A supply chain using the cross‐dock approach can speed goods from upstream suppliers to downstream customers quickly and cost‐effectively, with benefits to the entire chain, if the appropriate type of cross‐dock is chosen and then designed, staffed and managed for effective performance. Unlike a warehouse, which offers storage, a cross‐dock is a high performance rapid transit point that does not provide storage. Although cross‐docks have been studied with some thoroughness, what has not been seen clearly is that a cross‐dock does not operate in isolation and therefore can't be optimized independently from the upstream and downstream processes. To be successful, cross‐dock optimization makes demands for high performance on all members of the supply chain in terms of speed, effective planning, high reliability, near error‐proof processes and a high degree of transparency, visibility and information‐sharing; accordingly, the article refers to this integrative perspective as a “cross‐dock based supply chain.” To make clear this interdependency between the cross‐dock and the chain based on it, a new definition that classifies types of cross‐dock based supply chains is offered. To assist scholars analyzing and industry management choosing a cross‐dock approach, cross‐dock based supply chains are classified as falling into three different types. Lastly, based on field work in industry and on literature review, nine critical success factors for cross‐dock based supply chain operations are offered.

The rise of social media technology has led to new customer relationship management tools that engage customers more easily and directly (social customer relationship management, SCRM). However, the usefulness of SCRM is contingent upon a successful adoption by an organization. Various technology adoption theoretical frameworks have been proposed for social media technologies generally, and for SCRM specifically. This paper extends the literature by exploring network externalities as a potential driver of SCRM adoption in organizations by surveying 363 supply chain professionals regarding their behaviors and uses of SCRM. The results suggest that network externalities have a substantial effect on adoption of SCRM in business organizations and that a perception of higher network externalities has a positive effect on adoption. This implies that organizations should select SCRM systems with better network externalities and also that they should educate their workforce about those strong network externalities leading up to the adoption.

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to investigate the contingency effects that contextual factors of a networked service environment have on the phased Lean Six Sigma (LSS) implementation frameworks. Design/methodology/approach This paper employs the critical realism (CR) case study research methodology to examine the contingent and causal relationships between contextual configurations of business networks, the DMAIC or PDCA phases in an LSS implementation agenda, and business management functions. The authors conducted a single case study on the basis of challenges they met in kicking off lean transportation in the Port of Houston. Findings The key finding from the study is a mid-range theory regarding the contingency effects of contextual factors of service business networks on the phased LSS implementation frameworks. The authors found that when there are complexity and dynamics of contextual factors at the field layer, management should focus more on tasks in early LSS phases to emphasize influencing. When there is no centralized authority in the network and the value-system is loosely coupled, management needs to execute more tasks as described in the define, measure and analyze phases with the purpose of both influencing and orchestrating. When individual actors have goals not aligned well with the goal of the business network and have unmatched operations capabilities, these factors should be considered as early as possible in these LSS phases. When a business network has complicated business processes with high unpredictability and uncertainty and individual actors’ value-creation systems are not well embedded in the entire value-creation system, PDCA will be the preferred core structure of an LSS implementation agenda. Research limitations/implications This study contributes to the LSS research stream by introducing a causal/contingency model that prescribes the contingency effects of three contextual configurations on LSS implementation. It also contributes to the emerging discipline, business network management, regarding how to use LSS frameworks in strategic planning. It also contributes to the CR school of problem-driven case study by using a strategic initiative framework as a platform and each phase in the framework as a unit. This conceptualization of the entity of interest helps explore the interactions among three theoretical constructs: contextual configurations, phased LSS implementation agenda and management functions. Practical implications Managerial implications of this study are twofold. One is the procedure of analyzing the impacts of contextual factors on the causal relationships between LSS implementation phases and network management functions. The entire procedure represents the agenda-setting process of LSS implementation, the most daunting and challenging managerial task in LSS projects. Another one is the guideline on how to determine whether DMAIC or PDCA is appropriate for the LSS agenda when used in a networked environment. Originality/value This paper would serve as an excellent resource for both academicians and LSS practitioners in initiating, orchestrating and managing an LSS project in a networked service environment. This study represents the first effort to explore the impact of contextual factors of business networks on lean transformation.

There is a paucity of research on Incoterms®. The article reviews the evolution of Incoterms®, the current state of research and use of Incoterms®, and sets the foundation for future research. Incoterms® are the globally accepted terms in a contract of sale that define the obligations, costs, and risks, that the buyers’ and sellers’ organizations must undertake. The authors classify currently published research into four categories: Incoterms® focused on a country; the comparison between the different versions of Incoterms®; Incoterms® in trade and legal issues; and understanding of Incoterms®. There is no depth of research published on the use of Incoterms® in trade agreements between buyer and sellers, in the implications for the supply chains of both buyer and seller, on the choice of the Incoterm®, nor in the conflict with other legal systems and commercial codes. Further, there is substantial confusion in the industry about Incoterms® and when and how to apply them in practice.

No abstract