Int. J. Production Economics 69 (2001) 227}238

The integrated management of logistic chains in the white
goods industry. A "eld research in Italy夽Marco Perona *, Roberto Cigolini, Mattia Adani, Roberto Biondi,Stefano Guzzetti, Ruggero Jenna, Mario Chessa, Stefano Agellara
Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Brescia, Via Branze, 38 - 25123 Brescia, Italy
Politecnico di Milano, Dipartimento di Economia e Produzione, Piazza da Vinci, 32 - 20133 Milan, Italy
McKinsey & Company Italy, Piazza Duomo, 31 - 20122 Milan, Italy
Boston Consulting Group Italy, Via Moscova, 18 - 20126 Milan, Italy
General Electric Power Controls Division, Italy
Received 13 March 1998; accepted 19 November 1999

Abstract
After having devoted many e!orts and investments in improving their internal capacity to produce the right product at
the right price at the right time, companies are now starting to discover that much of the value they deliver to theircustomers depends not only on their own performance, but also on the performance of all the other companies thatbelong to the same logistic chain. Thus, the integrated management of logistic chains has gained a large attention in thelatest years, as one of the most e!ective tools to achieve an overall improvement in the economic as well as in the logistic
value that is embodied in each product. This paper presents some results of a "eld research focused on logistic chain
management, carried on by means of direct interviews on a sample of Italian companies, shops and "nal customers
belonging to the white goods industry. Questions highlight the main cost and logistic e!ects that arise among di!erent
tiers of the chain when they interact. Here we illustrate the used methodology. Moreover, we discuss some of theempirical results achieved, with the aim of assessing the improvement potential that a tighter integration could achieve.
In particular, it is shown that wide space for improving companies pro"tability is available both by reducing costs and byincreasing sales.  2001 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Supply chains; White goods industry; Survey

1. Background1.1. The logistic chain concept夽This paper is the result of collaboration among authors.
Nevertheless, Roberto Cigolini wrote Section 1.2; Mattia Adani,
Roberto Biondi, Stefano Guzzetti, Ruggero Jenna, MarioChessa and Stefano Angellara wrote Section 2.1; Marco Peroni
wrote all other sections.
* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: perona@bsing.ing.unibs.it (M. Perona).

In many branches of industry, the last decade
has witnessed an unexperienced increase in theenvironmental complexity that manufacturing
companies have to face. This is partially due to theincreased customer requirements which usually0925-5273/01/$ - see front matter  2001 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.
PII: S 0 9 2 5 - 5 2 7 3 ( 9 9 ) 0 0 1 3 8 - 3

228

M. Perona et al. / Int. J. Production Economics 69 (2001) 227}238

characterises mature markets. Moreover, the concurrence of the widening of markets and therefore
that one of an ever stronger competition has further
fostered this trend.
In order to cope with global and mature markets, manufacturers have striven not only to increase their product range, but also to enrichtheir products with a set of features that might
create a di!erence with respect to competitors.
This, in turn, has led to the need to master awider range of manufacturing technologies than
before. Given the considerable hurdle that has
risen by the need to be the leader in such amount of
di!erent technological areas, many companies
have preferred to reduce their level of vertical
integration and to focus on their core technologies,
rather than trying to be excellent in all of them[1]. A typical example of this way of doing is
supplied by the PC industry, where each component (motherboard processor, hard drive, screen,operating system, printer, etc.) is usually manufactured by a small number of focused and global
companies.
In such a context, if customers are to obtaina whole system (e.g. PC, screen, printer andmodem) at a reasonable price, with a goodquality and within a reduced lead time after theorder, this can be obtained owing to the combination of e!orts of all the actors connected tothis system [2, 3]. Just to cite some of the wellknown brands: Intel will supply the processor andSeagate or IBM the hard drive; Compaq willtake care of PC assembly; Sony will provide
the monitor; Hewlett-Packard will provide theprinter; 3COM the lan board or the modem,
Microsoft will supply the operating system and thedealer will do SW installation, product packaging
and "nal delivery.
We will call the whole set of companies mentioned above a logistic chain, in that not only thesecompanies perform the logistic phases of the PC
value chain, but they also contribute to the `logistic
valuea that is embodied in the PC. In other words,
these companies not only contribute to determine
the inherent value of the PC as a product, but theyalso determine the service parameters that are connected to the delivery process, such as: response
time, tardiness, etc.

