Printer Friendly

The logistics-marketing interface: techniques for enhancing cooperation.

Professor Bernard J. La Londe has pointed out that logistics has evolved from an operational perspective through a tactical perspective to a strategic perspective to a strategic perspective.|1~ One manifestation of this growth is seen in the integrated logistics concept, which also has been referred to as the "Total Enterprise Approach."|2~ In the integrated logistics/Total Enterprise Approach, the focus of logistics becomes interfunctional linkages, i.e., the relationship between logistics and other departments within an organization.

Logistics interacts with a number of different areas within an organization, such as operations (production), procurement, human resource management, and marketing,|3~ with the most common interface being with marketing.|4~ There are several reasons for this close association between logistics and marketing. For one, some have referred to logistics as "the other half of marketing."|5~ That is, logistics is one component of the place function (the other component being channels).

Secondly, good logistics contributes strongly to customer service through delivering goods to the right place, at the right time, and in good condition. For example, reliability and dependability of service has emerged as the number one factor in post-deregulation studies of carrier choice.|6~ From a customer service perspective, reliable and dependable delivery allows for a more consistent order cycle, which can help to reduce stockout possibilities.

An examination of the literature reveals that there has been a limited amount of research involving logistical interfaces with other departments. Outside of customer service, a boundary spanning activity between marketing and logistics, research on the marketing and logistics interface might best be characterized as sparse. One of the most recent empirical studies concerned with the marketing and logistics interface was by Voorhees et al, who found that eight of twenty business activities were not perceived to be the primary responsibility of either marketing or logistics.|7~ Voorhees and his coauthors argued that these eight functions, which included purchasing, determination of safety stock levels, as well as order taking and processing, "...could suggest areas of current management disagreement, competition, and friction in a corporation's organization design."|8~

Similarly, research by Lynagh and Poist recognized that determination of functional responsibility for various components in the marketing and logistics interface could be useful for reducing the level of organizational conflict.|9~ Lynagh and Poist discovered numerous disagreements concerning the functional responsibility for marketing-logistics interface activities, with these disagreements being especially acute in the area of inventory management.|10~

Perhaps one of the most important contributions of the Lynagh and Poist research is their discussion of the conflict that may arise from disagreements between the marketing and logistics group. While conflict cannot be eliminated altogether, concerted efforts must be made to reduce the levels of conflict in order to create a corporate climate which encourages cooperation.

Cooperation between marketing and logistics becomes even more important in an integrated logistics system, in that the potential for conflict is magnified. In this regard, Ballou provides an excellent discussion of the value of cooperation:

Table 1. Coordination-Enhancing Techniques

TOP MANAGEMENT SUPPORT...refers to seeking and gaining top management support and commitment for greater cooperation between the marketing and logistics functions.

MUTUAL GOALS...refers to establishing joint or mutual goals and performance measures between the marketing and logistics functions.

JOINT PROJECTS...refers to establishing joint work-related projects or studies between the two groups or functions.

DISTRIBUTION SPECIALIST...refers to designating an employee or manager within the logistics department to act as a special liaison or contact to marketing.

INFORMATION SHARING...refers to establishing information systems or procedures which involve sharing of information between the two functions.

COORDINATING COMMITTEES...refers to establishing joint committees to identify and discuss matters of interest to both functions.

EDUCATION AND TRAINING...refers to providing opportunities for distribution personnel to get additional education and training regarding marketing functions.

SITUATIONAL BARGAINING...refers to negotiations as the need arises to resolve issues between marketing and logistics.

SYSTEM OF INCENTIVES...refers to establishing an incentive system which involves the sharing of benefits and risks between the two functions for any cooperative efforts.

UNIFIED DEPARTMENT...refers to establishing a single department which combines both the marketing and logistics functions.

JOB SWITCHING OR ROTATION...refers to providing opportunities for switching or rotation of jobs involving personnel of the two functions.

JOINT OUTINGS...refers to providing opportunities for personnel of the two functions to interact outside the normal business hours (e.g., picnics, sports events).

THIRD PARTY INTERVENTION...refers to using a neutral party outside the departments to resolve issues between marketing and logistics.

PHILOSOPHY OF COOPERATION...refers to providing or instilling a spirit or philosophy of cooperation towards marketing among the logistics department personnel.

