HISTORY There is a continuous increase of the importance of the third party (TPL) or contract logistics in companys performance.

The study of the TPL history has shown that as the companies continue to source in one continent and manufacture in another, and then selling in yet third, the management of the distribution channels becomes a very complicated task for the companies to manage in-house. Thus the need for contracting will continue to grow. Relevant estimates of the TPL penetration rate have shown a growth from 2.7% in 1992 to 10% by the end of the millennium. At the same time, the market for contract logistics is expected to reach $47-50 billion in the year 2000 from $10 billion that it was in 1992 (Muller 1993). The main reasons that lead companies to explore outsourcing are their need to reduce inventory, penetrate markets, reduce contracts, and gain expertise (Richardson 1990). The study of the TPL evolution can provide guidelines for future trends in contract logistics development. This can contribute to future competitive strategy planning; companys understanding of the way TPL can contribute to its corporate plans, and encourage academia to search for further implications for the companys operations. This paper addresses three elements: the relation of organisational evolution to the TPL development, the five different phases that contract logistics went through in relation to the key variables affecting its growth, and the patterns emerging from the past that might predict the possible future of TPL. Table 1: The Five TPL Phases Phase Period Early 1900s - Late 1950s Late 1950s - Mid 1960s Mid 1960s - Late 1970s Late 1970s - Late 1980s Late 1980s - Late Phase Name Characteristic Introductory Period Single Services Awareness Period Necessity Period Integration Period Differentiation Separate Services Integrated Services Combined Services Complex Combined

1990s

Period

Services

INTRODUCTION Third-party operations A third-party operations or third party logistics provider (abbreviated 3PL, or sometimes TPL) is a firm that provides a one stop shop service to its customers of outsourced (or "third party") logistics services for part, or all of their supply chain management functions. Third party logistics providers typically specialize in integrated operation, warehousing and transportation services that can be scaled and customized to customers needs based on market conditions and the demands and delivery service requirements for their products and materials. Definition To put forward some standard definitions, we would adopt the definition of 3PL found in the Council of Supply Chain Management Professionals glossary, which reads as follows: "A firm [that] provides multiple logistics services for use by customers. Preferably, these services are integrated, or "bundled" together, by the provider. Among the services 3PLs provide are transportation, warehousing, cross-docking, inventory management, packaging, and freight forwarding."

Third Party Operations Account Manager Job Description Job Purpose

Under the direction of the Head of Third Party Operations, provides tactical coordination of External Manufacturing activities (Bulk and/or Secondary operations) for one or more contract manufacturing operations. Provides technical support and manufacturing coordination to ensure reliable supply of products. Provides project management for the execution of improvement initiatives, regulatory readiness activities and manufacturing quality system improvements with third party companies. Participates in contract negotiations and insourcing activities. Major Accountabilities 1. Leverage operations knowledge and project management methods to meet external manufacturing quality, supply and price requirements within the assigned resources and completion dates. Activities will include: Execution of supply plans that define demand volumes and commitment dates. Coordinates activities with Quality and Site Manufacturing to ensures cGMP, Compliance and Regulatory requirements are defined and followed. Provides follow up to ensure routine communication of status, emerging issues and actions required to resolve issues in a timely manner Ensure escalation of issues occur in a timely manner and identifies financial and supply impacts. Issues routine status reports (weekly, monthly) as required. Maintain key performance metrics and participate in routine technical and supply meetings. Complete identified actions to speed the implementation of projects and ensure commitment dates are achieved. Team with supply chain and strategy development to create and implement supply plans

2.

Participates in the Contract Negotiations. Assist in negotiations and the management of cross functional team that may include representatives from

Legal, Franchise, Supply Chain, Quality and Technical Development. Provided technical and business support to Head of Third Party operations as required to develop strategy and negotiation execution In-sourcing: Provides support to the Head of Third Party operations and the Franchise Head to develop business cases and provide value by in-sourcing activities.

3.

Advantages of Using A Third Party Logistics Company The client's of Pacesetter Delivery have shrewdly recognized the many advantages of utilizing a reliable 3PL company. Some of the client advantages include Delivery Costs Reduced Liability Minimized Insurance Savings Administrative Costs Lowered Driver Hiring Is No Longer An Issue Fuel & Maintenance Costs Eliminated Capital Investment in Vehicles Eliminated Vacation, Sick Leave, and Overtime No Longer An Issue Delivery Costs Are Defined and Consistent Driver Scheduling & Routing No Longer An Issue GPS Vehicle Tracking

Pacesetter Delivery manages the details that are frustrating in operating a delivery fleet. We handle the hiring and fluctuating requirements for delivery drivers, vehicle ownership and maintenance, fuel costs and other operating expenses, scheduling and routing, administrative costs and numerous other tasks. Call us today to discuss how Pacesetter Delivery can help your business to operate more efficiently with our 3PL services.

Key Performance Indicators KPI # 1: Ensure reliability of supply On time completion of supply requirements. Contract Manufactures are managed within agreed upon quality, supply and cost metrics Full transparency of progress and emerging issues. KPI #2: Project Results Development of project plans for new business or improvement initiatives. Activities are planned and appropriately resourced On time completion project deliverables. Full transparency of progress and emerging issues KPI #3: Leadership Develop knowledge of Quality and Manufacturing systems. Ensure Governance structures are in place and followed for each contract manufacturers. Activities are planned and appropriately resourced Annual objectives embedded appropriately, KPI's developed and progress measures put in place and in use for projects and on-going activities Job Requirements Ideal Background Education (minimum/desirable): Degree: Bachelors in Engineering, Science, or Business. MBA (desirable) Languages: English (minimum), other European languages (desirable) Experience: Strong success record in Technical or Manufacturing Roles. Direct Pharmaceutical, Vaccine or Third Party Management required (minimum 10 years)

Benefits of Third Party Logistics Companies Selecting the right logistics company to manage your companys supply chain is of vital importance to the future of your companys operations. Outsourcing logistics has been and will continue to be a source of competive advantage for most companies. Some of the many benefits of using a 3PL provider include:

Greater flexibility(variable cost) Improved operational efficiency Enhanced customer service capabilities Reduction of capital expenditures (equipment, distribution

5 Reasons to use a 3PL Provider While theres definitely more than 5 reasons why a company might turn to a third party logistics provider here are a few common ones. 1. To provide supplementary supply chain support to test the waters in new regional markets or countries where your company doesnt currently have a presence without taking the full plunge and opening a new distribution center. 2. If you are a company whose business is seasonal in nature using a 3pl provider allows you to scale your warehousing space, labor, and transportation to provide full support during the peak months of your business while cutting back during slower months. 3. To increase on-time performance and realize efficiencies with the management of your inventory by using a 3PL provider that has superior technology and processes than your in-house operations. 4. To take advantage of lower transportation rates provided by logistics firms that have significant buying power due to the volume of freight they deal with and their ability to leverage load consolidation and backhaul opportunities.

