Printer Friendly

Environmental scanning practices among LTL carriers of general freight.

Organizations do not exist in a vacuum. Rather, they are influenced by (and sometimes influence) their environment. Because the environment tends to change over time, organizations cannot remain stagnant; they must adapt in order to survive. A fundamental problem exhibited in many post-deregulation motor carrier bankruptcies has been a failure to adapt to the changed environment brought about by the Motor Carrier Act of 1980.

Organizational adaptation requires, among many activities, collecting information about various environmental characteristics. This information collection, known as environmental scanning, may be a crucial determinant in organizational survival. At a minimum, scanning helps an organization adapt to its environment.(1) Such a perspective would be beneficial in the transportation industry, which has experienced profound environmental change--primarily in the form of economic deregulation--over the past fifteen years.

Superior scanning also provides companies with a competitive advantage in the marketplace.(2) As an example, Frederick Smith's recognition of the changing nature of U.S. business operations allowed Federal Express to "create," nurture, and expand the market for fast delivery of smaller packages by air transportation; Fed Ex is still the acknowledged leader of this market. For the purposes of this article, environmental scanning will refer to "...gathering and interpreting pertinent information and introducing the results into the organizational decision process."(3)

LeMay pointed out that the advent of deregulation found many motor carriers lacking the skills necessary to collect environmental information vital in the formulation of corporate strategy.(4) Indeed, contemporary motor carrier research has discovered significant relationships between corporate strategy and corporate performance. For example, Smith et al. showed that LTL carders with well-defined strategies outperformed those with ill-defined and nebulous strategies.(5) Similarly, Murphy and Corsi uncovered relationships between the sales force management strategies and sales force productivity of LTL carriers.(6)

Concerning environmental scanning, Murphy et al. postulated that scanning activities may be a factor in motor carrier survival.(7) Indeed, Daft's research among manufacturers indicated that "...scanning in high performance firms was characterized by more frequent scanning and by careful tailoring of scanning to perceived strategic uncertainty."(8)

Although motor carriers face uncertainty in several environmental sectors (e.g., regulatory, economic, competition sectors), limited empirical research has dealt with environmental scanning by motor carriers. A pre-deregulation study of general freight haulers by Kallman and Shapiro discovered minimal performance differences between firms who planned for the future and those who did not.(9) More recently, LeMay's research among twenty-two LTL carriers suggested that smaller firms tend to collect less information and employ less sophisticated information collection techniques than their medium and larger counterparts.(10)

This article examines environmental scanning in the motor carrier industry with a specific focus on LTL general freight carriers. Possible differences between carriers who conduct scanning activities and those who do not will be the first topic to be investigated. This article will then provide a more in-depth analysis on those carriers who conduct environmental scanning. Scanning practices such as the departments responsible for scanning, overall satisfaction with scanning information, and the most reliable source of scanning information will be examined. We will conclude by investigating if there are relationships between scanning activities and either firm size or firm profitability.


A review of the environmental scanning research indicates that personal interviews have been the most popular technique used to collect relevant data. However, the cost constraints of personal interviewing have led environmental scanning researchers to study limited groups of respondents. Daft et al., for example, used companies drawn from the Directory of Texas Manufacturers,(11) while Smeltzer et al. studied small firms from the Phoenix and Kansas City metropolitan areas.(12) In the transportation literature, LeMay's research involved "...a convenience sample of twenty-two LTL motor carriers...,"(13) which "...did not represent, in any strict sense, the population of carriers in the United States...."(14)

One problem with personal interviews in scanning research, in addition to the cost inefficiency of interviewing, involves difficulties in generalizing study results to larger populations. Mail surveys, with their potential for reaching larger populations (samples), theoretically offer better opportunities for generalizability. Also, mail surveys are a popular and recognized technique for collecting information in transportation research.

The data in this article come from mail surveys sent to all Class I and Class II U.S. LTL general freight carriers. To the best of our knowledge, the present study almost certainly represents the only transportation-related environmental scanning research to seek a representative group of companies as its sampling frame. Two sources, the Blue Book of Trucking Companies, and The Official Motor Carrier Directory, were used to identify a total of 237 LTL general freight carriers.

