234 978 952-232-144-2

��

��

��

!��"��

#$��%��$$��&��'��$$��&��&��$��

��

��())�*

��

�

#$��%��$$��&��'��$$��&��&��$��

+��,��-� ��$$��$��.��$$��'��$$��$��.��.��$.��

/��0�!��"��'�

!��"��'��1�$��2��.��$$��&��2��0�&��$��3��$�.��'#'�4�5� 67.�(()()��.�8��'��

1��-��9��'#'�4�5� 67�(()()��.�8��:��$��-�;�<=> (>�<�)��6?.�;�<=> (>�<�)��?<�8�5-�;�<=> (>�<�)� �<��>��-�$��@��'��$-AA,,,'��'��

!�4��76=>7<�>��>) �><�B$��C�!�4��76=>7<�>��>) >��B�18C�!��( � >6�<?��

��9��.��))��

��

�

"&+�#D9�13�2��:�

:��,��,��$��,��,��$��.��.��'�8��.�!�,��:��+��9��.��$��>�5��'�!�� $�� 5�� '� !� ��$��,�� ,��,�� $��4��,��-�

��+��$��.��$��'�:��$��$��$� ,�� >�� $��'� !� �� 5��5��$��$��,�� .�� $>��'� !� �� '1� �5$��$��'�

�� E��$� ��.� �� $��.� �� ,�� .� �� ,�� $��'� ��.� �� ,�� F��$� �� G�� $��F��.� �� $.��$��$$�� .� �� ,�� ,�� '� 3�� +��H�.� �� 5$�� -�I�� .��.��.� +34� �$�� ,��.� ��.� ,�� ,�� .� �� $�� $$�� ,�� ,�� 5�� $�� 9�� 0� ��$$�� &��2��'� !� ��,�� '1�,�� $��'� !� ,�� 8�� ,�� $$�� $�� $�� '� 9�� .� �� ,�� !� ��'� 2�� ,�� ,�� $$�� 2��D�� #�� J��8��'�

!� ,�� ,�� $�� $�� $$�� &��2�� 0� &��$�� 3��$�� $�� $$�� ,�� -� 2�� K��$ .� �� .� E��I�� .�!��.��.��.�2��8��E��$��'�

!��"�F��.��.�� $$�� $.� �� '� !�� $�� ,��,�� $��$��E��G��.�"��.�"��.��3�� +��.� I�� D��.� �� .� 9�� K��.� �� .� ��9��.�+��>E��2�� $�� .�!��,��!��'�

!�,��E��9��8��1��L��9��.�M��9��$��.��$��'�!��$��,��.�!��$��G��I��"��+��9��&��B+9&C.�+��.��,��.� �� $�� ,��

��

�

��$$��$��'�!��#�� ,�� $�� +��9��&��B+9&C��.��,��!��'�

!�,�� $$��-�&��$��2�� !� ��,��4��'� !� ��$�� $��$$��.��!��,��,��$��'�2��>��.�"��+��.��$�� $��'� ��"%��.�� .� �� ,�� $�� $��'�:��,�� '�I��#,��.��G��,��'�3��"�� 5$��'�:��8��9��"��.��,��$��'�:��.��.� ��$��.��N�

!�,��5��.��#��.� ,�� ,�� !� ,�� F�� $$��'� O�� .� �� ,�� 5$�� ,��'�

:��9��.��$$��.�,��,��!��'�"��:��.�+��"��.� ��$��$��$�,�� .� �� $�� .��'�9��'�

�

��.�#��.��())'�

�

!��"��'�

�

�

��

�

&#�:��:��

)� !�:I#1M&:!#�'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''�)�)')'� 4��''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''�)�

)'�'� ��''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''��

)'�'� "��F��''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''��

)'�')'� E��''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''�<�

)' '� :��$��''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''�?�

)' ')'� �� ''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''�6�

)' '�'� !��'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''�6�

)' '�'� K��A��'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''�=�

)' ' '� ��$$��''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''�7�

)' '<'� ��$$��'��$$��$��''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''�)(�

)' '?'� &��$��.��$��$��'''''''''''''''''''�))�

)' '6'� ��B��$$��C�''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''�)��

)' '='� ��$�''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''�)��

)'<'� ��''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''�)��

)'?'� ��'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''�)?�

)'6'� 9��''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''�)6�

�� M��9O�&�"!��.��"I"1!32��!8:��"�1�&#2��:!:!#��'''''''''''�)=�

�')'� &��$��$��'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''��(�

�'�'� ��$$��''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''��)�

�'�'� ��$$��$��$��$��'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''��

�� :��#I�:!&"9�4"&+3I#M�1�'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''��

�')'� ��:��''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''��

�'�'� &��$��%��$$��'��$$��$��'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''��=�

� 2�:�#1#9#3O�'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''�� ')'� D��,��P�''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''��

'�'� #��$��$$��'''''''''''''''''��

'�'� I��''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''��<�

'�')'� 4��!��'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''��<�

'�'�'� L��&��"��''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''��=�

'�'�'� &��''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''��7�

��

�

<� �M22"I!��.�2"!��8!�1!�3��"�1�&#�:I!4M:!#��#8�#I!3!�"9��"��I��'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''� (�

<')'� ��$��!-��$��-��.��P�''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''� (�

<'�'� ��$��!!-�"��$��$$��-�"��$��'�'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''� )�

<'�'� ��$��!!!-��$$��'��$$��$��-�"��>��$$��'�'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''� )�

<' '� ��$��!K-�!��-�"��,��$$��'��$$��$��'�''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''� ��

<'<'� ��''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''� ��

?� &#�&9M�!#�.�!2�9!&":!#��"�1�8MI:��I�I��"I&��''''''''''� 6�?')'� 2��$��''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''� =�

?'�'� &��''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''� 7�

?'�'� "��''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''�<)�

I�8�I��&��''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''�< �

�

"��1!&��

"$$��5�)� !��,�3��'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''�?7�

"$$��5�� 9��!��''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''�6<�

:"49��

:��)� ��$��'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''��?�

:�� :��$��'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''��

��

�

�8!3MI��

8��)� ��$$��'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''�7�

8�� 8��''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''�)��

8�� I��$��,��''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''�)<�

8�� ''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''�)?�

8��<� "��$��$��,��$��'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''�)7�

8��?� !��$$��'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''��(�

8��6� &��$��$��%��$$��$��$�'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''��)�

8��=� I��$��,��$��$$��'''''''''''''''� <�

8��7� "��$$��$��'''''''''''''''''''''''''� 7�

��

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

��

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

��!�

�

)��

�

� ��

��

:��9'�8��.� ��Q:��,�� -�"��)��R��$��,��'�:��$��$$��,��$�� $�� ,�� Q��R� ,��'� :�� 8��,��$��.�,�� $�� $��'�

!�� ,�� $�� .� �� $�� $��'� :�� $��%�'� :�� !�� ,� ��.��&�� 5$�� $��%�� ,�� '�D�� 8��S�� B�((6C� �� ,��.� �� %�� ,�� $��%�� ,�� .� �5$��.� �� $�� ,�� $�� $��'� !�� .� �� %�� $��$��$�� $��$��5��$��.�� '� :�� %��.� $��$��.� ��.� ��.� ��,��$$��'��

:�� $��.� �� %�� $�� $�� $�� $�� .� �� $$�� $�� $�� $�� $�� ,�� $�� B��%� �� '� )777T� 8�,�� &��.� )776T� 2��%�� 2��.� )776T� &��$��.� )77=T� K�� '.� �((�C.� �� %��F��$$��'�

��.� ��$�� %�� ,�� $�� $$�� T��,��$$��,��,��'�I�� ,�� $�� %��B��.�)77�T�#��D��.�)77�C�� $$�� '� "�� .� ��$�� %�� ,�� $��,��$��,��$��,��$��.�,��$$�� $�� B4��.� )7=6T� 4�� 8��.� )7=�T� :�� &��$��.� )766C'� ��.��$$��,��$��$��.��5��$$��.�� $��.� �� .� �� $�� &��$�� B)77�C.� �� ,��'� ��,��.� ��$�� $$�� ,�� $�� B&��$��.� �((<C.�,��,�� ,��,� �� '�:��$�� $�� $�� $��$�� $��%��'� D�� $��%�� $$�� .� ��

��

�

�� $$�� %��'� :��.� ��$$�� $��,��$��%��B��'.��()(C�� $�� %�� S��B2��%��'.��((=T�8��'.��((=C'�4��$$�� $�� $��.� �� $�� $$�� B�'�'� 3�� '.� �((<T� 9�� '.� �((6C'� :�� &�� $$�� &��2�� B&�&2�C� �� $$�� ,�� $�� ,�� $$�� ,�� F�� $�� ,�� $$��$��B&�&2�C'�

:�� $$�� $��$�� $�� .� �� .� �� ,�� .�� $�� $��'� 2��.� �� $�� $�� $�� $$�� .� ,�� $��%�� $�� '� "�� .� ,�� S�� ,� �� $$�� .��'�'��$�� '�:�� $��,�� $$�� B&��$��.� )77=C'�&��$�� $�� '� !�� ,��5$��.� �� %�� .�$�� .� �� .� �� '��,��.� �� $�� ,�� $$�� $��$�� B4��.� �((<C'� :��.� �� ,��>��$$��.��$��$��'�:��$��$$��$��$$��'��

"�� 8��S�� B�((6C� �� $��$��.��$$��$��$��'�8��.��,��'�!��$��%��.�,��'�8��.��$$��$��,��%��$��$��'�

��

&��$��$��5��$��>�� G�� $� �� $�� $�'� :�� $�� $�� '� D�� $��.� ��F��$��$��$��,��$$��$��,��,��$��'��$��$��,��5$��$��$��,��$��$$��'��

��

�

D��$$��,��.��$�$�� $�� ,�� $�� $�� $$�� .� �,��.� �� ,� ��$$�� ,��$��,��$$��B��$$��'��$$��$��C'��$��$��$$��,��$$��,�� $��$��$��'�8��5��$��.�9��.�B�((?C��$��5��$��$��%��$$��'��$$��$��.�,��U��.�B�((?C��$��,��$$��,��'�I��$$��B�(()C��$$��'��$$�� $�� ,�� $�� "�� B�((<C� ��$��'��

D�� $$�� $��%�� $$�� '� ��$$�� $�� $��$��.� �� 5�� ,�� $��$�� ,�� $�� $��%�� $�� ,��$$�� '� :�� $�� 5$�� $�� ,�� $$��'�:��5$��$��,��$$��.��$��,�� .�� '�:��>�� $$�� $�� $$�� 5��'� :��.� �� $��,��$$��,��5��$$��$��>��$$�� $�� $$�� B:��.� )776C'� :��$��$$��,��$��.�� $�� Q�� $$�� R.� Q�� $$�� R� Q�� $$�� R.��$$��,'�:��G�� $$�� $�� .� ��$�� $��$�� $$�� '� :�� $�� .��$�� $$�� $�� $�� $$�� '� ��$$�� $��'�"��,��$��%��$��$��$��%��$�� $$�� '� ��$$�� $��'� 3�� $��5�� $$�� .� �� .� �� $� �� $�� $$�� '� ��$$�� $�� $$��,��$$�� '� D�� $�� .��$��$��A��.��$��G��'�

�� !��"��!#��

��$��$$��$��%��$$��'��$$��$��$��$$��.��,��.��,��,�� $$�� $��'�3�� .� �� $��$��$$��'��$$��$��,��$��$$�� '� !�� 5$�� $$�� $$�� $�� 5��'� :�� ,�� $��

��

�

��,�� G�� ,�� ,�� $��,��$��$$��'�:��F��,��-�

• �5�� $�� $�� ,�� $��,��$��$��'�

• !�� $�� A�� $$�� '� ��$$�� $��$��%��'�

• 1��$��$$��'��$$��$��'�• !��5��$��

��$$��.��$$��'��$$��$��'�

!�� $�� $�� $�� $$�� B4��.� �� '.� �((?C.� �'�'� �� .� �� .��.� �$�� B4��,��'.��(()C.� �� '�:��$�� $��5� �� $$�� '� ��$$�� $��'� :�� $��$�� $$�� B��.�)776T�4��'.��((?C'��:�� $�� ,��'� 8��.� �� 5$�� $$�� $��,��,��,�� 5$��$��$��'�:��$$��$$��.�,��$�� $�� ,�� $$�� '��.��$$��.��,��$��%��$��$$��$��,��$$��$��>��'�!��.��%��$$��.�� ,�� B&��$��.� �((<C'� :�� $�� $$��.��.��G��$��,��$$��$��$��$��'��

"�� .� ��$�� $��,�� B��.� )7<6T� 2��>&��.�D��3��.�)77<C'�:��.��.��,�� $$�� '� :��.� ��$�� $�� $��,�� $$�� ,�� $� �� ,�� $�� .�,��F��$��$��BK��.�)77<C'�:�� $$�� $��$�� ,�� '� !�� ,��$��B��.�)7=<C'�"��.��$��$$��$��'�3��,��$��.��$$�� 5$��$��$�� '�:��.� �� ,�� ,� �� $�� ,�� $$��

<��

�

��'�"��$��,��$��'�

��

!��$��,��$$��.��$��$��$��$��$��$��5$��$�� B�� '.� �((6C'� !�� $�� $�� 5$��5$��$$��$��'�D��'� B�((6C� �� $�� $$��:��&�� .� ��$��>"�� .� ��,�� >�� '� #�� $$�� $��.� �� $�� ,�� ,�� '� 8��5��$��.� �� $$�� .� �� ,�� ,�� ,��$$��.��$�$��B��C��,��.��,��,��,��$$��$��$��'��.��$��$��>��'��

#�� .� �� $��.� ��$$�� $��5�$��$��,��$$��'�!��$��$$��'��$$��$��.��$�$��,��.��'��$��$�� $$�� .� �'�'� ��%�� B�� 8��)7=7C.� �� F�� $$�� $$�� ,��-�

��

!�� ,�� $��,�� '�D��5��.��>��B9&"C��5$�� $�� '� "��.� �� $�� 5$�� 5$�� $�� B&��.� �((=C'� &�� $$�� $�� ,�� .��,��$��B4��2��.��(()C��5$��'�#��%��,��$��,��$��BD��'.��((7C'�

��.�� .� �� $�� T� �� $��$��'� :�� ,�� $�� >��F�� $�� B2��.� )7=(T� "��.� )7=<T� D��.� �((7C� �� $$�� '�:��$��$� �� ,� �� $� �� BD��.� �((7C'� �� >��,�$��$��$$�� $�� $��5� ��%��B��$��'.��((?C'�:��,��$��,��5��$$��'��$$��$��$��%��'�

?��

�

�

� ��

��$$�� $$�� $��'� 2�� $��,�� ,� �� $�� '��,��.��,��,��,��$��,��$��$��,��,��5�'� 8�� 5��$��.� �� %�� $�� $�$��$��$�$��$�� B�� 8��.� )7=7C.� �� ,��%�� '� :�� $�� $�$�� ,��%�� $�� $� �� ,�� $�� B��C��,��$��$��,��$��$��'�

"��,��,�� ,�� ,� �� '�

��

M�� $�� $�� $$�� ,��$��.�� '�M��,��$$�� $��%�� $�� ,�� $$�� .� �� $�� $�� .� �� ,�� $$�� $��'� :�� $�� $�� ,�� $��,��$$��.�,��$��$$��'� !�� $�� $��$��.��,��.� �� $�� ,�� $$��'�

�� $�� B��C� �� .� ��,��$��,��G��,��,��'�

��$� ��%��&��

D��$��.��%��,��.��$��.��'�'��.��'�"�� $�� $� �� ,�� '�:��.��$��$��$��'�

6��

�

��

"�� 3�� B�((=C.� �� $�� ,�� ,�� >� �� T� �� S�� $��$��$��$��S��$��$��$��'�:�� $�� $��$�� $��$��$$��5��'� 8�� 5��$��.� �� ,�� $�� S� �� ,�� ,�� ,�� '� �� $��$��$��$��$��$��,�� $�� $��$�� %��.� �'�'� �� $��B3��.��((=C'�

"�� ,�� $��A��%�� $�� .��$��'�#��F��$$��,�� ,�� $�� >�� B4��.� )77=T� 3�� '.��((=C'�:��.��.��$$��$�� '� :�� $�� $�� ,��$$�� B3��.� �((=C'� ��,� �� $�� $$�� .� �� G�� $$��>��$��$��%��$$��'��$$��$��'��

"��.�,��5��$$��'��$$��$��.��B��5$��C��$��,��$$��'�!�� .� �� $��$�� .�,�� G�� $$�� '� ��.� �� $�� ,�� 5�� $��%�� $��,��$$��$��'��.�� ,�� ,�� $�� '�

��

!�� $��$��%��$�� '� !�� $��,��,��'�D��,��$�� $$�� ,�� .��'�'��.��$��.��'�!��,��,��$$��.��$��.�,��.��$��$��,��$$��'�M��.��$��$��$$�� $��$�� '� !�� .� �� $�� '�:��.� �� VR�� .� �� $�� ,�� $$��

=��

�

��5��$��$��R'�4��$��.�� ,�� ,�� ,� ��$�� $�� $��'� !�� $�� $$�� 5��$��,��'�

��

1��$��.� �� ,��$�� $�$�� 5$�� Q�� $��$��R� ��$�� 2+��0�&��B4�,��3��.�)7=<C��$�$��%��,��'�:�� D�� B)77�C.� �� $��$�� $�� $�� %�� $�� B��C'� :�� Q��R� �� 5$�� $�� $��$��.�G��.��B�'�'��C.��.��'��.��5��.��$��$��.��$��$��$��'�:��.�$��$��'�:��.��,��.��$� ��,�� .� ��.� G�� Q��R� $��.� �� '� :�� $$�� $��$�� $$�� B2��%��.��(( C'��,��.� �� ,�� $�� $��$��S��$��$��$$��'��$��$$��$�� '� �� .� ��$$�� ,�� $��,��%��'�:��.��$��$��,��,��$��$��,��$��$��W��$��>��,��$$��.��$��>��.

��

&��$��>�� $$�� ,�� $�� B��$��C��$$��,�� $$�� '�4�� $�� G�� $�� $�� $$�� .� �� '�

��

&��$��>�� $�� >��>��$�� ,�� ,�� $$�� '� "�� G�� .� �� ,�� $��G��$��>��'�

8��,��.��$��>��$��.�,��$��,��$$��

7��

�

��.��'�'��$��,��,��'�:��,��.�,��$$��$$��$��>��$��'�"��.� �� $�� $$��G�� $�� $��,��$$��.

��

2�� $� �� $�� B�$��.� $��.� �� C.� ��$$�� ,�� %�� .� �� $�� ,�� .� �� $�� $�� B&��$��.�)77=C'��

:�� $�� $$�� $��.�$��'�D��$$��,��5��,��5��$��.��$��.��B�((�C��.�,��'�"��$��%��G��$��%�� $�� .� �� $$�� $��$$��BV�� C��,��,��,��$$��'��:�� ,�� $$�� ,�� 5�� $$�� B�'�'�1�� .��(((T�1��K��4��F��.��(((T�2��>E��:�,��.�)777C'�� $$��$�� $$�� $��S��'�:��$��$$�� ,�� $�� $�� $�� $��B&��$��.��((<C'�

��

'!�� (�&&�%��)�!��!��*��%�!��

!��$��$$��$��.�� S�� '� "�� S��

Raw material Value input/ material conversion

Finished product

)(��

�

��$��,��D��S��B)76<C��'�

��,��.��,��$$��$$��,��,��$��,��$��$��B8��'�)C'�!��$��$$��,�� ,�� $$�� ,� $�� ,�� F��,��$��$$��.

��

��$$�� '� ��$$�� $�� '� :�� ,�� ,�� Q��$$��$��R��>��$$��>��$��'�:��$$��$��,��$$��'�"��U��B�((?C.� �� $�� $$�� ,�� .� ��.� ��$��'��"�� $$�� '� ��$$�� $�� $��$$�� '� ��$$�� $�� ,�� $�� B4��.� �((7C'� 4�� $$�� '� ��$$�� $��.��$��,��,��$$��$��' ��.��$��$$��$��$��'�

��,��.� �� I�� $�S�� B�(()C� ��,�� $��,�� $$�� ,�� .� �� 1��$�� .� �� ,��$$��'��$$��$��$��%��,��$��$�� $��'�I��$�� B�(()C� �� $��$$�� '� ��$$�� $�� -� �� .��,��BD��'.��((?C'��:��$��$��,��$��,��$��$�,��$$�� $$�� '�"��5��$�� $$��'�

:��,��$��$��$��,�� ,�� $$�� $�� ,�� $�� $$�� $�� $$�� S� �$��'� :�� $�� G��$��$��$��>��$�� $�.� �� $.� ��$$��BD��'.��((?C'�:�� !:A��$�� ,�� $��'�

:��$$��,�� ,�� $$�� $�� .� ��$��

))��

�

,��5$��,��$��$$�� $$�� $�� .� ,�� '� !�� $�� ,��$$��'��$$��$�� ,�� $�� $��%�� '� "�� $�� $�� >�� '�1�� $��$��.�,��$$��S��$��,��$$��B��.��((�C'�8��S��B)77(C� �� %��.� �� $$�� $$�� $�� $�� B��.��((�C.��'�:��.��$$��'� ��$$�� $�� $�� $��,�� $$�� $��.��$��,��$��'�

�� ! �� "�� #�� #��$��

��

"��$��%��.��$�� $��,�� $�� $�� '� "�� $�� $��%�� $�� ,��$$��'�:��$��$�� &�� B)77=C� ,�� $�� $��$�� T� �� $$�� .� �� B��$��C� ,�� $$��$��$��$��'�:��.��$��,��'''R��B��C��$��,��$��R'�

��

:��$��$��$��%�� $�� $�� '� ��,��.��$��%��$�� '�:�� $�� ,$��,��$��'�8��$��$��,��.��$��,��V�Q��.�� .� �� B��$��C�,��R'�

��

:��$��,��$��$��,��,�� B��$�� $�� C� �� '� :�� $��$��,��$$��$��,��$$��,��,��$$��G��'�:��.��$��VR��B�C�

)��

�

��5��.��$��$��$$�� .� �� B��$C� �� $�� R'�

��%� &��'��(�

3��B)7)6C�,��$��S��$�� $�� $�� $�$��.� ,�� '� :�� ,�� B)7<6C� �� ,�� $��.� �� ,�� $��'� ��.� �� $��,�� $�� $�� $�� ,�'�:�� ,�� G�� ,�� $�� BK��)76�T�&��9��.��((�C'�:��$��3�� B)7)6C� �� B)7<6C� �� .� �� B)7�6C��.�,��$��$��.��'� :�� .� �� $�� ,��$��'�:��,��$��$�� .� �� %�� .� ��5��$�� %��$�$��%��.�,�� B��$��%��.��((6C'�

!�� $��%�� $�� ,�� $$�� .� �� $$��$��B��C��$$��5$�� $$�� '� :�� $�� $$��.� ��G��$��.� ��.� �� B��C.� ��.� ��,��.� ��$��.��.��'�'��$��'��

��%��'�"�� B�� C� �� ,�� G�� ,�� B�� 8��.� )7=7C'� #�� .� �� %�� $��$$��'�

��)� &��#��#�&��

��$�� ,�� '��$� ��$�� F�� ,�� $�� B&��,�� 8��.� )76)C'� #�� .� �� $�� ,�� $�� 5�� B2�� 2��.� )77(C'� !�� S��%��B��8��.�)7=7C'�

D��,��.��$��,��$$��$��$��$��.��$�� '� :�� $$�� S�� ,�� .��.� $��.� �� $$�� G�� 5��'� ��

)��

�

��$'�:��5$��,��,�� $�� ,�� $��%�� $�� ,�� $$�� .�,��'�'� ��.��$'�

��5�.��$��,��'�

��+� ��!�!��!��*��)��)��!��

��$$�� $�� ,�� $�� .��$��,��.��.��$�� ,�� '� 4�� .� �� ,.��$��.��$��$�� $��$$��.��$��,��$�� $$��'��$$�� $��'� !�� ,�� 5��%�� S��$$��$$�� .��,��$��>��'��

��

��

��

�'!�� '��*��)��)��!��

��.��$��,��$$��$��.��'�'��$��$��$$��'� ��$$��$�� $$��$��,'�

��,��.��,��.��$��'�4��$$��$��$�� $$�� &��$�� B)776CT� 9�� B�((=C.� ��$$�� 5��'�

��

��

��

��

��

) ��

�

:�� $�� $��,�� $��$��B�'�'��2��.�)7?=C'�"��,��$�� $��.� ��$�� $�� '� :��$��,��$��'�"��,��$�� B8��C� �� $�� $�� $��,�� $$��$��'�:��,��$��,��$��.��$��,��B�'�'�9��.�)7��C'�

:�� $��.� ,�� $�� B3�,��.� �(()C.� ��,�� B�� C� ��$��$��$��,�� ,�� $�� $��'� "�� $$�� $�� $�� $��,�� ,�� $�� $��'�:�� $��.� ��$�� $�� ,�� ,�� $$�� ,�� ,�� '�D�� .�4�� B)7=?C��,�� $��$��%��.�&��$��$��'� !�� %�� $�� '�1��$��2��B)7�7C��4��B)7<?.�)7?=C.��,��$��,��,��$��'��,��$��'�

&��$�� $�� ,� ��$�� $�� 31�� $�� $�� '� B8��.� )7==T�8�F�%��.� )7==T�:��.� )7==T�+��.� )77?C'�"�� B)77(C.� �� $�� $� �� $�� $�� '� D�� $$�� .�� $��.� ��>��>��$��,��$$��'��

&��$��%��$�� '�:�� $�� ,$��,��$��'�:��A�� .� ,�� ,�� $��.��$��5$��$��,��$��$��$��$��B1��.��(( C'�:��$��.� �� .� �� B��.�)7=<T�4��.�)77?C�,��.��'�'��.��.��.��'��

4�� .� �� ,�� $��.��$�� $$��.�,�� '�:�� ,�� '� :�� ,�� $�� $��$��,�� $��%�� $��'� :�� 5$�� 5�� ,�� ,�� ,��$��'�:��,��$��,��$��%��'�:��5��$��

)<��

�

��$��,��,��$�$��,��,��B��C'��I�� $�� $$�� '� ��$$�� $�� $�� $�� $�� $��'��

� �

�'!�� !��)!&��,��)��)��)��!��!��

-��%��!��

-��!��.��%��!��

�

��

��

��

��

��!�!��.�(��#!��

��

�

&��$��>��

�

!��

&��$��>��

��&��!��.��!��

�

��&��!�!��

��

��

�/�

(�&&�%��)�!��!��

��%��*��%�

)?��

�

:�� $�� B�$��C� �� '� :��.� �� $��$��.� �� $��%�� $$�� $�� $��.� ,�� '� :�� $$�� $�� ,�� $��'�:��G��$��,��$$�� $$�� $�� $��'� ��,��.� �� $�� .� �� $�� $��'� 8�� $�� .� ��$$�� 5��%��.�,��.��,��$��'�:��5�'�

��0� (��*��)��)��!��

��,��$��>�/��$��<'�:��$��%��,�-�4�� 5$�� $��,�� $$�� $��$��&�$��.�,��$��,�$��$$��,�� $�� $��$��'� !�� &�$�� .� �� $�� ,�� $�� 5$�� $��%�� $$�� '��$$�� $�� '� !�� &�$�� ,�� ,��'� :�� $�� G�� ,�� G��G��.� �� ,� �� $��%�� $$�� '� ��$$�� $��'��

��

'!��$ �(��*��)��)��!��

��!��

1!��#��#!�,�

�)��!��'��,��

2��)��

��

��!��

��&��&��"��

�5��

��&��9��I��,�

��&��2��

1��$��&��/�&��

)6��

�

!�� &�$�� <.� �� $�$�� $� �� B�3�/C� ��$��'�"��.��$��$��$��'�&�$��?�$��$�� '�:��5��$�$��3�/�� '�

��4�� 1!�!��!��*��)��%�

"��F��>9��'�B�((6C.��.�$��.�$��.��$��$$��$��'�D��$��.��,��,��,�� $�� ,�� $$�� '� 4�� $$�� $�� ,�� $��5� B�'�'�2��%�� .� �(()T� 9�� .� �(()C.� ��,�� $��5�� $$�� '�8��$��,��$��$$��'��$$��$��'�!��$��G��.�,��G��$��B�'�'��.��G��$��C��$��S�$��$$��'�"��$��,��,��.��,��G��,��'� :�� G�� $��%�� $�� ,�� $$�� '�D�� ,�� G��.� �� $��,��B�'�'��3��.��(((C'�

��.� �� ,�� $�� ,�� $�� ,�� $��$��$��'�!��.��$$��.��$$��$��'� D�� ,�� $�� ,�� $��$��$��$��%��$��.��$$�� )C� �� $��$�� $��.� ,�� $$�� $��.� �� B��.� )7=�C'� :�� ,�� $�� ,�� $�� $�� G��'� �C� #$$�� ,�� $�� $�� B3�� .� )77(C'� �� $�� $�� ,�� ,�.� $�� 5�� ,��$��$��'�

"�� B��-explanatory-exploratory caseC� ,�� $��,��$��.�� B�� C� ,�� $�� '��,��.��$��$�� $�� $�� %�� ,�� %��'� :��.� �� $�� $�� ,�� $$�� $�� $��'�

)=��

�

� (��15��6 ��(7�� 82�(6�'�(� ��2�-��

I�� .��.��$��,��$�� $�� %�� B3��.� )77=T��I��.��((6C'��>��.��$$��.�� $��$�� $$�� .� �'�'� F�� .� �� >��$��$��'�!��$$��,��$$��B�'�'�29��'.��((�C'�:�� $�� $$�� ,�� $�� $�� $��.� �� T� �� $��.� �� B�'�'� �� 9�� D��.� �(((C'� :�� $�� $$�� $�� $��$��.��.�� '� !�� $�� ,�� $��,��$$��'�#��.��$�� $�� %��B�'�'� ��$$��.� ��.� ��$��.� ��.� �� .� ��.��.��$��.��C'�

:��.��$��B,��$��%��.��.� �� .� ��%��.� ��C� ��,�� $��.��$��,��$��$��$��$��$��$��.��$$��,��$��,��$�� $��,�� B&��$��.� )77=C'�2��.� �� 5$�� G��$��,��,��$��5��$$��'�

#�� ,� �� .� �� >�� $��,��$��$$��.��$��$��,��$$��,��$��$��$��'�:�� $�� $$�� B&�� 9��.� �((�T� 9�� D��.� �(((T�&��.��((7C��.��'�'��B�1!C.��G��BI8!1C��.��.��.��'�

!�� ,�� $� ��,�� ,�� $��,��,�� 5$��.�,��,��$$��'�4�� $$�� '� ��$$�� $��,��$$��'�"�$�� $$�� $��$�� $�� $$�� '�D�� ,�� $$�� $��,��P��

4�� .��$$�� B��.� )77<T� �� '.� �((?C� �� $��.� �� $$��.��'�'��$$��%��'�:��$�$��%��,��$��$$��'� 4�� BD��.� )76<C�

)7��

�

��,��5��,��.� �� G�� B3�� K�� ((?C'� ��,��.� �� $��G��,�� B�'�'�2X��.� �((7C'� :�� ,�� $��BD��.�)7=<C'�:��.�,��>�� B2!��.� �(((C'� &�� $�� %�� ,� �� $�� B�� .� )77(C'� !�� >�� .��$��>��'�

��,.��,��,��$��.��,��$�� .� �� $�� .� ,�� >��.�,��'�I��.�� %�� B��C� ��$��S��>��'�:��,��,�� $$�� .� �� $��'�:��$��,�� B�� $��C'�:�� ,�� ,��$$��$��'�:��$� ��,�� $$�� $�� $$��'� :�� ,�� <� �� $�� ,�� $�� ,� �� $��.��$��$��'��

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

��

�

�

�'!��+ � ��&�!��*��&��#!��)��)��!��!��,��!��

��&��!�!��

��

�

(&��!��!39��!��

��&��3�!�!��

��&�� #��

��.��3��!#!�%�

��!�!��

�

��!��

��!��

��

��&��!3�!#��

*�#�� #�

!��

! ��

�� "��

��

��

��

�(��

�

"��.��,��>��'�"�� .� �� >��'�"�� A��,�� ,��,��B��>�� C'� 4�� G�� $��%�� .� �� $�� $��%��B�'�'��$��C��$��,��$��G��$$��.��5$��$��'�"��.��$��$��$��$$��'�:��.��$�� $��%�� $�� %��$$��'�

��,�� .� �� $$�� $�� $� ��,�� $��.� ��$�� $��'�:��$�B��$��C.�$��$��$�� <��.�,��$�� .��$��$��'�:��5��$��$$��$��>��'�!��$$�� $��.� �� $��'� 4�� %�� .� �� >�� $��%�� $�� $$�� ,�� $�� '� �$��%��5$��5$��'�"�� $�� $�� 5�� .� �'�'� �� .� �� $��$�� $��$��$��,�� $��'� :��.� �� $�� 5�� ,�� $�� '� :�� ,�� $��,��,��$��'�

�� )��!��&��!��*��&��!�!��

!�� ,��,�� $��.� �'�'� ��$�� $�� .� ��$�� .� �� $��.� �� ,�� '� !�� .�� $�� $$�� '� :��.� ��,�� ,�� $��.� �� G�� T� �� $�� $�� $��P�

"�$�� %��B4��.��()(C'�:��%�� $��'��,��.� +�� B)7?�C� �� $�� $�� Y$��S�,��$��-�

VVQ�� %�� $�� $�� $��R'�B$'�5C�

�)��

�

��5��$��$��'�:��$�� .� �'�'� $��.� �� $�� $��'�I�� $�� $$�� $��$��$��B��C��$��$��'�

:�� ,�� ,� �� ,�� $�� $�� ,�� ,�� ,� �� $��,��'�"��.�+��B)7?�C��%��F��.� ��>�� $��'� "�� .� ��$�� ,�� $��.� �� $�� ,�� $��'� D�� ,�� $�� 5$�� $��,��$��.��5��G��,��$��.�� ,�� ,� $�� .� �� ,�� $$��$��B+��B)7?�C'�:��.�� G�� 5�� $��$��'�"��.� �� $�� ,�� ,�� $��.� �� G��,�� $�� B9��3��.��((<C'�

D��+��B)7?�C�� $�� 5��.� �� $��,��5��'��,��.��$��$��,��$��.��5��B+��.�)77?C��$��'�:�� 5��$��,��,��,��$$��$��$��'�"��.��,��,��$�� ,�� '�8�� .� ��G�� >�� $� ��,�� $��.� ��$�� $�� $�� ,��'� D�� $��<(>?(�� B��%.��(( C.�� >�� ,�� ,��$��,��.��5�$��,��$��'�:��.��%� B�(( C.� �� ,�� ,� �� >� �� )(��'�:�� F�� $�� $�$��.�,��$��,��$��$��,��$��$��'�:��.��.��$��,� ��$��,�� .� �� $�� $�� ,�� $��$��.��.��$��,��$��,��'�"�� 5��$�� ,�� $�� ,>�,.��$��6��B�'�'��4��.��())C'�

�� (�&&�%��)�!��!�%�

��$$��.��.��,��$��$$��.��.��'�:��,��Z��,�� $$�� $$�� $�� '��,��.� �� ,�� $$��

��

�

��$��$��$��'�4��,�� $�� $$�� .� �� $��.� ��$$��.�� $��.� �� $��$�� $$�� '� :�� $��$�� ,�� $$�� %��$��,��$$��$��$��B"��+��%.�)77=T�9��'.�)77=C'�

