, 2005). Thus, our use of resiliency will allow us to better
categorize those performance outcomes that, although important in the supply chain
context, do not necessarily fall within the categories of efficiency or effectiveness.
Table II gives an example of the categorization of performance outcomes used in this
study. The method for categorizing these outcomes and enhancing reliability of the
process is described later in Section 3.
This studys RQ1 investigates the effect of LIT adoption on the performance
outcomes noted above and reads: do LIT innovations induce positive performance
outcomes for the adopting firm? The concept of LIT is operationalized in this study via
EDI and RFID. Performance outcomes are operationalized via efficiency, effectiveness,
and resiliency and are measured via amalgamation of the variables investigated in the
literature. This study uses three hypotheses to explore the relationship posited by our
research question.
Our first hypothesis is concerned with the relationship between LIT adoption and
business process efficiencies. Efficiency is a measure of productivity in which what has
been accomplished is measured against what is possible to accomplish. A technology
may be defined as a means of uncertainty reduction (Rogers, 2003, p. 13). Thus, by
definition, any technology should enhance the efficiency of the process in which it is
applied. However, this has not always been demonstrated in the literature. Iskandar et al.
(2001) found that employees in firms utilizing EDI perceived no reduction in the number
of employees required to support operations. These findings are congruent with that of
Sriram and Banerjee (1994), who found that EDI did not necessarily reduce employee
workload. Sriram and Banerjee (1994) found that employees were often still required to
approve routine orders, monitor suppliers, and provide a signature for EDI orders. This
lack of reduction in labor may be due to the fact that EDI does not always completely
automate the processes in which it is applied, which results in the continuance
Table II.
Example of performance
outcome categorization
IJPDLM
42,1
16
of processing work for staff to complete. In addition, EDI may sometimes merely convert
the type of work that employees are required to carry out. For example, although EDI
may reduce paperwork processing for some organizations, it may also increase the
amount of work required at computer terminals.
Although instances are cited above which support the idea that LIT does not improve
levels of efficiency for an organization, additional research suggests that LIT does
improve efficiencies. Indeed, consistent with R-A theory, the literature offers many
examples where use of LIT has been shown to be related to increased efficiencies. For
instance, contrary to the findings noted above, Wang et al. (2010) demonstrated via
simulation how LIT may significantly reduce manpower requirements. Other
simulation studies offer similar findings regarding efficiencies derived from IT
implementation (Hou and Huang, 2006; Veronneau and Roy, 2009). In addition, Hou and
Huang (2006) demonstrated a variety of operational efficiencies (e.g. reduced time for
product identification) derived from use of LIT. Similarly, Bendavid et al.s (2009) case
study of B-to-B e-commerce applications in the supply chain suggests that these
technologies may yield significant reductions in transaction time while also reducing
costs. Because of the results of these and similar studies, we posit that:
H1. Organizational adoption of LIT increases business process efficiencies.
Our next hypothesis is concerned with the relationship between LIT adoption and
business process effectiveness. We define effectiveness as the degree to which business
objectives are achieved. Thus, measures of effectiveness are usually concerned with
higher-order organizational outcomes. For instance, efficiency may be concerned with
reducing order processing costs, whereas effectiveness is concerned with whether or
not process initiatives affect the bottom line.
The literature offers many examples where LIT is shown to increase effectiveness,
which also lends support for R-A theory. Srinivasan et al. (1994) demonstrated the
complimentary effect of LIT on manufacturing supply chains that utilize just-in-time
( JIT) practices. Their study demonstrated a large reduction in shipments with
discrepancies when EDI was employed along with JIT. Chow et al. (2006) found similar
benefits in shipping accuracy via use of RFID. Furthermore, Clark and Hammonds
(1997) examination of LIT in the grocery industry found that EDI adoption led to
increased inventory turns and reduced stock-outs. Hardgrave et al. (2008) reached
similar conclusions regarding increased effectiveness in his examination of RFID use
at Wal-Mart.
In contrast, other studies have concluded insignificant relationships between LIT
adoption and measures of effectiveness. Crum et al.s (1996) study concluded that EDI
did not improve decision making for firms in the motor carrier industry. Further,
Leonard and Davis (2006) realized non-significant results when investigating the
relationship between adoption of LIT and a variety of effectiveness measures, to
include increased fill rates and reduced stock-outs. Thus, we seek to determine if these
contradictory results are an anomaly by investigating whether or not:
H2. Organizational adoption of LIT increases business process effectiveness.
Our third hypothesis concerns the relationship between LIT adoption and business
process resiliency. We define resiliency as the ability to return to normal performance
levels following supply chain disruption (Zsidisin and Wagner, 2010, p. 3).
Although resiliency rarely translates into immediate increases in efficiencies,

effectiveness, or short-term profits, resiliency facilitates an organizations preparation
to encounter future, unknown events. This preparedness, then, often leads to an increase
in (or at least a retention of) efficiency, effectiveness, and profit in the future.
Both extant research and R-A theory suggest that adoption of IT facilitates
increased resiliency in the logistics setting. Rogers et al.s (1992) study of EDI use
in warehousing suggests that firms using EDI are significantly more able to
accommodate special or abnormal requests and events than firms that do not use EDI.
Choes (2008) research in the Korean manufacturing industry corroborates the findings
of Rogers et al. (1992) and suggests that EDI facilitates increased speed and volume of
new product creation and product changeover, thus increasing operational resiliency.
Lim and Palvia (2001) posit that this increased resiliency is achieved primarily via
reduction in paperwork and standardization of procedures. However, others have
shown that EDI also leads to expansion of a firms supplier base and increased market
channel formalization, which also enhances a firms capacity to adapt to market
conditions (Manabe et al., 2005; Vijayasarathy and Robey, 1997). On the other hand,
conflicting research suggests that EDI does not benefit channel relationships and
coordination (Johansson and Palsson, 2009; Nakayama, 2003). Thus, we investigate
whether or not:
H3. Organizational adoption of LIT increases business process resiliency.
2.4 Buyer-supplier relationships
In order to transfer products from the point of origin to the point of consumption, interand intra-organizational collaboration is inherently a key component of the supply
chain. As with any collaborative effort, the relationship and level of integration
between participants may significantly impact the performance outcomes sought by
each party (Tan et al., 2010). In this study, we define the buyer-supplier relationship as
the quality of the relationship between buyers and suppliers. This relationship may be
identified via eight key dimensions:
(1) communication and information sharing;
(2) cooperation;
(3) trust;
(4) commitment;
(5) relationship value;
(6) power imbalance and interdependence;
(7) adaptation; and
(8) conflict (Boeck and Wamba, 2008).
In this study, we consider relationships consisting of the characteristics of:
(2) cooperation;
(3) trust;
(4) commitment;
Logistics
information
technology
17
IJPDLM
42,1
18
(5) relationship value; and/or

