The Emerald Research Register for this journal is available at The current issue and full text archive

ve of this journal is available at

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/researchregister http://www.emeraldinsight.com/0960-0035.htm

The bullwhip
The bullwhip effect in effect
intra-organisational echelons
Göran Svensson
School of Management and Economics, Växjö University, Växjö, Sweden 103
Received September
Keywords Logistics, Inventory control, Supply-chain management 2001
Abstract This research applies the construct of bullwhip effect in a non-traditional context. It is Revised May 2002
explored in intra-organisational echelons. It is argued that the bullwhip effect in a company’s and October 2002
inventory management of inbound and outbound logistics flows depends in part upon the gap
between the degree of speculation and postponement of business activities. It is also argued that the
bullwhip effect is caused by the value adding of business activities in supply chains. The study shows
that there is a potential bullwhip effect between companies’ inbound and outbound logistics flows,
i.e. two internal stocking levels. A see-saw model of the bullwhip effect, and a typology of the
bullwhip effect in intra-organisational echelons, are introduced. The term “reversed bullwhip
effect” is also introduced. Finally, a model of the bullwhip effect-scenarios in a dynamic business
environment positions these contributions in a wider theoretical and managerial context.

Introduction
Supply chain management (SCM) has been of interest for many years in
literature (Oliver and Webber, 1992; Jones and Riley, 1985, 1987; Houlihan,
1985, 1987; Snowdon, 1988). Stock (2000) states that SCM is an influential
ingredient in today’s literature and thinking in the field of logistics. The
management of multiple relationships across the supply chain is often referred
to as SCM (Lambert et al., 1998). Alderson (1957, 1965) recognises the
interdependence between companies’ business activities in marketing
channels. Forrester (1958) also acknowledges the linkages between business
activities in marketing channels, e.g. in terms of the interactions between the
flows of information, materials, money, and manpower, and capital equipment.
Furthermore, Weld (1916) stresses the importance of addressing the
distribution channel as a whole. SCM addresses the supply chain from the
point of origin to the point of consumption (Mentzer et al., 2001; Lambert, 1992;
Cavinato, 1992). Furthermore, SCM requires co-operation and co-ordination
between companies’ activities and resources in a supply chain (Xu et al., 2001;
Holmström, 1997). Otherwise, the variability of business activities in a supply
chain tend to be amplified as it is moved upstream in the supply chain (Towill,
1996; Lee and Billington, 1992).
Lee et al. (1997a) write that the variance of orders may be larger than that of
International Journal of Physical
sales and the distortion tends to increase as one moves upstream in the supply Distribution & Logistics Management
chain. Lee et al. (1997b) claim that the information transferred tends to be Vol. 33 No. 2, 2003
pp. 103-131
distorted and can misguide upstream members in their inventory and q MCB UP Limited
0960-0035
production decisions. This phenomenon is referred to in literature as the DOI 10.1108/09600030310469135
IJPDLM “bullwhip effect” (Chen et al., 2000). In fact, practitioners and consultants have
33,2 striven to deal with the bullwhip effect, e.g. in the automotive, textile, and retail
industries. In the automotive industry the term “just in time” (e.g. Sugimore
et al., 1977; Toyoda, 1987) has been used, while in the textile and retail
industries the terms “quick response” (e.g. Stern et al., 1996) and “efficient
consumer response” (e.g. Kurt Salmon Associates, 1993; Fernie, 1994) have
104 been applied. These terms, or business philosophies, aim at reducing the
variability in supply chains, and in the end improve profitability, reduce costs
and increase the overall performance of the supply chain beyond judicial
boundaries as a whole.

Research objective and research question

The bullwhip effect indicates that the inventories in the supply chain tend to be
higher upstream than downstream, e.g. they are caused by factors such as
deficient information sharing, insufficient market data, deficient forecasts or
other uncertainties. Fransoo and Wouters (2000) writes that the bullwhip effect
refers to increasing variability of demand further upstream in the supply chain,
and conclude that the theory of measurement of the bullwhip effect in a
practical setting has received limited attention. The research of the bullwhip
effect has considered inter-organisational echelons, such as two echelons
between companies (e.g. Yu et al., 2001; Chen et al., 2000; Fransoo and Wouters,
2000; Kelle and Milne, 1999), or three/multi echelons between a sequence of
companies (e.g. McCullen and Towill, 2001; Jacobs, 2000; Metters, 1997; Lee
et al., 1997a, b), in supply chains. There is therefore a need for research of the
bullwhip effect on a company’s internal inventories, e.g. between a company’s
inbound and outbound logistics flows (i.e. two internal stocking levels). The
objective of this research is to explore the bullwhip effect on inventories in
internal echelons.
The process of rational decision making in companies’ inventory
management is in part based upon the postponement or speculation of
business activities. In some circumstances a company maintains higher levels
of inventories (i.e. speculation), while in others lower levels of inventories are
kept (i.e. postponement), in the inbound and outbound logistics flows. The
process of rational decision making is also influenced by the companies’
business activities adding value in a value chain. Lee et al. (1997a) conclude
that the bullwhip effect results from the rational decision making between the
actors in a supply chain (i.e. inter-organisational echelons). This rational
decision making might also be based upon the relationship between actors
within a company (i.e. intra-organisational echelons), such as the actors in
charge of business activities dealing with procurement and physical
distribution. There is a need for research to explore the potential bullwhip
effect in intra-organisational echelons. This research is limited to companies’
inventories in inbound and outbound logistics flows (i.e. two internal stocking
levels) and has been formulated as follows: “Is there a bullwhip effect in the
inventories between a company’s inbound and outbound logistics flows?”. The The bullwhip
inventories of an inbound logistics flow are derived from the procurement of effect
materials and components from sub-contractors to be used in production. The
inventories of an outbound logistics flow refer to the point of physical
distribution of finished goods to satisfy other subcontractors, customer or
market demand.
105
Frame of reference
SCM is the overall frame of reference of this research on the bullwhip effect in
companies’ inbound and outbound logistics flows. SCM used to be simple
compared to what it is today (Levy and Grewal, 2000). Various definitions of
SCM appear in literature (see Table I).
SCM might be seen as a management philosophy that strives to integrate the
dependent activities, actors, and resources between the point of origin and the
point of final consumption. This means that SCM comprises different kinds of
dependencies in, between and across companies in marketing channels.
Mentzer et al. (2001) argue that the definitions of SCM can be classified into
three categories, namely: a management philosophy; the implementation of a
management philosophy; and a set of management processes.
Companies’ atomistic considerations (i.e. sub-optimisation of business
activities) in a supply chain cause the bullwhip effect to occur. The bullwhip
effect has gained interest in the field of SCM, since SCM requires holistic
considerations of the business activities in supply chains. The holistic
consideration of SCM from the point of origin to the point of consumption is
evident (see Table I). The co-operation and co-ordination between companies’
activities and resources is necessary to avoid or minimise the variability
between business activities in the supply chain, such as ordering and sales, and
the inventories in inbound and outbound logistics flows. Otherwise, the
bullwhip effect might affect negatively the overall outcome or performance of
the supply chain. The frame of reference of this research is limited to and
underpinned by the principles of postponement (Alderson, 1950) and
speculation (Bucklin, 1965), the value chain concept (Porter, 1985), and the
bullwhip effect (Lee et al., 1997a, b).