1.2. Competition among logistic chains
Given the remarkable changes in the manufacturing industry that have been outlined in the previous section, companies have started to think how
to link themselves inside a logistic chain in a way togenerate more value for the customers and ultimately also for themselves. The integrated operations management of a whole logistic chain, isrelevant due to two di!erent competitive e!ects,
owing to either di!erent types of customers or the
positioning of each industry in its life cycle.
Let us think about one customer buying a car.
For "rst-time buyers, the act of buying their "rstcar may well be considered as a `musta, due to themobility requirements it ful"ls. Conversely, when
you have already bought your car, buying anotherone could be just a matter of fashion or status. In
this latter case, which refers to a mature customer,
the act of purchasing might well be deferred to nextyear, while the same amount of money might beallocated to something else (e.g. a fashionable dressor suit, a new piece of furniture or even a vacation)or simply saved.
In the former case of the "rst-time buyer, thequestion to be answered is: which car to buy?, so thecompetition is within the automotive industry.
Thus, each car manufacturer, together with dealers
and components manufacturers (e.g. one automotive chain) compete against other ones, inside theautomotive industry. On the contrary, the latter
type of customer gives rise to a new kind of competition, which is among di!erent industries. In thiscase, di!erent automotive chains are competing
against other chains that deliver furniture, dresses,
or eventually anything else.
An additional di!erence between "rst-time customers and mature customers, is in that the "rstones will presumably make their choice based on
a combination of features and price (e.g. car withincertain dimensions, ensuring given performances,
under a pre-determined price threshold). So, given
the purchase is needed, they will go ahead searching on the market, until "nding the appropriate
product. On the contrary, mature customers cangive up the purchase, so they are likely to be lessfocused on functions and price than on other features like design, service or brand name. Further-

M. Perona et al. / Int. J. Production Economics 69 (2001) 227}238

more, if they do not "nd immediately a car "tting
their needs, they are likely to change their mind andto switch to another type of product.
The above considerations outline the increasing
importance of an integrated approach in managing
the logistic chains, especially in mature markets
and industries. In fact, logistic integration among
companies belonging to the same logistic chain
may well be the strategy that allows the chain tojointly achieve overall superior performances interms of:E a superior availability of goods delivered, thus
minimizing the loss of sales against other chains
within its industry and chains belonging to otherindustries [4, 5];E a lean stock pro"le, which in turn allows to minimize running capital expenditure, as well as any
drawback connected to obsolete items [6}8].
1.3. Objectives of the paper
This paper comes as a partial report of a wide
research program carried out within a partnership between the Dipartimento di Economia
e Produzione of the Politecnico di Milano and theMilan branch of McKinsey & Co. Within thisresearch program, two other branches of industry
were investigated together with white goods, namely textile and apparel and books publishing.
The standpoint of this research program has
been illustrated in Sections 1.1 and 1.2.: given theoutlined competitive environment, we make theassumption that the integrated management oflogistic chains is one suitable strategy "rms should
apply in order to jointly improve e!ectiveness ande$ciency along the whole chain, as a$rmed byArmistead and Mapes [9] and Davis [10]. This, inturn, should allow them to deliver more value tocustomers, and, ultimately it should foster the performances of the whole chain.
Thus, the objective of the research program is toevaluate the following aspects, in the investigatedbranches of industry in Italy.
1. To assess companies+ commitment about the
integrated management of logistic chains. In
other words: to evaluate their knowledge on thissubject, the importance they set on it and the229

speci"c actions they have taken or that are stillin the process of deploying towards this direction.
2. To evaluate the potential improvement which isconnected to the integrated management of logistic chains, in terms of cost reduction and/or
sales increase.
3. To identify actions and strategies that chains andcompanies should put in practice in order toactually achieve (part of) the potential that isensured by an integrated management of logistic
chains.
4. To compare diwerent industries' behaviour about
the items above, in order to identify similarities
and di!erences and to suggest a cross-fertilisation process.
Given the general context of the research within
which this paper has been developed, the speci"cobjective pursued by this paper is that one
described in point 2 above, regarding the potential
improvement that could be gained overall by logistic chains and by each single actor on its own if
a tighter coordination among di!erent companies
within chains were in place.
According to the above-mentioned objective, therest of the paper is organised as follows: in Section
2 the methodology adopted is discussed. In Section
3, a set of empirical results is presented. Finally, in
Section 4 we will discuss the general outcomes of
the research and its possible developments.