��.��,��$��%��'�)'C�:��%�� $�� ,�� ,�� .�� $$�� B:��2��%��.�)77=C'�:��$��,��'��'C�:�� .� ��$$�� $��.�� $$�� B:�� 2��%��.� )77=C'� :�� ,� �� ,� �� .� �� ,�� $�� $$��B�� .� )777C'� "�� $$�� $��.� �� $$�� $��.� �� '� :��.� �� $$�� $�� $��BI��.��((�T�K��K��K��1��.��((=CC'�"��%��$$��.��'��,��.��,��$$�� .� �� ,�� %�� >��%�� $$�� B"��.� �((�C'� :�� $$�� %�� $�� ,��$��%��$$��'��$$��$��$�'�:��%��$$��$��$��$$��$$�� '�"�� .� �� $$�� $��%�� $$�� >,��$��,��$��$��'��

�� (�&&�%��)�!��&��!�!��&��!��&��!�!��

�� B)77?C� �� $$�� -�:��$$��,�� 5�� T� �� $��,�� $$��T� �� $$�� $$��.� �� $$��S�� $$��.� �� S�� T� �� ,��%��$��'�:��$$��.�� $$�� $�� ,�� $�� '� 4�� .��$$��$��,��,��'�

!�� $��,��$�� '�8��$��.��$��'�:��$$��,��'��

��

�

&��$��,��$��$��,��$��$��,��$��$��'�:��,��$$��,�� $�� $��,�� $$�� '�'�#�2�.� �� .� ��.� �� ,�� .� �� ,�� ,�� $$��,��.�,��'�

"� ��,��$��$$�� '�2�� $$��,�� $��'�:�� $�� '�4�� ,�� ,�� $�� .� ��$��,��$��$��'�:�� $$�� '� !�� $�� $��$��.��$��$$��,��$$��'��$$��$��'��$��,��$$��$�� $�� ,�� ,�� $$�� ,�� $��,��$��$$��)'�!��.��,��$��.��$��,��.��$$��$��$$��$��'�

�

� ��

�

� �6-��-�� 1� �:8��

4��%��$��,��.�� '� :�� $�� >��$�%%�� $��G��,��5��,��'�D��$��5��%��$��.��,��$��$$�� $�� .��$�� $��,�� '� !�� G�� $��,��$$��.� �� $��$�� $��%�� $��'�:��$��,��$�� $�� ,�� $$�� '� ��$$�� $�� $��%�� $��$$��'��$$��$��$��%��'�

�� -��!��!�)��)��%��

�� B4��'.��((?C'� !�� $�� $��,�� '� �� $�� %�� $�� $�� T��,��.� �� ,�� $�� ,�� ,��'��

:�� $�� $�� 5�� ,�� $�� $��$�� ,�� .� �'�'� �� >��$��$�� B2�"�� 9��.� )7?6T� :��.� )77�C� �� $��>��B��C�$��$��B4��.��(((T��.��(()C'�

:�� $$�� $�� .�� $�� ,�� BK��1��.��((=C'�:��,��$��$�� $�� 5��.� �� ,�� 3��S�� ,� �� $�� 5��.�,��,��$��$��$��5��5��'�:��5$��,�� 5$�� $��.� �� ,�� $�$�� ,�� G�� G�� ,�'� :�� ,.� ��.� �� '�

�� $�� '�8�� .��$��$��$��$�� ,�� B��H� �� .� �((=C'� 1��$�� $�.� �� $�� $�� ,�� '� �� $�� $��G��.��.��,�,��

�<��

�

��$��G��B�'�'��.��$��.��C��$�� '� !�� $��%��B)7�6C��3��B)7)6CS��$��'��B)7�6C��$��$�� ,�� T� ,�� 3�� B)7)6C��$��,��,��$��,��'�"��$��$�� $�� '� :�� $�� B)7<6C��$��G��$��B3��C�,��$��,��B��C'�8��S��$��,.� �� >��.�� >��$��$��5�� '��.��$�� $�� ,�� >�� B�'�'� �� %��,��,��$��5��C��'��"�� .� �� $�� 5�� '�:��.�,��$��$��.��$��,��$��'�"��$��.��$��,��$��,��,��'��

:��$$��$��>��$��>��$��$��>��$��.��>�G��,�� $�� BK�� 1��.� �((=C'� "�� B�(()C� �� Q��,�� .� �� $��R'� "�� B�(()C��$��$��5$��$��'�:��$��$��G��,��.�� '� ��.� �� $�� $�� ,�� $��$��'� :�� $�� $��B��D��.��((6C��8��?'�"��B��D��.��((6C��$��$��,��$��-��G��,��' �

"� ��G�� $��$��,�� ,�� .� )C� !�� ,��B��C��C��G�� $�� B�5��C'� !�� $��$�� ,�� .� �� >�$��B��C'�"��.��$��$��$��,��B��D��.��((6C'�

�

�

�

�

�

�?��

�

�� !��!&��*�-��%�

�

#��$�#�� %��&'(()*�

D�� ,��$�� $�� B�'�'� K�� K��.� )7?<T� 2�"�� 9��.� )7?6T� :��.� )77�T� &�� 9��.��((�C.� ��5��$$�� B�'�'�&��.�)7= T��8��.�)7=7T�4��.�)777C��$��,�� %�� .� �� $�� %�� '�!��,��$�� $�$�� %��'� "�� %�� $�$�� %��.� �'�'� �,� ��%��%�.��$��5��.� ��$�� $$��,��%��$��'��'�B�((�C.��%��$��.��'�2��$$�� ,�� G�� $� ,�� $��B2��.�)7=�T��0��.�)77<T��'.��((�C'�O��.��$�� $�� ,�� $� �� $�� 5�� B"��.� )7=�T�#��.� )7<7C'� "�� .� �� $� $�� $��.� �� $�� $��.� �'�'� �� $��$��'��,��.��,��.��$��$��'�

:��#��%��$��,��$�� >� �'�'� �� %�� $��'� #�� .��%�� $$��5��%��S��B1��'.��(()C'�:��,��,��'�!��$��.��,��S��B)7?=C�$��$��$��$��.�� %�� ' :�� $�� $�� .�,��,�,��%��,��

(�#��&�!��!&��*��%�

#�� $�� '�B+ �� C�

#��,��'�B+ �� C�

:�� $�� '�B,�� C�

��$��'�B��C�

I��$��'�B��C�

"��'�B��C�

:��$��$��$��'�B��C�

�6��

�

��$��%��,��$��'�:��.��%��'�#��.��'�8��.��,��%��F��$��$��$��%��%��$�� $�� '��8��B)7=7C��$��,��%��$�� .� ��5�� G�� $�� .� �� $��5��$��,��$��$�� $$��$�� B�� 9�� .� �((?C'� I��.� �� %�� .��$��,��%��$�� B�� 8��.� )766C'� :�� 5�� B�� C� $�� '� 4��%��$�� ,��$$��$��.��,��%��S��$��$�,�� B��C� �$$�� ,�� $$�� ,��$��'�:��.��$��%��%��>��%��%��>��%��.�,��$��'�

:��>��$��$��,�� B��C� �� $��%��BK��1��.��((=C'�!��$��$��>��.�,��,� �� A$�� $�� $$�� '��.� �� $�� >�� >�$��$��.��,��$��>��$��B1��((<C'�:��$��,��$��$�� $�� $��,��,��$�� BD��.� )7=7C'�:��.��$$��.��$$��$$��$��%��$��,��$$�� >�� $$��'� :��.� �$�� $�� $$�� $��,��$$��,��5�� $�� B�'�'� �� C' :�� $$�� $$��$�$��.�!��.��$��$��$$��$$��,��,��,��.��$$�� $��$�� $$�� %�� >��'�4��H��S��B�((=C��$�� .� ��$$�� $$�� $�� ,��,��-�

��

"�� ,��,�� $�� '�:��$$��$��,��,��

�=��

�

��$$��G�� ,� ��'��,��.� �� $$�� G�� $�� .� �� $$�� $��'�:��.��,��$$�� $�� ,�� G��$$��'�

��

!��$��%��$��.�,��'�:��.��,��$��%�� $�� A�� $�� $$�� G��'�!��,��$$��$��.��$��$$��%��$��'�:��$��A��$��$$��.��$$��,��$��,��$$��%��A��$��'��.��$$��,��'�

�� -�� &�.�.�� *�

4�� .� ��$$�� ,��,��$$��'�E��,��$��$��5��$��,��'�

8��.��$��$��$��$$��'�"��.��$$��'� ��$$��$�� $��%��.�$��G��$$��'�

�� &��!9!��&&�%��)�!��#��&&�%��)�!��&��!�!��

��$$��.��.��$��G��>��'��,��.�� $$�� G�� $�� .� ��,�� $��.� $��.� ��$$��.� �� $��,��'� :�� ,��.� ��,�� $$�� .� �� ,��$�� '� "�� $�� S�� $��.��$��$��$�� $�� ,�'� :�� $�� %��.� �$��%�� $�$�� $�� %�� S�� .� �� '� +�� B�(()C� ��%�� $�� .�� -� )C'�&��$�� C'�

�7��

�

&��$��$��C'�&��$��$��$�� C'� &��$�� .� ,�� '�:�� $�� $��$��,��$��%��$��%��$��'�:��$��,��,��$�� .� �� '� !�� ,�� '�4��$��.� ��$�� $$�� $�� .� �� $�� $�� $�� B�'�'� ��$��C'�8��.� ��$��%�� $$��'��$$�� $�� ,�� ,�� '� :�� F�� $�$�� .�,�� $��$�� $�� ,�� $��I��>"��$��.�$�� '� :�� $��$��$��5$��,�� .� �� $�� $��%�� 5�� ,��'�

:��.��.��5$��$�� ,�� ,�� $��'� :��.� �� 5��$��.� ��$$��.��$$��$��$��'�!��,��$$��,�� $�� 5�� 5��.� �� $$�� G�� B��.� )7=).� )7=�C'� :��.� ,�� .� ��,�� $��.��,�,��$��.��$��$$��$��.�$��.�� '� 8�� $��%��$�� ,�� $$�� $��$��.� �� ,��$��$��$��-�

• /�� "�� &�� *.�

• �� .�

• �� 0��.�

• �� .�

• #�� 0�� .��

3��$��.��$��,��$$��$��,��.��'�'��$��$��'�:��$��$��$��$��%��$$��'� ��$$��$�� $��%��

�(��

�

��$�'�:�� ,��$$��.��.� B8��?C�,��$��,��,��'�

��

'!��0 ��!��*��&&�%��)�!��!�)��

:��$�� $$�� $��.� �� $�� .��$$��.� ��.� ��'� :��.� �� $�� .�$�� $�� $$�� .� �� $$��.��$��.� ��$��.�� $�� $��5$��B&��.��(()T�8��:��.��(((C��.��$��.� �G��.� ��'� &��G��.� �� ,�� $$�� $��'�:��$$��$�� .� ,�� $�� $$�� 5$�� $�� ,�� $$�� .� �� ,�� $$�� '� :�� $�$��$��$��$��.��$��%��,��,��$$��$��'�:��.��,�� $��,�� $$�� $��,�� $$��'��

!�� $$�� $��.� �� 5��'�:��.��5��,��$$��$��%�� $�� 5�� ,�� $��.�� .� ��.�$��.� ��$$��.��G��$��.�� ,� �� ,�� $��%�� $$��'� :�� ,�� ,�� 6.� ��$�� ,�� $$�� .� ,�� .��B��C�$��$$��'�4��$��%�� $$�� '� ��$$�� $�� $��$�� .� ��$��%��$��$$��.�$��.�#�2.��$$��.��.��'�:��.��$��$$��

�

�

a

b

Supply chain niche

�)��

�

�

��

'!��4 ��&��&��!��!9��!��*��&&�%��)�!��&��!�!��#!��!�)��#��&�

��'��$$��$��$��$��$��$$��'�:��$��$��.��$��.��$$��.�,��.��'��

!�� $$��$��$��%�� $$��$�� .� �� 5$�� ,��$��%�� $��.� ��'� �� $��,��$$��>��.��$�� $$�� $�� ,�� $�� >��G��$$��'�:��.�� $�� $$�� A�� $�� ,�� $$��$��A��$��'�:��G��$$��G��,�� ,�� $��.� �� .�,�� $$�� '�:��$��,��$��$$�� .� �� $�� $� $��$�� B)76 C'� :��$��%��G��$��5��$��'�

�

b

a

Interaction point/facility/resource: x1

Niche(s) overlap Niche(s) overlap

Niche breadth (a; b)

��

�

$ 2-�6��1�85�

$�� ;)%��)��,!�)��)��%<�

��$�� .� �� $��.� �� ,�� G�� .�F��.��'�:��.��.��,�� '� :�� G��,��,��,��'�:��$��$��$��,��G�� '� !�� .� �� $��.� �� $�� B�'�'�,�� $�� C� ��.�,�� $��,��,��5��$��$��'�

�� %�� $�� G��G��.��G��$��'�:��G��,��,��.�� .� ,��.� �� ,� �� $��,��$�� '��.� �� $�� $��G��,��$$��$��$��,��'��

�� )��*��!��!��&��!��

'��

"��4��2��B)767C.��$��$��.��$��.��B:��C.��,��.��$��.��$��,�� '� D�� ,�� $$�� .� �� ,��

�#&!#9#3O�#8�I"1!&"9�&�"�3��

�M4E�

&:!K��

� �

�=��!��)��!��>��• 8��5��• "��

��• &��

�=��!��!��>�

• &��$��2��5��

• I��• &��:��

#4E�

&:!K��

�=��&��!#�>��• ��• ��• ��• ��

!��

=�'��!��!��>��• !��• ��• #�F��• 4��

��:��#&!#9#3O�#8�I�3M9":!#��

��

�

��$�� $�� $�� $�� '� "� �� ,��$��B��.�)7=6C'�#��.�� G��,�� $��.� �� $�� %�� '� 2�� $�� ,�� G�� .�� $�� B��.�)777C'�"��.��,��G��,��.��%��.��$��$��,��$�� G��'� :��.� ,�� '� :��,��$��$��,��$$��$��'�

$�� %��&!��%�!��&&�%��)�!��)�

:�� $��$�� $�� $�� $�� $��B2�� .� )7=(C'� "�� E�G�� B�((�C� �� Q��$��$��,��5��,�� 5��R'�4�� $�� ,�.� �� ,�� ,�� ,� �� '� :�� ,�� 5�� F��>��F�� B�'�'� :�� C.� �� $��$��$��$��$$��,��$��$��B2��.�)7=(C'�:��,�� .� �� ,�� $��$�� ,��,��'�:��$��$��'�2��.��$��,��,��.��$��,��,��G��,��'�

�� .��,� ��,�� ,��,�� $��$$��P�3�� $�� $�� $�� ,�� $$�� .�$��$�� $�� ,�� 5$��'��,��.� �� $�� $$��$��$$��$��$��$��$��'�:�� $$�� G��.� �� $$�� B�'�'�&��.�)777T�9��.��((?T�U��.��((?C�� $�� G�� $$�� B�'�'��.� �((�T�3��.� �(( C'� :�� $�� ,�� 4�� 2��B)767C��$��%�� $��.� ��,��,��,��.��.��5��'��

M�� G�� .� �� .� �� $.� �'�'�$��.� ,�� $$�� $$�� '� �� .��$��$��5$��$��.��F��'��.�$�� ,�� $� �� .� �� '�8��,��.� ��$��$��,�� 5$��.� ��.� ��$��.� ��$�� .�

� ��

�

��%��'� 4�� $�� $�� $��$��'� :�� $�� $�� .� �� .� ,�� $�� ,�� $�� ,�� '� :�� G�� ,�� ,�� $��.� ,�� G�� ,��P��

:��,��$��,��$$��$��,�� $��.� �� $��,�� ,�� $��$��'�4��.��,$��,�� '� :�� $��$�� $�� $��$��.��5��$��.��.��,��.��,�� $��$�� '� 8�� $��.� �� .� �� ,��$��$��'��

��$�� ,�� .� �� .��,��%��,��$��$��.�� $�� 5�� $�� B��.� )77)C'� :�� ,�� $��'��$��,$��$$��.��$��$��,��'��$��,��%��$$��$��$��$��'�4��.� ��,�� F�� ,�� $�� $��$��$��'�:��.��$��F��$��,��'�:��,��$$�� $�� ,�� $�� $��$��'�

#��.��$��$�,��T��'�'��,�� ,� �� .� �� $�� $�,�� $$�� .� �� ,��.�,�� $$��P�1��$��$��P��,��,��$��>$�� ,�� $�� .��%��'�:��.� �� $$�� $�,�� $$�� ,�� ,� �� $��,��$��$$��'�

"��,��$$��$$��$��$��$��$��%��,��'��,��$��-�&��>��B9��.�)77)C'�:��$�� ,�� '� ��.� �� ,�� >�� '�&�� $��$�� $�� .� �� $��,�� '� :�� .� ��$�� >�� .� �� '� :�� ,��

�<��

�

��,��'�8��,��.��'�'��$��,��$�,��.�,��.��'�4��5��.��'�3��.��,��,��'��

��.� �� $�� .� �� .�� $$�� 5$��$��,��,�� $��$�� G�� '� ��,��.� �� $�� $$�� ,��$$�� $$�� $�� ,��,�'�:��,��.��,��,��$$��'��$$��$��'�"��$��.��$$��'��$$��$��'�

$�� )��)��%��

:��G��B�C.��,�B��C.�4��B��C��B�/C��'��

��5��,��$$��,��'�

�� +��

&��.� �� $�� $�� $� ��$$�� $$�� $��.� �� $��$��'�!��,��.��$��%��G��$��$��,��$$��T��4��$$��$��'�

4�� $$�� G�� $$�� $�� 5$�� '�1��,��4��$��$��$$�� $��'�"�� G�� 5$�� $��,��G��'��

:�� G�� >�� G�� $$�� '��$��$��G��5$��.��5��$��.� �� $�� '� �� ,�� ,�� ,��4��.��.��5$�� $�� $�� .� ,�� ,�� G�� B��.� )77?C'� "�� ,�� $�� '� #�� $��.��.� �� $�� B��G��C� �� B4��C.��5��$��4��B�(( C'�

�?��

�

"�4�� $��$��,��$��4��B3��.��((�C'�

!�� ,�� . ( )θyp .�,�� $�� B,��,�� C� �� $�� ,��$��. Θ∈θ '�:��,��'�:��,��,�� $��.θ '� "� $�� . ( )θp .� �� S��,��$��$��'�:��.��,��.�,��,��$��'�

8��.� ,�� .� �� $�� $�� $��.� ( )yp θ .��4��S��-�

�

( )( ) ( )

( ) ( )( ) ( )θθ

θθθ

θθθ ypp

dypp

yppyp ∝

�=

Θ

�

�

:�� $�� $�� '� :��4��$$��$��'�"��,��$�� ,�� ,�� .� �� ,� �� '�"��$��,��$��'�:�� ,� ��$�� ,��,��4��,��'�

!��$��$��$��'�:��.��$��2��&��2��&��B2&2&C��$��'�2&2&��$��$��'�

4�� >�� $�$�� $�� G��'�:��$��,��$��$��2&2&��G��B�'�'.�3��)77(T�&��3��)77�T�&��I��)777T�3��'��((�C'�#��$�$��2&2&��2��$��W��B2��$��'�)7<�T��)76(C'�

!��B��C.��,��$��%�� $�� $$�� '� :�� $�� $��$��$$��'�

9�� S �� $�� ,�� $$�� .��'�'��$��'�:��,��$$��$��%��

�6��

�

�� S �� 5�� $�� ,��.��T ��$��'��

9�� tiy , � �� S >�� B$�� )((C� ��$$�� i �

��%��S $�� ( )Ttt ,....,1= '��

:��$��%��$$��-�

( )iti lmultinomiay θ,100~, �,�� ( )Siii ,,...,1, θθθ = .� 10 , =≤ jiθ ��=

=S

jji

1, 1θ �

"� �� $��S� ��%�� $�� iθ � ( )Si ≤<1 '�:��G��B)C��B�C��$�$��.�� $� �� %�� '� :�� G��$��,��$$��G��B �C��'��

"�4��$$��$$��$�� ( )nii ≤≤1θ '�:��

�� )( ,......,1 SDirichlet αα $�� iθ ,�� ( )Sii ≤≤1α �� )� �� $��$��$��'�

:��2&2&��'�2&2&��,��$��'�:��,��$�$��'�

:�� $�� $�� $�� .�� $��'�

��,��.� �� $�� 4�� '�8��.��,��$��.��$��F��'�:��$��5�� ,�� $��'� "�� .� �� $��.� ,�� F��'��,��,��$��$��$��,��$�$�� >�� Q�� R� $�� ,�� >�� .��5��$��.��$��3��,��'�8��$��$��.��5��$��$��'�B)777C��3��B�((�C'�

"��$��$��'�:��$�� >�� B�'�'� �� 5$�� %��C'�:��.��$��%��4��S� �� ,�� $�� ,�� .��$$��5��'��

�=��

�

�� ,��! ��-��

&�� G�� F��.� ��.� G�� $��B��'.��((�T�+��$$��.�)7=(C'�!��.�$��>�� B4�� 4��.� �((6C'��,��.�� 5��,�� 5�� $��'� :��F�� BG��C� �� $�� .� �'�'� ��,� ��$��.� ��.� $�� .� ��$��.��B2��.��(((C'�&��.��$��.��%�� ,��.� ��.� $��$�� $��'�D�� 5�� .�,��,��B�$��+��.��((?T�9��.��(( T�2��%��.�)777C'��

"�� ,�� $�� ,��'�9��.��.��$��.��.��B4��4��.��((6C��,��,��,��G��$�'�:�� .��,��5�.��$��$��B4��.�)7==C'�!�� .� �� .� �� $��%�� ,��$��$��B&��.��((�C'��

"��$��+��B�((?C.� �� .�� $�,�� ,�� '� ��,�� F�� .� �� $��.��.��B&��:��.��(((C'��G��.��,��.�,��.��$��'�"�� .� �� G�� G�� $�� B3�� '.� �(( T� �� I��.� �((<C'� !�� $��$��.��$��$��'��

&��,��,��'�:��.�� .� �� ,�� %�� $��'� :�� 4��&�� $�� $�� $�� R�� ,��R'�:��,��,��$�� 5�� >��$�� ,�� $��B9��.� )7=�C'� D�� ,�� $�� G�� .� �� $��'��,��$��$�� ,�� $�� B3��.� )7=�C'� "�� .� ��F�� F�� $�� B3��'.��(( C'��,��.��$��+��B�((?C��$��,'�

�7��

�

�� !��#��

&�� $��5�$��'�!�� G��$$��5��$��,��>��5�.� ��$�� ,�� ,�� $�� BO��.�)77 C'�!��$$��$��$�� $�� B��.� )77?T� 2��.� )77=C� ��$�� $��$��'�

:��.� �� >��$�.� ��.� ��.� G��.� �� .� ��$� �� 5$��$��$��B��$��3��.��((�T�8��.�#��F��.�)77)T��.�)77<C'� :�� 5�� .� �� $�� ,�� 5�� '��,��.� �� $��$�� G��$��G��'�L��B�'�'��$��C.��B�'�'��>��$��C.�� ,��%�� BM��.��(( C.� �� .�� G��'��$��'�O��B)77�C��$��5$��.� �5$�� $�� '� �5$�� $��$��'��5$�� >�� $�� $�� ,��$��$��.��,��5�'�#��$��%��.��'�'�� B)77<C� �� .�,�� .� �� ,�� $��.��,��F��$��'�

:�� 5�� $�� %�� $� �� '�

�

(��

�

+ (22 ��-(7�2 ��'��8(� �� '��8�� 1�� -�(�

4��F��$��$��).��$�$��$�� $��$��$�� '�:��,��.��5��I��-�

�� $��-��.��P�

�� "��$��$$��-�"��$��'�

�� $$��'��$$��$��-�"��>��$$��'�

�/� !��-�"��,��$$��'��$$��$��'�

:��$��%��$�$�� $��$��$�� $� �� '�"��,��$��'�

+�� &��?�-��!��!��*��&��!�!��?��!��)!*�7�*��%��!�%��)��<�

"�� $�$�� .� �� $�$�� $$�� $�� $�� $��$�� '� !�� .��.��$��.��5$��,��$�� ,�� ,�� ,�� ,�,��$$��,��'�:��$��$��$�$�� $�� $�� ,�� %��$�� $�� '� :�� ,�� ,� �� G��'�!��,��,�$��$��,��$��$��:'�'�+��'��

:�� $�$�� ,�� $�� $��,�� .� �� $�� $��,�� %�� ,�� $�� $�� '� #�� .� ��$��$$�� '� ��$$�� $�� ,�� .� �� $��$��'�"��,��.��$��$$��.��$$�� '� :�� ,�� $�� $�� $��'�:�� ,�� $��$��$��,��:'��'�+��.�,��,��'�

)��

�

:��$�$��,��$�� '� D�� .� �� $�� $�� $�� $��$��'�

+�� &��?� ��)��%��*��)��&��!��&&�%��)�!�?� ��!#��*��#��&��

��$��5��.��$�� $$�� B��$$�� '� ��$$�� $��C.� �� $�$��S��$��$��$��,��$$��'��$$�� $�� $��'� 1��$�� $$��'��$$��$��$��$��,��,��$��'�"�� $��$��.� �$$�� '� 8��.� �� $�$�� ,��$��$�� $�� $$�� '� :�� $�� $�$�� ,�� $�� >��.�$��>��$$��'�

I�� $�� $��.��>��BI>"C��$��$��'�:��$�$��$��$��$$��'��$$��$�� $��%�� ,�� '� :�� $��$�� $$�� $�� ,�� 5�� '� "� ��$��%�� $��.� ��$�� $�� $��$��'��

:�� $�$�� $�� $��G��$��$��$��,�.��,��.�,��$��,��$��$��$$��$��'�

+�� &��?�(�&&�%��)�!��#��&&�%��)�!��&��!�!��?� ��!��!�)�3��&&��)��

��$��,��$��$��.��$$��$$��,��,��$�� ,�� %��.� �� $��%�� $�� '� :�� $�$�� $��%�� $$�� '� ��$$�� $��'� !�� $�� $��%��,��$��,��$��$��'�

!�� $�� $��$�� $$�� '��$$��$��'�:��$��%��$�� $�� 5$�� $�� ,�� $$��

��

�

��'� !�� $�� $� �� $� �� $��,��$$��'�#��$��%��$��$$��$��$��>��,��$$��'�:��$�$��$��.��%��.��$��>��'��

:�� $�$�� $��$�� $$�� $��%��.� �� $��,�� $$�� '� M�� ,�� $��%��$��,��$$��,��$��$�� .�� $$��'�8�� $�� $$�� ,�� ,�� $$�� $��.�,��$$��,��,��$$�� ,��$�� 5$�� $$��'� :�� $�� $$��$��$��'�

:��.��$�$��$��5$�� $$�� ,�� $$��$��'��

�� &��/?��!��?� ��,�*��*��&&�%��)�!��#��&&�%��)�!��&��!�!��

��$$�� $�� $�� '� 3�� $��%�� $�� ,��$$��.��$�$��.��$��$��$�$�� $$�� '� !�� $�� ,�� $$�� $�� $�� $��,��$$��'��,��.��,��,��$�� $��'� :�� ,�� $�� %��S��$$��,��.��$��%��$��$��,��$$��'�:��+��9��&��B+9&C�,��,��,��$��,��$$��'�D��,��.��$�� ,�� ,�� ,��$��'��

:��$�$��,��$��$��,�� $�� $�� $$�� .� �� $�� $�� $�� $$�� '� 8�� '� 4�� .� ��$��$��$��5��'�

:�� $�$�� ,� �� $�� $��,�� $$��'�

��

�

+�+� (��%��*��)��!��*!��!��!��!��

:��$��$$��$��$��%��$��$��$��%��$��$$��'��$$��$��.�,��$$��$��'�:�� ,�� $� �� F��,��$�$��$��'�"��,��,�� 5�� $�$�� .� �'�'� ��$��$�$��.� �� >�$��$�$��.�� $��$�$��'�!��.��5$��,��$��$��'�:��$�'��

8��5$��5�� $�� ,�� ,��'��5�.� �� ,��$��$��,��'�8��.��'�

��$��7� ��.� �� $�� ,��'�D�� ,��$�$��$��.� ��$��,��,��$��,��/�,��'��

#�� .� �� $�� $�� $�� ,�� '� :�� $�� $��$��>��>��$��$��.� �� $�� .� �� $$��'��$$��$��.��,��.��>�$��B4�� .� )77?�.� )77?�C'� 9�� ,�� $�� ,��$$��$��>�� $��'� ��$�� .� ,�� .� �� $�� $�� F�� $�� ,�� '�I�� >��$��,�� '� :�� .� �� $�� ,��$��.��$��$��$��$��.�$��$��.�� $�� $�� ,�� '�!��.��$��$��$��,.��'�'�$��$��,��.��'�'��$��.��$��.��'�

��,��.��,��$��,��.��$$��'��$$��A��,��$��$�$��'�

I��,��,��$$�� $�� $��%��.� �� ,�� '� :��.� �� $�� ,�� ,��

��

�

$��'�8��5��$��.��,��$��.� �� ,�� %�� $$�� $�� $��$��$��$��'��

:��.��F��$��$��F��$$�� $�� $$�� ,� �� $�� '�:�� $��$�� B�'�'� ��$��C�,��,��$$��$�� ,��.� �� $$�� $�� $��'� :�� $�� .� �� $��'�

!�� $��,��$$��A��$�B��C��$��%��.��$��$�� $�� $$�� '� "�� .� �� $��$$��,��,��,��$��.�,�� $�� .� G�� ,�� $��.� ��$�� B�>�$��.� �� C'�8��.� �,�� $�� $$�� $$��$��%��$$��'��$$��$��$$��$��'�:��-��

��&��!�!#�� **!�!��%-� &��$�� $$�� G��A��>��>��$��,��$$��$��$$��$��'�

��&��!�!#��!��-�&��$��$$��5$��5��$$��,��$��$��$$��$��$��$�,��'�

:�� >�� ,�� $�� $�� $��$$��'��.��,��$��$��$��$��,��$$��'�8�� %��.� ,�� ,�� ,�� $�� ,�� $$�� $��.� ��$�� $�� '� #�� .� �� ,�� $�� $$�� ,�� $�� $$�� $��.� �� $�� $�� $$�� ,�� 5�� '��

&��$��$�� ,�� 8�� ='� "��$�� ,�� $�� $�� ,�� $�� $��.� �� >��$��$��'�

3�� $$��$�� $��.� �� $�� $�� $�� $$�� x−0 .� ,�� $��$$��.��'��

<��

�

:��.� �� $�� .� �� G��$��$��.��$$��.��$��$$��G��'�"��$�� $��.� �� $$�� $�� W� �'�'� ��$�� B�� F�� C� ��,� �� >��'� ��.� ��$� ��,�� B��$��.� ��$�� $��C� �� ,�� $�� $��'� :�� $�� $�� $$�� B��$��>,��C.� �� $�� $�� $��$$��>��'�D��$��$$��.��$��,��$��$$��.��,��'�

�

'!��@ ��!��)!&��,��&��!�!#��)��!��!��*��&&�%��)�!��

:��$��$��$$��$$��'�&�� $$�� $�� $�� ,�� '� 8��.� �� $��'� ��.� �� 5�� $$�� '�:��.� �� .� �� 5��.� �,� ,�� $�� '� :��.� �� $$�� $��.� �� ,� �� $$�� ,�,�� ,�� $$��T� �� .� �'�'� �� $��,�� $�� $$�� $��'� !�� $�� B�� ,�� $��C��,��$��.��.�� ,��'�

��

Competitive Stamina

Competitive Efficiency

�� $��

?��

�

:�� $�� $�� .� �/.� �� $�� $��%��,��'�4��$��,��.��$��,��$$��,��$��,��.��$�� .� �� $$�� >��$��'�"��.��$��,��$��$��,��$�� ,�� .� ,�� $��.� �� $�� $��'�!��.��$��,��$��$$�� .��,�� '�!��,��$��,��$$��$��.��$��'�:��$��$��$��$��%�� $��.� �'�'� �� >��>��$�� 5$��>�5$��'�

:��$��,�� $��5�� $$�� '� ��$$�� $��.� �� $$�� $��$��'� !�� .� �� $��,��$$��T��,��'�4�� ,�� ,�� $$�� $�� G�� $�� $�� ,�� $$�� ,�� $�� G�� '� :��.� �� $$�� $��G��,��,��$�� '� !�� $�� $$��.��,��G�� 5$��'� :�� .� ��.� �� $$�� $�� $$�� $�� $��%��$$��'��$$��$��.

