Case study of processing
Food Marketing Research Unit, Victoria University, Melbourne, Australia, and
Australian Prawn Farmers Association, Brisbane, Australia
Purpose â€“ The purpose of this paper is to review and discuss a distribution outsourcing alliance
between a small-to-medium scale food processor and a national distributor of frozen and chilled food
products. The paper discusses the influence of market dynamics, core and differentiated competencies
and strategic intents on alliance formation and operations in the small-to-medium scale food enterprise
Design/methodology/approach â€“ The dyadic relationship of a small-to-medium scale food
processor and its distributor is investigated through reviewing past studies of processor-distributor
alliances, conducting in-depth face-to-face interviews with senior managers in both firms, and
reviewing documents and correspondence between the firms.
Findings â€“ The partners do not complement their core and differentiate competencies to achieve greater
customer value creation through a joint enterprise business model. The alliance focuses pre-eminently on
short-term sales development and cost savings targets. Non-achievement of these targets adversely
influences partnersâ€™ trust and commitment to the alliance. A significant strength of the alliance is its
capacity to identify customer needs and use this knowledge to speedily develop and introduce new
products. In its present form this alliance is unsustainable. The partners should adopt a new philosophy
and vision to pursue an alliance that will use their core and differentiated competencies more effectively.
Research limitations/implications â€“ To generalise the findings and inform theory building, the
research has to be replicated in other businesses and market environments. The findings are specific to
the market environment and strategies of a single small-to-medium scale food processor and a single
national distributor of frozen and chilled foods. Multi-case studies in multi-contexts (capturing varying
sizes of business, industry sectors, target market segments, competitive environments and market
environments) have to be completed to enable generalisation and theory building.
Practical implications â€“ This paper demonstrates the disadvantages of pursuing distribution
outsourcing alliances with a short-term and enterprise level perspective. The case study provides real
life evidence of the benefits of pursuing distribution outsourcing alliances based on a joint enterprise
Originality/value â€“ This paper contributes to knowledge on distribution outsourcing alliances, a
topic that several recent studies have identified as not having been explored in great detail in extant
supply chain studies.
Keywords Distribution management, Outsourcing, Strategic alliances, Joint ventures,
Small to medium-sized enterprises, Supply chain management
Paper type Case study
In this paper, the term distribution outsourcing describes the exclusive multi-service
alliance that Z, a food processor, established with Y, a vendor. This alliance is much
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
Journal of Manufacturing Technology
Vol. 20 No. 6, 2009
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
broader than a supplier-reseller engagement. The intent was for Y to provide all support
functions relating to Zâ€™s business development initiatives in a defined market. Zâ€™s function
was to produce the goods. Y was entrusted to develop the market for these products in food
catering and independent grocery outlets throughout Australia by providing appropriate
transport, warehousing, logistics, promotional and personal selling services. This
description of the term distribution outsourcing conforms to that used in several past
studies. Outsourcing alliances are strategic initiatives that enable individual firmâ€™s to
concentrate on their core competencies while drawing on the resources and capabilities of
other supply chain partners to provide specialised functions that improve operating
efficiency and value propositions to customers (Rodriguez et al., 2006; Quinn, 1999;
Mattsson, 1989). Outsourcing alliances can potentially increase customer satisfaction,
reduce switching behaviour by customers and therefore strengthen the competitive
position of all partners in the alliance (Shaw and Gibbs, 1995; Williamson, 1991).
Notwithstanding that many studies have elucidated the benefits of outsourcing
alliances, research on such endeavours is very much in its infancy. Several studies in the
past decade (Mikkola, 2008; Brannemo, 2006; Rodriguez et al., 2006; Cante et al., 2004; Cox,
1999a, b; Razzaque and Sheng, 1998) have implicitly or tacitly discussed the need to
conduct more detailed inquiry on outsourcing alliances. This paper aims to add to the body
of knowledge on outsourcing alliances in a defined context, distribution outsourcing
by small to medium enterprises (SMEs) in Australiaâ€™s food industry. The context of the
study and the method of conducting the study have significant influence on study findings
and therefore this study advances knowledge on distribution outsourcing alliance.
This paper presents the experiences and knowledge from a distribution outsourcing
alliance between Z, a SME food processor, and Y, a national distributor of frozen and
chilled food products. Discussions with Zâ€™s managers revealed that they recognised the
need to access new markets to address declining sales in its traditional markets.
The managers identified that one of the following would be the most logical way for Z
to address its problems:
(1) undertake all functions in-house through investing in logistics and warehouse
infrastructure and recruit sales personnel with appropriate expertise;
(2) use one third-party logistics and warehouse provider but handle all sales and
marketing functions in-house;
(3) use several logistics and warehousing providers in different areas throughout
Australia and handle all sales and marketing functions in-house; or
(4) use one exclusive provider of logistics, distribution and sales services with Z
focussing on production.
Z chose option 4 as this seemed the most cost efficient and least resource intensive
strategy. Zâ€™s decision was influenced by Y having contacted Z expressing interest in
becoming Zâ€™s national distributor. Y suggested that it could help Z achieve its business
objectives and revealed knowledge, expertise and resource capabilities in marketing to
small scale independently owned food service and grocery stores.
The decision to outsource transport, logistics, warehousing and personal selling to a
third party was a major departure from Zâ€™s current strategy of servicing its existing
customers directly. Z decided that it will continue to provide transport, logistics,
warehousing and marketing support to its existing customers, Coles and Woolworths,
the large supermarket chains that dominate Australiaâ€™s grocery retailing. However,
it decided to use Y to provide all transport, logistics, warehousing and personal selling
support to access food service and independent grocery retail customers throughout
Many factors influenced Zâ€™s decision to enter into a distribution outsourcing alliance
with Y. Z recognised that it had to diversify and develop new markets. However, Z did
not have the knowledge and resource capabilities to successfully develop sales in
small-scale food service and retail grocery outlets. The independent grocery retail
sector accounted for only about 20 per cent of total retail grocery sales by value.
Compared to the large supermarket chains which Z currently serviced, the independent
grocery retail sector was not a major market. Substantial initiatives would be needed to
develop the new markets that Z was targeting.
The discussion in this paper is presented in four sections. The next section discusses
past studies as a means of elucidating the current state of knowledge on distribution
outsourcing alliances. Next, we discuss the methods used to conduct the case study. After
this, we present and discuss the case study including the motivations for establishing the
alliance and the strategic and relational issues that the partnerâ€™s experienced. The final
section of the paper presents the findings and conclusions of this paper.
Market dynamics such as increasing levels of trade liberalisation including lowering of
tariffs, product-life cycle movements across markets and convergence in food
consumption behaviours have influenced firms to switch from strategies based on
competition to more cooperative modes of engagement (Vakoufaris et al., 2007;
Mikkola, 2008; Villalonga and McGahan, 2005; Caloghirou et al., 2003). A globalised
and increasingly competitive business environment often demands that firms pursue
collaborative initiatives to succeed. Some studies even contend that firms can
simultaneously pursue both competitive and collaborative actions (Luo et al., 2006;
Lado et al., 1997; Brandenburger and Nalebuff, 1996). Firms can compete in one sector,
for example in the retail market or the domestic market but can collaborate in another
market, for example the food service or export markets. Simultaneous competition and
co-operation is becoming an important strategy pursued by many large corporations
especially in the high technology and consumer electronics sectors (Cravens et al., 1993;
Barney, 1986, 1990). Thus, the debate is no longer centred on whether inter-firm
alliances are beneficial but rather on how to develop alliances that benefit all partners
(Logan, 2000; Menon et al., 1998).
Outsourcing alliance is a sellerâ€™s contractual arrangement with a vendor to provide
a number of closely linked functions as an agent of the seller (Fill and Visser, 2000;
Johnson and Schneider, 1995; Maltz, 1994; Lieb et al., 1993). Outsourcing alliances can
be cemented through simple informal word-of-mouth arrangements or through
contractually binding agreements (Min et al., 2005; Sporleder, 2006). Experiences with
diverse forms of arrangements reveal that the success of alliances is often determined
by how cohesively partners work together to achieve their objectives rather than by the
rigor of their contractual agreements.