2. Research methodology
This section presents the research methodology
followed to ful"l the objectives stated in Section 1.3.
In more detail, Section 2.1 deals with the criteria
used to choose the samples of interviewees andto collect the corresponding data; Section 2.2
describes the sample of companies interviewed
and Section 2.3 discusses the cost model used todescribe the cost structure of a logistic chain.
2.1. Samples and data collection
The study has been based on empirical analysis
in "eld. Despite the fact that this methodology

230

M. Perona et al. / Int. J. Production Economics 69 (2001) 227}238

allows to collect data referring to a large number ofcompanies, we preferred to avoid questionnaires,
since they do not ensure an adequate level ofcon"dence about the collected data. Rather, interviewing relevant people within the various organisations considered was preferred. This aspect set
a constraint on the number of organisations that
we were able to consider in the study. However, weconsidered it important to ensure as much as possible the correctness of the collected data.
Each interview was supported by a written list ofquestions that was sent by fax in advance, whenpossible, in order to allow for a more e$cient andcomplete data collection. Three di!erent types ofinterviews were performed, with three di!erent
types of subjects.
1. Companies. A half-day interview was carried out
at each company considered. Together with top
executives, we interviewed functional managers
of: logistics, sales and marketing, production,purchasing. They were asked to quote more than
200 data, regarding: the company's general andlogistic performances, the managers' perceived
importance of logistics and chain integration,
the actions performed or the ongoing projects inthis area, and a set of hard and soft characteristics of the company. Data collected were integrated by asking the balance sheet of last 3 years.
We globally interviewed 34 companies, all ofthem located in Northern Italy.
2. Dealers. While large distribution chains werecategorized as companies, the small dealers(shops or local chains) were interviewed in a different fashion. The question list was much reduced (less than 50 questions) and one interview(usually with the owner or the director) was
considered su$cient. The type of questions addressed to interviewed people was roughly thesame as those asked to companies managers. We
interviewed 10 relevant shops of the area around
Milan, Italy.
3. Customers. The third set of interviews performed
was with people getting out of shops, stores
and, broadly speaking, points of sale. The
contents of this last interview was designed inorder to determine the average customer
purchase behaviour. Questions asked were, forinstance, whether they had a speci"c brand inmind when entering the shop; whether they had
found what they were searching for, whether
they had bought something and for which reason. Overall, we interviewed around 150 customers, coming out of points of sale of various
type.
All interviews were carried out within the branchof industry of domestic appliances, encompassing
such sectors as: food refrigeration, air conditioning,cooking, washing and dishwashing. Small white
goods (from vacuum cleaners to hair driers) where} on the contrary } excluded from the sample, given
the much di!erent type of product, production anddistribution process.
2.2. Model of white goods logistic chain
A preliminary splitting of the chain in threephases (components or raw material supply; "nitegoods production; "nite goods distribution) was"rstly made. Then, through one or two sample
interviews, the "ne tuning of the logistic chain
model for white goods was performed, by identifying which actor could operate within each phaseand which role could each actor play inside it.
Fig. 1 presents the model that was worked out for
supply chains within the white goods industry.
According to Fig. 1, the following actors andmaterial #ows were pinpointed.
1. Suppliers, that are usually manufacturers ofcomponents and subassemblies of many di!erent types, such as steel parts for the body, electrical engines, pumps or compressors, electronicboards and control units, heating electrical resistors, and so on. The #ow of components towards
the producer is indicated by letter A. Overall, weinterviewed 12 suppliers of components andsubgroups: their average dimension, measured
by their 1998 turnover is around 132 billion lire(around 80 US$ millions at 1998 rates);
2. Producer, usually performing the "nal assemblyof ready-made components and groups, with
reduced manufacturing operations. Producers
usually have central and regional distribution
warehouses, from where they feed the various
distribution systems downstream (see #ows B,

M. Perona et al. / Int. J. Production Economics 69 (2001) 227}238

231

Fig. 1. The supply chain model for white good industry.

C and D). A particular case is that of kitchen
producers (see square 6), that are usually fed bycentral warehouse (see #ow E). Globally we interviewed 11 producers of various types of apparatuses, with average 1998 turnover of 764
billion lire (US$ 450 millions). We considered as
an individual producer each separate businessinterviewed, regardless of the fact that it could
belong to the same industrial group as otherbusinesses interviewed.
3. Wholesalers, that may be either independentcompanies (though it is a form of distribution
currently disappearing) or consortia/co-operatives/purchase groups of shopkeepers. Anyway,
wholesalers buy great amounts of "nished goods(B) in order to achieve a price advantage, andre-sell them to shops (F). Increasingly, they are
setting up their own sales facilities (I), in a way tocompete with Distribution chains (see square 5).
We interviewed 2 wholesalers, with average 1998
turnover of 40 billion lire (or US$ 23 millions).
4. Shops, that may purchase their "nished goods
directly from the producers (C) or from wholesalers (F). They are sales facilities with small#oor space whose main competitive advantage isthe location at the centre of towns and cities. Asof 1998, they accounted for more than 90% of
white goods sales in Italy. More precisely, independent shops made around 50% of the sales,
while those associated in purchase groups madeanother 43%. As it was referred in Section 3.1,
we interviewed 10 shops.
5. Distribution chains, that purchase directly fromthe source the "nished good (D) in great quantities. They can be further divided into department
stores, selling white goods together with manyother items of di!erent industries, and large surface superstores, that o!er large selection andlow prices. As of 1998, this form of distribution
accounted for only 7% of sales in the Italianwhite goods market. We interviewed 3 large
distribution chains, with an average 1998 turnover of 200 billion lire (or US$ 115 millions).
6. Kitchens producers, that buy white goods fromproducers (E) to equip their kitchens. Kitchensare put on the market directly (L), throughdistribution chains (H) or shops (G). We interviewed 2 kitchen producers, with average

232

M. Perona et al. / Int. J. Production Economics 69 (2001) 227}238

1998 turnover of 40 billion lire (or US$ 23
millions).
7. Customers, that buy white goods as self standing
items or as equipment of ready-made kitchens,from wholesalers (I), shops (J), distribution
chains (K) or kitchen producers (L). Overall, weinterviewed around 150 customers, as it was
anticipated in Section 2.1.
2.3. Logistic chain costs
In order to assess the potential improvement
connected to an e!ective integrated management of
the logistic chain, it is necessary to identify
and measure the relevant performances in terms ofewectiveness of the chain to supply the right product in the right place and at the right time and interms of ezciency, to do so without badly a!ecting
costs.
Various researchers, among all New [11] haveproposed frameworks of physical indices in order
to measure the performances of logistic chains. Of
course, this method is the most appropriate if
a comprehensive evaluation of the various aspects
a!ected by di!erent implementation techniques issought for. However, the perspective of this study isthat of measuring up the overall economic potential of the integrated management of logistic chains,rather than disclosing the practical e!ects it canhave in the physical performances of the chain, or
measuring up the advantages achieved by a single
implementation technique.
Thus, we concentrated on de"ning and evaluating the relevant costs, with the aim of identifying
the speci"c cost structures of each single actor of
the chain, the average structure of each stage of thechain and, "nally, the overall cost structure of theaverage white goods logistic chain. In order toachieve these results, we adopted a very simple costmodel for each single actor, by identifying the following cost items: (a) industrial cost, that is all direct
and indirect, "xed and variable operating costs,
encompassing such cost items as: "xed capital,
labour, direct and indirect materials, energy, industrial overheads, etc. (b) logistic costs, i.e. those operating and opportunity cost items that can bein#uenced by logistic decisions, and, broadly
speaking, by the integration of management practi-

