Purchasing of logistical services: a new view of LSPs’ proactive strategies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this viewpoint is to analyze the emergence of a modified equilibrium in the relationship between buyers (“shippers”) and suppliers (“providers”) of logistical services. In the 1990s, the logistical service providers (LSPs) had relatively little power and were often asked to perform basic operations. The situation has evolved as a result of proactive strategies implemented by some forward-thinking LSPs. In this viewpoint, the emphasis is on the strategies developed by shippers which the authors labeled the “ramp effect”. Design/methodology/approach The authors discuss the impact of the ramp effect on LSPs’ innovation processes. This viewpoint is based on the authors’ experience in the field, on a literature review focused on the logistics industry and on the purchasing strategies applied to logistical services. Findings The authors show that the buyers of logistical services have lost some of their power because of two main factors: LSPs’ embeddedness in the shipper’s supply chain and the transformation of LSPs into orchestrators (labeled fourth-party logistics). This viewpoint discusses the relational disequilibrium between shippers and LSPs rather than the cooperative relationships between them. Originality/value The ramp effect as a source of innovation and proactive strategies for LSPs has never been covered in the management literature. This viewpoint provides both academics and practitioners with a different perspective of the relational disequilibrium between buyers and sellers of logistical services.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".