A PROCEDURE FOR SECONDARY DATA ANALYSIS:

INNOVATION BY LOGISTICS SERVICE PROVIDERS

CHRISTIAN BUSSE
WHU Otto Beisheim School of Management

This paper presents a procedure for confirmatory and exploratory research

with a limited amount of secondary data. The methodology is exemplified by
research on the innovation activities and performance of logistics service
providers (LSPs), thereby extending the work of Wagner. A research hypoth-
esis is derived, stating that the context of LSPs to innovation is significantly
different from that of other service providers. Secondary data from the 2006
2008 Mannheim Innovation Panel, an annual survey on the innovation be-
havior of German firms, is assessed and found suitable to test that hypothesis.
The w2 test of independence is used to test the hypothesis. Multiple activity
and performance indicators can be used as operationalizations that are later
tested in parallel, with the help of the Bonferroni correction. Then, the dis-
tribution of categorical variables is recalculated, and multiple scenarios for
missing values are taken into account. Empirical and critical w2 values are
computed, and the test result is aggregated. The findings indicate that the LSP
context of innovation is indeed significantly different from that of other ser-
vice providers. Those differences are then analyzed and interpreted. The re-
sults show that innovators among LSPs appear to have similar innovation
benefits to non-LSPs, while for LSPs, innovation appears to be more costly.
This could explain the lower share of innovation-active LSPs. The paper
concludes by discussing the limitations of the methodology, and of the con-
tent-related findings.

Keywords: new product development; transportation, distribution and logistics; archival

research; meta analysis; nonparametric statistics; 3PL; third-party logistics

INTRODUCTION role across functions (Morash, Droge and Vickery 1997;

Innovation provides significant benefits to a firm, in-
cluding additional revenues, improved processes
(Khazanchi, Lewis and Boyer 2007) and ultimately,
competitive advantage (McGrath and Ming-Hone 1996).
Numerous works have suggested that logistics service
providers (LSPs) may not be particularly innovative
(Ackerman 1996; Peters, Lieb and Randall 1998; Wilding
and Juriado 2004; Wagner 2008; Wallenburg 2009).
Their lack of innovation performance has not yet been
explained. There is, hence, a research gap: [L]ogistics
research has largely ignored the concept of innovation
(Flint, Larsson, Gammelgaard and Mentzer 2005, p. 113).
Various positive effects could stem from LSPs being
innovative, and not only for LSPs themselves: LSPs are
specialists in logistics, which play a boundary-spanning
I would like to thank Craig R. Carter, Shawnee K. Vickery, Jurgen
Weber and three anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments
on earlier versions of this article.
Stank, Goldsby, Vickery and Savitskie 2003), and their
central positioning in supply chains allows them to
function as bridges across organizations (Selviaridis and
Spring 2007). They are therefore vital to the development
of supply chains. Innovations by LSPs were shown to
affect both the achievement of goals in outsourcing re-
lationships (Deepen, Goldsby, Knemeyer and Wallenburg
2008), and the loyalty of LSPs customers (Wallenburg
2009). Nevertheless, as of this writing, logistics-related
improvements are often driven by LSPs customers, and
not by LSPs (van Hoek 2000; Flint et al. 2005). The
perplexing research gap is thus clearly relevant.
The content-related purpose of this research is to sta-
tistically test and then investigate the differences in in-
novation activity and performance for LSPs and other
service providers. The core research question is: Is the LSP
context to innovation distinctive? The findings are further
analyzed and interpreted to facilitate future research and
to identify implications for managerial practice. The