Most outsourcing decisions are informed by resource based and transaction cost
economics theories of firms (HalldoÂ´rsson and SkjÃ¸tt-Larsen, 2004; Bolumole, 2001;
Berglund et al., 1999; Dess et al., 1995; Jones and Hill, 1988). These theories assume that
resources are heterogeneously distributed between firms and that these resources are
not readily transferable. Because of differences in resource endowments firms possess
unique core competencies and therefore differentiated competitive advantages (Logan,
2000; Dess et al., 1995). Beliefs regarding complementarities of the unique competencies
of supply chain partners often encourage firms to explore collaborative ventures.
Outsourcing alliances are predicated on partnersâ€™ desires to add-value and create
differentiated advantages, advantages that provide some level of uniqueness and
competitive strengths (Christopher and Towill, 2000; Mintzberg, 1994; Peters, 1990).
Increasing the value of propositions to customers helps engender customer satisfaction
and this could lead to greater customer loyalty and reduce the threat of customers
switching to competing suppliers (Rodriguez et al., 2006; Kurnia and Johnston, 2001;
Cox, 1999a). Customer value propositions are not only enhanced by providing physical
products that align with the quality, price and other product specific attributes but also
by increasing service quality (Bititci et al., 2004). Service quality is substantially
influenced by the architecture of the supply chain (Muller, 1991, 1993).
Firms tend to outsource functions that are not their core competency and consequently
believe that undertaking such services in-house will not add-value to customers
(Brannemo, 2006; Johnson and Schneider, 1995; Amaldoss et al., 2000). Outsourcing
enables firms to concentrate on functions at which they are best, simultaneously accessing
the capabilities and resources of other actors (Logan, 2000; Foster and Muller, 1990).
Specialist distributors often provide expertise and knowledge about customers that the
firm might not possess in-house or expertise and knowledge that is difficult or costly to
obtain from elsewhere (Sheehan, 1989). By sharing unique and scare resources and
capabilities, alliance partners are better positioned to increase customer value through
providing better quality and levels of service, generating greater productivity and
efficiency in the supply chain and creating enduring customer relationships (Min et al.,
2005; Cante et al., 2004; Smith et al., 1998; Probert, 1996; Shaw and Gibbs, 1995).
Cost saving is a major driver of outsourcing alliances. Cost savings can arise from
faster inventory turnover (Muller, 1991, 1993) and reducing capital investment in
facilities, equipment and human resources (Lacity et al., 1995; Sheffi, 1990). The rapid
development and adoption of advanced technology in all areas of business operation
including production, processing, information communication, logistics, warehousing,
transport and customer relationship management dictates continued and early
adoption of new technology in order to remain competitive in dynamic market
environments. Large capital investments are beyond the resource capabilities of most
businesses particularly SMEs. Outsourcing presents opportunities to share the cost of
investments with other supply chain actors. Firms specialising in providing transport,
warehousing, logistics and marketing services could potentially achieve greater
efficiencies through collaboration rather than by pursuing unilateral arrangements
with large numbers of suppliers and customers (Thron et al., 2006; Barratt, 2004;
Christopher and Towill, 2002).
Distribution outsourcing alliances enable suppliers to penetrate unfamiliar markets
by gaining better understanding of market needs and opportunities (Maltz and Ellram,
1997; Maltz, 1994; Bence, 1995). Where the distributor has greater market expertise;
customer service, including in-market sales activities, can be conducted more
efficiently by the distributor. Customer service is rapidly becoming a major outsourced
activity (Daugherty et al., 1996). Outsourcing to a firm that deals with many other firms
often provides access to knowledge on performance within the industry and thus also
provides the opportunity to benchmark performance against other actors including
competitors. Outsourcing thus presents opportunities for alliance partners to engage in
joint learning and joint problem solving (Huber, 2004; Quinn, 1999; Kohli and Jaworski,
1990). Such joint initiatives provide knowledge exploitable in constantly improving
customer service, operating costs and market performance including new product
development initiatives (Lemke et al., 2003; Goffin et al., 2000; Monczka et al., 1995).
That new product introductions and early introduction of new products can provide
substantial competitive advantages is often overlooked. Review of extant studies on
new product development and constant quality improvement through supply chain
engagements reveal that past studies have focussed primarily on the high technology
and large business sector (Lemke et al., 2003; Goffin et al., 2000; Monczka et al., 1995).
There appear to be a significant gap in knowledge on supplier-reseller engagements in
new product development and introduction within the food SME sector.
The pursuit of greater integrity and cost savings in the supply chain has also
resulted in greater rationalisation with more and more firms forming alliances with
fewer, larger, technically efficient and innovative partners (Min et al., 2005; Christopher
and Towill, 2002). Using fewer alliance partners can achieve efficiency gains and
therefore greater commitment to the joint enterprise (Thron et al., 2006; Barratt, 2004).
For example, by using fewer distributors a processor can ensure greater volume
throughput for each of its distributors; this may mean greater commitment from
distributors which can generate better customer relationships and greater willingness
to share information. Limiting the number of alliance partners may therefore increase
the operational efficiency of the joint enterprise while simultaneously increasing the
satisfaction and commitment of alliance partners.
A major factor contributing to the success of outsourcing alliances is the willingness
of partners to adopt a common vision. The business must be conducted as a joint
enterprise with shared strategic vision and objectives (Brito, 2001; Fill and Visser,
2000; Reason, 1999). A common vision fosters joint learning and innovation, greater
efficiency in the use of interrelated resources; supports the efficient conduct of
interdependent activities; and increases the competency of all actors (FloreÂ´n and Tell,
2004; Sadler-Smith et al., 2000; HaËškansson et al., 1999). In effect, partner relationships
must be based on commitment to increase the profits of all partners through adopting
strategies that align with each partnerâ€™s objectives and that of the joint enterprise
(Bititci et al., 2004; Cox, 1999b; Mattsson, 1989).
In order to achieve targeted outcomes partners must work together closely and
cohesively (Brunetto and Farr-Wharton, 2007; Golann, 2006). Managers must clearly
understand the dynamics of the social systems in the alliance and the ways in which
authority and control work within relationships (Oâ€™Regan and Ghobadian, 2002; Cox,
1999b; Arndt, 1983). Managers need skills in conflict management, team building and
relationship development (Oâ€™Regan and Ghobadian, 2002; Hailen et al., 1991). If the
relationship is adversarial, productivity and other gains are unlikely to be achieved
(Brunetto and Farr-Wharton, 2007; Spekman, 1988).
Past studies have identified several obstacles to establishing successful outsourcing
alliances. These include fear that outsourcing could lead to loss of control or that, as a
generalist, the distributor may not appreciate the complexities of handling the processorâ€™s
products (Lynch et al., 1994; Bardi and Tracey, 1991; Maltz, 1994). Frequent failures with
collaborative ventures and inherent problems in sharing resources and coordinating
strategies suggest that the structure and architecture of alliances need to be customised to
the strategic intent of the joint enterprise (Mikkola, 2008; Powell, 1990; Evan and Olk,
In the SME sector, there is an additional conundrum. SMEs display strong
entrepreneurial orientations, engaging in creative, unusual or novel solutions through trial
and error rather than adopting a systematic process of inquiry and strategic planning
(Stokes, 2000; Morris and Sexton, 1996). The responses of SMEs to business issues are
influenced not only by structural and managerial constraints but also by the SMEâ€™s culture
(Schindehutte et al., 2008; Wolff and Pett, 2006) which is often highly entrepreneurial.
Many of these barriers to outsourcing alliances can be attributed to relational factors.