The principles of postponement and speculation

It was previously stated that a bullwhip effect between a company’s inbound
and outbound logistics flows should indicate a higher level of inventories in the
inbound logistics flows than in the outbound logistics flows, e.g. caused by
insufficient market data, deficient forecasts or other uncertainties. It could also
be explained by the effects or consequences of the principle of postponement
(Alderson, 1950) and the principle of speculation (Bucklin, 1965).
Alderson (1950, p. 1) writes: “Postpone changes in form and identity to the
latest possible point in the marketing flow; postpone changes in inventory
location to the latest possible point in time”. The postponement of companies’
IJPDLM
Source Definition of SCM
33,2
Mentzer et al. (2001) The systematic, strategic co-ordination of the traditional
business functions and the tactics across these business
functions within a particular company and across businesses
within the supply chain, for the purposes of improving the
106 long-term performance of the individual companies and the
supply chain as a whole
Lummus et al. (2001) Includes the logistics flows, customer order management, the
production processes, and the information flows necessary to
monitor all the activities at the supply chain nodes
Mentzer et al. (2000) The management of close interfirm relationships, and that
understanding partnering is important in developing
successful retail supply chain relationships
Min and Mentzer (2000) To manage the flow of a distribution channel from the
supplier to the ultimate user
Lambert et al. (1998) To maximise competitiveness and profitability for the
company as well as the whole supply chain network,
including the end-customer
Carter et al. (1995) A co-ordinated approach for managing the flow of goods from
suppliers to ultimate consumers
Ellram and Cooper (1993) An approach whereby the entire network, from the supplier
through to the ultimate customer, is analysed and managed in
order to achieve the best outcome for the whole system
Turner (1993) A technique that looks at all the links in the chain from raw
materials suppliers, through the various levels of
manufacturing, to warehousing and distribution to the final
customer
Christopher (1992) Supply chain is the network of organisations that are
involved, through upstream and downstream linkages, in the
different processes and activities that each produce value in
the form of products and services in the hands of the ultimate
consumer
Lambert (1992) The supply chain is a single entity that aims at satisfying the
needs and wants of the customer, and eventually the ultimate
consumer
Cavinato (1992) The supply chain consists of actively managed channels of
procurement and distribution and that it is made up of a
group of firms that adds value along the product flow from
original raw materials to final customer
Lee and Billington (1992) Networks of manufacturing and distribution sites that
procure raw materials, transform them into intermediate and
finished products, and finally distribute the finished products
Table I. to customers
The meaning of (continued)
SCM
Source Definition of SCM
The bullwhip
effect
Scott and Westbrook (1991) The supply chain is used to refer to the chain linking each
element of the production and supply processes from raw
materials through to the end customer
Novack and Simco (1991) Covers the flow of goods from the supplier through the
manufacturer and distributor to the end user 107
Langley and Holcomb (1992) Focusing attention on the interactions of channel members to
produce an end product or service that will provide best
comparative value for the end user
Stevens (1990) Controls the flow of material from suppliers, through the
value-adding processes and distribution channels, to
customers
Ritchie (1990) Considers the supply chain to be a single entity and argues
that the end performance of delivering satisfaction to
customers will only be as good as the weakest link in the
supply chain
Ellram and Cooper (1990) An integrating philosophy to manage the total flow of a
distribution channel from supplier to ultimate customer
Houlihan (1988) Covers the flow of goods from supplier through manufacturer
and distributor to the end user
Jones and Riley (1985) Deals with the total flow of materials from suppliers right
through to the end users
Oliver and Webber (1982) The marketing channel should be seen as an integrated single
entity Table I.

business activities reduces the risk by moving the differentiation nearer to the
time of exchange. It provides a point of departure for a critical examination to
enhance the performance of companies’ business activities, and for a possible
reduction of the bullwhip effect, in a supply chain. Alderson (1950) states that
the principle of postponement is not an answer to every analytical problem, but
only a major instrument that can be derived from the view that sorting is an
essential function by both the seller and the buyer.
Bucklin (1965) argues that postponement of business activities is only half a
principle and that there must be a converse principle equally significant to a
channel structure, and states: “The principle of speculation holds that changes
in form, and the movement of goods to forward inventories, should be made at
the earliest possible time in the marketing flow in order to reduce the costs of
the marketing system”. The principle of speculation facilitates a counter-view
in relation to the principal of postponement and enhances a critical examination
to improve the performance of business activities and dealing with the
bullwhip effect. Bucklin (1965, p. 28) comments on the combination of
postponement and speculation of business activities as follows: “A speculative
IJPDLM inventory will appear at each point in a distribution channel whenever its costs
33,2 are less than the net savings to both buyer and seller from postponement”. In a
managerial context the ultimate goal is to achieve a balance and harmony
between the postponement and speculation of one’s business activities. Both
principles contribute to explain the reasoning behind a company’s inventory
management, and provide a platform for cost efficient inventory management
108 in order to deal with the bullwhip effect in supply chains.