(6) willingness to adapt as being positive relationships.
Conversely, relationships where these six characteristics are indicated in a negative
sense or if indications of power imbalance or conflict are present, we consider to be
negative relationships.
Over the past two decades, a variety of studies have demonstrated the positive
outcomes derived from buyer-supplier co-operation in the supply chain. Larson (1994)
found that supply chain relationships consisting of greater levels of trust, respect,
cooperation, teamwork, unified purpose, and communication resulted in higher levels of
product quality and lower total costs for both the buyer and supplier. Additionally, Klein
and Rais (2009) study of strategic information flows within the supply chain suggests
that positive supply chain relationships marked by increased strategic information
flows between partners yields significant financial and operational performance
outcomes. In their study, both buyers and suppliers realized improved management of
assets, reduced operations costs, enhanced productivity, improved planning, flexibility,
and control of resources.
These positive outcomes derived from positive buyer-supplier relationships may be
explained by social exchange theory, which views the exchange relationship between
specific actors as being contingent upon rewarding reactions from others (Blau, 1964).
As discussed above, the adoption of LIT is an inherently collaborative venture. For
example, for EDI to work effectively, both organizations must agree to adopt and utilize
the technology in a manner that benefits both parties. Thus, when buyer-supplier
relationships are characterized in accord with Boeck and Wambas (2008) dimensions of
a positive relationship, both the buyers and supplier should realize increased levels
of efficiency, effectiveness, and resiliency from the adoption of LIT. In contrast, negative
or undeveloped relationships should decrease the levels of efficiency, effectiveness, and
resiliency that may be realized by both firms. As such, we propose that the type
of buyer-supplier relationship (positive, negative, or undeveloped) moderates the degree
of efficiency, effectiveness, and resiliency that a firm may realize via LIT adoption.
Accordingly, we propose:
H4a. The relationship between adoption of LIT and business process efficiencies
realized by an organization is moderated by the firms buyer-supplier
relationships. That is, positive relationships increase efficiencies whereas
un-developed or poor relationships decrease efficiencies.
H4b. The relationship between adoption of LIT and business process effectiveness
relationships. That is, positive relationships increase effectiveness whereas
un-developed or poor relationships decrease effectiveness.
H4c. The relationship between adoption of LIT and business process resiliency
relationships. That is, positive relationships increase resiliency whereas
un-developed or poor relationships decrease resiliency.
Figure 2 shows this studys research model.
Outcomes
Efficiency
Logistics
information
technology
H1
19
Logistics Information
Technology
H2
EDI
Effectiveness
RFID
H3
Resiliency
H4a-c
Buyer-Supplier
Relationship
To examine the relationships suggested in our model, this study utilizes data derived
from existing empirical studies and meta-analytic techniques to investigate the
relationship between popular LIT innovations and the hypothesized performance
outcomes realized by adoption of these technologies. These specific methods are
discussed in the following section.
3. Method
The purpose of this study is to:
.
investigate the relationship between LIT innovation adoption and the
performance outcomes realized by such adoption; and
.
test the moderating effect of the buyer-supplier relationship.
To achieve this purpose, we employed a meta-analysis method. We chose a
meta-analysis approach for two distinct reasons. First, as noted previously, we have
found conflicting findings in extant literature. Meta-analysis is often used to assimilate
results of existing studies and integrate findings, thus allowing one to draw meaningful
conclusions from a large body of research (Glass, 1976). Second, meta-analysis is noted
as an effective method for testing moderation (Hunter and Schmidt, 2004), which we seek
to accomplish in this study. Thus, to achieve our research objectives, meta-analysis
seemed to be the most desirable method to employ. Not only does this method allow us to
investigate both of our research questions, but it also facilitates an additional
contribution to the literature by summarizing a stream of research. The remainder of this
section describes our research method.
3.1 Search for empirical articles
To begin, relevant manuscripts reporting empirical research findings were sought.
To be included in the analysis, the research effort must report the subjective
Figure 2.
Research model
IJPDLM
42,1
20
or objective measure of an actual performance outcome that could be logically

attributed to the adoption of EDI or RFID. Because few articles were identified in
the core SCM journals investigated earlier, no discipline restrictions were placed on the
search in order to find an adequate number of manuscripts. No date restrictions were
applied to our search; however, due to the nature of the artifacts under investigation,
very few studies before 1990 were uncovered. In addition, the literature search was
conducted in October 2010, thus 2010 literature made available on or before this time
period was used. Finally, many trade magazines report performance outcomes
resulting from LIT adoption. However, we limited our search to academic publications
so as to use articles that are the result of rigorous academic research.
Two separate searches were conducted, using the same procedure for each LIT.
Abstracts were searched using the keywords: EDI or electronic data interchange;
RFID or radio frequency identification. No date restrictions were used and the only
additional search filter was for scholarly articles. We began by searching the online
databases most extensively used by supply chain researchers as reported by
Menachof et al. (2009). Accordingly, we searched the EBSCO Business Source Premier
and ProQuest databases for articles that met the selection criteria. The search results
from each database were analyzed to uncover articles that met the criteria. If cursory
reading of the title and abstract suggested any possibility that the article met the
criteria, then it was downloaded and printed. Finally, the articles were thoroughly
reviewed to extract adoption outcomes and commensurate correlations. Table III
illustrates the number of articles yielded in this stage of the search process. In sum,
48 unique articles were used for analysis; 35 for EDI and 13 for RFID.
As noted in Table III, twice as many EDI articles met our criteria for analysis than
did RFID articles. Upon investigation into this phenomenon, we concluded that this is
because of the research lifecycle of EDI and RFID. A steady stream of academic EDI
research appears to have begun in the early 1990s and hit its peak during the late 1990s
and early 2000s. After approximately 2002, research of this artifact seems to have
tapered off. Conversely, a steady stream of academic research involving RFID seems to
have begun in the mid-2000s and is likely in the midst of its popularity at this time.
Figure 3 shows these research trends. Of note, our literature search was conducted
before the end of 2010, which is why the RFID research appears to have tapered off in
this year when, in reality, it is likely at its peak.
3.2 Meta-analysis
To investigate hypotheses one through three (the relationship between LIT and
efficiency, effectiveness, and resiliency), we sought to find the average correlation
coefficients across studies. To begin, we extracted all performance outcomes and their
associated effect size from each article. Some articles investigated only one outcome
Table III.
Keyword search results
Database
EDI
RFID
ProQuest
EBSCO Business Source Premier
Search total
Unique articles examined in-depth
Articles used for analysis
1,043
721
1,764
191
35
664
958
1,622
92
13
EDI Research
Frequency
Frequency
0
1990
Logistics
information
technology
RFID Research
10
10
2000
Year of Article Publication
2010
21
0
1990
2000
Year of Article Publication
2010
from a single sample while others investigated greater than ten outcomes from multiple
samples. This data and the appropriate article descriptives were recorded in a
spreadsheet. In sum, 336 performance outcomes were recorded. We then categorized
each performance outcome into its commensurate category: efficiency, effectiveness, or
resiliency. The first author categorized each performance outcome with regard to
the definition of each as provided in Section 2.3. To enhance the reliability of this
categorization, two additional raters independently categorized a sample of the outcome
variables. Krippendorffs alpha for the categorization was calculated to be 0.94, which is
above the recommended minimum of 0.80 for drawing meaningful conclusions
(Krippendorff, 2004). In sum, 111 performance outcomes were categorized as efficiency,
129 performance outcomes were categorized as effectiveness, and 96 performance
outcomes were categorized as resiliency.
After categorizing the performance outcomes, we used meta-analysis procedures
outlined by Hunter and Schmidt (2004) to correct for sampling error and obtain the
appropriate corrected average correlations. In addition to calculating the corrected
average correlation for efficiency, effectiveness, and resiliency, we calculated the
standard error of the corrected average correlations in order to present appropriate
confidence intervals. The formulae used for the corrected average correlations and
standard error are:
P
Ni r i
r P
Ni
SDr
SEr p
k
where r is the corrected average correlation, N is the combined sample size, SEr is the
standard error of the corrected average correlation, SDr is the standard deviation of the
uncorrected average correlation, and k is the number of correlations. In addition, we
used Rosenthals (1979) file drawer analysis to determine the robustness of our results
to unpublished or omitted studies.
Upon calculating the appropriate effect sizes, we turned to analysis of the
moderator, buyer-supplier relationships. To begin, each article was examined by the
first author to determine if the article offered any indication of the relationship between
buyers and suppliers. If present, this information was typically found in Section 3
Figure 3.
EDI and RFID
research trends
IJPDLM
42,1
22
where the research setting or sample is discussed or in Section 4 if some indication