6��

�

0 ��1(��7��2�1�� (� ��'��6-��-(- ��6�

:��$��$��$��$��$$��'��$$�� $��.� �� ,�� $$�� '� :��.� �� F��,��$��$��$�� ,�� $$�� '� ��$$�� $��'� :�� ,�� .� �� $��.��$�� $��'� 3�� $��$��$��$$��'��$$��,��'�:��$�� Q��R.� Q�� $,�� R.� �� $�� $��$$��'��$$��$��'�"��F��$��$��.��$��$$��'��$$��$��'�!��$��$��%��$$��'��$$��$��'�

:��$��,�$��,��'�"��,�� ,.� �� $�� .� �� $�� $��'� :�� $�� $�� $�� ,�� Q�� R� ��,��A��$�� '�"�� 5$�� $�� .� �� $�� ,� �� B9��.� )76?C'� :�� $�� $�� $$�� $��$$��B,��$$��C��$��$��$��%��'�

:��5��,��$��$�� $�� $�� ,�� $$�� '� &��$�� ,�� $$�� $�� $�� $�.�,�� ,��$$��'� !�� $�� $�� ,�� $$�� ,�� '� :�� $��,�� G�� $$�� $$�� $��$��B�'�'�I��$$�.��(()C'��,��.�� $$�� $��,��,��$$��$��$$��'�:��,��'�

:��$��$��,��$$�� $��.� �� .� �� $�� '� !�� $$�� ,�� 5�� $.� �� $��'��.��,��$$��5��.��$��'�4��$$��.��$��B�'�'��.��'�'��.��G��.��C'�:��

=��

�

��$�� .� �� ,�� $�� $��'�

0�� 2��!��!�&�!��!��

:��$��$��$$��'�8��.��%�� $�� S�� ,�� $$�� '� "�� $�� $$�� '� ��$$�� $��,��$��$$��$�� ,� �� $�� $$�� $��.� �'�'� �� $�� $�� $��'� "�� .��$$��.��.��$��%��$$��'� ��$$�� $��.� �� $��$��.� �� $�� ,�� $�� .� �� $��,��$$��$��'�

!��.��,��$��.��$��,��$�� $�� .� �� $�� $$�� '� &��$�� $$�� $��$�� $$�� '� ��$$�� ,�� ,�� $�� $�� .� ��>�� $�� .� �� $$��,��$��$��$�,�� ,�� ,�� $��'�:�� .��,��,��$��$��$$�� G�� $$�� $��'� &��$�� $�� $��,��'��

"��.� �� $�� $�� $�� $$�� $��$��.��$$��$��.��,��$�� ,�� ,�� $$�� $��'� 2��$��.� ��$��%��$��,��$$��.��.��,��,��$��,��,��,��5$��'�

"��8��B�((6C��$��$��,��$��$�,�� $��'� "�� .� �� $�� $�� $$��'� ��$$�� $�� ,��,��$$��>$��.�� ,� ��'��

�

�

7��

�

�

��

'!��A ��!��*��!��&&�%��)�!��&��!�!��

"�� .� ��.� �� $��.�,��$$��$�'�:�� $$�� ,� �� $$��.��$��>,��B8��'�7C'�4��$��%��$��.�� $�� $�� ,�� $$��>��'�"��.� �� A�� $$�� $��G��$��$��,��'��

4��$��$��,��$$��.�� $�� $�� $��,��$$��'�2��%��$��$��,��$$��$��$$��'�:��$��$$��$��5��$$��,��G��F�� ,�� $$�� $�� ,�� $��.��'�

0�� !�!��

4��G��.��%��$��$��'�"��.��$��,��,��$��$��

�

��

�

��

��

��

��

��

<(��

�

��'�!��.��.��$$��$$��$��'�:��$��,��.��.��.�� $�� .� �� $�� $��$��$$��$��$��'�:��,��.��$�� $��'� :��.� �� $�� $��5��5��$$�� '�"��$��,��$��$��$��,�� $�� >�� $�� B�C'� ��,��.� �� A�� $�� $��'� #�� $�� ,�� $�� '� D�� ,� �� ,� �� $�� $��B��C.��,��$��,��.�� ,�� ,� �� $�� $�� $��,��,'��

I�� ,� ��$�� ,�� '� #�� '�:��.��>��$�� $�� '� ��,��.� ,�� ,�� $��%��$��$��,��.��G��'�

!��.��,��$��$�� '�"��F��$�� $��%�� $��,��$$��$��$��,��,��G�� $�� >$��.� :�� .� �� '�!��,��$��,��$$��$��$$��B+��.�)77<C.��$��$��'�D��$$�� B��C�� $�� $$�� .��G��$��$$�� ,��'�:��.��$��$��,��$$��,� �� $$�� $��,�� $��$$��'��$$��$��'�

8��.��,��$��%��$��B�/C��,��'�:��$��$�� ,�� $$�� $��$�� ,�� $�� $�� '� O��.� �� $�� $�� $�� $$�� $��'� ��$��$�� $��$$�� $�� ,��'��$$��,��$��$��$��,��$$��$��'�

��,�� .� �� $��,��$$��$��,�� $$��

<)��

�

��$��,�� 5�� $$�� '� !�� ,��F�� $$��,��'��

0�� #��*��*��)��)�

4�� ,��5$��.� �� $$��'��$$��$��.��$��$��'��,��.��$��$��$$��$��$��%�� $��$�� ,�� .� �'�'� �� $��$�� $$�� '� ��$$�� $��'� !�� $�� ,�� .� �� $�� $$�� $�� .� �'�'� �� $$�� I�� $�� B�(()CS�� .� �� ,�� $��%�� $$�� $��'�

"��,��5$��$$�� '� ��$$�� $�� $��$��'�D�� %�� $$�� ,�� $�� $�� ,�� ,��,��$��$��.��$��$��'�:��.��$�� ,�� $��%�� $$�� $$�� $�� .��'�'��'�4�� $�� .� �� $$�� $��$��$��,��,�$��.��.��,�� $$�� $��%�� $�� $�� $��$�� $��'� :�� .� �� $��%��$��.��$��$�� $��$�� $$�� B�'�'��C�� G�� $$�� .� ,�� $��$��$$��$$��'�

"��.��$��,��,�� $��%��$��%�� $$��$��.�� $�� $��$�� $�� $��$��$$��'��$$��$��'�!��.��,�� ,��$$��$��,��$��'�

8��.�,�� $�� $�� $��$�� ,�� $$��$��$��,.��,��$�� $��.��$�� $��.� ��,�� $$�� %��$��$$��'��$��,�� $��$��$��$$��'��$$��$��$��$��'�!��

<��

�

��$��,��$��.��'�'��$��$��.��.��'�

�� $�� ,�� $$�� $�� .� �� G�� %�� ,�� ,�� $��%�� $$�� '� ��$$�� $��'�� 5$�� $�� $��,��$$��'��$$��$�� $��'� :�� $�� $�� 5�� ,��$��,��'�

�

<��

�

< ��

�

�-'-�-��-(�

"��.�!'�B�((�C�M��$$��B�&2C'�!��.��'.�2[��.�2'�3��.�2'��,��.�M'�B��'C�#�� -�� '��>K��.��O.�M�"'�

"��.�E'�B)7=<C�#��-�I��.�$��.��$��$�%%��'�1�� 2��0�� .�K��'� 7�B��C.�$'�))>��'�

"��.�2'3'.�+��%.��'4'�B)77=C��'�+ �� 1�� 3��2� �� .�K��'�7.��').�$'�)W)�'�

"��.�2'�"'�B�((<C.��$$��$$��-��$$��'��1��6.��((<'�&�$��4��.�&�$��.�1��'�

4��.��'�I'�B�()(C�/��'�&��9��.�M�"'�

4��.��'�B)7=6C�!�� #��2� �� -�&�$��0��.�9��'�

4��.��'��8��.�1'�B)7=6C�!�� !�� 2� �� '��-�9��

4��.�E'��'�B)7<?C�4�� .�&��-��M��'�

4��.�E'��'�B)7?=C�+ �� -�� B��'C.��,�O��-�D��'�

4��.�I'�B�((<C�:��$��$��$$��'�2��!�� 2� �� .��B)C.��>)�'�

4��.�O'�B�((7C��$$��$��'�M�$��1��:��.�M��,��D��.�"��'�

4��.��'�I'.�2��.�3'�D'.��3��.�1'�&'�B)7==C�&��-�"��.�$��$��'�� #�� 5��.�K��'��.��'�).�$'�� >?('�

4��.�E'�4'�B)7=?C�:�$��$��-�:�,��,��'��2� �� 6��.�K��'�)).��'� .�$'�67)>=(('�

4��.�E'�&'�B)777C�#��%��.��&��.��'�I'��.�&'�B��'C�#�� -�� $�/�� '��.�9��'�

<<��

�

4��.�4'�2'�B)77=C��$$��-�2��'�+ �� 1�� !�� ,� ��.�K��'�<<.��'��.�$'��=)>�7 '�

4��.�2'.�:�,��.�&'�I'��$��.�E'�9'�B�((?C�,��'� ��'�4��,��.�#5��'�

4��.�3'�B�(((C�1��'�� .�K��'�)<<.��'�<.�$'�?(?>?)6'�

4��.�D'�2'�B�(( C�+ �� 4�� #��'�D��!��.��-��E'��

4��.��'��2��.�&'�B�(()C��,��-��,��,�,��'�7��4�� 6��.�K��'�67��'�<.�$'�)(?>)�'�

4�,��.�2'��3��.�I'�"'�B)7=<C�:��'�28� ��5��"�!��'��"��.�$'�� > ?'�

4��.�"'�2'.��.��'�D'�B)77?C�K��>��'�1�� ,� �� 2� �� #��"�K��'�<.��'�).�$'�<>� '�

4��.�"'�2'�"��.�4'�E'�B)77?�C�� '��$��&��4��.�9��'�

4��.�"'�2'�"��.�4'�E'�B)77?�C�K��>��'�1�� ,� �� 2� �� #��.�K��'�<.��'�).�$'�<>� '�

4��,��.�"'.�4��.�+'�E'.��.�1'�"'�B��C�B�(()C�7� ��0�� '��M+'�

4��.�"'��4��.��'�B�((6C�4�� 6��2��.�#5��M��.�M�"'�

4��.�+.��.��'�E'.��+��.�I'�B�((?C��$$��-��,��$��'�+ �� 1�� !�� 2� �� .�K��'��?.��'�6.�$'�6(�>6�7'�

4��.�3'.��2��.�3'�B)767C'�#��!�� -�� $�,�� #��3��'�9��-��'�

&��.�"'�B)777C�!��>��$��'�+ �� 1�� 2� �� #��.�K��').��'�).�$' <><('�

&��.�3'�I'�B)7= C�#��%��'�� 6��#��.�K��'�)(.�$'�6)>7�'�

<?��

�

&��3'��3��.��'�!'�B)77�C��5$��3��$��'�/�� #�� K��'� ?.��'��.�$'�)?6W)6 '�

&��.�3'��I��.�&'��'�B)777C�2� ��'��$��>K��-��O'�

&��.�E'�2'��9��.�2'�"'�B�((�C�,��$�3� 0� �� '�M��&��.�!9.�M�"'�

&�.�1��>��B)77=C�8��$��$��'�� 6��.�K��'�=.��'�).�$'�))>��'�

&��$��.�2'�B)77�C�3�� '��-�9��'�

&��$��.�2'�B)77=C�3�� #�� 2� �� $�#��6�� +�� #��'��,-��.��'��'�

&��$��.�2'�B�((<C�3�� $�� 0.��.�M+'�

&��,��.�I'�+'��8��.�1'�E'�B)76)C�#��$'�,��.�K��'�<�.��'� .�$'�<?6><6?'�

&��.�:'�E'�B�((=C�4��,��$��'�:��"��8��'�!��&��.�:'�E'��.��'�9'�B��'C�+ �� '9�� '�4��!��.�D��1'&'�

&��$��.�2'.�9��.�2'��.�E'�1'�B)776C��$$��-�2��,��'�+ �� 1�� 3��2� �� .�K��'�=.��'�).�$'�)>) '�

&��.��'�B�((�C��#��'�!��&%��,��.�4'��3��.��'�B��C��%�� "�E��4��F��&��$��'�

&��.�E'�E'.�9��.�&'�E'��4��.��'�E'�B�((7C�#�� $��'�&��9��'�

&��.�+�'�'��:��.��'�I'�B�(((C�!��!��"��8��I��A2��&��1��-�"�&��"��'�/�� 6��!��,$�3�� /�� 6��.�K��'��?.��'�).�$'� )><�'�

&��.�"'�B�(()C�"��!��-��$$��'��$$��'��+ ��.�E��.��(()'�

<6��

�

1��.�:'��.�1'�B�((<C��>,��$��5��'�,��3��.�K��'�=.��'�=.�$'�=6<W=7 '�

1��K��.��'�E'��4��F��.��'�3'�B�(((C�+��,��$$��-�"��'�+ �� 1�� /�� 2� �� .�K��'��(.��'�<>=.�$'�<?7><=6'�

1��.��'.�+��.�:'�O'��.�2'�:'�B�(()C�1��,��$��'�� 1�� #��.�K��'�)(?.��'�<.�)�77>)��6'�

1��.�E'��'��.�+'�B�(((C�&��$��,��,��-�:��:��'�#��2� �� 1�� .�K��'��).��'��.�$'�� <>�?6'�

1��.�E'��'.��'�B�(( C�:��,-�&��$��>��%��$��'�!��I��.�E'�B��'C�#�� $�� '�#5��M��.��O'�

��.�"'��'.�9��.�1'�8'.�"��%��.�E'�+'��.�I'�E'�B�((�C�4>��>��>��-��,��'�1�� 4�� 3��.�K��'�� .��'�).�$'�)77>��('�

��.�&'�B)7�6C�� ,��'��,��0�E��.�9��'�

8��.�E'�B)7==C�!��$��'�/��,� ��1�� .�K��'�7=.�$'��<<>�6 '��

8�F�%��.�8'�B)7==C�!��&��$��-�"��.��'��,!�3�6��.�K��'��?.�$'�6>��'�

8�,��.��'��'��&��.��'�I'�B)776C.��$��$��%��-��$��$��'�/�� 1�� .�K��'��6��'�).�$'�)=>�='�

8��.�E'.�#��.�"'��F��.�3'�B)77)C��'�M��&��.�&�$��.��&'��

8��:��.��7��8��.��((('�

8��.�I'.�4��.�O'�"'.��,�.�I'�"'.��F.�"'��3��.�3'�:'�B�((=C�:��$��&2S��$��>��'�1�� 4�� 3��.�K��'��7.��'�).�$'�)>�('�

<=��

�

8��.�:'�9'�B�((6C�/��$�� .��'�8��.��3��5'�

3��.�4'�B�(( C��9��I��P�"�2��8��,��"��1��$��'�+ �� 1�� !��:�� 3��2� �� .�K��'�� .��'�?.�$'� 67> 7)'�

3��.�E'�2'�B�(((C�!�� ;�� '�+��,��A��$��.��O'�

3��.�E'�B)77=C�#�� $�4�� '�3�,��.�M+'�

3��.�"'��.�"'�B)77(C��$��>��$$��'�1�� #�� .�K��'�=<.��'� )(.�$'��7=W (7'�

3��"'�B�((�C��'�!��, ��, �� .�K��'��'�D��.�&��.�$'�)?� W)?�6'�

3��.�"'.�&��.�E'�4'.��.��'��'��I��.�1'�4'�B�((�C�4�� .��'�&�$��0��A&I&-�9��'�

3��.�4'�E'.�2��%��.�E'�:'��&��.�I'�4'�B�((<C��$$��&��2��-�:��&��1��'�1�� 4�� 3��.�K��'��?.��'��.�$'�)6>�<'�

3��.�1'�"'��.��'�B)77(C�2��$��$��$��'��2� �� 6��.�K��'�)<.��'� .�$'�<= >?(�'�

3��.��'��K��.�"'�I'�B�((?C�:��-�"��,��'�!��4��3��B��'C�<�� $�� '��

3��.��'�B)7=�C�=��/��0'�M��.��$��'�

3��.�L'.�9��.�+'�+'.��D��.��'�B�((=C��$$��,��-�&��E��,��$��$��'�+ �� 1�� !�� ,� ��.�K��'�))�.��'��.�$'�<?6><6 '�

3�,��.�E'�2'�B�(()C�&��-�!��.��'�!��8��.�E'��2��.�E'��'�B��'C�=�� $�� "�� -�� '��,��.�M+'�

<7��

�

3��.�E'�B)7)6C.�8��'�� "�K��'�<).�$'))<>)�='�

3��.�&'�B�((=C��-�D��P�"��,��>��P�,�� 4�� 6��.�K��'��(.��'� .�$'��7=>�) '�

3��.�E'.��.�I'.�O��.�+'��I��.�8'�B�(( C.�M��G��$��$��'�1�� + ��.�K��'�<��'��.�$'��=�>7�'�

��.�"'.�+��%��.��'.�2��.�E'��'.��F��>9��B�((6C�&��$��$$��'�#�� 2� �� $�� + �� 1�� .�K��'�)�.��'� .�$'��= >�7?'�

��.�I'�4'��.��'�9'�B)777C�+ �� #�� 2� �� '��>��.�M$$��I��.��E.�M�"'�

��.�2'�:'��8��.�E'�B)766C�:��$�$��%��'�� 1�� #��.�K��'�=�.��'�<.�$'�7�7>7? '�

��.�2'�:'��8��.�E'�B)7=7C�� -�� ,��'��M��.�M'�'"'�

��.�2'�:'.�&��.�3'�I'��\��.�9'�B�((�C�:��%��'�#��/��.�K��'��).��'� .�$'��(7>� ('�

��.��'�B)7=6C�=�� '�!��M��.�4��'�

��.��'�B)77)C�%�� >�%��0 ��>�/�� 0� �� ?��'�!��.��,�O��-�&��M��'�

��.�&'�2'�B)77?C��$$��-�I��$�.��,��'�4��1�� 2� �� .�K��'�6.��$��.�$'�?�>=('�

��.�D'�+'�B)76(C�2��&��$��2��$$��'�4��0�"�K��'��'�).�$'�<6-76W)(7�

��,��"'�B)7?=C��'�!��.�1'�9'.�B��C�+ �� , ��#��#�� .'�$'��=W�6'�2��.��,�O��'

��.�4'�1'�B)7=�C�:��$��'�1�� 2��0�� .�K��'� 6.��'��.�$'�6>))'�

?(��

�

��.�4'�1'.�)7=)�M��$��'�1�� 4�� #��.�K��'�)�BD��C.�$'�))W)<'�

��.�E'�B)77�C�!��$$��.��&��$��.�2'�B��'C�3��$�/��'�&�$��0��.�9��'�

��.��'��'�B�(()C�/�� '��M��.��E'�

��.�3'��'�B)7<6C�&��I��'��#�� 7��#��5�� 4��K��'��-�$'� )<> �6'�

E�G��.�1'�B�((�C�� '�23��>L��]��M��'�

+��.��'�"'�B�(()C�� '��'�+��,��"��.��'�

+��.��'.�2��.�4'��'.��.�+'�B)77<C�#$��.��$$��G��-�"��$��'�1�� 2� �� .�K��'�)�.��'��> .�$'��=6>�7?'�

+��.�:'�B)77?C��-�"��'�!��+��.�:.�B��'C��#�3"�� '�9�,��.�M�"'�

+��$$��.�+'�B)7=(C�� $�� + �� +��2��'��.��,��.�&"'�

+��.��'�B)77?C'�!�!�+ �� .�2!:��.�&��'�

+��.�:'��'�B)7?�C'�/�� .��'�M��&��.�&��'�

9��.�!'�B)76?C�!�� .�/��'�&��M��.�&��'�

9��.�1'�2'��.�:'�9'�B�(()C��$$��'�/��+ �� 1�� 3��2� �� .�K��'�)��').�$'�)>)7'�

9��.�1'�2'�B�((=C��$$��'�!��9��.�1'2'�B��'C�#�� $�!��"�� '��$$��&��2��!��.��.�89'�

?)��

�

9��.�&'��'��.�I'�:'�B�((?C�&��$��%��>��$��$$��$��5��$��'�+ �� #�� , 4�� 2� �� "�K��'� .��'�).�$'�6)>=)'�

9��.��'�1'��.�I'�8'�B�(( C�!�$��$��-�"��'�/�� 1�� .�K��'� �.��'� .�$'�?6>6 '�

9��.��'�1'.��.�I'�8'.��.�"'�B�((6C��$��9��'��&2-�"��&2��'�1�� 4�� 3��.�K��'��=.��'�).�$'�)>� '�

9��.��'�9'��D��.��'�B�(((C�!��$$��'�+ �� 1�� 2� �� /�� 2� �� .�K��).��).�$'�67>7�'�

9��.�1'�B)77)C�@�� $�� '�D��,��.�4��'�

9��.�O'��'��3��.��'�3'�B�((<C��.��.��'�!��1��%��.��'�+'��9��.�O'��'�B��'C�/�� 0��.��'��.�&".�M�"'�

9��.�"'�E'�B)7��C�:��,��5��$�$��-�:,��$��$��$$��'�1�� %�� #�� .�K��'��.�$'� ?)> ?7'�

9��.�I'�I'.�K��.�I'�E'.��"��.�+'9'�B)77=C��$$��$��'�!�� + �� 2� �� 1�� .�K��'��7.��'�.�$'� 7W<='�

2�"��.�I'��'��9��.�I'�B)7?6C�:��.��5��$��'�� .�K��'�)().��'�7�).�$'��66>�=<'�

2��>��.�"'.�D��.�2'��3��.�E'�B)77<C�2�� '�#5��M��'�

2��.��'��'�B)7�7C��$��$��$��.�� ,� ��6��.�K��'��7.�$'�?)>6 '�

2��>E��.�I'��:�,��.�1'�I'�B)777C�:��$��$$��'�+ �� 1�� !�� ,� ��.�K��'�?�.��'�)>�.�$'�?)>6�'�

?��

�

2��.��'�B�(((C�L��&��"��^�=�$��$�_'�=��5��#�-�� =��$�5��#��6��.�K��'�).��'��.�"��'��(.��$-AA��'��A��-��-��-()) >�G�(((��( '�"��)��2��.��()('�

2!��.�I'�B�(((C�"�$��,��$��'�#�� 2� �� $�� + �� 1�� .�K��'�<.��'�).�$'��>�?'�

29��.�:'.��.�2'��O��.�O'�B�((�C��$$��-��5$��'�+ �� 6��$�,�� 0� �� !��.�K��'�)�.��'� .�$'�� =>�? '�

2��.�2'�B)7=�C�"��"��'�� #��6��.�K��'� =.�$'�<)7><��'�

2��.��'�E'�B)7?=C��$��'�/��5��1�� ,� ��.�K��'�=�.��'� .�$'�?�7>?<?'�

2X��.�&'�B�((7C�D��,��,��P�:��$��>$��$��$��,��$$��'�!��+[��.�I'�D'.�3��,��.�E'��"��.�E'�B��C�/�� 0�� $�+ �� "�� '��,��.�M+'�

2��%��.�E'�:'.�1�D��.�D'.�+��.�E'��'.�2��.��'.��5.��'�D'��.�&'�1'�B�(()C�1��$$��'�1�� 4�� 3��.�K��'��'��.�$'�)>�<'�

2��%��.�E'�:'�B�(( C�=� �� $�/�� '��.�!�'�

2��%��.�E'�:'.��.�:'��'.��$��.�:'�9'�B�((=C��$$��$��.��.�$��.��$��'�1�� 4�� 3��.�K��'��7.��'�).�$'��)> ?'�

2��.�E'�B)77=C�4��$��'�1�� 2� �� .�K��'�)?.��'� .�$'� )> < '�

2��$��.��'.�I��.�"'D'.�I��.�2'��'.�:��.�"'��'��:��.��'�B)7<�C��G��$��'�1�� !��.�K��'��).��'?.�$')(=6W)(7�'�

2��.�3'�I'��2��.�&'��'�B)77(C�"��$$��$��'�2��0�� 3��K��'�).��'��.�$$'��?6>�=)'�

?��

�

2��%��.�"'.��$��E'�+'��$��1'�2'�B)777C�:,��E49-�"��$��'�1�� 4�� 3��.�K��'��(.��'��.�$'�)>)7'�

2��%��.�I'2'��2��.�E'�B)776C�D��S��,��,��$$��P�!�� .�K��'�)��.��'�).�$'�?7>6�'�

2��.�3'�B)7=(C��.�2��$��.��$�%%��%��'�� #�� 5��.�K��'��<�B1��C.�?(<>?��'�

2��.�3'��.�9'�B)7=(C�:��G��'�/��2� �� 6��.�K��'�<.��'� .�$'� 7)><(('�

��.�1'�B�((�C�9��G��>��$��'�+ �� 1�� !��:�� 3��2� �� "�K��'��.��'<.�$'��)>��='�

��.�I'�2'�B)77?C�4�� 0.�3�� '��$��>K��-��O'�

��.��'��4��.�:'�B�())C�I��S��-�D��>��'�7��4�� 6��.�E��>8��.��())'�

#��.��'��'�B)7<7C�=� �� ,��'��'�D'�4'��.��$��'�

#��.�I'��D��.�2'�B)77�C��$$��-�9��$�,��'�!��&��$��.�2'�B��'C�9��-�/��'�&�$��0��-�9��'�

��.�!'��I��.�2'�B�((<C��$��9��'�, ��!��.�K��'��.��'�6.�$'�=<6>??'�

��.�E'�2'.��.�:'��'�B)77<C�"�I��>��'�� 1�� #��.�K��'�)((.��'�<.�$'�)�� >)�?('�

��H.�E'��.�1'�B�((=C��'�!��E`��.��'��'��8��4'�1'�B��C.�,�� '�@��.�'��, ��,��.�<��'�$'�)(==>)(76'��.�#5��'�

��$��%.��'�"'��.�U'��'�B�((6C�:��'�� 6��#��.�K��'��.��'�).�$'�?<>= '�

��.�2'�B)77(C�/�� '�8��.��O'�

? ��

�

��.�2'�B)7=<C�� $�� '�8��.��O'�

��.�&'�+'��.�3'�B)77(C�:��$��$��'�7��4�� 6��.�E��>"��.�$'�67>7)'�

��%.�&'�B�(( C�:��.�$��>��'�!��I��.��'��B��'C�<��-�� "�� $�� .��,��.�M+'�

��.��'�&'�B�((�C�:��Q��R��$$��-��$��$�$��P�� 1�� ,� ��.�K��'�=.��'�<.�$'�)��7>)��?'�

I��E�'.�4'�I'��$$�.�I'�2'.��(()��$$��'��$$��'�:��$��'�#�� 2� �� 6��"��$�A#�.� ?>< '�

I��.��'�B�((�C�&�>��$��$$��'�1�� !�� A�#��2� �� "�K��'�7.��'��.�$'�))7W)� '�

��.�8'��I��.��'��'�B�((6C�8��,��$$��-�I��,�.��$��.�:�� #�� .�K��.��'� .�$'�<(<><�?'�

��.�2'�E'�B)77<C�&��.�$�$��.��,��-�:��.��$��$��$��$��$$��'�8��D��,��I��$��$$��&��2��.�:��$�.�"��%��.�$'� 6?a =<'�

��%.�E'.�1��.�2'.�+��$��.�E'��1��.�4'�B)777C�, ��-� ��#�� $�/�� +�� #�� 2� �� '�1��&��.��,�O��.��O'�

��.��'�2'�B)77(C�/��=��:�� $�/��A�!��3�� -�� .�&��1��.��,�O��'

��.��'�2'��D��.�2'�I'�B�((6C�"��'�/��,��.�K��'�).��'�).�$'��)>�='�

��$��.�E'��3��.�I'�D'�B�((�C'�#�� B��'�3��23��,>��.�#��'�

��F��>9��.�:'.��.��'�4'.�2��.�E'��'��+��%��.��'�B�((6C�2� �� '�&�$��4��'�

?<��

�

��.�9'�:'�B)777C�:�� -� ��$�6�� '�U��.�M+'�

�$��.�+'�2'��+��.�3'�B�((?C�"��$$��'�+ �� 1�� !��:�� A�3��2� �� "�K��'��?.��'�<.�$'��6 >�7('�

�$��.�1'�E.�2��.��'.�E��.�1'�I'��"��.�+'�I'�B)777C�"��4��'�4��2��1�� .�K��'��)7.�$'�<(=W<)�'�

��.�I'��'�B)77<C�/��'��.�:��#��&"'�

��$��.�1'.��.�E'�4'��I��.�E'�I'�B�((?C��$$��,��$$��'�#�� 2� �� $�� + �� 1�� .�K��'�)).��'��.�$')(=>)) '�

��.�3'�E'�B)7<6C��$��.��$��'�1�� !��,� ��.�K��'�?<.��'�).�$'�)>)6'�

��.�E'�I'.�4��.��'�9'��.�:'�B�()(C�I��$$��$$��'�1�� 2��0�� #�� .�K��'��=.��'�).�$'��> )'�

��.�E'�I'�B)776C�"$$��$��'�+ �� 1�� !��:�� A�3��2� �� "�K��'��6.��'�7.�$'�<)<><�7'�

��.�E'.��.�&'.�3��.�&'��"'�B�((?C��$$��-��.�$��'�+ �� 1�� A�!�� 2� �� .�K��'��?.��'�6.�$'�6< >66 '�

:��.�1'�B)776C�<�� '�:��.�M+'�

:��.�I'��&��$��.�E'�B)766C�2�� 2��2� �� '��-��,�O��'�

:��.�2'�B)77�C��$��$��'�� ,��6��.�K��'�� .�$'�))�>)=?'�

:��.�2'��D��.�8'�B)77�C�&��$��'�7��4�� 6��"�E��>8��.�$'�= >7�'�

??��

�

:��.�I'�E'.�2��%��.�I'�2'�B)77=C��$$��-��)77(�'�+ �� 1�� !�� 2��2� �� K��'�� .��' .�$'��>))'�

:��.�9'�1'�B)7==C�&��$��-�"��$��$��$��$��'�!��.�2'�+'�B��C�<�� '�D'�D'��0�&��$��.��,�O��.�$'�7<>)�('�

M��.��'�I'.�I��.��'�:'��:��.��'��'�B�(( C�L��$��-�"��$$��'�E��>4��-�&"'��

K��K��.�:'��1��.�1'�B�((=C�"��,��>��$$��'�!��E��.�K��'�))).��'�).�$'� �><<'�

K��1��.�8'�B�((=C�&��-�8��.��$��.��$$��'��'��$��'�

K��K��.�9'�B)7?<C�2��$��,��'�"��.�K��'�=6.��$�'>#�'�

K��.�E'��'�B)76�C��'�"��I��,��.�K��'��.��'�).�$'�)(6>)��'�

K��.�E'�B)77<C�&��$��$��'�#5��$��.��,��K��'� 6.��').�$'�)>��'�

D��.�1'�"'.�8��.�:'��+��.�4'�3'�B�((7C�:��$��,��%��-�&��'�E��2��.�K��'��<.��'��.�$'�<�6><?�'�

D��.�E'�"'�B)7=7C�:��'�K��)��$��'�&��M��'�

D��.�#'��'�B)76<C�2��'�8��.��,�O��'�

D��.�#'��'�B)7=<C��$��-�8��.��'�8��.��O'�

D��.�"'�8'.��.��'�&'��.��'�4'�B�((?C�L��'�!�$��>��$��'�!��#��F�.�&'�E'.�D�F��.�E'��'.��.�I'�4'��+��.�#'�B��'C�L��>��$$��'��$��.�:��'�

?6��

�

O��.�I'�+'�B)77 C�&��-�1��'��.�:��#��.�&".�M�"'�

O��.�I'�B)77�C'�"$$��'��,��.�&"'�

U��.�1'�B�((?C�"��,��$$��$$��$��'�#��:��!��E��2��.�K��'�� .��'��.�$'�=�>�7<'�

�

?=��

�

?7��

�

��-��B�� -�/�-;�8�-�

�

��

��

�� !��"� ��#��

��

�

�� !�"��#�� $��$��%��#��$�� #��&��'�

$� %��#�� &��'�((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((�

�

(� %��&�� '�(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((�

�

)�� #�� *��

)� %�� *�� *�� '�((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((�

�� "'�+��

6(��

�

�

+� ,�#�� *�� *�� '�((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((�

�

-� %�� '�((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((��

.� /��&��#�� *�� 0 �0�� '�(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((��

1� "��,,,,�-�� .�,,,,�#�� 2� �� &�'�((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((�

�

�

�

�

�

�

6)��

�

�� *�� #�� ,��,��##��/��0��/�� 0!�1�� #�� %�$�� ##��!�2��#��*�

$� ,�#��3�� 4'�

((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((�

�

(� ,�#�� #� �� &�� '��

((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((��

)� %�� '�

((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((�

�

+� %�� '�5�� 6�

(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((�(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((�(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((�(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((�

��

�� 7'��

6��

�

-� " �� #�� '�

((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((�

�

.� ,�#�� 8�� 5#�� 6'�

(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((��

1� 9�� 5��6�&� #�� '�

((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((�

��

$� %�� '�

((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((�

�

(� %�� 2�� &�� '�

((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((��

)� :�� 5��6�� #�� '�

�� '��

6��

�

((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((�

+� ,�#��& ��&��2�� &�� '�

((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((�

�

-� ,�#�� &��2'�5��6��;��,�#�� &��2'�5��6�

((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((�

.� %�� #�#�� 3��4�5�� 6�� '�

((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((�

�

1� %�� &�� 5��#��6� �� &�� '�5<�� #�� 2�6��

(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((�

�

6 ��

�

=� �� &�� '�

((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((��

�� !�

((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((bbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbb�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

��2�� #��

�

6<��

�

��-��B�� 1�(��'��/� 1�-(( 5(�

��&��

BE��,��"��+��C��9��&��$��-��.�8�� I�� &��P� B�()(C.� �� &��$�� I��,-� "�� !��4��E��$��E��3��&��$��.�K��'��(.�!��.�$'�7 >))('�

��&��

B�� C� "� :�� :�� &��$�� $$�� &��-� "�� 1��$��B�())C.��!��4��I��.�K��'� .��'�).�$'�6 >=<'�

��&��

B�� C� ��$$�� &�� '� ��$$�� &�� &��$��-� "�� 4��"$$��B�())C.��2��I��I��,.�K��'�� .��'�)('�

��&��$�

BE��,��#��C�!��-�"��,�8��$$��&��'��$$��&��&��$�� B�())C� M�$�� $�� ,� �� !��E��9��I��"$$��B!E9I"C'�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

6?��

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

��!!�

Paper 1

Emerging logics of competition: Paradigm shift,

fantasy or reality check?

Aseem Kinra & Imoh Antai.

Competitiveness Review: An International Business Journal incorporating Journalof Global Competitiveness Vol. 20, Issue: 2, pp.94 – 110 (2010).

I

Emerging logics of competition:paradigm shift, fantasy,

or reality check?Aseem Kinra

Department of Operations Management, Copenhagen Business School,Frederiksberg, Denmark, and

Imoh AntaiDepartment of Supply Chain Management and Corporate Geography,

Hanken School of Economics, Helsinki, Finland

Abstract

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to elicit the subtle but progressive shift in organizational/institutional interaction with its rivals within a competitive framework, and thereby discusses andanalyses paradigm shifts in competition and competitiveness. The paper argues thatinterorganizational networks and the recent concept of supply chain management may have induceda change in how competitiveness is viewed at the national, industry, and firm levels of interaction.

Design/methodology/approach – The paper conceptualizes extant literature into distinct themesof (organizational and institutional) analysis – micro, macro, and meso – and based on this review thepaper seeks to identify emerging logics and shifts within mainstream competitiveness literature overthe last decade.

Findings – The paper suggests that the micro-macro theme of competition and competitivenessremains dominant in mainstream literature. Results from the analysis also support the notion ofemergent logics of competition and competitiveness, which could then imply that a paradigm shiftmay well have begun within the area of competition and competitiveness.

Research limitations/implications – The limited findings point towards more detailed forays intocompetition of interorganizational forms such as networks and supply chains, before a paradigm shiftmay be claimed.

Practical implications – The paper serves to trigger the consciousness of stakeholders to thinkrealistically with regards to claims that competition and competitiveness are carried out on thenetwork level, e.g. a supply chain vs supply chain playing field.

Originality/value – While networks and supply chains have generally been inferred as newfrontiers for contemporary competition in different functionally-oriented literature domains, analysisand performance of such emergent logics is yet to be shown. The classification of different competitionlogics put forth in this paper aid in systemizing the competitiveness/competition rhetoric.

Keywords Competitive strategy, Networking, Supply chain management

Paper type Literature review

1. IntroductionGlobalization implies economic interdependence and involves the integration andconnectivity of business, political, and cultural affairs. Recent business arena is dictatedby multiple actors whose interests are not limited to a single factor or actor on the stage.

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/1059-5422.htm

The authors would like to thank Martin Fougere, Herbert Kotzab, and Karen Spens for somehelpful comments on this paper. Thanks are also due to the CR guest editors and reviewers.

CR20,2

94

Competitiveness Review: AnInternational Business JournalVol. 20 No. 2, 2010pp. 94-110q Emerald Group Publishing Limited1059-5422DOI 10.1108/10595421011029820

The nation state is becoming more and more obsolete in a global economy that isdominated by large transnational corporations (Toffler, 1980). Similarly, Handfield andNichols (1999) state that organizations now believe it is no longer sufficient to managetheir own organizations and that they must also be involved in the management of thenetwork of all upstream firms that provide inputs (directly or indirectly), as well asthe network of downstream firms. The focus on interorganizational settings andrelationships is more pronounced than ever. Furthermore, because these organizationsand relationships take place in a world where economic boundaries are not definite,recognizing extended environments is as important as identifying the extendedorganizations. This implies that the competitiveness of firms and nations cannot bedetermined by viewing these in isolation and that there is a need to update institutionaland organizational levels at which competitiveness should be evaluated. As Krugman(1994) puts it, competitiveness, as a concept in itself, is meaningless and its debate a“dangerous obsession,” unless of course, its criteria are constantly updated and itsnomenclature redefined to capture its platform/level and dynamism (Waheeduzzamanand Ryans, 1996). Or as Garelli (2003, p. 30) phrases it:

[. . .] nobody feels anymore that he owns the definite model of competitiveness, for a nation ora company. The message is that any policy, any business model needs to be constantlyrevised, because the environment is more volatile and unpredictable than ever.