Because previous research has indicated that environmental scanning is performed largely by top managers,(15) the survey was addressed to the top-ranking executive listed in The Official Motor Carrier Directory. Several trucking companies ceased operations during the survey period (e.g., Jones Truck Lines), while other carriers responded that they were erroneously classified into the LTL segment. The effective sample size became 223 carriers, and 45 usable surveys were received, representing a response rate of 20.2 percent. This response rate is in line with the 20-30 percent commonly found in mail surveys(16) and compares favorably with the 18 percent response rate in Cross and Beier's study of market planning (of which scanning is one component) in the motor carrier industry.(17)

The 223 firms were divided into seven strata, based on operating revenues, to develop expansion factors. These expansion factors were calculated using the formula 1/r, where "r" represents the response rate for each stratum.(18) One of the most notable pieces of information in Table 1 is that the response rate for the greater than one billion strata was .67, signifying that two of the "Big Three" (i.e., Consolidated Freightways, Roadway, Yellow Freight) LTL general freight carriers responded.

Each survey was coded with a four-digit number that allowed the researchers to identify individual responding organizations. The coding permitted access to rich demographic information (e.g., actual revenues and operating ratios) from secondary sources such as the Blue Book of Trucking Companies. The identities of individual responding companies will, however, remain confidential.


Possible Differences Between Scanners and Non-scanners

Our results indicate that approximately three-quarters of the LTL general freight carriers (166 out of 223 companies, or 74.4 percent) engage in environmental scanning. As shown in Table 2, noticeable differences exist between those carriers who conduct scanning activities and those who do not. For instance, t-tests of mean equality between scanners and non-scanners revealed the non-scanners to be smaller (average revenues of $11 million) companies. In fact, none of the non-scanning carriers have revenues of more than $30 million. Non-scanners also have higher operating ratios (mean = 101.1) than do scanners (mean = 97.5).
Table 1. Expansion Factors, LTL General Freight Carriers

Revenue Groups ($000's) Response Rate Expansion Factor

 1,000 - 1,999 .120 8.33
 2,000 - 4,999 .122 8.17
 5,000 - 9,999 .156 6.43
 10,000 - 29,999 .375 2.67
 30,000 - 99,999 .158 6.33
100,000 - 999,999 .261 3.83
|is greater than~999,999 .667 1.50

Both scanning and non-scanning organizations evaluated six environmental sectors--competition, customers, technological, regulatory, economic, socio-cultural--in terms of three dimensions (complexity, rate of change, importance). Respondents were provided with descriptions of the three dimensions, as well as with descriptions of the six sectors. For instance, complexity referred to the ease/difficulty of understanding problems, trends, issues, and opportunities in each of the various sectors. Similarly, the competition sector was described as including other trucking companies as well as other transportation companies. Complete descriptions of the three dimensions and six sectors are presented in Figure 1.


As shown in Table 2, eleven of the eighteen t-tests between the two groups (scanners and non-scanners) were statistically significant at the .05 level. Three differences involved the complexity dimension, while four significant differences were found for rate of change as well as four significant differences for importance. The eleven significant differences across the eighteen t-tests are much greater than would be expected by chance occurrence (i.e., 18 tests x .05 significance = 1 significant result expected by chance).

One intriguing result appearing in Table 2 is that only the regulatory sector exhibited statistically significant t-tests across all three dimensions. There was also a consistent pattern to the responses for this variable, in that non-scanners evaluated the regulatory sector as more difficult to understand, exhibiting a higher rate of change, and more important than did scanning organizations.

The strength of disagreement between the scanners and nonscanners in evaluating the regulatory sector is also noteworthy--over one unit (on a five-point scale) for both complexity and importance. These results suggest that non-scanning motor carriers view the regulatory sector as a major impediment to efficient operations. Could this be due to these organizations not engaging in environmental scanning?

Analyses of the findings from the importance dimension are also quite revealing. There is a statistically significant difference between scanners and non-scanners on the customer sector. The scanner mean score of 4.50 indicates that customers are of high importance, while the non-scanner mean rating of 3.54 indicates that customers are only moderately important.
Table 3. Scanning Practices

Year Scanning Began

Decade % of Companies

Prior to 1960 16.7
1960s 13.0
1970s 22.3
1980s 37.2
1990s 10.8

Departments with Scanning Responsibilities(a)

Department % of Companies

Sales/marketing 86.0
Operations 61.4
Top management/CEO 34.3
Finance 15.5
Maintenance 15.1

a Only those departments listed by at least 10 percent of the
companies are listed here.

