A configurational approach to last mile logistics practices and omni-channel firm characteristics for competitive advantage: a fuzzy-set qualitative comparative analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The purpose is to explore how the configurations resulting from the interplay of last mile logistics practices and firm characteristics are associated with firm performance in an omni-channel context. Design/methodology/approach Drawing on configuration theory (CT), the authors use fuzzy-set qualitative comparative analysis (fsQCA) to analyze data on 72 Swedish omni-channel retailers. Findings Four configurations are identified—store-oriented small and medium-sized enterprises (SME's), online-oriented SME's, large store-oriented retailers and large online-oriented retailers. The results show that while offering a wide range of delivery options is necessary to achieve high performance, it is not sufficient, and that returns and fulfilment should be simultaneously considered. For instance, large high-performers leverage their stores and warehouses for fulfilment and returns in an integrated way irrespective of sales channel-mix. However, SME's appear to focus on fulfilment simplicity with less-costly delivery alternatives, where store-oriented SME's leverage stores and the online-oriented counterparts leverage warehouses. Consequently, the authors develop a configurational taxonomy and discuss a set of recipes which provide insights for researchers and practitioners. Research limitations/implications The study provides a more comprehensive understanding of the pathways to success, and potential pitfalls, in the last mile logistics context. Originality/value This study applies a novel methodology in the field, namely fsQCA, to explore the paths to competitive advantage. It covers a wide range of stages in the LM including back-end fulfilment, delivery and returns. It also provides insight into the logistics practices of both SME's and large omni-channel retailers.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.012 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".