Consequently, some (Schuetz et al., 1999; Fawcett and Clinton, 1997[1]; Monczka andMorgan, 1997; Christopher, 1998; Vokurka et al., 2002) believe that companies will nolonger compete against companies, but rather supply chains will compete againstsupply chains. Quite possibly, complex interorganizational structures based ondynamic networks, such as supply chains, form a plausible level/platform and set theenvironment as a whole for competitiveness to be generated. In other words, theproposition is that it is supply chains that compete against each other (Andreassen,2005), not individual firms or nations. And it is under this premise that thecompetitiveness of subject units like the nation, the industry, and the firm has then tobe viewed. Furthermore, given that such networks (e.g. supply chains) compete witheach other in the present era, individual national and firm competitiveness are subsetsof a concept that may be referred to as “Supply chain competitiveness” (Cavinato, 1991,1992; Bagchi, 2001; Bhatnagar and Sohal, 2005). This echoes an important paradigmshift in the construct of competitiveness, research on which has historically beendivided on the macro vs micro theme (Chikan, 2008a, b).

At the same time, popular logics such as coopetition and supply chain vs supplychain, have received varying levels of attention and only mixed reaction within thedifferent academic domains that cover competition, as authors have also been quick topoint out the pitfalls of embracing popular rhetoric based just on hype (Rice andHoppe, 2001). This means that such emerging logics need to be put in light of othercommonly held explanations of competition and competitiveness before it may bedistinctly described as an agent of change or as a new explanation to the phenomenon.Therefore, the purpose of this paper is to investigate the notions of competition andcompetitiveness in light of a paradigm shift therein. It thus contributes to the extantliterature on emergent paradigms of competition and competitiveness, and morespecifically to this special issue in Competitiveness Review: An International Business

Emerging logicsof competition

95

Journal (CR), by analysing how new paradigms are being incorporated in the domain ofthe present and other closely related journals. The paper seeks to:

. discuss paradigms and paradigm shifts within the basic notions of T.S. Kuhn;

. identify emergent themes of competition and competitiveness within the broaderliterature; and

. investigate the incidence of a paradigm shift by analysing the content of asub-set of the literature.

The paper starts out by discussing the concept of paradigms and paradigm shifts. Thisis done in order to build a conceptual understanding of what paradigms imply, howthese may change over time, and how shifts between these may be captured.Thereafter, a consideration of the existing and dominant logics, as well as emerginglogics of competition and competitiveness is undertaken. Subsequently, an analysis iscarried out by analysing relevant text in the area. Finally, the paper presents findingsrelated to the identification of emergent themes of competition and competitivenessand concludes on the likelihood of a paradigm shift.

2. Methodological considerations2.1 Paradigms and paradigm shiftsIn his seminal work onThe Structure of Scientific Revolutions, Kuhn (1962) presents theargument that the development of scientific theory is not evolutionary, but rather is aseries of peaceful interludes punctuated by intellectually violent revolutions, and inthose revolutions one conceptual worldview is replaced by another. While thisstatement may tend to summarize the basic concept of scientific revolutions, asproposed by Thomas Kuhn, it also runs the risk of over-simplifying a very complexliterature. Thus, a brief overview of the basic concepts that contributed to making thiswork revolutionary is mentioned.

Kuhn (1962, p. x) is especially notable for the development and specialized use of theterm “paradigm shift” where a paradigm is defined as:

[. . .] universally recognized scientific achievements that for a time provide model problemsand solutions to a community of practitioners.

Because of the idea that different scientists hold different world view lenses throughwhich they understand and even attempt to solve problems within that world view,Kuhn’s (1962) description of scientists as being not necessarily objective, free-thinkingsceptics attempts to convey this general idea that scientists accept and live withincertain given paradigms and consequently are able to understand and explainphenomena within this paradigm. However, when scientists within a given paradigmare no longer able to explain and solve problems within that paradigm, Kuhn (1962)purports that a crisis stage has been reached after which the emergence of a newparadigm arises, and when this takes place a paradigm shift is said to have occurred.In this sense, the term paradigm is used as a metaphor for a problem solver, which thengoes on to beg the question that if problems are still solvable using a decliningparadigm, can a paradigm shift still be said to have taken place? By virtue of itscontent, Kuhn (1962) has provoked a wide range of criticism as well as responseswhereby, e.g. the different meanings advanced for the term (paradigm) undermines thecredibility of the argument, as the term “paradigm” forms the basis upon which the

CR20,2

96

argument for a paradigm shift in science is developed (Masterman, 1970). For example,although Masterman (1970) agrees with the argument developed by Kuhn (1962),concern is expressed over the ambiguity of the meaning of paradigm, the centralconstruct used in his argument.

While the research described in this paper sought to understand paradigm shifts inaccordance with the definition of paradigm provided here, the definition represents oneof many meanings of the term in Kuhn (1962). Thus, there is still much confusion as towhich meaning of the term paradigm is actually utilized by The Structure of ScientificRevolutions. Therefore, the guiding assumption to the use of the definition in this paperlies in the fact that current or ruling practices, for example of competitiveness, areembedded within certain ontological frameworks and are consequently studied as such.Furthermore, there seems to be a complex interplay between the scientific achievementsof the old and that of the newparadigmswhere, according toKuhn, the old paradigmwillhave to give way to the new. This complex interaction is also adequately captured byKordig (1973) in his criticism of Kuhn’s (1962) implication over the commensurability oftransiting paradigms, of which it offers little. Kordig (1973) maintains that there shouldbe common grounds for the comparison of interparadigmatic principles or sharedstandards, which also permits for the proper debating of opposing theories. Hence, theidea of a paradigm shift should not be accepted because there is a lack of continuitybetween the transiting paradigms, but because they constitute a fundamental change inmeaning from one shift to the other. Finally, Kuhn, through his writings, has impliedthat paradigms are unique. Since paradigms are usually incommensurable,the phenomena explained by one paradigm would usually not be explained byanother paradigm. This in someway creates a sense of advancement inmoving fromoneparadigm to another.

2.2 Design and approachIn light of the previous discussion, the approach considered here first involved furtherproblematizing the level of analysis issue in extant competitiveness research. Kinraand Kotzab (2005) present a useful distinction (macro, micro, and meso) in order toexplore emergent forms of competition. According to this distinction, macro impliescompetition at the national level, micro implies competition at the firm level, whilemeso implies competition at the network level. It was therefore envisaged that such adistinction would provide visibility to newer “logics” on competition and would aid inthe categorization between old and new, or extant and emergent paradigms.

Next, based on this distinction and categorization, the approach involveddeveloping search themes for further identification and analysis of written text,from a representative sub-set of journals that have an interdisciplinary focus, using anapproach that may be likened to qualitative content analysis. Qualitative contentanalysis involves the identification of underlying, pre-defined themes of interest via aliterature search of material (Bryman and Bell, 2007). Mayring (2000) defines theacquisitions of these themes in terms of an inductive derivation from the body ofcontent to be analysed. While Bryman and Bell (2007) refer to smaller units of analysessuch as paragraphs, sentences, words, etc. entire articles can also be used as units ofanalyses (Larson and Poist, 2004; Miyazaki et al., 1999) as also carried out in Spens andKovacs (2006). Assessing articles for identification of themes (micro, macro, and meso)then essentially entails the analysis of written material, as the language, terms,


97

emphasis, significant actors, dispositions (Bryman and Bell, 2007) through whichmembers of a given paradigm describe the world view from which they work, can alsobe said to be unique. This is because through language, via written text, members of acommunity can encode and carry out communications that reveal a commonperspective (Barley et al., 1988). It is therefore only “by looking case by case at theoperationalization of the notion that one can assess how performance is conceptualizedin a given case” (Corvellec, 2003, p. 117).

In this sense, we sought to determine if a paradigm shift, with respect to competitionand competitiveness, has indeed occurred by exploring possible fundamental changesthat may have taken place in the way problems of competition and competitiveness areperceived and solved “[. . .] within a community of practitioners” (in reference to Kuhn’sstated definition). Any consideration of a paradigm shift in competitiveness musttherefore be informed by an understanding of the changes in meaning that has takenplace from one way of solving problems to another. From this perspective, the use ofthe Kuhnian argument for paradigm shift analysis is useful because it emphasizes thatworldviews are rarely stationary, and as they change, solutions within theseworldviews change as well.

3. Competition, competitiveness, and the traditional rhetoricCompetition and competitiveness are important concepts in the study of economictheory and business as they are vital in meeting consumers’ growing expectations,pushing innovation, and reducing cost, among other things. In order to achieve theseand gain economic rents for it, organizations continuously have to alter the way theycarry on business. Not withstanding the seemingly cohesive nature of the terms, theytend to differ widely in terms of discipline involved, content under consideration andeven with respect to the theoretical conceptions and areas of application. Barney (1986)distinguishes among three types of competition: industrial organization,Chamberlinian, and Schumpeterian competitions. Industrial organization competitionis conceptualized and organized with the central focus revolving around the structureof the industry. Originally developed by Mason (1939) and Bain (1956, 1968), economicrents in this type of competition are determined by the structure of the industry withinwhich a firm competes. The size of the firm, the total number of firms, barriers to entry,and exit and extensive product differentiation are some of the structures thatcharacterize this type of competition and the relationship between these structures ofan industry and the performance of a firm has come to be known as the structure-conduct-performance concept (Porter, 1981).

Chamberlinian competition seeks to tie the unique assets and capabilities possessedby a firm to the performance of that firm just as industrial organization competitionseeks to do this via the structure of the industry (Barney, 1986). Since firms competeagainst other firms, variations in amount and use of resources may make the differencebetween being able to implement strategies or not, even though these resources andcapabilities may be said to overlap between firms. Thus, firm heterogeneity in terms ofresources and capabilities suggests a competitive advantage and the promise ofeconomic rents. Whereas the third type, Schumpeterian competition, defines a dynamicprocess where firms strive to survive under an evolving set of rules that constantlyproduce winners and losers mainly as a result of asymmetries in technologicalinnovation. The Schumpeterian logic focuses on major revolutionary shifts in the

CR20,2

98

technology as well as the product markets. As such, it requires a capability to deal withuncertainty, foresight, predictability, and anticipation to secure economic rents.

Accordingly, competitiveness studies have traditionally varied in form and content,depending on the lens applied (Kinra and Kotzab, 2005). Competitiveness from aneconomics perspective (Fagerberg, 1988; Fajnzylber, 1988; Tyson, 1988, 1992; Krugman,1996) implies overall resource productivity, efficiency, trade surpluses, and factors likegross domestic product per capita that try to reflect at the country level. Such a notionhas macro-orientation. Whereas, the resource-based theory and management ofcompetitive advantage explains how a firm can improve its competitive advantage byidentifying its core resources and build only on the top few through investigating itsstrengths and weaknesses relative to its competitors (Grant, 1991). These capabilitiesare often termed as non-duplicable capabilities and “can be manifested in such typicalbusiness activities as order fulfilment, new product development, and service delivery”(Day, 1994, p. 38). Such a notion has micro-orientation. Similarly, competitiveness froman organizational strategy perspective differs on how theorists have viewed competitionat a firm level. For example, industrial organization theory assumes a static view oncompetition and emphasizes on industry structure and the generic firm strategies ofoverall cost leadership, product differentiation and focus that are characteristic of Porter(1980, 1985). Whereas, a resource-based (Wernerfelt, 1984) view assumes a dynamicview on competition and lays emphasis on resources, sustainable competitiveadvantages (Barney, 1991; Grant, 1991; Day and Wensley, 1988), and core competences(Prahalad andHamel, 1990;DeMan, 1994). Since these theoretical perspectives generallyrepresent either the country or the individual firm as units of analysis, it is worth notinghere that both these perspectives presume distinctness and homogeneity in terms oforganization and control of the units.

4. Emerging logics of competition and competitivenessPorter’s, (1990),The Competitive Advantage of Nations, which constantly addresses that“companies, not nations are on the front line of competition” is instrumental inintegrating themacro andmicro perspectives (Chikan, 2008a, b), and thereby promotingnew logics in the competitiveness debate. Porter’s single diamond of competitiveadvantage first set out in Porter (1990) argues that: a firm’s competitive advantages areessentially a function of its domestic environment – whether or not the attributes of thisenvironment are owned by the firm or available to it. By taking a stance that nationscompete but it is the firms within that do the essential competing, it directly provides anintegration of the macro and micro views and provides broad overall visibility on thenotion of competitiveness in the form of “the Diamond.” Porter (1990, p. 40) viewscompetitive advantage as “growing out of the way firms organize and perform discreteactivities.” By setting various activities together where competitive advantage iscreated in form of “the value chain,” and by regarding it as an “interdependent system ornetwork of activities,” connected by linkages, the plausibility of new competitivenesslogics arises. The generic strategies of “cost leadership, differentiation, cost focus andfocused differentiation” are chosen according to the characteristics of the particularindustry (Porter, 1980) in which a firm operates and the linkages between the valuechain activities are designed accordingly. These linkages, according to Porter, not onlyconnect activities inside a company but also create interdependencies between a firm


99

and its suppliers. For instance, the sources of cost advantage can be derived from closecoordination with suppliers and channels.

A new competitiveness logic may be thus be visualized at the meso level (Kinraand Kotzab, 2005), depending, e.g. on how sociology and psychology-orientedorganizational analysis literature (micro level) and economics-oriented environmentalanalysis literature (macro level) (Guisinger, 2001) has each accounted for this mixedperspective. This is because value chain activities may be dispersed between manyfirms, thus compromising homogeneity in the creation of competitive advantages; at thesame time, value chain activities may be dispersed in different countries, thus crossingdifferent country diamonds. This gives rise to emerging logics that promote theexistence of competition at the level of complex chains and networks, comprising ofvarious firms (and nations). Some of these logics are now discussed in the context of thefollowing sections where a brief overview of some of these, unintended and thereforeemergent, themes in competition and competitiveness literature is presented.

4.1 “Firms cooperate, and compete”Coopetition is an emergent logic in competitiveness research (Bengtsson and Powell,2004; Bengtsson and Kock, 2002), which is propelled by firms increasingly givingup traditional business models of straight competition, e.g. an adversary perspective, infavor of a more dynamic perspective of simultaneous cooperation and competition(Nevin, 2003). Simply stated, it refers to the interdependence (simultaneous cooperationand competition) between two or more firms in a competitive market and isfundamentally different from establishing alliances with competitors (Luo, 2004). Thus,for business logic to be called coopetition, it must comprise of both parts cooperationand competition, and these must occur within the same period. This is an exception thattakes place, even though competition is the rule, and is also described as an alternativemode of behavior in business circles (Brandenburger and Nalebuff, 1996), especially forthose that are required to manage emerging and converging technology industries.Luo (2004) suggests areas within which this simultaneity and duality characteristics ofcoopetition may take place as the product sector (in terms of access to proprietaryskills, learning opportunity for firms, etc.), the functional sector (e.g. primary as well assupporting activities in the chain, e.g. transportation) and the geographical sector(i.e. in terms of overcoming potential but unpredictable destinations/markets, accessingdifficult areas including emerging markets, etc.) of the business, which are generallycharacterized by complimentary strengths, but divergent market or competitive goals.As businesses move more into new and emerging areas, firms will need to cooperate aswell as compete with other firms. Such a notion has micro/meso-orientation.

4.2 “Chains and networks of firms compete against each other”Arguing from a value chain perspective, Christopher (1998, p. 18) believes in the fallacyof conventional approaches on competition and competitiveness, and states thatleading companies:

[. . .] instead seek to make the supply chain as a whole more competitive through the value itadds and the cost that it reduces overall. They have realized that the real competition is notcompany against company but rather supply chain against supply chain.

It has been more than ten years since this quote was first presented in favor of thesupply chain concept and as the future of business competition. Supply chain

CR20,2

100

management (SCM) has over this period become even more popular. As firms becomemore specialized, they become increasingly aware of the growing interdependenciesand opportunities that exist between firms, suppliers, and customers (Watts and Hahn,1993; Bowersox and Closs, 1996; De Souza et al., 2000). Probable sub-optimal resultsmay occur when firms in a supply chain act independently of other firms in the chain(Banomyong, 2005), and therefore the need for members of the chain to function as aunit in order to achieve the benefits promised by a well-managed supply chain arises.As a result, the recognition of the supply chain as an integral part of their operationshas become more apparent. They have become more conscious to the fact that theycannot compete with other firms in isolation of their suppliers and other units in thesupply chain (Lummus and Vokurka, 1999). Many of the industries and firms that haveturned to the supply chain for cost, quality and performance benefits includinghealthcare, services, manufacturing industries, etc. have also realized the advantagesof implementing SCM strategies. The interaction of these supply chains in the marketleads to a scramble for the best prices, better collaborations, superior services, and inthe end better quality of service or products to customers at lower costs. This strugglefor production variables in the market eventually leads to competition between supplychains. Accordingly, an entire domain of study has built upon these notions anddiscussion on performance or competition from this viewpoint (Speckman et al., 1998;Rice and Hoppe, 2001; Christopher, 1998). Supply chain vs supply chain may thus betreated as an emergent logic in competition and competitiveness research. Such anotion also has micro/meso-orientation.

Similarly, while making an important contribution to interorganizational relations(Halldorsson et al., 2007), network theory reiterates that the performance of a firm doesnot depend only on how efficiently it cooperates with its direct partners, but also on howwell they cooperate with their partners. It is a basic assumption of the networkperspective that individual firms depend on resources controlled by other firms and thatthe firm’s continuous interactions with other players are an important factor in thedevelopment of new resources and skills (Skjøtt-Larsen, 1999). This in itself hasimplications on the redefinition of competitiveness, because according to thisperspective a firm’s continuous interaction with other players is an important factorin the development of new and unique resources required to attain sustainablecompetitive advantage (“Exchange and adaptation processes.” Johanson and Mattsson,1987). Yet, it is also important to note the interactionist standpoint adopted by thisperspective, one with a view on interactions and temporality in interorganizationalrelationships. In this sense, competition and competitiveness are to be perceiveddifferently depending on the particular standpoint on interorganizational relationships:relationship correspondence to a short- or long-term outlook, and essence of a socialexchange process with a view on interactions or a conscious intervention to resolve,e.g. externally (market) oriented issues. The aspect of competitiveness in networks maythen be looked at from two research streams:

(1) The industrial network stream (the Industrial Marketing and Purchasing (IMP)perspective) (Hakansson, 1982; Ford, 1990).

(2) The relational strategy stream (Dyer and Singh, 1998; Gulati et al., 2000).

Contemporary strategic management literature suggests the use of network lenses inorder to understand competition, firm positioning, and competitiveness in a better way


101

(Gulati et al., 2000). However, the industrial network perspective suggests the use ofnetworks as relationships, assuming a more balanced way of cooperation andcompetition, but with no overall/overarching purpose as such (Gadde et al., 2003). Thekey element of competition within or outside the network, for example, is not thecentral position. On the contrary, it is a strange, hard to interpret “network logic.” Allsaid, such notions of competitiveness also have a micro/meso-orientation and implycompetition at the network level.

4.3 “Nations consisting of networks and chains of firms compete”Another emergent logic of competitiveness is one that extends Porter’s (1990) idea ofnational competition and cluster mechanics, and may be regarded as a hybrid betweenthe traditional view on national competition (Section 3) and the emerging one that isdescribed in the previous Section (4.2). It promotes that firms organized as supplychains and networks make the bulk of national competitiveness, and that themanagement of these supply chains and networks in a nation also contributes tooverall firm competitiveness (Sahay et al., 2006). As Bagchi (2001, p. 53) proposes, aneconomy (country) may be seen as composed of the combined supply chains of variousgroups of companies in various business sectors, driven by the need to deliver goods toconsumers, and thereby the need to connect supply and demand using certain essentialflows. “If these networks and supply chains are efficient, the member firms can reducetheir supply chain costs and become more competitive and the nation becomesprosperous.” This perspective lends into concepts such as supply chaincompetitiveness of nations that may seek to measure macro-economic and marketforces at the level of supply chains, and such a notion has meso/macro-orientation.

5. Searching and reviewing shifts in literatureThe initial task of the analysis was a literature search that sought to capture a suitableuniverse of articles on competition and competitiveness. Given the variability incontent and the somewhat similarity in use of these two terms, the review tried toidentify the themes discussed in the preceding section and, just as importantly, to seehow well the emerging logics were performing in the mainstream competitivenessdebate. As documented in the last two sections, the themes micro, macro, and mesowere established from the body of competition and competitiveness literature, andwere subsequently used to guide the literature search. It was stipulated that the reviewbe carried out on a limited number of journals, which are open to interdisciplinaryperspectives, and where the concepts of competition and competitiveness are fairlywell understood by its readers. For this reason, the search was carried out within twoleading outlets[2] that are broad enough in their disciplinary scope and whoseexclusive focus is on disseminating knowledge on competition and competitivenessrelated thought, namely: CR, and Advances in Competitiveness Research (ACR).The range of the review search included all published material from 1999 to date. Thesearch was thus wide enough to make sure that sources obtained would be relevantand was performed in January 2009.

The search was carried out in two stages. In the first stage, the journals weresearched in order to elucidate the different levels at which most of the competitionrhetoric is taking place, i.e. the micro, macro, and meso levels. The micro levelrepresents the most basic level at which competition discussion is taking place. For this

CR20,2

102

level, a thesaurus of search words including “firm,” “company,” “organization,”“enterprise,” and “corporation” were used as keywords. For the macro level, a levelclosely related to governance and policy formulation within a sovereign entity,“national,” “nation,” “government,” “country,” “state,” and “public” were used as keysearch words. For the meso level, which was divided into two parts, “supply chain,”“supply chain management,” and “logistics” were used as key words were used for thefirst part and “network” was used for the other. The articles were then reviewed(manually assessed and distinguished), mainly using the abstracts and occasionallythe main content, according to how they fit into the overall themes that wereestablished earlier. The total results on the different search terms were accumulated toobtain a total number of hits for each journal and a total number of articles for eachtheme.

The second stage of the literature review sought to discern possible leanings oraffinities for the different emergent logics of competition and competitiveness inliterature. Having identified possible emergent logics as “coopetition,” “supply chain vssupply chain/network,” and “national competition via networks and chains of firms,” itwas important to determine how the literature stacked up against these logics, as thisis relevant for appraising the extent to which shifts in thinking may have occurred.With search keywords “competitiveness” and “competition,” a new search wasinitiated using the same journals as in the previous search. The abstracts of eachsearch result were then examined in order to eliminate articles in which competitionand competitiveness were only cursorily discussed or treated, thus checking whetherthe content matched at least one of the suggested emergent logics.

6. Analysis and results6.1 Themes of competition and competitiveness analysesThe first observation of the results of the literature review and analysis (Table I) wasthe similarity in the total number of articles that represent the micro and macro themes.Going solely on article count, micro, with a total of 31 articles and macro with a total of33 articles, far outnumber the third theme, meso, with 11 articles. The meso theme wasmade up of the emerging logics of supply chain and network competition. This divisionwas borne out of the need to differentiate between the supply chain, which essentiallyis a group of organizations working as one cohesive unit with common goals toenhance competitive advantage (Mentzer, 2004), and the network, which portrays moreof a set of alliances between firms.

After the hits were generated, the results were analysed via the abstracts in order todetermine themes of analyses. Further, the results in Table I tend to show thatcompetition and competitiveness conforming to the micro and macro themes remain

MesoTotal number of hits Micro Macro SC/SCM Network

CR 47 17 (36.1) 25 (53.1) 3 (6.3) 2 (4.2)ACR 28 14 (50) 8 (28.5) 2 (7) 4 (14.2)Total 31 33 5 6

Note: Percentages are shown in parentheses

Table I.Review of themesby number of hits


103

dominant in terms of the language, terms, and emphasis and hence the discussionswithin these journals. Even though the numbers tended to differ, the trend was obviousin both journals. Implicitly, it is then relatively straightforward to assume that Table Ifurther helps establish the idea of the emergence of the different logics of competitionand competitiveness, as has been proposed in the paper.

6.2 Impact of emergent logics in literatureWhile emergent logics of competition and competitiveness have been identified from avariety of literature streams, the performance of these emergent logics within themainstream competition and competitiveness literature was yet to be established.Table II, which focuses solely on the meso theme obtained from Table I, shows theresults of this performance within the two journals considered here. The resultsindicate that while emergent themes of competition can be summarily established fromliterature, as is done here, convergence of these emergent logics within main streamcompetitiveness literature is however slow to occur.

7. Discussion and outlookThis paper has concerned itself with the issue of paradigms and worldviews that leadscientists and researchers to master and solve problems within the field ofcompetitiveness research. Since ontological worldviews are most commonlyexpressed through literal and academic writing, we have tried to show over thecourse of this paper that the use of academic journals can be valuable in decipheringwhether a paradigm shift has taken place or not. It is obvious in the reviews carried out inthis paper that over time competition has been practiced and carried forward with thebelief that there exists some kind of structure to the industry within which firms shouldoperate in order to enjoy certain benefits and remain competitive. For example, aprevalent starting point has been that industries are characterized by structures thatwork to prevent undesirable organizations from entering, after which they becomequalified to compete within that industry. However, with the advent of neworganizational settings such as interorganizational networks and supply chains,structures that tend to inhibit competition seem to be less explanatory with regards tothis way of carrying out business. This was instrumental in bringing out new logics ofcompetition like coopetition and supply chain competitiveness in this paper. Thus, it canbe argued that a new way of thinking about competition is emergent. However, theliterature searches performed in this paper fail to determine the popularity of these logicsin any conclusive manner. On the contrary, they point towards the popularity of thedominant paradigms, ones that seek to advance competition based on structuralcharacteristics seen either from the point of view of the individual firm (micro focus), orat the national level (macro-orientation). Hence, the macro vs micro divide (Chikan,

Search hits Coopetition (papers) SC vs SC/network (papers) National (papers)

CR 50 1 (Adobor, 2006) 2 (Landry et al., 1998;Fulconis and Pache, 2005)

1 (Blair, 2004)

ACR 100 – – 1 (Ezeala-Harrison, 2005)Total 1 2 2

Table II.Emergent themesof competition by numberof articles

CR20,2

104

2008a, b), was yet again found to be the dominant logic on competition andcompetitiveness.

However, as underlined in the methodological considerations of this paper, there isalso a need for thorough understanding of the nature of such an argument from theKuhnian perspective in order to be able to conclude on the issue of paradigm shifts.Kuhn (1962) distinguishes among three phases of a paradigm shift. The first phaseknown as the pre-paradigm phase is the period within which a lack of structuralconsensus on a particular hypothesis, or fundamental principles of a theory isexperienced, even though scientific activity is said to be ongoing. This phase of theparadigmatic shift is of interest because, while it may no longer be referred to as apre-paradigm phase due to the weakening of the paradigm concept to includecommunities outside the consensus or normal science stage, i.e. the stage before theparadigm phase (also called pre-paradigm phase, Hoyningen-Huene et al., 1993), it isseen as an important stage. This is because it lends itself to the second stage, knownand referred to as the normal science phase or the paradigm phase. Once a paradigm isaccepted (usually in this phase) disagreements about fundamentals of principles diedown and problems relevant to that paradigm are consequently explained and solvedusing the new paradigm. The normal science phase thus constitutes the stage of theparadigm shift where normal science begins, operates within an existing paradigm,and continues up until a point where ruling paradigms are no longer sufficient to solveproblems within the given paradigm. The third stage of the paradigmatic shift is therevolutionary science phase. This phase is usually known to be proceeded by a periodof crisis, e.g. during the Copernican Revolution, of which Kuhn (1962) makes referenceto. The period of crisis begins when ruling paradigms start failing to provide theexpected solutions and ends when a new paradigm has been accepted. Consequently,there is a return to normal science and this cycle between normal science, the crisisperiod, and revolutionary science continues within the later two stages of Kuhn’sparadigm shift.

In applying these Kuhnian notions, while the findings of this paper with regards toa paradigm shift remain basic due to the nature of conceptual research carried out here,we can say that a paradigm shift in competitiveness research has not yet taken placebased on the results and discussion presented here. Future research on the issuerequires inclusion of a broader range of journals and disciplines in order to see howextant literature may be grouped into the competitiveness/competition logics presentedin this paper. On the other hand, while one can hardly conclude from our single studywhether a shift in paradigm has taken place or not, it may however be established thatthe process of the paradigm shift has begun. The process of a paradigm shift does nothappen overnight but as a series of intellectual revolutions, as is well emphasized byKuhn (1962). While these shifts do not happen by accident, they are pioneered bycertain communities of scientists who are sitting on the sidelines and in times of crisis.The fact that we are seeing changes in one area or one community of researchers orscientists (e.g. the SCM and IMP domain), allows us to conclude that thinking isbeginning to change in order to reflect constantly changing economic realities. If this isthe case, then for those established disciplines of management that traditionally dealwith competition issues, we are well on the way to a paradigm shift. From this point ofview, emerging logics of competition are neither fantasy but rather represent a realitycheck in terms of the need to update/incorporate more levels and themes into the


105

equation. It may then also be concluded that a special issue, such as the present onededicated to paradigm shifts in competition and competitiveness, is timely andappropriate.

Notes

1. Following the citation of The Boston Consulting Group’s Harold Sirkin by the authors.

2. While other journal outletswithin the competitiveness/competition arena exist, e.g. “Competitionand Change” and Journal of Industry, Competition and Trade, their substantial focus on thepolicy environment raises concern for treatment of other aspects of competition andcompetitiveness.

References

Adobo, H. (2006), “Inter-firm collaboration: configuration and dynamics”, CompetitivenessReview: An International Business Journal, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 122-34.

Andreassen, M.A. (2005), “Supply chain versus supply chain: benchmarking as a means tomanaging supply chains”, PhD dissertation PhD Series 7.2005, CBS, Copenhagen.

Bagchi, P.K. (2001), “Measuring the supply chain competency of nations: the case of India”,Supply Chain Forum, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 52-9.

Bain, J.S. (1956), Barriers to New Competition, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.

Bain, J.S. (1968), Industrial Organization, 2nd ed., Wiley, New York, NY.

Banomyong, R. (2005), “The impact of port and trade security initiatives on maritime supplychain management”, Maritime Policy and Management, Vol. 32 No. 1, pp. 3-13.

Barley, S.R., Meyer, G.W. and Gash, D.C. (1988), “Culture of cultures: academics, practitionersand the pragmatics of normative control”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 33 No. 1,pp. 24-60.

Barney, J.B. (1986), “Types of competition and theory of strategy: toward an integrativeframework”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 11 No. 4, pp. 791-800.

Barney, J.B. (1991), “Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage”, Journal ofManagement, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 99-120.

Bengtsson, M. and Kock, S. (2002), “Co-opetition in business networks – to cooperate andcompete simultaneously”, Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 29 No. 5, pp. 411-26.

Bengtsson, M. and Powell, W.W. (2004), “Different perspectives on cooperation and competition”,Scandinavian Journal of Management, Vol. 20 Nos 1/2, pp. 1-8.

Bhatnagar, R. and Sohal, A.S. (2005), “Supply chain competitiveness: measuring the impact oflocation factors, uncertainty and manufacturing practices”, Technovation, Vol. 25 No. 5,pp. 443-56.

Blair, J.P. (2004), “How local competition for economic activity affects national competitiveness”,Competitiveness Review: An International Business Journal, Vol. 14 Nos 1/2, pp. 18-25.

Bowersox, D.J. and Closs, D.J. (1996), Logistical Management – The Integrated Supply ChainProcess, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.

Brandenburger, A.M. and Nalebuff, B.J. (1996), Co-opetition, HarperCollins Business, London.

Bryman, A. andBell, E. (2007),Business ResearchMethods, OxfordUniversity Press, NewYork, NY.

Cavinato, J.L. (1991), “Identifying interfirm total cost advantages for supply chaincompetitiveness”, International Journal of Purchasing & Materials Management, Vol. 27No. 4, pp. 10-15.

CR20,2

106

Cavinato, J.L. (1992), “A total cost/value model for supply chain competitiveness”, Journal ofBusiness Logistics, Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 285-301.

Chikan, A. (2008a), “Guest editorial: selected papers from the ‘Connection between Macro andMicro Level Competitiveness’”, Competitiveness Review: An International BusinessJournal, Vol. 18 Nos 1/2, available at: www.emeraldinsight.com/Insight/viewContainer.do;jsessionid¼6260A29A8C7F7A4C660D5ED08A5E9BEC?containerType¼Issue&containerId¼6012969

Chikan, A. (2008b), “National and firm level competitiveness: a general research model”,Competitiveness Review: An International Business Journal, Vol. 18 Nos 1-2, pp. 20-8.

Christopher, M. (1998), Logistics and Supply Chain Management: Strategies for Reducing Costand Improving Service, 2nd ed., Prentice-Hall, Harlow.

Corvellec, H. (2003), “Narratives of organisational performance”, in Czarniawska, B. andGagliardi, P. (Eds), Narratives We Organise, John Benjamin’s Publishing, Amsterdam,pp. 115-33.

Day, G.S. (1994), “The capabilities of market-driven organisations”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 58,pp. 37-52.

Day, G.S. and Wensley, R. (1988), “Assessing advantage: a framework for diagnosingcompetitive superiority”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 52, pp. 1-20.

De Man, A.P. (1994), “1980, 1985, 1990: a porter exegesis”, Scandinavian Journal of Management,Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 437-50.

De Souza, R., Zice, S. and Chaoyang, L. (2000), “Supply chain dynamics and optimization”,Integrated Manufacturing Systems, Vol. 11 No. 5, pp. 348-64.

Dyer, J.H. and Singh, H. (1998), “The relational view – cooperative strategy and sources ofinterorganisational competitive advantage”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 23No. 4, pp. 660-79.

Ezeala-Harrison, F. (2005), “On the competing notions of international competitiveness”,Advances in Competitiveness Research, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 80-7.

Fagerberg, J. (1988), “International competitiveness”, The Economic Journal, Vol. 98, pp. 355-74.

Fajnzylber, F. (1988), “International competitiveness: agreed goal, hard task”, CEPAL Review,Vol. 36, pp. 7-23.

Fawcett, S.E. and Clinton, S.R. (1997), “Enhancing logistics to improve competitiveness ofmanufacturing organisations: a triad perspective”, Transportation Journal, Vol. 37 No. 1,pp. 18-28.

Ford, I.D. (Ed.) (1990), Understanding Business Markets – Interactions, Relationships andNetworks, 2nd ed., Dryden, London.

Fulconis, F. and Pache, G. (2005), “Exploiting SCM as source of competitive advantage:the importance of cooperative goals revisited”, Competitiveness Review: An InternationalBusiness Journal, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 92-100.

Gadde, L.-E., Huemer, L. and Hakansson, H. (2003), “Strategizing in industrial networks”,Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 32, pp. 357-64.

Garelli, S. (2003), “Executive summary”,TheWorld Competitiveness Yearbook, IMD International,Lausanne, pp. 30-7.

Grant, R.M. (1991), “The resource-based theory of competitive advantage: implications forstrategy formulation”, California Management Review, Vol. 33 No. 3, pp. 114-35.


107

Guisinger, S. (2001), “From OLI to OLMA: incorporating higher levels of environmental andstructural complexity into the eclectic paradigm”, International Journal of the Economicsof Business, Vol. 8, pp. 257-72.

Gulati, R., Nohria, N. and Zaheer, A. (2000), “Strategic networks”, Strategic Management Journal,Vol. 21 No. 3, pp. 203-17.

Hakansson, H. (Ed.) (1982), International Marketing and Purchasing of Industrial Goods:An Interaction Approach, Wiley, Chichester.

Halldorsson, A., Kotzab, H., Mikkola, J.H. and Skjøtt-Larsen, T. (2007), “Complementary theoriesto supply chain management”, Supply Chain Management: An International Journal,Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 284-96.

Handfield, R.B. and Nichols, E.L. (1999), Introduction to Supply Chain Management,Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.

Hoyningen-Huene, P., Levine, A.T. and Thomas, S. (1993), Reconstructing Scientific Revolutions,University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.