44 Volume 46, Number 4

 A Procedure for Secondary Data Analysis
methodological purpose of this research is to delineate a
methodology for using secondary data in empirical
supply chain research, which is exemplified while inves-
tigating the above issue.
LITERATURE REVIEW
LSPs are companies which perform logistics activities
on behalf of others (Delfmann, Albers and Gehring
2002, p. 204). LSPs originated in the outsourcing of lo-
gistics processes to third parties (Sheffi 1990), and be-
long to the transportation industry (Wagner 2008).
Currently, LSPs are primarily studied in relation to third-
party logistics (3PL) relationships between the LSP and
either a seller or a buyer of goods (Marasco 2008). While
no literature reviews exist that are dedicated to LSPs,
there are three that focus on 3PL relationships (Maloni
and Carter 2006; Selviaridis and Spring 2007; Marasco
2008), through which the center of attention in LSP re-
search can be assessed. Innovation is hardly mentioned
and is not a well-established stream at the core of
3PL/LSP research. The only innovation-related findings
mentioned are that LSP innovation can be achieved in
collaborative relationships, can create competitive ad-
vantage and is currently lacking (Selviaridis and Spring
2007). In addition, innovation can be beneficial to LSPs
(Marasco 2008). The view of Flint et al. (2005), that in-
novation has been disregarded in logistics, can be con-
firmed with respect to LSPs.
There are several conceptualizations of innovation and
related terms (Garcia and Calantone 2002). For the
purposes of this paper, it suffices that innovation pro-
cesses introduce and exploit novelty in a firm, and are
particularly challenging (Utterback 1971). Undertaking
innovation processes requires human or financial re-
sources (inputs). Innovations may be created if innova-
tion processes succeed. Product innovations relate to new
or improved products; for process innovations, the nov-
elty resides in the production process (Scannell, Vickery
and Droge 2000; Garcia and Calantone 2002). Firms that
have produced an innovation are innovators. Only in-
novators benefit from direct exploitation benefits such as
additional revenues or saved costs. Innovation perfor-
mance can be delineated into immediate, technical
performance (outputs) and into indirect economic per-
formance (outcomes) (Tatikonda and Montoya-Weiss
2001). As the usage of multiple performance measures is
well established (Calantone, Vickery and Droge 1995;
Scannell et al. 2000; Lao, Hong and Rao 2010), both
performance types will be used in this research. Because
of the exploitation purpose, operational performance is
not an end in itself, but a means of market performance
(Tatikonda and Montoya-Weiss 2001), so innovation
outcomes are regarded as the consequences of innova-
tion outputs. As a service context to innovation differs
from a goods context (Nijssen, Hillebrand, Vermeulen
October 2010
and Kemp 2006), general innovation management lit-
erature may not deliver the best results to LSPs (Flint et
al. 2005). Even within service industries, differences exist,
so that industry-specific investigations or cross-industry
comparisons have been recommended (Damanpour
1991; Calantone et al. 1995; Droge, Jayaram and Vickery
2000; Nijssen et al. 2006). This paper thus compares
LSPs with other service providers. One advantage of in-
dustry-related investigations is that they produce appli-
cation-oriented research (Calantone, Garcia and Droge
2003; Carter 2008).
The paper builds on two works that used data from the
Mannheim Innovation Panel in business studies: Hipp
and Grupp (2005) and Wagner (2008). Hipp and Grupp
(2005) also conducted a cross-industry comparison of
services through the application of a new service typol-
ogy. Wagners (2008) work was the first to discuss a cross
section of the Mannheim Innovation Panel from the
perspective of LSPs. The unique content-related contri-
butions of the current research consist of (1) the con-
sideration on LSP specificity; (2) the application of
statistical tests on the interdependence of innovation
achievements from the groups of LSPs versus non-LSPs;
(3) the interrelation of innovation activities and perfor-
mance; and (4) the added theoretical analysis of inter-
dependencies and possible underlying causes.
Although there is no fully established stream of inno-
vation-related research at the center of LSP research,
numerous works have over the last decade focused on
facets of innovation in an LSP context. Previous papers
published in academic journals investigated technology
adoption (e.g., Lai, Ngai and Cheng 2005), innovation
generation (e.g., Flint et al. 2005), as well as incremental
innovation and continuous improvement (e.g., Wallen-
burg 2009). A final group applied a more holistic per-
spective (e.g., Wagner 2008). Most of these earlier works
are, however, not relevant to the research question in-
vestigated here.
Wagner (2008) analyzed the 2005 cross section of the
Mannheim Innovation Panel data. He characterized
LSPs innovation inputs by low R&D expenditure. Inno-
vation processes at LSPs were identified as often incre-
mental, while LSPs invest heavily in technological
equipment and infrastructure. He adds that LSPs have
particularly few innovators, product innovators, firms
with product range novelties, firms with market novelties
and process innovators, compared with manufacturing
firms and knowledge-intensive service firms. Based on
descriptive statistics, Wagner (2008) concludes that LSPs
innovation results were relatively poor, compared with
those of other industries.
RESEARCH HYPOTHESIS
As is evident from their name, LSPs provide logistics
services. It thus seems natural to base the specificity of
45
 Journal of Supply Chain Management
LSPs innovation context first on those services, as Vic-
kery, Droge, Stank, Goldsby and Markland (2004) had
done. Using the service classifications of Chase (1978)
and of Lovelock (1983), Vickery et al. (2004) had iden-
tified integrated logistics services (i.e., 3PL services) as
relational (rather than transactional) business-to-
business services, which are marked by high complexity,
high task uncertainty, high task variability, high interde-
pendence between parties and by high equivocality (i.e.,
great differences between parties). Other logistics ser-
vices, such as trucking services, may be more average in
terms of these dimensions (Vickery et al. 2004), so that
LSPs who provide both integrated relational 3PL services
and simple transactional services are marked by medium
to high levels of these dimensions. It is also possible to
characterize logistics services as permanent owned-good
services affecting goods, which have tangible action (Judd
1964; Hill 1977; Lovelock 1983) and which are equip-
ment based (Thomas 1978). These features can be ex-
pected to affect LSPs innovation and their innovation
management. For example, due to their equipment-based
nature, their relatively high tangibility and the frequently
high number of service provisions, their effectiveness and
efficiency can be expected to be key criteria of LSPs in-
novation management. Asset productivity is hence a
central issue. It follows that LSPs innovations are likely
to focus on new logistics systems or equipment at the
radical end of degrees of novelty, as well as on high-im-
pact improvements in set-up systems, making standard-
ization another central topic. Overall, the LSP context to
innovation appears very distinctive. Recollecting the ex-
istence of interindustry differences in innovation (e.g.,
Calantone et al. 1995; Droge et al. 2000) and earlier
considerations of LSPs innovation performance (e.g.,
Flint et al. 2005; Wallenburg 2009), it is thus proposed:
Proposition 1: The LSP context to innovation is so dis-
tinctive that it significantly differs from that of other
service providers.
Proposition 1 was formulated before any data were
acquired. To become testable, Proposition 1 had to be
operationalized. With the secondary database of this
study described in the following section it was not
possible to plan the operationalization in advance, so it
is described in the Methodology section.
METHODOLOGY
There is not yet an established methodology for the use
of archival and secondary data in (supply chain) man-
agement research, so that the methodology was tailored
to the needs of this specific research (compare Figure 1).
It receives considerable attention in the remainder of this
article, due to the interest in the STF on methodological
issues. The flowchart offers multiple starting points for
46 Volume 46, Number 4
discussions on secondary data analysis methodology and
to facilitation of similar research endeavors.
As can be seen from Figure 1, the first activity of the
preparation stage was completed before data collection
took place. With the exception of the closure stage that is
described in the concluding section of this paper, sub-
sequent activities are introduced in this section and then
elaborated in the Results section.
Database and Quality
The database used in this paper, the Mannheim Inno-
vation Panel, belongs to the biannual Community In-
novation Survey of the European Union. All of the data
come from Germany. The German logistics market is the
largest in Europe (Klaus and Kille 2006), and it fulfills a
pan-European transit function (Wagner 2008). As the
cultural and legal environment is fixed, all of the data are
influenced in the same way. The survey design follows
OECD recommendations published in the Oslo Manual
(OECD 2005). Descriptions of the panel are available
online (Rammer and Schmiele 2008; Rammer and
Bethmann 2009; ZEW 2010). The survey is designed as a
sampling survey. Its population consists of all legally
independent organizations with a registered office in
Germany, with at least five employees and belonging to
Sections C, D, E, I and J, to Divisions 51, 72, 73, 74 and
90, as well as to Groups 92.1 and 92.2 of the DESTATIS
(2003) classification (Rammer and Bethmann 2009).
Data are collected at the level of the firm and afterwards
clustered to industries. The current German industry
classification DESTATIS (2008) refers in a legally binding
way to the NACE Rev. 2 classification of the European
Community (EUROSTAT 2010) which in turn is based on
the ISIC Rev. 4 system (UN 2010) of the United Nations.
Therein, land transportation firms (DESTATIS 2008, Di-
vision 49), aviation firms, shipping firms and firms
offering logistics services (DESTATIS 2008, Divisions
5052 and 79), as well as courier, express and parcel
service providers (DESTATIS 2008, Division 53) together
make up the LSP cluster, in accordance with the LSP
definition. Each year and for each cluster, aggregated re-
sults from the Mannheim Innovation Panel are pub-
lished in report form for individual industries. This
article makes use of all service-related reports of the ZEW
Innovation Report Series 2008, 2009 and 2010. While in-
dustry classifications were recently updated in between
the latest two ZEW Innovation Report Series, for LSPs,
virtually no changes occurred.
For 2008 and 2006, sample sizes and response rates are
depicted in Table I (Rammer and Schmiele 2008;
Rammer and Bethmann 2009; Rammer 2010). LSP
samples comprise 449 and 346 organizations, respec-
tively. The non-LSP samples contain 2,251 and 1,554
organizations. The response rate was 32.1 percent
in 2008 and 28.0 percent in 2006. Nonrespondent
 A Procedure for Secondary Data Analysis

FIGURE 1
Procedural Overview

Mandatory stage 1: Preparation Mandatory stage 2:

Stage
Chi-square test of independence

Recalculating Deriving
Acquiring Adjusting
Operationa- distribution multiple
Phrasing data, sample for
Activity lizing the of missing-
propositions assessing categorical rounding value
propositions
applicability variables effects scenarios

Important Driven by Check for data Data are likely Manual copying Conservatism Conservatism:
aspects and theory, not by that is available not tailored to of data may be guideline: rather
practical data online and for proposition necessary Assume that overestimate
suggestions Propositions archival data Create previous the share of
Repeated
likely reflect Averages of constructs or rounding missing values
copying can be
differences categorical use multiple emphasized Only random
applied to avoid
between one variables reflective differences occurrence can
copying errors
cluster and needed indicators in Re-round so be assumed
Spreadsheet or
another Sample sizes parallel statistical that differences If there is no
(because must be In the case of software can be become smaller integer solution
similarities can reported parallel tests, used for a certain
hardly be Scientific qua- apply Clusters can be cell, choose
shown) lity standards Bonferroni (or built from conservative
Affiliation with are required, other) multiple micro- value
specification, not scientific correction clustres
rather than origin
generalization

Mandatory stage 2: Mandatory

Optional stage 3:
Stage Chi-square test of stage 4:
Further analyses
independence (continued) Closure

Calculating Assessing Analyzing Making Exploring Explicating

empirical and data without assumptions, results and conclusion
Activity
and critical aggregating further considering deriving and
values test results assumptions limitations propositions implications

Important Various missing For parallel Comparisons Assumptions Relate the data Separate
aspects and value scenarios tests, most between serve to to another confirmatory
practical for empirical significant significantly facilitate Consider from explora-
suggestions values rejection differing propositions adding further tive findings
Table design matters variables Assess de- data from other Secondary data
may reflect Check if Consider inte- crease of ge- sources may hardly
multiple parallelization grating non- neralizability vs. This activity is suffer from
significance of cross- categorical potency of more biases, but
levels sections is variables conclusion interpretative methods are
Spreadsheet helpful than usual more remote
Contemplate If clusters are
software can Latent variab-le quantitative from data than
applying Chaid impacted
compute critical inertia possibly research usual
or qualitative equally by an
values differs from comparative assumption, Thoroughly
Mean values
inertia of analysis comparisons reflect
may suffice for
reflective Without may hardly be limitations (err
making a
indicators variance data, affected on side of too
proposition
interpretation is Explicate all much detail)
challenging limitations

interviews complemented the survey sample, and large the addition of the elaborated survey design (OECD
enterprises were added based on publicly available 2005; ZEW 2010), the data are highly objective and
sources to ensure the representativeness of the data. With credible, as stipulated by Calantone and Vickery (2009).

October 2010 47
 Journal of Supply Chain Management

TABLE I
Sample Sizes

Corrected Gross Sample Net Sample Response Rate (%)

Sample 2008
Subtotal: LSPs 1,311 449 34.2
Transportation industry and postal services 1,311 449 34.2
Subtotal: non-LSPs 7,098 2,251 31.7
Water supply and waste management 553 165 29.8
Wholesale trade 824 249 30.2
Media services 839 257 30.6
Financial services 937 248 26.5
IT and telecommunications 827 253 30.6
Technical services and R&D services 1,235 456 36.9
Consulting and advertising 651 203 31.2
Corporate services 1,232 420 34.1
Total: LSPs and non-LSPs 8,409 2,700 32.1
Sample 2006
Subtotal: LSPs 1,007 346 34.4
Transportation industry and postal services 1,007 346 34.4
Subtotal: non-LSPs 5,779 1,554 26.9
Energy and water supply, mining 569 132 23.2
Wholesale trade 612 189 30.9
Media servicesa 393 67 17.0
Credit and insurance business 887 215 24.2
IT and telecommunications 723 168 23.2
Technical services 927 359 38.7
Management consulting and advertising 751 154 20.5
Corporate services and waste management 917 270 29.4
Total: LSPs and non-LSPs 6,786 1,900 28.0
a
Sample size for Divisions 59 and 60 of DESTATIS (2008) only. Sample size for Divisions 18 and 58 of
DESTATIS (2008) unknown and not included.

The only available data are mean values per year and
industry, as well as sample sizes for 2006 and 2008. In-
terfirm distributions are unknown, so with the exception
of a w2 test of independence, statistical tests cannot be
applied.
w2 Test of Independence
Regarding operationalization, five usable dichotomous
(d.) variables and one ordinally (o.) scaled variable were
identified from the reports. Those variables are: innova-
tion activity (d.), R&D usage (o.), innovator (d.), product
innovator (d.), innovator with market novelties (d.) and
process innovators with cost-decreasing effects (d.). Organi-
zations are classified as innovation-active if they had any
financial expenditures directed at product or process in-
novations. Research and experimental development
(R&D) refers to systematic creative work to expand ex-
isting knowledge and to use the thus gained knowledge
for the development of new applications (ZEW 2009b,
p. 4; translation by the author). Innovators are organi-
zations that have introduced at least one product or
process innovation. Product innovators and innovators
with market novelties are defined analogously. The term
market novelty is reserved for products that the innovator
has introduced to the market as the first organization.
Process innovators with cost-decreasing process innova-
tions have introduced at least one process innovation
which has led to cost decreases. These indicators relate to
the 3 years before the survey. To preserve ex ante theory-
driven hypothesis development, Proposition 1 was not
rephrased to make a better fit to the available data, but to
test only for specificity of the context as a whole. This is
also the more conservative path. The variables do not
measure the latent variable context specificity itself, but
context specificity should manifest itself within them,
so that they are used as reflective operationalizations for
the aggregated proposition P1. Six testable null hypoth-
esis operationalizations could hence be derived: P0a:

48 Volume 46, Number 4

 A Procedure for Secondary Data Analysis
Innovation activity of LSPs is identical to that of non-
LSPs, P0b: R&D usage for LSPs is identical to that of
non-LSPs, P0c: The probability of being an innovator is
identical for LSPs and non-LSPs, P0d: The probability of
being a product innovator is identical for LSPs and non-
LSPs, P0e: The probability of being an innovator with
market novelties is identical for LSPs and non-LSPs and
finally P0f: The probability of being an innovator with
cost-decreasing process innovations is identical for LSPs
and non-LSPs. The variables clearly relate to different
matters, so they cannot be used to form a single con-
struct. The operationalizations were instead used in
parallel, while belonging to the same proposition. The
advantage of that approach is that there are multiple
opportunities to reject the null hypothesis, decreasing the
likelihood of Type II errors. However, as the uncorrected
procedure would increase the likelihood of Type I errors,
the classical Bonferroni correction was applied to the
significance level, substituting the original significance
level for the test as a whole, aOrig, with a5aOrig/np, where
a is the significance level applied in each test and np is the
number of tests in parallel (Andersen 2001). With six
propositions for 2006 and another five for 2008, np511.
Next, the distributions of categorical variable values
were recalculated. For each original industry, the known
mean values of categorical variables were multiplied by
the sample size. The frequencies of the reverse groups
were assessed by subtracting the first groups frequencies
from the sample sizes. For all non-LSP industries, the
data per category were then added up to a single non-LSP
cluster. The reason is that noticeable differences between
other industries are not relevant to this research.
The effects of rounding also have to be taken into ac-
count. Supposedly significant differences between LSPs
and non-LSPs that are due to rounding effects had to be
avoided. Therefore, the LSP and the non-LSP values cal-
culated in the previous step were compared. All values
were replaced by a value as close to the mean value of the
other group as possible. With those modified averages,
sample sizes were recalculated. As sample sizes must be
integers, and as share measures reflect averages calculated
from the original data, the recalculated figures had to be
rounded or truncated. Having used extreme values for the
mean values of categorical variables, it was necessary to
round or truncate all values to the closest integer against
the previous direction of correction.
Missing values were not discussed by the reports on the
original data. If there were any missing values as seems
highly likely in survey research, but are not taken into
account here, than the empirical w2 test statistics, and
therefore the significance of differences, would be inflated.
The previous step which assumed no missing values was
hence repeated twice: once with a share of missing values
of 25 percent, evenly distributed across all industries and
variables that share is regarded subjectively to be
somewhat pessimistic, and again with a share of missing
October 2010
values of 50 percent. The latter is subjectively assumed to
be likely overly pessimistic. Another problem would stem
from the probabilities of missing values being dependent
on industry, variable or even true variable values. That
issue cannot be controlled for in this research, so that it
must be assumed that missing values occur completely at
random (Rubin 1976; von Hippel 2004).
Next, for each scenario the empirical w2 test statistics
were computed. Three values for aOrig were used: 0.1
percent, 1.0 percent and 5 percent. With np511, a values
of approximately 0.01 percent, 0.09 percent and 0.45
percent resulted.
The penultimate step consisted of a comparison of the
computed empirical w2 test statistics with the determined
w2 rejection values. If w2emp4w2rej, then the null hypothesis
could be rejected. If that was not the case, then it had to
be maintained.
Last, the operationalizations had to be aggregated.
There were 11 operationalizations of the same null hy-
pothesis pertaining to the same single proposition. Those
had been used in parallel, and the significance levels had
been adjusted for the otherwise increased likelihood of
Type I errors. A nonrejection of a null hypothesis does
not indicate that the null hypothesis is proven, but that
in that very test, it could not be falsified. Therefore, if any
of the tests leads to a rejection, then the null hypothesis is
rejected (e.g., Simes 1986). Another clarification is re-
quired concerning the temporal nature of the data.
Context specificity itself is assumed to be a variable of
low inertia, so that a cross-sectional analysis is deemed
possible. On the other hand, the used reflective indica-
tors may be more volatile, so that two cross sections had
been combined, as reflected in np.
Further Analyses
Differences between LSPs and non-LSPs are even in
the presence of 50 percent missing values significant at
the aOrig50.1 percent level, so that it seems justified and
reasonable to further compare LSPs and non-LSPs. The
source data are, hence, no longer regarded as reflective
operationalizations of context specificity, but as descriptive
and mostly manifest data that are analyzable in them-
selves. In this case, rigorous techniques such as Chaid (e.g.,
Baron and Phillips 1994) or qualitative comparative
analysis (e.g., Ragin 1987) were not applicable due to the
structure of the available data, most importantly the lack
of data about individual case, so that comparisons be-
tween LSPs and non-LSPs rested primarily on direct
comparisons of average values for the two clusters.
To enable any comparison, non-LSP industries first had
to be weighted to calculate the non-LSP cluster.1 The
1
For the w2 test of independence, the non-LSP industry sample is
made up of all added-up non-LSP values. While it does not matter
to the test, the weight of each non-LSP industry is hence determined
by its sample size.
49
 Journal of Supply Chain Management
central decision to be taken was if weights should reflect
sample sizes, population sizes or industry count. Equal
weighting of industries was chosen, but both alternatives
were calculated, and all interpretations of the data in the
subsequent section are robust against the weighting
method. Second, time lag had to be handled: Output and
outcome indicators are related to an innovation intro-
duced in the 3 years before the survey, whereas some
input indicators are related to the previous year. A dis-
tinct type of time lag stems from the positive duration of
innovation processes and projects. In an extreme case of
very complex new services, it is conceivable that inno-
vation processes last longer than a year. Because of time
lags it was decided to investigate chronological averages.
Intertemporal averages can lead to noise reduction in the
data and hence affect its descriptive quality positively.
The period 20062008 was used, as it was short enough
to depict the present state of LSPs and non-LSPs inno-
vation achievements (strong trends could not be identi-
fied), but long enough to reduce noise substantially.
Third, it would be desirable to analyze outputs pertaining
not only to innovators, but also to produced innova-
tions. With original data collected at the level of the firm,
this is not directly possible. However, as innovation is (by
definition) relatively rare, some inference from the share
of organizations that produced a certain type of inno-
vation to the level of presence of that kind of innovation
is possible.
In the next step, additional assumptions were made to
analyze the secondary database. The reason is that one
advantage of primary data, that it can be adjusted pre-
cisely to the research question at hand, is not available.
Secondary data relies more strongly on indirect analyses
and interpretations of its data, and the choice of methods
is limited by the given structure of the data. In this re-
search, assumptions allowed for the interrelation of in-
dicators calculated from the original data. With respect to
the validity of making assumptions, Shugan (2007)
points out that claims of unrealistic assumptions are void
of content, because assumptions by definition are not
realistic, and belong to the input of research, but what
ought to be judged is its output and the process with
which the output is derived from the input. Specific as-
sumptions and the resulting limitations are discussed in
the Results section.
Through the exploration of the interrelated results, it
was possible to generate a set of hypotheses on LSPs
innovation and to conclude some managerial implica-
tions. The exploration rests on the logic of set theory: For
example, if the share of innovators is not interpreted as it
is, but replaced by innovators per innovation-active or-
ganizations all innovators are innovation-active
then the modified indicator can be regarded as a measure
of operational success. The procedure results in a deav-
eraging of the LSP cluster and the non-LSP cluster into
multiple microclusters that can be compared individu-
50 Volume 46, Number 4
ally. The method in itself is very simple, but is leveraged
by the potency of the database. Through it, some differ-
ences between LSPs and non-LSPs can be explained by
upstream differences.
RESULTS
w2 Test of Independence
The results of the statistical tests are depicted in Table II.
For 8 of the 11 tests run in parallel, the null hypotheses
can be rejected. P0a, P0b, P0c can be rejected highly sig-
nificantly for both 2006 and 2008. P0d can only be tested
with 2006 data and is rejected there. P0e can be rejected
for 2008 (at a50.01 percent with 25 percent missing
values or at a50.09 percent with 50 percent missing
values), but not for 2006. This can be explained by high
volatility of LSPs average share of innovators with market
novelties. P0f cannot be rejected. As Simes (1986) points
out, the null hypothesis can be rejected if any of the
parallel tests leads to its rejection at a certain level of
significance. Setting aOrig to 0.1 percent and thus a for
each test to 0.01 percent and assuming a 50 percent share
of missing values, there are six tests that lead to the re-
jection of P0. It can, hence, be concluded that, indeed,
LSPs represent a special context to innovation, as could
be shown at the aOrig50.1 percent level of significance.
The j value is a measure of the strength of the relation-
ship between the variables (e.g., Everitt 1992). It is cal-
culated as j5(w2emp/n)0.5, where n is the total sample size.
Here, j values do not exceed 0.20, which means that
industry, more specifically being an LSP or not, is only a
weak predictor of the innovation-related indicators.
Further Analyses
Having significantly rejected the null hypothesis,
differences between innovation-related variables for LSPs
and non-LSPs are not by chance, but meaningful, so that
those differences, as well as differences between addi-
tional metric variables, are subjected to further analysis
and interpretation. A calculation of intertemporal aver-
ages for 20062008 could occur for 12 indicators in the
original data. Indicators O1, O4a, O4b, O5, O6, O7 and O8
(compare Table III) were already defined, based on the
ZEW Innovation Report Series. The others are defined as
follows: Innovation intensity (O2) refers to the share of
revenue that is used as innovation expenditure.2 The
share of investment expenses (O3) concerns the mixture
of innovation expenses that can be current expenses or
investment expenses. Two indicators relate to revenues
with product innovations: to revenues with market
novelties (O9) and to revenues with imitations (O10).
Both indicators measure revenues generated [. . .] with
2
For financial services, innovation intensity is related to gross inter-
est earnings plus gross commission earnings (banks), respectively,
premium earnings (insurances).
 A Procedure for Secondary Data Analysis

TABLE II
2
v Test of Independence Results

Year v2emp for rMV5. . . ua df v2rej for a5. . .b

Proposition 0% 25% 50% 0.45% 0.09% 0.01%

P0a: Innovation activity of LSPs is identical to 2006 77.90 58.54 40.01 0.20 1 8.05 11.00 15.32
that of non-LSPs 2008 44.70 33.44 22.76 0.13 1 8.05 11.00 15.32
P0b: R&D usage for LSPs is identical to that of 2006 40.67 30.84 20.99 0.15 2 10.79 14.01 18.61
non-LSPs 2008 73.15 55.63 38.58 0.16 2 10.79 14.01 18.61
P0c: Probability of being an innovator is 2006 26.57 20.26 13.39 0.12 1 8.05 11.00 15.32
identical for LSPs and non-LSPs 2008 35.93 26.91 18.34 0.12 1 8.05 11.00 15.32
P0d: Probability of being a product innovator 2006 34.27 25.18 17.14 0.13 1 8.05 11.00 15.32
is identical for LSPs and non-LSPs
P0e: Probability of being an innovator with 2006 1.02 0.67 0.69 0.02 1 8.05 11.00 15.32
market novelties is identical for LSPs and 2008 25.16 18.96 12.73 0.10 1 8.05 11.00 15.32
non-LSPs
P0f: Probability of being a process innovator 2006 6.90 5.05 3.96 0.06 1 8.05 11.00 15.32
with cost-decreasing effects is identical for 2008 0.50 0.39 0.28 0.01 1 8.05 11.00 15.32
LSPs and non-LSPs
a
Without the effects of rounding of case numbers, w2emp  n, so that differences in j are entirely due to
rounding. j was calculated for rmv50 percent.
b
Significance levels are Bonferroni corrected, i.e., a levels are divided by 11, the number of parallel
comparisons.
Note: Figures in bold print in the w2emp section mark the highest share of missing values which is still tolerable
to reject P0 at maximum significance (i.e., a50.01 percent). Likewise, figures in bold print in the w2rej section
mark the highest level of significance at which P0 can be rejected in presence of 50 percent missing values.

the according innovations (ZEW 2009, p. 3; translation
by the author) and refer to the previous 3-year period. As
market novelties are new to the entire market, they must
also be new to the introducing organization. Imitations
are new to the imitating organization, but not to the
market. For an innovator, its market novelties plus its
imitations make up all its product innovations, so that
market novelty revenues plus imitation revenues equal
all revenues from product innovations.
Two final indicators relate to process innovations:
Those can first cause cost decreases (O11). The indicator
refers to unit costs or alternatively process costs of the
year which could be saved due to process innovations
introduced in the previous three-year period (ZEW
2009, p. 3; translation by the author). Second, process
innovations can increase revenues through quality im-
provements (O12). The related indicator measures rev-
enue increase compared to the previous years revenues
which can be traced back to quality improvements that
were achieved by process innovations introduced in the
previous three-year period (ZEW 2009, p. 3; translation
by the author). With the exception of O3, all indicators
are constructed in such a way that relatively more inno-
vative industries are characterized by relatively higher
values. For each of the original indicators, Table III in-
cludes a comparison of the average values of the LSP and
the non-LSP cluster. Again, with the exception of O3
which indicates that LSPs innovation expenses are
dominated by investment expenses, while the innovation
expenses of non-LSPs are made up nearly evenly of in-
vestment and of current expenses, all LSP values are no-
ticeably, i.e., at least 18 percent (O2) and up to 86 percent
(O4a), lower than the non-LSP values. These indicators
strongly and systematically support the findings of
Wagner (2008), who had compared LSPs with other in-
dustries, based on the 2005 cross section of the Man-
nheim Innovation Panel data, and concluded that LSPs
are hardly innovative.
To link innovation inputs, outputs and outcomes, the
logic of set theory was applied, as described in the
Methodology section. Structuring of clusters follows
largely from the given structure of the data, so that a
detailed discussion is omitted. Appendix A provides an
overview of all cluster allocations for LSPs and non-LSPs.
The subsequent calculations and interpretations of fur-
ther, interrelated indicators rely on some additional as-
sumptions. For example, average innovation intensity
is reported for all organizations in the ZEW Innovation

October 2010 51
 Journal of Supply Chain Management

TABLE III
Original Indicators on Innovation Inputs, Outputs and Outcomes

LSPs Non-LSPs Comparisona

Indicator/Definition (%) (%) (%)

O1 Share of innovation-active organizations 33 53 38

O2 Average innovation intensity 2.2 2.6 18
O3 Share of investment expensesb 76 45 69
O4a Share of organizations with continuous R&D 2 12 86
O4b Share of organizations with occasional R&D 4 10 65
O5 Share of innovators 29 46 37
O6 Share of product innovatorsc 21 35 40
O7 Share of innovators with market novelties 5 12 55
O8 Share of process innovators with cost-decreasing effects 10 14 31
O9 Average share of revenues with market novelties 1.3 2.3 45
O10 Average share of revenues with imitations 5.1 9.1 44
O11 Average cost-per-process decreases through cost-decreasing 2.1 3.1 34
process innovations
O12 Average revenue increase through quality-improving process 2.0 2.5 19
innovations
a
The value equals the difference between LSP value and non-LSP value, divided by non-LSP value.
b
The original reports depict absolute innovation-related investment and current expenses.
c
The averages for 2006 and 2007 were used, as no value was available for 2008.

Report Series 2010.3 By definition, only innovation-active
organizations have positive innovation intensity, so that
an amendment to the original data is to estimate inno-
vation intensity of innovation-active organizations by
dividing by the share of innovation-active organizations.
The calculated value is an unbiased estimator if the un-
known variable revenue does not systematically differ
between the groups of innovation-active and the groups
of innovation-inactive organizations. The assumption
seems to stretch quite far, as in the specific example
it seems plausible that larger organizations will be more
likely to invest any resources into innovation. If that was
the case, then the calculated innovation activity of in-
novation-active organizations would overestimate the
true value. However, for the sake of interpretability of
differences between LSPs and non-LSPs, unbiased esti-
mators are not required. As long as additional indicators
are equally distorted between LSPs and non-LSPs, the
differences are still interpretable. The assumption is
hence made.
Table IV summarizes 11 additional quantitative indi-
cators that relate clusters to another (A1A7) and that link
the innovation outcome indicators in the original data to
their respective groups of beneficiaries (A8A11). In Ap-
3
All of the reports belonging to the ZEW Innovation Report Series for
2008, 2009 and 2010 are available online at ftp://ftp.zew.de/pub/
zew-docs/brarep_inno/.
pendix A, the indicators are also visually related to the
cluster that they describe. Further assumptions are dy-
namic stability, as well as absence of different distortions
between the revenues (for A1, A2a, A2b, A8, A9, A11), and
costs per process (A10) of the compared clusters for LSPs
and non-LSPs. It is also assumed that only innovation-
active LSPs undertake R&D (A3a).
For indicators A4, A5, A7, A9 and A10, the comparison of
the LSP and the non-LSP values indicates differences
smaller than  10 percent. Those indicators suggest
similar likelihood of operational success (A4), similar
prominence of product innovators among innovators
(A5), similar prominence of process innovators with cost-
decreasing effects among innovators (A7), similar reve-
nues with product innovations per product innovator
(A9) and similar cost savings through innovations (A10).
No indicators depict differences with absolute values
between 10 percent and 20 percent. A third group of
indicators, A1, A2a, A2b, A3a, A3b, A6, A8 and A11, suggests
strong differences between LSPs and non-LSPs, with ab-
solute comparison values in excess of a 20 percent
difference. Those indicators are explored in more detail.
Innovation-active LSPs have an investment expense-
related innovation intensity which is 124 percent higher
than that of non-LSPs (A2a). This can be explained by the
equipment-based nature of LSPs services. It fits the ob-
servation that LSPs invest heavily in machinery and in-
frastructure (Wagner 2008). On the other hand,

52 Volume 46, Number 4

 A Procedure for Secondary Data Analysis

TABLE IV
Additional Indicators Linking Innovation Inputs, Outputs and Outcomes

LSPs Non-LSPs Comparisona

Indicator/Definition Calculation (%) (%) (%)

A1 Average innovation intensity of innovation- A15O2/O1 6.6 5.0 33

active organizations
A2a Average investment expense-related A2a5O2/O1  O3 5.0 2.2 124
innovation intensity of innovation-active
organizations
A2b Average current expense-related innovation A2b5O2/O1  (1 O3) 1.6 2.8 41
intensity of innovation-active organizations
A3a Share of innovation-active organizations with A3a5(O4a1O4b)/O1 16 42 61
continuous or occasional R&D
A3b Share of organizations with continuous or A3b5O4a/(O4a1O4b) 31 53 41
occasional R&D that have continuous R&D
A4 Innovators per innovation-active A45O5/O1 90 88 2
organizations
A5 Product innovators per innovator A55O6/O5 72 75 5
A6 Innovators with market novelties per product A65O7/O6 25 34 24
innovators
A7 Process innovators with cost-decreasing A75O8/O5 33 30 9
effects per innovators
A8 Average share of revenues with market A85O9/O7 24 20 22
novelties per innovators with market novelties
A9 Average share of revenues with product A95(O91O10)/O6 30 33 7
innovations per product innovator
A10 Average cost-per-process decreases through A105O11/O8 21 22 3
cost-cutting process innovations per process
innovator with cost-decreasing effects
A11 Average revenue increase through quality- A115O12/O5 7 5 29
improving process innovations per innovator
a
Equals the difference between the LSP value and the non-LSP value, divided by the non-LSP value.

innovation-active LSPs are characterized by current ex-
pense-related innovation intensity that is 41 percent
lower than that of non-LSPs (A2b). The surplus in in-
vestment expenses more than offsets the lack of current
expenses when comparing investing LSPs to the average
of investing organizations (A1). The findings match the
ex ante deliberations from the point of view of LSPs
service context, as well as a previous observation that
LSPs innovation is often an incremental process
(Wagner 2008, p. 219). It thus seems plausible that two
distinct clusters of innovation exist for LSPs: one per-
taining to resource-intensive adoptions of equipment
and infrastructure, the other to resource-scarce incre-
mental innovations.
Next, the share of investing LSPs that undertakes any
R&D is 61 percent lower than that of non-LSPs (A3a). It
can, hence, be concluded that even for innovation-active
LSPs, R&D is noticeably less often used than for inno-
vation-active non-LSPs. In addition, among LSPs with
any R&D, continuous R&D is 41 percent rarer than
among their non-LSP counterparts (A3b). A plausible
reason can be derived from the R&D definition element
of knowledge creation: Presuming that LSPs strive for less
radical novelties than non-LSPs, they ought to be less in
need of new knowledge on average and hence of R&D
activities (compare A6). This reasoning is supported by
the previously discussed split of innovations: The input
cluster of new technological equipment is certainly
affiliated with rather low degrees of novelty, because
technology is adopted rather than generated by LSPs. The
other cluster could already be identified with incremental
innovations that also need less R&D. Overall, the previ-
ous considerations suggest that LSP innovation tends to
be rather incremental.
Among LSPs that are product innovators, there are 24
percent fewer organizations with market novelties than
among non-LSPs (A6). This finding suggests that the LSP
industry is strongly characterized by imitations. Without

October 2010 53
 Journal of Supply Chain Management
being able to identify cause and effect, indicators A3a/A3b
and A6 fit each other well. Both phenomena can be ex-
plained by the atomic nature of logistics services there
are limited ways to innovate the most basic logistics
service element while remaining efficient which is
effective as an upper threshold to the radicalness of in-
novations in existing systems.
It is noticeable that LSPs with market novelties achieve
a 22 percent higher share of revenues through those
market novelties than non-LSPs (A8). That difference
indicates relatively high immediate benefits for LSPs out
of their market novelties. As long as there are few LSPs
aiming at radical novelties (A3a, A3b) and few market
innovators (A6), it is plausible that those that succeeded
have enjoyed high benefits. It follows from indicators A8
and A9 that LSPs share of additional revenues with im-
itations per imitator is more than 7 percent lower than
those of non-LSPs. Thus, the question arises again as to
why LSPs on average do not generate more radical nov-
elties.
Indicator A11 is an auxiliary indicator, because with the
given structure of the data, it can only take the promi-
nence of innovators, but not of process innovators, into
account. A11 is 29 percent higher for LSPs than for non-
LSPs, which would indicate 29 percent higher benefits of
LSPs with quality-improving process innovations if the
groups of process innovators who benefit from addi-
tional revenues through quality-improving effects were
equally frequent among LSPs and non-LSPs innovators.
As it is, the difference in indicator A11 has the opposite
algebraic sign to that of indicator O12, and it at least
suggests relatively higher benefits for LSPs from process
innovations with quality improvements.
From a simultaneous view of the differences between
LSPs and non-LSPs, depicted by the outcome-per-
beneficiary indicators A9 and A10, and which the auxiliary
indicator A11 hints at, LSPs cannot be said to have no-
ticeably lower innovation outcomes per beneficiary than
non-LSPs. Together with the similar share of innovators
per innovation-active organization (A4), this finding
suggests that LSPs benefits from their innovation efforts
are ordinary, indicating that (any possibly existing) spe-
cific challenges do not affect LSPs innovation outputs
and outcomes noticeably below the level of non-LSPs. To
LSPs managers, it signifies that LSPs can achieve as much
with innovation as non-LSPs can.
LSPs ordinary innovation outcomes per innovator
raise the question of why 38 percent fewer LSPs are in-
novation-active than non-LSPs (O1). With similar tech-
nical success rates (A4) and overall similar outcomes per
innovator (A9: 7 percent lower for product innovators;
A10/A11: 3 percent lower/ceteris paribus 29 percent higher
for process innovators), it seems to be noticeably high
inputs, i.e., costs, which innovation-active LSPs have to
face (A1), that prevent many innovation-inactive LSPs
from undertaking innovation efforts. As no reasons are
54 Volume 46, Number 4
apparent as to why LSPs innovation management
should be less efficient than that of non-LSPs, it is pro-
posed that costliness is the consequence of LSPs partic-
ular context. In other words, the aggregated effect of LSPs
context is proposed to be relatively obstructive so that it
causes high inherent resource needs for LSPs innovation
production, compared with non-LSPs. It must be con-
ceded, though, that some important variables could not
be taken into account here, such as differences in oper-
ating margins, different revenue cannibalization effects
or different innovation-related risks. The central impli-
cation is that LSPs future research should first pay at-
tention to LSPs resource usage in their innovation
management, i.e., that emphasis should lie on obstruc-
tive factors. The former is also a management implica-
tion.
CONCLUSION
Methodological Implications and Limitations
The methodology of this paper contains three original
aspects. First, through its explicit consideration of
rounding and of missing values, the methodology makes
a secondary database applicable for confirmatory re-
search, requiring only average values of categorical vari-
ables plus sample sizes of a high-quality set of data. A
large amount of publicly available data may hence be
accessible for confirmatory research. Second, it describes
a usage of multiple reflective operationalizations in par-
allel. Given that within secondary and archival research,
the data cannot be tailored to the research question,
operationalizations will presumably often have to be
derived in a data-driven manner and be less directly re-
lated to the original, theory-deduced proposition, so that
multiple parallel operationalizations may be helpful.
Third, the procedure proposes a sequential double usage
of a single database: (1) hypothesis testing and (2) hy-
pothesis generation that may generate a large amount of
output out of a data set.
This methodology has only been used once in this re-
search. Because of encouraging feedback of the STF Edi-
tors, it was presented as a flowchart (Appendix A).
However, it is not claimed that the methodology is
complete or in its final state. As the procedure rests on the
usage of w2 tests of independence, it detects differences,
not commonalities, in a sample. It is thus of a specifying,
rather than generalizing, nature which makes it rather
application oriented or managerial, but limits the scien-
tific meaningfulness of its results. Naturally, the limita-
tions of the primary data also affect any secondary
analysis.
Regarding future applications of the methodology, the
STF Editors suggested that Chaid or qualitative compar-
ative analysis be considered for the Stage 3 analysis.
Those instruments may be particularly helpful in cases of
archival analyses where individual cases are known,
 A Procedure for Secondary Data Analysis
and not only averages. Last, the classical Bonferroni
correction that, due to the clear significance of the results,
could be afforded to be used in this research, is intuitively
understandable and works even in presence of high in-
terdependence of the tests. There are other more power-
ful corrections that should be considered if and where
the results are less obvious.
Managerial Implications
Overall, the benefits which managers can expect from
innovation efforts appear to be similar for LSPs and non-
LSPs, while for LSPs, innovation seems to be more costly
than for non-LSPs. Other things being equal, relatively
low returns on innovation would result for the average of
LSPs. LSPs should, hence, pay attention to the efficiency
of their innovation projects and to payback of their in-
novation-related investments.
More specifically, LSPs with market novelties have a 22
percent higher share of revenues with market novelties
than non-LSPs. This is therefore a field where the higher
average innovation intensity of innovation-active LSPs is
nearest to being compensated. Currently, the shares of
innovators with market novelties are only 5 percent of
LSPs, compared with 12 percent of non-LSPs. For this
type of innovation, greater than average efficient inno-
vation management could pay off first. A different path to
the same goal would be for LSPs to aim at increasing the
degree of novelty of innovations that they generate.
Content-Related Implications and Limitations
Differences between LSPs and non-LSPs innovation
inputs, outputs and outcomes are significant at the 0.1
percent level, even when adverse rounding and missing
values of the original data are taken into account. This
finding calls for and justifies further studies of LSPs in-
novation management. A systematic comparison be-
tween LSPs and non-LSPs for the period 20062008
confirmed that LSPs are less innovative than non-LSPs,
with respect to all of their innovation inputs, outputs and
outcomes. Another contribution was made through an
exploration of the causes of differences between LSPs and
non-LSPs: The share of innovation-active LSPs is notice-
ably lower than that of non-LSPs. Innovation expendi-
tures of innovation-active LSPs contain a relatively large
fraction of investment expenses and a relatively small
fraction of current expenses which together let their in-
novation expenses be relatively high. Innovation-active
LSPs use relatively little R&D. Market novelties are rela-
tively rare. Overall, the benefits of innovation appear
similar for LSPs and non-LSPs. On the other hand, the
costs associated with innovation are higher for LSPs than
for non-LSPs, which is a likely explanation of why fewer
LSPs are innovation-active. Reasons for the above phe-
nomena were proposed and should be tested. Further
directions for future research were suggested throughout
the paper.
October 2010
Limitations of this study stem first from the structure of
the original data, such as its report form, its cross-
sectional character and its origin from a single country.
Another class of limitation stems from assumptions,
namely comparability of the original indicators across
industries, equal distortions of additional indicators or
sufficient dynamic stability. A third group of limitations
is related to absence of data. The data is, e.g., restricted to
averages at the firm level; it cannot regard behavioral
biases from which LSPs decision making could suffer
(Carter, Kaufmann and Michel 2007); and it does not in
itself explain the industry influence. Hipp and Grupps
(2005) analysis, e.g., did not find effects of the industry
itself. Contingency factors may explain the effects of the
industry variable in this study. Last, this paper placed
emphasis on LSPs commonalities and their differences
from other service providers, thus treating the LSP in-
dustry as a homogenous cluster. The ZEW Innovation
Report Series 2010 suggests differences within the LSP in-
dustry, and within other industries. These limitations
should be addressed or avoided in future studies.
REFERENCES
Ackerman, K.B. Pitfalls in Logistics Partnerships,
International Journal of Physical Distribution and
Logistics Management, (26:3), 1996, pp. 35-37.
Andersen, E.B. Introduction to the Statistical Analysis of
Categorical Data, Springer, New York, 2001.
Baron, S. and D. Phillips. Attitude Survey Data
Reduction Using Chaid: An Example in Shopping
Centre Market Research, Journal of Marketing
Management, (10:13), 1994, pp. 75-88.
Calantone, R.J., R. Garcia and C. Droge. The Effects of
Environmental Turbulence on New Product
Development Strategy Planning, Journal of Product
Innovation Management, (20:2), 2003, pp. 90-103.
Calantone, R.J. and S.K. Vickery.Special Topic Forum on
Using Archival and Secondary Data Sources in
Supply Chain Management Research, Journal of
Supply Chain Management, (45:2), 2009, pp. 94-95.
Calantone, R.J., S.K. Vickery and C. Droge. Business
Performance and Strategic New Product Devel-
opment Activities: An Empirical Investigation,
Journal of Product Innovation Management, (12:3),
1995, pp. 214-223.
Carter, C.R. Introduction to the Forum on the Gap
between Research and Practice in Supply Chain
Management, Journal of Supply Chain Management,
(44:2), 2008, p. 56.
Carter, C.R., L. Kaufmann and A. Michel. Behavioral
Supply Management: A Taxonomy of Judgment and
Decision-Making Biases, International Journal of
Physical Distribution and Logistics Management,
(37:8), 2007, pp. 631-669.
Chase, R.B. Where Does the Customer Fit in a Service
Operation?, Harvard Business Review, (56:6), 1978,
pp. 137-142.
55
 Journal of Supply Chain Management
Damanpour, F. Organizational Innovation: A Meta-
Analysis of Effects of Determinants and
Moderators, Academy of Management Journal,
(34:3), 1991, pp. 555-590.
Deepen, J.M., T.J. Goldsby, A.M. Knemeyer and C.M.
Wallenburg. Beyond Expectations: An Examination
of Logistics Outsourcing Goal Achievement and
Goal Exceedance, Journal of Business Logistics,
(29:2), 2008, pp. 75-105.
Delfmann, W., S. Albers and M. Gehring. The Impact
of Electronic Commerce on Logistics Service
Providers, International Journal of Physical
Distribution and Logistics Management, (32:3), 2002,
pp. 203-222.
DESTATIS. German Classification of Economic Activities,
Edition 2003 (WZ 2003), Statistisches Bundesamt
(Federal Statistical Office), Wiesbaden, Germany,
2003.
DESTATIS. Klassifikation der Wirtschaftszweige mit
Erlauterungen (Annotated Classification of Sectors of
the Economy), Statistisches Bundesamt (Federal
Statistical Office), Wiesbaden, Germany, 2008.
Droge, C., J. Jayaram and S.K. Vickery. The Ability to
Minimize the Timing of New Product Development
and Introduction: An Examination of Antecedent
Factors in the North American Automobile
Supplier Industry, Journal of Product Innovation
Management, (17:1), 2000, pp. 24-40.
EUROSTAT. Statistical Classification of Economic
Activities in the European Community, Rev. 2
(Nace Rev. 2), http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/ramon/,
April 30, 2010.
Everitt, B.S. The Analysis of Contingency Tables, Chapman
and Hall/CRC, Boca Raton, FL, 1992.
Flint, D.J., E. Larsson, B. Gammelgaard and J.T. Mentzer.
Logistics Innovation: A Customer Value-Oriented
Social Process, Journal of Business Logistics, (26:1),
2005, pp. 113-147.
Garcia, R. and R. Calantone. A Critical Look at
Technological Innovation Typology and
Innovativeness Terminology: A Literature Review,
The Journal of Product Innovation Management,
(19:2), 2002, pp. 110-132.
Hill, T.P. On Goods and Services, Review of Income and
Wealth, (23:4), 1977, pp. 315-338.
Hipp, C. and H. Grupp.Innovation in the Service Sector:
The Demand for Service-Specific Innovation
Measurement Concepts and Typologies, Research
Policy, (34:4), 2005, pp. 517-535.
Judd, R.C. The Case for Redefining Services, Journal of
Marketing, (28:1), 1964, pp. 58-59.
Khazanchi, S., M.W. Lewis and K.K. Boyer. Innovation-
Supportive Culture: The Impact of Organizational
Values on Process Innovation, Journal of Operations
Management, (25:4), 2007, pp. 871-884.
Klaus, P. and C. Kille. Die Top 100 der Logistik (Top 100 in
Logistics), Deutscher Verkehrs-Verlag, Hamburg,
Germany, 2006.
Lai, K.-H., E.W.T. Ngai and T.C.E. Cheng. Information
Technology Adoption in Hong Kongs Logistics
56 Volume 46, Number 4
Industry, Transportation Journal, (44:4), 2005, pp.
1-9.
Lao, Y., P. Hong and S.S. Rao. Supply Management,
Supply Flexibility, and Performance Outcomes: An
Empirical Investigation of Manufacturing Firms,
Journal of Supply Chain Management, (46:3), 2010,
pp. 6-22.
Lovelock, C.H. Classifying Services to Gain Strategic
Marketing Insights, Journal of Marketing, (47:3),
1983, pp. 9-20.
Maloni, M.J. and C.R. Carter. Opportunities for Research
in Third-Party Logistics, Transportation Journal,
(45:2), 2006, pp. 23-38.
Marasco, A. Third-Party Logistics: A Literature Review,
International Journal of Production Economics, (113:1),
2008, pp. 127-147.
McGrath, R.G. and T. Ming-Hone. Innovation,
Competitive Advantage and Rent: A Model and
Test, Management Science, (42:3), 1996, pp. 389-
403.
Morash, E.A., C. Droge and S. Vickery. Boundary-
Spanning Interfaces between Logistics, Production,
Marketing and New Product Development,
International Journal of Physical Distribution and
Logistics Management, (27:5/6), 1997, pp. 350-369.
Nijssen, E.J., B. Hillebrand, P.A.M. Vermeulen and R.G.M.
Kemp. Exploring Product and Service Innovation
Similarities and Differences, International Journal of
Research in Marketing, (23:3), 2006, pp. 241-251.
OECD. The Measurement of Scientific and Technological
Activities, Oslo Manual Guidelines for Collecting
and Interpreting Innovation Data, Organisation for
Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD)
and Statistical Office of the European Communities
(EUROSTAT), Paris, France, 2005.
Peters, M.J., R.C. Lieb and H.L. Randall. The Use of
Third-Party Logistics Services by European Industry,
Transport Logistics, (1:3), 1998, pp. 167-179.
Ragin, C.C. The Comparative Method: Moving Beyond
Qualitative and Quantitative Strategies, University of
California Press, Berkeley, CA, 1987.
Rammer, C. Email of the Mannheim Innovation Panel
Project Leader to the Author. 2010.
Rammer, C. and N. Bethmann. Schwerpunktbericht zur
Innovationserhebung 2008: Innovationspartnerschaften
Schutz und Verletzung von intellektuellem Eigentum
(Focus Report for the Innovation Survey 2008:
Innovation Partnerships Protection and Infringement
of Intellectual Property), Zentrum fur Europaische
Wirtschaftsforschung (Centre for European
Economic Research), Mannheim, Germany, 2009.
Rammer, C. and A. Schmiele. Schwerpunktbericht zur
Innovationserhebung 2006: Internationalisierung von
Innovationsaktivitaten Wissensgewinn und -verlust
durch Mitarbeiterfluktuation (Focus Report for the
Innovation Survey 2008: Internationalization of
Innovation Activities Gain and Loss of Knowledge
through Employee Turnover), Zentrum fur Europaische
Wirtschaftsforschung (Centre for European Eco-
nomic Research), Mannheim, Germany, 2008.
 A Procedure for Secondary Data Analysis
Rubin, D.B. Inference and Missing Data, Biometrika,
(63:3), 1976, pp. 581-592.
Scannell, T.V., S.K. Vickery and C.L. Droge. Upstream
Supply Chain Management and Competitive
Performance in the Automotive Supply Industry,
Journal of Business Logistics, (21:1), 2000, pp. 23-48.
Selviaridis, K. and M. Spring. Third Party Logistics: A
Literature Review and Research Agenda, International
Journal of Logistics Management, (18:1), 2007, pp.
125-150.
Sheffi, Y. Third Party Logistics: Present and Future
Prospects, Journal of Business Logistics, (11:2), 1990,
pp. 27-39.
Shugan, S.M. Its the Findings, Stupid, Not the
Assumptions, Marketing Science, (26:4), 2007, pp.
449-459.
Simes, R.J. An Improved Bonferroni Procedure for
Multiple Tests of Significance, Biometrika, (73:3),
1986, pp. 751-754.
Stank, T.P., T.J. Goldsby, S.K. Vickery and K. Savitskie.
Logistics Service Performance: Estimating Its
Influence on Market Share, Journal of Business
Logistics, (24:1), 2003, pp. 27-55.
Tatikonda, M.V. and M.M. Montoya-Weiss. Integrating
Operations and Marketing Perspectives of Product
Innovation: The Influence of Organizational Process
Factors and Capabilities on Development
Performance, Management Science, (47:1), 2001,
pp. 151.
Thomas, D.R.E. Strategy Is Different in Service
Businesses, Harvard Business Review, (56:4), 1978,
pp. 158-165.
UN, International Standard Industrial Classification of
All Economic Activities (Rev. 3.1), http://
unstats.un.org/unsd/cr/registry/regcst.asp?Cl=27,
April 30, 2010.
Utterback, J.M. The Process of Technological Innovation
within the Firm, Academy of Management Journal,
(14:1), 1971, pp. 75-88.
van Hoek, R.I. The Purchasing and Control of
Supplementary Third-Party Logistics Services,
Journal of Supply Chain Management, (36:4), 2000,
pp. 14-26.
Vickery, S.K., C. Droge, T.P. Stank, T.J. Goldsby and R.E.
Markland. The Performance Implications of
October 2010
Media Richness in a Business-to-Business Service
Environment: Direct Versus Indirect Effects,
Management Science, (50:8), 2004, pp. 1106-1119.
von Hippel, P.T. Biases in SPSS 12.0 Missing Value
Analysis, The American Statistician, (58:2), 2004,
pp. 160-164.
Wagner, S.M. Innovation Management in the German
Transportation Industry, Journal of Business Logistics,
(29:2), 2008, pp. 215-231.
Wallenburg, C.M. Innovation in Logistics Outsourcing
Relationships: Proactive Improvement by Logistics
Service Providers as a Driver of Customer Loyalty,
Journal of Supply Chain Management, (45:2), 2009,
pp. 75-93.
Wilding, R. and R. Juriado. Customer Perceptions on
Logistics Outsourcing in the European Consumer
Goods Industry, International Journal of Physical
Distribution and Logistics Management, (34:8), 2004,
pp. 628-644.
ZEW. ZEW Branchenreport Innovationen Ergebnisse der
deutschen Innovationserhebung 2008: Transportgewerbe
und Postdienste (ZEW Industry Report Innovations
Results of the German Innovation Survey 2008:
Transportation Industry and Postal Services), Zentrum
fur Europaische Wirtschaftsforschung (Centre for
European Economic Research), Mannheim,
Germany, 2009.
ZEW. Mannheim Innovation Panel Description, http://
www.zew.de/en/publikationen/innovationserhe
bungen/innovationserhebungen.php3, April 30,
2010.
Christian Busse (Dipl.-Ing., Technical University of
Berlin) is a Ph.D. candidate in business administration at
WHU Otto Beisheim School of Management in Val-
lendar, Germany. His primary research interests include
innovation management, logistics management and re-
search methodology. Mr. Busse has edited a book on the
innovation management of logistics service providers.
His research has been published in the journal Logistik
Management and is forthcoming in International Journal of
Physical Distribution & Logistics Management.
57
58
APPENDIX A

Organization Clusters and Respective Indicators

Volume 46, Number 4

Journal of Supply Chain Management