of relationship was measured in the study. Using the eight dimensions outlined by
Boeck and Wamba (2008) as a guide, articles that indicated relationships consisting of:
(2) cooperation;
(3) trust;
(4) commitment;
(5) relationship value; or
(6) willingness to adapt were labeled as positive relationship.
If these six dimensions were indicated in a negative sense or if indications of power
imbalance or conflict were present, the article was labeled as negative relationship.
If none of these issues were addressed in the article, it was labeled as no
relationship indicated. Reliability of this measurement technique was again enhanced
via use of two additional raters. These raters used the same method as the first author
to examine a sample of the articles. Near perfect agreement was reached after
independently rating each article.
To account for different sample sizes between studies, a weighted least squares
regression was used to test for the significance of the moderator variable in each of the
three relationships (Hunter and Schmidt, 2004). This procedure entailed testing the
significance of regression coefficients in a regression model with the moderator
variable (buyer-supplier relationship) as the predictor variable and the correlation
between LIT adoption and the performance outcome (efficiency, effectiveness, or
resiliency) as the outcome variable. The moderator variable was dummy coded with 0
for no relationship or negative relationship indicated and 1 for positive relationship
indicated. Using this approach, three separate regressions were conducted (one for each
category of outcome).
4. Results
Our analysis began by comparing the performance outcomes of EDI with the
performance outcomes of RFID. As stated previously, we feel it is appropriate to
combine EDI and RFID into one unit of analysis only if the outcomes realized by each
are statistically homogeneous. Results of two-sample t-tests suggest no difference in
efficiency (t127 1.54, p 0.120), effectiveness (t109 0.55, p 0.583), or resiliency
(t94 1.0, p 0.326) outcomes between EDI and RFID.
Next, we conducted our meta-analysis in accordance with the method prescribed by
Hunter and Schmidt (2004) to test for relationships between LIT adoption and
performance outcomes (H1 through H3). We also conducted the file drawer analysis in
accord with Rosenthal (1979). Results are shown in Table IV.
The regression analysis of the moderating effect of buyer-supplier relationships
indicated significant results for efficiency (F1,127 8.0, p 0.005) and resiliency
(F1,94 6.56, p 0.012). However, the moderating effect of buyer-supplier relationship
was found to be insignificant for effectiveness (F1,109 1.34, p 0.249). Comparison of
moderated and unmoderated effect sizes for efficiency, effectiveness, and resiliency are
reported in Table V.
5. Discussion
The results of this study provide evidence in support of our hypothesized relationships
(H1-H3) between LIT adoption and efficiency, effectiveness, and resiliency
performance outcomes (corrected mean r 0.40, 0.34, and 0.18, respectively). Given
these results, we feel comfortable in concluding that, consistent with R-A theory, LIT
adoption generally leads to positive performance outcomes. We also conclude that
conflicting results are likely caused by unaccounted for moderating variables or
artifacts specific to a particular study.
Our study also suggests that the quality of the buyer-supplier relationship
moderates the relationship between LIT adoption and performance outcomes, thus
providing partial support for H4 and providing a possible explanation for some of the
conflicting results of past studies. Specifically, our study suggests that the moderating
relationship is significant for efficiency and resiliency outcomes (H4a and H4c), but not
for effectiveness outcomes (H4b). Table VI illustrates some examples from the
literature where the buyer-supplier relationship appears to moderate the relationship
between LIT adoption and performance outcomes.
As illustrated in Table VI, studies that indicate a positive buyer-supplier relationship
tend to yield, on average, larger effect sizes than studies that indicated a negative
relationship or did not indicate any relationship. These findings suggest theoretical
implications for future research and are discussed further in the next section.
Logistics
information
technology
23
5.1 Implications for theory and future research