Johanson, J. and Mattsson, L. (1987), “Interorganizational relations in industrial systems –a network approach compared with the transaction-cost approach”, International Studiesof Management & Organization, Vol. 1 No. 17, pp. 34-48.

Kinra, A. and Kotzab, H. (2005), “Measuring the competitiveness in hybrid coopetitivearrangements: a question of considering AHP?”, in Zineldin, M. (Ed.), paper presented atthe 6th International Conference on Cooperation and Competition, Vaxjo.

Kordig, C.R. (1973), “Discussion: observational invariance”, Philosophy of Science, Vol. 40,pp. 558-69.

Krugman, P. (1994), “Competitiveness: a dangerous obsession”, Foreign Affairs, Vol. 73 No. 2,pp. 28-44.

Krugman, P. (1996), POP Internationalism, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.

Kuhn, T.S. (1962), The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 2nd ed., University of Chicago Press,Chicago, IL.

Landry, S., Trudel, Y. and Diorio, M.O. (1998), “Just-in-time supply: cooperation, competition, andabuse”, Competitiveness Review: An International Business Journal, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 37-45.

Larson, P.D. and Poist, R.F. (2004), “Improving response rates to mail surveys: a research note”,Transportation Journal, Vol. 43 No. 4, pp. 67-74.

Lummus, R.R. and Vokurka, R.J. (1999), “Defining supply chain management: a historicalperspective and practical guidelines”, Industrial Management & Data Systems, Vol. 99No. 1, pp. 11-17.

Luo, Y. (2004), Coopetition in International Business, Copenhagen Business School Press,Copenhagen.

Mason, E.S. (1939), “Price and production policies of large scale enterprises”, American EconomicReview, Vol. 29, pp. 61-74.

Masterman, M. (1970), “The nature of a paradigm”, in Lakatos, I. and Musgrave, A. (Eds),Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 59-89.

Mayring, P. (2000), “Qualitative content analysis”, Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung/Forum:Qualitative Social Research, Vol. 1 No. 2, Art. 20, available at: http://nbnresolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0114-fqs0002204 (accessed August 12, 2009).

Mentzer, J.T. (2004), Fundamentals of Supply Chain Management: Twelve Drivers of CompetitiveAdvantage, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.

CR20,2

108

Miyazaki, A., Phillips, J.K. and Phillips, D.M. (1999), “Twenty years of JBL: an analysis ofpublished research”, Journal of Business Logistics, Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 1-19.

Monczka, R.M. and Morgan, J. (1997), “What’s wrong with supply chain management?”,Purchasing, Vol. 122 No. 1, pp. 69-73.

Nevin, M. (2003), “Competition-collaboration-co-opetition: why are organisations sleeping withthe enemy”, paper presented at C & C Conference, Vaxjo.

Porter, M.E. (1980), Competitive Strategy, The Free Press, New York, NY.

Porter, M.E. (1981), “The contributions of industrial organizations to strategic management”,Academy of Management Review, Vol. 6 No. 4, pp. 609-20.

Porter, M.E. (1985), Competitive Advantage, The Free Press, New York, NY.

Porter, M.E. (1990), The Competitive Advantage of Nations, Macmillan, London, p. 577.

Prahalad, C.K. and Hamel, G. (1990), “The core competence of the corporation”, Harvard BusinessReview, Vol. 68 No. 3, pp. 79-91.

Rice, B.R. Jr and Hoppe, R.M. (2001), “Supply chain vs supply chain: the hype and the reality”,Supply Chain Management Review, September/October, pp. 46-54.

Sahay, B.S., Gupta, J.D. and Mohan, R. (2006), “Managing supply chains for competitiveness:the Indian scenario”, Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, Vol. 11 No. 1,pp. 15-24.

Schuetz, J., Deering, M., Kilpatrick, J. and Derocher, B. (1999), Energizing the Supply Chain:Trends and Issues in Supply Chain Management, Deloitte Consulting, New York, NY.

Skjøtt-Larsen, T. (1999), “Supply chain management – a new challenge for researchers andmanagers in logistics”, International Journal of Logistics Management, Vol. 10 No. 2,pp. 41-54.

Speckman, R.E., Kamauff, J.W. Jr and Myhr, N. (1998), “An empirical investigation into supplychain management: a perspective on partnerships”, International Journal of PhysicalDistribution & Logistics Management, Vol. 28 No. 8, pp. 630-50.

Spens, K.M. and Kovacs, G. (2006), “A content analysis of research approaches in logisticsresearch”, International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, Vol. 36No. 5, pp. 374-90.

Toffler, A. (1980), The Third Wave, Pan Books, London.

Tyson, L.D. (1988), “Competitiveness: an analysis of the problem and perspective on futurepolicy”, in Martin, K.S. (Ed.), Global Competitiveness, W.W. Norton, New York, NY,pp. 95-120.

Tyson, L.D. (1992),Who’s Bashing Whom? Trade Conflict in High-technology Industries, Institutefor International Economics, Washington, DC.

Vokurka, R.J., Zank, G.M. and Lund, C.M. (2002), “Improving competitiveness through supplychain management: a cumulative improvement approach”, Competitiveness Review:An International Business Journal, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 14-25.

Waheeduzzaman, A.N.M. and Ryans, J.K. Jr (1996), “Definition, perspectives, and understandingof international competitiveness”, Competitiveness Review: An International BusinessJournal, Vol. 6 No. 2, pp. 7-26.

Watts, C.A. and Hahn, C.K. (1993), “Supplier development programs: an empirical analysis”,International Journal of Purchasing & Materials Management, Vol. 29 No. 2, pp. 11-17.

Wernerfelt, B. (1984), “The resource-based view of the firm”, Strategic Management Journal,Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 171-80.


109

Further reading

Porter, M.E. (1998), “Clusters and the new economics of competition”, Harvard Business Review,Vol. 76 No. 6, pp. 77-90.

About the authorsAseemKinra is anAssistant Professor at the Copenhagen Business School. His academic interestsspan the area of global supply chain management and current research interests lie withinorganizational decision making on issues related to the strategy and design of globally dispersedvalue chains. Aseem Kinra is the corresponding author and can be contacted at: [email protected]

Imoh Antai is doctoral candidate at the Division for Supply Chain Management andCorporate Geography, Hanken School of Economics. His research interests include healthcarelogistics and competition between supply chains.

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: [email protected] visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

CR20,2

110

Paper 2

A theory of the competing supply chain: Alternatives for development

Imoh Antai.

International Business Research, Volume 4, Number 1; (2011).

II

www.ccsenet.org/ibr International Business Research Vol. 4, No. 1; January 2011

ISSN 1913-9004 E-ISSN 1913-9012 74

A Theory of the Competing Supply Chain: Alternatives for Development Imoh Antai

Department of Supply Chain Management & Corporate Geography Hanken School of Economics

Arkadiankatu 22, 00101, Helsinki, Finland Tel: 358-(0)40-352-1283 E-mail: [email protected]

Abstract Development of a coherent methodology for supply chain vs. supply chain competition remains elusive in literature in terms of purpose, approaches and theoretical foundations. The purpose of this paper is to identify suitable theories of competition from which supply chain vs. supply chain competition may be further developed. Paper explores literature on competition theories, competition and its correlates and also considers the dichotomy between competitiveness and competition in relation to achievement of a competitive advantage in supply chains. An argument is made for the identification and development of theory that reflects the multidimensional, process-based and emergent properties of supply chains. Three competition theories from which supply chain vs. supply chain competition may begin to be conceptualized and possibly operationalized are identified. A chronological conceptualization of competition, competitiveness and competitive advantage, which is intuitive to the realization of competitive advantage in inter-supply chain competition, is also proposed. Keywords: Competition, Competitiveness, Competitive advantage, Competition theory, Dimensionality, Niche theory 1. Introduction A supply chain is the network of organizations involved, through upstream and downstream linkages, in the different processes and activities that produce value in the form of goods and services for end-customers (Christopher, 1992). Most definitions of supply chain management succinctly divide the discipline into several parts. And the multi-disciplinary, multi-dimensional nature of supply chains and its management imply that there is hardly a single focus for supply chain management, which is essential for developing theory for supply chain vs. supply chain competition. That is to say, for the development of a supply chain competition theory, a clear explanatory purpose of competition between supply chains is needed. Determining an explanatory purpose for competition is complex mainly because supply chain management is seen both as a management discipline and as an operational subject. While reconciling these two views within supply chain management present significant challenges, it is the development of an (single) explanatory purpose of competition between supply chains that promises much fierce debates. Hence, the purpose of this paper is to identify possible competition theories within which supply chain vs. supply chain competition may be properly conceptualized and perhaps subsequently operationalized. It also seeks to develop an understanding of competitive advantage in relation to competition and competitiveness given its importance to the notion of competition as a whole, and supply chain vs. supply chain competition in particular. A theory is regarded as a set of concepts used to define and/ or explain some phenomenon (Silverman, 2000). In general, it postulates structural relationships between key constructs (Trochim, 1989). Theory consists of plausible relationships produced among concepts and sets of concepts. And as Silverman (2000) puts it, without theory phenomena cannot be understood, hence without theory, there is nothing to research. If it is agreed that there is even a remote need to consider competition between supply chains, then it is also given that a purpose of such a competition is necessary. Thus, the identification of theories for possible modification and adoption in supply chain vs. supply chain competition represent first, albeit small, contribution towards this goal. In the apparent absence of a suitable theoretical basis for supply chain vs. supply chain competition, literature is reviewed with the aim of identifying competition theories sufficiently accommodating to this form of competition. On the other hand, by proposing an alignment of competition and its correlates, it is conceived that the process of competition and the dual states of competitiveness and competitive advantage are operational within the context of supply chain vs. supply chain competition. 2. Background and theoretical considerations for competition The concept of supply chain vs. supply chain competition is no longer new to supply chain management literature. However, implicit questions surrounding the meaning of the concept, its usage and acceptance continues within supply chain management circles. Rice and Hoppe (2001) have noted the underlying difference of opinion within


Published by Canadian Center of Science and Education 75

academia, industry and consulting regarding the meaning of supply chain vs. supply chain competition. Beyond the varied understandings of competition between supply chains proposed in literature, e.g. as complex adaptive systems (Langdon and Sikora, 2006), use of economic network model (Zhang, 2006), and on network capabilities (Rice and Hoppe, 2001), there is unwillingness within supply chain management scholars to debate the validity of the concept of supply chain vs. supply chain competition. This is based on the fact that there is little in the current literature to suggest that the ascribed meaning of such formulations as supply chain vs. supply chain competition is relevant and acceptable to the development of the discipline. While conventional competition remains strong within management literature, the main difference between this form of competition and supply chain competition lie in the fact that firms cannot act as isolated, independent entities in competition with other organizations (Christopher, 1998). Open competition between organizations breed innovation, and innovation is the root of all economic progress (Cook, 2003). Hence, without competition there is little or no innovation. In supply chains, this innovation can be likened to the value each supply chain seeks to create for its end-customers, who remain the essence of the supply chain. Therefore competition between supply chains is necessary, and as such there is a need to understand and conceptualize such competition, because it exists. Prior to considering possible theories, it is appropriate to underline the contexts upon which theories will be considered for supply chain vs. supply chain competition. This is important to establish the idea of the broader dynamics of change that continuously occur in supply chain management. 2.1 Dimensionality Supply chains have been known to be quite complex especially with regards to competition. Given the extent to which supply chains may operate, competition between supply chains can be described as essentially multidimensional (Lancioni, 2000) especially in terms of the relationships it is connected to. Harrigan (1985) argue that supply chains are multidimensional and characterized by the different stages, breadth, form, degree and modes of integration it exhibits. In the same vein, Gardner (2004) makes a quantitative argument for the multi-dimensionality of supply chains. Supply chain management is primarily concerned with integration of position between several decision makers whose agents (manufacturers, suppliers, distributors, etc) are interested and specialized in a number of different areas. Thus, dimensionality represents a group of characteristics whose presence is necessary and sufficient to determine the unique function and character of a supply chain network. While these characteristics are unique to the supply chain, dimensions for supply chain efficiency may vary from supply chain to supply chain. For example, the Sand Cone model (Ferdows and Meyer, 1990) specifies several areas of manufacturing capabilities which should be developed on an incremental basis. Quality capabilities are developed first, followed by the dependability and subsequently the competence in speed is developed. Finally, the cost efficiency dimension is developed in order to maintain competitive performance. Dimensions are thus important as it allow entities decide along which aspect they will best succeed in the competition process. It also brings up aspects of specialization to competition issues. 2.2 Process Orientation Supply chain management can be seen as a process based approach for identifying, evaluating, selecting, managing and developing value performance that is better than the competition (Monczka et al., 2009). The Global Supply Chain Forum (GSCF) identified eight supply chain management processes (Lambert, 2008); customer relationship management, supplier relationship management, customer service management, demand management, order fulfilment, manufacturing flow management, product development and commercialization, and returns management. By being process based, theory of competition is able to explain fairly accurately the dynamics of behaviour as they change over time. Process-based thinking represents a procedure by which the behaviour of a system is obtained from a set of interactions between entities and themselves and with the environment, through physical and mechanistic processes which occurs over time (Godfrey 1983). Hence, for the process-based criteria, behaviour is important to the understanding of competition. 2.3 Emergence Competition between supply chains could also be regarded as emergent (Storey et al., 2006), along with other forms such as co-opetition and national competition whereby the behaviour causing competition arises from the interaction between supply chains for resources, innovation and advantage of particular sort. Building on the process orientation discussed above, emergence extends this idea to a logical conclusion by looking at interaction from the opposite end, i.e. in terms of results. Thus, emergence focuses on the behavioural outcome of interactions between entities and treats these outcomes as a result of the very same interaction between entities. Over time, this should allow certain outcomes to be expected of certain types of interaction and possibly vice-versa. Based on this, emergence expressly assumes that competition (competitive interaction) must involve more than one entity. To be accommodating to


ISSN 1913-9004 E-ISSN 1913-9012 76

supply chain vs. supply chain competition, theories must place equal emphasis on process orientation as they do on emergence. For supply chains, doing this may be instrumental to understanding how some of the complexities of supply chains play in to affect how supply chains compete. 3. Literature overview: Competition theories 3.1 Economic theory of competition From an economics perspective, the theory of competition essentially encompasses two broad ideas – 1). Competition as structure, in which firms within an industry strive for some kind of control of the forces determining equilibrium (demand and supply) within that industry. This type of competition, usually referred to as neoclassical, encompasses four main theoretical competition thoughts: perfect competition, monopolistic competition, oligopoly and monopoly (Lipczynski et al., 2005). These theories underline the idea of competition within the industrial organization context generally regarded as the static view of competition (Lipczynski et al., 2005). Traditionally, industrial competition had been that which was carried out on the basis of the economic power of large firms and their ability to generate economies of scale allowing goods to be produced at low unit costs (Best, 1990). From the contemporary point of view however, flexible technologies, e.g. information technology, advances in communication technologies, computing, etc, have allowed the substitution of economies of scale by economies of scope, where emphasis on innovation rather than low unit cost, collaborations rather than scale enterprise, and export rather than foreign investment, dominate such industrial systems (Best, 1990; Gertler and Barnes, 1999). And 2). Competition as a process, whereby the struggle essentially focuses on the behaviour of firms, actors, etc within the market, which ultimately establishes how much rivalry exists within the industry (Metcalfe, 1998). This more dynamic position of competition was argued by Schumpeter (1942) and the Austrian school (of economists). According to Schumpeter, the competitive process creates patterns of change, and change is driven by innovation; hence competition is determined by the amount of innovation that is created in the market. It challenges firms to compete in entirely new ways. The Austrian school, however, considers this dynamic process in terms of resource owners, entrepreneurs and customers (Kirzner, 1997). In this sense, entrepreneurs discover and act on new pieces of information which in turn acts to affect, by way of adjustment, the outcomes of other decision makers in the process. However, the concept of perfect competition remains the standard model of analysis within the economics discipline. Over time the idea of competition in economics had began to shift its basis from perfect competition and the structural (equilibrium) ideology towards the process concept of competition (Metcalfe, 1998; Cook, 2003: 64-65). Loasby (1982) argued that intensity of competition is not dependent on the number of competitors in a given market because increasing numbers of competing firms only create an increasing scope for differential behaviour in the market. This change from static to dynamic competition has come to be known in literature as the hypercompetitive shift (D’Aveni, 1994), chararcterisized by improving technology, improved skill base of firms and its employees, more sophisticated demand, falling barriers to entry and increase in alliances and collaborations between firms (Thomas, 2001). 3.2 Resource –Advantage (RA) theory of competition The R-A theory of competition can be seen to have its underpinnings in a number of sources, concepts and theories. In terms of concepts (i.e. competition), R-A draws profound inspiration from the neoclassical idea of perfect competition, where perfect competition is said to be incorporated into R-A theory as a limiting, special case of competition (Hunt and Morgan, 1996). R-A theory also utilizes Schumpeterian ideals of endogenous innovation customary in evolutionary economics, as well as influences from Austrian economics (Hunt, 2000). For theories, R-A looks to the combination of the resource based theory (Conner and Prahalad, 1996; Barney, 1986, 1991) and the marketing theory of heterogeneous demand to form its core notions (Hunt, 2002). The Resource-Advantage (R-A) theory according to Hunt (2007) is an evolutionary, disequilibrium provoking, process theory of competition, where innovation and management knowledge are endogenous, organizations and customers have inadequate information and one in which the environment (via free enterprise, organization and public policy) affect economic performance. It is a process theory that bases competition between entities on market segments and resources, both of which tend to influence organizational behavior (Goh, 2003). Market segments are intra-industry identifiable clusters of consumers which can be identical within clusters, but vary considerably across clusters. Resources on the other hand are the hard and soft assets available to the firm that makes it possible to efficiently produce offerings that have value for some market segments (Hunt, 2000). Cash, equipment, licenses/patents, skills, knowledge, cultures, etc are all examples of resources. Since such resources tend to vary significantly across firms (because most of these resources cannot be readily bought and sold in the marketplace), the concept of comparative advantage is central to R-A theory of competition. Comparative advantage is the ability of a firm to engage in the production of market offerings at a lower cost and with superior value, relative to extant offerings by competitors as a result of the



resource assortment available to that firm (Goh, 2003). Thus, within R-A theory, competition encompasses a continuous struggle and search for resources that will allow firms the ability to claim comparative advantages. This yields a market place position of competitive advantage and consequently superior financial performance (Goh, 2003). As such R-A theory infers that market place positions (i.e. positional advantage) determine the intensity of superior performance. A positional advantage within the R-A theory is the occupation of one of three advantage (2, 3 and 6) cells out of a matrix of nine possible competitive positions. The cells reflect the possible combination of a firm’s relative resource produced value against the relative resource costs for producing such value (Hunt, 2000). Value refers to the sum total of all benefits that consumers perceive they will receive if they accept a firm’s market offerings (Hunt, 2000). The aim with the matrix is to occupy one of the three advantage cells, as those firms occupying other cells constantly struggle to reach one of these advantage cells. 3.3 Ecological niche theory of competition The theory of niche takes as its area of jurisdiction the co-existence and competition for similar scarce resources between contending species. Over time, the niche theory of competition has become synonymous with competition theory (Colwell, 1999; Alley, 1982) which has largely come about as a result of its history with competition theory rather than logic. The development of the work known and called niche theory was started by Robert MacArthur and Richard Levins (1967). This work mainly focused on reinterpreting the competitive exclusion principle. The competitive exclusion principle formally states that “no two organisms in a single species can occupy precisely the same niche, or exist on exactly the same limiting resources” (Grinnell, 1917). What this principle simply assumes is that the coexistence of any two species implies that they must not be in true competition, because as the principles states, no two species can exist on the same limiting resources. Thus, the ultimate result of the principle of competitive exclusion is extinction. However, the works of MacAuthur and Levins (1967) introduced the idea of a limiting similarity between two competing species. This idea of limiting similarity suggested that the more similar two competing species are, the less likely it is that they will coexist. It is on this notion of similarity that the niche theory of competition finds its basis for competition, by using such concepts as niche breadth and niche overlap. Based on the principle of competitive exclusion, a niche is defined as the extent of environmental variation, in both biotic and abiotic factors, under which a species can engage in activities necessary for its survival (Alley, 1982). In this sense, species are viewed to have a multidimensional relationship with the environment. A niche breadth is thus the range of environmental conditions (including resources) within which a species can survive. It refers to the position occupied by a species on a particular resource dimension. When these niches overlap, the idea of similarity discussed above is brought into play. Thus, when two species vie for the same food resources, they have a limiting similarity, which means that their niches overlap and as such they become competitors because they cannot coexist ad infinitum. It provides a measure of ecological similarity between interacting species. Therefore competition, under the niche theory, is a resource-related form of interaction between two or more species (Birch, 1957). The following sections discuss competition and its correlates and thereof attempt an alignment that seeks to further elucidate the broader relationship between these three terms for supply chain vs. supply chain purposes. 3.4 Aligning competition and its correlates 3.4.1 Competition Competing concepts of competition abound in a variety of disciplinary literature. However, a well established meaning of the competition concept is still vague, despite its extensive use as one of the core concepts of economic theory (Metcalfe, 1998; Telser, 2007: xiv). The nature of a theory of competition will depend, to a large extent, on the explanatory purpose in view, with respect to the idea being conceptualized (Cook, 2003). Hence, competition as originating from within different disciplinary frameworks would differ markedly. Theories of competition designed to elucidate the utilization of resources by competing entities will be reasonably different from one that promotes the idea of stability of structures that are essential to the control of resources in a given market. Any consideration of a competition theory for supply chain vs. supply chain competition must be informed by an understanding of the long standing debate between competition and its correlates – competitive advantage and competitiveness. Issues of consideration essentially include the relationship between these three terms. How does competitive advantage come about? Does it have anything to do with competition? However, the important question here remains that if we are to align competition, competitive advantage and competitiveness for supply chain vs. supply chain competition, what chronological order would accompany such an alignment? 3.4.2 Competitiveness While competitiveness is widely used in literature, no clear definition of competitiveness has been agreed on, even with reference to an entire economy. The World Competitive Yearbook (WCY) defines competitiveness as:


ISSN 1913-9004 E-ISSN 1913-9012 78

......“a field of economic knowledge, which analyses the facts and policies that shape the ability of a nation to create and maintain an environment that sustains more value creation for its enterprises and more prosperity for its people”. Although comprehensive for its purpose, this definition remains cumbersome and fuzzy, and possessing no proper basis for testable propositions (Hagen and Immerfall, 1998), competitiveness remains elusive in literature (Wignaraja, 2003). However, Cho (1998) goes on to illustrate the concept of competitiveness in a more comprehensible and straightforward manner, as being “the relative strength that one needs to have to win in a competition against competitors”. Competitiveness discussions in literature have tended to focus on three different levels comparison - firm competitiveness, industry competitiveness and competitiveness of nations (Cho, 1998). It has also been described as a relative concept used to compare economic performance between these three levels (Dunning, 1997; 227). This economic performance is usually expressed at the national level in terms of national productivity (e.g. via the Gross Domestic Product (GDP), Foreign Direct Investment, trade balances, etc). This view in essence proposes comparisms between like entities, e.g. firm-firm, region-region, industry-industry, nation-nation comparisons, etc. There is a broad recognition that competitiveness of nations is essentially made up of the competitiveness of individual firms within that nation (Cho, 1998; Porter, 1990). As such, sources of competitiveness may be said to be identical for both categories of competitiveness. Meanwhile, Krugman (1994) sees the concept of competitiveness as meaningless and just another name for productivity, when applied to competitiveness of nations. 3.4.3 Competitive advantage The concept of competitive advantage is a well-known notion whose essence has, however, been poorly understood (Hao Ma, 2000), especially with respect to supply chains and its management. The conceptualizations of competitive advantage across different literature streams convey three basic ideas. The first notion of competitive advantage is one that promotes the resource-based view as the premise within which organizations can achieve competitive advantage. The resource based theory attempts to predict the outcome of competition by utilizing information on the resource utilization of competitors (Tilman, 1982). This view is very much regarded as the leading theory of competitive advantage, and much of it rests on the concept of heterogeneity of resources (Peteraf, 1993; Barney, 1991; Grant, 1991; 1986; Rumelt, 1987, 1984). Heterogeneity of resources is to a good extent is explained by Barney’s (1991) conditions for achieving competitive advantage. The basic assumption of heterogeneity is that resources and capabilities that enable production are heterogeneous across firms (Barney, 1991). The second notion of competitive advantage is one that advances the idea that the creation of value, which surpasses that created by rivals, provides a means of achieving competitive advantage. Porter (1985) argues that “competitive advantage grows fundamentally out of value a firm is able to create for its buyers that exceeds the firm’s cost of creating it.” In the same vein, Mentzer (2004: 7) asserts that competitive advantage can be achieved by creating value, for the end-customers, which is greater than that offered by competitors (Mentzer, 2004; Wilding and Newton, 1996). This view of competitive advantage is also alluded to by Ma (2000), asserting that competitive advantage is simply the differential between competitors on any given dimension, which allows one to better create customer value than the other. The third conceptualization of competitive advantage is one that is based on profitability, implying that if a firm remains profitable for any period of time, it has to be doing something better than its competitors. Grant (2004) describes competitive advantage as the resulting potential profitability or higher rates of profit that accrues to one firm when two or more firms compete within the same market. This definition describes competitive advantage in terms of profitability, which is a widely held view in practitioner circles as firms would expressly assume a competitive advantage with increasing growth of profitability. In order to gain competitive advantage, some form of imperfection to competition must exist (Grant, 2004; 237). Conversely, Porter (1985) suggests that the structure of the industry, together with its competitive advantage ultimately determine how profitable a firm will be. Grant (2004), however alludes to the troublesome nature of defining competitive advantage with respect to profitability, arguing that if competitive advantage were a proxy for profitability there would be no need for the term competitive advantage. According to Grant (2004) there is more to competitive advantage than just profitability, which may not only be revealed in higher profits, for example market share, technology, intellectual capital, etc. (Figure 1 about here) Hence, literature on competitive advantage reveals that competitive advantage can be achieved by a combination of three factors – (1) Resources (2) Innovation and research & development and (3) Cost leadership and differentiation (Fig. 1). Literature has also showed that competitive advantage may be sought for a number of reasons of which the



most common tend to be profitability, performance, market share, value creation or a combination of these. Thus, the framework presented in Fig. 1 depicts a realistic picture of the antecedents of competitive advantage made up in part by innovation and research & development, resources and differentiation. 4. Analysis and results 4.1 Relationship between the three Cs The following analysis of competition and its correlates presents a fundamentally different starting point from which they may be understood - the Supply chain. It challenges the commonly touted assumption that competitiveness is a means by which competitive advantage is achieved in supply chain management. This paper adopts the definition of competitiveness by Cho (1998), where it is regarded as the relative strength (ability) that is needed to engage and possibly win in a competition against rivals. Competitive advantage is the advantage, in value terms, a supply chain creates for its customers that essentially accrue from the competition with other supply chains. This definition emphasizes the fact that competitive advantage results from competition. In taking up the difference between competition and competitiveness, table 1 summarizes the variation between the terms. While competitiveness can be seen as a relational term, approaches to its treatment obviously differ from one to the other (Metcalfe et al., 2004). When the unit of analyses are countries or even industries, the issue of competitiveness is usually said to revolve around the relative position, strength, achievements, etc, of one with respect to the other. Thus, there is no standard. However, within supply chains, it essentially involves the ability of supply chains to gain competence. This competence is made up of the supply chain’s ability to obtain resources and to put these resources to use in terms of producing profitable output. Thus, competitiveness demands efficient use of resources and efficacy of productivity from these resources. (Table 1 about here) On the other hand, competition is a process by which different entities strive for limited critical resources; customers, production resources, profit, market share, etc. Competition, from almost all concepts, essentially remains a process which changes over time, and involves the ability of one entity to be more efficient than another in acquiring and using resources that are essential to creating some form of value for itself and its ultimate end-customer. Thus, competition has been described as non-static and the dynamic nature of competition can be observed in the structural characteristics of the industrial organization concept of competition. This is quite similar to the Schumpeterian perspective of competition in terms of innovation and technological advancement. Thus, competition can be said to connote a different idea from that of competitiveness, given the differences that are apparent between the two concepts from literature. Accordingly, if competitiveness and competition connote different ideas, competitiveness par se, cannot be solely responsible for competitive advantage in supply chains, as frequently proposed in supply chain literature. Rather, there seems to be a continuum between competitiveness and competition, whereby competitiveness determines how well a supply chain is suited for competitive interaction (i.e. competition) and consequently determines which supply chain is more capable of using its resources in such a way as to lead to a competitive advantage. (Fig. 2 about here) Hence, the framework in Fig. 2 is divided into three stages corresponding to the continuum that is expected to occur between the three concepts. It entails that in order for supply chains to achieve competitive advantage, some form of competition has to be undertaken. Because competition does not exist as state of nature, the framework depicts competitiveness as the willingness and the ability of a supply chain to voluntarily take part in competition through which competitive advantage is either achieved or a return to the competitiveness state subsequently occurs. Thus, the essence of competitiveness within this framework is therefore to be described as the preparatory stage, while competition could be referred to as the interaction stage. The competitive advantage is referred to as the advantage stage. Therefore, any characterization of competitive advantage from a strategic perspective within supply chains should clearly be inseparable from a broader understanding of the dynamics between competitiveness and competition. From literature, we understand that creating value is the purpose of supply chains (Mentzer, 2004), and this is done in a way that suggests that value which surpasses competitors’ value offerings essentially make up the competitive advantage of that supply chain. Thus, based on the forgoing, our understanding of value with respect to competitive advantage can be distinguished into two categories for competition purposes – competition-based advantage, and a somewhat opposite term, competition-free value. Competition-based advantage is based on the idea that competitive advantage is achieved as an outcome of a head-to-head competition for scarce critical resources between two or more entities (e.g. Porter, 1985). On the other hand, competition-free value is value created by supply chains in which there is no competitive interaction (competition) from one end of the supply chain to the other with other


ISSN 1913-9004 E-ISSN 1913-9012 80

related supply chains (e.g. Grant, 2004) . As such there is no connotation to an advantage within this mode of value creation. 4.2 Implications for supply chain competition In previous sections, a review of literature identified current competition theories that might be suitably adapted to competition between supply chains, as well as the relationship that unite competition and its correlates. However, while important for the intended purpose, per se they do not provide perspective significance for supply chain competition. This section evaluates these data to determine potential implications for supply chain competition. 4.2.1 Economic theory perspective Supply chain vs. supply chain competition from an economic theory perspective presents a number of challenges. The two perspectives of competition embedded and discussed within this theory make a comprehension of its application to supply chain vs. supply chain competition a little complicated. While on the one hand, economic theory of competition is guided by structural tendencies, which seeks to maintain equilibrium between the market forces of demand and supply. Known to be static in nature, most treatment of competition within this area assumes equilibrium conditions, as equilibrium constitute fundamental parts of many competition concepts. However, different competition concepts treat equilibrium differently. With the evolution of supply chain vs. supply chain competition, equilibrium conditions for competition become problematic especially as a proper basis for competition between supply chains is yet to be developed. On the other hand, the gradual reception of behavioural or process views of competition between entities allows for a more realistic context from which supply chain competition may be analysed. This view dissociates itself from most of the assumptions of perfect competition including equilibrium. Also, given this shift in perception, a discussion on the issue of supply chain vs. supply chain competition within the economic theory may begin. 4.2.2 Niche theory perspective The competition here explores the limiting similarity between competing species based on the fact that diversity can be limited in at least three ways- the lower limit to abundance, the upper limit to abundance and lastly limits to specialization set by the environment (MacArthur and Levins, 1976). It is this limit to the degree of specialization that determines the limits to similarity of competing species. Therefore theories of niche can be used to analyze the interaction between different supply chains. The ecological niche theory of competition therefore presents a metaphor that can be adopted by other domains in an effort to elucidate complex issues between two or more entities. It does this via the concepts of interaction, niche and overlap. In the niche theory, a condition for competition is the existence of some similarity or overlap in niches of entities; this is clearly advocated within the niche literature. Because competition breeds diversification, it represents the shifting of niches, and hence provides proof that competition actually takes place. Thus, the niche competition theory emphasizes specialization and hence competition in dimensions. 4.2.3 The R-A theory perspective R-A theory introduces the idea of resources as the mainstay of competitive achievement and maintains that within an industry, there are market segments and there are resources that are used to satisfy the market segments. The idea of the R-A theory is simple and straightforward. In order for firms to achieve a competitive advantage it must possess resources that other competing entities do not. In other words, the laws of comparative advantage must be obeyed. However, since the R-A theory practically theorizes competition in one dimension, handling the multidimensionality of supply chains within such theory could become cumbersome. The R-A theory goes further to suggest the concept of positional advantage which in effect can determine the competitive advantage of a firm and consequently superior financial performance by the positions firms take up within the industry. The global supply chain view transcends borders and industries (depending on how large the view of the industry is taken, e.g. regional industry). Hence the environment that acts to affect supply chains change with movement from upstream through the downstream of the supply chain. So for supply chains, competition will have much to do with the environment and the dimension upon which it takes place. Table 2 presents the identified competition theories and how they perform against the chosen supply chain criteria. (Table 2 about here) Based on the idea that competition is the driving force of the ruling structure in the industry, the relationship depicted by fig. 2 can be further extended to reflect this consideration, from a hierarchical point of view. Fig. 3 illustrates the idea of hierarchical ordering of competitively interactive supply chains according to the level and assets they seek to achieve. At the bottom of the pyramid supply chains that are neither interested nor capable of carrying on competitive interaction would occupy this level. Supply chains at this level do not make significant



efforts to improve on areas that would be necessary for supply chains to have for competition purposes. Thus, supply chains at this level are simply referred to as “status quo” or “do nothing” supply chains. On the competitiveness level supply chains strive to develop competencies that would be necessary in order for them to engage in competitive interaction. Here, special skills and competencies are developed (based on the heterogeneity of resources), ruling knowledge in the market are sought, regulations are identified, etc. Active developments in these areas are beneficial for supply chains as they inadvertently prepare for competitive interaction. On the competition level, this is where competition would actually take place and the rewards sought could include resources in the form of suppliers, raw materials, technology, patents, etc. At this level, competitive interaction takes place between supply chains. At the top level, supply chains that maintain leading positions within their industry occupy this level. The higher a supply chains goes on the pyramid, the better value such a supply chain is able to create for its end-customers, and hence there is a constant struggle to reach the top of the pyramid where it is possible to enjoy superior performance, larger market share, superior value creation abilities, etc. Arrows between the levels signify the possible movements of supply chains between levels, as supply chains that lose a position at the top of the pyramid would drop to the competition level where it would continue to seek a return to the top of the pyramid. (Figure 3 about here) In the foregoing, a conceptual relationship is ascertained between the concepts of competition, competitiveness and competitive advantage, and in so doing establish competition as an all important mediator between competitiveness and competitive advantage. Thus, it is logical that competition is seen to be a major driver of competitive advantage. This is simply so because based on the development of competition and competitiveness here, competition (competitive interaction) must be undertaken if competitive advantage is to be achieved. 5. Conclusion The sole purpose of engaging in competition is to achieve and where possible, maintain a competitive advantage over competitors. This paper has firstly concerned itself with the search for suitable competition theories with which supply chain vs. supply chain competition may begin to be conceptualized in literature. Three candidate theories - Economic, niche and R-A theories of competition - with varying characteristics were identified and subsequently compared against the properties of multi-dimensionality, process orientation and emergence. While the three theories showed similarity in a number of areas, they are regarded as different in that they emanate from totally different conceptual bases. Economic competition emphasises competition as its main driving force, niche theory advocates structure as the essence of competition, while R-A theory is solely based on the idea of comparative advantage of resources. Second, the paper tackles the troublesome practice of equating the notions competitiveness and competition, and argues that competitiveness is not the sole antecedent of competitive advantage. To properly characterize and understand competitive advantage in supply chains requires an apposite context within which supply chain competition is conceptualized. That is to say, a basic framework from which we may begin to analyse the characteristics of supply chains, is important and of which competition is a part of. Because supply chains are unique (Cooper and Ellram, 1993), it is important that the competitive advantage context within which supply chain is discussed truly reflects its nature and the competition emanating thereof. Quite like competition, competitiveness per se is a necessary but insufficient condition for achieving competitive advantage; it represents a static process while competition depicts more of a dynamic process in many of its characteristics. Thus, to achieve competitive advantage, the processes of competitiveness and competition must be complementary in this undertaking. The differentiation between competition and competitiveness in terms of supply chains’ achievement of competitive advantage serves to position competitiveness as input and competition as a mediator that acts to affect the outcome, competitive advantage. Based on the conceptual review, the findings of this paper with regards to identifying suitable theories with which we may begin to analyze supply chain vs. supply chain competition represent only the first steps towards identifying a suitable theory for supply chain competition. Further research into examining the suitability of the theories identified herewith (and possible addition of new theories) would be a good place to start dealing with the question. Actual conceptualizations and operationalizations of supply chain vs. supply chain competition using identified theories would be interesting and essential contributions to the development of theory for inter-chain competition. Moreover, a cogent basis for supply chain competition would serve to further veer the interest of business practitioners more towards supply chain management and the competition which it espouses. Although varying theories of competition exist, the competitive environment is constantly changing yet the mainstay of competition which is to compete, remains static. Regardless of the perspective with which competition is looked


ISSN 1913-9004 E-ISSN 1913-9012 82

at, there is a need for competing entities to physically engage in interaction, which is borne out of the need to obtain some sort of resources or service that are generally scarce. The way and manner this interaction occurs and the outcome of such interaction is important, as it can determine how the conceptualization of supply chain competition may be advanced. References Alley, T. R. (1982). Competition theory, evolution, and the concept of an ecological niche. Acta Biotheoretica, 31, 165-179. Barney, J. B. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17, 99-120. Barney, J. B. (1986). Strategic factor markets: Expectations, luck and business strategy. Management Science, 32, 1231-1241. Best, M. H. (1990). The new competition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Birch, L. C. (1957). The meanings of competition. American Naturalist, 91, 5-18. Cho, D. (1998). From national competitiveness to bloc and global competitiveness. Competitiveness Review, 8, 11-23. Christopher, M. (1992). Logistics and supply chain management. Pitman, London. Christopher, M. (1998). Logistics and Supply Chain Management: Strategies for Reducing Cost and Improving Service. Harlow: Prentice Hall, 2nd. ed. Colwell, R. K. (1999). Niche: A bifurcation in the conceptual lineage of the term. In Keller, E. F. & Lloyd, E. A. (Eds) Keywords in evolutionary biology. Harvard College Press. Conner, K. & Prahalad, C. K. (1996). A resource-based theory of the firm: Knowledge versus opportunism. Organization Science, 7, 477–501. Cook, P. (2003). Competition and its regulation in developing countries. In Kirkpatrick, C., Clarke, R. & Polidano, C. (Eds.) Handbook on development policy and management. Edward Elgar, UK. Cooper, M. C., and. Ellram, L. M. (1993). Characteristics of Supply Chain Management and the Implications for Purchasing and Logistics Strategy. The International Journal of Logistics Management, 4, 13-24. D’Aveni, R. A. (1994). Hypercompetition: Managing the dynamics of strategic manoeuvring. Free Press, New York. Dunning, J. H. (1997). Alliance capitalism and global business. 1 ed. Routledge; London. Ferdows, K. & De Meyer, A. (1990). Lasting improvement in manufacturing performance: In search of a new theory. Journal of Operations Management, 9, 168-184. Gardner, D. L. (2004). The supply chain vector: Methods for linking the execution of global business models with financial performance. J. Ross Publishing, Boca Raton, USA. Gertler, M. S., & Barnes, T. J. (1999). New industrial geography: Regions, regulations and institutions. Routledge. Godfrey, K. (1983). Compartmental models and their applications. Academic Press, New York, NY. Goh, J. P. (2003). The resource advantage theory of competition: Implications for higher educational institutions in Singapore. Educational Research for Policy and Practice, 2, 93-106. Grant, R. M. (2004). Contemporary strategy analysis. Blackwell Publishers, MA, USA. Grant, R. M. (1991). A resource based perspective of competitive advantage: Implications for strategy formulation. California Management Review, 33, 114-135. Grinnell, J. (1917). The niche-relationships of the California thrasher. The Auk, 34, 427-433. Hagen, J. V. & Immerfall, S. Eds (1998). Territoriality in the globalizing society: One place or none. Springer, New York. Harrigan, K. R. (1985). Vertical integration and corporate strategy. Academy of Management Journal, 28, 397-425. Hunt, S. D. & Morgan, R. M. (1996). The Resource-Advantage Theory of Competition: Dynamics, Path Dependencies, and Evolutionary Dimensions. Journal of Marketing, 60, 107–114. Hunt, S. D. (2000). A general theory of competition: Resources, competences, productivity, economic growth. Sage Publications, USA.