Managing the interface activities by one function alone can lead to suboptimum performance for the firm by subordinating broader company goals to the goals of the individual function--a potential danger resulting from the departmentalized form of organizational structure so common today. To manage interface activities effectively, some mechanism or incentive for cooperation among the functions needs to be established.|11~


In summary, recent as well as previous literature has established that there are disagreements between marketing and logistics concerning functional responsibility for selected corporate activities.|12~ Because these disagreements have the potential to adversely impact corporate performance and customer service, top-level managers must attempt to improve the cooperation and coordination between marketing and logistics. The distribution literature suggests a number of approaches or techniques for doing so, including education and training, job switching, and the creation of a distribution specialist.|13~

However, to the best of the authors' knowledge there has been no empirical research which examines the role of such techniques in managing cooperation between marketing and logistics. As a result, this article will report the results of a survey of logistics practitioners which attempted to assess this role.

More specifically, one portion of this article will present the results to overview questions such as:

1. What is the present level of cooperation between the marketing and logistics functions?

2. What are the major impediments to greater cooperation?

3. What is the importance and usage of selected techniques for improving cooperation between marketing and logistics?

A second part will focus on potential interrelationships among the study's variables. Questions to be addressed include:

4. What is the relationship between the importance and usage of selected cooperation-enchancing techniques?

5. Is cooperation related to firm and/or respondent demographic characteristics?

6. Can cooperation-enhancing techniques be grouped using factor analysis into several distinct and meaningful categories?


An important aspect of this study was to identify techniques or mechanisms which might be used to enhance cooperation between marketing and logistics. A search of the distribution literature, together with discussions involving both academic and practitioner experts, resulted in fourteen such techniques being identified. A list of these techniques, along with a description of each, is presented in Table 1. Although this list is meant to be both representative and comprehensive, it should by no means be regarded as exhaustive.

Information relating to these techniques was collected by means of a mail survey sent to 350 randomly selected members (excluding consultants and educators) of the Council of Logistics Management. Each sample member received an initial mailing, which consisted of a cover letter, a copy of the survey, and a postage-paid return envelope. Approximately three weeks later, the CLM members received a second package of materials, which was identical in content to the first mailing.

Twenty-four of the surveys were returned as undeliverable, leaving an effective sample size of 326. A total of 83 usable responses were received, for an effective response rate of 25.5 percent. A test for non-response bias involving comparison of "early" and "late" respondents in terms of item responses and demographic variables yielded only negligible differences. Therefore, non-response bias did not appear to be a major problem in this study.|14~

A demographic analysis of respondents, presented in Table 2, shows that approximately one-third are from companies with annual revenues of $1 billion. Only 6 percent are from companies with revenues under $100 million. The respondents tend to be well-educated, with 85 percent possessing at least a bachelor's degree. About 50 percent of the respondents reported their job title to be that of manager, while 28 percent are directors. Seventeen percent of the respondents are vice presidents.


Overview Questions

Using a five-point scale where 0 = no cooperation and 4 = maximum cooperation, respondents were asked to assess the present level of cooperation between the marketing and logistics functions within their companies. As shown in Table 3, although approximately 43 percent indicated high cooperation, 53 percent rated the present level of cooperation as either slight or moderate. This latter finding suggests that room for improving the cooperation between marketing and logistics exists at many companies.
Table 2. Demographic Analysis of Respondents
Corporate Annual Revenues
Revenues % of respondents
|is less than~ $100,000,000 (M) 6.0
$100 M -- 499.99 M 41.0
$500 M -- 999.99 M 16.9
$1 B -- 4.99B 25.3
|is greater than~ $4.99 B 10.8
Job Title
Title % of respondents
President 1.2
Vice president 17.2
Director 28.0
Manager 50.0
Supervisor 1.2
Other 2.4
Education Level
Level % of respondents
High school 7.2
Associate degree 8.4
Bachelors degree 44.6
Masters degree 38.6
Ph.D. 1.2
Firm Type
Type % of respondents
Durables 32.9
Nondurables 41.8
Others 25.3

In a similar vein, Table 3 offers the results of questions about the major obstacles to better cooperation between the two functions. The primary impediment, by far, is lack of communication between marketing and logistics, an intriguing finding because many companies, in theory at least, would like to believe that their intraorganizational communication is excellent. In actual practice, however, it appears that intraorganizational communication needs improvement in many companies.

Lack of perceived benefits of cooperation (48 percent of respondents) was the second most frequently cited obstacle to cooperation between marketing and logistics. This may be an indication that some firms do not recognize the potential synergies arising from cooperation between the two functions.

