Information technology influences on world class logistics capability

David J. Closs, Thomas J. Goldsby, Steven R. Clinton

International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management · 1997 · 290 citations · 15 references

Concepts

TL;DR

Information technology has become a central focus in logistics research, yet empirical links between logistics information system capabilities and logistics competence remain scarce. This study aims to identify which LIS capabilities most strongly influence logistics competence and to examine how LIS development strategy relates to competence. The authors conducted a literature review of LIS to identify relevant issues. The study concludes that world‑class firms rate their logistics operating and planning systems highly; internally controlled features are valued more than externally coordinated ones; logistics competence is mainly driven by operating timeliness, usage‑driven formatting, and flexibility; and LIS development strategy has no significant impact on performance evaluations.

Abstract

Information technology has been among the foremost topics within the logistics literature of recent years. However, there has been little empirical evidence relating logistics information system (LIS) capabilities to logistics competence. Seeks to close this gap in the research, identify particular LIS capabilities that contribute most to logistics competence, and develop an understanding of the relationship between LIS development strategy and logistics competence. A review of the LIS literature identifies relevant issues. The research findings suggest four conclusions: world class firms perceive both their logistics operating and planning systems as highly capable; internally controlled characteristics generally receive higher evaluations than criteria requiring external co‐ordination; overall logistics competence is primarily influenced by logistics operating timeliness, usage driven formatting, and flexibility; and LIS development strategy does not significantly influence performance evaluations.

References

15