Table 4 Implications for logistics... | Emerald Publishing

Table 4

Implications for logistics strategy fit

Contextual factors and logistics strategy components	Description	Literature findings		Case study findings
Contextual factors and logistics strategy components	Description	Implications for fit	Key references	Realized outcome	Implications for fit
Contextual factors
Demand characteristics	Number, size, knowledge, behaviour and heterogeneity among clients	Determines suitable degree of product standardization and pre-engineering through competitive priorities	Shurrab et al. (2022), Maylor et al. (2015)	Remained unchanged. Projects were of local character with a high heterogeneity among clients	Products and productions system were adaptable to each client's requirements and the company mainly competes with smaller local actors
Degree of pre-engineering	No. product variants, BOM structure complexity (depth and breadth), and amount of engineering work performed prior to customer order impacting production and supply variability	IP requirements are generated from the late design changes	Cannas et al. (2019), Shurrab et al. (2022), Wikner and Rudberg (2005), Flynn and Flynn (1999), Christopher (1986)	Low use of standardized products and pre-engineered components. BOM structure changes from project to project	High level of IP requirements due to low amount of information possessed prior to task execution (DTO: low degree of pre-engineering)
Production system	Degree of off-site assembly (CM&SA, PF&SA, PF&PA or MB) impacting production and supply variability	IP requirements are generated from production variability (process time and flow variability)	Shurrab et al. (2022), Cannas et al. (2019), Jonsson and Rudberg (2015), Wikner and Rudberg (2005), Christopher (1986)	Mainly CM&SA production systems with high levels of production variability in projects	High level of IP requirements due to due to low amount of information possessed prior to task execution (high level of production variability)
Structure components
Organizational structure	Centralization: logistics tasks are either concentrated to a single unit or distributed in the organization Division of labour: administrative and physical logistics tasks performed by general-purpose or specialized personnel	Determines level of IP capacity of logistics organization during task performance	Galbraith (1974), Klaas and Delfmann (2005), Flynn and Flynn (1999), Chow et al. (1995), Christopher (1986)	Centralization: Site management had control over logistics tasks. No involvement from a central unit in projects Division of labour: site management mainly administered purchasing, call-offs, deliveries, goods reception and invoicing. Material handling was mainly carried out by construction workers	High level of IP capacity generated from decentralized organizational structure. IP requirements reduced due to reduced division of labour
Supply chain structure	Number of suppliers and supplier relationships impacting delivery reliability and quality	IP requirements are generated from supply variability	Janné and Rudberg (2022), Bildsten (2014), Klaas and Delfmann (2005)	Mainly arms-length relationships with local suppliers of building materials. Direct deliveries to construction sites from materials suppliers	High level of IP requirements generated from short-term, market-based supplier relationships. Direct deliveries from many suppliers to construction sites
Process components
Administrative processes	Formalized procedures for information processing, coordination and control activities, e.g.: demand management, inventory and order management, order processing, distribution and transportation planning	Determines level of IP requirements generated from level of formalization	Klaas and Delfmann (2005)	Formalized logistics processes were never implemented, and logistics tasks were handled in a problem-solving manner. Administrative processes were seldom considered by site management	High level of IP requirements due to low amount of information possessed prior to task execution (lack of administrative routines and information system)
Operational processes	Formalized procedures for physical activities, e.g.: on-site material handling, transportation, warehouse operations	Determines level of IP requirements generated from level of formalization	Klaas and Delfmann (2005)	Formalized logistics processes were never implemented, and logistics tasks were handled in a problem-solving manner. Construction workers and supervisor typically carried out goods reception and material handling	High level of IP requirements due to low amount of information possessed prior to task execution (absence of established material handling and goods reception procedures)

Contextual factors and logistics strategy components	Description	Literature findings		Case study findings
Contextual factors and logistics strategy components	Description	Implications for fit	Key references	Realized outcome	Implications for fit
Contextual factors
Demand characteristics	Number, size, knowledge, behaviour and heterogeneity among clients	Determines suitable degree of product standardization and pre-engineering through competitive priorities	Shurrab et al. (2022), Maylor et al. (2015)	Remained unchanged. Projects were of local character with a high heterogeneity among clients	Products and productions system were adaptable to each client's requirements and the company mainly competes with smaller local actors
Degree of pre-engineering	No. product variants, BOM structure complexity (depth and breadth), and amount of engineering work performed prior to customer order impacting production and supply variability	IP requirements are generated from the late design changes	Cannas et al. (2019), Shurrab et al. (2022), Wikner and Rudberg (2005), Flynn and Flynn (1999), Christopher (1986)	Low use of standardized products and pre-engineered components. BOM structure changes from project to project	High level of IP requirements due to low amount of information possessed prior to task execution (DTO: low degree of pre-engineering)
Production system	Degree of off-site assembly (CM&SA, PF&SA, PF&PA or MB) impacting production and supply variability	IP requirements are generated from production variability (process time and flow variability)	Shurrab et al. (2022), Cannas et al. (2019), Jonsson and Rudberg (2015), Wikner and Rudberg (2005), Christopher (1986)	Mainly CM&SA production systems with high levels of production variability in projects	High level of IP requirements due to due to low amount of information possessed prior to task execution (high level of production variability)
Structure components
Organizational structure	Centralization: logistics tasks are either concentrated to a single unit or distributed in the organization Division of labour: administrative and physical logistics tasks performed by general-purpose or specialized personnel	Determines level of IP capacity of logistics organization during task performance	Galbraith (1974), Klaas and Delfmann (2005), Flynn and Flynn (1999), Chow et al. (1995), Christopher (1986)	Centralization: Site management had control over logistics tasks. No involvement from a central unit in projects Division of labour: site management mainly administered purchasing, call-offs, deliveries, goods reception and invoicing. Material handling was mainly carried out by construction workers	High level of IP capacity generated from decentralized organizational structure. IP requirements reduced due to reduced division of labour
Supply chain structure	Number of suppliers and supplier relationships impacting delivery reliability and quality	IP requirements are generated from supply variability	Janné and Rudberg (2022), Bildsten (2014), Klaas and Delfmann (2005)	Mainly arms-length relationships with local suppliers of building materials. Direct deliveries to construction sites from materials suppliers	High level of IP requirements generated from short-term, market-based supplier relationships. Direct deliveries from many suppliers to construction sites
Process components
Administrative processes	Formalized procedures for information processing, coordination and control activities, e.g.: demand management, inventory and order management, order processing, distribution and transportation planning	Determines level of IP requirements generated from level of formalization	Klaas and Delfmann (2005)	Formalized logistics processes were never implemented, and logistics tasks were handled in a problem-solving manner. Administrative processes were seldom considered by site management	High level of IP requirements due to low amount of information possessed prior to task execution (lack of administrative routines and information system)
Operational processes	Formalized procedures for physical activities, e.g.: on-site material handling, transportation, warehouse operations	Determines level of IP requirements generated from level of formalization	Klaas and Delfmann (2005)	Formalized logistics processes were never implemented, and logistics tasks were handled in a problem-solving manner. Construction workers and supervisor typically carried out goods reception and material handling	High level of IP requirements due to low amount of information possessed prior to task execution (absence of established material handling and goods reception procedures)