One other finding in Table 3 is worthy of discussion. Although personality conflicts was the least frequently mentioned of the six factors, nearly one-third of the respondents cited this variable as an obstacle to cooperation between marketing and logistics. This is an important finding because it suggests that interpersonal dynamics can and does have a noticeable impact on the efficiency of corporate operations.
Table 3. Cooperation Between Logistics and Marketing
Present Level of Cooperation
Level % of respondents
No cooperation 0.0
Slight cooperation 7.4
Moderate cooperation 45.7
High cooperation 43.2
Maximum cooperation 3.7
Obstacles 10 Cooperation
Variable % of respondents
Lack of communication 63.4
Lack of perceived benefits 47.6
Managerial indifference 40.2
Lack of resources 39.0
Inadequate organizational design 35.4
Personality conflicts 31.7

Furthermore, information on the importance and usage of cooperation-enhancing techniques is interesting when compared to the obstacles to marketing/logistics cooperation. For example, top management support emerges as both the most important, as well as most frequently used, technique for improving cooperation. In theory, top management possesses a corporate-wide perspective, thus understanding--and, hopefully, championing--the benefits of interfunctional (e.g., marketing and logistics) cooperation. Recall, however, that lack of perceived benefits was a key obstacle to cooperation between marketing and logistics, suggesting that the top management in some firms may be neglecting, or unaware of, the potential benefits arising from interfaces between the two functions.

In addition, information sharing emerged as the third most important, and second most frequently used, technique. This appears to be an obvious attempt to respond to and counter the lack of communication which was previously cited as the primary obstacle to greater cooperation between marketing and logistics.

Further analysis of the importance results reveals that nearly 46 percent of the respondents assigned philosophy of cooperation to the "maximum importance" category. The only other technique to be assigned to the "maximum importance" category by as many as one-third of the respondents related to the establishment of mutual goals.

In contrast, the two techniques regarded as least important are job switching (of maximum importance to 6 percent) and third party intervention (of maximum importance to 4 percent). Other techniques regarded as only slightly important for enhancing marketing/logistics cooperation include the use of incentives, joint outings, and situational bargaining.

Turning now to usage, top management support and information sharing, as previously mentioned, are the two most frequently used techniques for improving cooperation between marketing and logistics. Table 5 shows that other techniques currently utilized by at least two-thirds of the respondents are a philosophy of cooperation (70 percent) and joint projects (68 percent).


By contrast, the least frequently used techniques are the unified department (13 percent) and job switching (7 percent). A possible explanation for these two findings could be implementation difficulties inherent to each. For instance, the creation of a combined (unified) marketing and logistics department might create organizational dysfunction in that members of formerly separate departments may resent losing some of their autonomy. Job rotation can also be dysfunctional in that workers may not know where to report or what work to expect.|15~ However, at higher levels of management, job rotation helps develop management generalists|16~; it has been suggested that generalists are best suited to manage interfunctional situations involving logistics.|17~

The information in Table 5 also indicates that education and training, mutual goals, and coordinating committees are the techniques most likely to be added in the future for enhancing cooperation with the marketing department. This strong showing of education and training is somewhat surprising given that it ranks only eleventh in current usage. Companies planning to use education and training may feel that a thorough understanding of other functions is essential for interfunctional cooperation. Similarly, plans to increase utilization of mutual goals and coordinating committees suggests that some firms have begun to recognize a seemingly basic principle: an excellent method for facilitating cooperation between marketing and logistics is for the two functions to work and interact together.
Table 5. Usage of Cooperation Techniques(a)
 % of respondents
 Currently Plan to Never
Technique use use use
Top management support 74.7 15.7 9.6
Information sharing 73.5 21.7 4.8
Philosophy of cooperation 70.4 19.8 9.8
Joint projects 67.5 18.0 14.5
Situational bargaining 61.4 15.7 22.9
Coordinating committees 59.7 23.2 17.1
Mutual goals 57.8 25.3 16.9
Distribution specialist 55.5 17.3 27.2
Joint outings 43.4 12.0 44.6
Third party intervention 20.5 3.8 74.7
Education and training 15.9 25.6 58.5
System of incentives 14.5 12.0 73.5
Unified department 13.3 10.8 75.9
Job switching or rotation 7.2 8.4 84.4
a: presented from highest % to lowest % of current usage

Interrelationships Among Variables

Not surprisingly, there is a rather strong positive relationship between the importance and usage of individual cooperation-enhancing TABULAR DATA OMITTED techniques. As shown in Table 6, eleven of the fourteen correlation coefficients between importance and usage are statistically significant at the .01 level. In addition, the Spearman coefficient of .78, significant at .005, suggests that there is little difference between the importance and usage rankings.