5. To quickly build a multi-location distribution network with lower risk, without the significant capital investment associated with building out a network on your own.

marketing research paper Introduction More and more companies are outsourcing their logistics functions to thirdparty logistics providers (3PLs), to make their supply chains more effective and efficient. These 3PLs offer specialized services (Large, 2007), to handle a variety of transportation, distribution, inventory management and warehousing needs. Few empirical studies have addressed the difference between small and large logistics companies. Prior work on 3PL has focussed on selection criteria (Menon 1998), or the gap between 3PL services offered and those used by customers (Murphy and Poist, 2000). We focus on relationship mechanisms when the 3PL provider is already selected, and the relationship is ongoing. The performance indicators addressed in our study are customer retention rates, service recovery, customer referrals, and operational performance improvements. By focussing on the difference between small and large 3PL providers, this study adds the literature by complementing previous work by Knemeyer and Murphy (2005a & b), who tested the impact of relationship marketing characteristics on relationship outcomes from the customer perspective. Where and when provider size matters can be a crucial insight for companies, both providers and customers, as their relationships evolve. Most 3PL studies have a US perspective. Western Europe and Germany in particular can be considered an emerging area for 3PL services, warranting empirically based 3PL research. After

settling on a definition of 3PL this paper reviews the extant 3PL literature, and examines relationship attributes from the relationship marketing literature, to develop a set of propositions, and a conceptual model. The methodology is described, the data collection and subsequent analysis are explained, and the results are reviewed and interpreted in light of the literature and the practical implications of the findings. Third Party Logistics (3PL) According to Knemeyer and Murphy (2004), third-party logistics can be referred to as logistics outsourcing or contract logistics. Yet, there is no common definition of the concept. Knemeyer and Murphy (2005a) provide a comparison of two different concepts of definitions regarding third-party logistics. They propose a somewhat broad version of the definition, based on works of various authors. Coyle, Bardi, and Langley (2003, p.425) for example define third-party logistics to involve an external supplier that performs all or part of a companys logistics functions and to encompass suppliers of services such as transportation, warehousing, distribution, financial services, and so on. Further contributions to this broad stream of thirdparty logistics definitions come from Menon, McGinnis, and Ackermann (1998) and Sink and Langley (1997). Menon et al. define the concept as a for-hire provider performing logistics activities for the buyer or seller of raw materials, goods in process, or finished products. Sink and Langley interpret it as using the services of an external supplier to perform some or all of a firm's logistics functions. These interpretations of third-party logistics do not distinguish between short-term and longterm considerations or between transactional and relational exchanges (Knemeyer and Murphy, 2005b). The other group of third-party logistics definitions takes a more narrow approach (e.g. Murphy and Poist, 1998; Bagchi and Virum, 1996). Murphy and

Poist (1998, p.26) define third-party logistics as being a relationship between a shipper and third party which, compared with basic services, has more customized offerings, encompasses a broader number of service functions and is characterized by a longer-term, more mutually beneficial relationship. Similarly, Bagchi and Virum (1996, p.193) consider third party logistics to be characterized by a long-term formal or informal relationship between a shipper and a logistics provider to render all or a considerable number of logistics activities for the shipper. The shipper and the logistics provider see themselves as long-term partners in these arrangements. Our paper extends the efforts of Knemeyer and Murphy (2005a), examining the effect of relationship characteristics and customer attributes on the outcomes of third-party logistics relations, and therefore adopts the relationship focus. The 3PL business and its development Companies have different options to consider in handling their logistics activities effectively and efficiently. They can (1) provide the functions in-house, (2) own logistics subsidiaries, or (3) outsource the function and buy the service (Razzaque and Sheng, 1998). Traditionally, logistics activities like distribution, inventory management, order processing, or materials management were handled internally by firms as support functions and were given low priority compared to other business functions. The underlying rationale for the increasing number of companies focusing on the last option is the emerging demand of advanced logistics services. One can divide the principles underlying organizations decision to outsource into two groups, the internal and the external (Bolumole, Frankel, and Naslund, 2007). The internal principle refers to recognizing a lack of in-house resource availability. The external principle puts emphasis on a firm's external competitive environment.

Accordingly, trends like globalization, lead time reductions, and emerging technology contribute to the interest in outsourcing. Globalization increases the complexity of supply chains, given that the best supplier may be found halfway around the world, and customer needs are often as diverse as the countries in which they live (Fawcett, Ellram, and Ogden, 2007, p.309). Lead time reductions, incorporating the shift to just-in-time production schemes, add to the increasing complexity and cause inventory and logistics control to be crucial to manufacturing and distribution operations (Razzaque and Sheng, 1998). As a consequence of these trends, the tasks of logistics providers are increasing in content and complexity (Hertz and Alfredsson, 2003). In the end, the need for developing a sustainable competitive advantage resulted in increased outsourcing and the evolution of contract logistics or third-party logistics. A recent study, conducted by Lieb and Butner (2007) among CEOs of third-party logistics providers in North America, reveals several industry dynamics that are currently operating in the marketplace. The Top 5 of these dynamics consists of (1) a continuing downward pressure on prices, (2) a growing customer interest in outsourcing a broader array of logistics services, (3) an increased pressure to internationalize company service offerings, (4) large-scale mergers of 3PL providers in North America, and (5) increasing customer expectations with respect to IT support. Two of these dynamics, a continuing downward pressure on prices and pressures to internationalize service offerings, are also among the Top 5 of the main industry problems. When asked about future developments the CEOs in Lieb and Butners study (2007) specified two major changes. They expect the merger and acquisition movement to continue and even accelerate not only in America but on a global basis. Consequently, the resulting large providers are likely to increasingly dominate the