The findings support the relationships posited by R-A theory and RBV in that
complementary firm resources may allow a firm to realize competitive advantage via
logistics innovation adoption. As suggested by our results, positive buyer-supplier
relationships induce larger effect sizes for the relationships between LIT adoption
Outcome
Efficiency
Effectiveness
Resiliency
Mean r
SDr
Corrected mean r
SEr
95% CI
File drawer k
129
111
96
9,911
9,514
7,807
0.41
0.39
0.23
0.28
0.29
0.33
0.40
0.34
0.18
0.02
0.03
0.03
0.37, 0.42
0.31, 0.37
0.15, 0.21
73,199
45,457
10,673
Note: k number of correlations, n total sample size, mean r uncorrected mean correlation, SDr
standard deviation of average uncorrected correlation, corrected mean r average corrected
correlation, SEr standard error of corrected correlation, 95 percent CI lower and upper limits of
95 percent confidence interval, file drawer k number of studies averaging null results that must be
found to conclude that overall results were due to sampling bias at p , 0.05
Outcome
No/negative relationship
Efficiency
Effectiveness
Resiliency
Note: Significant at: *p , 0.01
0.34
0.34
0.13
Corrected mean r
Positive relationship
0.43
0.35
0.31
Table IV.
Meta-analysis of
relationship between
performance outcomes
and LIT adoption
Difference
0.09 *
0.01
0.18 *
Table V.
Effect size comparison
IJPDLM
42,1
Study
Outcome
Teo et al. (1995)
24
Table VI.
Efficiency (decreased
document prep costs)
Iskandar et al. (2001) Efficiency (decreased admin
costs)
Philip and Pedersen Resiliency (stronger trading
(1997)
relations)
Johansson and
Resiliency (enhanced external
Palsson (2009)
coordination)
B-S
relationship
Effect
size
Corrected
mean r a
Positive
0.60
0.40
0.20
Negative
0.10
0.40
2 0.30
Positive
0.58
0.18
0.40
None
indicated
0.06
0.18
2 0.12
Note: aCorrected mean r for entire study sample
and measures of efficiency and resiliency. This larger effect implies a competitive
advantage for firms that adopt LIT and possess a complimentary firm resource (such
as a positive buyer-supplier relationship) over firms that adopt LIT and do not possess
the complementary resource. Given our findings, we suggest expanding Grawes (2009)
logistics innovation model, as shown in Figure 4. Components in bold constitute our
additions to Grawes (2009) original model.
Consistent with literature regarding RBV (Barney, 1991), we posit that the adoption
of a logistics innovation leads to generally positive outcomes in lieu of leading directly
to competitive advantage, as it does in the original model. Most logistics innovations
are not necessarily a resource that can directly invoke sustained competitive advantage
as they often do not embody all three criteria of such a resource: they are not:
(1) valuable;
(2) heterogeneously distributed across firms; and
(3) imperfectly mobile (Mata et al., 1995).
Being an innovation used for logistics purposes makes meeting these requirements
especially difficult given the collaborative nature of the discipline and the subsequent
requirement for multiple firms to employ similar technologies in order to work in unison.
However, as demonstrated in our study, when complimentary resources are combined
with logistics innovations, performance outcomes are enhanced. This significant
increase in performance may, in turn, lead to competitive advantage. This idea is
congruent with past literature that suggests resource complementarity may play
Complimentary
firm resources
Environmental factors
Organization of labor ()
Competition
Capital scarcity
Figure 4.
Updated logistics
innovation model
Organizational factors
Knowledge
Technology
Relationship network factors
Financial resources
Management resources
Source: Adapted from Grawe (2009)
Performance
outcomes
Competitive advantage
Logistics innovation diffusion
an important role in RBV theory because of its ability to create competitive advantage
via combining two otherwise non-competitive advantage-inducing resources (Wade and
Hulland, 2004). Accordingly, we add complimentary firm resources as a moderator in
Grawes (2009) model.
Our results suggest that buyer-supplier relationships do not moderate the
relationship between LIT adoption and effectiveness outcomes. Thus, measures of
effectiveness observed in the literature may not be as dependent on relationships with
buyers and suppliers as measures of efficiency and resiliency. This may be because
effectiveness measures (e.g. improved internal decision making, etc.) often address
internal processes that are unaffected by or insulated from external organizations or
events, whereas measures of efficiency and resiliency (e.g. reduced transaction error
rates and improved inter-organizational data sharing, respectively) encompass
processes that are generally more affected by external relationships. In short, our
results indicate that the buyer-supplier relationship may not serve as a complimentary
resource to measures of effectiveness. As such, we suggest that other complementary
firm resources may moderate the relationship between LIT adoption and measures of
effectiveness. For example, absorptive capacity, defined as an organizations ability to
recognize, assimilate, and apply new information (Cohen and Levinthal, 1990),
may complement an organizations adoption of LIT in such a way as to increase levels of
effectiveness outcomes. We recommend that future logistics innovation studies look to
identify and test additional complementary resources, understanding that each
innovation will require different types of complimentary resources to produce
competitive advantage.
Because we found some studies that indicated positive relationships yet still
realized insignificant results, we believe that additional variables likely moderate the
relationship between LIT adoption and performance. Given our review of the
literature used in this study, we posit that additional variables worth investigating
may be time since adoption, market position, firm size, organizational learning
abilities, and absorptive capacity. These variables have been demonstrated to affect
performance outcomes in previous studies (Chen Y.-S. et al., 2009; Liu and Forsythe,
2011; Zhao et al., 2011), and may affect the degree of performance achieved via LIT
adoption. In addition, MIS literature suggests that degree to which IT is assimilated
within business processes affects the degree of performance derived from the
technology (Rai et al., 2009; Setia et al., 2011). This suggests that firms seeking to
obtain competitive advantage should do more than just adopt an LIT; instead, they
should take steps to integrate the technology into all applicable business processes in
order to maximize the performance achieved from adoption. Because we did not find
sufficient existing data to analyze these possible effects via our meta-analysis, we
recommend new studies be designed to specifically test the potential moderators
noted above.
Another future research direction entails investigating performance outcomes and
moderating effects of complementary resources in regard to the emerging area of
internet-based/e-business applications. The emergence of e-business as an important
LIT resource has evoked attention from practitioners and academics alike
(Porterfield et al., 2010; Smart, 2010; Wagner and Sweeney, 2010). Integration of the
supply chain via e-business offers a variety of new challenges and opportunities for
organizations (Srinivasan, 2010). However, we suspect that, although the medium may
Logistics
information
technology
25
IJPDLM
42,1
26
have changed, the underlying principles examined in our study remain the same.
In this regard, the findings of a study by Wiengarten et al. (2011) suggest that adoption
of e-business applications not only have a positive impact on operational performance,
but that this relationship is moderated by the level in which key suppliers are ready and
willing to engage in e-business with the adopting firm. The results of Wiengarten et al.
(2011) thus support our assertion that the findings of our study may
generalize to other LITs, such as e-business. Future research can determine if our
assertion holds.
5.2 Implications for practice
This study provides two primary implications for practitioners. First, our results
suggest that, in most cases, adoption of RFID or EDI leads to positive results for the
adopting firm. However, the results also suggest that additional factors may help or
hinder a firms ability to attain increased performance via LIT adoption. Our study
looked only at buyer-supplier relationships as a complimentary resource; other
complimentary resources likely exist. Most importantly, this study reaffirms the idea
that organizations and technology adoption do not operate in a vacuum. Thus, firms
looking to adopt LIT should carefully examine the possible interaction effects between
their firm, their partners, the LIT, and the unique circumstances and situations in
which the new technology is to be employed.
Second, this study emphasizes the importance of fostering positive buyer-supplier
relationships in the supply chain and offers evidence in support of the benefits that
may be realized by firms who maintain positive relationships with their trading
partners. Given our definition of LIT and the nature of the supply chain, LITs are
inherently collaborative technologies. However, some firms have undoubtedly adopted
these technologies without first building positive relationships or even despite poor
relationships with their partners. Although some firms may still realize positive results
despite coerced integration or poor relationships (Deitz et al., 2009), our study suggests
that it would behoove most firms interested in using any LIT to first work toward
building positive relationships with their trading partners if they hope to achieve
maximum benefits from the employment of the technology. The benefits of
collaboration and building positive relationships have been demonstrated in a variety
of settings in the supply chain literature (Daugherty, 2011; Klein and Rai, 2009; Larson,
1994; Schulz and Blecken, 2010). Our study provides additional evidence that should
motivate firms to continue to foster positive relationships.
5.3 Limitations
Meta-analysis is generally accepted as a viable and valid research method, and is
used often to explore the hypothesized effects of moderating variables.
However, dependence on secondary data derived from the research published by a
variety of authors in a number of journals from varying disciplines over a wide range of
years is likely the most serious validity threat to our study. To reduce this validity threat,
we carefully selected only published empirical studies to use in our analysis. In addition,
we used meta-analysis techniques that have been demonstrated to mitigate such validity
threats (Hunter and Schmidt, 2004). We suggest future research efforts in this area
employ primary data in hopes of corroborating the findings of this study.
An additional limitation of this study is common to most studies that rely on