The value chain concept

Previously, it has been stated that a bullwhip effect in a company’s inbound
and outbound logistics flows should indicate a positive association between the
levels of inbound and outbound inventories, e.g. if the level of inventory
increases in the outbound logistics flows then the level of inventory also
increases in the inbound logistics flows. The disequilibrium between the points
of inventory in a supply chain might be caused by the value adding process in
companies’ different business activities. Therefore, the occurrence of the
bullwhip effect does not necessarily have to do with demand variability. It
could be explained by the effects or consequences of the value chain concept
(Porter, 1985). The value chain concept is a guide or tool for identifying
different ways of creating customer value (Porter, 1985, pp. 33-4): “... the value
chain disaggregates a firm into its strategically relevant activities... A firm
gains competitive advantage by performing these strategically important
activities more cheaply or better than its competitors”. Generally, the value
chain concept shows that the value chain may be useful in terms of identifying
and understanding fundamental aspects to reach competitive strengths on the
market, and how these activities are tied together in order to create value for
the ultimate consumer. Specifically, the value chain concept identifies
strategically relevant activities that create value and costs in a specific
business. These value chain activities are divided into two broad types:
(1) primary activities, which involve in the physical creation of the product,
its sale, its transfer to the buyer and its aftersale activities; and
(2) support activities, which underpin the primary activities, and each other,
by providing purchased inputs, technology, human resources, and
various company activities.
This research is limited to the primary activities of inbound and outbound
logistics.
Often it is argued that each step in the value chain exists because it provides
or improves the value or adds value to the product and attributes value to the
ultimate consumer. Already at the beginning of this century, the idea of the
value-added process was recognised (Weld, 1916, p. 6): “At each step an
increment of value is added by those who handle or transform the product”.
The value-added approach contributes in part to the understanding of the
bullwhip effect between a company’s inbound and outbound logistics flows.
The creation of value in value chains is often expressed as a successive or The bullwhip
stepwise process in which value increases along a value chain or consecutive effect
value chains, i.e. so-called value systems (Porter, 1985). From a financial point
of view, the inventory cost per unit is lower upstream than downstream, which
mitigates the effects or consequences of increased variability in the inventory
management upstream in the supply chain.
109
The bullwhip effect
The dependencies between actors, activities and resources cause negative
consequences when variability occurs upstream or downstream in the supply
chain. Sterman (1989) illustrates that misperceptions about information may
cause human behaviour to over-react. Variability in the business environment
is therefore troublesome to handle in a managerial context. Lee et al. (1997a)
state that the variability could be symptoms of excessive inventory, poor
product forecasts, insufficient or excessive capacities, poor customer service
due to unavailable products or long backlogs, uncertain production planning
(i.e. excessive revisions), and high costs for corrections, such as for expedited
shipments and overtime. Lee et al. (1997b) identify four major causes of the
bullwhip effect, namely demand forecast updating, order batching, price
fluctuation, and rationing and shortage gaming. Xu et al. (2001) present other
observations:
.
when the manufacturer’s forecasting errors are greater than those of the
retailer’s before collaboration, co-ordination will be effective in decreasing
the manufacturer’s safety stocks;
.
when the smoothing constant adopted by the retailer and manufacturer
determines the extent of the effect of co-ordination in terms of reducing
both safety stock and the variances of order releases; and
.
when co-ordination is effective in the case of either non-stationary or
stationary demand, though in some limiting situations the advantage is
greatly reduced.
The bullwhip effect can be mitigated by reduced lead times, revision of
reordering procedures, limitations of price fluctuations, and the integration of
planning and performance measurement (Lee and Billington, 1992; Towill,
1996; Fransoo and Wouters, 2000). Baljko (1999) writes that the bullwhip effect
in the supply chain may be eliminated through measures such as: shared
knowledge with suppliers and customers to better gauge demand, co-operation
with supply chain partners to determine what information is causing an
overreaction, and usage of internet-enabled technology and the application of
the web to speed communications and improve response time. Lee et al. (1997a)
develop a typology, based upon the causes of the bullwhip effect and the
remedies to discuss ways of controlling the bullwhip effect. It is based upon the
underlying co-ordination mechanism in terms of information sharing, channel
alignment, and operational efficiency. Demand information at a downstream
IJPDLM site is transmitted upstream in a timely fashion with information sharing. The
33,2 co-ordination of pricing, transportation, inventory planning, and ownership
between the upstream and downstream actors in the supply chain refers to
channel alignment. Improved performance, e.g. reduced costs and shortened
lead times, may be achieved through increased operational efficiency.
Chen et al. (2000) quantify the bullwhip effect in a two-stage supply chain
110 consisting of a single retailer and a single manufacturer based upon a model
that includes two factors, namely demand forecasting and order lead times.
This research illustrates that the bullwhip effect can in part be decreased by
centralising demand information. McCullen and Towill (2001) study a three-
echelon supply chain consisting of overseas warehouses (US), a central
finished-goods warehouse, and a UK factory. The results from the supply chain
modelling and the dynamic simulation show four material flow principles,
which can be used to reduce the bullwhip effect, namely control system, time
compression, information transparency, and echelon elimination. Kelle and
Milne (1999) study the bullwhip effect and consider three basic elements of a
supply chain, namely, the purchase order of individual retailers, the aggregate
orders of the retailers, and the supplier’s ordering/producing policy. This
research illustrates how demand correlation can decrease the variability of
aggregate orders, and how autocorrelation in buyer’s orders can smooth the
supplier’s ordering policy. It is concluded that the negative effect of high
variability and uncertainty can be decreased by small frequent orders.
Metters (1997) considers multiple companies operating as a serial supply
chain. In this context, end user demand forms the demand for the last company
in the supply chain, but the demand for upstream companies is formed by the
companies in the immediate downstream supply chain. The demand
seasonality and forecast error can increase as one proceeds up the supply
chain. The results of the study indicate that the importance of the bullwhip
effect to a company differs greatly depending upon the specific business
context. Eliminating the bullwhip effect can increase the product profitability
by 10-30 percent. Fransoo and Wouters (2000) argue that the increased demand
variability in supply chains, i.e. the bullwhip effect, is troublesome to measure
in a managerial context and discusse conceptual measurement problems, and
describe experiences in handling with some of these problems in industrial
projects. Empirical results of measurements of the bullwhip effect in two
supply chains are presented. The outcome of this research is a method to
document and define various ways of measuring the bullwhip effect. Yu et al.
(2001) show the benefits of supply chain partnerships through a case study
based upon information sharing. The supply chain actors may gain benefits in
terms of reductions in inventory levels and cost savings from forming
partnerships with another. It is argued that supply chain partnerships can
mitigate deficiencies associated with decentralised control and reduce the
bullwhip effect.
 Xu et al. (2001) examine the improvement of supply chain co-ordination The bullwhip
through more effective information exchange and consistent forecasting. The effect
result illustrates the negative impact that independent activities performed by
actors of a traditional supply chain have on order release volatility and forecast
error volatility. Xu et al. (2001) show when and to what extent order and
forecast fluctuations can be controlled through collaboration within the supply
chain. The study shows that the bullwhip effect of order releases and 111
amplifications of safety stock increase within the supply chain even when level
demand patterns with no trend and seasonality are stressed.

Methodology
This research was performed as a non-sponsored and unsolicited mail survey.
Initially, two independent representatives at each company were contacted, in
order to collect separately data for the companies’ inbound and outbound
logistics flows. The selection of the companies studied was based upon an
identified population (SCB, 1999) in the Swedish vehicle industry (i.e. mostly
sub-contractors in the industry).
Companies in the industry having more than 20 employees were included in
the population. The population consisted of 251 companies and thus 502
executives were selected for the survey. Two matched questionnaires (i.e. one
each concerning the inbound and outbound logistics flows) were developed. Each
company and each respondent was initially contacted by phone in order to select
the two most suitable executives at each company for each questionnaire. A
questionnaire was sent to each of the executives. The selected executives for the
inbound questionnaire, which contained items dealing with the inventories in the
inbound logistics flows, were mainly the purchasing manager or logistics
manager. In the outbound logistics flows the manager in charge of the
production or sales in each company was primarily selected.
In a few companies (approximately 10 per cent) a single executive responded
to both questionnaires, due to the lack of other suitable executives available. In
these cases, the executives received the second questionnaire (i.e. the one
regarding outbound logistics flows) after a delay of two to three weeks’ in an
attempt to have independent observations from these executives regarding the
inventories in the companies’ inbound and outbound logistics flows.
A substantial amount of work was performed in the preparation,
implementation and conclusion of the mail survey. For example, each
respondent was briefly introduced to the research project to stimulate his or
her interest and willingness to participate in the survey. In addition, a brief
telephone interview was performed with each of them (approximately five
minutes) in order to have a notion about each company’s empirical context
(i.e. in terms of the inbound or outbound logistics flows). Those executives
who did not answer the questionnaire were contacted again by telephone in
order to stimulate their interest to fill in the required answers. The
carefulness in this part of the research led to the achievement of a
satisfactory response rate. A total of 93.2 per cent of the companies responded
IJPDLM to at least one of the two questionnaires. A total of 418 responses (total response
33,2 rate: 83.2 per cent) was collected from the identified population. The responses
collected for the questionnaires of the inbound logistics flows from sub-
contractors were 214 units (response rate: 85.3 per cent). The responses collected
for the questionnaires of the outbound logistics flows to customers were 204 units
(response rate: 81.3 per cent).
112 An analysis of non-response bias was performed in order to clarify if the non-
response bias in the survey might affect the results of this study, and if there
were any differences between the companies who answered or participated in the
survey, and the few who did not. The analysis of non-response bias included all
non-response companies that did not answer either of the two questionnaires
used. The principal reasons why they did not participate in the survey was either
that they were too occupied at the time of the research, that they had a policy to
never participate in surveys, or simply that they were not interested in
participating. A non-parametric test (chi square-test: Pearson) was used for the
analysis of non-response bias, using such variables as the number of employees
and the total company sales. There existed no significant difference (significance
, 5 per cent) between obtained responses and non-responses.

Hypotheses
A bullwhip effect between a company’s inbound and outbound logistics flows
should indicate a higher level of inventories in the inbound logistics flows than
in the outbound logistics flows. In addition, a bullwhip effect in a company’s
inbound and outbound logistics flows should indicate a positive association
between the levels of inventories. For example, if the level of inventory
increases in the outbound logistics flows then the level of inventory also
increases in the inbound logistics flows. Therefore, two hypotheses have been
formulated as follows:
H0a. There is no difference between companies’ inventories in the inbound
and outbound logistics flows
H0b. There is no association between companies’ inventories in the inbound
and outbound logistics flows

Empirical findings
A selection of univariate, bivariate, and multivariate statistical techniques was
used to analyse the collected data on inventories from the companies’ inbound
and outbound logistics flows (e.g. Norusis, 1993, 1994). A total of 13 items were
used to measure and estimate the inventories in the companies’ inbound and
outbound logistics flows (see the Appendix). Initially, these items were
structured according to three pre-specified dimensions, namely inventory
turnover (i.e. B1-B6), lead time (i.e. B7-B11) and inventory trend (i.e. B12 and
B13). A variety of items based upon various dimensions have been applied in
order to test the stability and randomness of the collected answers.
Characteristics of multivariate analyses The bullwhip
The data collected was also analysed statistically using factor analysis. A effect
confirmatory approach and an R factor analysis was applied on the collected
data (e.g. Norusis, 1994 and Hair et al., 1992). A component model was used to
summarise the original variance of the variables in a minimum number of
factors. An orthogonal solution was applied to extract the factors in such a way
that the factor axes were maintained at right angles to one another. The 113
orthogonal approach of Varimax was used to rotate the initial factor solution,
which focused on simplifying the columns of the factor matrix. In addition, the
orthogonal rotation procedure was applied, since it eliminates the collinearity
between factors. Factors that have eigenvalues greater than one were
considered as significant. These factors have been selected and included in the
final factor solutions. Factor loadings above 0.3 were interpreted as significant
in the tables (Hair et al., 1992, p. 239).

Characteristics of the factor analyses for the inventories in companies’ inbound

and outbound logistics flows
The factor solutions for the companies’ inbound and outbound inventories
account approximately for 71.2 per cent to 73.4 per cent of the total variance.
The communalities for the variables are within the range from 0.59 to 0.80.
Factor loadings above 0.3 are significant (Hair et al., 1992, p. 239). From each
questionnaire, eight items remain in the final factor solutions. Factor scores are
computed for each factor in order to be used in the section where the
association between the companies’ inventories in inbound and outbound
logistics flows are tested.

Factor analysis – inventory items in the inbound logistics flows

The outcome of the factor analysis (see Table II) of the items in the inbound
questionnaire on inventories turned out to be significant (KMO ¼ 0:475;
Bartlett’s test: approx. Chi-square ¼ 156:194; df ¼ 28; sig: ¼ 0:000). Four
factors were identified:
(1) Factor 1 consists of the variables B1 and B3, which represent the
highest/lowest inventory turnovers in the inbound logistics flows, and is
labelled inbound inventory turnover.
(2) Factor 2 consists of the variables B7 and B9, which represent the
shortest/longest lead times from sub-contractors, and is labelled inbound
lead times.
(3) Factor 3 consists of the variables B2 and B8, which represent the highest
inventory turnovers and the shortest lead times. This factor is labelled
inbound turnover/lead time.
(4) Factor 4 consists of the variables B12 and B13, which represent the
trends for the lead times and the inventory levels. This factor is labelled
inbound inventory level trends.
IJPDLM
Factor Communality
33,2 Item 1 2 3 4 per variable

B3. Lowest inventory turnovers 0.881 0.021 0.088 2 0.031 0.785

B1. Highest inventory turnovers 0.852 20.097 2 0.005 0.055 0.738
B7. Shortest lead times 20.025 0.884 0.140 0.062 0.806
114 B9. Longest lead times 20.059 0.788 2 0.320 0.005 0.727
B8. Share of shortest lead times 20.076 20.003 0.822 2 0.131 0.698
B2. Share of highest inventory
turnovers 0.161 20.096 0.738 0.113 0.593
B12. Lead time trend 20.038 0.078 0.097 0.821 0.691
Table II. B13. Inventory level trend 0.060 20.015 2 0.111 0.801 0.658
Factor analysis of Total explained variance per
inventory items in factor (per cent) 19.2 17.9 17.1 16.9
the inbound Cumulative explained total
logistics flows variance (per cent) 19.2 37.1 54.3 71.2

Factor analysis – inventory items in outbound logistics flows

The outcome of the factor analysis (see Table III) of the items in the outbound
questionnaire on inventories turned out to be significant (KMO ¼ 0:556;
Bartlett’s test: approx. Chi-square ¼ 152:192; df ¼ 28, sig: ¼ 0:000). Four
factors were identified:
(1) Factor 1 consists of the variables B1 and B3, which represent the
highest/lowest inventory turnovers in the inbound logistics flows, and is
labelled outbound inventory turnover.
(2) Factor 2 consists of the variables B7 and B9, which represent the
shortest/longest lead times from sub-contractors, and is labelled
outbound lead times.
(3) Factor 3 consists of the variables B2 and B10, which represent the
highest inventory turnovers and the longest lead times. This factor is
labelled outbound turnover/lead time.

Factor Community
Item 1 2 3 4 per variable

B1. Highest inventory turnovers 0.876 2 0.043 0.063 2 0.154 0.798

B3. Lowest inventory turnovers 0.876 0.037 0.142 0.100 0.799
B9. Longest lead times 20.033 0.879 20.064 0.025 0.778
B7. Shortest lead times 0.029 0.808 0.254 0.034 0.719
B10. Share of longest lead times 0.003 0.183 0.787 0.169 0.682
Table III. B2. Share of highest inventory turnovers 0.233 2 0.014 0.779 2 0.167 0.689
Factor analysis of B13. Inventory level trend 20.007 0.083 20.210 0.820 0.723
inventory items in B12. Lead time trend 20.045 2 0.022 0.221 0.796 0.685
the outbound Total explained variance per factor (per cent) 19.9 18.4 17.7 17.5
logistics flows Cumulative explained total variance (per cent) 19.9 38.3 56.0 73.4
 (4) Factor 4 consists of the variables B12 and B13, which represent the The bullwhip
trends for the lead times and the inventory levels. This factor is labelled effect
outbound inventory level trends.

Differences and associations between inbound and outbound inventories

The comparisons between the inventories in companies’ inbound and outbound 115
logistics flows are analysed in this section (i.e. H0a and H0b). The differences are
tested by the aid of three different statistical bivariate tests (e.g. Norusis, 1993).
One parametric test is applied, namely the paired samples t-test. In addition,
two non-parametric tests are applied as a complement, namely the sign test and
the Wilcoxon matched pairs signed-ranks test. The associations or the so-called
correlations are tested by the aid of three different statistical bivariate
correlation’s tests (e.g. Norusis, 1993). One parametric test is applied, namely
the Pearson correlation coefficient. In addition, two non-parametric tests are
applied as a complement, namely the Spearman rank correlation coefficient and
the Kendall rank correlation coefficient.
It has been shown above that different dimensions and various items have
been used to estimate the inventories in companies’ inbound and outbound
logistics flows. In addition, different scales have been used in order to evaluate
the stability and the randomness of the statistical outcomes shown in
Tables IV-VI. The following abbreviations are used:
P1 = paired samples t-test;
W = Wilcoxon matched pairs signed-ranks test;
1
S = sign test;
P = Pearson correlation coefficient;
S = Spearman rank correlation coefficient;
K = Kendall rank correlation coefficient;
C = correlation (the direction of a significant association: (+) positive/(2)
negative);
* = a significant difference or correlation of 5 per cent or less; and
** = a significant difference or correlation of 1 per cent or less.
The three inventory dimensions in the bivariate analyses are inventory
turnover, lead time and inventory level trend in the companies’ inbound and
outbound logistics flows. These dimensions are used to categorise the bivariate
analyses performed in order to find the potential differences and the potential
associations between companies’ inbound and outbound logistics flows.
Significant differences and significant correlations between the inbound and
the outbound inventories of the three dimensions are illustrated in the
 flows
33,2

116

Table IV.
IJPDLM

in inbound and
outbound logistics
Inventory turnovers
Factor Association
Inbound Outbound P K S C
Inventory turnover Inventory turnover 0.880** 0.101 0.142 +

Variable Difference Association

Item Inbound Outbound P1 W S1 P K S C

B1. Highest inventory turnovers 65.1 (2 ) 184.9 (+) ** ** 0.715** 0.329** 0.435** +
B2. Share of highest inventory turnovers 41.2 (2 ) 52.7 (+) ** ** ** 0.165 0.136* 0.186* +
B3. Lowest inventory turnovers 15.0 (2 ) 64.5 (+) * ** ** 0.888** 0.293** 0.376** +
B4. Share of lowest inventory turnovers 14.7 (2 ) 19.1 (+) 0.163 0.141 0.187
B5. Average inventory turnover 4.3 (2 ) 4.5 (+) 0.316** 0.260** 0.316** +
Note: See text for explanation of Table
 Factor Association
Inbound Outbound P K S C
Lead time Lead time 0.277** 0.166* 0.245* +

Variable Difference Association

Item Inbound Outbound P1 W S1 P K S C

B7. Shortest lead times 4.5 (+/2) 10.7 (+/2 ) 0.046 0.187** 0.238** +
B8. Share of shortest lead times 23.3 (2) 32.8 (+) * ** * 0.052 0.101 0.132
B9. Longest lead times 73.8 (+) 53.4 (2) * ** ** 0.338** 0.181** 0.254** +
B10. Share of longest lead times 17.9 (2) 29.1 (+) ** ** ** 0.073 0.134* 0.178* +
B11. Average lead time 3.8 (+) 3.5 (2) 0.214** 0.167** 0.206** +
Note: See text for explanation of Table
effect
The bullwhip

outbound logistics
Lead times in

flows
inbound and
117

Table V.
flows
33,2

118

Table VI.
IJPDLM

inbound and
outbound logistics
Inventory trends in
Factor Association
Inbound Outbound P K S C
Trend Trend 0.191* 0.136* 0.206* +

Variable Difference Association

Item Inbound Outbound P1 W S1 P K S C

B6. Trend inventory turnover 4.6 (+) 4.5 (2) 0.230** 0.232** 0.259** +
B12. Trend lead time 3.5 (+) 3.2 (2) * * 0.233** 0.226** 0.254** +
B13. Trend inventory size 3.6 (2 ) 3.8 (+) * * 0.205** 0.176** 0.207** +
Note: See text for explanation of Table
Tables IV-VI. Note that an asterisks (i.e. *) is used to indicate a significance The bullwhip
level of 5 per cent or less in terms of differences or associations between effect
variables. Two asterisks (i.e. **) are used to indicate a significance level of 1 per
cent or less. The symbols “plus” and “minus” within brackets in the tables (i.e.
“+” or “2”) illustrate if the mean value is lower or higher in the inbound or
outbound logistics flows (see also the Appendix). The factor scores saved in the
factor analyses are used in the bivariate analyses. 119
There is a higher inventory turnover revealed in the companies’ outbound
logistics flows than in the inbound logistics flows (see Table IV). In addition,
the companies that have a high level of outbound inventory turnover tend to
have a high level of inbound inventory turnover and vice versa.
The lead times are shorter in the outbound logistics flows than in the
inbound logistics flows (see Table V). In addition, the companies that have
short lead times in the outbound logistics flows tend to have short lead times in
the inbound logistics flows, and vice versa.
The inventory level trends are slightly downwards in both the inbound and
outbound logistics flows (see Table VI). In addition, there is an association
between the inventory trends in the inbound and outbound logistics flows. The
companies’ overall inventories are higher in the inbound logistics flows than in
the outbound logistics flows.
The empirical findings indicate that the inventories upstream in the supply
chain tend to be higher and associated with the downstream inventories in the
supply chain. Apparently, there is a potential bullwhip effect between inbound
and outbound logistics flows. This implies that the companies in a managerial
context have to consider upstream activities in the supply chain when they are
striving to improve their performance in the interface towards their present and
potential customers, and vice versa. Finally, there are significant correlations
between the inventory factors identified in the inbound and outbound logistics
flows and the size of the company. For example, larger companies have a
higher inventory turnover and more upward lead-time trends and inventory
level trends than do smaller companies in the inbound logistics flows. In
addition, larger companies have a higher inventory turnover, shorter lead times
and more upward lead-time trends and inventory level trends than do smaller
companies in the outbound logistics flows.

Theoretical and managerial implications

The fact that the bullwhip effect potentially exists between companies’ inbound
and outbound logistics flows means that companies apply to a larger extent the
principle of postponement in outbound logistics flows, and apply to a larger
extent the principle of speculation in inbound logistics flows.

The gap between speculation and postponement

The bullwhip effect in a company’s inventory management of inbound and
outbound logistics flows depends upon the gap between speculation and
IJPDLM postponement of business activities (see Figure 1). In a managerial context, the
33,2 bullwhip effect is eliminated if there is no gap between the degree of
speculation and postponement of business activities in a company’s inventory
management of inbound and outbound logistics flows. No gap between the
degree of speculation and postponement of business activities does not
necessarily represent an ideal situation, since the bullwhip effect only refers to
120 the increased variability upstream in a supply chain. Therefore, the bullwhip
effect has to be judged in the context of the overall performance of inventory
management in the supply chain. Other aspects of importance in the inventory
management of inbound and outbound logistics flows, beside the bullwhip
effect, are the leanness, responsiveness, and agility of business activities. These
are crucial issues to be taken into consideration, since there is added a value
(and costs too) for each business activity performed in the supply chain.
The rationale for a company’s application of postponement (Alderson, 1950)
and speculation (Bucklin, 1965) in the inbound and outbound logistics flows
might also be explained by the value chain concept (Porter, 1985), which
indicates that there is an adding of value in a companies successive business
activities. Consequently, the finished goods have generated costs that usually
represent a higher value. The financial cost of the inventories is higher in the
outbound logistics flows, which force companies to be more restrictive in
maintaining these inventories. The value-adding process is more important
than the bullwhip effect itself.

The see-saw model of the bullwhip effect

In this research, the gap between the degree of speculation and postponement
of business activities in inventory management is assumed to influence the
bullwhip effect between a company’s inbound and outbound logistics flows.
The empirical findings of this research indicate that there are associations and
differences between a company’s inventories in the inbound and outbound
logistics flows, which indicate a potential bullwhip effect. In a managerial
context it is preferable to maintain a balance between the speculation and
postponement of business activities in order to reduce the impact of the
bullwhip effect in the supply chain. The importance of the relationship between
the degree of speculation and postponement of business activities in a

Figure 1.
The bullwhip effect – the
gap between speculation
and postponement of
business activities
company’s inventory management of inbound and outbound logistics flows The bullwhip
may be described through the see-saw model of the bullwhip effect (see effect
Figure 2).
On the one hand, if there is a high degree of speculation (i.e. a low degree of
postponement) in inbound logistics flows and a high degree of postponement
(i.e. a low degree of speculation) in outbound logistics flows, then the bullwhip
effect is high (i.e. an upstream unbalanced see-saw scenario). On the other hand, 121
if there is a low degree of speculation (i.e. a high degree of postponement) in
inbound logistics flows and a low degree of postponement (i.e. a high degree of
speculation) in outbound logistics flows, then the bullwhip effect might also be
interpreted as being high (i.e. an downstream unbalanced see-saw scenario).
The latter is a kind of “reversed bullwhip effect” in a supply chain (see Figure 3).
It may occur when there are uncertainties upstream in the supply chain, e.g.
limited production capacity, product quality deficiencies, unreliable
deliveries/transports or inaccurate information sharing. Finally, if there is a
balance in the degree of speculation (or postponement) between inbound and
outbound logistics flows, then by definition there is no bullwhip effect.