industry which will cause especially middle-tier providers to exit the market. Relationship Marketing The use of relationship marketing in supply chain management literature belongs to an evolving stream of research that focuses on using external theories in the logistics discipline (Knemeyer and Murphy, 2005b). Relationship marketing emphasizes the interaction between buyers and sellers and focuses on multiple exchanges between them over some period of time. The concept of transactional marketing is focused on a single, short-term exchange between buyer and seller (Gundlach and Murphy, 1993). By focusing on the long-term relationship between the customer and the provider, the use of relationship marketing in this context is appropriate. Priluck (2003) indicates that relationship marketing is regarded as a means to create customer loyalty. Its aim is to create positive outcomes for both customers and providers. Similarly, following Morgan and Hunt (1994, p.22), relationship marketing refers to all marketing activities directed toward establishing, developing, and maintaining successful relational exchanges. Eiriz and Wilson (2004) extended this definition by adding terminating to the mentioned activities. Yet, they indicate that the activities do not have to be active or conscious but they can affect marketing relationships indirectly or tangentially. Relationship marketing focuses on dyadic and multilateral relationships, and on networks of relationships. The Conceptual Framework Provider Size With regard to the research aim, examining the potential impact of the size of the third-party logistics provider on the influence of relationship characteristics and customer attributes on relationship outcomes, the size of the third-party logistics provider will be measured by the number of employees

indicated by the respondents. In order to distinguish between small niche providers and large integrators, a demarcation point of 250 employees will be used. Using this threshold is in line with the EU Classification Scheme for Small-and Medium-sized Enterprises (from 2005 and onwards) The threshold of 250 employees can also be found in academic literature in the field of logistics. Evans, Feldman, and Foster (1990) for example referred to this number in their study on perceptions of the relevant criteria used to select motor carriers. Further, Evangelista and Sweeney (2006) used a similar scheme to the EU classification in their study on technology usage in the supply chain. Focusing on small 3PLs explicitly, their sample contained companies up to 249 employees separated in micro, small, and medium sizes. Few empirical studies have examined the differences between small and large companies in the logistics context. Most of the literature tends to focus solely on small companies (e.g. Evangelista and Sweeney, 2006; Gunasekaran and Ngai, 2003) or does not explicitly take the difference between small and large companies into account (e.g. Large, 2007; Knemeyer and Murphy, 2005a & b; Murphy and Poist, 2000; Boyson, Corsi, Dresner, and Rabinovich, 1999). Development of propositions Outcomes associated with relationship marketing Boles, Barksdale, and Johnson (1997) evaluate relationship marketing outcomes across three measures customer referrals, customer retention, and service recovery. More recently, Janda, Murray, and Burton (2002) added a further relationship outcome performance improvements. From the providers point of view, especially the first three relationship outcomes are of utmost importance, because each of them has a direct impact on a companys long-term success and increases shareholder value (Knemeyer, Corsi and Murphy, 2003).

Customer referrals represent the positive word-of-mouth effect of satisfied customers. More precisely, a critical outcome of third-party logistics relationships is the intention of the customers to do one or more of the following: become an advocate for the provider, promote the service provider to others, and defend the provider from detractors (Cross and Smith, 1995). According to Boyson, Corsi, Dresner, and Rabinovich (1999), especially companies searching for potential third-party logistics providers regard word-ofmouth referrals from their professional networks as important input. Thus, providers should make the required efforts to get referrals from their customers. Additionally, word-of-mouth referrals represent a good indicator of intense loyalty (Palmatier, 2006). The underlying reasoning is that only customers who are highly satisfied and feel highly committed to the provider are willing to risk their own reputation by giving a referral to this provider. Customer retention refers to keeping existing customers by meeting and exceeding their needs. Given that meeting and exceeding the customers needs finally results in satisfaction, it can be stated that customer satisfaction is the key to customer retention (Kotler, 2003). Knemeyer and Murphy (2005a) underline this effect when they provide empirical support for a significant positive relation between customer retention and the customers satisfaction with prior outcomes. Boles, Barksdale and Johnson (1997) indicate that retaining a customer enables companies to find out more about his business and thus to learn how to serve him better. Consequently the customer will be satisfied and most likely increase purchases from the supplier. According to a generally accepted rule of thumb, the acquisition of new customers costs five times more than satisfying and retaining current customers (Knemeyer and Murphy, 2005a). More precisely, the increase of the net present value of profits resulting from a five percent increase in customer retention varies between 25 percent and 85 percent over different industries (Oliver, 1999). Thus, customer retention has a strong influence on

the performance of a company and should be of great interest to decision-makers. Service Recovery is concerned with mistakes that happen in the focal thirdparty logistics relationship. While mistakes can happen in any kind of transaction, the consequences depend on how the situation is handled. Especially in relational exchanges, recovery from mistakes is an important factor influencing the success of the relationship (Priluk, 2003). Yet, frequent and real-time information sharing between the parties involved in the relationship is crucial to detect problems and react to them immediately (Maltz, 1995). As stated by Dwyer, Schurr, and Oh (1987), relational exchanges will always exhibit some kind of conflict. However, when these conflicts are resolved they can finally be beneficial to the relationship. In other words, when conflicts lead to improvements of a relationship they can be referred to as functional conflicts (Morgan and Hunt, 1994, p.26). These functional conflicts can have a positive impact on the focal relationship by preventing stagnation, stimulating interest, and providing a potential forum for discussions. Performance Improvements are related to perceived logistics operational performance improvements on the customer side resulting from the outsourcing relationship with the third-party logistics provider. Contrary to the previous outcomes which are primarily relevant for the providers, performance improvements focus on the customer perspective. Knemeyer and Murphy (2005a) state that outsourcing arrangements will most likely become unsuccessful when one party fails to do what is expected from the other party. Hence, when the customers do not perceive the relationship as leading to measurable improvements in their logistics performance, they are most likely to be dissatisfied with the relationship. Consequently, this will have a negative effect on the other three outcomes as well. Examples of improvements in logistics performance are cost reductions, risk reductions, and improvements of the system responsiveness. A recent study by Zsidisin, Voss, and Schlosser (2007), testing the

effect of relational closeness on several performance metrics, found varying results. Especially on-time delivery which was expected to improve with increasing closeness of the relationship exhibited no significant difference between arms-length relationships and partnerships. However, the authors found that relationship closeness positively affects the willingness of providers to commit assets during times of constrained capacity. Relationship Marketing Characteristics The following relationship characteristics are going to be examined with regard to their effect on the third-party logistics relationships outcomes specified before: the trust in the provider, the perceived commitment of the provider, the communication with the provider, the dependence on the provider, and the reputation of the provider. The selection of these characteristics is consistent with Knemeyers and Murphys (2005a) suggestion to test the effect of additional relationship characteristics on the relationship outcomes. Trust in the provider: Mayer, Davis, and Schoorman (1995, p. 712) define trust as the willingness of a party to be vulnerable to the actions of another party based on the expectation that the other will perform a particular action important to the trustor, irrespective of the ability to monitor or control that other party. Moorman, Deshpand, and Zaltman (1993, p. 82) provide a similar but more compressed perspective and define trust as the willingness to rely on an exchange partner in whom one has confidence. These definitions reflect two separate components credibility and benevolence (Ganesan, 1994). Credibility refers to trust in a providers expertise and reliability. Benevolence focuses on the motives and intentions of the provider and can be present even when the relationship lacks credibility. Maltz and Ellram (1997) indicate that trust between firms is important when there is much at stake for the firms. Especially when firms outsource all or part of their logistics functions and become dependent on third-party provider, this is often the case. Accordingly, in most B2B relationships buyers

try to reduce the risk of their purchase by choosing the firms they can trust (Doney, Barry, and Abratt, 2007). More precisely, they will select the provider that is capable of providing the product or service and who is regarded as being interested in the buyers well-being. Since trust is a major prerequisite in successful relationships (Soonhong and Mentzer, 2000), 3PL providers should aim for establishing trust in their customers minds. In the field of third-party logistics relationships the inability to form meaningful and trusting relationships is still regarded as a major area for improvement (Langley, 2007). Perceived commitment of the provider: According to Morgan and Hunt (1994, p. 23) relationship commitment is central to relationship marketing. They define it as an exchange partner believing that an ongoing relationship with another is so important as to warrant maximum efforts at maintaining it; that is, the committed party believes the relationship is worth working on to ensure that it endures indefinitely (p. 23). A further description of commitment, from the perspective of logistics alliances, indicates that it is characterized by a long-term orientation with a lack of a distinct endpoint, requiring trust, loyalty, and a sharing of information, risks, and rewards (Moore and Cunningham, 1999, p. 108). What these definitions have in common is that they focus on the enduring desire to maintain a valued long-term relationship (Moorman, Zaltman, and Deshpand, 1992). One integral part of relationship commitment is that the members do not accept short term gains at the expense of the long-term benefits of the relationship, and rather work on maintaining it (Morgan and Hunt, 1994). Theimportance of committed members to an outsourcing relationship becomes clear. In the end, relationships characterized by a high degree of commitment are harder to switch for both parties compared to those with low commitment (Hertz and Alfredsson, 2003). It is expected that customers who perceive their third-party logistics provider to be highly committed to the relationship will be more likely to give referrals and stick to this provider than customers perceiving their providers to be less committed.

Communication with the provider: Communication in exchange relationships, according to Anderson and Narus (1990, p. 44), can be defined broadly as the formal as well as informal sharing of meaningful and timely information between firms. Meaningful and timely exchange of information helps to resolve disputes and align perceptions and expectations and consequently enhances the relationship building process (Etgar, 1979). Murphy and Poist (2000) identified a mismatch between those third-party logistics services offered by providers and those used by the customers. The existence of this mismatch underlines the importance of continuous and collaborative communication. A recent study on logistics outsourcing by Langley (2007) identified communication as one of the most important elements of successful collaboration. Similarly, Knemeyer and Murphy (2005a) provide empirical support for a strong positive effect of communication on each of the four outcomes of a thirdparty logistics relationship described before. Since both studies were conducted in North America, the reasoning behind testing the construct again is to identify potential cultural differences between North America and Europe. However, following the findings above, it is expected that communication positively affects the outcomes of third-party logistics relationships. Dependence on the provider: To be successful, relational exchanges must provide benefits for both parties. In this work, dependence is related to the benefits that can be achieved by the specific thirdparty logistics relationship under investigation. Following Heide and John (1988), dependence on a third-party logistics provider will be higher under the following circumstances: (1) when the services obtained by the provider are important, highly valued, and the magnitude of the exchange is high; (2) when the services obtained exceed services available from the best alternative provider; and (3) when fewer sources or potential sources of exchange are available to the customer. More precisely, dependence refers to the need to maintain a relationship to achieve goals (Palmatier, Dant, and Grewal, 2007, p.175). The ongoing trend of

global logistics, especially its specialized nature and the distances involved, creates dependence by shippers on third-party logistics providers who are capable of providing a broad range of value-added services to assure logistical continuity (Bowersox and Calantone, 1998). Dependence is expected to be positively related to retention and service recovery given that dependent customers will most likely remain with the provider even when adverse effects occur. Further, a positive relation between dependence and performance improvements is expected because the customer should become dependent only when the provider has something to offer that is unique or at least important to him (Ganesan, 1994). Reputation of the provider: Reputation refers to how one party, in this case a third-party logistics provider, is viewed by other parties. Organizational reputation refers to providing reliable results and consistent performance over time. A company will estimate the future performance of a third-party logistics provider based on the providers reputation, which in turn is a result of past performance and behavior in other relationships (Ganesan, 1994). Knemeyer and Murphy (2005a) found that reputation has no significant effect on any of the four focal relationship outcomes. However, some authors identified the importance of reputation in relationships. A recent study identified that the reputation of a supplier can reduce the influence of competing suppliers marketing actions on customers which in turn increases customer retention (Shih-Ping, 2008). Furthermore, Houston and Johnson (2000) found a strong negative link between a firms reputation and opportunistic behavior. Companies that developed a good reputation over time will be careful not to jeopardize it. Customer Attributes Besides testing the effect of relationship characteristics on relationship outcomes, the present study investigates what impact certain customer attributes have on these outcomes, and how the size of the provider influences the effects. Large customers, in contrast to small customers, can better exploit their power advantage in order to control the relationship to their satisfaction and

performance needs (Maloni and Carter, 2006). The attributes to be examined, with regard to the customers, are the size of the customer firm, the length of the relationship between the customer and the provider, the number of third-party logistics relations in place, the number of logistics functions outsourced, and the type of functions outsourced. Methodology To investigate the propositions an online questionnaire was developed. Access to this questionnaire was made possible via a hyperlink that was added to an email invitation sent to the prospective respondents. The target group of the survey was defined as professionals who are working at companies that are using at least one thirdparty logistics provider, and who are directly involved in at least one relationship to a provider. A threefold approach was used to reach relevant companies: First, prospective companies were randomly chosen from a company database provided by the German IHK (www.ihk.de; Industrie- und Handelskammer; Chamber of Industry and Commerce). In total, 330 invitations for taking part in the survey were sent out to companies spread all over Germany. Second, an invitation and a link to the survey were presented on the front page of the Competence Center Kontraktlogistik, Logistics Outsourcing which is part of the German logistics forum Logistics.de. Logistics.de is a neutral and independent platform, aiming at bringing together users and providers of logistics know-how, products, and services (www.logistics.de). Third, an invitation and a link to the questionnaire were put on several German logistics bulletin boards (www.logipool.de, www.forum-speditionen.de, and www.cargoforum.de). The scales and items used in the questionnaire with regard to the relationship characteristics and outcomes were partly adopted from the research by Knemeyer and Murphy (2005a) and partly derived from other studies. Following Knemeyer and Murphys suggestion to use different constructs in future

studies, trust in the provider, dependence on the provider, and the perceived commitment of the provider were added to the framework. The related items were adapted from Moorman et al. (1993), Ganesan (1994), and Moore and Cunningham (1999), respectively. All items were translated into German. Two native German colleagues retranslated the questionnaire into English to check for translation errors. Further, two German professionals working in the logistics departments of large German companies reviewed the questionnaire to check for clarity and accuracy. After implementing some alterations the questionnaire was put online and the email invitations were sent out on December 27, 2007. An English version was uploaded and included in the email invitation as well to account for potential non-native professionals working in the target companies. The questionnaire was separated into two major sections. The first section dealt with the focal thirdparty relationship and was further subdivided in two parts containing the items for measuring the five relationship characteristics and four relationship outcomes, respectively. The second section addressed background information of the relationship. All items in the first section were measured on seven-point Likert scales ranging from 1 = strongly disagree to 7 = strongly agree. The seven-point Likert scale was chosen because the study by Knemeyer and Murphy (2005a) and the studies by Ganesan (1994) and Moorman et al. (1993) on relationship marketing used this scale as well. Some of the items were provided with negative wording, given that it is better to use dual statements, some of which are positive and others negative (Malhotra and Birks, 2003). The items in the second section were adapted from Knemeyer and Murphys study (2005a) in order to obtain comparable results. Questions on the size of the respondents company and the provider company were added. Analysis Partial least squares (PLS) was conducted using the software SmartPLS (Ringle, Wende, and Will, 2005). PLS

analysis was complemented by analyses conducted with SPSS. According to Lohmller (1988), PLS is complementary with other Latent Variable Path (LVP) programs like LISREL for example. Major advantages of using PLS instead of other programs are the ability to cope with nonnormally distributed data (White, Varadarajan, and Dacin, 2003), small sample sizes (Cao, Gruza, and Klemz, 2004), and potentially existing multicollinearity (Cassel, Hackl, and Westlund, 2000). Further, PLS is quicker than other programs what is especially useful when complex models are analyzed. The analysis conducted via PLS actually tests two models, the factor model and the path model (Lohmller, 1988). The factor model which is also referred to as the outer model or measurement model focuses on the relationship between the latent (unobserved constructs) variables and the associated manifest (observed or measured) variables. The path model also referred to as the inner model or the structural model focuses on the relationships or paths between the latent variables (Lohmller, 1988). In order to ensure reliable and valid measures of constructs before conclusions about the construct relationships are drawn, the analysis of PLS models is usually conducted in two sequential stages (Hulland, 1999). The first stage is the evaluation of the measurement model and the second stage analyses the structural model. Results Overall, 75 questionnaires were completed with 8 being unusable due to incomplete responses, leaving a sample of 67. Based on the assumption that most complete responses were approached via the 330 email invitations and disregarding the bulletin boards, a rough approximation of a response rate is 20%. With respect to firm size, 14.9% of responding organizations employ less than 100 and 14.9% employ 100 to 250 workers. 250 to 500 and more than 500 people are employed by 13.4% and 56.7%, respectively. Figure 3 presents the distribution of the respondent companies engaged in relationships with small and large third-party logistics providers. According to these distributions, companies with less than 100 and

between 250 and 500 employees are more often engaged in relationships with small providers. Companies with 100 to 250 and more than 500 employees are more often engaged in relationships with large providers. Respondents were asked to indicate their level of responsibility and the duration of their involvement in the focal relationship. Responsibility was measured on a semantic differential scale from (1) no responsibility to (7) primary responsibility. The mean score of 5.22 indicates a rather high level of responsibility. Further, the respondents had on average almost five years (4.75) of involvement in the focal relationship. With regard to the functions outsourced by the respondent companies, approximately 70% of the companies outsource more than 3 functions to the respective provider they focus on in the questionnaire. Moreover, more than half of the respondent companies outsource transport related functions as Outbound traffic control and Inbound traffic control with 75% and 60%, respectively. Inventory management and Pick & pack score third and fourth, with 46% and 42%, respectively. Of the 67 useful responses, only 3 indicated to outsource merely transport related functions. Table 1 gives an overview of the relationships between the independent variables (relationship characteristics and customer attributes) and the four relationship outcomes. Further the table presents the moderation effect of the size of the third-party logistics provider on the mentioned relationships.

Summary and Conclusion The effect of the relationships examined and customer attributes on the outcomes of a 3PL relationship is only conditionally affected by the size of the provider. Only 7 out of 36 observed relationship effects indicate a significant differences between small and large 3PL providers.

From a customer perspective, the size of the provider does not seem to have any significant effect on operational performance improvements. Small and large providers alike are able to provide these services and no performance distinction can be made. Performance improvements are also independent of customer attributes, such as size of the customer, number of providers used, or number of outsourced activities. From provider perspective it appears that large providers seem to have difficulties in establishing close relationships with their customers: As the size of the provider increases, the positive effects of certain relationship characteristics are reduced, or negative effects are intensified. An example is the result for customer referrals, which were found as very important in a 3PL context (Boyson et al, 1999): customers tend to provide fewer referrals to large providers. As for customer retention, the results indicate that when customers have outsourced activities to many 3PL providers, they are less willing to maintain relationships with the large providers. Large providers seem to have difficulties in terms of relationship building. The commitment of a provider has a large impact on relationship performance. The results for communication and reputation are contrary to the findings of Knemeyer and Murphy (2005a). In our study, reputation was found to be the strongest antecedent of relationship performance improvement. Perceived commitment, dependence, and reputation have the largest impact: Yet the larger the provider, the smaller the effect. To retain customers, large 3PL firms should be careful not to harm their reputation, and offer either a very specialized or a very broad range of servicesto increase dependence of their customers. The findings for customer referrals are similar, as to the direct antecedents. Perceived commitment and reputation increase the probability of referrals. Limitations The sample of 67 respondents is considered representative for German 3PL customers. The geographic scope was

limited to Germany: future studies should widen the scope, and make international comparison possible. Industry factors (high margin industries versus low cost industries) would impact the use of 3PL providers and types of services demanded. References Anderson, J. C., & Narus, J. A. (1990). A Model of Distributor Firm and Manufacturer Firm Working Partnerships. Journal of Marketing, 54(1), 42-58. Bagchi, P. K., & Virum, H. (1996). European Logistics Alliances: A Management Model. International Journal of Logistics Management, 7(1), 93-108. Barnes, J. G. (2001). Secrets of Customer Relationship Management: It's All about How You Make Them Feel. New York, NY: McGraw Hill. Berglund, M., van Laarhoven, P., Sharman, G., & Wandel, S. (1999). Third-Party Logistics: Is There a Future? International Journal of Logistics Management, 10(1), 59-70. Boles, J. S., Barksdale, H. C., & Johnson, J. T. (1997). Business relationships: An examination of the effects of buyersalesperson relationships on customer retention and the willingness to refer and recommend. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 12(3/4), 248. Bolumole, Y. A., Frankel, R., & Naslund, D. (2007). Developing a Theoretical Framework for Logistics Outsourcing. Transportation Journal, 46(2), 35-54. Bowersox, D. J., & Calantone, R. J. (1998). Executive Insights: Global Logistics. Journal of International Marketing, 6(4), 83-93. Boyson, S., Corsi, T., Dresner, M., & Rabinovich, E. (1999). MANAGING EFFECTIVE THIRD PARTY LOGISTICS

RELATIONSHIPS: WHAT DOES IT TAKE? Journal of Business Logistics, 20(1), 73-100. Bradley, P. (1994, 20 October). Contract logistics: It's all about costs. Purchasing, 56A53-A14. example 1 JACOBSON COMPANIES (GLOBAL THIRDPARTY LOGISTICS) Jacobson Companies is a leading third party logistics company offering end-to-end supply chain management solutions around the globe. Our extensive network includes 195 facilities worldwide operating 35 million square feet of warehouse space. With our recent establishment of Jacobson Global Logistics in Asia, we offer a very competitive advantage for a one stop end-to-end solution. Our GLOBAL Can Do Logistics offerings include freight forwarding (ocean & air), customs brokerage, PO management, origin services/consolidation, deconsolidation, warehousing & distribution, contract packaging and manufacturing, staffing and transportation management. Jacobson Provides Cost-Effective Warehousing Solutions and Revenue Sharing to Global Leader in Agricultural Chemicals The Challenge:

A global leader in agricultural chemicals and seed technology must continually look for cost effective solutions for the storage and distribution of their products. Jacobsons relationship with one agriculture companys chemical group goes back decades, providing both public and dedicated warehouse solutions. This leader in agricultural chemicals and seed technology looked to Jacobson as a provider that would know its business, products, customers and carriers well enough to quickly execute a new logistics strategy with just one phone call. Our Solutions: Jacobson Companies provides public and dedicated warehouse space for the company to handle corn, soybeans and crop protection chemicals. Jacobson also provides packaging, relabeling and reverse logistics solutions. During the companies partnership, Jacobson helped the company transition to a centralized DC model, eliminating the need for interplant shifting and storage of extra products. Jacobson also became the first third-party provider that the company allowed to be the last point of contact with the customer, shipping directly to farmers a pilot program executed successfully and seamlessly. Jacobson handles returns as well as sorting, SKUing, repacking and reshipping pallets of mixed seed. By providing the company with flexible warehouse space, Jacobson also opened the door to revenue sharing, helping mitigate storage costs for the agriculture corporation. Most importantly, the companies have forged a relationship in which Jacobson knows this agricultural companys business well and has the flexibility and turnaround capabilities to meet urgent needs. When the company needs new warehousing

capabilities, Jacobson can have space prepared and accept shipments within the week. CEVA Logistics serves a diverse range of market sectors, including automotive and tires, technology, industrial, retail and consumer goods, healthcare, publishing, aerospace and oil and gas. Mission Statement: CEVA Logistics is passionate about supply chain management. It is the companys mission to deliver value to its customers through robust and repeatable supply chain solutions on a local, regional and global scale. It goes beyond the boundaries of traditional supply chain management and designs innovative solutions based on state-of-the-art technology, advanced supply chain engineering and global operational expertise. Everything done is measured by rigorous standards and global metrics. It invests in relationship management to ensure perfect communication with customers. Capabilities: CEVA helps business flow more efficiently for customers by designing globally recognized supply chain strategies that optimize the flow of products. With an ongoing focus on operations excellence and supply chain visibility, CEVA provides endto-end design, implementation and operation of logistics solutions in contract logistics, freight forwarding, distribution management and transportation management. The company focuses on a diverse range of market sectors, including automotive and tires, technology, industrial, retail and consumer goods, healthcare, publishing, aerospace and oil and gas. Its sector solutions are based on sophisticated technology, advanced engineering and proven global operational expertise. CEVA is recognized as a leading logistics provider for the automotive sector and is among the top three 3PLs in several regions in retail and consumer goods and tires. Technology Advantages: CEVA proactively reassesses solutions to anticipate changing requirements in supply chains. With connectivity between all actions of the supply chain being vital, Matrix, its flagship

IT suite, connects CEVA, its customers and all relevant parties in their supply chain in real time. Matrix supports inbound, outbound and reverse logistics processes across multiple industries and comprises a complete range of transportation, inventory management, order fulfillment, financial settlement and e-commerce applications. How It Differentiates ltself: CEVA has built leading market positions by understanding its target sectors and applying its expertise to design and implement customized solutions that address sector-specific requirements. It believes its knowledge of customer supply chains and sector expertise help it develop more cost-effective solutions that create competitive advantages for its customers, putting it in a strong position to grow its business. CEVAs strategy is based on three cornerstones: 1. Customer and sector focus. Critical elements include key account management and focus on a number of target sectors. 2. Operational excellence. Develop, define and implement industry leading operational standards, including policies, processes and performance levels. A key initiative is LEAN, which is designed to increase productivity, reduce costs and improve service levels, through reducing waste by eliminating non-value-adding processes, reducing inflexibility by better matching of throughput and demand and reducing variability. 3. Technological leadership. This is driven through the continued development and rollout of Matrix. critical appraisal 1 INTRODUCTION Over the last decades information systems have increasingly been applied to the traditionally manual planning role in industries such as (road-) logistics. However in practice the human planner has still a considerable role, assigning individual tasks to resources at a certain point in time. In this paper we want to focus on the planning input, output and the transition from input to output for Logistic Service Providers (LSPs). In order to do this transition well, a planning system albeit manual or computerized should utilize the proper performance parameters and objectives to derive to an

optimal planning. To gain insight in this area, we considered the Key Performance Indicators (KPI) literature. Typically, KPIs are used in a post-ante context: to evaluate the past performance of a company. We reason that KPIs could be utilized the other way around as well: if one knows what counts afterwards, it would be smart to anticipate this in the planning phase already. Understanding this leads to better designed information systems. This paper aims at giving more insight on the key performance indicators in the area of logistics service provision. To fulfill this goal we perform a literature study and we propose a framework to cluster performance indicators. The organization of the paper is as follows. We first briefly describe the LSP industry and shortly introduce the KPI domain (section 2). Then, we undertake a literature review in the areas of supply chain management and logistics service providers (section 3). In section 4 we synthesize the literature and develop a framework for KPI utilization (including the perspectives of several stakeholders). A first validation is shown in section 5. Section 6 presents the intended application and end goal of this research to develop an agent-based planning system for a logistics service provider. Other shorter-term future research directions and conclusions are given in section 7. 2 KPIS AND THIRD PARTY LOGISTICS The increasing importance on core competencies opened up many business opportunities for logistics service providers (Christopher, 1998). They act as intermediaries in a supply chain that enable the organized movement of goods from a point of origin to a point of destination (i.e. from shippers to consignees) (Lai et al., 2004). Instead of merely focusing on transportation activities, third party logistics providers (3PL) are additionally coordinating logistical activities, integrated on an intra- or even interorganizational level (Sink et al., 1996; Vaidyanathan, 2005). Companies in a supply chain have to decide to be either cost-efficient or lead time driven and the provision of logistics services is affected by this choice as well

(Fisher 1997). Logistics service providers are further trying to expand their activities outside their home country (Lemoine, Dagnaes 2003). A logistics service provider can be successful only, if it acts based on reliable and complete information about the performance of the company as a whole and all its units. It is therefore surprising that such an activity is usually carried out in an ad-hoc manner. This is due to a number of reasons. First of all, the selection of performance indicators is not trivial. No single indicator can give a full picture on the performance each one presents a partial view from a specific viewpoint and is therefore not enough to serve as basis for management decisions. Historically, companies concentrated on financial indicators. Nowadays it is widely recognized that non-financial and even nonnumerical indicators can give valuable information as well (Brewer and Speh, 2000; Ittner and Larcker, 2003; Chan, 2003). Such indicators though are more difficult to measure and compare. Considering an allegedly full set of indicators could result in a huge amount of data which would require a lot of efforts and high costs both in acquiring and analyzing. A reasonable solution would be to select the set of the most important indicators having in mind the goals of the company. The analysis should be performed with extreme caution so that the resulting set of indicators covers every relevant point of view. It is not uncommon that the selected indicators turn out to be conflicting improving one may worsen another (Kleijnen and Smits, 2003).Performance indicators are to a large extent domain specific. Our research focuses on the area of thirdparty logistics. But even within this area no unique subset of indicators can be selected. The choice is company specific and depends on the goals, state and orientation of the company. Therefore it is worthwhile to first concentrate efforts on providing aid in the selection process. Drawbacks of 3PL Still requires top management's time to manage relationships & resources Unable to cover full range of SC requirements e.g.

logistics information, tech development... Lack of shared goals...

The review reveals that 3PL research is empirical-descriptive in nature and that it generally lacks a theoretical foundation. Survey research is the dominant method employed, reflecting the positivist research tradition within logistics. It identifies certain knowledge gaps and develops five propositions for future research. It suggests that focus should be directed towards more normative, theory-driven and qualitative method-based studies. It also argues that further empirical research in relation to 3PL design/implementation and fourth party logistics services is needed. Originality/value This paper fulfils an identified need for a comprehensive classification framework of 3PL studies. It essentially provides both academics and practitioners with a conceptual map of existing 3PL research and also points out opportunities for future research. Integrative literature reviews in the third-party literature differ based on their purpose. Most reviews are performed in conjunction with projects addressing specific issues. For example, Murphy and Poist (1998) derive testable propositions for usage based on interpretation of previous work by Sink et al. (1996), Lieb and Randall (1996), and Stank and Maltz (1996). Boyson et al. (1999) consider work by Bardi and Tracey (1991), Lieb and Randall (1996), and Sink and Langley (1997) and conclude that "none of the previous academic work has researched ways to internally plan, organize, operate, and control third party relationships." These project-specific reviews are designed to identify appropriate topics for research, but are not suitable for identifying trends in the values of key quantities such as actual 3PL usage. The emphasis is on positioning new work, rather than synthesizing previous efforts to draw conclusions. These reviews have some of the shortcomings identified above, in that their selection is necessarily partial and subjective, as is the weighting of the various studies. But researchers in third-party usage have also produced a second kind of review.

Lieb and Randall (1996) draw conclusions based on successive studies completed in 1991, 1994, and 1995. These conclusions continue to be updated based on repeated surveys by Lieb and his collaborators, the Lieb Series referred to earlier. Similarly, Langley and various collaborators comment on trends in their series of repeated surveys, earlier identified as the Langley Series. But formal trend analysis and projection is not an objective of either author. Instead, they concentrate on findings from the most recent work and use previous surveys primarily for context. Some examples include the following: "From 1996 to 2001 the percentage of 3PL users remained relatively constant ... between 68 percent and 73 percent; however this percentage increased to 78 percent in 2002 and 2003, and to 79 percent in 2004." (Langley et al. 2004) "Sixty-five (69 percent) of the 94 respondents indicated that their companies use third-party logistics services.... This usage rate is nearly identical to that reported in 1997." (Lieb and Randall 1998, as reported in Lieb 2000) Both Lieb and Langley ask respondents about future outsourcing plans, but neither attempts to combine results for prediction from previous surveys through formal rules, nor do they typically include more than one or two studies, except in descriptive figures or tables (Langley, Allen, and Dale 2004, Lieb and Randall 1996). As noted above, Light and Pillemer (1984) and Wolf (1986) have raised concerns about the utility of integrative reviews, which lack formal rules for weighting and combining the various studies. These concerns seem to apply to the studies and comments of both Lieb et al. and Langley et al. The work in this article is an attempt to address these concerns and apply formal rules to the task of drawing conclusions from these multiple studies. There is one other well known series of studies of the thirdparty logisticsmarket, that of Armstrong and Associates (2003, 2004). Interestingly, published Armstrong data usually characterize market size in dollars spent on third-party services, rather than percent usage. However, Armstrong's reports are proprietary and it is not clear what, if any, formal rules are used in market projections. Therefore, the Armstrong series will not be used in drawing statistical inferences in this study. As detailed below, the series will be used

only as a reference benchmark for descriptive statistics included in Figure 1 and Table 1. Summary In the last fifteen years many studies have addressed issues surrounding the rise of third-party logistics, and there have been numerous attempts to measure the level of usage. However, synthesis of the findings of these studies has been done informally (e.g., Langley, Allen, and Dale 2004, Lieb and Randall 1996) or not at all. (1) Other disciplines have dealt with this issue by developing the procedures of meta-analysis (Farley, Lehmann, and Sawyer 1995, Wolf 1986) and analysis of repeated surveys (Firebaugh 1997). A review of leading logistics journals suggests that these approaches have rarely, if ever, been used for logistics research. As we demonstrate below, their use here can be potentially effective but also problematic. However, we believe that even failure can be valuable if it shows the way to improvements in ongoing third-party logistics research. SUMMARY AND IMPLICATIONS We have been deliberately cautious in drawing conclusions from a fairly intensive analysis of the available longitudinal survey data. We believe that both the Lieb and Langley data series are valuable as barometers of the third-party logistics market, but that there are changes that could increase the contribution of these efforts and produce additional insights. These potential changes fall into three categories: better visibility of the survey instrument, different measurement methods, and more detailed tracking and reporting of respondents and respondent characteristics. CONCLUSION Third-party logistics was identified as a separate industry and service only in the late 1980s, and there have been numerous studies of the industry as it has grown. The research presented here is an attempt to formally combine the results of some of these studies to better estimate the growth rate of third-party logistics in general and of warehouse and transportation outsourcing as well. We were fortunate to access two separate sets of studies of these phenomena, led by Robert Lieb and John Langley, Jr., respectively. We estimated that from 1996 to 2004 market penetration, measured in percent companies outsourcing, has been increasing from 5-8 percent

annually for logistics outsourcing in general. Transportation outsourcing seems to have experienced approximately the same rate of increased penetration, while third-party warehousing appears to have grown somewhat faster. But the functional increases have not been uniform. The data we have suggest that functional outsourcing in the large company segment during this period does not show clearcut growth. We adopted a meta-analysis perspective to arrive at these estimates, in the sense that we estimated effect sizes across multiple studies. In retrospect, although measuring growth rates requires multiple studies, there may be more straightforward applications in logistics for meta-analysis procedures. For example, many studies have tried to relate customer service to customer satisfaction. Using metaanalysis to combine these studies could result in more reliable, consistent estimates of the importance of service to overall satisfaction. Many studies have looked at the order of importance of various components of customer service. Meta-analysis offers an organized method of combining the results of these studies and drawing strong conclusions. As the logistics field matures and the number of studies proliferates, informal reviews of multiple studies become more challenging. It becomes harder and harder to reconcile "disparate definitions, variables, procedures, methods, samples, and so on ..." (Wolf 1986). Yet "accumulating knowledge across studies to confront theory with data is essential to progress" (Farley, Lehmann, and Sawyer 1995) in logistics as in other fields. We do not claim that meta-analysis is an easy way to answer fundamental logistics questions about the presence and size of markets, the influence of key performance indicators, or the importance of individual customer service elements. But we believe that meta-analysis may provide a framework for more in-depth studies and appreciation of individual survey results and a disciplined way to combine these results to improve our understanding of important logistics phenomena. We look forward to working with our colleagues to see if this technique and its cousin, repeated survey analysis, can be as useful to our discipline as it already has proven to be in other social and behavioral sciences. Langley, C. J. Jr. (1996), "Third party logistics: Key Market / Key Customer Study." The University of Tennessee and Exel Logistics.

Langley, C. J. Jr. (1997), "Third-party Logistics: Key Market / Key Customer Study." The University of Tennessee and Exel Logistics. Langley, C. J. Jr., B. F. Newton, and G. R. Tyndall (1998), "Thirdparty Logistics: Key Market / Key Customer Study." The University of Tennessee, Ernst & Young, and Exel Logistics. Langley, C. J. Jr., B. F. Newton, and G. R. Tyndall (1999), "Thirdparty Logistics Services: View from the Customer. Results and Findings of the 1999 Fourth Annual Survey." The University of Tennessee, Ernst & Young, and Exel Logistics. Langley, C. J. Jr., B. F. Newton, and G. R. Allen (2000), "Third-party Logistics Services: View from the Customer. Results and Findings of the 2000 5th Annual Survey." The University of Tennessee, Exel Logistics, and Cap Gemini Ernst & Young. Langley, C. J. Jr., G. R. Allen, and G. R. Tyndall (2001), "Third-party Logistics: Results and Findings of the 2001 Sixth Annual Survey." C. John Langley Jr., Georgia Institute of Technology, Cap Gemini Ernst & Young, and Ryder System, Inc. Langley, C. J. Jr., G. R. Allen, and G. R. Tyndall (2002), "Third-party Logistics: Results and Findings of the 2002 Seventh Annual Survey." C. John Langley Jr., Georgia Institute of Technology, Cap Gemini Ernst & Young, and Ryder System, Inc Lieb, R. and B. A. Bentz (2004), "The Use of Third-Party Logistics Services by Large American Manufacturers: the 2003 Survey," Transportation Journal, Vol. 43, No. 3, pp. 24-33. Lieb, R. and B. A. Bentz (2005), "The Use of Third-Party Logistics Services by Large American Manufacturers: the 2004 Survey," Transportation Journal, Vol. 44, No. 2, pp. 5-15 Lieb, R., C., Third-Party Logistics: A Manager's Guide, Houston, JKL Publications, 2000. Lieb, R. C., R. A. Millen, and L. N. Van Wassenhove (1993), "ThirdParty Logistics Services: A Comparison of Experienced American and European Manufacturers," International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, Vol. 23, No. 6, pp. 35-44. Lieb, R. C. and H. L. Randall (1996), "A Comparison of the Use of Third-Party Logistics Services by Large American Manufacturers:

1991, 1994 and 1995," Journal of Business Logistics, Vol. 17, No. 1, pp. 305-320. Light, R. J. and D. B. Pillemer, Summing Up: The Science of Reviewing Research, Cambridge, MA, Harvard UniversityPress, 1984.