secondary data or the assimilation of others research, which is the omission of relevant
research studies in our analysis. Although we thoroughly searched what we feel
are the most appropriate databases for research that met our criteria, some research may
have been overlooked and thus not included in our analysis. In addition, publication bias
may have artificially inflated the number of studies we found that report significant
and/or positive results. To address this potential limitation, we used Rosenthals (1979)
file drawer analysis to estimate the number of unpublished or otherwise omitted studies
required to challenge the significance of this studys findings. Results of our analyses
(illustrated in Table IV) suggest that our findings regarding the relationships tested in
this study are robust to the omission of contradictory research.
Finally, we assume that our sampling strategy led us to investigate LITs (e.g. EDI
and RFID) that are representative of the population of LIT. The results of our study
suggest that adoption of IT for logistics purposes may lead to increased levels of
performance for the adopting firm and that complimentary firm resources may affect
the degree of performance. However, caution must be used when making such
generalizations. For example, as discussed previously, e-business applications offer a
variety of new opportunities and challenges for the supply chain. Undoubtedly, these
opportunities and challenges differ from those presented by EDI and RFID, which may
affect the degree to which our findings apply. Only future research can test the
generalizability of our findings by investigating other LITs.
6. Conclusion
This paper serves to assimilate extant literature regarding the relationship between LIT
adoption and measures of performance in terms of efficiency, effectiveness, and resiliency.
Using a meta-analysis approach and the data reported in 48 empirical EDI and RFID
research articles, we found that the implementation of LIT innovation generally produces
positive performance outcomes for the adopting organization. We also examined the
moderating effect of buyer-supplier relationships on the relationship between LIT
adoption and positive performance outcomes and found that positive buyer-supplier
relationships greatly enhance levels of efficiency and resiliency outcomes realized by LIT
adoption. This finding offers one possible explanation for the incongruent findings of past
research. The buyer-supplier relationship was not shown to be a significant moderator of
the relationship between LIT adoption and effectiveness outcomes, which suggests that
complimentary firm resources must truly be complimentary to both the specific LIT and
the desired outcome if they are to help the firm achieve competitive advantage.
Our findings also provide support for the extension of Grawes (2009) logistics
innovation model. In respect to RBV, we suggest that logistics innovation is a direct
antecedent to performance outcomes, but not necessarily to competitive advantage.
We also suggest that this relationship is moderated by complimentary firm resources.
Through examining the role of buyer-supplier relationships, our study supports the
idea of resource complementarity as a potential means for realizing competitive
advantage. Practitioners should consider complementarity when adopting LIT with
the understanding that additional organizational factors may serve to help or hinder
the attainment of desired outcomes. With this in mind, we proposed an updated
logistics innovation model, which presents a foundation for future research regarding
the outcomes of logistics innovation adoption.
Logistics
information
technology
27
IJPDLM
42,1
28
References
Ahmad, S. and Schroeder, R.G. (2001), The impact of electronic data interchange on delivery
performance, Production and Operations Management, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 16-30.
Anderson, S.W. and Lanen, W.N. (2002), Using electronic data interchange (EDI) to improve the
efficiency of accounting transactions, The Accounting Review, Vol. 77 No. 4, pp. 703-29.
Angeles, R. (2005), RFID technologies: supply-chain applications and implementation issues,
Information Systems Management, Vol. 22 No. 1, pp. 51-65.
Banerjee, S. and Golhar, D.Y. (1994), Electronic data interchange: characteristics of users and
nonusers, Information & Management, Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 65-74.
Banerjee, S. and Sriram, V. (1995), The impact of electronic data interchange on purchasing: an
empirical investigation, International Journal of Operations & Production Management,
Vol. 15 No. 3, pp. 29-38.
Barney, J. (1991), Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage, Journal of
Management, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 99-120.
Barua, A., Kriebel, C.H. and Mukhopadhyay, T. (1995), Information technologies and business
value: an analytic and empirical investigation, Information Systems Research, Vol. 6 No. 1,
pp. 3-23.
Bendavid, Y., Lefebvre, E., Lefebvre, L.A. and Wamba, S.F. (2009), Key performance indicators
for the evaluation of RFID-enabled B-to-B e-commerce applications: the case of a five-layer
supply chain, Information Systems E-Business Management, Vol. 7, pp. 1-20.
Berelson, B. (1952), Content Analysis in Communications Research, The Free Press,
New York, NY.
Bergeron, F. and Raymond, L. (1992), The advantages of electronic data interchange, Database,
Vol. 23 No. 4, pp. 19-31.
Bergeron, F. and Raymond, L. (1997), Managing EDI for corporate advantage: a longitudinal
study, Information & Management, Vol. 31 No. 6, pp. 319-33.
Blau, P. (1964), Exchange and Power in Social Life, Wiley, New York, NY.
Boeck, H. and Wamba, S.F. (2008), RFID and buyer-seller relationships in the retail supply
chain, International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, Vol. 36 No. 6,
pp. 433-60.
Bottani, E., Montanari, R. and Volpi, A. (2010), The impact of RFID and EPC network on the
bullwhip effect in the Italian FMCG supply chain, International Journal of Production
Economics, Vol. 124 No. 2, pp. 426-32.
Chen, J.V., Yen, D.C. and Chen, K. (2009), The acceptance and diffusion of the innovative smart phone
use: a case study of a delivery service company in logistics, Information & Management,
Vol. 46 No. 4, pp. 241-8.
Chen, Y.-S., Lin, M.-J.J. and Chang, C.-H. (2009), The positive effects of relationship learning and
absorptive capaicity on innovation performance and competitive advantage of industrial
markets, Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 38 No. 2, pp. 152-8.
Choe, J.-M. (2008), The effects of EDI usage on production performance through the changes of
management control systems, Production Planning & Control, Vol. 19 No. 6, pp. 577-89.
Chow, H.K.H., Choy, K.L., Lee, W.B. and Lau, K.C. (2006), Design of a RFID case-based resource
management system for warehouse operations, Expert Systems with Applications, Vol. 30
No. 4, pp. 561-76.
Christopher, M. and Peck, H. (2004), Building the resilient supply chain, International Journal of
Logistics Management, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 1-13.
Clark, T. and Hammond, J.H. (1997), Reengineering channel reordering processes to improve
total supply-chain performance, Production and Operations Management, Vol. 6 No. 3,
pp. 248-65.
Cohen, W.M. and Levinthal, D.A. (1990), Absorptive capacity: a new perspective on learning and
innovation, Adminisrtative Science Quarterly, Vol. 35 No. 1, pp. 128-52.
Cooper, R.B. and Zmud, R.W. (1990), Information technology implementation research:
a technological diffusion approach, Management Science, Vol. 36 No. 2, pp. 123-39.
Crum, M.R., Premkumar, G. and Ramamurthy, K. (1996), An assessment of motor carrier
adoption, use, and satisfaction with EDI, Transportation Journal, Vol. 35 No. 4, pp. 44-57.
Daugherty, P.J. (2011), Review of logistics and supply chain relationship literature and
suggested research agenda, International Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics
Deitz, G., Hansen, J. and Richey, R.G. (2009), Coerced integration: the effects of retailer supply
chain technology mandates on supplier stock returns, International Journal of Physical
Distribution and Logistics Management, Vol. 39 No. 10, pp. 814-25.
Droge, C. and Germain, R. (2000), The relationship of electronic data interchange with inventory
and financial performance, Journal of Business Logistics, Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 209-30.
Germain, R. and Droge, C. (1995), Just-in-time and context, International Journal of Physical
Germain, R., Droge, C. and Daugherty, P.J. (1994), A cost and impact typology of logistics
technology and the effect of its adoption on organizational practice, Journal of Business
Logistics, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 227-48.
Glass, G.V. (1976), Primary, secondary, and meta-analysis of research, Educational Researcher,
Vol. 5 No. 10, pp. 3-8.
Grant, R.M. (1991), The resource-based theory of competitive advantage, California
Management Review, Vol. 33 No. 3, pp. 114-35.
Grawe, S.J. (2009), Logistics innovation: a literature-based conceptual framework, International
Journal of Logistics Management, Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 360-77.
Hardgrave, B.C., Langford, S., Waller, M. and Miller, R. (2008), Measuring the impact of RFID on
out of stocks at Wal-Mart, MIS Quarterly Executive, Vol. 7 No. 4, pp. 181-92.
Heim, G.R., Wentworth, W.R. Jr and Peng, X.D. (2009), The value to the customer of RFID in
service applications, Decision Sciences, Vol. 40 No. 3, pp. 477-512.
Heinrich, C.E. and Simchi-Levi, D. (2005), Do IT investments really pay off?, Supply Chain
Holland, C., Lockett, G. and Blackman, I. (1992), Planning for electronic data interchange for
supply chain coordination in the food industry, Journal of Operations Management,
Vol. 13 No. 7, pp. 539-50.
Hou, J.-L. and Huang, C.-H. (2006), Quantitative performance evaluation of RFID applications in
the supply chain of the printing industry, Industrial Management, Vol. 106 Nos 1/2,
pp. 96-120.
Hsu, C.-I., Shih, H.-H. and Wang, W.-C. (2009), Applying RFID to reduce delay in import cargo
customs clearance process, Computers & Industrial Engineering, Vol. 57 No. 2, pp. 506-19.
Hunt, S.D. and Morgan, R.M. (1996), The resource-advantage theory of competition: dynamics,
path dependencies, and evolutionary dimensions, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 60 No. 4,
pp. 107-14.
Logistics
information
technology
29
IJPDLM
42,1
Hunter, J.E. and Schmidt, F.L. (2004), Methods of Meta-analysis: Correcting Error and Bias in
Research Findings, Sage, Newbury Park, CA.
30
Iskandar, B.Y., Kurokawa, S. and LeBlanc, L.J. (2001), Business-to-business electronic commerce
from first- and second-tier automotive suppliers perspectives: a preliminary analysis for
hypothesis generation, Technovation, Vol. 21 No. 11, pp. 719-31.
Irani, Z., Gunasekaran, A. and Dwivedi, Y.K. (2010), Radio frequency identification (RFID):
research trends and framework, International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 48
No. 9, pp. 2485-511.
Johansson, O. and Palsson, H. (2009), The impact of Auto-ID on logistics performance:

a benchmarking survey of Swedish manufacturing industries, Benchmarking:
An International Journal, Vol. 16 No. 4, pp. 504-22.
Jones, M.C. and Beatty, R.C. (2001), User satisfaction with EDI: an empirical investigation,
Information Resources Management Journal, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 17-26.
Karimi, J., Somers, T.M. and Bhattacherjee, A. (2007), The role of information systems resources
in ERP capability building and business process outcomes, Journal of Management
Information Systems, Vol. 24 No. 2, pp. 221-60.
Kekre, S. and Mukhopadhyay, T. (1992), Impact of electronic data interchange technology on
quality improvement and inventory reduction programs: a field study, International
Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 28 No. 3, pp. 265-82.
Kim, E.Y., Ko, E., Kim, H. and Koh, C.E. (2008), Comparison of benefits of radio frequency
identification: implications for business strategic performance in the US and Korean
retailers, Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 37 No. 7, pp. 797-806.
Klein, R. and Rai, A. (2009), Interfirm strategic information flows in logistics supply chain
relationships, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 33 No. 4, pp. 735-62.
Krippendorff, K. (2004), Content Analysis: An Introduction to Its Methodology, Sage, Thousand
Oaks, CA.
Kros, J.F., Richey, R.G., Chen, H. and Nadler, S.S. (2011), Technology emergence between
mandate and acceptance: an exploratory examination of RFID, International Journal of
Physical Distribution and Logistics Management, Vol. 41 No. 7, pp. 697-716.
Kwon, T.H. and Zmud, R.W. (1987), Unifying the fragmented models of information systems
implementation, in Boland, R.J. and Hirschheim, R. (Eds), Critical Issues in Information
Systems Research, Wiley, New York, NY, pp. 227-51.
Larson, P.D. (1994), Buyer-supplier co-operation, product quality, and total costs, International
Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics Management, Vol. 24 No. 6, pp. 4-10.
Larson, P.D. and Kulchitsky, J.D. (2000), The use and impact of communication media in
purchasing & supply management, Journal of Supply Chain Management, Vol. 36 No. 3,
pp. 29-39.
Lee, H.G., Clark, T. and Tam, K.Y. (1999), Research report. Can EDI benefit adopters?,
Information Systems Research, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 186-95.
Lee, I. and Lee, B.-C. (2010), An investment evaluation of supply chain RFID technologies:
a normative modeling approach, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 125
No. 2, pp. 313-23.
Lee, S. and Han, I. (2000), The impact of EDI controls on the relationship between EDI
implementation and performance, Information Resources Management Journal, Vol. 13
No. 4, pp. 25-33.
Leonard, L.N.K. and Davis, C.C. (2006), Supply chain replenishment: before-and-after EDI
implementation, Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, Vol. 11 No. 3,
pp. 225-32.
Lim, D. and Palvia, P.C. (2001), EDI in strategic supply chain: impact on customer service,
International Journal of Information Management, Vol. 21 No. 3, pp. 193-211.
Lim, S.H. and Koh, C.E. (2009), RFID implementation strategy: perceived risks and
organizational fits, Industrial Management & Data Systems, Vol. 109 No. 8, pp. 1017-36.
Lin, C.-Y. and Ho, Y.-H. (2009), RFID technology adoption and supply chain performance:
an empirical study in Chinas logistics industry, Supply Chain Management:
Liu, C. and Forsythe, S. (2011), Examining drivers of online purchase intensity: moderating role
of adoption duration in sustaining post-adoption online shopping, Journal of Retailing
and Consumer Services, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 101-9.
Mackay, D.R. (1993), The impact of EDI on the components sector of the Australian automotive
industry, Journal of Strategic Information Systems, Vol. 2 No. 3, pp. 243-63.
Manabe, S., Fujisue, K. and Kurokawa, S. (2005), A comparative analysis of EDI integration in
US and Japanese automobile suppliers, International Journal of Technology Management,
Vol. 30 Nos 3/4, pp. 389-414.
Mata, F.J., Fuerst, W.L. and Barney, J. (1995), Information technology and sustained competitive
advantage: a resource-based analysis, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 19 No. 4, pp. 487-505.
Menachof, D., Gibson, B., Hanna, J. and Whiteing, A. (2009), An analysis of the value of supply
chain management periodicals, International Journal of Physical Distribution and
Logistics Management, Vol. 39 No. 2, pp. 145-66.
Millen, R.A. (1992), Utilization of EDI by motor carrier firms: a status report, Transportation
Journal, Vol. 32 No. 2, pp. 5-13.
Miragliotta, G., Perego, A. and Tumino, A. (2009), A quantitative model for the introduction of
RFID in the fast moving consumer goods supply chain: are there any profits?,
International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 29 No. 10, pp. 1049-82.
Moore, G.C. and Benbasat, I. (1991), Development of an instrument to measure the perceptions of
adopting an information technology innovation, Information Systems Research, Vol. 2
No. 3, pp. 192-222.
Mukhopadhyay, T., Kekre, S. and Kalathur, S. (1995), Business value of information technology:
a study of electronic data interchange, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 137-56.
Murphy, P.R., Daley, J.M. and Hall, P.K. (1998), EDI issues in logistics: a user and carrier
perspective, Journal of Business Logistics, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 89-102.
Nakayama, M. (2000), E-commerce and firm bargaining power shift in grocery marketing
channels: a case of wholesalers structured document exchanges, Journal of Information
Technology, Vol. 15 No. 3, pp. 195-210.
Nakayama, M. (2003), An assessment of EDI use and other channel communications on trading
behavior and trading partner knowledge, Information & Management, Vol. 40 No. 6,
pp. 563-80.
Narayanan, S., Marucheck, A.S. and Handfield, R.B. (2009), Electronic data interchange:
research review and future directions, Decision Sciences, Vol. 40 No. 1, pp. 121-63.
Neuman, L.W. (2006), Social Research Methods: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches,
Pearson, Boston, MA.
Nevo, S. and Wade, M. (2010), The formation and value of IT-enabled resources: antecedents
and consequences of synergistic relationships, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 34 No. 1, pp. 163-83.
Logistics
information
technology
31
IJPDLM
42,1
32
Patterson, K.A., Grimm, C.M. and Corsi, T.M. (2003), Adopting new technologies for supply
chain management, Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation
Review, Vol. 39 No. 2, pp. 95-121.
Patterson, K.A., Grimm, C.M. and Corsi, T.M. (2004), Diffusion of supply chain technologies,
Transportation Journal, Vol. 43 No. 3, pp. 5-23.
Philip, G. and Pedersen, P. (1997), Inter-organisational information systems: are organisations in
Ireland deriving strategic benefits from EDI?, International Journal of Information
Porterfield, T.E., Bailey, J.P. and Evers, P.T. (2010), B2B eCommerce: an empirical investigation
of information exchange and firm performance, International Journal of Physical
Premkumar, G. (2003), A meta-analysis of research on information technology implementation
in small business, Journal of Organizational Computing and Electronic Commerce, Vol. 13
No. 2, pp. 91-121.
Premkumar, G., Ramamurthy, K. and Nilakanta, S. (1994), Implementation of electronic data
interchange: an innovation diffusion perspective, Journal of Management Information
Systems, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 157-86.
Rai, A., Brown, P. and Tang, X. (2009), Organizational assimilation of electronic procurement
innovations, Journal of Management Information Systems, Vol. 26 No. 1, pp. 257-96.
Ramamurthy, K. and Premkumar, G. (1995), Determinants and outcomes of electronic data
interchange diffusion, IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, Vol. 42 No. 4,
pp. 332-41.
Ramamurthy, K., Premkumar, G. and Crum, M.R. (1999), Organizational and interorganizational
determinants of EDI diffusion and organizational performance: a causal model, Journal of
Organizational Computing and Electronic Commerce, Vol. 9 No. 4, pp. 253-85.
Rassameethes, B., Kurokawa, S. and LeBlanc, L.J. (2000), EDI performance in the automotive
supply chain, International Journal of Technology Management, Vol. 20 Nos 3/4,
pp. 287-303.
Ray, G., Mahanna, W.A. and Barney, J. (2005), Information technology and the performance of
the customer service process: a resource-based analysis, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 29 No. 4,
pp. 625-52.
Raymond, L. and Bergeron, F. (1996), EDI success in small and medium-sized enterprises: a field
study, Journal of Organizational Computing and Electronic Commerce, Vol. 6 No. 2,
pp. 161-72.
Reekers, N. (1994), Electronic data interchange use in German and US organizations,
International Journal of Information Management, Vol. 14, pp. 344-56.
Riggins, F.J. and Mukhopadhyay, T. (1994), Interdependent benefits from interorganizational
systems: opportunities for business partner reengineering, Journal of Management
Rogers, D.S., Daugherty, P.J. and Stank, T. (1992), Enhancing service responsiveness: the
strategic potential of EDI, International Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics
Rogers, E.M. (2003), Diffusion of Innovations, The Free Press, New York, NY.
Roh, J.J., Kunnathur, A. and Tarafdar, M. (2009), Classification of RFID adoption: an expected
benefits approach, Information & Management, Vol. 46 No. 6, pp. 357-63.
Rosenthal, R. (1979), The file drawer problem and tolerance for null results, Psychological
Bulletin, Vol. 86 No. 3, pp. 638-41.
Russell, D.M. and Hoag, A.M. (2004), People and information technology in the supply chain:
social and organizational influences on adoption, International Journal of Physical
Distribution and Logistics Management, Vol. 34 Nos 1/2, pp. 102-22.
Samad, A., Murdeshwar, P. and Hameed, Z. (2010), High-credibility RFID-based animal data
recording system suitable for small-holding rural dairy farmers, Computers & Electronics
in Agriculture, Vol. 73 No. 2, pp. 213-18.
Schulz, S.F. and Blecken, A. (2010), Horizontal cooperation in disaster relief logistics: benefits
and impediments, International Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics
Management, Vol. 40 Nos 8/9, pp. 636-56.
Setia, P., Setia, M., Krishnan, R. and Sambamurthy, V. (2011), The effects of the assimilation and
use of IT applications on financial performance in healthcare organizations, Journal of the
Association for Information Systems, Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 274-98.
Sheffi, Y. (2005), The Resilient Enterprise, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
Sheffi, Y. and Rice, J.B. Jr (2005), A supply chain view of the resilient enterprise, MIT Sloan
Skipper, J., Hanna, J. and Cegielski, C. (2009), Supply chain contingency planning and firm
adoption: an initial look at differentiating the innovators, Transportation Journal, Vol. 48
No. 2, pp. 40-62.
Smart, A. (2010), Exploring the business case for e-procurement, International Journal of
Srinivasan, K., Kekre, S. and Mukhopadhyay, T. (1994), Impact of electronic data interchange
technology on JIT shipments, Management Science, Vol. 40 No. 10, pp. 1291-304.
Srinivasan, M. (2010), E-business and ERP: a conceptual framework toward the business
transformation to an integrated e-supply chain, International Journal of Enterprise
Sriram, V. and Banerjee, S. (1994), Electronic data interchange: does its adoption change
purchasing policies and procedures, International Journal of Purchasing & Materials
Tan, K.C., Kannan, V.R., Hsu, C.-C. and Leong, G.K. (2010), Supply chain information and
relational alignments: mediators of EDI on firm performance, International Journal of
Teo, H.H., Tan, B.C.Y., Wei, K.K. and Woo, L.Y. (1995), Reaping EDI benefits through a
pro-active approach, Information & Management, Vol. 28 No. 3, pp. 185-95.
Thomas, R.W., Defee, C.C., Randall, W.S. and Williams, B. (2011), Assessing the managerial
relevance of contemporary supply chain management research, International Journal of
Tornatzky, L. and Klein, K. (1982), Innovation characteristics and innovation
adoption-implementation: a meta-analysis of the findings, IEEE Transactions on
Engineering Management, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 28-43.
Truman, G.E. (2000), Integration in electronic exchange environments, Journal of Management
Veronneau, S. and Roy, J. (2009), RFID benefits, costs, and possibilities: the ecnomical analysis
of RFID deployment in a cruise corporation global service company, International Journal
of Production Economics, Vol. 122 No. 2, pp. 692-702.
Vijayasarathy, L.R. and Robey, D. (1997), The effect of EDI on market channel relationships in
retailing, Information & Management, Vol. 33 No. 2, pp. 73-86.
Logistics
information
technology
33
IJPDLM
42,1
34
Visich, J.K., Suhong, L. and Khumawala, B.M. (2007), Enhancing product recovery value in
closed-loop supply chains with RFID, Journal of Managerial Issues, Vol. 19 No. 3,
pp. 436-52.
Visich, J.K., Li, S., Khumawala, B.M. and Reyes, P.M. (2009), Empirical evidence of RFID
impacts on supply chain performance, International Journal of Operations & Production
Wade, M. and Hulland, J. (2004), Review: the resource-based view and information systems
research: review, extension, and suggestions for future research, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 28
No. 1, pp. 107-42.
Wagner, C.-M. and Sweeney, E. (2010), E-business in supply chain management, in Mahdavi, I.,
Mohebbi, S. and Namjae, C. (Eds), Electronic Supply Network Coordination in Intelligent
and Dynamic Environments: Modeling and Implementation, IGI Global, Hershey, PA,
pp. 24-42.
Walton, S.V. and Marucheck, A.S. (1997), The relationship between EDI and supplier
reliability, International Journal of Purchasing & Materials Management, Vol. 33 No. 3,
pp. 30-5.
Wang, H., Chen, S. and Xie, Y. (2010), An RFID-based digital warehouse managment system in
the tobacco industry: a case study, International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 48
No. 9, pp. 2513-48.
Wiengarten, F., Fynes, B., Humphreys, P.K., Chavez, R. and McKittrick, A. (2011), Assessing the
value creation process of e-business along the supply chain, Supply Chain Management:
Williams, L.R. (1994), Understanding distribution channels: an interorganizational study of EDI
adoption, Journal of Business Logistics, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 173-203.
Zelbst, P.J., Green, K.W. Jr, Sower, V.E. and Reyes, R. (2008), The impact of RFID utilization on
manufacturing effectiveness and efficiency within a supply chain context, Working Paper
08-03 MGT, Center for Business and Economic Development at Sam Houston State
University, Huntsville, TX.
Zhao, Y., Li, Y., Lee, S.H. and Chen, L.B. (2011), Entrepreneurial orientation, organizational
learning, and performance: evidence from China, Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice,
Vol. 35 No. 2, pp. 293-317.
Zmud, R.W. and Apple, L.E. (1992), Measuring technology incorporation/infusion, Journal of
Product Innovation Management, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 148-55.
Zsidisin, G.A. and Wagner, S.M. (2010), Do perceptions become reality? The moderating role of
supply chain resiliency on distruption occurrence, Journal of Business Logistics, Vol. 31
No. 2, pp. 1-20.
Appendix
Author(s)
Electronic data interchange
Ahmad
Anderson and Lanen
Banerjee and Golhar
Banerjee and Sriram
Bergeron and Raymond
Bergeron and Raymond
Choe
Clark and Hammond
Crum et al.
Droge and Germain
Iskandar et al.
Jones and Beatty
Radio frequency identification
Bottani et al.
Chow et al.
Hardgrave et al.
Heim et al.
Hsu et al.
Year Author(s)
Year Author(s)
Year
2001 Kekre and

Mukhopadhyay
2002 Larson and Kulchitsky
1994 Lee et al.
1995 Lee and Han
1992 Mackay
1997 Manabe and
Kurokawa
2008 Millen
1997 Mukhopadhyay et al.
1996 Murphy et al.
2000 Nakayama
2001 Nakayama
2001 Pedersen and Philip
1992 Ramamurthy and

Premkumar
2000 Ramamurthy et al.
1999 Rassameethes et al.
2000 Raymond and Bergeron
1993 Reekers
2005 Riggins and
Mukhopadhyay
1992 Sriram and Banerjee
1995 Teo et al.
1998 Truman
2000 Vijayasarathy and Robey
2003 Walton and Marucheck
1997
1995
2010
2006
2008
2009
2009
2009 Miragliotta et al.

2008 Roh et al.
2010 Zelbst et al.
2009
2009
Johansson and Palsson

Kim et al.
Lee and Lee
Lim and Koh
Lin and Ho
1999
2000
1996
1994
1994
35
1994
1995
2000
1997
1997
2009
2009
2008
About the authors

Benjamin T. Hazen is a PhD candidate in the Aviation and Supply Chain Management Department
at Auburn University and an active duty US Air Force maintenance officer. His research interests
include reverse logistics, innovation, information systems, and sustainability. His research has
been accepted to several journals, to include International Journal of Production Economics,
International Journal of Logistics Management, International Journal of Logistics Systems and
Management, and International Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics Management.
He earned his MBA from the California State University at Dominguez Hills, his MA in
Organisational Leadership from Gonzaga University, and his BS in Business Administration from
Colorado Christian University. The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do
not reflect the official policy or position of the United States Air Force, Department of Defence,
or the US Government. Benjamin T. Hazen is the corresponding author and can be contacted at:
benjamin.hazen@auburn.edu
Terry Anthony Byrd is Bray Distinguished Professor of Management Information Systems
(MIS) and Chair of the Aviation and Supply Chain Management Department in the College of
Business, Auburn University. He holds a BS in Electrical Engineering from the University of
Massachusetts at Amherst and a PhD in MIS from the University of South Carolina. His research
has appeared in MIS Quarterly, Journal of Management Information Systems, European Journal of
Information Systems, Decision Sciences, OMEGA, Interfaces and other leading journals. His
current research interests focus on the design, development, implementation, diffusion, and
infusion of information technology in facilitating a variety of individual, group, organizational and
societal behaviours and initiatives to achieve positive results, especially in the healthcare domain.
To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com
Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints
Logistics
information
technology
Table AI.
Studies used in
meta-analysis
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

30competitive Advantage With Logistics Information Technology

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

30competitive Advantage With Logistics Information Technology

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

Toward creating competitive

Benjamin T. Hazen and Terry Anthony Byrd

Source: Grawe (2009, p. 364)

Logistics innovation diffusion

firm resources. In this study, we examine the effect of buyer-supplier relationships as a

Term found in abstract/

At this point in the content analysis, we had compiled a listing of 28 unique IT

(3) Resiliency. Encompasses performance outcomes that build flexibility into

Although resiliency rarely translates into immediate increases in efficiencies,

(5) relationship value; and/or

or objective measure of an actual performance outcome that could be logically

where the research setting or sample is discussed or in Section 4 if some indication

5.1 Implications for theory and future research

Teo et al. (1995)

Note: aCorrected mean r for entire study sample

Source: Adapted from Grawe (2009)

Logistics innovation diffusion

An additional limitation of this study is common to most studies that rely on

Johansson, O. and Palsson, H. (2009), The impact of Auto-ID on logistics performance:

2001 Kekre and

1992 Ramamurthy and

2009 Miragliotta et al.

Johansson and Palsson

About the authors

You might also like