Hunt, S. D. (2002). Foundations of marketing theory: Toward a general theory of marketing. M. E. Sharpe Inc. USA. Hunt S. D. (2007). Economic growth: should policy focus on investment or dynamic competition? European Business Review, 19, 274-291. Kirzner, I. M. (1997). Entrepreneurial Discovery and the Competitive Market Process: An Austrian Approach. Journal of Economic Literature, 35, 60–85. Krugman, P. (1994). Competitiveness: A dangerous obsession. Foreign Affairs, 73 (2), 28-44. Lambert, D. M. (2008). Supply chain management, In Lambert, D. M. (Ed.) Supply chain management: Processes, partnerships, performance. Supply Chain Management Institute, USA. Lancioni, R. A. (2000). New developments in supply chain management for the millennium. Industrial Marketing Management, 29, 1-6. Langdon, C. S. & Sikora, R. T. (2006). Conceptualizing co-ordination and competition in supply chains as complex adaptive systems. Information Systems and E-Business Management, 4, 71-81. Loasby, B. (1982). The entrepreneur in economic theory. Scottish Journal of Political Economy, 29, 235-245. Lipczynski, J., Wilson, J. O. & Goddard, J. (2005). Industrial organization: Competition, strategy, policy. Pearson Education, UK. Ma, Hao (2000). Competitive advantage and firm performance. Competitiveness Review, 10, 15-32. MacArthur, R. & Levins, R. (1967). The limiting similarity, convergence and divergence of coexisting species. American Naturalist, 101, 377-385. Mentzer, J. T. (2004). Fundamentals of supply chain management: Twelve drivers of competitive advantage. Sage Publications, Inc. Metcalfe, J. S. (1998). Evolutionary economics and creative destruction. Rutledge, London. Metcalfe, J. S., Ramlogan, R. & Uyarra, E. (2004). Competition, innovation and economic development: The instituted connection, In Cook, P., Kirkpatrick, C., Minogue, M. and Parker, D. (Eds.) Leading issues in competition, regulation and development. Edward Elgar Publishing, UK. Monczka, R. M., Handfield, R. B. & Giunipero, L. (2009). Purchasing and Supply Chain Management. Cengage Learning, USA. Peteraf, M. A. (1993). The cornerstones of competitive advantage: A resource-based view. Strategic Management Journal, 14, 179-191. Porter, M. E. (1985). Competitive advantage: Creating and sustaining superior performance. The Free-MacMillan Press. Porter, M. E. (1990). The competitive advantage of nations. Free Press, NY. Rice Jr., B. R. & Hoppe, R. M. (2001). Supply chain vs. supply chain. The hype and the reality. Supply Chain Management Review Sept/Oct, 46-54. Rumelt, R. P. (1984). Toward a strategic theory of firm. In Lamb, R. (Ed), Competitive Strategic Management, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs. Rumelt, R. P. (1987). Theory, strategy and entrepreneurship. In Teece, D. (Ed), The Competitive Challenge, Cambridge, MA: Ballinger. Schumpeter, J. A. (1942). Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy. New York: Harper and Brothers. Silverman, D. (2000). Doing qualitative research. SAGE London. Storey, J. Emberson, C., Godsell, J. & Harrison A. (2006). Supply chain management: Theory, practice and future challenges. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 26, 754-774. Telser, L. G. (2007). Competition, collusion, and game theory. Aldine Transaction, USA. Thomas, L. G. (2001). The Japanese pharmaceutical industry: The new drug lag and the failure of industrial policy. Edward Elgar, UK. Tilman, D. (1982). Resource competition and community structure. Princeton University Press.


ISSN 1913-9004 E-ISSN 1913-9012 84

Trochim, W. K. (1989). Outcome pattern matching and program theory. Evaluation and Program Planning, 12, 355-366. Wignaraja, G. (2003). Competitiveness strategy in developing countries. Routledge, London. Wilding, R. D. And Newton, J. M. (1996). Enabling time-based strategy through logistics- using time to competitive advantage. Logistics Information Management, 9, 32-38. Zhang, D. (2006). A network economic model for supply chain versus supply chain competition. Omega The International Journal of Management Science, 34, 283-295.

Table 1. Difference between competition and competitiveness.

Table 2. Competition theories against supply chain criteria.

R-A theory Economic theory Ecological theory Multi-dimensionality � Process Orientation � � � Emergence � � �

Figure 1. Competitive advantage



Figure 2. Relationship between competition, competitiveness and competitive advantage

Figure 3. Supply chain competition pyramid

Paper 3

Supply chain vs. supply chain competition: An ecological niche-basedapproach

Imoh Antai.

Management Research Review, Volume 34, Issue 10; (2011).

III

1

Supply Chain vs. Supply Chain Competition: ANiche-based Approach

Imoh AntaiDepartment of Supply Chain Management & Corporate Geography, Hanken School of

Economics, Arkadiankatu 22, PB 479, 00101 Helsinki, Finland

Tel: +358 (0)40 3521 283; [email protected]

2

Supply Chain vs. Supply Chain Competition: An EcologicalNiche-based Approach

ABSTRACT

PurposeThis paper proposes a conceptualization of supply chain vs. supply chain competition usingthe ecological niche approach. It suggests a probabilistic methodology for evaluatingcompetition from time series data, using overlap in the utilization of services provided bycritical providers as a source of competition.

Design/methodology/approachLiterature on ecological niche theory and competition is explored and given the uncertaintythat surrounds the operation and management of supply chains, a probabilistic approach to theanalysis of supply chain vs. supply chain competition (via the Bayesian inference) isadvocated. Simulated data are used to illustrate the methodology.

FindingsShould an area of overlap be identified, ecological niche theory provides a sensible approachto identifying the nature and extent of competition between supply chains. Applicability of themethodology is not limited to supply chain vs. supply chain competition.

Research limitations/implicationsThe data used for the analysis of competition between supply chains are computer generatedand use a single niche dimension. Although this was done to merely test/validate the proposedmodel, the approach is somewhat oversimplified. However, the model is readily extendable tomultiple niche dimensions.

Original/valueThe proposed approach offers a simple and straight forward method of estimating competitionin general, and supply chains vs. supply chain competition in particular. Attempts at using theniche theory of competition in this context are so far inconspicuous. Hence approachingcompetition in this way contributes to furthering our understanding of competitive interactionespecially in supply chains, whose prospect is yet to be pointed out in literature.

Keywords: Probabilistic modeling, Competition, Niche theory; Supply chain vs. supplychain competition, Ecological niche, Overlap.

Paper type: Research paper

3

1. Introduction

Competition between supply chains continues to attract increasing mention within supplychain management and related extant literature. The burgeoning use of the term within supplychain management underlines the need to understand the determinants of supply chain vs.supply chain competition. This understanding is invaluable if supply chains are to compete ina strategic manner. Outside the rhetorical exploitation of the term however, not muchattention has been paid to its actual meaning and application with regards to supply chainmanagement and how supply chains compete. While competitive advantage has beenfrequently used within supply chain management literature, different meanings have beenimplied by virtue of such use. Given the practice of using competitive advantage as asynonym for competition within supply chain management, normative strategies for achievingcompetitive advantage in supply chains have been proposed within supply chain managementliterature (e.g. Hassini, 2008; Markley and Davis, 2007; Fulconis and Paché, 2005; Giménezand Ventura, 2003). While they present useful insights to operating and managing supplychains, few attempts have been made to operationalize the nature of competition betweensupply chains and how supply chains will compete, e.g. as complex adaptive systems(Langdon and Sikora, 2006), use of economic network model (Zhang, 2006), and on networkcapabilities (Rice and Hoppe, 2001). However, most of these operationalizations proposemodel parameters that tend to be fixed. Within economics and industrial organization, theample normative literature on competition provides few operational details for supply chainvs. supply chain competition. There is thus little analytical work in literature that studiescompetition between supply chains within a stochastic framework.

This paper proposes a conceptual framework which uses overlap in resource utilizationbetween supply chains as a source of competitive interaction. Here, competitive interaction istaken to mean the struggle (for essential resources) that results from the convergence of twoor more like entities at some point along the supply chain. The stochastic nature of resourceutilization by different supply chains calls for a probabilistic approach to competition. This isachieved here by utilizing probabilistic modeling via the popular Bayesian statisticalinference. The methodology proposed attempts to circumvent the absence of a proper basisfor testable proposition which has long limited the understanding of the mechanismsunderlying competitive interactions. Anchoring on the ecological niche theory and theintuitive insights it provides into competition, this paper focuses on conceptualizing andsubsequently operationalizing supply chain vs. supply chain competition.

The paper is organized as follows. The following section, 2, discusses the methodologicalconsiderations of the paper and does this from the different concepts of competition and theecological niche theory of competition. This section outlines the basic nature of competitionwithin the ecological niche context. Next, section 3 introduces the method used and the dataacquisition process is also described. Paper ends in section 4 where the results and methodused in this paper are discussed within the context of supply chains.

2. Methodological considerations

2.1. Concepts of competition

Several concepts of competition exist in literature. Concepts of competition emanating fromeconomics, microeconomics to be precise, have dominated competition discussions in avariety of research areas. Classical, Neoclassical and Keynesian notions of competition havebeen applied in the development of normative strategies in management and industry over the

4

years. Neo-classical theory focuses on the price of goods and services sold and how marketforces determine the quantity and quality of the goods sold in the market (Barney, 2001).

Consequently, many view competition as a process, i.e. classical economists, wherecompetition focuses on the behavior of actors, relating to technology and organizationalchanges. Others see it as a state of affairs, based on the idea of a state of market equilibrium,where market structure is the key element in this view of competition. As such, demand interms of taste and preferences, is assumed to be homogenous for products in an industry(Hunt and Morgan, 1995). This is the neoclassical concept of competition (Cook, 2002).Between these two views of competition lies a variation of competition concepts that presentin different forms of the two main views, e.g. the Industrial organization competition whichroughly corresponds to the neoclassical view and Chamberlain competition which focusesmore on the assets of the firm, its strategies and results of such strategies (Barney, 1986).Competition has also been viewed from a more constructive point of view, where it is seen asa social construction. Perceptions, which are social processes, of firms by a particular firm interms of identifying competitors, can determine the actions it takes (Easton, 1998). If a firmperceives another firm as a competitor, attitudes towards that firm may change to reflect thefact that they essentially become adversaries. While actions towards other firms are not theonly way of determining rivalry, it is a commonly used indicator within marketing theory.

The Austrian and evolutionary views of competition consider competition as a dynamicprocess, where profits are in constant change, as a result of the constantly shiftingenvironments and markets (Cook, 2002). This view of competition is similar to theSchumpeterian idea of competition (Barney, 1986) which also defines competition as adynamic process, where firms struggle under a constantly evolving set of conditions and rulesthat continuously create dominating as well as follower firms. According to this view, growthresults from the interaction among technology, market size and competition strategies as aresult of the uncertainties manifested from these technological advancement, market shifts,and innovation (Barney 1986).

Because competition is known to be one of the principal promoters of economic efficiency(Stiglitz, 1981; 184), it is known to encourage innovation to achieve better standards, goalsand objectives. However, since the common denominator linking external market changes andinternal firm activities are constantly changing (Stalk and Hout, 1990), activities that affectbusiness processes are believed to be random processes, i.e. continuously changing. Thus, thestrategies that may provide positive results in one period might not produce similar results ina different period. This is but one reason why a methodology that utilizes fixed parameters tooperationalize supply chain vs. supply chain competition quickly becomes problematic. Whilevarying notions of competition exist, the competitive environment is constantly changing, yetthe mainstay of competition which is to compete, remains static. Regardless of the perspectivewith which competition is looked at, there is a need for interaction between entities. The wayand manner this interaction occurs is of basic importance to this paper. Insight of thisinteraction is taken from ecological interaction between organisms, and is discussed in thefollowing section.

2.2. Ecological niche perspective on competition

The principles of competition are regarded to be universal, whether applied to biological orbusiness competition (Henderson, 1983); as definitions of competition applied in thebiological sciences have been known to depict business competition quite accurately. Similarconcepts of competition are central to economic as well as ecological modeling (Eldregde,1997; Nelson and Winter, 2002).

5

Originally formulated by Grinnell (1917a), an ecological niche was first formally defined byHutchison (1957) as the activity of species along every dimension of an n-dimensionalabstract space describing the characteristics of the resources a species needs to survive.Building on this is the niche assembly theory of communities (e.g. Gause, 1934; Hutchison,1957; Armstrong and McGehee, 1980), as well as the principle of competitive exclusion(Gause, 1934) which asserts that different species are able to live together in communitiesonly if they differ sufficiently in their niche separation (i.e. in the way they use or consumeavailable resources). The competitive exclusion principle formally states that no twoorganisms in a single species can occupy precisely the same niche, or exist on exactly thesame limiting resources (Grinnell, 1917b, 1924; Henderson, 1983). With regards to this,organisms have to specialize, with some commanding a wider range of resources while othersspecialize in a much narrower array of resources. Ecologists define niches as fundamental orrealized. A fundamental niche consists of the set of all environmental conditions in which thepopulation can grow or at least sustain its members (Hannan and Freeman, 1989), whereas therealized niche is the narrower range of conditions within which an organism is constrainedeither by interaction with other organisms or by surrounding environmental factors.

Because the niche assembly theory perspective stresses competition as the driving force ofcommunity structure of species, diversification is thus a means by which species may avoidcompetition. However, if such diversification does not provide a wide enough breadth ofresources within its niche for species survival, species realized niches will tend to overlap(Milne and Mason, 1990). Niche breadth refers to the range of resources upon which a speciesexists (Milne and Mason, 1990), i.e. the resources within the reach of a specie that allows it tosurvive in the environment. Resource attributes can be discrete (e.g., food type, habitat type,etc) or continuous (e.g. prey size). The commonality of shared resources provides the basisfor competition. Thus, larger overlap between niches corresponds to higher probability ofcompetition between them. Further, the niche breadth is a parameter that attempts to measurehow specialized or unspecialized a species is within its environment. It is measured byobserving how they make use of the same set of limiting resources (for example, food, space,etc).

Thus, overlaps in the utilization of the limiting resources create a potential for competition.The strength of the competitive effect exerted by a species on another species depends on theextent of overlap and the niche breaths of its competitors. Suppose that species share aresource with n discrete states. Then, following Levins (1968), the niche breath of species ican be evaluated as:

2,11/i i k

n

kB p�� (1)

Where kip , is the proportion of the total resources utilized by species i which are in resource

state k. Suppose a species i utilizes three food sources A, B, and C amongst a total of 5possible states in proportions of 40%, 30% and 30%, (for supply chains, it might be providerutilization or any other relevant aspect that can induce competition), then the niche breadth

can be evaluated using equation (1) as � � 12 2 20.40 0.30 0.30 2.94iB�

� � � � . Levins’ niche

overlap measure can be standardized on a scale from zero to one as� �� 1/11

~ 2 �� npB iii (Hurlbert 1978; Krebs 1984). For species i in the above

example, the standardized niche breadth measure is 485.0~ �iB .

6

The niche overlap measures the degree to which species overlap in their utilization ofresources, i.e. a measure of how different species partition their resources. Pianka (1974)proposed the following measure of niche overlap between species i and j:

� � ��

n

k

n

k

n

k kjkikjkiji ppppM1 1 1

2,

2,,,, / (2)

where, as earlier defined, ,i kp is the proportion of resource k, of the total available resources,

used by species i. ,i jM evaluates probability that two species would use resources in the same

state to the average probability that any of them would avoid the other (the denominator is infact the geometric mean). ,i jM ranges from 0 (no resource used in common) to 1 (complete

overlap). Note that the formulae given for the niche characteristics (niche breadth andoverlap) are for resources with discrete states; but they can also be applied to continuouslydistributed resources with integrals in place of sums and vice-versa. So, the continuous

versions of (1) and (2) are respectively �� dxxfB ii )(/1 2 and

�� dxxfdxxfdxxfxfM iijiji )()(/)()( 22

Under Gaussian resource utilization curves (RUCs); MacArthur & Levins (1967) derived thefollowing niche overlap measure:

�2 2 22exp ( ) ( )/i j i j i jM B B � � � � (3)

where i = the mode of the resource utilization curve (RUC) of species i and j is the mode

of the RUC for species j.

If the niche breadths are equal i.e. i jB B B� � , then 2 2,exp( /4 )i j i jM d B� � , where

, | |i j i jd � � (Begon et al. 1996).

Along the lines of MacArthur & Levins (1967) and Levins (1968), the competitive effect aspecies j has on species i induced by the overlap in the utilization of a single critical resourceis defined as:

2i j ii j f (x) f (x) dx f (x) dx� = /� � (4a)

Intuitively, ,i j� evaluates the probability that species i would use the same resource as species

j, relative to the probability that it would avoid species j. For resources distributed in discretestates:

�� k kikjk kiji ppp 2/� (4b)

For supply chains, competition may result from an overlap in many areas, here we use overlapin provider utilization for illustration. From the continuous versions of competition coefficient

i j� as defined in (4) and niche breadth index, it is clear that the competition coefficient can be

related to the overlap measure through

7

i j i j i jM B B/� = (5)

Equation (5) which actually gives the competition coefficient between the competing entitiesimplies that, all else being equal, narrow niche (specialization) tend to provide bettercompetitive efficiency in areas where competitors overlap. The extent of niche overlapexpressed in numeric values is known as the competition coefficient (Levins, 1968).

-4 -2 0 2 4

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

Resource spectrum

R U

C

dij

Species iSpecies j

Figure 1: Configuration of two competitors’ niches. The two RUCs are Gaussian with means0i � and 1j � , and standard deviations used as surrogates for niche breadths

45.0�iB and 60.0�jB . The niche overlap is 41.0, �jiM , and the competition coefficients

result from equation 5 as 35.0, �ji� and 47.0, �ij� .

The connection between niche configuration and the intensity of competition can beillustrated with Figure 1 (Mutshinda and O’Hara, 2010), which displays the niches of twospecies’ (i and j) RUCs along a single limiting axis with continuous resource states. The twoRUCs are Gaussian with means 0i � and 1j � , and standard deviations used as

surrogates for niche breadths 45.0�iB and 60.0�jB . The overlap between the two species’

niches derived is estimated from equation (3) as 41.0, �jiM , and the competition coefficients

result from equation (5) as 35.0, �ji� and 47.0, �ij� . So, the competition is asymmetric:

species i is less affected than species j since species j has a wider niche as discussed above.Figure 2 provides a three-dimensional illustration of the connection between nicheconfiguration and the intensity of competition experienced by species i from species j(Mutshinda and O’Hara, 2010). The x-axis is the niche overlap, the y-axis represents the ratioof the niche breaths of species species i from species j, respectively, and the z-axis is thecompetitive effect of species j on species i.

8

Niche overlap

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

M(i) / M

(j)

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

Com

petition coefficient 0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

Figure 2: Three-dimensional illustration of the connection between niche configuration andthe intensity of competition experienced by species i from species j. The x-axis is the nicheoverlap, the y-axis represents the ratio of the niche breaths of species i from species j,respectively, and the z-axis is the competitive effect of species j on species i.

2.3. Conceptualizing supply chain vs. supply chain competition

The ecological niche theory is an important as well as a relevant theoretical anchor for thestudy of competition between supply chains because it provides a shared attribute in the factthat competition between entities occur from a demand for limited resources. This is logical.In the same vein, it depicts that competition occurs within single entities and it can also takeplace between groups of entities, which is also the case in supply chains where competitioncan readily takes place between service providers e.g. OEMs, logistics firms, etc, bidding towin a certain contract. But it can also take place between the groups of entities that make up

9

the supply chain. This natural competition is the foundation upon which any form of strategiccompetition must build and modify (Henderson, 1981). For the purpose of conceptualization,it is useful to think of supply chains as competing species, where the niche can be likened tothe industry in which competition occurs between similar supply chains struggling for similarresources. Hence, for two supply chains to be competitors, they must target similar resourcescritical to their survival to a significant extent. Resources can be taken to be supplies (materialor non-material) supply chains depend on to carry on business. The niche breadth of a supplychain would then represent the range of resources commonly utilized by supply chains in aparticular industry, which such a supply chain depends on for business continuity. It shouldhowever be noted that supply chains are not species. The concept of species competition isused for illustrative purposes to clarify the nature of the interactive relationship resulting fromthe need for similar critical resources and the extent of the potential competitive interaction.While Biologists have for years developed a sensible conceptual framework for competition,most attempts at conceptualizing supply chain vs. supply chain have overlooked thisthoughtful approach in contrast with other fields like marketing (e.g. Milne and Mason,1990).

Anchoring within the ecological niche theory, competition between supply chains would seekto identify the relevant resources that supply chains commonly share and the mechanismswith which these resources are organized. In identifying resources, an account of loss andgain between the competing entities is essential to understanding competition within the nichetheory context. In order to do this, a basis upon which competition is carried out must bedetermined. As can be recognized, there are several dimensions that are essential for thefunctioning of an effective and efficient supply chain. For example quality, speed,dependability, service levels, etc, are all dimensions upon which supply chains maytechnically compete. These dimensions, as in the niche theory, may be varied and numerous.

Conceptualizing supply chain competition within the framework of ecological niche theorypictures competitive supply chains as a group of entities originating from a certain industryand competing as one cohesive entity. This competition, and indeed the competing supplychains are set within an environment that cannot be controlled by the competitors that operatewithin it. Thus, if we assume the supply chain environment (i.e. the supply chain and itsoperations and interactions with both primary and supporting members) to be the marketspace within which competition takes place and take supply chains to be the entities that takepart in this competition. It then follows that if supply chains within this market place mustexist and coexist, these supply chains must be in some kind of equilibrium (Henderson, 1981,1983). This equilibrium is however not one in which all competitors are equally well suitedand obtain equal benefits from competing. But one in which the weakest of the competitorsmust differentiate itself in its resource use/acquisition pattern, and hence the quality of itsproduct offerings, innovative ideas, etc. That is to say, the weakest competitors mustdiversify, or find new ways of staying competitive, and by staying competitive means supplychains continuously have to compete for resources, pursue cost reduction, become and remaininnovative and hence encourage value creation. This is very much in line with the ecologicalniche perspective (e.g. Gause, 1934; Armstrong and McGehee, 1980). Thus, we wouldtherefore hypothesize the following:

� Technically, a positive-sum competition (with reference to the industry)

Supply chain vs. supply chain competition is positive-sum, because when valueimproves or is created, all members and customers benefit (Porter and Teisberg, 2006:33; Martinez, 2003). A positive sum competition emphasizes positive aspects of freemarkets such as invention, innovation and entrepreneurship. Competitors should be

10

able to benefit from competitive interaction by increasing internal value to members aswell as delivering better value to its end customers. Because of the availability ofuncommitted resources in the competition environment, it is not possible forcompetitors to operate on a zero-sum basis. The opportunity for diversification thatexists within the ecological niche theory ensures that competition between supplychains would remain a positive sum.

� Competition is dynamic and constantly changing

Competition is a dynamic process because it emphasizes that information concerningmarket behavior and performance is constantly changing. The ecological niche theorystates that the structure of the industry is determined by competition, where the fittestremain at the top of the competitive scale. It also suggests that competitive interactionsbetween competing supply chains will generate fluctuations in the structure of theindustry. Because different firms are positioned at different competitive levels withinthe industry with respect to their supply chains, information on end-customer requestswhich are constantly changing as a result of changing tastes and preferences ensuresthat different supply chains are positioned to take advantage of such changes when itis beneficial. However, the demand for value-based end products from end-customersremains constant.

� Similarity of competing supply chains

If supply chains are to compete against each other, then they must have certaincharacteristics in common. Setting the competition within the industry does not takeaway from the global nature of the supply chain; it merely emphasizes the similaritybetween the supply chains that enables competition to take place between them whichis done within the industrial setting. Moreover, in order to fully espouse the ecologicalniche concept of competition, the similarity of competing supply chains within a givenindustry is necessary and sufficient to carry on supply chain vs. supply chaincompetition. Necessary in that competition between supply chains in a particularindustry should be stronger than the competition between two supply chains from twodifferent industries (Figure 3) and sufficient because the competition coefficientbetween competing supply chains of a given industry must be 1, hence emphasizingthe positive sum nature of competition.

Industry 1

Figure 3: Requisite strength of interaction between supply chains

Weak

Strong

Strong

Industry 2

11

� Competitive interaction of competitors

Competitive interaction between supply chains as conceived in this framework willtake place at the points where supply chains have to share or use common resourcesthat are critical to their strategy along the supply chain (Figure 4). While concernsabout the potential difficulty of such an interactive structure for competition purposeshas been expressed (see e.g. Rice and Hoppe, 2001), it is however, pertinent to notethat it is inevitable that overlaps of service providers between different competingsupply chains will occur.

Figure 4: Conceptualization of competition between supply chains

This is because the universe for service providers and original equipment manufacturers(OEMs) is expected to get smaller (Cummins, 2001). It is predicted that as product andinformation technology advances, improving process management across the supply chain,Tier 1 and Tier 2 suppliers, component manufacturers and assembly companies are expectedto shrink (Cummins, 2001; Financial Times, 2000). As suppliers and service providersbecome bigger and operate on larger scales because of mergers and strategic alliances, less areable to remain in the market. As such, even if competing supply chains share or use the samesuppliers or service providers, there is still a possibility for competition between supplychains. In fact, it is based on the very real detail that supply chains share suppliers and serviceproviders that such a conceptualization of competition between supply chains is possible here.An example of the competition points depicted in figure 4 could be Intel, the leadingdeveloper of silicon and microchip technologies and who supplies computer manufacturerslike Dell, HP, Toshiba, Sony, etc. Because Intel and Advanced Micro Devices (AMD, theother large semi-conductor and processor developer) manufactures the processors used to runthe computers these companies make, their supply chains would most likely have to gothrough either of these two suppliers. However, when resource capacity is restricted (criticaland relatively scarce) at such points along the supply chain, there is a potential for theoccurrence of conditions that can lead to competition. Competition points depicted in fig. 4may occur anywhere along the supply chain and can arise multiple times along anorganization’s supply chain.

Supply chain 1

Supply chain 2

Competition points

Upstream Downstream

12

Founded on the conceptualization of supply chain vs. supply chain competition proposedhere, its operationalization may be carried out on the basis of critical resources that arenecessary to its ability to create value for end customers and its members. Resources in thissense can include all input (material, tangible or intangible) used to convert a product from itsraw material form to the finished products customers can get value from. Thus, resources mayinclude raw materials, knowledge, information, skills and expertise, access to serviceproviders, etc. A form of competition that is suitable to supply chain vs. supply chaincompetition analysis is proposed. Even though the concept of competition focuses on value asthe ultimate response, operationalization should allow for a comprehensive way of accountingfor the impact of one supply chain on another in (terms of their use of limiting resources) aswell as the impact of the environment on the supply chains.

3.0. Material & method

Competition between supply chains can be modeled on the foundation of the niche theory ofspecies. The point where two or more supply chains overlap creates a potential forcompetition. In order to achieve this, the niche breadths of the supply chains and overlapsbetween them need to be determined. The competitive effects of supply chains on each othercan be evaluated from temporal data on resource utilization using a probabilistic approach.

3.1. Probabilistic modeling

The use of probabilistic modeling with erratic components is not novel in literature (e.g. seevon Neumann, 1954). Bayesian inference (Gelman et al., 2003) is a probabilistic modeldescribing the joint probability function over a set of random variables. It is an alternativeapproach to statistical inference that is increasingly used to evaluate models and hypotheses.It starts with the formulation of a model, � �|p y � that is assumed to describe the data

conditionally on the unknown parameter of interest, � �� . A Prior distribution, � �p � , is

subsequently defined to embody the analyst’s state of knowledge about the plausibleparameter values before observing the data. As data becomes available, the likelihood of thedata � �|p y � , is used to update the prior distribution(knowledge) in order to obtain a more

accurate posterior distribution, � �|p y� , by means of the Bayes' theorem as:

� � � ��

� � � ��

� � � �, || |

|

p y p y pp y p p y

p y p y p d

� � ��

� � ��

� � ��

(6)

The lack of relevant prior information about plausible parameter values leads to the use of so-called non-informative or “vague” priors such as uniform distributions on large compactregions or centered normal distributions with large variance. The posterior distribution is thetarget of the Bayesian inference as is the case with similar studies (e.g. Gottschalk et al, 2010;Mutshinda, et al., 2008) exploring the fact that it conveys all necessary information about theparameter of interest. Bayesian conclusions are essentially made in terms of probabilisticstatements about plausible parameter values or outcomes of future observations.

In many practical problems, uncertainty can be modeled at different stages via a hierarchicalBayesian formulation. A hierarchical Bayesian (HB) model is one in which parameters in thelikelihood depend on other parameters not mentioned therein, which themselves require priorsthat may depend on new parameters; the process coming to an end when no new parametersare introduced. The HB modeling provides a powerful means for representing complexphenomena through a series of simple structures.

13

The Bayesian methodology is necessary within areas of uncertainty such as competitionbetween supply chains in number of ways. First, the use of prior information allows other orprior information to be incorporated into the analysis. Good prior information from priorstudies, prior knowledge or prior collected data. Second, the use of prior information canminimize the need for an overly large sample and sometimes the lack of data. Third, becauseof the flexibility built into the methodology, it is capable of dealing with missing data quitewell and can also offer flexibility in the design and analysis of a study. Fourth and mostimportantly, it can serve as a way of validating a proposed model for onward use in realsituations.

3.2. Data generation

Here we assume that competition is induced by overlap in the use of a limited number ofcritical (essential) providers. The data comprise of time series of provider use per 100transactions. Let ,i ty denote the S dimensional vector including the number of times supply

chain i has used each of the S plausible providers during time period t.We assume that ,i ty is sampled from a multinomial distribution with parameter

� �,1 ,,...,i i i S� �� where ,0 1i j�� and ,11

S

i jj�� . That is,

� �, ,1

, ,| ( )S

i t i jj

i t jyp � ��y . (7)

Supply chain 1

010

2030

40

Supply chain 2

Supply chain 3

010

2030

4050

Povider 1 Povider 3 Povider 5

Supply chain 4

Povider 1 Povider 3 Povider 5

Pro

vide

r us

e (in

%)

14

Figure 5: Boxplots of simulated data for the utilization of 5 providers (in %) across 4 competingsupply chains over 50 time periods. The utilization probabilities for supply chain i, i� , were to (0.25,

0.15, 0.10, 0.30, 0.20) for supply chain 1, (0.10, 0.25, 0.20, 0.40, 0.05) for supply chain 2, (0.40, 0.20,0.25, 0.05, 0.10) for supply chain 3, and (0.20, 0.10, 0.15, 0.10, 0.45) for supply chain 4.