Company's Satisfaction with Scanning Information

Satisfaction Rating % of Companies

 0 - 24 10.5
25 - 49 13.0
50 - 74 44.3
75 - 99 32.2
100 0.0

0 = total dissatisfaction, 100 = total satisfaction

Most Reliable Source of Scanning Information

Source % of Companies

Written external 41.4
Written internal 5.6
Personal external 19.5
Personal internal 33.4

Confidence in the Usefulness of Scanning Information

 % of Companies

 Don't Very Very
 scan low high

Sector 0 1 2 3 4 5

Competition 0.0 6.5 8.1 29.3 31.8 24.3
Customer 0.0 4.9 8.1 15.2 51.0 20.8
Technological 0.0 9.3 21.4 26.7 34.5 8.1
Regulatory 0.0 17.4 10.6 23.1 18.9 30.0
Economic 0.0 15.4 16.7 40.0 15.6 12.2
Socio-cultural 18.3 20.6 29.1 22.0 4.2 5.8

The relative rankings within the importance dimension are even more compelling: The customer sector was ranked the most important sector by scanning companies and was ranked least important by non-scanners. These findings may indicate that motor carriers engaged in scanning activities recognize the importance of marketing in a deregulated environment. A basic premise of the marketing concept is focusing on customer needs and wants, a philosophy seemingly reflected in the scanners' high ratings and rankings on customer importance. Non-scanners, on the other hand, exhibit less regard for customer importance, a potentially risky strategy in today's competitive motor carrier industry. This riskiness may be manifested in firm profitability; as pointed out earlier, nonscanning firms have an average operating ratio of 101.

Scanning Practices

A key scanning issue concerns the department(s) responsible for scanning. LeMay's research on strategic information systems focused on CEOs and the vice presidents of marketing, finance, and MIS (management information systems) as the major contributors to information gathering in LTL firms.(19) Respondents were asked to list the three departments with primary responsibility for scanning activities.

As shown in Table 3, sales/marketing has scanning responsibilities at 86 percent of those carriers who conduct scanning. Over 60 percent of the companies also have scanning activities conducted by the operations department, while top management/CEO has scanning responsibilities in approximately one-third of the companies.

The results on departmental scanning responsibilities are intriguing on several fronts. For instance, operations is a key scanning function in over 60 percent of the motor carriers; note that LeMay's research on strategic information systems did not include the views of operations managers. In addition, one of the most surprising findings is that 15 percent of the companies reported "maintenance" to be a department with primary scanning responsibilities. Additional research would be helpful in understanding why--and, perhaps more important, how--maintenance departments are used in scanning activities.

Several items summarized in Table 3 are concerned with what we call "confidence" issues. For instance, respondents were asked to evaluate their company's satisfaction with scanning information, using a 0 (total dissatisfaction) to 100 (total satisfaction) scale. Although 32 percent of the motor carriers fall in the 75-99 range, none were higher than 90. The average satisfaction rating of 57 suggests that many truckers need to refine, and perhaps redesign, their scanning systems.

Respondents were also asked for their assessment on the reliability of four information sources. These four sources--written external (e.g., newspapers, trade journals), written internal (e.g., memos, internal studies), personal external (e.g., information from business associates and/or customers), and personal internal (e.g., salespeople and/or other company employees)--have been used in previous environmental scanning research.(20)

The information on the reliability of scanning sources reveals the two most reliable to be written external (41 percent of companies) and personal external (33 percent). Furthermore, personal sources, both external and internal, are considered to be slightly more reliable (53 percent of companies) than are written sources (47 percent). While this might be a surprising finding, previous research has suggested that personal sources are used more heavily when managers are confronted by strategic uncertainty,(21) a condition which describes the contemporary motor carrier industry. Moreover, this finding is consistent with the research of Mintzberg,(22) and Agor suggests that managers often use intuition or hunches in their decision making.(23)

Table 3 also offers results involving corporate confidence in the usefulness of scanning information received from the six environmental sectors. Carriers expressed the most confidence with information about customers, followed by competitor information. The least confident sector, by far, was socio-cultural, with nearly 20 percent of carriers not scanning, and nearly 50 percent indicating either low or very low confidence.

While the socio-cultural sector is broad-based (e.g., including social values and demographic trends), complete disregard may be myopic. As an example, the well-documented shift of both businesses and population from the Northeast and Midwest to the Sunbelt has important ramifications for motor carriers operating in these regions. The derived nature of demand for trucking services (i.e., demand for trucking services comes from the demand for products) suggests that volume and revenue lost because of business relocation will not be easily replaced. Note, too, that the economic sector--another key component to the derived demand concept--receives rather low confidence ratings.

LeMay's previous work on strategic information systems in LTL carriers suggested that motor carrier deregulation was the catalyst for some carriers to begin environmental scanning.(24) Indeed, the results in Table 3 indicate that the 1980s was the most popular decade for beginning scanning activities. Nearly 50 percent of the motor carriers have begun scanning activities since 1980, the year of motor carrier deregulation.

Relationships Between Firm Size and Scanning Practices

One-way analysis of variance was used to determine relationships between firm size (as measured by revenues) and the scanning practices discussed in the previous section. Four revenue categories were used: $1 million-$4.99 million; $5 million-$24.99 million; $25 million-$99.99 million; and greater than or equal to $100 million.

The one-way results, presented in Table 4, show a large number of statistically significant relationships between firm size and scanning practices. For instance, significant differences exist between firm size and the year scanning activities began, although a consistent pattern in the starting dates is not apparent. The earliest average date (1965) of scanning was among motor carriers in the $25 million-$99.99 million category, while the smallest carriers showed the second earliest scanning activities (1969). The largest motor carriers have the latest startup of scanning activities (1977).

There does, however, appear to be a meaningful pattern associated with the data on scanning departments. Scanning activities are the responsibility of sales/marketing departments at larger ($25 million and higher) trucking firms, while operations has greater responsibility among the smallest ($1 million-$4.99 million) carriers.

Moreover, Table 4 shows a strong relationship between firm size and corporate satisfaction with scanning information. Carriers with revenues of $25 million or more tend to show higher levels of satisfaction with scanning information than do their smaller counterparts. A possible explanation is that the larger carriers give greater responsibility to sales/marketing for scanning, while smaller carriers give greater responsibility to the operations department. Furthermore, larger companies often have greater resources, which allows them to employ more sophisticated marketing research strategies and tactics. As a consequence, scanning activities involving the sales/marketing department may provide more useful and reliable information than scanning activities involving the operations department.

The results in Table 4 also demonstrate that the smallest and largest carriers differ concerning their confidence in data involving both the competition and customer segments. The smallest carriers' mean score of 4.20 for both competition and customers reflects a high level of confidence, while the largest carriers' mean score of 3.06 for both sectors indicates moderate confidence.

The high confidence about competitor and customer data among the smallest carriers might suggest that these companies are "niche" or "focus" carriers. According to the literature, LTL niche carriers are smaller, face minimal competition, and serve a limited number of customers.(25) As a result, information collection on customers and the competition is likely to be easier, and carriers can be confident in this information because the competition and customer segments are so well defined.

Interestingly, the literature has also suggested that LTL niche carriers tend to exhibit a strong operations orientation.(26) As pointed out earlier in this section, carriers in the $1 million-$4.99 million category (i.e., niche carriers) are more likely to have scanning activities conducted by the operations department.

Relationships Between Firm Profitability and Scanning Activities

As in the previous section, one-way analysis of variance was used to discover relationships between company profitability (as measured by the operating ratio) and scanning practices. The profitability categories used were 1) operating ratio less than 95, 2) 95-99.99, and 3) greater than or equal to 100.

The information in Table 5 shows that the most profitable firms (operating ratio less than 95) are more likely to have scanning conducted by the sales/marketing department than are the least profitable companies (operating ratio greater than or equal to 100). Conversely, scanning by an operations department is more prevalent among the least profitable carriers and TABULAR DATA OMITTED TABULAR DATA OMITTED is least prevalent at the most profitable carriers. In addition, the finance department has scanning responsibilities at nearly 50 percent of the most profitable carriers, compared to 0 percent at the least profitable companies.

These results are a possible indication that the least profitable firms have been slow to adapt to the deregulated motor carrier industry. For instance, an operations focus, such as that exhibited by carriers in the least profitable category, is representative of management philosophies under transportation regulation.(27) On the other hand, deregulation's focus on the customer (e.g., sales/marketing orientation) as well as on corporate solvency (e.g., finance) is not highly emphasized in the scanning activities of the least profitable carriers.

Table 5 also indicates a strong relationship between firm profitability and satisfaction with scanning information. Not surprisingly, the least profitable firms demonstrate the lowest satisfaction (mean score of 45), compared to the most profitable carriers' mean of 71. Although there is no evidence that scanning satisfaction leads to corporate profitability, the fact that profitability and scanning satisfaction are linked suggests that the least profitable companies might reevaluate their strategic information systems. If satisfaction is not a sufficient motivator for scanning, then profitability should be! Furthermore, our results indicate that the unprofitable carriers should consider an increased scanning role for the sales/marketing and finance departments.


The present study reports the results of a survey designed to learn about environmental scanning practices among LTL carriers of general freight. Use of the expansion factors presented in Table 1 reveals that approximately 75 percent of LTL carriers of general freight are currently engaged in scanning activities.

Important differences between scanning and non-scanning motor carriers were discovered, with non-scanners tending to be smaller and less profitable than their scanning counterparts. In addition, non-scanners view the regulatory environment as 1) being more difficult to understand, 2) exhibiting a higher rate of change, and 3) more important than do scanning organizations. For the non-scanners, this emphasis on the regulatory sector may serve as a major impediment to efficient operations.

The focus of this article was on those firms engaged in environmental scanning. The Motor Carrier Act of 1980 appears to have been an important catalyst to the scanning process: Almost 50 percent of the motor carriers instituted scanning practices since 1980. Scanning responsibilities fall most frequently to the sales/marketing and operations departments.

Study results show written external and personal internal communication to be the most reliable sources of scanning information. LTL carriers have the greatest confidence in information concerning customers and the competition, and the least confidence in information about the socio-cultural environment. However, the carriers' average satisfaction with scanning information was 57 (0 = total dissatisfaction, 100=total satisfaction), suggesting room for improvement in the scanning process.

The study also looked for possible relationships between firm size (as measured by revenues) and scanning practices, as well as between profitability (as measured by the operating ratio) and scanning practices. Statistically significant--and managerially meaningful--relationships were discovered for both firm size and profitability. For example, carriers with revenues of $25 million or greater exhibit higher satisfaction with scanning information than do the smaller truckers. These larger companies are also more likely to conduct scanning activities through the sales/marketing department. Smaller firms might be able to improve their satisfaction ratings if their sales/marketing department were to assume a larger role in the scanning process.

Similarly, the most profitable (operating ratios less than 95) carriers make extensive use of the sales/marketing department for scanning, while the least profitable (operating ratios of 100 or more) rely more heavily on the operations department. The latter finding might indicate that the least profitable carriers have been slow to adopt the customer orientation so important in the contemporary motor carrier industry.

The Motor Carrier Act of 1980 has led to important changes in many segments of the trucking industry.(28) LTL carriers of general commodities, one of the most high-profile segments, have seen a spate of bankruptcies, many involving large and well known motor carriers. Federal government policy, however, is not likely to return to more stringent economic regulation of motor carriers; if anything, further deregulation is possible during the 1990s. Corsi and Stowers argue that "...the appropriate response by firms to the new deregulated environment is not to seek the haven of regulatory protection...but to develop well-thought-out strategic responses."(29) Environmental scanning should be a necessary--and major--strategic component of profitable motor carrier management during the 1990s.

Figure 1. Descriptions of Six Sectors and Three Dimensions

Complete Description of the Six Environmental Sectors:

Competition Sector: Includes other trucking companies as well as other transportation companies.

Customer Sector: Includes current, as well as potential, companies that purchase the respondent's services.

Technological Sector: Refers to innovations in handling (e.g., forklifts), movement (e.g., longer trailers), and information (e.g., satellite tracking of vehicles) products.

Regulatory Sector: Includes federal, regional, state, and/or local policies as well as political developments.

Economic Sector: Includes interest rates, unemployment rates, economic growth, inflation, trade balances, and stock markets.

Socio-cultural Sector: Includes social values in population, demographic trends (e.g., fewer potential truck drivers).

Complete Description of the Three Dimensions:

Complexity: Refers to the six environmental sectors in terms of the ease/difficulty of understanding competitors, customers, problems, trends, issues, and/or opportunities.

Rate of change: Refers to the six environmental sectors in terms of changes in competitors, customers, problems, trends, issues, and/or opportunities.

Importance: Refers to the six environmental sectors in terms of their importance, in allowing the responding firm to improve its operational efficiency.


1 R.L. Daft, J. Sormunen, and D. Parks, "Chief Executive Scanning, Environmental Characteristics, and Company Performance: An Empirical Study," Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 9, 1988, pp. 123-139.

2 D.C. Hambrick, "Environmental Scanning and Organizational Strategy," Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 3, 1982, pp. 159-174.

3 R.T. Lenz and J.L. Engledow, "Environmental Analysis Units and Strategic Decision-making: A Field Study of 'Leading Edge' Corporations," Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 7, 1986, pp. 69-89.

4 S A. LeMay, "Strategic Information Systems in LTL Carriers of General Commodities," Transportation Journal, Spring 1986, pp. 25-32.

5 R.D. Smith, T.M. Corsi, and C.M. Grimm. "Motor Carriers Strategies and Performance," Transportation Research, Vol. 24A, No. 3, 1990, pp. 201-210.

6 P.R. Murphy and T.M. Corsi, "Performance Implications of the Sales Force Strategies of LTL General Freight Carriers," Journal of the Transportation Research Forum, Vol. 30, 1989, pp. 84-91.

7 P.R. Murphy, J.E. Smith, and J.M. Daley, "Ethical Behavior of U.S. General Freight Carriers: An Empirical Assessment," The Logistics and Transportation Review, Vol. 27, 1991, pp. 55-72.

8 Daft et al., 1988.

9 E.J. Kallman and H.J. Shapiro, "The Motor Freight Industry: A Case Against Planning," Long Range Planning, Vol. 11, 1978, pp. 81-86.

10 LeMay, 1986.

11 Daft et al., 1988.

12 L.R. Smeltzer, G.L. Fann, and V.N. Nikolaisen, "Environmental Scanning Practices in Small Business," Journal of Small Business Management, July 1988, pp. 55-62.

13 LeMay, 1986, p. 25.

14 LeMay, p. 25.

15 Hambrick, 1982.

16 R.A. Peterson, Marketing Research, Plano, TX: Business Publications, 1982.

17 J. Cross and F. Beier, "Marketing Planning: Status and Need in Small and Medium Class I Motor Carriers," Transportation Journal, Spring 1986, pp. 12-19.

18 Expansion factors have been successfully employed in previous transportation research. See, for example, P.R. Murphy and T.M. Corsi, "The Current Status of Sales Force Management Practices Among LTL General Freight Carriers," Transportation Journal, Fall 1987, pp. 23-35.

19 LeMay, 1986.

20 Daft et al., 1988.

21 Daft et al., 1988.

22 H. Mintzberg, "Planning on the Left Side and Managing on the Right," Harvard Business Review, July-August 1976, pp. 51-63.

23 W.H. Agor, Intuition in Organizations, Newbury Park, CA: Sage, 1989.

24 LeMay, 1986.

25 See Smith, Corsi and Grimm, 1990 (Endnote 5) as well as P.R. Murphy and T.M. Corsi, "Strategic Differentiation Among LTL General Freight Carriers," The Logistics and Transportation Review, Vol. 24, No. 3, 1988, pp. 217-235.

26 Murphy and Corsi, 1988.

27 C.M. Grimm, J.A. Kling, and K.G. Smith, "The Impact of U.S. Rail Regulatory Reform on Railroad Management and Organizational Structure," Transportation Research, Vol. 21A, No. 2, 1987, pp. 87-94.

28 For an excellent overview, see T.M. Corsi and J.R. Stowers, "Effects of a Deregulated Environment on Motor Carriers: A Systematic, Multi-Segment Analysis," Transportation Journal, Spring 1991, pp. 4-28.

29 Corsi and Stowers, p. 26.

Mr. Murphy, EM-AST & L, is associate professor of business logistics; Mr. Smith is associate professor of management; and Mr. Daley, EM-AST & L, is associate dean and professor of marketing, John Carroll University, University Heights, Ohio 44118.
COPYRIGHT 1992 American Society of Transportation and Logistics, Inc.
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 1992 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Title Annotation:less-than-truckload carriers
Author:Murphy, Paul R.; Smith, Jonathan E.; Daley, James M.
Publication:Transportation Journal
Date:Sep 22, 1992
Previous Article:Corporate strategies for frequent-flier programs.
Next Article:The increasing importance of purchasing in transportation decision making.

Terms of use | Copyright © 2016 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters