Search results

This article has been withdrawn as it was published elsewhere and accidentally duplicated. The original article can be seen here: 10.1108/eb014263. When citing the article, please cite: BERNARD J. LA LONDE, JOHN R. GRABNER, JAMES F. ROBESON, (1971), “Integrated distribution systems: a management perspective”, International Journal of Physical Distribution, Vol. 1 Iss: 1, pp. 43 - 49.

A hidden enemy of distribution efficiency is at work in almost all distribution systems. It causes increased distribution costs, yet, in many firms, seldom receives much management attention. Who, or what, is this hidden enemy? Quite simply, it is goods which require return to the vendor or adjustment of sales terms once they have been received by a customer.

The paper focuses on three main issues. First, an attempt is made to define more clearly alternative approaches to the development of integrated distribution systems. There follows a discussion of some of the primary reasons or causes for increased management interest in effective distribution during the 1950s and 1960s.

A conference can range from good to bad. It can be well or poorly organized, comfortably or indifferently housed, a profitable or wasted use of time. If conferences were rated like hotels and stars indicated their merit, the one held in Munich at the end of October should be awarded the maximum number.

Suggests that the concepts of partnerships and strategic alliances are increasingly emphasized in literature and “real life”, which might lead managers to believe that partnership‐style relationships, as opposed to arm′s length relationships, are necessary for a firm to compete successfully. Explores why, how, and when to establish a wide range of possible business‐to‐business relationships. The inter‐organizational relationship literature suggests six reasons for forming relationships: necessity, asymmetry, reciprocity, efficiency, stability, and legitimacy. Compares this framework with six partnership characteristics based on the partnership‐building literature: planning, sharing of benefits and burdens, extendedness, systematic operational information exchange, operating controls, and corporate culture bridge building. Suggests that firms should concentrate on how to develop “good business relationships”, which may have varying levels of partnership characteristics.

SINCE the world is so replete with institutes of various kinds it is unlikely to welcome another without a close scrutiny of its intentions, even when launched with all the eclat of a House of Commons dinner attended by distinguished figures from the industrial and organizational fields.

The Role of the Channel in Marketing Logistics Marketing logistics has often been adopted as a synonym for physical distribution management (PDM), the two terms being used interchangeably by academics and practitioners alike. However, it is appropriate to introduce greater precision in our definitions—it is suggested here that whilst PDM is concerned with physical flow involved in distribution activities, marketing logistics is somewhat broader in scope in that it incorporates the selection and management of the institutional channel(s) of distribution for a company's products as well as the physical facilities required.

Inventory carrying costs comprise a number of different cost components and generally represent one of the highest costs in the physical distribution system. This, combined with the fact that inventory levels are influenced by the configuration of the logistics system, demonstrates the need for an accurate assessment of inventory carrying costs if the appropriate cost tradeoffs are to be made within the firm. Currently, most of the companies that consider the costs of holding inventory use estimates or traditional industry benchmarks. In fact, many corporations do not consider inventory carrying costs in decision making although such costs are substantial and real. Although a number of authors have addressed the types of costs that should be considered and have estimated that such costs range from 12% to 35%, there is not a generally accepted methodology for determining inventory carrying costs or for that matter even a framework for developing such costs. The purpose of this article is to present a methodology, based on existing literature in the fields of accounting, distribution and production, that can be used by managers to determine the cost of carrying inventory for their companies. In addition to providing a framework that can be applied in the “real world”, some specific uses for the inventory carrying cost figure are explored.

Inventory carrying costs represent one of the highest costs of distribution. Although they are a necessary input to the design of logistical systems, such costs are ignored by many companies and when they are used usually represent estimates or industry benchmarks. The authors present a methodology designed to provide managers with a practical framework for determining the costs of carrying inventory.

For more than two decades, industrial leaders in many countries, especially the trading nations such as the United States and Canada, have recognised the significant contribution that physical distribution can make toward the total corporate mission. In many companies formal departments have been created in order to manage the distribution activities. However, acceptance of the physical distribution concept is still growing and the associated responsibilities are becoming broadened in the current international climate of economic uncertainty. In an effort to develop a current profile of the distribution executive and his broadened responsibilities, detailed questionnaires were mailed to distribution executives in Canada and the United States. Specifically, the research sought answers to the following questions: (1) How is the distribution function positioned within the firm? (2) What is the scope of responsibility of distribution management? (3) Does the distribution management function involve distinctive career patterns, educational requirements, or job requirements? (4) What are the perceived educational needs of the distribution manager? (5) What does the physical distribution executive perceive as the major factors affecting his future role in the corporation?