The multinomial distribution generalizes the well-known binomial distribution to more thantwo categories. To obtain the samples, we fixed the parameter i� for different supply chains,as (0.25, 0.15, 0.10, 0.30, 0.20) for supply chain 1, (0.10, 0.25, 0.20, 0.40, 0.05) for supplychain 2, (0.40, 0.20, 0.25, 0.05, 0.10) for supply chain 3, and (0.20, 0.10, 0.15, 0.10, 0.45) forsupply chain 4. The data from provider use per 100 transactions over 50 time-periods wasgenerated from multinomial distribution with the assumed i� . Figure 5 displays boxplots ofthe simulated data.

3.3. Model fitting

Fitting a model with a Bayesian approach requires priors to be specified over the modelparameters. Here, the conjugate distribution was placed on i� (a generalization of the Betadistribution to more than two categories). The probability density function of the S-dimensional Dirichlet distribution with parameter vector � , Dir ( )� , has the form

� �1

1| ( )

S

i jj

jp�

��

�� (8)

A choice of prior for the hyper-parameters i� (parameters of a prior distribution are called

hyper-parameters) is � �1,...,1i �� , some kind of generalization of the uniform prior. Prior

information may be incorporated through the hyper-parameters i� . However, estimation ofsuch a hierarchical model will necessitate a resort to numerical methods such as Markov chainMonte Carlo (MCMC) (Gelman et al., 2003). In principle, MCMC can be implementedthrough available software such as OpenBUGS (Thomas et al. 2006). It should be noted thatWin-/Open-BUGS do not allow for the parameters of the Dirichlet to be specified asstochastic nodes. One way around this is to note that if for k=1,….� , )1,(~ kk Ga �� where

),( vuGa denotes the gamma distribution with shape parameter u and inverse scale parameter

v, then the vector with elements �k kk �� / is Dirichlet with parameter vector ),....( 1 s�� .So the following hierarchical construction (in OpenBUGS form) should allow sampling fromthe parameters � for different supply chains:

for (k in 1:S){p[j,k]<-delta[j,k]/sum(delta[j,])delta[j,k]~dgamma(gamma[k], 1)

Analyses carried out in this paper were based on the non-informative prior )1,...,1(�i� foreach supply chain. The model was fitted to the simulated data by MCMC through BUGS.Three MCMC were run for 60000 iterations and the first 15000 iterations were discarded asburn-in, and the remainder thinned to every 15th observation, yielding 9000 samples for eachparameter. The convergence of the chains was assessed by visual inspection. The mixing ofthe chains is apparent from Figure 6.

15

Figure.6. Trace plots of posterior proportions of provider utilization corresponding to supplychain 1. The plots illustrate the good mixing of the MCMC as the chains fully explore theparameter space.

3.4. Results

The model turned out to fit the simulated data well, with estimated values close to the “true”values used to simulate the data. Figure 6 displays trace plots of posterior proportions ofprovider utilization by supply chain 1. The plots illustrate the good mixing of the sampler as

16

the chains fully explore the parameter space. The full set of results is given in Table 1 whereposterior means are also given, along with standard errors.The posterior means were used to estimate the competition coefficients between the foursupply chains based on overlap in provider use. Table 2 gives the estimates of competitioncoefficients for the fitted model using equation (1) for niche breadth, equation (2) for nicheoverlap and equation (5) for competition coefficients. These are identical to their counterpartderived from the model parameters used to simulate the data, corroborating the ability of themodel to uncover competitive interactions, should the relevant domains of competitiveinteractions be identified.

Table 1 Posterior summaries for provider use proportions across supply chains.

Supply Chain True Value 2.5 Pc Posterior mean 97.5 Pc

Provider 1

SC 1 0.25 0.22 0.24 0.26

SC 2 0.10 0.09 0.1 0.107SC 3 0.40 0.38 0.4 0.41SC4 0.20 0.188 0.2 0.21

Provider 2

SC1 0.15 0.13 0.15 0.16

SC2 0.25 0.23 0.24 0.257SC3 0.20 0.185 0.2 0.207SC4 0.10 0.089 0.1 0.105

Provider 3

SC1 0.10 0.09 0.11 0.12

SC2 0.20 0.19 0.21 0.217SC3 0.25 0.24 0.25 0.265SC4 0.15 0.13 0.15 0.156

Provider 4

SC1 0.30 0.28 0.29 0.31

SC2 0.40 0.38 0.40 0.409SC3 0.05 0.05 0.5 0.06SC4 0.10 0.09 0.10 0.109

Provider 5

SC1 0.20 0.19 0.21 0.21

SC2 0.05 0.048 0.05 0.060SC3 0.10 0.08 0.1 0.103SC4 0.45 0.44 0.45 0.46

The estimated competition coefficients are quite high, and this may be due to the fact that thesimulated data assumed approximately equal niche breadths (0.86 for SC1, 0.66 for SC2 andSC3, and 0.63 for SC4), with large overlaps in provider utilization across supply chains (0.85for SC1-SC2, 0.76 for SC1-SC3, 0.79 for SC1-SC4, 0.60 for SC2-SC3, 0.49 for SC2-SC4,and 0.67 for SC3-SC4). However, in real-world systems, competing entities tend to differwith regard to both the breadths of resource utilization curves and therefore the overlapstherein.

Table 2 Estimates of competition coefficients for the fitted model.

SC 1 SC 2 SC 3 SC 4

SC 1 1 0.97 0.87 0.92

SC 2 0.74 1 0.60 0.50

SC 3 0.67 0.60 1 0.69

SC 4 0.67 0.48 0.65 1

17

4.0. Discussion and conclusion

Understanding the fundamental mechanisms that generate competition between interactingsystems is an issue of increasing interest in a variety of areas. In supply chain management,this knowledge is crucial to the design of effective management and control strategies. Thispaper took up the conceptualization and operationalization of supply chain vs. supply chaincompetition, using the ecological niche theory to characterize and understand competition. Tocurrent knowledge, the use of the ecological niche concept of competition to conceptualizeand operationalize competition in the supply chain context is unique. The ecological nicheapproach provides a basic framework from which competition can be taken up, and this is notparticular to supply chain interactions. It is however worth emphasizing that an understandingof the way competition can arise, i.e. the determination of relevant niche axes, is critical.Herein, we have used for illustrative purposes overlap in supplier utilization as a source ofcompetition between supply chains. Because supply chains have certain characteristics thatmake them unique (Cooper and Ellram, 1993), it is important that the context within whichsupply chains compete with each other be selected to reflect the nature and competitionemanating thereof. While it is emphasized that overlap in resource utilization is required forcompetition; it need not necessarily lead to competition unless critical resources are in shortsupply (Colwell & Futuyma 1971). Because these critical supplies and/or products cannot befound everywhere along the supply chain, it is essential that the conceptualization ofcompetition between supply chains consider the points where these critical services/productsare provided along the supply chain.

Having said that, it is pertinent to note that issues regarding the fact that organizations andfirms whose supply chains compete along the supply chain but not in the market and viceversa, arise. While this is possible, it must be noted that although supply chain vs. supplychain competition is picking substantial interest, conventional competition remains strongwithin management and economic literature. As such, once a product gets to the market, themechanisms governing the process of supply chain vs. supply chain competition ends and thatof market competition takes over. Thus, the essence of supply chain competition is essentiallyto create the combination of economic /social value and usability of a product desired bycustomers before it gets to the market. That way, both ends (supply chain and the market) areable to work together to ultimately create value for end-customers. Hence, the implication ofthe niche/overlap principle used here is that competitors with broader niches (generalists) tendto avoid competition by switching to alternative options i.e. the so-called diversificationstrategy, which makes them less competitively efficient but better able withstand competitionby selecting alternative options.

The paper has demonstrated how temporal data on the utilization of limiting resources andoverlaps therein can be used to evaluate competition between interacting entities. Theecological niche theory employed and results obtained here suggests that entities withnarrower niches (i.e. specialists) are likely to be more competitively efficient, but supplychains with wider niches can better withstand competition by exploiting a broader range ofthe niche. This finding has been documented in supply chain management literature, usuallyreflecting in the choices supply chains make with regards to its suppliers. For example, Kekreet al. (1995) showed that within procurement strategy along supply chains, dealing with fewersuppliers significantly improved quality. Similar results have been generally reported insupply chain literature as results to studies of the supplier base and their effect on quality, butrarely has the reason for this been shown. This formulation of competition presents ananalytical explanation as to why these results are continuously obtained in such studies withinsupply chain management. Further areas of research could look into the possibility of supplychain competition based on interaction may be actually accomplished in reality.

18

The Bayesian approach used here most efficiently accounts for uncertainty, meaning thatmany aspects such as environmental factors can be incorporated into the model. Resources aredynamic and so is competition. This temporal aspect needs to be taken into account by usingtime series data as suggested in this paper. Information on the state of competition betweensupply chains can be continually updated in the proposed framework via Bayes’ rule as newdata are obtained. It should be noted that just as ecological niches are in practicemultidimensional, supply chains versus supply chain competition can occur on many differentaxes. E.g. speed, quality, etc. Overall, the theory provides a useful way of expressing howinteractions between supply chains can bring about competition and the technique provides asimple and straightforward way of estimating such competition.

19

5.0. References

Armstrong, R. A. and McGehee, R. (1980), “Competitive exclusion”, American Naturalist,Vol. 115 No. 2, pp. 151-170.

Barney, J. B. (1986), “Strategic factor markets: Expectations, luck and business strategy”,Management Science, Vol. 32 No. 10, pp. 1231-1241.

Barney, J. B. (2001), “Resource-based theories of competitive advantage: A tern-yearretrospective on the resource based view”, Journal of Management, Vol. 27 No. 6, pp.643-50.

Begon, M., Mortimer, M. and Thompson, D. J. (1996), Population ecology: A unified studyof animals and plants, 3rd edition Blackwell Science, UK.

Colwell, R. K., Futuyma, D. J. (1971), “On the measurement of the niche breadth andoverlap”. Ecology, Vol. 52 No. 4, pp. 567-576.

Cooper, M. C., and. Ellram, L. M. (1993),“Characteristics of Supply Chain Management andthe Implications for Purchasing and Logistics Strategy”, The International Journal ofLogistics Management, Vol. 4 No. 2, pp. 13-24.

Cook, P. (2002), “Competition and its regulation: Key issues”, Annals of Public andCooperative Economics Vol. 73 No. 4, pp.541-558.

Cummins, A. (2001), “As I see it: Supply chain vs. supply chain”, Automotive Industries,June, 2001.

Easton, G. (1998), “Competition and marketing strategy”, European Journal of Marketing,Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 31-49.

Eldregde, N. (1997), “Evolution in the marketplace”, Structural Change and EconomicDynamics Vol. 8 No. 4, pp.385-395.

Financial Times, 29th Feb 2000.Fulconis, F. and Paché, G. (2005), “Exploiting SCM as a source of competitive advantage:

The importance of cooperative goals revisited”, Competitiveness Review: AnInternational Business Journal incorporating Journal of Global Competitiveness,Vol.15, No. 2, pp. 92-100.

Gause, G. F. (1934), The struggle for existence. Hafner Publishing Company, NY.Gelman, A., Carlin, J. B., Stern, H. S. and Rubin, D. B. (2003), Bayesian Data Analysis.

Second Edition. Chapman & Hall, London.Giménez, C. and Ventura E. (2003), “Supply chain management as a competitive advantage

in the Spanish grocery sector”, International Journal of Logistics ManagementVol.14 No. 1, pp. 77-88.

Gottschalk, F., Scholz, R. W., and Nowack, B. (2010), “Probabilistic material flow modelingfor assessing the environmental exposure to compounds: Methodology andapplication to engineered nano-TiO2 particles”, Environmental Modeling andSoftware, Vol. 25, No. 3, pp.320-332.

Grinnell, J. (1917a), “Field test of theories concerning distributional control”. AmericanNaturalist, Vol. 51, pp.115-128.

Grinnell, J. (1917b), “The niche-relationships of the California thrasher”. The Auk Vol. 34 No.4, pp. 427-433.

Hannan, M. T. and Freeman, J. (1989), Organizational ecology. Harvard University Press,USA.

Hassini, E. (2008), “Building competitive enterprises through supply chain management”.Journal of Enterprise Information Management Vol. 21 No.4, pp. 341-344.

20

Henderson, B. D. (1981), “Understanding the forces of strategic and natural competition”,Journal of Business Strategy, Vol. 1 (Winter), pp. 11–15.

Henderson, B. D. (1983), “The anatomy of competition”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 47 No.2, pp. 7-11.

Hutchison, G. E. (1957), “Concluding Remarks”, Cold Spring Harbour Symposium ofQuantitative Biology Vol. 22: pp. 415-427.

Hunt, S. D and Morgan, R. M. (1995), “The competitive advantage theory of competition”,Journal of Marketing, Vol. 59 No. 2, pp. 1-15.

Hurlbert, S. H. (1978), “The measurement of the niche overlap and some relatives”, Ecology,Vol. 59 No. 1, pp. 67-77.

Kekre, S., Murthi, B. P.S., Srinivasan, K. (1995), “Operating decisions, supplier availabilityand quality: An empirical study”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 12, No. 3-4, pp. 387-396.

Krebs, C. J. (1989), Ecological methodology, Harper Collins, New York.Langdon, C. S. and Sikora, R. T. (2006) “Conceptualizing co-ordination and competition in

supply chains as complex adaptive systems”, Information Systems and E-BusinessManagement Vol. 4, No. 1, pp. 71-81.

Levins, R. (1968), Evolution in changing environments: Some theoretical explanations.Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey, U.S.A.

MacArthur, R. H. & Levins, R. (1967), “The limiting similarity, convergence and divergenceof coexisting species”, American Naturalist, Vol. 101 No. 921, pp. 377-385.

Markley, M. J. and Davis, L. (2007), “Exploring future competitive advantage throughsustainable supply chains”, International Journal of Physical Distribution & LogisticsManagement Vol. 37 No. 9, pp. 763-774.

Martinez, V. (2003), Understanding Value Creation: The Value Matrix and the ValueCube, PhD Thesis Strathclyde University.

Milne, G. R. and Mason, C. H. (1990), “An ecological niche theory approach to themeasurement of brand competition”, Marketing Letters Vol. 1, No. 3, pp. 267-281.

Mutshinda, C. M. and O’Hara, R. B. (2010), “Integrating the niche and neutral perspectiveson community structure and dynamics”, Oecologia DOI: 10.1007/s00442-010-1831-x.

Mutshinda, C. M., Antai, I., and O’Hara, R. B. (2008), “A probabilistic approach to exposurerisk assessment”, Stochastic Environmental Research and Risk Assessment, Vol. 22,No. 4, pp. 441-449.

Nelson, R. R. and Winter, S. G. (2002), “Evolutionary theorizing in Economics”, Journal ofEconomic Perspectives Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 23-46.

Pianka, E. R. (1974), “Niche overlap and diffuse competition”, Proceedings of the NationalAcademy of Science USA Vol. 71 No. 5, pp. 2141-2145.

Porter, M. and Teisberg, E. O. (2006), Redefining healthcare: Creating value basedcompetition on results. Harvard Business School Press, U.S.A.

Rice Jr., B. R. and Hoppe, R. M. (2001), “Supply chain vs. supply chain. The hype and thereality”, Supply Chain Management Review Sept/Oct, pp. 46-54.

Stiglitz, J. E. (1981), “Potential Competition May Reduce Welfare”, American EconomicReview, Vol. 71 No. 2, 184–189.

Stalk, G., and Hout, T. (1990), Competing Against Time: How Time-Based Competition IsReshaping Global Markets. The Free Press, New York.

Thomas, A., O' Hara, R. B., Ligges, U. & Sturtz, S. (2006), “Making BUGS Open”, R NewsVol. 6, pp. 12-17.

21

Von Neumann, J. (1954), “Probabilistic logics and the synthesis of reliable organisms fromunreliable components”, Shannon, C. E. and McCarthy, J. (Eds), Automated Studies,Princeton University Press, Princeton, N.J.

Zhang, D. (2006), “A network economic model for supply chain versus supply chaincompetition”, Omega The International Journal of Management Science, Vol. 34 No.3, pp. 283-295.

IV

/��+�

��!��?� ��,�*��*��&&�%��)�!��#��&&�%��)�!��&��!�!��

�

��

Submitted Manuscript (International Journal of Logistics Research and Applications, IJLRA).

Interaction: A new focus for supply chain vs. supply chain competition

Imoh Antaia1 and Hans Olsonb

aDepartment of Supply Chain Management & Corporate Geography,

Hanken School of Economics, Arkadiankatu 22, P.B. 479, 00101 Helsinki, Finland

Tel: +358 (0)40 3521 283; [email protected]; bBrains and Bricks Research Centre

University of Linkoping, 60174 Norrkoping, Sweden.

[email protected]

1Corresponding author. Email: [email protected]

Submitted at the International Journal of Logistics Research and Applications (IJLRA).

Abstract

Although the supply chain competition concept has emerged during the past decade as the way firms willcompete in future, there is scant academic research on actual mechanisms through which such competition canoccur. This paper proposes interaction as the means by which competition between supply chains may beundertaken. Proposing interaction as a means of competition, it undertakes a case study of a Swedish logisticscenter to illustrate and develop the idea of interaction for supply chain vs. supply chain competition. Findingssuggest that points of interaction for supply chains may present enough breadth to assume a role in the changingfocus of competition within business and corporate literature. Most studies dealing with competition betweensupply chains fall short of exploring the link between theory and corresponding practice of this evolvingcompetition mode. Such a link is provided via interaction and its illustration with the use of logistics centers.

Keywords: Logistics center, Interaction, Competition, Supply chain vs. Supply chain, Casestudy, Pattern matching.

Paper type: Research paper

1.0. INTRODUCTION

As firms become more specialized, they become increasingly aware of the growinginterdependencies and opportunities that exist between organizations, suppliers andcustomers (Watts and Hahn, 1993; Bowersox and Closs, 1996; De Souza et al, 2000).Organizations and firms have become more conscious to the fact that they cannot competewith other firms in isolation of their suppliers and other units in the supply chain (Lummusand Vokurka, 1999; Banomyong, 2005). Acknowledging that competition between supplychains represents the future is no longer novel in supply chain management literature. Rather,what is of interest to supply chain management scholars is how this process of competitionbetween supply chains is expected to be carried forward.As supply chain competition and its burgeoning development continue to attract globalattention, logistics centers have come under a new spotlight. It has been amply shown thattransportation and logistics vary from location to location. For example, it accounted forabout 20-30% of GDP in China (Huang and Kadar, 2002; Lai et al., 2005), 7.7% of GDP forthe United States (Wilson, 2010) and between 10-15% of GDP for most major, European andAsian/Pacific economies (Rushton, Oxley & Croucher 2000). Even though the importance oflogistics centers have only recently been acknowledged, the concept of interaction as a meansof operationalizing competition between supply chains throws new light on the role of suchpoints as logistics centers. These are points where two or more supply chains meet forpurpose of taking advantage of services or resources offered at these points, and thus as aplatform for competition between supply chains.

The recurrent tendency of logistics centers is to provide storage space, transportation (albeitintermodal) and other logistics value-adding activities to supply chains that use such centers.Since logistics is the backbone and origin of supply chain thinking (Waters, 2003; Kamauff,2009) and upon which most supply chain management activities depend, it is therefore notout of place to describe logistics centers as a nodal point catering to the needs and demandsof supply chains at a certain point-in-time and space. As such, it can generally be agreed thatsupply chains constitute an important customer base for logistics centers. With respect to thisfact, supply chains are requesting more of logistics centers in terms of additional and superiorcustomized services, faster turn-around times, less storage time and hence less storage space,etc, which allows supply chains achieve a higher level of responsiveness to market placedemand. In order to adequately cater for supply chains, logistics centers must be willing andable to satisfy the needs of multiple supply chains in terms of critical services and/or productsthat will enable supply chains stay competitive, achieve competitive advantage and deliverthe much needed value to its end-customers. Therefore, how logistics centers will go aboutcreating this environment for the possible achievement of competitive advantage for supplychains require necessary attention within supply chain management.The purpose of this paper is to propose the concept of interaction (of supply chains) as themeans through which competition can be practically operationalized between supply chains.As an essential source of interaction for supply chains, logistics centers is used to illustratethe rivalry that might exist between supply chains given the finite nature of servicecapabilities at such points where they interact. This paper thus investigates a case logisticscenter located in Sweden. The theoretical basis of the interaction concept is the ecologicalniche theory. Based on the interaction of supply chains at logistics centers, this paper alsoargues that interaction points also represent locations where value creation can be achievedby supply chains. The following chapters of this article provide a review of literature relatingto the concept of logistics centers and the development and consequent definition of suchcenters in chapter 2. Also, a clarification of the concept of interaction as used within thecontext of competition at logistics centers is made. Chapter 3 discusses the methodology

employed in this paper, including the case study design, and methods used for analyzing suchdata. Chapter 4 formally introduces the case organizations and goes on to present salientresults and findings from the case. Finally, chapter 5 carries out an analysis and draws thepaper to a conclusion, with implications of the findings and result of analysis.

2.0. INTERACTION, LOGISTICS CENTERS AND SUPPLY CHAINCOMPETITION

2.1 Concept and origin of interaction between supply chains

Prior to focusing on logistics centers as an example of a potential point of competitionbetween supply chains, it is appropriate to describe the underlying nature of competitionbetween supply chains within which the context of logistics centers becomes a consequentfocus- i.e. interaction, within the ecological context.Within business, management and strategy literature, several types of interaction terms existand these can range from mild to intense interactions. Within these literature streams, anumber of interaction modes can be readily recognized – cooperation; collaboration e.g.collaborative or non adversarial (Cox, 2001), partnership (Webster, 1992; Mentzer et al.,2000), supplier-producer collaboration (Cravens et al., 1996) and integration, e.g. verticalintegration (Webster, 1992), and joint venture (Ellram, 1991). Maintaining these kinds ofinteractive relationships however, requires 1) The formulation of a metric system ofprocessing data between the interacting entities 2) An information sharing mechanismbetween entities and 3) A system for the redistribution of gains between them (Ballou et al.,2000). Within the industrial network approach, this form of interaction can take placebetween companies via its actors, activities and resources and generally referred to as thenetwork structure (e.g. Harland, 1996).Following from this, similar types of interaction are possible between supply chains atdifferent stages along the supply chain, e.g. integration, partnership, collaboration,transaction. However, for the purpose of competition analysis between supply chains, theconcept of interaction used here is adopted from the natural science discipline of ecology.While definitions for ecology abound within literature, Gurevitch et al. (2006) define ecologyas:

[.. the study of the relationships between organisms and their environments, the interactions oforganisms with one another and the patterns and causes of the abundance and distribution oforganisms in nature.]

Based on ecological philosophy, two broadly established propositions of competition exist:the principle of competitive exclusion and the theory of competitive equilibrium (Alley,1982). The principle of competitive equilibrium is one which proposes that communities oforganisms exist and thrive at competitive equilibrium, while the competitive exclusionprinciple asserts that no two organisms in a single species can occupy precisely the sameniche, or exist on exactly the same limiting resources (Grinnell, 1917). While arguments havebeen presented against the validity of the equilibrium theory (e.g. see Alley 1982 for fulltreatment), the principle of competitive exclusion has proved to be useful within ecology andother disciplines. Within ecology and the competitive exclusion rule, competition is based onthe interaction of organisms, and interaction is operationalized via the concepts of the niche,its breadth and overlap (of niches). As such, a good understanding of the principle of theniche, including its breadth and the overlap that regularly occurs between them is essential tothis concept within supply chain vs. supply chain competition. An ecological niche is the n-dimensional space that describes the characteristics of resources a species needs for survival(Hutchison, 1957). In a way, it describes the position of a species in relations to other species

as well as its relation to the environment. Further, the niche breadth is the particular range ofresources within a niche on which a species can exist. It refers to the set of ecologicalcircumstances under which a species is observed to survive and reproduce (Gaston andBlackburn, 2000). Based on this idea of the niche, Colwell and Futuyma (1971) went on todefine niche overlap as the extent of common use of a particular resource location bydifferent species. It is also taken to signify the measure of ecological similarity determiningto what extent two species utilize the same resources. The idea of exclusion via competitiontherefore becomes feasible when species within the same niche seek the same limitingresource. Exploitative competition occurs when the process of overlap of two species nichescarries forward to reduce the quantity of resources available to competitors (Begon et al.2005). As such, the exclusion of one species is therefore possible under these conditions,hence the name competitive exclusion principle.

Fig. 1. Concept of interaction between supply chains at logistics centers.

Interaction therefore, is a way through which mutual behavior are modified via the mediumof scarce resource availability upon which both struggling entities depend. It is therelationship between two or more supply chains at a common service point along the supplychain for the purpose of taking advantage of critical resources and adding value to itsproducts or concern. When supply chains of similar kind (e.g. dealing in similar products orworking within the same industry) come together in this way there is a relationship effectbetween them. It is this effect that one supply chain exerts on the other based on the reality oflimiting critical resources that creates the basis for competition between supply chains at suchlocations (Figure 1). For example, at logistics centers, the interaction of supply chains act toinfluence each other and may result in a number of outcomes e.g. collaboration, partnership,etc. This mutual modification of behavior can also create an atmosphere where competitionbetween the interacting entities becomes a possibility. Thus, the supply chain actors includedin this study essentially comprise of those at the points where such interaction occurs, i.e. inthis case the logistics center.Therefore, this paper intends to demonstrate that by studying competition from an ecologicalperspective using logistics centers as the platform on which that competition takes place,insight can be added via the idea of interaction of supply chains at such centers characterizedby logistics centers, i.e. a meeting point. In the following section, propositions are developedbased on the ecological niche principle, from which a conceptual model also developed.

2.2 Proposition and model development

Given the idea of supply chains and its intimate connection to the firm, it is logical to assumethat firms operate supply chains, and are sometimes part of other supply chains. Supplychains move goods and services from point-to-point, using resources along the way toperform activities, for ultimate delivery to end-customers. If this holds, then it can be impliedthat supply chains are extensions of the firms’ operations. Since firms must rely on theenvironment within which they operate for critical resources to sustain their operations (Scott1998), competition for resources is necessary for a firm’s continued survival and businesssuccess under conditions of resource scarcity (Hannan and Freeman 1989). Hence, in light ofthe ecological niche theory explicated above, it is proposed that:

1) Supply chains interact at logistics centers to the extent that they attract the sameresources.

2) Supply chains at logistics centers attract similar resources and services to the extentthat they become competitors.

These could well be regarded as the main investigative propositions of this paper and aroundwhich the case study is organized. These propositions are based on the theoretical suggestionof the ecological niche theory of competition in general. Since supply chains are the globalnetworks that are used to deliver products and services from raw materials to end customers,logistics center consideration in terms of location and service provision, and consequentlycompetition, represents an important element for a successful competitive supply chainmanagement strategy. While Menge and Sutherland (1976) predicted physical disturbance,predation and competition as the major processes that drive community structure, theecological niche theory stresses competition as the driving force of community structure. Assuch, discussing structure in relation to competition is essential to the niche theory and almostalways bears on the much talked about notion of equilibrium within competition theories andconcepts. This is almost commonplace within ecology, including most other disciplines, asmost analytical treatment of competition assumes equilibrium conditions (Alley, 1982).However, equilibrium rarely occurs in natural situations and Alley (1982) proffers detailedreasons why this is so. From the niche theory perspective, equilibrium is defined in terms ofthe proportion of resources required and used by species in the niche as a result of acombination of certain factors. These factors include advantages; as well as disadvantages inthe impact received from the environment and from other species (or otherwise), i.e. theenvironmental trade-offs species have to contend with.

Equilibrium within the niche theory does not therefore imply equality in the proportion ofresources shared. A niche may be in equilibrium with some species commanding 80% of theresources while others have to make do with 20%, and in the same vein the environmentmight affect some more than others. However, because species are always in constantstruggle for more and better resources that ensure survival, it is the continuous structuralreorganization of a community of species due to competition that is of much interest tocompetition scholars. When a species comes into a new community, they will have tocompete against other already established species for resources within that community untilsuch a time that equilibrium is achieved. In the same vein, as species leave the community,more resources are left supposedly untapped and for which the remaining species willcompete. As this entry-exit process of species continues, there is a constant restructuring ofequilibrium within the community.It is therefore this equilibrium that determines the general structure of the community at anypoint in time. This process can be depicted by figure 2 which illustrates the general pattern ofinteraction between species in ecological communities.

Fig. 2. Conceptualization of intra-community competitive interaction between species

On the basis of the insight developed from the ecological niche theory and the conceptualmodel developed here, it is possible to use this to extend the understanding of supply chaincompetition via interaction at logistics centers. Hence, the concept of logistics centre istreated next.

2.3 Defining logistics centresThe research literature on logistics centers and its operations remain scant. As much used asis the term today, there is no standard definition of what a logistics center is in literature.The initial development of logistics centers in 1960s Europe was mainly in response to theneed to reorganize city centers and remove transport companies working at distributioncenters within the cities from the central business districts (Ballis, 2008). In the same vein, itsdevelopment was triggered as a result of the need to reduce traffic congestion and reduce thedifficulty of traffic logistics within the city limits in the United States (Ballis, 2008).Depending on the professional function, logistics centers may be defined in an infinitenumber of ways. Definition of a logistics center lies within the context of the definer’sperception of its application with regards to the definer’s vocation. Thus, many of theproposed definitions for logistics centers have developed from closely related, but moreestablished terms like distribution centers, which is known to be conceptually synonymous tothe concept of a warehouse (Lu and Yang, 2006) as they serve similar purposes. As yet, notmuch attention has been extended to distribution centers connected to the operation of thesesupply chains. Baker (2004) points out that most supply chain literature completely omitwarehousing and distribution center design or only refer to these in passing. Several names,e.g. “Freight village”, “Transport center”, “Distribution center”, “Cargo terminal”,“Transportation depot”, etc, have been used to describe the essence of logistics centers indifferent parts of the world.In ordinary discourse, a distribution center may be described as a warehouse of finishedgoods, from which goods from different suppliers are collected for onward delivery tocustomers, i.e. retailers, wholesalers, etc (Stock and Lambert, 2001; Coyle et al, 2003).

NicheColonization via

competition

Reorganisingof hierachystructure

OverlapCompetition(Interaction)

Entry of newspecies

Speciesexit

BalancedHierachicalstructure

Accordingly, a distribution center serves as a link between suppliers and consumers, whilefacilitating communication between them. It can perform activities such as packaging,customized kitting, light assembly, labeling, etc, to meet organizational requirements(Copacino 1997).

With the maturity of distribution centers, came the idea of international distribution centers(IDC). According to the International Maritime Organization (IMO), an internationaldistribution center is defined as a location that possesses the ability to integrate the operationsof manufacturing with land, sea, and air transportation, storage, and port and customsoperations aiming to achieve the efficient distribution of commodities (IMO, 1991).International distribution centres can be useful for bulk breaking of the goods that traveloverseas, as well as product mixing (Lu and Yang, 2006). Building on this, logistics centersrepresents a next higher level in the generation of business and provision of intermodaltransportation to meet the needs of customers as well as the environment. Thus, a logisticscenter is a hub of a specific area where all the activities relating to transport logistics andgoods distribution for both national and international transit are carried out on a commercialbasis by various operators (EUROPLATFORMS, 2004; Ballis, 2008).

Fig. 3 Possible spectrum of service offerings at logistics centers (Authors)

Logistics centers, as the higher end of the business generation and transport infrastructurecontinuum for many businesses, perform a wider spectrum of services over the distributioncenter (international or local). Typically, logistics centers would perform a range of servicesincluding those that would allow outbound and inbound goods and services to move throughinternational borders quickly, efficiently and without much delay. Hence, depending on thetype of center, a range of logistics center activities would include activities as outlined inFigure 3.While Figure 3 summarizes service offerings at logistics centers, it does not represent the fullrange of services that may be offered by logistics centers. Differences may occur dependingon the types of logistics centers in question. From a functional perspective, different types oflogistics centers may be recognized. Logistics centers that cater to the movement and

distribution of certain types of products and services, e.g. the United Nations Joint LogisticsCenter (UNJLC) may be classified as specialized logistics centers. Whilst there is noestablished typology of logistics centers in academic or practitioner literature, Ojala et al(1999); Vafídis and Ojala (1999) propose three basic descriptions of logistics centers:Concrete, virtual and network logistic centers.

A concrete logistics center is one in which all its tangible facilities such as warehouses andtransport infrastructure (e.g. roads, train tracks, etc), its supporting facilities e.g. banks,insurance firms, gas stations, servicing companies, etc are physically fairly concentrated in ageographical location. This type of logistics center depicts the usual idea of a logistics center,and the emphasis is on its physical location in space. Ownership of concrete logistics centerscan vary from private-private collaborations to varying degrees of private-public ownership.Owners and/or operators of a concrete logistics center may or may not be directly involved inthe day-to-day management of the logistics center. Logistics centers of this type may be opento customers willing to pay for the use of the services and facilities of the center or may berestricted to certain customers based on some given criteria, e.g. by membership, associationor contract. Such centers can be general, specialized, regional or global. All references madeto logistics centers in connection to competition in this paper will refer to concrete logisticscenters.Points along the supply chain that offer the range and supposedly the quality of services(including inter-modal transportation) as offered by concrete logistics centers are notavailable throughout the supply chain. This means that there are only so many points alongthe supply chain where users of logistics services may accomplish their value adding tasks.Thus, logistics centers are important for supply chains. As such, the supply chain trend hasaffected the development and operation of logistics centers in a number of ways.First, in order to meet the demands and increasingly shorter attention span of end-users,supply chains have placed greater emphasis on the flow of goods rather than on their storage(Higginson and Bookbinder, 2005). This acts to confirm the growing practice of inventoryreduction as noted by Ackerman and Brewer (2001) that the largest savings in logistics costsover the last several years has been due to reduction in stock. As a result there are moreproducts undergoing cross docking as well as the holding of goods for the implementation ofits flow from one supply chain to another.The diminution of inventory brings us to the second impact of supply chains on logisticscenters, and this is the fact that there has been a reduction in the number of warehousingfacilities across the length of the supply chain. Fewer warehousing facilities force supplychains to centralize their inventory, as such some of the issues of inventory management arebeing picked up by logistics centers across supply chains since they represent a multi facetedservice-providing entity.Third, the increasing trends of outsourcing and the persistence of virtual firms continue todemand a wider area of competence as well as a larger range of services, especially oflogistics centers. A host of services such as packaging, recycling, labeling, productlocalization, etc traditionally performed by warehouses are now commonly carried out atlogistics centers. In addition, various value adding services are also commonly beingperformed at logistics centers, given their strategic location and capabilities.Thus, there is a realization that as a point on several organizations’ supply chains needs haveto be met at these points in order for these supply chains to continue their value creatingjourney to the end customer.

3.0. METHOD

The method employed in this paper is the case study methodology. It is based on in-depth andholistic investigations of an individual, group or event in order to explore underlyingprinciples (Shepard and Greene, 2003; Feagin, Orum and Sjoberg, 1991; Stake, 1995). It isthe preferential method when a phenomenon under study is not readily apparent from itscontext (Yin, 2003). Yin (2003) identifies six types of case studies following a 2x3 matrixpattern. That is, on one axis, case studies can be single or multiple, on the other axis; casescan be exploratory, descriptive or explanatory. Multiple case studies include two or morecases within the same study, while single cases focus on just one case. Multiple cases may becarried out for either replication or predictive reasons.