A typology of the bullwhip effect

The bullwhip effect is usually explored in terms of increased upstream
variability, but under some circumstances the supply chain variability may
also increase downstream in the supply chain. It is therefore important to
extend the meaning of the bullwhip effect to consider both downstream and
upstream variability caused by the gap (or unbalance) between companies’
speculation and postponement of business activities in the inventory

Figure 2.
The see-saw model of the
bullwhip effect

Figure 3.
A typology of the
bullwhip effect based
upon the postponement
and speculation of
business activities in
intra-organisational
echelons
IJPDLM management of the supply chain. The balance between the degree of
33,2 speculation and postponement of business activities in a company’s inbound
and outbound logistics flows may reduce the impact on both the bullwhip effect
and the reversed bullwhip effect in a supply chain. The latter is an extension of
the construct of bullwhip effect. In some circumstances, it may be appropriate
for a company to let the bullwhip effect to occur, when, for example, there is a
122 temporary uncertainty upstream in the supply chain due to unforeseen changes
in the supply chain network structure. Likewise, it may be appropriate to let the
reversed bullwhip effect occur, when for example, there is a temporary
uncertainty downstream in the supply chain due to extraordinary happenings
in the competitive environment in the marketplace. This motivates the
introduction of the construct of reversed bullwhip effect.
A typology of the bullwhip effect is introduced (see Figure 3) that classifies a
set of potential bullwhip effects in intra-organisational echelons. The typology
consists of two intra-organisational echelons, namely a company’s inbound and
outbound logistics flows. Each echelon is divided into the principle of
speculation and the principle of postponement of business activities.
The typology of the bullwhip effect focuses on the degree of equilibrium
between the principles of postponement and speculation in a company’s
inventory management of business activities in inbound and outbound
logistics flows. The typology consists of four cells (see Figure 3). In each cell
there is illustrated a bullwhip effect. Each cell in the typology has unique
characteristics that separate them from each other. On the one hand a bullwhip
effect signifies that the principle of speculation dominates a company’s
inventory management of business activities to a larger extent in the inbound
logistics flows (i.e. the inventories are higher) than in the outbound logistics
flows (i.e. the inventories are lower). This is the traditional approach of the
bullwhip effect in supply chains. On the other hand, a reversed bullwhip effect
represents a non-traditional approach of the bullwhip effect in supply chains.
This signifies that the principle of speculation dominates a company’s
inventory management of business activities to a larger extent in the outbound
logistics flows (i.e. the inventories are higher) than in the inbound logistics
flows (i.e. the inventories are lower). A no bullwhip effect signifies that there is
a balance between a company’s inventory management of business activities in
inbound and outbound logistics flows. This means that the principle of
speculation (or postponement) dominates equally in a company’s inventory
management of business activities in inbound and outbound logistics flows. As
indicated previously, the typology may be applicable in an inter-organisational
context too. This means that the dimensions may be changed to an inter-
organisational context. The dimension of upstream replaces the dimension of
inbound logistics flows. The dimension of downstream replaces the dimension
of outbound logistics flows. The different bullwhip effects are interpreted in the
same way as for the intra-organisational context.
A model of bullwhip effect scenarios in a dynamic business environment The bullwhip
The typology of the bullwhip effect (see Figure 3) based upon the effect
postponement and speculation of business activities in intra-organisational
echelons may be used to classify a focal company’s bullwhip effect scenario
between inbound and outbound logistics flows. It may be used for teaching and
training purposes, as well as to position and compare the outcome of other
replicating studies of the bullwhip effect in the automotive industry. The
123
typology may be positioned into wider theoretical and managerial contexts,
such as the generic dependencies in the business environment and a network
approach (see Figure 4).
There are three generic categories of dependencies (Svensson, 2002) between
buyers and sellers in the marketplace of interest for the typology of the
bullwhip effect, namely:
(1) time dependence;
(2) functional dependence; and
(3) relationship dependence.
The relevance of time dependence is motivated by the fact that time issues have
become increasingly important in the management of recent marketing
channels in different industries that emphasise leanness (Lambert et al., 1998).
For example, the automotive industry is influenced by just-in-time principles
(Sugimore et al., 1977; Toyoda, 1987). Time dependence may be divided into
time compression and order response on one hand, and agility, the ability to
change direction, on the other. There is also a functional dependence between
companies (Bucklin, 1966; Alderson, 1954; Stigler, 1951). Functional
dependence refers to where companies’ business activities are specialised
and complement each other in channels or networks. There is a relationship
dependence between companies’ business activities (Håkansson and Snehota,
1995; Morgan and Hunt, 1994; Grönroos, 1990; Bucklin, 1966; Alderson, 1954;
Stigler, 1951). Relationship dependence refers to business activities being
dependent upon the interaction process between companies in marketing
channels. These generic dependencies create a dynamic business environment
on a micro level. These dependencies influence and may be incorporated into
the context of the typology of the bullwhip effect in Figure 3.
The network model (Håkansson, 1987; Håkansson and Snehota, 1995)
consists of three components, such as actors, activities, and resources. This
model contributes to the overall context of the typology of the bullwhip effect.
Actors may be a company, a group of companies, an individual, or a group of
individuals. Activities are different business functions performed in the
business environment. Resources are the tangible and intangible assets for
actors to perform business activities. This means that actors consume
resources when activities are performed. These components are
interdependent, which means that as one change the others change to some
IJPDLM
33,2

124

Figure 4.
A model of bullwhip-
effect scenarios in a
dynamic business
environment

extent. These three components influence and may be incorporated into the
context of the typology of the bullwhip effect in Figure 3.
Based upon the previous theoretical frameworks and proposed
incorporations into the context of the typology of the bullwhip effect in
Figure 3, a model of bullwhip effect scenarios in a dynamic business
environment is introduced in Figure 4. The model considers the generic The bullwhip
dependencies between business activities and the components of the network effect
model, in a dynamic business environment. The model becomes dynamic since
its various components are interdependent with the dimensions of speculation
and postponement of business activities. This means that a change in one of the
components may have an impact on the others, and vice versa. The model
considers the generic dependencies between the business activities, the type of
125
logistics flows, and the components of the network model, in the business
environment.
This model suggests that a bullwhip-effect scenario occurs when the
degree of speculation in the inbound logistics flows in relation to the degree
of postponement in the outbound flows is stronger. The impact of the
generic dependencies on the actors, the activities, and the resources is
stronger in the inbound logistics flows (than in the outbound logistics flows)
based upon high levels of dependencies between them in the dynamic
business environment. A reversed-bullwhip-effect scenario occurs when the
degree of speculation in the inbound logistics flows in relation to the degree
of postponement in the outbound flows is weaker. The impact of the generic
dependencies on the actors, the activities, and the resources is weaker in the
inbound logistics flows (than in the outbound logistics flows) based upon
low levels of dependencies between them in the dynamic business
environment. A no-bullwhip-effect scenario occurs when the degree of
speculation in the inbound logistics flows in relation to the degree of
postponement in the outbound flows is equal. The impact of the generic
dependencies on the actors, the activities, and the resources is equal in the
inbound and outbound logistics flows based upon the levels of dependencies
between them in the dynamic business environment.

Conclusions and suggestions for further research

This research applied the construct of bullwhip effect in a non-traditional
context. It was explored in intra-organisational echelons, i.e. two internal
stocking levels. It is argued that the bullwhip effect in a company’s inventory
management of inbound and outbound logistics flows depends in part upon the
gap between the degree of speculation and postponement of business activities.
It is also argued that the bullwhip effect is caused by the value adding of
business activities in supply chains. The study showed that there is a potential
bullwhip effect between companies’ inbound and outbound logistics flows. A
see-saw model of the bullwhip effect, and a typology of the bullwhip effect in
intra-organisational echelons, were introduced. The term “reversed bullwhip
effect” was also introduced. Finally, a model of the bullwhip-effect scenarios in
a dynamic business environment positioned these contributions in a wider
theoretical and managerial context. This model is applicable in an intra- and
inter-organisational context.
IJPDLM Based upon the multivariate and bivariate analyses of this research, the null
33,2 hypotheses H0a and H0b. It is concluded that companies’ inventories are
significantly higher in the inbound logistics flows than in the outbound
logistics flows. In addition, the variability between the inventories in
companies’ inbound and outbound logistics flows tends to pull in the same
direction. It is therefore interpreted that the empirical findings of this research
126 indicate a potential bullwhip effect in intra-organisational echelons based upon
companies’ inbound and outbound logistics flows.
This research has been limited to the difference and association between two
intra-organisational echelons. The relative change of the size of variability
between inbound and outbound logistics flows has been beyond the scope of
this research. Therefore, further research might explore this specific limitation
in intra-organisational echelons. Further research may also be dedicated to
exploring the impact of the principles of postponement and speculation on the
occurrence of the bullwhip effect in intra- and inter-organisational multi-
echelons in supply chains across industries. Causes of the bullwhip effect have
to be explored beyond current theoretical contexts, such as the application of
other non-traditional theoretical concepts and frameworks. The dynamic
business environment may be considered in terms of the generic dependencies
in a network context.

References
Alderson, W. (1950), “Marketing efficiency and the principle of postponement”, Cost and Profit
Outlook, Vol. 3 No. 4, September.
Alderson, W. (1954), “Factors governing the development of marketing channels”, in Clewett, R.
(Ed.), Marketing Channels for Manufactured Products, Richard D. Irwin, Inc., Homewood,
IL, pp. 5-34.
Alderson, W. (1957), Marketing Behavior and Executive Action: A Functionalist Approach to
Marketing Theory, Richard D. Irwin, Inc., Homewood, IL.
Alderson, W. (1965), Dynamic Marketing Behavior: A Functionalist Theory of Marketing, Richard
D. Irwin, Inc., Homewood, IL.
Baljko, J.L. (1999), “Experts warns of ‘bullwhip effect’”, Electronic Buyer’s News, No. 1170,
26 July.
Bucklin, L.P. (1965), “Postponement, speculation and the structure of distribution channels”,
Journal of Marketing Research, February, pp. 26-31.
Bucklin, L.P. (1966), A Theory of Distribution Channel Structure, University of California,
Berkeley, CA.
Carter, J.R., Ferrin, B.G. and Carter, C.R. (1995), “The effect of less-than-truckload rates on the
purchase order lot size decision”, Transportation Journal, Vol. 34 No. 3, pp. 35-44.
Cavinato, J.L. (1992), “A total cost/value model for supply chain competitiveness”, Journal of
Business Logistics, Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 285-301.
Chen, F., Drezner, Z., Ryan, J.K. and Simchi-Levi, D. (2000), “Quantifying the bullwhip effect in a
simple supply chain: the impact of forecasting, lead times, and information”, Management
Science, Vol. 46 No. 3, pp. 436-43.
Christopher, M. (1992), Logistics: The Strategic Issues, Chapman & Hall, London. The bullwhip
Ellram, L.M. and Cooper, M.C. (1990), “Supply chain management, partnerships and the shipper- effect
third party relationships”, International Journal of Logistics Management, Vol. 4 No. 2,
pp. 1-10.
Ellram, L.M. and Cooper, M.C. (1993), “Characteristics of supply chain management and the
implications for purchasing and logistics strategy”, International Journal of Logistics
Management, Vol. 4 No. 2, pp. 1-10. 127
Fernie, J. (1994), “Quick response: an international perspective”, International Journal of Physical
Distribution & Logistics Management, Vol. 24 No. 6, pp. 38-46.
Forrester, J.W. (1958), “Industrial dynamics: a major breakthrough for decision makers”,
Harvard Business Review, Vol. 58 No. 1, pp. 37-66.
Fransoo, J.C. and Wouters, M.J.F. (2000), “Measuring the bullwhip effect in the supply chain”,
Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 78-89.
Grönroos, C. (1990), Service Management and Marketing, ISL Förlag, Göteborg.
Hair, J.F. Jr, Anderson, R.E., Tatham, R.L. and Black, W.C. (1992), Multivariate Data Analysis with
Readings, Macmillan Publishing Company, New York, NY.
Håkansson, H. (Ed.) (1987), Industrial Technological Development: A Network Approach,
Croom-Helm, London.
Håkansson, H. and Snehota, I. (1995), Developing Relationships in Business Networks, Routledge,
London.
Holmström, J. (1997), “Product range management: a case study of supply chain operations in the
European grocery industry”, Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, Vol. 2
No. 3, pp. 107-15.
Houlihan, J.B. (1985), “International supply chain management”, International Journal of Physical
Distribution and Materials Management, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 22-38.
Houlihan, J.B. (1987), “International supply chain management”, International Journal of Physical
Distribution and Materials Management, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 51-66.
Houlihan, J.B. (1988), “International supply chains: a new approach”, Management Decision,
Vol. 26 No. 3, pp. 13-19.
Jacobs, F.R. (2000), “Playing the distribution game over the Internet”, Production and Operations
Management, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 31-9.
Jones, T.C. and Riley, D.W. (1985), “Using inventory for competitive advantage through supply
chain management”, International Journal of Physical Distribution and Materials
Management, Vol. 15 No. 5, pp. 16-26.
Jones, T.C. and Riley, D.W. (1987), “Using inventory for competitive advantage through supply
chain management”, International Journal of Physical Distribution and Materials
Management, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 94-104.
Kelle, P. and Milne, A. (1999), “The effect of (s, S) ordering policy on the supply chain”,
International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 59, pp. 113-22.
Kurt Salmon Associates (1993), Efficient Consumer Response: Enhancing Consumer Value in the
Grocery Industry, Food Marketing Institute, Washington, DC.
Lambert, D.M. (1992), “Developing a customer-focused logistics strategy”, Asia Pacific
International Journal of Business Logistics, Vol. 5 No. 3, pp. 12-19.
Lambert, D.M., Cooper, M.C. and Pagh, J.D. (1998), “Supply chain management: implementation
issues and research opportunities”, International Journal of Logistics Management, Vol. 9
No. 2, pp. 1-19.
IJPDLM Langley, C.J. Jr and Holcomb, M.C. (1992), “Creating logistics customer value”, Journal of
Business Logistics, Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 1-27.
33,2 Lee, H. and Billington, C. (1992), “Managing supply chain inventory: pitfalls and opportunities”,
Sloan Management Review, Vol. 33 No. 3, pp. 65-73.
Lee, H.L., Padmanabhan, V. and Whang, S. (1997a), “The bullwhip effect in supply chains”, Sloan
Management Review, Vol. 38 No. 3, pp. 93-102.
128 Lee, H.L., Padmanabhan, V. and Whang, S. (1997b), “Information distortion in a supply chain: the
bullwhip effect”, Management Science, Vol. 43 No. 4, pp. 546-58.
Levy, M. and Grewal, D. (2000), “Guest editors’ overview of the issue: supply chain management
in a networked economy”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 76 No. 4, pp. 415-29.
Lummus, R.R., Krumwlede, D.W. and Vokurka, R.J. (2001), “The relationship of logistics to
supply chain management: developing a common industry definition”, Industrial
Management & Data Systems No. 108/8, pp. 426-31.
McCullen, P. and Towill, D. (2001), “Achieving lean supply through agile manufacturing”,
Integrated Manufacturing Systems, Vol. 12 No. 7, pp. 524-33.
Mentzer, J.T., Min, S. and Zacharia, Z.G. (2000), “The nature of interfirm partnering in supply
chain management”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 76 No. 4, pp. 549-68.
Mentzer, J.T., DeWitt, W., Keebler, J.S., Min, S., Nix, N.W., Smith, C.D. and Zacharia, Z.G. (2001),
“Defining supply chain management”, Journal of Business Logistics, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 1-25.
Metters, R. (1997), “Quantifying the bullwhip effect in supply chains”, Journal of Operations
Management, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 89-100.
Min, S. and Mentzer, J.T. (2000), “The role of marketing in supply chain management”,
International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, Vol. 30 No. 9,
pp. 765-87.
Morgan, R.M. and Hunt, S.D. (1994), “The commitment-trust theory of relationship marketing”,
Journal of Marketing, Vol. 58 No. 3, pp. 20-38.
Norusis, M.J. (1993), SPSS for Windows: Base System User’s Guide Release 6.0, SPSS Inc.,
Chicago, IL.
Norusis, M.J. (1994), SPSS Professional Statistics 6.1, SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL.
Novack, R.A. and Simco, S.W. (1991), “The industrial procurement process: a supply chain
perspective”, Journal of Business Logistics, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 145-67.
Oliver, R.K. and Webber, M.D. (1992), “Supply-chain management: logistics catches up with
strategy”, in Christopher, M. (Ed.), Logistics: The Strategic Issues, Chapman & Hall,
London, pp. 63-75.
Porter, M.E. (1985), Competitive Advantage: Creating and Sustaining Superior Performance, Free
Press, New York, NY.
Ritchie, P. (1990), “McDonald’s: a winner through logistics”, International Journal of Physical
Distribution & Logistics Management, Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 21-4.
SCB (1999), Statistiska Centralbyrån, Stockholm.
Scott, C. and Westbrook, R. (1991), “New strategic tools for supply chain management”,
International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, Vol. 21 No. 1,
pp. 23-33.
Snowdon, M. (1988), “Moving towards a single market”, International Journal of Technology
Management, Vol. 3 No. 6, pp. 643-55.
Sterman, J.D. (1989), “Modeling managerial behavior: misperceptions of feedback in a dynamic
decision making experiment”, Management Science, Vol. 35 No. 3, pp. 321-39.
Stern, L.W., El-Ansary, A.I. and Coughlan, A.T. (1996), Marketing Channels, Prentice-Hall The bullwhip
International, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Stevens, G.C. (1990), “Successful supply-chain management”, Management Decision, Vol. 28
effect
No. 8, pp. 25-30.
Stigler, G.J. (1951), “The division of labor is limited by the extent of the market”, The Journal of
Political Economy, Vol. LIX, June, pp. 185-93.
Stock, J.R. (2000), “Editorial”, International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics 129
Management, Vol. 30 No. 9, p. 729.
Sugimore, Y., Kusunoki, K., Cho, F. and Uchikawa, S. (1977), “Toyota production system and
Kanban system: materialization of just-in-time and respect-for-human system”,
International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 15 No. 6, pp. 553-64.
Svensson, G. (2002), “The theoretical foundation of supply chain management: a functionalist
theory of marketing”, International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics
Management, Vol. 32 No. 9, pp. 734-54.
Towill, D. (1996), “Time compression and the supply chain – a guided tour”, Supply Chain
Management: An International Journal, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 15-27.
Toyoda, E. (1987), Toyota: First Fifty Years in Motion, Kodansha International, Tokyo.
Turner, J.R. (1993), “Integrated supply chain management: what’s wrong with this picture?”,
Industrial Engineering, Vol. 25 No. 12, pp. 52-5.
Weld, L.D.H. (1916), The Marketing of Farm Products, The Macmillan Company, New York, NY.
Xu, K., Dong, Y. and Evers, P.T. (2001), “Towards better coordination of the supply chain”,
Transportation Research, Part E 37, pp. 35-54.
Yu, Z., Yan, H. and Cheng, T.C.E. (2001), “Benefits of information sharing with supply chain
partnerships”, Industrial Management & Data Systems, Vol. 101 No. 3, pp. 114-21.
IJPDLM Appendix
The univariate outcome for each item for the inbound logistics flows is shown in Table AI, and
33,2 for each item for the outbound logistics flows in Table AII. The items have been translated from
Swedish into English. Therefore, minor bias of the significance of each item may have appeared
in the translation from one language to the other.

130 Item N Mn Me Md Sk Ku

B1. Our company’s highest inventory turnovers

in the in the inbound logistics flows are . . .? 185 65.1 20 12 7.1 53.8
B2. The highest inventory turnovers in the
inbound logistics flows from sub-contractors
correspond to approximately _____ per cent
of the total inventories in the inbound
logistics flows 176 41.2 35 10 0.4 2 1.0
B3. Our company’s lowest inventory turnovers in
the inbound logistics flows are . . .? 178 15.0 2 1 13.0 171.6
B4. The lowest inventory turnovers in the
inbound logistics flows from sub-contractors
correspond to approximately _____ per cent
of the total inventories in the inbound
logistics flows 169 14.7 10 10 2.8 8.5
B5. How high or low is your company’s average
inventory turnover in the inbound logistics
flows? 208 4.3 4 4 2 0.1 0.1
B6. The trend for our company’s inventory
turnover in the inbound logistics flows is . . .? 209 4.6 5 5 2 0.5 0.3
B7. Our company’s shortest lead times in the
inbound logistics flows from sub-contractors
are approximately _____ day(s) 191 4.5 3 1 3.7 16.2
B8. The shortest lead times in the inbound
logistics flows from sub-contractors
correspond to approximately _____ per cent
of total purchases 187 23.3 15 10 1.4 1.2
B9. Our company’s longest lead times in the
inbound logistics flows from sub-contractors
are approximately _____ day(s) 191 73.8 50 90 3.7 19.5
B10. The longest lead times in the inbound
logistics flows from sub-contractors
correspond to approximately _____ per cent
of total purchases 188 17.9 10 10 1.9 4.2
B11. How short or long are your company’s
average lead times in the inbound logistics
flows from sub-contractors? 211 3.8 4 4 0.2 0.3
Table AI. B12. The trend for our company’s lead-times in
The univariate the inbound logistics flows is . . .? 212 3.5 3 4 0.1 0.7
outcome of B13. The trend for our company’s inventory level
inventory items in in the inbound logistics flows is . . .? 211 3.6 4 4 2 0.9 2 0.1
the inbound Notes: N = number of observations; Mn = mean; Me = median; Md = mode; Sk = skewness;
logistics flows Ku = kurtosis
 The bullwhip
Item N Mn Me Md Sk Ku
effect
B1. Our company’s highest inventory turnovers
in the in the outbound logistics flows are . . .? 156 184.9 30 52 6.6 51.8
B2. The highest inventory turnovers in the
outbound logistics flows to customers
correspond to approximately _____ per cent 131
of the total inventories in the outbound
logistics flows 143 52.7 50 50 2 0.1 2 1.3
B3. Our company’s lowest inventory turnovers in
the outbound logistics flows are . . .? 148 64.5 4 1 9.1 92.9
B4. The lowest inventory turnovers in the
outbound logistics flows to customers
correspond to approximately _____ per cent
of the total inventories in the outbound
logistics flows 142 19.1 10 5 2.2 3.9
B5. How high or low is your company’s average
inventory turnover in the outbound logistics
flows? 198 4.5 4 4 2 0.0 2 0.6
B6. The trend for our company’s inventory
turnover in the outbound logistics flows
is . . .? 198 4.5 4 4 0.1 0.8
B7. Our company’s shortest lead times in the
outbound logistics flows to customers are
approximately _____ day(s) 166 10.7 2 1 8.4 78.0
B8. The shortest lead times in the outbound
logistics flows to customers correspond to
approximately _____ per cent of total sales 157 32.8 20 5 0.9 2 0.5
B9. Our company’s longest lead times in the
outbound logistics flows to customers are
approximately _____ day(s) 163 53.4 30 30 3.8 15.7
B10. The longest lead times in the outbound
logistics flows to customers correspond to
approximately _____ per cent of total sales 155 29.1 20 5 1.1 2 0.1
B11. How short or long are your company’s
average lead times in the outbound logistics
flows to customers? 202 3.5 4 4 0.2 2 0.6
B12. The trend for our company’s lead times in Table AII.
the outbound logistics flows is . . .? 202 3.2 3 3 2 0.3 0.8 The univariate
B13. The trend for our company’s inventory level outcome of
in the outbound logistics flows is . . .? 202 3.8 4 4 0.0 0.3 inventory items in
Notes: N = number of observations; Mn = mean; Me = median; Md = mode; Sk = skewness; the outbound
Ku = kurtosis logistics flows