The most profound causes of failures in outsourcing alliances are unrealistic performance
expectations, lack of commitment to shared goals, poor communications and a lack of trust
between the partners (Brunetto and Farr-Wharton, 2007; Logan, 2000; Lambert et al.,
1999). Trust, commitment and co-operation between alliance partners engender
satisfaction with the relationship and create enduring alliances (FloreÂ´n and Tell, 2004;
Sadler-Smith et al., 2000; HaËškansson et al., 1999). Trust, commitment and co-operation are
often the outcome of clearly elucidating the strategic intent of the alliance, the alliance
being successful in achieving these strategic intents and the partners readily sharing
information that can be used to achieve the strategic intent of the joint enterprise (Brunetto
and Farr-Wharton, 2007; Geyskens et al., 1998). Several past studies recommend the
establishment of measurable and realistic goals and tracking performance against
these indicators so that alliance partners can constantly monitor the allianceâ€™s tangible
outcomes (Rodriguez et al., 2006; Logan, 2000; Lambert et al., 1999).
The case study is based on detailed analysis of the dyadic relationship of a SME food
processor and its exclusive national distributor to food service and independent grocery
retail customers. A single case study limits the potential to generalise the findings.
However, there is evidence that single case analysis using multiple techniques of inquiry
and data validation is rigorous enough to examine the dyadic relationships in new strategic
initiatives (Brannemo, 2006; Easton, 1998). Additionally, uniqueness such as the study
context, product-market life cycle stage and market growth strategies mean that a single
case is appropriate for this paper (Bhaskaran and Sukumaran, 2007). The research also
explores a contemporary phenomenon in its real life context; a situation in which a single
case is contended to be more informative than multiple cases (Rowley, 2002; Yin, 1994).
The information for the case study is based on a multi-method modes of inquiry
incorporating exploratory discussions with the marketing manager of Z, a literature
review, in-depth interviews with two senior managers in Z and Y using
semi-structured questions (based on prior theory informing the questions) and
unstructured probe questions, direct detailed observation of operations and activities
in Z and Y, and a review of documents such as company brochures, company accounts
and correspondence between Z and Y. In-depth interviews were conducted with the
marketing managers and chief executives of both Y and Z.
The inquiry combined inductive and deductive approaches, prior theory informing
the questions and new theory being inferred from probing the responses of the
participants (Perry, 1998). Prior theory based on knowledge gained through the process
of interaction in the exploratory discussions informed the case study development and
critical review and deduction was the basis of the probe questions and observations
(Perry, 1998; Parkhe, 1993; Eisenhardt, 1991, 1989). The issues probed included Zâ€™s core
competency, trends in Zâ€™s market environment, motivations for targeting food service
and independent grocery retail customers, reasons for pursuing a distribution
outsourcing alliance rather than conducting this activity in-house, the criteria on
which Y was identified and selected, and satisfaction with the alliance. With the
managers of Y, we probed Yâ€™s core competency, the motivations to introduce Zâ€™s
product range, trends in Yâ€™s market environment, the way in which Z was identified
and selected, and satisfaction with the alliance.
Because this is a single case study there are limitations to generalising the results
and thus theory building. To overcome this limitation we adopted the positivist and
embedded approach to establish analytic generalisation and thus support theory
building. Analytic generalisation attempts to gather evidence that supports the theory
without necessarily proving it definitively (Firestone, 1993). The positivist approach
offers greater scope to manage issues such as validity, reliability, structuring data
collection, analysis of data and generalisation and theory building (Rowley, 2002;
Riege, 2003). The results were triangulated by comparing the findings obtained from Z
with information obtained from Y and other sources such as archival records, field
observations and the findings in extant studies.
Case study: review and discussions
Company Z is a mid-sized seafood processor and marketer based in an Australian
regional town. It is a wholly owned subsidiary of a large Japanese corporation. The
parent company has seafood processing plants in South Vietnam, Thailand and Japan.
Zâ€™s competency is in processing value-added Japanese style seafood products so as to
manufacture consumer products such as fish paste, seafood highlighter, seafood sticks,
formed calamari rings, formed squid rings, seafood bites, seafood balls, fish cake,
seafood parcels and crumbed fish fillets.
Zâ€™s final customers are consumers of high value, ready-to-eat seafood products.
From Zâ€™s first commencing its Australian operations in 1988, it reached its customers
through the major supermarket chains. Approximately, 85 per cent of Zâ€™s current
sales are to the two large supermarket chains, Coles and Woolworths, the remaining
15 per cent of production is sold to a few wholesalers throughout Australia.
Zâ€™s decision to focus on the major supermarket chains and a few wholesalers was
predicated by its strategy to build sales volume, optimise resource utilisation and
generate economies of scale in production and marketing. In order to control sales and
distribution costs Z only sells full pallet loads of products, an economic order size
determined on the basis of computing the cost of consolidating and servicing orders.
High transport and handling costs made it inefficient and unprofitable for Z to deliver
less than full pallet loads. Because Z has about 27 stock-keeping units, the
supermarkets are not saddled with high stock levels as individual stores, totalling
about 1,500 stores, are able to purchase mixed pallet loads and consequently minimum
order requirements do not constrain decisions to purchase. Supplying mixed carton
lots based on historical sales trends also enabled Z to maintain high service levels
while virtually eliminating losses from write-off of â€œout-of-dateâ€ or damaged stock.
Therefore, notwithstanding the market domination and potential coercive power of the
supermarkets, this arrangement was an effective way of Z reaching consumers all over
Y is a national distributor specialising in distributing to SMEs in the food service
and grocery retail sectors. Y has a national network of warehousing, distribution and
transport infrastructure, a large and experienced sales team with expertise in selling
high value foods, and a long history in the high-value food distribution business.
Y imports speciality frozen and chilled foods from more than 60 countries world-wide,
consolidates orders for a variety of products from its customers and then supplies these
orders within scheduled delivery lead times of about seven days. Because Y sells a
mixed consignment of products from different suppliers to each outlet, Y has the
capability to achieve transaction cost efficiencies even if individual stores only
purchase one or two cartons of each supplierâ€™s products.
From about the 1990s, Australia experienced significant growth in disposable
incomes, unemployment decreased sharply, and many more Australian families became
double income families. These trends superimposed in an environment characterised by
increasing numbers of single households, attributable to an aging population and
greater number of people electing to remain single, meant that many more Australian
households were purchasing ready-to-cook meals. The changing demographic and food
consumption trends influenced Zâ€™s sales and business performance. Zâ€™s sales
progressively increased. From 1990 to 1998 Z recorded double digit growth with sales
of more than $15 million in 1998. During this high growth phase Z continually and
successfully expanded its product range. However, even during this peak sales phase Z
was only operating at near full capacity, on a one shift 8.5 hour production cycle. There
was therefore considerable scope to increase production and exploit economies of scale.
From 1998 to 2004 Zâ€™s sales grew less rapidly and from 2005 sales progressively
declined This was because Z experienced intense competition from low-cost imports
from countries such as Vietnam and Thailand. Market liberalisation and reduced import
duties, the strengthening of the Australian dollar and the free flow of information
through the internet and therefore greater knowledge about sources of overseas supply
meant that competition from overseas suppliers became more intense. Importers became
more capable of efficiently servicing the two major supermarket chains. Customers were
also seeking out and trialling a greater variety of the ready-to-cook meals that were now
on offer in Australian supermarkets. Z saw these developments, not unique to Australia,
as potential threats to its business.
Research in the UK indicates that when market share for a product in the
supermarket segment reach 80 per cent (as is the case with Coles and Woolworths in
Australia) incremental sales are difficult to achieve (Fearne and Hughes, 1999).
According to Fearne and Hughes independently owned retail stores are better
positioned to service the remaining 20 per cent of the market because they can
customise services to the needs of this segment. This also appears to be the case in the
Australian grocery retail market. Because of factors such as personalised and
customised service and accessibility, about 15-20 per cent of retail sales for most foods
are still conducted through independently owned neighbourhood stores.
Notwithstanding the fact that Zâ€™s new market development initiatives were not
informed by evidence in other countries, the strategies seem logical and timely.