Exploratory case studies are used to probe phenomenon usually in a manner considered topreclude to a research. Explanatory case study seeks to explain how and why somephenomenon occurs (Yin, 2003) and a descriptive case study depicts a description of thephenomenon under investigation within its context (Bergh and Ketchen, 2009). It requires adescriptive theory to be developed before commencement of investigation. Hence, casestudies are useful in that they can be used to explain complex causal linkages betweenphenomena; describe these in cases where intervention has occurred; describe and explainsuch interventions; and explore the results or outcomes of interventions (Yin, 1994).Being exploratory in nature, the paper sought a single, in-depth case study which spannedfour organizations including the logistics center. Single case studies have frequently beendescribed as meaningless, highly limited at best and of almost no scientific value, however,Hilliard (1993) cautions that assessing single-case research in parity with group researchcould be extremely misleading. In line with this, Mook (1983) had argued that in doingresearch it is quite possible that interest might not overwhelmingly lie in the external validityof the findings. That is, given the four research designs proposed by Mook (1983), one isespecially important to case studies and single case studies in particular. This is the designwhere a researcher is mostly concerned with ascertaining what is possible rather than what iscommon. In such situations, aggregation across cases is avoided and the generality of thefindings are addressed through replications of single cases on a case-by-case basis (Hilliard,1993). As such, it is reasonable to undertake single case studies where the purpose is mainlyexploratory-explanatory, and in which variation implies changes within individual actorswithin the case.

3.1 Case study design

The design of the case study was based on a) the type of research questions posed and b) thedegree of focus on current events at the logistics center (Yin, 1984). The study thus followeda single-case explanatory-exploratory methodology (Levy, 1998) which sought to firstdetermine the extent to which the phenomenon of interaction between supply chains canoccur at logistics centers, i.e. the how and why of interaction. Second, the exploratorystrategy was used to probe the possibility of competition as an outcome of such interactions,based on the ecological niche principle of competition.A case protocol was designed to deal with issues of data collection types, access, type ofaccess available, logistics, questions to be asked, etc and from which an interview guide forthe data collection procedure (interview) was created. While the linking of obtained data andfindings to investigative propositions are not well developed in case studies, Yin (1994,2003) suggest the possibility of using analytical techniques such as pattern matching, timeseries analysis, and explanation building. In pattern-matching analysis, the logic used to linkthe data to the proposition is a technique that compares the pattern found in the case studywith one that is predicted to occur (Trochim, 1989). Explanation building is similar to pattern

matching in that it is also designed to test theoretical propositions, although in an iterativeway (Saunders et al, 2007). It is logic used to link findings to propositions or developedframeworks of the case study by building explanations of the case and hence most applicableto explanatory cases. And time series analysis involves the visual display of variations in thekey variables in the case over time. Plots may be used to display such variations across time.

Data for this study was collected via 1) interviews 2) documentation, e.g. general presentationbrochures, strategic development plans, etc. 3) direct observation, e.g. a working tour of thesite of the logistics center was undertaken a few times where further requests to revisit certainareas were also granted in subsequent visits. Interviews were conducted with key personnelof the different partners that make up the case and which will be designated as K1, K2, K3,K4, K5, and K6 (See figure 5). Interviews were based on a semi-structured questionnaire(guide) developed within the case protocol. Interviews lasted between 60 and 70 minutes.Five interviews were conducted on site at the logistics center in Katrineholm, and one wasconducted over the phone due to irreconcilable schedules. All interviews were transcribedprior to analysis.

4.0. CASE PRESENTATION AND DATA

The unit of analysis and case organization was a logistics center (Katrineholm LogisticsCenter, KLC) located in the heart of the Katrineholm Municipality in the Södermanlandcounty of Sweden. KLC is a government/private partnership between the Katrineholm

Fig. 4 Katrineholm in relation to the railway grid

Municipality, Katrineholm Logistikfastigheter, KLF (Katrineholm Logistics Real EstateCompany) and Katrineholm Rail Point (KRP). Hence KLC is composed of KRP and KLF.Interviewees were drawn from all three organizations in the manner depicted in the figure 5.This case was selected because of all the logistics centers in Sweden at that point; KLC was alogistics center willing to allow the depth and inquiry required for the study.

Fig. 5 Structural overview of KLC with designated interviewees

To be an appropriate case, interaction points (which could also be OEMs, suppliers, etc, e.g.Intel and AMD for the computer industry and Roll-Royce and GE for the aircraft industry)should have the practice of having two or more customers present at the point where theyinteract for purpose of taking advantage of the services such points offer or for the purpose ofacquiring much needed resources. The logistics center boasts two railway terminals forloading and unloading goods.

These terminals have the capacity to receive full length trains of up to 750 meters in length.About 70,000 sq. meters of storage space has been developed within the center. KLF, whichbuilds and leases warehouse and storage real estate, has an additional 16.5 hectares of landsurrounding the logistics center for prospective development. With its emphasis on railtransport and its location at the point where four arterial roads converge, KLC not only hasthe strong position to access the primary flow of goods in Sweden, it also exhibits strongintermodal flexibilities required of logistics centers. The Katrineholm logistics center is builtmostly on railway thinking. Most transport movements are operated on the railway, so muchso that trucks are loaded onto the railway and transported to the nearest rail stop from wherethey can continue to their destination. As such KLC works within an initiative that strives forenvironmental responsibility. It is also seen as a driver of business in this area as there aremany new up and coming regulations regarding environmental issues such that customerswant to know that there is an environmental undertone to suppliers’ and partners’ businesses.

4.1 Supply chain interaction at the logistics centerInteraction between supply chains at such locations as logistics centers essentially revolvesaround two points. First, is the unique position of the logistics center as a meeting point forthe western and southern railway trunk lines, as well as being a confluence point forimportant arterial roads. Second, on the issue of services offering/provision at the logisticscenter, responses were quite similar from the different interviewees considering that thedifferent partners of the logistics center have their core businesses to look after. Data hereshowed that different supply chains come through KLC for different reasons and many ofthem at the same time. Services provided by the center and its position were the mainattractive elements and mainly included their work with the railway wagons and different

K5

K2

KLC

KatrineholmMunicipalityKRP KLF

K3 K1K6K4

services required to cater to the national and international trains that bring goods fromdifferent parts of Europe up to Sweden. A high point of the service offering intended by KLCis the impending ability for KLC to have its customers coming in from abroad declare theirgoods at KLC in Katrineholm, saving them time and resources that would otherwise beexpended doing this at the Göteborg port:

...”It’s everything from security, protection, insurance, storage, cleaning (the wagonsand containers), repair, overnight stay, food, and a network of electrified tracks. It’sthe drivers’ second home”!....”We are in negotiations with the Port of Göteborg toallow clients coming to us through the port have their customs declaration carried outhere at KLC. If we are able to do that we will be the first logistics center in Swedento offer our clients customs declaration at our position”. [K2]

…”One of the facilities we offer is our ability to handle a full train set, up to 750meters long! No one in Sweden is capable of that, in other centers they have to breakthe train set in pieces which is inconvenient and time wasting for clients! …… Weare planning to build a big track that will run straight into the national grid run byBanverket, but right now we have to get slot times to get our clients on the grid whenwe have train movements”. [K5]

Barnverket (the Swedish Rail Administration) is the authority responsible for thedevelopment, administration and operation of the railway system in Sweden, including thecoordination of local, regional and national rail transport. Banverket is also responsible formaintaining most of the railway network in Sweden, and allots space on the tracks betweentransport freighters or passenger traffic in return for a fee.

…” As the responsible person for KLF, I can say we offer storage spaces,computer networking within the logistics center area, security. Our network cancommunicate with various other types of networks, we have companies that usedifferent types of network and if they suddenly need to be in contact with anothercompany at another logistics center, Karlsham for example, they communicate viathis network”. [K3]

…”It is mostly loading goods onto the trailers from the storage spaces, offloadinggoods from incoming trains and loading them on outgoing trucks and such things.We prepare the wagons; we provide facilities for fuel support to both trucks andtrains”. [K6]

...”we welcome trains! We take in trains and trucks and offer loading and offloadingservices for both trailers and containers. We are now looking to KRP to startstripping and stuffing which is the next step. We need to get new positions for thecontainers so that they come in one way and leave another way. We see in the nearfuture washing of containers, painting of containers and wagons, repairing ofwagons. As for KLF, they hold storage areas of different qualities and sizesdepending on the needs of the customers”. [K1]

…”we try to listen to clients needs, and there is an on-going discussion about that tohave different stores, repair wagons, and offer the different services they need andwant to have today. [K4]

One of the advantages of KLC over other logistics centers in Sweden is its proximity to theroad and the railway network of Sweden; this is often touted as one of the reasons why thelogistics center at Katrineholm was established.

..”the idea was to use the old industrial side train tracks that converged inKatrineholm to attract companies to come in and establish in Katrineholmmunicipality, and from there the idea of the logistics center was born!” [K1]

…”it came from the political side, i.e. from the municipality. They wanted tohave employment opportunities to build up the society. And the railway’shistorical stand was the way the society was built up. It has a strategic positionand it is a very good opportunity to have land around it and build it out. Thegeography is right!”[K6]

...”the first interest was that Katrineholm was at the cross point of railway linesand its position we have calculated to be very interesting. A junction, so to speak.It is the position that is important; it is only 2 hrs by truck from Stockholm andits position as a major junction on the railway network, which is why we areinterested!”[K3]

By virtue of its position, KLC has had advantages of cost reduction and time savings forclients wanting to reach the major cities in the southern half of the country quickly andcheaply:

…”here they can come in with the whole train set; it is a very efficient terminal andthe geographical position is good for reaching Stockholm, Uppsala, Linköping,Västerås, Eskilstuna. It’s a lot of big towns around Katrineholm. It is very wellsituated and that makes it cost effective for transportation. If we count the distanceand compare with other logistics centers like Norrköping, it is 100km that clientsgain if they are placed in Katrineholm, i.e. 50km one way and 50km the otherway!”[K2]

With an expanding range of services and its unique position, KLC is an attractive location forsupply chains from abroad seeking to enter the Swedish market quickly, more cost efficientlyand in an environmentally friendly manner. Thus, there is a possibility that several supplychains will meet and thus interact at KLC because by virtue of being present at KLC as aclient it is assumed that services and resources are being consumed or used up. This isbecause when supply chains come into the center and command the use of resources, whetherit be storage space, stuffing and stripping services, loading and offloading services with twolifts (one big and one medium sized) for loading and offloading goods, containers and trucksat the terminal, there is a tendency for supply chains to require the use of similar resources orfacilities offered by the logistics center.

4.2. Supply chain competition at the logistics center

The question of competition may be addresses following from the proposition 1) whichestablishes that supply chains will interact at logistics centers when they attract the sameresources, usually at the same time. It is a given that for supply chains to request similarresources or services from the logistics center at the same time, they would have to bephysically present at the center. While these kinds of simultaneous request do not happen ona regular basis, the proposition leaves room for random occurrence of events. Hence thequestion of competition between supply chains at logistics centers would essentially considerthe limits and restrictions of the various services and resources at the logistics center. Thequestion how many clients can the logistics center serve simultaneously for the differentservices offered, addresses the issue of competition. While respondents were enthusiasticabout prospect of increasing patronage, responses were varied and most were cognizant of thefact that resources available at the center do have limits:

…”it is a matter of resources” [K6]

…”it depends on different things!”…”What is the limitation? Well, two train sets of full lengths, i.e. 750m, at the twoterminals, at the same time, plus two waiting! …In full operation mode we can servethree full length train sets at the same time, and not a lot of logistics centers canhandle that in Sweden!” [K2]

…”at full capacity, we have the ability to handle six big train movements per weekfor the south terminal and twelve big train movements every week for the northterminal, when it is completed this fall. Today we have one large track and onemiddle sized track, later on when we have more customers, and more trainmovements we can have more. Train movements are trains coming in, offloading andmaybe storage and then loading to go out” [K5]

…”well, for us at KLF at the moment it’s not relevant! [K3]

..”the storage capacity of the center is about 150 hectares. You have to differentiatethe type of company, its trains, its trucks and its storage spaces. It’s hard!. At thenorth terminal we should have 10 train sets daily. And the storage spaces are 150hectares; and we have built only half of that” [K1]

So how many customers can you accommodate in 75 hectares? [Interviewer]

“I don’t know! 1 hectare is about 10,000 sq. meters, so you can estimate what 150hectares will be like, 1,500000 sq. meters! and 75 hectares is 750,000 sq. meters.How many customers can you have there? I don’t know! You count for yourself!”[K1]

It is only logical to assume that given all the resources available at the logistics center, thereis always a limit to which resources, facilities and even services can last. Because there arenot an infinite number services and facilities available at the logistics center, there is apotential for supply chains using the logistics center to require similar services at the sametime, or struggle for resources at some point in time, this struggle can ultimately lead tocompetition between supply chains.

4.3 Observations and documents

Two basic methods of following qualitative research referred to by Dingwall (1997) includeasking questions and hanging out. Being a multi-method technique, case studies almostalways involves observations. Observation provides the possibility to avoid bias aroundinterviews which is described as the interview society (Silverman, 2000; Atkinson andSilverman, 1997), where interviewees act and talk in certain ways under interviews. 14 visitsto the center were performed between the authors and 3 train arrivals were observed. Theoffloading and loading of trains gave a better picture of how trucks were loaded on the top oftrains and transported to the nearest destination where they could be offloaded. This is said toreduce the impact on the environment. Constructions of storage spaces were on-going onsome of these visit occasions. Informal talks and discussions with K1 and K2 providedobservation data outside the interviews. Some notes were taken on important observations.During these informal meetings, intentions were expressed to develop a supply chain outlookfor the logistics center. This involved having much closer relationships with their customersand taking interest in their supply chains. This is not only when they happen to go through the

logistics center, but also at points before they get to the center and at points after they leave.This way, they can increase the amount of services that they currently offer and this wouldcreate an impact on the city of Katrineholm in terms of jobs and employment.

Attention was also paid to what had and was being written about the logistics center. Forexample, Fastighetsvärlden, a Swedish logistics real estate sector business magazine rankedKatrineholm logistics center in the top 5 logistics parks in Sweden (Fastighetsvärlden, 2010),according to land area in m2. In 2011, Katrineholm Logistics Center was ranked 14th of all 25operating logistics centers in Sweden using a combination of six different criteria (IntelligentLogistik, 2011). In many cases where documents form part of the data source, a usualproblem –whose effects are difficult to estimate- is the classification of certain documents assensitive or classified. However, preliminary strategy plans for building storage facilitieswere obtainable as well as brochures introducing the logistics center, their location and whatkind of services they offer.

5.0. ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION

Without doubts, the case study clearly reveals interesting and enthusiastic insights into theoperations at the logistics center. However, since logistics centers handle logistics issues, theonus is on the researcher to analytically generate exhaustive results of questions for whichsolutions, relationships or answers are sought. The task in the analysis here is to show thatthere are interactions between companies that use the logistics centers. Companies in thispaper have been briefly conceptualized as supply chains, on which the propositions for thisstudy are based. The analyses of obtained data take the form of pattern matching analysis.

5.1 Pattern matching analysis

This section analyses the data to show how theory may be used in outcome evaluationthrough the use of pattern matching. This method emphasizes the importance of theory in anyresearch process (e.g. Chen and Rossi, 1987).A pattern is simply any arrangement of objects or entities (Trochim, 1989). According toTrochim (1989) arrangement is described as essentially non-random and describable. Thepattern matching carried out here is based on a process, a process that drives competitionwithin communities which in turn determine the structure of that community.The foundation of the theoretical outcome of niche competition is conceptualized in chapter2.

Fig. 6. Hypothetical outcome pattern using process pattern matches

This is enabled through the process of interaction, from which overlaps in the use ofresources may are identified between two or more species (e.g. Pianka, 1974; Colwell andFutuyama, 1971; Abrams, 1980). Figure 6 illustrates the inference made from the dataobserved from the case and tries to relate this to the theoretical patterns observed from theniche interactions on the basis of resources.It should however be stated that the process described here typically occurs over a substantialperiod of time, and while the process description might tend to look deterministic or evennormative, they are usually random in reality, in the sense that species can come and go asthey please, which applies to supply chains too. Thus pattern matching is not different fromtraditional hypothesis testing where speculations are made of what is expected of the data andthe observed pattern provides data with which a match can be made to the theory (Trochim,1989).

NicheColonization via

competition

Reorganisingof hierachystructure

OverlapCompetition(Interaction)

Entry of newspecies

BalancedHierachicalstructure

Exit ofsupplychains

Competitionbetween

supply chains

Interaction ofsupply chains

Entry of newsupply chains

Equilibrium interms of facilitiesand services use

Speciesexit

Theoretical Outcome Pattern

Observed Outcome Pattern

SC 1

SC 2

SC 3

Equilibrium of facilities use: This represents the point at which all the supply chains at thelogistics center have enough resources to satisfy the needs of all customer supply chains. Atthis point, there is interaction, but there is obviously no competition. Rather, there iscooperation between service operators and other supply chains. This is mostly noticeable inthe cooperation within the so-called return freight. That is, when a full train comes up toSweden from mainland Europe, there is some cooperation among supply chain operators toensure that the trains do not go back down empty.

“..customers create this possibility for business! They are looking at bringing goodshere with the trains and wanting to take goods back! [K4] and are working to makesure this goes well most of the time”. [K2]

“…we would like to have more people working with this reloading principle, thatwhen a train comes and is offloaded of its goods, there needs to be more peopleworking with the service to reload these trains to transport goods back to Europe”.[K4]

If the trains come with fish from Norway, what could go back with these wagons?[Interviewer]

“Maybe flowers, from Holland up to Norway” [K4]

Entry of new supply chains: KLF and KRP as subsidiary companies of KLC have the task ofbringing in as many customers for the logistics center as well as for themselves. KRP is therailway subsidiary of KLC that provides and assists with railway transportation for clients ofthe center. KLF is the real estate arm that provides facilities for storage, cross docking, etcand holds the title of lands surrounding the logistics center. In addition, KLC also doesmarketing for the center.

“..we are working actively to search for train operators, train drivers, and freightcompanies we can work with and KLF is trying to get companies to lease land onwhich they can build storage facilities” [K4]

Interaction of supply chains: Over time, as new customers enter the logistics center there isan implicit restructuring of resource and facility allocation within the center in a bid toaccommodate increasing needs. Ultimately, resources will begin to thin out as even moresupply chains join in. At some point, supply chains at the center that will require similarresources within the same period of time. This creates the potential which could lead to someform of competition with other supply chains that require the same services, resources orfacilities. At the point where competition takes place, supply chains not wanting to competeor those whose needs have been met leave the logistics center. When this happens, resourcesare freed which may be taken up by other supply chain. This continuous entry and exit ofsupply chains illustrate the constant restructuring in search of equilibrium with respect toresources and facilities proposed by Figure 6 and which takes place at such meeting points.

5.2 Discussion, conclusion and further research

In this paper, it has been argued that a new and framework is emerging in terms of theevolving competition set to take place between supply chains-interaction. Interaction centers,as exemplified here with the use of logistics centers, are expected to provide the bridge that isrequired to maintain a proper understanding of rivalry, albeit tacit, between supply chains inthe new competitive environment. It is interesting that most of the related work on supplychain vs. supply chain competition in literature focus on theoretical conceptualizations

without a corresponding practical platform through which such conceptualization may beoperationalized. As competition shifts from the head-to-head mode to the supply chainplatform, managers of supply chains will increasingly require practical ways to implementsuch competition. This paper presents a conceptualization mode for which it proposes apractical mode through which such conceptualization can occur between supply chains.Insight gained from results obtained can be beneficial for firms and organizations runningand operating supply chains to treat logistics centres as potential points of competition whenstructuring supply chain strategies.

Overall, there is a dearth of studies exploring the link between theory and practice in terms ofcompetition between supply chains. An implication of this paper is that it allows managersand operators of supply chains to think of logistics centers in a different way when itconcerns the idea of supply chain vs. supply chain competition. It focuses managers’attention on how such competition can be played out in reality, i.e. via the resources andfacilities which they share with other supply chains at common meeting points along thesupply chain. The commonality or intersection of resources required by supply chainsrepresents the core of competition according to this paper. Hence overlap, simply put, is thejoint use of a resource, or resources, by two or more entities (Colwell and Futuyama, 1971).From this it follows that the larger the overlapping of mutual resources, the more intense thestruggle for these resources creating a potential for competition between supply chains atsuch points.

While this study suggests that interaction between supply chains may very well represent theway supply chains vs. supply chain competition will be operationalized, the research carriedout here only considered the perspective of the resource point, i.e. the interaction pointoperators. Even though these interaction point operators form the basis of the competitionfrom this conceptualization, it is important to stress that the supply chains (and by default itsoperators) that actually take part in this competition are independent entities and are capableof deciding whether to compete or not. As such further research is required on supply chainsto probe the general predisposition of supply chains to compete at such points, and on whatconditions they would consider such competition.Also, in this paper, logistics centers were used as interaction points mainly for the range ofservices that they are able to offer supply chains. Interaction points may however also revolvearound resource points, product points, and manufacturing locations. This paper, in itsessence demonstrate the possibility of supply chain competition at interaction points likelogistics centers, similar research clarification of resources points, product points andmanufacturing points are required to further develop this idea of competition for supplychains. This would be most appropriately carried out one a case-by-case basis.

In conclusion, it is reasonable to assert that the proposition 1) supply chains interact atlogistics centers to the extent that they attract the same resources holds true. Unlessresources, facilities, products, services, etc required by supply chains for its survival areinfinitely abundant, this proposition will hold steady. As it is shown in this paper that servicesand resources at logistics centers are incapable of catering to an infinite number of supplychains. And if proposition 1 can be confirmed, it then follows by implication that proposition2) that supply chains at logistics centers attract similar resources to the extent that theybecome competitors is also supported by the study. By holding up the two propositionsdeveloped here, this paper alludes to the idea that interaction at resource points is a potentialsource of competition for supply chains and represents one way in which supply chain vs.supply chain competition may be operationalized.

ReferencesAbrams, P., 1980. Some comments on measuring niche overlap”. Ecology, 61 (1), 44-49.

Ackerman, K. B. and Brewer, A. M., 2001. Warehousing: A key link in the supply chain. In: Brewer,A. M., Button, K. J. and Hensher, D. A. (Eds) Handbook of logistics and supply chainmanagement. Elsevier, UK.

Alley, T. R., 1982. Competition theory, evolution, and the concept of an ecological niche. ActaBiotheoretica, 31 (3), 165-179.

Atkinson, P. and Silverman, D., 1997. Kundera’s immortality: The interview society and theintervention of self. Qualitative Inquiry, 3 (3), 324-345.

Baker, P., 2004. Aligning distribution center operations to supply chain strategy”. InternationalJournal of Logistics Management, 15 (1), 111-123.

Ballou, R. H., Gilbert, S. M. and Mukherjee, A., 2000. New managerial challenges from supply chainopportunities. Industrial Marketing Management, 29 (1), 7-18.

Ballis, A., 2008. Inland terminal concepts, in Loannu, P. A. (Ed.) Intelligent freight transportation.CRC Press FL. USA.

Banomyong, R., 2005. The impact of port and trade security initiatives on maritime supply chainmanagement. Maritime Policy and Management, 32 (1), 3-13.

Begon, M., Townsend, C. R. and Harper, J. L., 2005. Ecology: From Individuals to Ecosystems,4th ed. Blackwell Science, Oxford.

Bergh, D. D. and Ketchen, Jr. D. J., Eds, 2009. Research methodology in strategy and management.Volume 5. Emerald Publishing Group, UK.

Bowersox, D. J. and Closs, D. J., 1996. Logistical Management - The Integrated Supply ChainProcess. McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.

Chen, H. T. and Rossi, P. H., 1987. The theory driven approach to validity. Evaluation and ProgramPlanning, 10 (1), 95-103.

Colwell, R. K., Futuyma, D. J., 1971. On the measurement of the niche breadth and overlap”.Ecology, 52, (4), 567-576.

Copacino, W. C., 1997. Supply chain management: The basics and beyond. CRC Press, Fl, USA.

Cox, A., 2001. The Power Perspective in Procurement and Supply Management. Journal of

Supply Chain Management, 37 (2), 4-7.

Coyle, J. J., Bardi, E. J. and Langley, C. J., 2003. The management of business logistics: A supplychain perspective 7th Ed. South-Western: Thomson Learning.

Cravens, D. W., Piercy, N. F. and Shipp, S. H. 1996. New Organizational Forms for

Competing in Highly Dynamic Environments: the Network Paradigm. British Journal

of Management 7(3), 203-218.

De Souza, R., Zice, S. and Chaoyang, L., 2000. Supply chain dynamics and optimization. IntegratedManufacturing Systems, 11 (5), 348 -364.

Dingwall, R., 1997. Methodological issues in qualitative research: Accounts, interviews, andobservations. In: Miller, G. and Dingwall, R. (Eds) Context and method in qualitativeresearch. Sage, London.

Ellram, L. M., 1991. Supply Chain Management: The Industrial organisation perspective.International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, 21 (1), 13-22.

EUROPLATFORMS, 2004 Logistics centers: Directions for use. EUROPLATFORMS-EEIG.http://www.unece.org/trans/main/eatl/docs/EN-REV-What_is_a_Freight_VillageFinalcorretto.pdf. (Accessed 16th April 2010).

Fastighetsvärlden (2010) 12 Stora Logistikparker. Volume 2, 2010.

Feagin, J., Orum, A. and Sjoberg, G., 1991. A case for case study. University of North Carolina Press,Chapel Hill, NC.

Gaston, K. J. and Blackburn, T. M., 2000. Patterns and processes in macroecology. BlackwellPublishing, MA; USA.

Grinnell, J. 1917., The niche-relationships of the California thrasher. The Auk 34 (4), 427-433.Gurevitch J., Scheiner S. M. and Fox G. A., 2006. The Ecology of Plants, 2nd Ed. Sinauer,

Sunderland, MA.Harland, C. M., 1996. Supply Chain Management: Relationships, Chains and Networks. British

Journal of Management. (Special) 63-80.Hannan, M. T., and Freeman, J., 1989. Organizational Ecology. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University

Press.

Higginson, J. K., and Bookbinder, J. H., 2005. Distribution centres in supply chain operations. In:Langevin, A. and Riopel, D. (Eds.) Logistics systems: Design and optimization. SpringerScience, USA.

Hilliard, R. B., 1993. Single-case methodology in psychotherapy process and outcome research.Journal of Consulting and Clinical Research, 61 (3), 373-380.

Huang D, Kadar M, 2002. Third-Party Logistics in China: Still a Tough Market. Mercer on TravelTransport. 9 (2), 3-10.

Hutchison, G. E., 1957. Concluding Remarks. Cold Spring Harbour Symposium ofQuantitative Biology, 22, 415-427.

Intelligent Logistiks, 2011. Här är Sveriges 25 bästa logistiklägen 2011. 1, February 2011.

International Maritime Organization, 1991. Port logistics: Compendium for model course” 5.02,London.

Kamauff, J., 2009. Manager’s guide to operations management. McGraw-Hill.

Lai, F., Hutchison, J. and Zhang, G., 2005. Radio frequency identification (RFID) in China:opportunities and challenges. International Journal of Retail and Distribution Management, 33(12), 905-916.

Levy, S. 1998. Information technology in universities: An institutional case study. Unpublisheddoctoral dissertation, Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, AZ.

Lu, C. and Yang, C., 2008. Evaluating key logistics capabilities for international distribution centreoperators in Taiwan. Transportation Journal, (Fall) 45 (4), 9-27.

Lummus, R. R. and Vokurka, R. J., 1999. Defining supply chain management: a historical perspectiveand practical guidelines. Industrial Management and Data Systems, 99 (1), 11-17.

Menge, B. A. and Sutherland, J. P., 1976. Species diversity gradients: Synthesis of the roles ofpredation, competition and temporal heterogeneity. American Naturalist, 110 (973), 351-369.

Mentzer, J. T., Min, S. and Zacharia, Z. G., 2000. The Nature of Interfirm Partnering in Supply ChainManagement. Journal of Retailing. 76, (4), 549-568.

Mook, D. G., 1983. In defense of external invalidity. American Psychologist, 38, 379-387.

Ojala, L., Vafídis, D., Alaranta, M. and Eerola, M. (Eds.), 1999. Turun alue logistisena keskuksena.TuKKK:n ryhmäkeskustelujen ja yrityshaastattelujen antia [Turku Region as a LogisticsCentre. The Results of Group Discussions and Interviews Organised by the Turku School ofEconomics and Business Administration]. Publications of the Turku School of Economicsand Business Administration, Series B-1:1999. Turku. 73 p.

Pianka, E. R., 1974. Niche overlap and diffuse competition. Proceedings of the National Academy ofScience USA, 71 (5), 2141-2145.

Ruston, A., Oxley, J. and Croucher, P., 2000. The hand book of logistics and distributionmanagement. Kogan Page, London.

Saunders, M., Lewis, P and Thornhill, A., 2007. Research Methods for business students. PearsonEducation, UK.

Scott, W. R., 1998. Organizations: Rational, Natural, and Open Systems, 4th ed. Upper

Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Shepard, J. and Greene, R. W., 2003. Sociology and You. Glencoe McGraw-Hill, Ohio.

Silverman, D., 2006. Interpreting qualitative data - Methods for analyzing talk, text and interaction.Sage Publications, London.

Stake, R. E. 1995. The art of case study research. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks CA.

Stock, J. R. and Lambert, D. M., 2001. Strategic logistics management. Fourth Edition, New York:McGraw-Hill.

Trochim, W., 1989. Outcome pattern matching and program theory. Evaluation and ProgramPlanning, 12, 355-366.

Vafídis, D. and Ojala, L., 1999. Logistiikkakeskuskonsepti: edellytykset, järjestäytyminen jatoimintavaihtoehdot. [The Concept of a Logistics Centre: Preconditions, Organisations andOperational Alternatives]. Publications of the Business Research and Development Centre,Turku School of Economics and Business Administration, B-2:1999. Turku.

Yin, R. K., 2003. Applications of case study research. Sage Publications, CA: USA.

Yin, R. K., 1994. Case study research: Design and methods. Sage Publishing, Thousand Oaks, CA,USA.

Yin, R. K., 1984. Case study research: Design and methods. Sage Publishing, CA: USA.

Waters, D. (Ed.), 2003. Global logistics and distribution planning: Strategies for management. KoganPage Limited.

Watts, C. A. and Hahn, C. K., 1993. Supplier development programs: an empirical analysis.International Journal of Purchasing and Materials Management, 29, (2), 11-17.

Webster, F. E., Jr., 1992. The Changing Role of Marketing in the Corporation. Journal of Marketing.56 (4), 1-17.

Wilson, R., 2010. 2010 CSCMP state of logistics report. Council of Supply Chain ManagementProfessionals (CSCMP)

EKONOMI OCH SAMHÄLLE Skrifter utgivna vid Svenska handelshögskolan

ECONOMICS AND SOCIETY

Publications of the Hanken School of Economics

201. CATHARINA von KOSKULL: Use of Customer Information. An Ethnography in Service Development. Helsinki 2009.

202. RITVA HÖYKINPURO: Service Firms’ Action upon Negative Incidents in High

Touch Services: A Narrative Study. Helsinki 2009. 203. SUVI NENONEN: Customer Asset Management in Action. Using Customer

Portfolios for Allocating Resources Across Business-to-Business Relationships for Improved Shareholder Value. Helsinki 2009.

204. CAMILLA STEINBY: Multidimensionality of Actors in Business Networks. The

Influence of Social Action in Pharmacy Networks in Finland. Helsinki 2009. 205. JENNIE SUMELIUS: Developing and Integrating HRM Practices in MNC

Subsidiaries in China. Helsinki 2009. 206. SHERAZ AHMED: Essays on Corporate Governance and the Quality of Disclosed

Earnings – Across Transitional Europe. Helsinki 2009. 207. ANNE HOLMA: Adaptation in Triadic Business Relationship Settings. A Study in

Corporate Travel Management. Helsinki 2009. 208. MICHAL KEMPA: Monetary Policy Implementation in the Interbank Market.

Helsinki 2009. 209. SUSANNA SLOTTE-KOCK: Multiple Perspectives on Networks. Conceptual

Development, Application and Integration in an Entrepreneurial Context. Helsinki 2009.

210. ANNA TALASMÄKI: The Evolving Roles of the Human Resource Function.

Understanding Role Changes in the Context of Large-Scale Mergers. Helsinki 2009. 211. MIKAEL M. VAINIONPÄÄ: Tiering Effects in Third Party Logistics: A First-Tier

Buyer Perspective. Helsinki 2010. 212. ABDIRASHID A. ISMAIL: Somali State Failure. Players, Incentives and

Institutions. Helsinki 2010. 213. ANU HELKKULA: Service Experience in an Innovation Context. Helsinki 2010. 214. OLLE SAMUELSON: IT-innovationer i svenska bygg- och fastighetssektorn. En

studie av förekomst och utveckling av IT under ett decennium. Helsingfors 2010. 215. JOANNA BETH SINCLAIR: A Story about a Message That was a Story. Message

Form and Its Implications to Knowledge Flow. Helsinki 2010. 216. TANJA VILÉN: Being in Between. An Ethnographic Study of Opera and Dialogical

Identity Construction. Helsinki 2010.

217. ASHIM KUMAR KAR: Sustainability and Mission Drift in Microfinance. Empirical Studies on Mutual Exclusion of Double Bottom Lines. Helsinki 2010.

218. HERTTA NIEMI: Managing in the “Golden Cage”. An Ethnographic Study of Work,

Management and Gender in Parliamentary Administration. Helsinki 2010. 219. LINDA GERKMAN: Topics in Spatial Econometrics. With Applications to House

Prices. Helsinki 2010. 220. IHSAN ULLAH BADSHAH: Modeling and Forecasting Implied Volatility.

Implications for Trading, Pricing, and Risk Management. Helsinki 2010. 221. HENRIK HÖGLUND: Detecting Earnings Management Using Neural Networks.

Helsinki 2010. 222. KATARINA HELLÉN: A Continuation of the Happiness Success Story: Does

Happiness Impact Service Quality? Helsinki 2010. 223. MARIA JAKUBIK (Maria Jakubikne Toth): Becoming to Know: Essays on Extended

Epistemology of Knowledge Creation. Helsinki 2011. 224. JOHANNA GUMMERUS: Customer Value in E-Service. Conceptual Foundation

and Empirical Evidence. Helsinki 2011. 225. MARIA SOLITANDER: When Sharing Becomes a Liability: An Intellectual Capital

Approach to Describing the Dichotomy of Knowledge Protection versus Sharing in Intra- and Interorganizational Relationships. Helsinki 2011.

226. BEATA SEGERCRANTZ: “... The Walls Fell Down but the Blokes Just Coded...”.

Varieties of Stability in Software Product Development during Organizational Restructurings. Helsinki 2011.

227. ERIC BREIT: On the Discursive Construction of Corruption: A Critical Analysis of

Media Texts. Helsinki 2011. 228. MICHAEL WAGNER: Inventory Routing. A Strategic Management Accounting

Perspective. Helsinki 2011. 229. NIKODEMUS SOLITANDER: Designing Creativity Through Clusters: A

Periodisation of Cluster Discourse. Helsinki 2011. 230. ANDREAS PERSSON: Profitable Customer Management: a Study in Retail

Banking. Helsinki 2011. 231. MATHIAS HÖGLUND: Microfoundations of HRM Effects: Individual and

Collective Attitudes and Performance. Helsinki 2011. 232. ANETTE SÖDERQVIST: Opportunity Exploration and Exploitation in Inter-

national New Ventures. A Study of Relationships’ Involvement in Early Entrepreneurial and Internationalisation Events. Helsinki 2011.

233. OSKARI LEHTONEN: An Examination of How Entrepreneurs Can Improve Their

Position in Relationship to Investors. Helsinki 2011.

Documents

234 978 952-232-144-2