It is noteworthy, however, that two techniques, situational bargaining and the unified department, show ranking differences of five positions. Situational bargaining, which ranks tenth in importance and fifth in actual usage, may be utilized because it is 1) a relatively simple technique and 2) applied only when necessary. The unified department (ranked eighth in importance, thirteenth in usage) may be a conceptually attractive technique, but, as pointed out earlier, can be very difficult to implement.

Another question involving interrelationships among the variables is whether the current usage of particular techniques is related to firm and/or respondent demographic characteristics. To answer this question, the following six demographic attributes were analyzed: 1) respondent's age, 2) respondent's job title, 3) firm type, 4) company revenues, 5) profit after taxes as a percent of sales, and 6) level of cooperation between marketing and logistics as indicated by respondents. Possible relationships involving both respondent job title and firm type were investigated with one-way analysis of variance, while the remaining variables were analyzed by t-tests of mean equality.

The one-way analysis and t-test results showed relatively few statistically significant differences at the .05 level. In fact, three variables, job title (presidents/vice presidents, directors, and managers), type of firm (comparisons with manufacturers of durable goods, manufacturers of nondurables, and others), and respondent age (less than or equal to 45 years of age, greater than 45) emerged with no significant differences. With regard to profit after taxes (less than or equal to 5 percent, greater than 5 percent), only one significant difference was found. The high profit firms indicated a greater preference for using and instilling a philosophy of cooperation.

There does, however, appear to be some relationship between firm revenues and the usage of cooperation-enhancing techniques, in that four techniques showed significant relationships at the .05 level. Joint projects and incentives are more likely to be used by larger (revenues greater than $500 million) firms, while information sharing and third party intervention are more prevalent among smaller companies.


A possible explanation for the heavier utilization of information sharing as a cooperation technique among smaller firms is that these companies may have a more flexible organizational structure. By contrast, larger firms often have more rigid organizational structures, which require formal, hierarchical communication policies between functions. Thus, in smaller firms, an individual logistics manager may be able to talk directly to his marketing counterpart, behavior which is likely not possible in many larger companies. Similarly, organizational flexibility may help to explain why third party intervention is more prevalent among smaller firms in the sense that these firms have easier and more direct access to others within the firm who can mediate disputes.

By far, the greatest number of statistically significant differences were identified in relation to the "level of cooperation" variable (slight and moderate compared to high and maximum). As indicated in Table 7, significant differences were found for nine of the fourteen techniques tested. All nine techniques were used more extensively by the higher cooperation firms.

A third and final interrelationship issue investigated whether the fourteen coordination techniques could be factored into distinct groups. To this end, factor analysis, using principal components analysis and varimax rotation, was performed on the usage data associated with the fourteen variables. As shown in Table 8, five distinct factors were derived, explaining 62 percent of the total variance. The factor loadings, in most cases, were quite strong (e.g., the loading of philosophy of cooperation is .85), and interpretations of the factors are discussed below.

Factor 1, comprising top management support, mutual goals, and information sharing, has a "strategic orientation." In general, these techniques focus on top management's role in improving the logistics-marketing interface. These senior-level executives also are in the best position to establish mutual goals and give approval for information sharing between the two groups.

In contrast, Factor 2 (joint projects, distribution specialist, education and training, incentives) reflects more of an "operational orientation." These techniques are much more likely to be employed at an operating or lower-management level to enhance cooperation between marketing and logistics. Factor 3 (coordinating committees, situational bargaining, philosophy of cooperation) reflects a" tactical orientation." In other words, these techniques tend to focus on the role of middle management to bring about greater coordination.
Table 8. Factor Analysis of Technique Usage
Factor 1: "strategic orientation"
 top management support (.76)(a)
 mutual goals (.74)
 information sharing (.66)
Factor 2: "operational orientation"
 joint projects (.49)
 distribution specialist (.67)
 education and training (.72)
 system of incentives (.67)
Factor 3: "tactical orientation"
 coordinating committees (.47)
 situational bargaining (.56)
 philosophy of cooperation (.85)
Factor 4: "organizational orientation"
 unified department (.81)
 job switching or rotation (.64)
 joint outings (.61)
Factor 5: "external orientation"
 third party intervention (.83)
% of variance explained by the five factors = 61.8%
a: factor loadings

"Organizational orientation" describes Factor 4 (unified department, job rotation, joint outings). These techniques focus on an organizational solution, particularly with regard to a unified department and job rotation. Finally, Factor 5 can be titled "external orientation," in part because the previous four factors have a decidedly internal (i.e., marketing and logistics) orientation. By employing third parties, the logistics department is looking for either an outside or an interventionist solution to its problems with marketing.