However, Z experienced unexpected difficulties in penetrating the food service and
independent grocery retail markets. Under its present marketing model, Z sold full
pallet loads to more than 1,500 stores belonging to the supermarket chains. The two
supermarket chains accounted for about 90 per cent of the retail market for
ready-to-cook foods. In contrast, most independent retail grocery stores and food
service outlets could only purchase a few cartons per transaction. Thus, customers in
these sectors did not have sufficient purchasing capacity for Z to service them directly.
If Z attempted to penetrate this market directly it would have needed to make
substantial investments in a network of regional warehouses, transport and
logistics infrastructure and sales personnel. Because warehousing, transport and
logistics infrastructure are expensive and because Z did not have sufficient knowledge
of this market, it was unlikely that Z could add value through conducting these
functions in-house. Z could not outsource these services from different providers across
Australia as it did not have the management and resource capabilities to handle
several service providers. Z recognised that by outsourcing these functions to
one vendor, it could access the vendorâ€™s resources and competency and therefore add
value through offering efficient customer service at competitive prices.
Z also recognised that the market insights and relationships of a specialist distributor
could enable better understanding of the individualised demands of a wide variety (arising
from factors such as size, business culture and whether part of a franchise or voluntary
group) of new customers. Accurate and timely information about markets supports
efficient planning and management of production, inventory, promotions and
merchandising and this could potentially help Z achieve its objectives more efficiently.
A strong relationship between Z and a sole distributor could lower operating costs, lower
costs of replenishing stocks, create efficiencies in warehouse space utilisation, reduce
inventory levels, reduce handling and management of damaged and out-of-date stocks,
and increase efficiency in the use of transport facilities. These benefits are not unique to
this alliance and have been amply documented in the findings of several past studies
(Logan, 2000; Lambert et al., 1999; Lieb et al., 1993; Mattsson, 1989). Because Z has less
experience and competency than Y in marketing to food service and independent grocery
retail customers it seems logical that Z should outsource distribution functions to Y.
Because there is substantial alignment between the competencies and resources of Z
and Y this alliance seems a logical development. Yâ€™s experience, knowledge,
warehousing and distribution network means that Z could sell even single carton lots
to its customers, something beyond Zâ€™s resource capabilities and competencies. Yâ€™s
existing strong customer base presented substantial opportunities for Z to increase its
portfolio of customers. Because of low volumes per order and resulting diseconomies, Z
could not efficiently meet the needs of SMEs in the food service and independent
grocery retail market through merely investing in infrastructure and facilities. Zâ€™s
management team concluded that Z could piggyback on Yâ€™s resource capabilities and
competencies to access food service and independent grocery stores throughout
Australia, markets that Z was could not cost efficiently service. The alliance with Y
was therefore a logical strategy. It provided Z the opportunity to develop new markets
and reduce Zâ€™s dependence on the maturing supermarket segment while
simultaneously providing Y with the opportunity to increase sales per transaction
and therefore achieve transaction cost economies.
Notwithstanding the synergies in competencies and resource endowments, the
alliance between Y and Z was a chanced outcome and was not the outcome of
systematic and in-depth research and analysis of complementarities in the competency
and culture of the two firms. In our opinion, a systematic evaluation of the
complementarities and business culture of Y and Z and the development of a joint
vision based on this knowledge would have resulted in a more effective alliance.
However, as evident in a large number of studies, trial and error strategic initiatives
and even opportunistic decision making are the reality in the SME sector particularly
amongst low technology food processing and marketing enterprises. The response of
Z and Y to business issues such as developing new markets, diversifying into new
markets, accessing new sources of supply, the supply chain architecture that they
developed and decisions to adopt an experimental alliance seems atypical of SMEs
(Schindehutte et al., 2008; Wolff and Pett, 2006; Golann, 2006; Bhaskaran, 2006;
Cante et al., 2004; Bence, 1995).
In 2003, Y contacted Z to ask whether it could distribute its products. Because of
increasing operating costs Y was expanding its product portfolio in order to increase
sales per transaction and increase scale economies and operating efficiencies. Y had
assessed Zâ€™s product range to be a good fit to its current product range. Y believed that
Zâ€™s products and brands enjoyed a premium positioning in major supermarkets. Y was
also aware that Z, experiencing declining sales, had rationalised its marketing
operations in 2002 through centralising these functions; an obvious opportunity.
Z had discontinued the positions of state-level sales managers in Victoria, Queensland,
New South Wales and South Australia. This rationalisation left Z with an Australian
marketing team comprising the national sales manager and the business development
manager. Coles and Woolworths had more than 400 stores in each state, more than
1,500 stores Australia-wide. Therefore, the state-level sales managers were critically
important to Zâ€™s marketing initiatives. Rationalisation of the marketing operations
meant that the two-person marketing team now had to liaise with the head offices of
the two supermarket chains and with key customer personnel in more than 1,500 stores
throughout Australia. Z then began to experience difficulties in managing sales and
marketing initiatives in the supermarkets and this started to adversely affect its sales.
The decision to rationalise the marketing operations and thus reduce services to the
supermarkets demonstrates Zâ€™s belief that growth opportunities in this segment had
The reduction in marketing resources meant that Z was not able to pursue market
development unaided. Z did not have the expertise or resource capabilities to service
efficiently the needs of the highly fragmented independent grocery retail and food
service customers. Unlike Coles and Woolworths which use a centralised buying
system, purchasing decisions in independent grocery retail and food service outlets are
made by the managerâ€™s on each outlet. Y had been supplying small-scale food service
and grocery retailers for more than 50 years. Partly because of this long history, Z
believed that Y had competencies relevant to dealing with numerous small-scale food
service and independent grocery retail stores. Z believed that Yâ€™s business model,
market knowledge, customer relationships and structural capabilities were critical to
its sales development strategy in this sector. Zâ€™s management team believed that the
appointment of Y as a sole distributor could lower distribution costs because of
savings in costs of replenishing stocks, optimised warehouse space utilisation, reduced
inventory levels, and reduced costs of handling damaged goods and returns. The
decision to enter into a distribution outsourcing alliance with one partner therefore
seems logical as it could potentially help Z overcome its resource constraints and
generate transaction cost efficiencies. This position is supported by findings in many
studies that alliances with fewer, larger, technically efficient and innovative partners
are more effective than alliances with a multitude of partners (Min et al., 2005; Fearne
and Hughes, 1999).
The alliance experienced major challenges. It was founded on assumptions about
each partnerâ€™s benefits. Y anticipated efficiency gains through greater utilisation of its
existing warehousing, transport, logistics and human resources. Y could only achieve
operating efficiencies through increasing total sales, sale of products sourced from all
its suppliers. There was no reason for Y to increase the sales of products from any one
supplier. Greater commitment to Zâ€™s products could only result from establishing a
preferred supplier relationship with Z was and this may be detrimental to Yâ€™s
relationship with its other suppliers. A special relationship can be fostered through
developing a common vision whereby supply chain partners pursue their activities as a
joint enterprise (FloreÂ´n and Tell, 2004; Sadler-Smith et al., 2000; HaËškansson et al., 1999).
The challenge is to identify the unique opportunities in the relationship between
Z and Y, not merely, as is the case with most supplier-reseller relationships, targeting
benefits that accrue from resource sharing and cost efficiencies.
Y and Z did not explore how their independent strategic objectives could be
achieved through widening the scope of this engagement from that of a seller-reseller
mode of engagement to a joint enterprise model. In order to do this, the partners would
need to develop a business model that is different to what exists between Y and its
other suppliers. Our discussions and observation of business practices suggest that the
foci of Y and Z were only on issues pertaining to resource utilisation and cost
efficiencies. The partners did not investigate the systems, structures and incentives
that are needed to develop business, satisfy and retain customers, develop their
competitive strengths and establish a sustainable long-term alliance.
Y agreed to enter into the alliance on a phased basis (state-by-state). The partners did
not discuss how customers with branches in different states will be serviced in the
interim. Z agreed to provide Y a 15 per cent discount on the sales price to offset sales and
distribution expenses. The senior managers of Y and Z agreed to meet at three monthly
intervals to review performance against targets and continually work on sales growth.
The partners did not explore how to develop and retain new customers. The alliance was
predicated by the belief that sales growth will be rapid because Y already had a large
customer base and the alliance primarily entailed the introduction of a range of new
products to Yâ€™s existing customers. Y had recently established a distribution alliance
with another supplier of chilled meat products. Within six months of finalising that
arrangement, the supplierâ€™s sales had increased by about 40 per cent. Based on this
evidence, Y and Z assumed that the same business model can be replicated.
However, in the past one and a half years Z only achieved about 5 per cent growth in
sales through its engagement with Y. Even though sales growth was substantially less
than what was forecast, cost of sales (discounts offered to Y, administering the sales,
providing samples and other promotional support) was much greater than what was
forecast. Z and Y did not carefully analyse whether their expense and sales were
realistic and what, if any, could be the implications of these targets not being achieved.
Past studies reveal that unrealistic expectations and poor communication between
partners tend to adversely affect trust and commitment to an alliance and account for
the failure of many alliances (Rodriguez et al., 2006; Logan, 2000; Lambert et al., 1999).
The senior managers of both Y and Z acknowledge that their discussions and
negotiations should have been more far reaching and underpinned by a joint enterprise
philosophy rather than focussing on sales development and cost savings. The
relationship formation and strategies that Y and Z adopted are atypical of the nature and
process of engagements in the SME sector, entrepreneurial and trial and error
experimentations (Schindehutte et al., 2008; Wolff and Pett, 2006; Stokes, 2000; Morris
and Sexton, 1996). Because Y and Z focused on achieving their short-term goals and
entered into this alliance to overcome a compelling immediate problem, Z to arrest
declining sales and Y to increase capacity utilisation and thus reduce operating
expenses, the alliance did not focus on customer value creation. Disappointing sales and
cost of sales results have created uncertainties regarding the benefit of the relationship.
This appears to have diminished the partnersâ€™ trust and commitment to the venture.
The achievements within a few months of establishing the alliance reveals the scope
and potential of this alliance. Y became a conduit for good quality market intelligence
and speedy information on new product development opportunities. Within one year of
establishing the alliance Z successfully introduced three new products to food service
outlets, products developed by Z based on market intelligence provided by Y. The
importance of supplier-reseller relationships in new product design and constant
quality improvement is discussed in some studies focussing on the high technology
and large business context (Lemke et al., 2003; Goffin et al., 2000; Monczka et al., 1995).
Our review of extant studies suggests that knowledge sharing with the objective of
creating customer value through new product development is not a priority in SME
supply-chain engagements. This seems to be a unique capability that cannot be
achieved by Z and Y working independently and therefore is a significantly important
contribution of the alliance.
The findings in this paper reveal the importance of incorporating new product
development opportunities as a performance indicator in SME supply chain engagements.
The speed to market (the time between idea generation and commercialisation) was high
when benchmarked against projects such as the UK Heritage beef project. The UK
Heritage beef project took more than one and a half years from idea generation to product
launch (Shaw and Gibbs, 1995). In the food marketing industry, profit margins are low and
returns from new product introductions are dependent on first mover advantages, an
advantage which often dissipates quickly because low barriers to entry encourage
competitors to introduce â€œme tooâ€ products (Bhaskaran, 2006; Fearne and Hughes, 1999).
Constant innovation and rapid commercialisation is a critically important strategic
capability in the food SME sector. In our opinion, the capacity to quickly disseminate
market information and develop new products that match market needs is the unique
competitive advantage of this alliance. Prior to this alliance Z experienced barriers in
developing and introducing new products. New product introduction to supermarkets,
Zâ€™s core market, was a slow and demanding process. The supermarkets practice
stringent procedures for evaluating new product proposals. New product are considered
on their strength to generate additional sales and profits in the product category,
refrigerated display space availability in stores and whether the new product could
potentially cannibalise the sales of existing products. Contrastingly, food service outlets
targeted by Y were constantly adopting novel products to interest their customers.
Introducing new products to SMEs presented Z with the opportunity to pilot new
products and then scale-up production of the successes and introduce these products to
the independent grocery retail sector and potentially even to the supermarket chains.
The alliance also presented Z the opportunity to manufacture under contract some
products for Y which Y then marketed as its â€œprivateâ€ labels to independent grocery
Therefore, within one year, the alliance was revealing a new and potentially
profitable dimension. However, the alliance had not achieved targeted sales and profits
and this unfortunately adversely affected the trust, commitment and relationship
between the partners. The critical weakness of this alliance was the non-adoption of a
common vision and the failure to develop a joint enterprise philosophy based on
synergies that extended beyond immediate resource utilisation and cost efficiency
imperatives. While more efficient use of resources and cost savings are important, the
capacity of the partners to work together and speedily introduce differentiated
offerings is perhaps the unique capability of this alliance.
Findings and conclusions
The outsourcing alliance between Z and Y was predicated on beliefs regarding the unique
and non-transferable competencies of the partners. Z had competency in producing high
value Japanese-style seafood consumer goods. Y had competency in providing
warehousing, transport, logistics and personal selling functions to customers that can
purchase only small lots per transaction. Therefore, the alliance was driven by perceived
mutual benefits. Z decided to outsource distribution services to new target markets to Y
because it concluded that it did not have the knowledge, resource endowments, transaction
cost efficiencies and customer relationships to add value to offerings targeted at customers
in this new market. By outsourcing the distribution function, Z was implicitly making
decisions on the ownership and control of particular resources so as to appropriate the
maximum share of value through greater value-add to customers. The motivations for the
outsourcing alliances between Z and Y, discussed above, are consistent with past studiesâ€™
findings (Min et al., 2005; Kurnia and Johnston, 2001; Karonis, 1997).
This engagement between Y and Z reveals many issues that may affect the success
of distribution outsourcing alliances, particularly such engagements by SMEs
operating in a low technology and highly competitive environment. SMEs tend to
adopt a non-systematic and trial and error mode of decision making. Thus, unlike large
companies alliances between SMEs tend to be opportunistic and are targeted to
overcome immediate problems.
The alliance between Y and Z reveal many features that characterise business
development strategies by SMEs. Zâ€™s motivation for the alliance was the downturn in
its existing markets, the imperative to develop new markets and its excess production
capacity. Yâ€™s motivation was to increase sales and thus increase the utilisation of its
warehousing, transport, logistics and human resources and thus achieve scale
economies. Because of this pre-eminent focus on increasing resource utilisation and
achieving scale economies, the partners did not explore how the alliance could generate
customer value creation, increase customer satisfaction and loyalty, and build a
successful and sustainable joint enterprise. Additionally, the partners established
unrealistic sales and expense targets. Lack of success in achieving these targets
diminished the partnersâ€™ trust and commitment to the alliance. The alliance does not
seem to have much potential and appears to be unsustainable.
In our opinion the partners need to revisit the basis on which this relationship was
founded. Z and Y should develop a common vision and create a business architecture
that would enable them to strengthen their position in the market through creating
value for their customers. Because of low barriers to market entry and low profit
margins, differentiation through constant innovation and speed-to-market is critically
important in marketing food products. The outsourcing alliance between Z and Y
revealed significant capability in constant innovation and speed-to-market. Yâ€™s
competency in rapidly identifying market needs and Zâ€™s competency in rapidly
developing novel products to satisfy these needs are unique capabilities. Within
one-and-a-half years of starting-up, the alliance successfully introduced three new
products to food service customers. This is a significant achievement when
benchmarked against successful new product introductions by other food supply chain
alliances. Concurrently, Y also identified opportunities for Z to contract manufacturing
private label products for independent grocery retail stores. These are new business
opportunities, opportunities that Z had not previously identified.
In order to capture these opportunities fully, the alliance has to adopt a common
vision and mission. This would entail substantial re-engineering of the business
philosophy, culture and systems by both Z and Y. Z and Y would have to adopt a
business model based on shared values. This could have implications on Yâ€™s
relationships with other suppliers as it may have to model its relationship with Z
differently to that with other suppliers. These initiatives would also call for systematic
research, evaluation and development of business architecture and protocols. Past
studies on SMEs suggest that introducing such changes could be a major challenge.
SMEs tend to adopt an entrepreneurial approach to business development and may
therefore not have appropriate skills in conflict management, team building and
relationship development; critical skills in pursuing an alliance with a common vision
Amaldoss, W., Meyer, R.J., Jagmohan, R.S. and Rapoport, A. (2000), â€œCollaborating to competeâ€,
Marketing Science, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 105-26.
Arndt, J. (1983), â€œThe political economy paradigm: foundation for theory building in marketingâ€,
Journal of Marketing, Vol. 47 No. 4, pp. 44-54.
Bardi, E.J. and Tracey, M. (1991), â€œTransportation outsourcing: a survey of US practicesâ€,
International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, Vol. 21 No. 3,
Barney, J.B. (1986), â€œOrganizational cultureâ€, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 11 No. 3,
Barney, J.B. (1990), â€œThe debate between traditional management theory and organizational
economics: substantive differences or intergroup conflict?â€, Academy of Management
Review, Vol. 15 No. 3, pp. 382-93.
Barratt, M. (2004), â€œUnderstanding the meaning of collaboration in the supply chainâ€,
Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 30-42.
Bence, V. (1995), â€œThe changing marketplace for distribution: an operatorâ€™s perspectiveâ€,
European Management Journal, Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 218-29.
Berglund, M., van Laarhoven, P., Sharman, G. and Wandel, S. (1999), â€œThird-party logistics:
is there a future?â€, International Journal of Logistics Management, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 59-70.
Bhaskaran, S. (2006), â€œIncremental innovation and business performance: small and medium-size
food enterprises in a concentrated industry environmentâ€, Journal of Small Business
Management, Vol. 44 No. 1, pp. 64-80.
Bhaskaran, S. and Sukumaran, B. (2007), â€œContextual and methodological issues in COO
studiesâ€, Marketing Intelligence & Planning, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 66-81.
Bititci, U.S., Martinez, V., Albores, P. and Parung, J. (2004), â€œCreating and managing value
in collaborative networksâ€, International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics
Management, Vol. 34 Nos 3/4, pp. 251-68.
Bolumole, Y.A. (2001), â€œThe supply chain role of third-party logistics providersâ€,
The International Journal of Logistics Management, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 87-102.
Brandenburger, A. and Nalebuff, B. (1996), Co-opetition, Doubleday, New York, NY.
Brannemo, A. (2006), â€œHow does the industry work with sourcing decisions: case study at two
Swedish companiesâ€, Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, Vol. 17 No. 5,
Brito, C.M. (2001), â€œTowards an institutional theory of the dynamics of industrial networksâ€,
Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, Vol. 16 No. 3, pp. 150-66.
Brunetto, Y. and Farr-Wharton, R. (2007), â€œThe moderating role of trust in SME
owner/managersâ€™ decision-making about collaborationâ€, Journal of Small Business
Management, Vol. 45 No. 3, pp. 362-87.
Caloghirou, Y., Ioannides, S. and Vonortas, N. (2003), â€œResearch joint-venturesâ€, Journal
of Economic Surveys, Vol. 17 No. 4, pp. 541-70.
Cante, C.J., Calluzzo, V.J., Schwartz, D.P. and Schwartz, T.M. (2004), â€œStrategic alliances in food
and beverage and executive recruiting industriesâ€, Supply Chain Management:
An International Journal, Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 230-40.
Christopher, M. and Towill, D.R. (2000), â€œSupply chain migration from lean and functional to
agile and customisedâ€, Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, Vol. 5 No. 4,
Christopher, M. and Towill, D.R. (2002), â€œDeveloping market specific supply chain strategiesâ€,
International Journal of Logistics Management, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 1-14.
Cox, A. (1999a), â€œPower, value and supply chain managementâ€, Supply Chain Management:
An International Journal, Vol. 4 No. 4, pp. 167-75.
Cox, A. (1999b), â€œA research agenda for supply chain and business management thinkingâ€,
Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, Vol. 4 No. 4, pp. 209-11.
Cravens, D.W., Shipp, S.H. and Cravens, K.S. (1993), â€œAnalysis of co-operative
interorganisational relationships, strategic alliance formation and strategic alliance
effectivenessâ€, Journal of Strategic Marketing, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 55-70.
Daugherty, P.J., Stank, T.P. and Rogers, D.S. (1996), â€œThird-party logistics service providers:
purchasersâ€™ perceptionsâ€, Journal of Supply Chain Management, Vol. 32 No. 2, pp. 23-9.
Dess, G., Gupta, A., Hennart, J. and Hill, C. (1995), â€œConducting and integrating strategy research
at the international, corporate and business levels: issues and directionsâ€, Journal
of Management, Vol. 21 No. 3, pp. 357-93.
Easton, G. (1998), â€œCase research as a methodology for industrial networks: a realist apologiaâ€,
in Naude, P. and Turnbull, P.W. (Eds), Network Dynamics in International Marketing,
Elsevier, Oxford, pp. 73-87.
Eisenhardt, K.M. (1989), â€œBuilding theories from case study researchâ€, Academy of Management
Review, Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 532-50.
Eisenhardt, K.M. (1991), â€œBetter stories and better constructs: the case for rigor and comparative
logicâ€, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 16 No. 3, pp. 620-7.
Evan, W.M. and Olk, P. (1990), â€œR&D consortia: a new US organizational formâ€,
Sloan Management Review, Vol. 31 No. 3, pp. 37-46.
Fearne, A. and Hughes, D. (1999), â€œSuccess factors in the fresh produce supply chain: insights
from the UKâ€, Supply Chain Management, Vol. 4 No. 3, pp. 120-8.
Fill, C. and Visser, E. (2000), â€œThe outsourcing dilemma: a composite approach to the make or
buy decisionâ€, Management Decision, Vol. 38 No. 1, pp. 43-50.
Firestone, W.A. (1993), â€œAlternative arguments for generalizing from data as applied to
qualitative researchâ€, Educational Researcher, Vol. 22 No. 4, pp. 16-23.
FloreÂ´n, H. and Tell, J. (2004), â€œThe emergent prerequisites of managerial learning in small firm
networksâ€, The Leadership & Organization Development Journal, Vol. 25 No. 3, pp. 292-307.
Foster, T.A. and Muller, E.J. (1990), â€œThird parties: your passport to profitsâ€, Distribution,
October, pp. 30-2.
Geyskens, I., Steenkamp, J.B. and Kumar, N. (1998), â€œGeneralizations about trust in marketing
channel relationships using meta-analysisâ€, International Journal of Research in
Marketing, Vol. 15 No. 3, pp. 223-48.
Goffin, K., Szwejczewski, M., Sweeney, M. and New, C. (2000), â€œProduct innovation in UK
manufacturing companiesâ€, International Journal of Manufacturing Technology and
Management, Vol. 2 Nos 1/7, pp. 620-31.
Golann, B. (2006), â€œAchieving growth and responsiveness: process management and market
orientation in small firmsâ€,Journal of Small Business Management, Vol. 44 No. 3, pp. 369-85.
Hailen, L., Johanson, J. and Seyed-Mohamed, N. (1991), â€œInter-firm adaptation in business
relationshipsâ€, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 55 No. 2, pp. 29-37.
HaËškansson, H., Havila, V. and Pedersen, A.C. (1999), â€œLearning in networksâ€, Industrial
Marketing Management, Vol. 28 No. 5, pp. 443-52.
HalldoÂ´rsson, A. and SkjÃ¸tt-Larsen, T. (2004), â€œDeveloping logistics competencies through third
party logistics relationshipsâ€, International Journal of Operations & Production
Management, Vol. 24 No. 2, pp. 192-206.
Huber, G.P. (2004), The Necessary Nature of Future Firms: Attributes of Survivors in a Changing
World, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Johnson, J. and Schneider, K. (1995), â€œOutsourcing in distribution: the growing importance of
transportation brokersâ€, Business Horizons, Vol. 38 No. 6, pp. 40-9.
Jones, G. and Hill, C.W.L. (1988), â€œTransaction cost analysis of strategy-structure choiceâ€,
Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 159-72.
Karonis, J. (1997), â€œRetailer-supplier partnerships â€“ making them work in logisticsâ€, Logistics
Focus, Vol. 5 No. 9, pp. 23-6.
Kohli, A.K. and Jaworski, B.J. (1990), â€œMarket orientation: the construct, research propositions,
and managerial implicationsâ€, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 54 No. 2, pp. 53-71.
Kurnia, S. and Johnston, R.B. (2001), â€œAdoption of efficient consumer response: the issue of
mutualityâ€, Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, Vol. 6 No. 5, pp. 230-41.
Lacity, M.C., Willcoks, L.P. and Feeny, D.F. (1995), â€œIT outsourcing: maximize flexibility and
controlâ€, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 73 No. 3, pp. 84-93.
Lado, A.A., Boyd, N.G. and Hanlon, S.C. (1997), â€œCompetition, cooperation, and the search for
economic rents: a syncretic modelâ€, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 22 No. 1,
Lambert, D.M., Emmelhainz, M. and Gardner, J. (1999), â€œBuilding successful logistics
partnershipsâ€, Journal of Business Logistics, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 165-81.
Lemke, F., Goffin, K. and Szwejczewski, M. (2003), â€œInvestigating the meaning of
supplier-manufacturer partnerships: an exploratory studyâ€, International Journal
of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, Vol. 33 No. 1, pp. 12-35.
Lieb, R.C., Millen, R.A. and van Wassenhove, L.N. (1993), â€œThird party logistics services:
a comparison of experienced American and European manufacturersâ€, International
Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, Vol. 23 No. 6, pp. 35-44.
Logan, M.S. (2000), â€œUsing agency theory to design successful outsourcing relationshipsâ€,
The International Journal of Logistics Management, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 21-32.
Luo, X., Rindfleisch, A. and Tse, D.K. (2006), â€œWorking with rivals: the impact of competitor
alliance on financial performanceâ€, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 44 No. 1, pp. 73-83.
Lynch, M.E., Imada, S.J. and Bookbinder, J.H. (1994), â€œThe future of logistics in Canada: a Delphi
based forecastâ€, Logistics and Transportation Review, Vol. 30 No. 1, pp. 95-112.
Maltz, A.B. (1994), â€œOutsourcing the warehousing function: economic and strategic
considerationsâ€, Logistics and Transportation Review, Vol. 30 No. 3, pp. 245-65.
Maltz, A.B. and Ellram, L.M. (1997), â€œTotal cost of relationship: an analytical framework
for the logistics outsourcing decisionsâ€, Journal of Business Logistics, Vol. 30 No. 3,
Mattsson, L.G. (1989), â€œDevelopment of firms in networks: positions and investmentsâ€,
in Cavusgil, S.T. (Ed.), Advances in International Marketing, Vol. 3, JAI Press,
Greenwich, CT, pp. 121-39.
Menon, M., McGinnis, M. and Ackerman, K. (1998), â€œSelection criteria for providers of third-party
logistics services: an exploratory studyâ€, Journal of Business Logistics, Vol. 19 No. 1,
Mikkola, M. (2008), â€œCoordinative structures and development of food supply chainsâ€,
British Food Journal, Vol. 110 No. 2, pp. 189-205.
Min, S., Roath, A.S., Daugherty, P.J., Genchev, S.E., Chen, H., Arndt, A.D. and Richey, R.G. (2005),
â€œSupply chain collaboration: whatâ€™s happening?â€, The International Journal of Logistics
Management, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 237-56.
Mintzberg, H. (1994), â€œThe fall and rise of strategic planningâ€, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 72
No. 1, pp. 107-14.
Monczka, R.M., Callahan, T.J. and Nichols, E.L. (1995), â€œPredictors of relationships among
buying and supplying firmsâ€, International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics
Management, Vol. 25 No. 10, pp. 45-59.
Morris, M.H. and Sexton, D.L. (1996), â€œThe concept of entrepreneurial intensity: implications
for company performanceâ€, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 36 No. 1, pp. 5-14.
Muller, E.J. (1991), â€œSelling the process, not just the productâ€, Distribution, January, pp. 40-50.
Muller, E.J. (1993), â€œThird party catches onâ€, Distribution, July, pp. 60-7.
Oâ€™Regan, N. and Ghobadian, A. (2002), â€œEffective strategic planning in small and medium-sized
firmsâ€, Management Decision, Vol. 40 No. 7, pp. 663-71.
Parkhe, A. (1993), â€œâ€˜Messyâ€™ research, methodological predispositions and theory development
in international joint venturesâ€, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 18 No. 2, pp. 227-68.
Perry, C. (1998), â€œProcess of a case study methodology for postgraduate research in marketingâ€,
European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 32 Nos 9/10, pp. 785-802.
Peters, T. (1990), â€œGet innovative or get dead. Part 1â€, California Management Review, Vol. 33
No. 1, pp. 9-26.
Powell, W.W. (1990), â€œNeither market nor hierarchy: network forms of organisationâ€,
in Handel, M.J. (Ed.), The Sociology of Organizations: Classic, Contemporary and Critical
Readings (2003), Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 315-30.
Probert, D.R. (1996), â€œThe practical development of a make or buy strategy: the issue of process
positioningâ€, Integrated Manufacturing Systems, Vol. 7 No. 2, pp. 44-51.
Quinn, J.B. (1999), â€œStrategic outsourcing: leveraging knowledge capabilitiesâ€, Sloan
Management Review, Vol. 40 No. 4, pp. 9-21.
Razzaque, M.A. and Sheng, C.C. (1998), â€œOutsourcing of logistics functions: a literature surveyâ€,
International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, Vol. 28 No. 2,
Reason, P. (1999), â€œIntegrating action and reflection through co-operative inquiryâ€, Management
Learning, Vol. 30 No. 2, pp. 207-26.
Riege, A.M. (2003), â€œValidity and reliability tests in case study research: a literature review
with â€˜hands-onâ€™ applications for each research phaseâ€, Qualitative Market Research:
An International Journal, Vol. 6 No. 2, pp. 75-86.
Rodriguez, I.B., Agudo, J.C. and Gutierrez, H.S.M. (2006), â€œDeterminants of economic and social
satisfaction in manufacturer-distributor relationshipsâ€, Industrial Marketing
Management, Vol. 35 No. 6, pp. 666-75.
Rowley, J. (2002), â€œUsing case studies in researchâ€, Management Research News, Vol. 25 No. 1,
Sadler-Smith, E., Chaston, I. and Badger, B. (2000), â€œOrganizational learning style and
competencies â€“ a comparative investigation of relationship and transactionally oriented
small UK manufacturing firmsâ€, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 34 No. 56, pp. 625-40.
Schindehutte, M., Morris, M.H. and Kocak, A. (2008), â€œUnderstanding market-driving behavior:
the role of entrepreneurshipâ€, Journal of Small Business Management, Vol. 46 No. 1,
Shaw, S.A. and Gibbs, J. (1995), â€œRetailer-supplier relationships and the evolution of marketing:
two food case studiesâ€, International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, Vol. 23
No. 7, pp. 7-16.
Sheehan, W.G. (1989), â€œContract warehousing: the evolution of an industryâ€, Journal of Business
Logistics, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 31-49.
Sheffi, Y. (1990), â€œThird party logistics: present and future prospectsâ€, Journal of Business
Logistics, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 27-39.
Smith, M., Mitra, S. and Narasimhan, S. (1998), â€œInformation system outsourcing: a study
of pre-event firm characteristicsâ€, Journal of Management Information Systems, Vol. 15
No. 2, pp. 60-92.
Spekman, R.E. (1988), â€œStrategic supplier selection: understanding long-term buyer
relationshipsâ€, Business Horizons, Vol. 31 No. 4, pp. 75-81.
Sporleder, T.L. (2006), â€œStrategic alliances and networks in supply chainsâ€, in Ondersteijn, C.J.M.,
Wijnands, J.H.M., Huirne, R.B.M. and van Kooten, O. (Eds), Quantifying the Agri-Food
Supply Chain, Springer, Dordrecht, pp. 161-71.
Stokes, D. (2000), â€œPutting entrepreneurship into marketing: the process of entrepreneurial
marketingâ€, Journal of Research in Marketing and Entrepreneurship, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 1-16.
Thron, T., Nagy, G. and Wassan, N. (2006), â€œThe impact of various levels of collaborative
engagement on global and individual supply chain performanceâ€, International Journal of
Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, Vol. 36 No. 8, pp. 596-620.
Vakoufaris, H., Spilanis, I. and Kizos, T. (2007), â€œCollective action in the Greek agrifood sector:
evidence from the North Aegean regionâ€, British Food Journal, Vol. 109 No. 10, pp. 777-91.
Villalonga, B. and McGahan, S.M. (2005), â€œThe choice among acquisitions, alliances, and
divestitureâ€, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 26 No. 13, pp. 1183-208.
Williamson, P.J. (1991), â€œSupplier strategy and customer responsiveness: managing the linksâ€,
Business Strategy Review, Vol. 2 No. 2, pp. 75-90.
Wolff, J.A. and Pett, T.L. (2006), â€œSmall-firm performance: modeling the role of product and
process improvementsâ€, Journal of Small Business Management, Vol. 44 No. 2, pp. 268-84.
Yin, R.K. (1994), Case Study Research: Design and Methods, 2nd ed., Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
About the authors
Suku Bhaskaran is the Director of the Food Marketing Research Unit, a research, consultancy
and training services centre in Victoria University, Australia. He is an Associate Professor, has a
successful track record in tendering for and completing nationally competitive research grants
and contract research projects for food companies. He is published widely in refereed journals
such as the Journal of Small Business Management, Cross Cultural Management â€“ An
International Journal, Journal of Consumer Marketing, Marketing Intelligence & Planning, and
The British Food Journal. Suku Bhaskaran is the corresponding author and can be contacted at:
Helen Jenkins was the Business Development Manager of Austrimi Foods. She is currently
the Executive Officer of the Australian Prawn Farmers Association.
To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: [email protected]
Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Are you busy and do not have time to handle your assignment? Are you scared that your paper will not make the grade? Do you have responsibilities that may hinder you from turning in your assignment on time? Are you tired and can barely handle your assignment? Are your grades inconsistent?
Whichever your reason is, it is valid! You can get professional academic help from our service at affordable rates. We have a team of professional academic writers who can handle all your assignments.
Students barely have time to read. We got you! Have your literature essay or book review written without having the hassle of reading the book. You can get your literature paper custom-written for you by our literature specialists.
Do you struggle with finance? No need to torture yourself if finance is not your cup of tea. You can order your finance paper from our academic writing service and get 100% original work from competent finance experts.
While psychology may be an interesting subject, you may lack sufficient time to handle your assignments. Don’t despair; by using our academic writing service, you can be assured of perfect grades. Moreover, your grades will be consistent.
Engineering is quite a demanding subject. Students face a lot of pressure and barely have enough time to do what they love to do. Our academic writing service got you covered! Our engineering specialists follow the paper instructions and ensure timely delivery of the paper.
In the nursing course, you may have difficulties with literature reviews, annotated bibliographies, critical essays, and other assignments. Our nursing assignment writers will offer you professional nursing paper help at low prices.
Truth be told, sociology papers can be quite exhausting. Our academic writing service relieves you of fatigue, pressure, and stress. You can relax and have peace of mind as our academic writers handle your sociology assignment.
We take pride in having some of the best business writers in the industry. Our business writers have a lot of experience in the field. They are reliable, and you can be assured of a high-grade paper. They are able to handle business papers of any subject, length, deadline, and difficulty!
We boast of having some of the most experienced statistics experts in the industry. Our statistics experts have diverse skills, expertise, and knowledge to handle any kind of assignment. They have access to all kinds of software to get your assignment done.
Writing a law essay may prove to be an insurmountable obstacle, especially when you need to know the peculiarities of the legislative framework. Take advantage of our top-notch law specialists and get superb grades and 100% satisfaction.
We have highlighted some of the most popular subjects we handle above. Those are just a tip of the iceberg. We deal in all academic disciplines since our writers are as diverse. They have been drawn from across all disciplines, and orders are assigned to those writers believed to be the best in the field. In a nutshell, there is no task we cannot handle; all you need to do is place your order with us. As long as your instructions are clear, just trust we shall deliver irrespective of the discipline.
Our essay writers are graduates with bachelor's, masters, Ph.D., and doctorate degrees in various subjects. The minimum requirement to be an essay writer with our essay writing service is to have a college degree. All our academic writers have a minimum of two years of academic writing. We have a stringent recruitment process to ensure that we get only the most competent essay writers in the industry. We also ensure that the writers are handsomely compensated for their value. The majority of our writers are native English speakers. As such, the fluency of language and grammar is impeccable.
There is a very low likelihood that you won’t like the paper.
Not at all. All papers are written from scratch. There is no way your tutor or instructor will realize that you did not write the paper yourself. In fact, we recommend using our assignment help services for consistent results.
We check all papers for plagiarism before we submit them. We use powerful plagiarism checking software such as SafeAssign, LopesWrite, and Turnitin. We also upload the plagiarism report so that you can review it. We understand that plagiarism is academic suicide. We would not take the risk of submitting plagiarized work and jeopardize your academic journey. Furthermore, we do not sell or use prewritten papers, and each paper is written from scratch.
You determine when you get the paper by setting the deadline when placing the order. All papers are delivered within the deadline. We are well aware that we operate in a time-sensitive industry. As such, we have laid out strategies to ensure that the client receives the paper on time and they never miss the deadline. We understand that papers that are submitted late have some points deducted. We do not want you to miss any points due to late submission. We work on beating deadlines by huge margins in order to ensure that you have ample time to review the paper before you submit it.
We have a privacy and confidentiality policy that guides our work. We NEVER share any customer information with third parties. Noone will ever know that you used our assignment help services. It’s only between you and us. We are bound by our policies to protect the customer’s identity and information. All your information, such as your names, phone number, email, order information, and so on, are protected. We have robust security systems that ensure that your data is protected. Hacking our systems is close to impossible, and it has never happened.
You fill all the paper instructions in the order form. Make sure you include all the helpful materials so that our academic writers can deliver the perfect paper. It will also help to eliminate unnecessary revisions.
Proceed to pay for the paper so that it can be assigned to one of our expert academic writers. The paper subject is matched with the writer’s area of specialization.
You communicate with the writer and know about the progress of the paper. The client can ask the writer for drafts of the paper. The client can upload extra material and include additional instructions from the lecturer. Receive a paper.
The paper is sent to your email and uploaded to your personal account. You also get a plagiarism report attached to your paper.
Delivering a high-quality product at a reasonable price is not enough anymore.
That’s why we have developed 5 beneficial guarantees that will make your experience with our service enjoyable, easy, and safe.
You have to be 100% sure of the quality of your product to give a money-back guarantee. This describes us perfectly. Make sure that this guarantee is totally transparent.Read more
Each paper is composed from scratch, according to your instructions. It is then checked by our plagiarism-detection software. There is no gap where plagiarism could squeeze in.Read more
Thanks to our free revisions, there is no way for you to be unsatisfied. We will work on your paper until you are completely happy with the result.Read more
Your email is safe, as we store it according to international data protection rules. Your bank details are secure, as we use only reliable payment systems.Read more
By sending us your money, you buy the service we provide. Check out our terms and conditions if you prefer business talks to be laid out in official language.Read more