ces and activities throughout the logistic chain, and(c) proxts, de"ned as the di!erence of the net operating margin less running capital cost, that is alreadyincluded in logistic costs category.
All of the cost items considered above can becomputed for each actor in the chain. By averaging
out results achieved at various actors at the samestage of the chain, it is possible to "gure out the
average logistic cost structure of that speci"c stage.
Moreover, by simply summing up the results
achieved at the various tiers of the chain illustrated
in Section 2.2, the overall cost structure of thelogistic chain was obtained. Since the sum of theaforementioned cost items equals, by de"nition,
overall sales, results of our investigations could be
represented as a percentage of total sales of theaverage logistic chain, or as a percentage of thecustomer price of one average piece of white good.
As anticipated above, logistic costs were de"ned
as all the cost items whose value can be in#uenced
by logistic decisions. More in detail, the list of cost
items included in this cost category is presented
in Table 1. As seen in Table 1, logistic costs
were subdivided in two classes, e!ectiveness ande$ciency.
E!ectiveness logistic costs arise whenever thelogistic chain fails in providing customers with therequired product, at the required point of sale andat the required time. In this case, the whole logistic
chain, or one part of it might experience a loss ofsales, so that e!ectiveness logistic costs can be better described as opportunity costs connected toa loss of sales. More in detail, given the structure of
the logistic chain described in Section 2.2, this cost
was divided into the following components.
1. Sales lost for the whole industry. This is the casewhen customers who are looking for a speci"cproduct, cannot "nd it and, as a consequence, they employ their money otherwise.
This may be the typical behaviour of the maturebuyer (see Section 1.2). Quite obviously, theselost sales a!ect all the actors within the chain:
the dealer, the producer and the components
suppliers.
2. Sales lost for the dealer. The required product is
not found at the "rst visited dealer: so customers
buy it at another dealer. In this case, while theM. Perona et al. / Int. J. Production Economics 69 (2001) 227}238

233

Table 1
Logistic chain cost items considered
E!ectiveness

E$ciency

Lost sales costs:
z for the chain
z for the dealer only
z for the producer and the suppliers onlyz Obsolete stocks
z Running capitalz Transportation and handlingz Set-up and scrap"nished good and the components producers do
not su!er any loss, the dealer is a!ected. Thismight be the case for a newcomer of this kind of
products, as discussed in Section 1.2.
3. Sales lost both for the producer and the suppliers.
The required product is not available at the "rstvisited dealer. Yet, the dealer addresses customers to another equivalent product, and they
buy it. In this case, while the dealer will protect
its sales, the manufacturer of the originallysearched product, together with its suppliers,
su!ers the loss. This case too might be for the
newcomer purchasing this kind of products (seeSection 1.2).
Within this research, the costs of lost sales wascomputed in two ways. First, an estimation of its
value was asked to the interviewed companies. Second, a sample of customers was interviewed outside
points of sale (see Section 2.1, item 3), and theaverage purchasing behaviour of white goods customers was singled out. Following this scheme, thecost of lost sales was evaluated by averaging thepercentage of customers willing to buy one white
good that have to change their mind due to logistic
reasons (that is, because the required product is notavailable due to stockout, nor it will be withina su$ciently short time span). Despite being particularly time-consuming, this second methodology
appeared to be much more reliable, due to thespeci"c nature of the addressed costs, that are notconsidered by traditional accounting systems, giventhat they correspond to missed opportunities
rather than to negative cash #ows.
The second class of logistic costs considered bythis study is that one of ezciency logistic costs,
encompassing the various cost items that dependon production planning and control or materials

management decisions [12]. Running capital costaccounts for the "nancial expenditure corresponding to all materials that have been already purchased from vendors, but have not yet been sold tocustomers, and are therefore kept in stock or within
the various stages of the chain, as WIP; this cost
was estimated by multiplying the average value ofmaterials stocks kept in each company, by theaverage cost of borrowed capital. Obsolete stocks
cost refers to all materials that lose part or all of
their value after being kept in stock for a longtime; in the white good sector this proved to bequite a common occurrence, both with "nishedproducts and subgroups, especially during thephase out of an old product that is replaced
by a new one. Transportation and handling costs
refer to physical materials movement, both withineach manufacturing or assembly plant, and amongsuppliers and customers plants; they were estimated by summing up all the related cost items
found in the balance sheet of interviewed companies. Finally, set-up costs refer to changeover
operations, when a machine or production systemhave to be stopped and tuned to accomodate production of a new item; these costs too were estimated by analysing the detailed balance sheets
provided by companies.

3. Empirical results
3.1. Ezciency logistic cost structure
Fig. 2 illustrates the cost structure of the average
white goods logistics chain, with reference to theaverage selling price of one item (set equal to 100).
Given that Fig. 2 deals about physical costs andrevenues, logistic costs highlighted in Fig. 2, are234

M. Perona et al. / Int. J. Production Economics 69 (2001) 227}238

Fig. 2. Cost structure for the average white goods logistic chain (100"average customer cost of one item).

only those listed in the column referred to as theezciency in Table 1 (see Section 2.3). As shown in
Fig. 2, logistic costs account for 18% of the overall
chain turnover. At the same time, the overall chain
pro"t is merely 5.5% of turnover. Thus, if logistic
costs could only be cut by one third, almost without any additional decision, the chain's overall
pro"tability would be more than doubled. If a
better integration of logistic chain can achieve an
improvement in overall e$ciency of the chain, as it
was postulated in Section 1.3, this aspect shows at"rst that a large space is available to improveoverall chain's pro"tability.
Note that logistic costs tend to increase downstream to the chain. So, while suppliers experiencelogistic costs at a mere 5.5% of their sales (2% of
global chain sales), and producers account foralmost 6.5% (4% of total sales), around two thirdsof the global logistic costs are accumulated in the
distribution phase, where they account on averagefor 12% of sales. By comparison, here pro"ts area mere 1% of overall sales. This second remark
highlights the crucial relevance of activating an
integrated approach in the management of thelogistic chains especially for companies operating
within the distribution phase.

Fig. 3 presents in a more detailed way both thevalue and positioning of the e$ciency-related logistic costs throughout the white goods logistic chain.
As shown in Fig. 3., more than two-thirds of e$ciency logistic costs in white goods industry is generated by transportation and handling operations.
This might well be due to the fact that white goods
are basically `large and emptya. Given that logistic
costs as a whole account for 18% of the selling priceper unit, we can conclude that transportation costs
account for more than 12% of the overall sales forthis industry.
As seen in the "gure, handling and transportation costs badly a!ect in particular the distribution
phase. In fact, considering in a comparative manner
results presented in Fig. 2 and Fig. 3, it is possible
to derive that transportation and handling costs
alone account for almost one-tenth of the distributors' turnover. This "gure is rather impressive,
especially if we compare it with distributors pro"ts,that account for only 1% of their turnover.
It should be noted that also running capital costs
are quite relevant (almost 17% of total logistic
costs). Again, around two-thirds of those costs areconcentrated in the distribution phase. Finally, thisphase is also badly a!ected by obsolete items costs,

M. Perona et al. / Int. J. Production Economics 69 (2001) 227}238

235

Fig. 3. Logistic cost structure for the average white goods logistic chain (100"average logistic cost per unit).

that account on average for more than 0.7% of its
average turnover. In order to fully evaluate therelevance of these amounts, it is necessary to compare them to that of the distributors average pro"tability, that is only slightly larger than obsolete
items cost.
Data presented in Fig. 3 "t well with the reality of
Italian white goods distribution system (see Section
2.3). In particular, a high transportation cost, together with high stocks and obsolesence costs seemnothing less than obvious consequences of a distribution system which mainly consists of a large
amount of very small selling facilities.
3.2. Ewectiveness logistic costs structure
Fig. 4 presents data regarding the costs of lost
sales, as computed on the basis of customers interviews (actual) and as these costs are estimated by
the average actor at each stage of the logistic chain.
At each stage of the chain, and for each computation strategy, lost sales costs were computed as thecontribution margin lost due to the experienced
loss of sales. Each actor's loss of sales was computed as explained in Section 2.3, while the contribution margin was again calculated starting fromthe balance sheet. For clarity sake, values presented
in Fig. 4 are expressed as a percentage of each actor
turnover.

If we examine the absolute value of actual costs
as compared to each stage's average sales,
Fig. 4 points out that actual lost sales costs are
remarkable at all the stages of the chain, and particularly high at the distribution phase. Contrary tothat, it is interesting to note that if we measure thecost of sales lost on average by the whole white
goods industry (i.e. cost due to the inter-industry
competition, see Section 1.2), the value is almost
null. This outcome, directly derived by the averagebehaviour declared by the interviewed customers,
shows that in the Italian market almost all potential purchasers of household white goods behave as
newcomers, in the sense that they only considera deal when it is actually necessary: as a consequence, they will go on searching points of sales
until they "nd a suitable product, rather than giveup the purchase.
As a consequence, the costs of lost sales shown in
Fig. 4 must be interpreted as follows. If the e!ectiveness performances of all the logistic chains in
the white goods sector are almost the same, eachactor will experience a loss much similar to allother actors of the same type, so that sales lost
because of one actor's ine!ectiveness are balanced
by sales gained by the same actor out of otheractors' losses. Therefore, if there are 10 washingmachines manufacturers on the market, and each
one loses 20% of its sales potential because of bad

236

M. Perona et al. / Int. J. Production Economics 69 (2001) 227}238

Fig. 4. Cost of lost sales by stage of the chain: actual versus estimated values (100"average sales of each stage).

service, a pool worth 10;20"200% the averagesales of one manufacturer will be at hand. Since
each manufacturer has roughly the same level ofservice as others, each will achieve one-tenth of thepool, resulting again in 20% of its sales. Thus, if
service levels are balanced, so are sales losses. Yet, if
a xrst mover succeeds in achieving a much betterlevel of service than competitors, its loss of sales
will tend to nil, and its sales will reach 120%.
Consistently, each competitor will experience anaverage 2% sales loss. Moreover, if we hypothesizethat } sooner or later } all competitors will improvetheir level of service, apart from one (the last mover),this last company will experience a loss of 20% of its
sales, and its sales will reach 80%, while all competitors would "nd a new steady state at 102%. Hence,
the lost sales opportunity costs highlighted in Fig.
4 can only become physical money when the service
level equilibrium is broken. Moreover, the di!erence
among the "rst mover and the last mover is, in fact,
greater than the average loss sales cost computed.
By comparing the estimated versus actual valueof lost sales costs, Fig. 4 also points out that there is
not a clear view among the di!erent actors
throughout the chain about lost sales costs, given
the considerable di!erences in the values. Indeed,
companies are used to roughly estimate these costs
rather than controlling them. To strengthen thisstatement, most of the accounting systems are focused on physical costs that emerge through any
kind of registered transaction that can take place.
On the contrary, lost sales costs are by de"nition
opportunity costs and thus they correspond toa lost opportunity to generate income rather than
to a negative cash #ow.
No matter how paradoxical it may seem, Fig. 4
con"rms that companies that are more likely torightly consider their opportunity costs belong to
the supplier level of the logistic chain, while thegreatest error in the estimates is that of distributors,
even though these actors are directly subject to theloss of sales. A possible explanation of this "nding
relies in the comparative dimensions of the averagecompany within each stage of the chain. Given
their rather small average dimension, Italian shops
and points of sale have not yet worked out systems
to control customers behaviour and therefore estimate the level of lost sales. Conversely, given therather large size of many manufacturers of white
goods, scarcely ever do distributors cancel orders,
once they have been placed, regardless of thedemand they are actually experiencing: thus, thevery limited amount of loss of sales noticed bymanufacturers. Finally, producers are more likely
to actually cancel orders to suppliers, given thebalance of dimensions, that is in their favour.

M. Perona et al. / Int. J. Production Economics 69 (2001) 227}238

4. Conclusions
4.1. Discussion
The research methodology illustrated in Section
2, allowed us to collect and analyse some very
meaningful data regarding the white goods logistic
chain. The resources available to this research program have not ensured an adequate number ofinterviews, in order to achieve a statistical signi"cance with reference to the collected data. However,a satisfactory level of consistency and completenessis granted by the fact that numerical values wereachieved by means of direct interviews, immediately checked and eventually discussed directly with
the interviewed people. Results presented in Section 3 allow us to point out three main concluding
remarks.
First, evidence is shown about the overall importance of logistic costs for the white goods industry, both in terms of their impact on the operating
costs and the consolidated turnover of the averagelogistic chain within this industry. To this regard,strong evidence is set on the fact that the sum oflogistic costs and lost sales costs account for almost
30% of the overall chain turnover, while chain
pro"tability is very low, around 5%. Thus, if only
the overall sum of logistic costs and lost sales costs
could be reduced by one "fth, pro"ts could be morethan doubled. If we accept the assumption made in
Section 1.3, that the integrated management of logistc chains is a suitable tool to jointly improve
both e$ciency and e!ectiveness of the whole chain,
we can conclude that this strategy can gain conspicuous advantages both in terms of reduced costs,
and increased sales, with the possibility to improvedramatically the overall pro"tability of the wholechain and of each of its actors.
Second, data collected in "eld show that almost
80% of total logistic costs, and a large chunk of lost
sales e!ect are concentrated at the distribution
phase. In particular, the performed analyses outlined that almost half of costs found at that phaseare lost sales and nearly one third are due to transportation. This tier of the Italian white goods logistic chain emerges therefore as one evident criticalityof the whole system. The apparently inconsistentoccurrence of large e$ciency logistic costs (i.e.

237stock, obsolete products, transportations) together
with large e!ectiveness cost (i.e. lost sales) at thesales level can be understood by considering the
combination of the large amount of di!erent products that are put on the market by modern white
goods producers (around 1.000 stock keeping units
per business in Italy) and the particularly small
dimensions of the average Italian dealer of suchitems (on average around 1.000 units sold per annum). Due to this combination, we can explain thesimultaneous presence of seemingly exaggerated
stock levels, frequent urgent deliveries and relevant
lost sales costs. While the mix variety can hardly becontrolled by the chain actors, as being an inherent
characteristic of white goods current life cycle stage,
the structure, size and type of dealers can bechanged from within the chain, even if througha major and structural re-engineering of the chain
itself.
Third, there does not seem to exist much integration among various actors within the white goods
logistic chains regarding the exchange of updated
sales information, as it was shown by highlighting
the large di!erence among the perceived and actual
values of lost sales. This aspect is particularly serious, in that it prevents managers from having
a complete vision on the whole chain's cost structure. One has to recall that, the more stocks are
increased and moved downstream the chain, themore the chain will experience high-e$ciency andlow-e!ectiveness costs, and vice versa. To say it
simply, the job of logistic managers within the
chain is that one of "guring out the appropriate
level and positioning of material stocks, together
with the appropriate level of #exibility and readiness, so that both cost classes are minimized for thewhole chain. It seems very di$cult to achieve thisgoal if part of the information needed is missing.
4.2. Further developments
Further analyses in progress on the same data
sample, will try to investigate in order to ful"l otherobjectives, namely: to assess companies commitment towards the integrated management of logistic chains; to actually identify which actions could
gain companies the potential that has been measured up in this paper; and to compare techniques,

238

M. Perona et al. / Int. J. Production Economics 69 (2001) 227}238

leverages, practices and approaches throughout thethree investigated branches of industry.
However, it was noted at the beginning of thissection that a crucial issue of this research program,is in the weak statistical signi"cance of data collected. To this purpose, the sample of interviewed"rms should be at least doubled. This way of doingin the Italian market alone might prove to be ineffective, almost for two reasons. On the one hand,some types of the actors identi"ed for this research
are very few in Italy (e.g. large white goods distribution chains). On the other hand, to analyse companies belonging to di!erent countries, can lead toa wider range of examples, which can in turn be
used to cross-fertilise industrial practices among
countries or check the thoroughness of hypotheses
worked out.
For instance, the issues recalled above in thissection regarding the possibility to achieve an advantage by enlarging the average size of distributors, could be supported by empirical evidencecollected from countries where distribution chains
have a larger market share than in Italy.
References[1] R. Normann, R. Ramirez, From value chain to value
constellation, Harvard Business Review, July}August(1993) 65}77.

[2] H.L. Lee, C. Billington, The evolution of supply-chainsmanagement models and practice at Hewlett-Packard, Interfaces 25 (5) (1995) 42}63.
[3] G.A. Farley, Discovering supply chain management, APICS Bulletin (1997) 38}39.
[4] R. Langan, M. Davis, D. O'Sullivan, Supply chain management, a case of study of AsIs vs. ToBe, in: J. Browne etal. (Eds.), IT and Manufacturing Partnerships, IOS Press,
1996, pp. 130}138.
[5] D.J. Thomas, P.M. Gri$n, Coordinated supply chain
management, European Journal of Operational Research
94 (1996) 1}15.
[6] H.L. Lee, C. Billington, Managing supply chain inventory:
Pitfalls and opportunity, Sloan Management Review,
Spring (1992) 65}73.
[7] H.L. Lee, C. Billington, Material management in decentralized supply chains, Operation Research 41 (5) (1993)835}847.
[8] M. Verwijmeren, P. van der Vlist, K. van Donselaar, Networked inventory management information systems:
Materializing supply chain management, International
Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistic Management 26 (6) (1996) 17}31.
[9] C.G. Armistead, J. Mapes, The impact of supply chain
integration on operation performance, Logistics Information Management 6 (4) (1993) 9}14.
[10] T. Davis, E!ective supply chain management, Sloan Management Review, Summer (1993) 35}46.
[11] S.J. New, A framework for analyzing supply chain improvement, International Journal of Operations and Production Management 16 (4) (1996) 19}34.
[12] J. Arnold, H.M. Dudenhousen, H. Halmosi, Production
planning and control within supply chains, in: J. Browne
et al. (Eds.), IT and Manufacturing Partnerships, IOS
Press, 1996, pp. 139}150.