Analysis of the factor scores across the demographic attributes of respondent age, respondent job title, firm type, company revenues, profit after taxes, and level of cooperation yielded very few statistically significant relationships. However, two of the five factor scores involving company revenues (firm size) did yield statistically significant results (at the .05 level). Larger firms are more likely to use the techniques comprising Factor 2 (e.g., joint projects), whereas smaller firms are more likely to utilize third parties (Factor 5) to achieve cooperation between marketing and logistics. These results are similar to, and tend to reinforce, the demographic relationships discussed previously in this section.

Finally, analysis of the factor scores across the "level of cooperation" variable yielded three statistically significant differences (Factor 1: strategic orientation, Factor 2: operational orientation, Factor 3: tactical orientation). The results indicate that the techniques associated with all three factors are more likely to be used by the high cooperation firms. Again, this tends to corroborate some of the previously discussed demographic findings. Overall, it appears that the higher cooperation firms not only tend to use a more comprehensive set of techniques to foster coordination, but also techniques which focus upon and involve all levels of management.


In recent years increasing attention has been paid to the management of so-called interfunctional interfaces. Perhaps the most important from a logistics perspective is the interface with marketing. While empirical evidence is sparse, a number of studies indicate that this interface is often fraught with conflict and disagreement. Because these disagreements have the potential to adversely affect corporate profits and customer service, concerted efforts must be undertaken to reduce conflict and improve cooperation between the marketing and logistics functions.

This paper reports the findings of a survey of logistics practitioners to assess the importance and usage of fourteen cooperation-enhancing techniques. The major findings of the study can be summarized as follows:

1. Approximately 53 percent of respondents rated the present level of cooperation between the logistics and marketing functions to be only slight or moderate. This is a clear indication that there is room for improvement in many companies.

2. Lack of communication is by far the major obstacle to better cooperation between the two functions. Other important impediments were a lack of perceived benefits and managerial indifference.

3. Top management support is perceived to be the most important and widely used technique for enhancing cooperation between logistics and marketing. Information sharing also is regarded as highly important and frequently used.

4. Education and training as well as the establishment of mutual goals are the techniques most likely to be added in the future, with fully 25 percent of respondents indicating planned usage of each.

5. In general, there is a positive and statistically significant correlation between technique importance and usage.

6. Analysis between technique usage and demographic characteristics revealed relatively few statistically significant differences, except for company size and perceived level of cooperation between the logistics and marketing functions.

7. Factor analysis of the techniques generated five distinct factors; analysis of factor scores by demographic variables generally yielded few statistically significant differences. Again the main exceptions related to company size and level of cooperation, with larger companies and higher cooperation firms both indicating greater usage of certain factor-specific techniques.

These results, as well as others presented throughout this article, have important implications for logistics practitioners. First and foremost the results come from the only known empirical study which attempts to identify and assess the importance and usage of a wide range of cooperation-enhancing techniques. At a minimum, the results highlight some of the major efforts being undertaken to improve logistics-marketing interface relations.

Likewise, the results provide benchmarks for comparisons with what other logistics executives are thinking and doing in this area. As a result, logistics practitioners can more effectively evaluate their firm's current techniques usage strategy vis-a-vis the results presented in this paper. In some cases, refinements and changes in strategy certainly may be in order.

Beyond this, several lessons appear to emerge from the study results. The first is that the most important and widely used enhancement techniques, such as top management support, information sharing, instilling a philosophy of cooperation, and establishment of mutual goals, are neither revolutionary nor sophisticated. Instead, these techniques are based upon relatively simple concepts and "common sense," yet are frequently overlooked in the hustle and bustle of daily business practices. Implementation of the techniques generally involves a change in attitudes and corporate culture rather than formal organization change or massive expenditures. This, in turn, suggests that major improvements in interface relations between marketing and logistics may be attainable within a relatively short period of time, with minimal disruption, and at a very reasonable cost.

A second lesson is that firms that appear most successful in their interface dealings tend to rely upon a comprehensive set of enhancement techniques rather than just one or several. In addition, these firms tend to employ techniques that actively involve all levels of management, from top management to the supervisory levels. This suggests that efforts at cooperation enhancement must be comprehensive as well as pervasive throughout the firm in order to be successful.

Finally, it is hoped that this research will serve as a stimulus to further research in the area of interface management. In this regard, the literature has identified four basic types of logistical interfaces: 1) intrafunctional, 2) interfunctional, 3) interfirm, and 4) societal.|18~ The first two types may be viewed as internal to the firm while the latter two represent external interfaces.

This article has focused only upon the interfunctional interface between logistics and marketing. Certainly one of the areas that needs to be explored is whether the cooperation-enhancing techniques and study findings can be generalized to other interface topics. For example, are the techniques and findings applicable to the intrafunctional dealings between the transportation and inventory control activities, or to other interfunctional interfaces besides marketing (e.g., production)?

Likewise, externally, are the techniques and study findings applicable to interfirm interfaces involving suppliers, carriers, and customers as well as societal interface dealings with governmental agencies, environmental groups, and local communities? In the future these questions must be addressed if a general theory of interface management is to evolve and the logistics profession is to achieve greater recognition for its strategic importance and excellence.

Mr. Murphy, EM-AST&L, is an associate professor of business logistics, John Carroll University, University Heights, Ohio 44118. Mr. Poist, EM-AST&L, is professor of transportation and logistics, Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa 50011.


1 Bernard J. La Londe, "Update Logistics Skills for the Future," Transportation and Distribution, January 1990, p. 46-48.

2 Richard F. Poist, "Evolution of Conceptual Approaches to Designing Business Logistics Systems," Transportation Journal, Fall 1986, pp. 55-64.

3 John J. Coyle, Edward J. Bardi, and C. John Langley, The Management of Business Logistics, fourth edition, West Publishing, 1988, Chapter 2.

4 Philip Schary, Logistics Decisions, Dryden Press, 1984.

5 Same reference as Endnote 3. at p. 51.

6 Michael A. McGinnis, "The Relative Importance of Cost and Service in Freight Transportation Choice: Before and After Deregulation," Transportation Journal, Fall 1990, pp. 12-19.

7 Roy D. Voorhees, R. Kenneth Teas, Benjamin J. Allen, and Earl T. Dinkler, "Changes in the Marketing-Logistics Relationship," Journal of Business Logistics, Vol. 9, No. 1, 1988, pp. 34-50.

8 Same reference as Endnote 7, at p. 46.

9 Peter M. Lynagh and Richard F. Poist, "Assigning Organizational Responsibility for Interface Activities: An Analysis of PD and Marketing Manager Preferences," International Journal of Physical Distribution and Materials Management, Vol. 14, No. 6, 1984, pp. 34-46.

10 Same reference as Endnote 9.

11 Ronald H. Ballou, Business Logistics Management, second edition, Prentice-Hall, 1985, pp. 21-22.

12 For some of the earlier studies dealing with the logistics-marketing interface, see the following: Thomas W. Speh, "Physical Distribution-Marketing Interfaces: Research and Managerial Implications," Annual Conference Proceedings: National Council of Physical Distribution Management, 1977, pp. 25-40; James C. Johnson and Donald L. Borger, "Physical Distribution: Has It Reached Maturity?," International Journal of Physical Distribution, Vol. 7, No. 5, 1977, pp. 35-45.

13 Same reference as Endnote 9.

14 For a description of this process, see J. Armstrong and T. Overton, "Estimating Non-Response Bias in Mail Surveys," Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 14, No. 3, 1977, pp. 396-402.

15 Michael R. Carrell and Frank E. Kuzmits, Personnel: Human Resource Management, second edition, Merrill Publishing, 1986, Chapter 3.

16 Same reference as Endnote 15.

17 Same reference as Endnote 2.

18 Richard F. Poist, "Evolution of Conceptual Approaches to the Design of Logistics Systems: A Sequel," Transportation Journal, Spring 1989, pp. 35-39.
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
Author:Murphy, Paul R.; Poist, Richard F.
Publication:Transportation Journal
Date:Dec 22, 1992
Previous Article:Utilization of EDI by motor carrier firms: a status report.
Next Article:The impact of deregulation on LTL motor carriers: size, structure, and organization.

Terms of use | Copyright © 2017 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters