This research examined the Effect of Physical Distribution on Organiasational
Performance with reference to Agro marketing firms in Lagos State. Survey
design was employed with the use of a well structured questionnaire.
Respondents were selected based on simple random sampling technique. Fifty (50)
staff were selected from five agro marketing firms in Lagos. Two hypotheses
were formulated and tested with the use of Chi-Square analysis. The analysis
resulted to rejecting both null hypotheses and hence accepting the two
alternate hypotheses. Based on decisions of the tested hypotheses conclusions
were reached that there
exist relationship between product availability and sales turnover; also, there
is correlation between product delivery flexibility and cost efficiency.
marketing firms of study were recommended to take fresh look at physical
distribution and focus
on time as a source of competitive advantage
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION
of the Study
Aim and Objectives of the Study
1.4 Relevant Research Questions
1.5 Relevant Research hypotheses
1.6 Scope of Study
1.7 Significance of Study
1.8 Definition of Terms
CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW
2.2 Theoretical Framework of the Study
2.2.1 Customer Service Levels
2.2.2 Physical Distribution Concept
of Physical Distribution
of Physical Distribution System
2.2.5 Types of Distribution System
Procedural Steps in A Physical Distribution Analysis.
2.3 Empirical Review of
Previous Work in the Area of Studies
Distribution and Organisational Performance
CHAPTER THREE: RESEARCH
3.3 Population of the Study
Procedure and Sample Size
3.5 Data Collection
Instrument and Validation
3.6 Method of Data Analysis
of the Methodology
CHAPTER FOUR: DATA PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS
and Analysis of Data According to Research Questions
of the Respondents
4.2.2 Response of Respondents to the Problem Areas.
4.4 Discussion of Findings
SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
TO THE STUDY
As competition in the 1990s
intensified and markets became global, so did the challenges associated with
getting a product and service to the right place at the right time at the
lowest cost. Organizations began to realize that it is not enough to improve
efficiencies within an organization, but their whole supply chain has to be
made competitive (Tan, Lyman and Wisner 2002).
The understanding and practicing of physical
distribution management has become an essential prerequisite for staying competitive
in the global race and for enhancing profitably,(Moberg, Cutler, Gross, and
Speh 2002). Council of Logistics Management (CLM) defines physical distribution
management as “the systemic, strategic coordination of the traditional business
functions and tactics across these businesses functions within a particular
organization and across businesses within the supply chain for the purposes of
improving the long-term performance of the individual organizations and the
supply chain as a whole”.
The goal of physical distribution
system is to integrate both information and material flows seamlessly across
the supply chain as an effective competitive weapon (Childhouse and Towill
2003, Feldmann and Müller 2003).
The concept of physical distribution has
received increasing attention from academicians, consultants, and business
managers alike (Tan, Lyman and Wisner 2002, Feldman and Müller 2003, Van 1998).
Many organizations have begun to recognize that physical distribution is the
key to building sustainable competitive edge for their products and/or services
in an increasingly crowded marketplace (Jones 1998).
In the transportation and
distribution (T&D) sector, as in many others, it is important to have a
good performance in operations. In order to achieve high performance, it is
necessary to know which operational factors are critical for success and which
are less important. Only then can management focus attention on those factors
that have a strong effect on performance.
Challenges exist in terms of
identifying appropriate performance measures for the analysis of supply chain
(Arzu Akyuz, & Erman Erkan, 2010; Beamon, 1999). Researchers have thus far been
content in limiting their choice of performance measures. Customer
responsiveness has also been recognized as an important dimension of physical
distribution management performance (Christy & Grout, 1994). In addition,
Lee and Bullington (1993) identify supply chain flexibility as an important
measure of physical distribution management performance.
In order to capture the construct of
performance measure, all the different dimensions of physical distribution
management performance need to be considered simultaneously. In addition, it is
recognized that since physical distribution has firm level implications and it
becomes imperative to measure effects of physical distribution management
performance on organizational performance measures (Green, McGaughey &
The purpose of this study is
therefore to empirically test the effect of physical distribution on
organizational performance. Identifying the relationships among physical
distribution practices, competitive advantage and organizational performance.
STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM
firms have always researched for methods to minimize the cost and maximize flow
of shipping each unit of commodity to and fro across the supply and demand
nodes. Though, warehousing has smoothen out the fluctuations in demand and
supply at market place yet major constraints are been faced in assigning supply
and properly matching orders placed during redistribution to final retailers
outlets. In recent times logistics firms are faced with greater problems of
optimizing the whole system so as to develop strategies that minimizes cost and
Some of the
constraints affecting effective physical distribution in Agro marketing firms
are Setting geographical coverage area for each warehouse to avoid conflicting
customer coverage; efficiently utilizing space, resources and capacity of
warehouses that will be optimal to avoid diseconomies of scale from under-utilization
of warehouses and allocation of the flow of products and balancing of routes
from each salesman to retailers’ outlets.
This research study tends to address
the above issues and challenges facing organizations as they strive to maximize
effectiveness and efficiency of their distribution processes and activities.
AND OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY
The aim of this research project is
to examine the effect of physical distribution on organizational performance in
marketing firms. The objectives of this study include the followings;
ascertain the relationship between product availability and sales turnover.
evaluate the correlation between product delivery flexibility and cost
determine the relationship between customer responsiveness time and reduced
examine if warehousing has any influence on market share of agro marketing
order to achieve the purpose of this research study, the study will attempt to
provide answers to the following research questions in order to
arrive at a logical conclusion.
any relationship exist between product availability and sales turnover?
there correlation between product delivery flexibility and cost efficiency?
there any significant relationship between customer responsiveness time and
reduced inventory cost?
warehousing have any influence on market share of agro marketing firms?
The following tentative statements
can be related to the work study and they will be tested later.
Ho: There do not exist any significant relationship
between product availability and sales turnover.
Ho: There is no correlation between product
delivery flexibility and cost efficiency.
The premise on which this study is
based is the effect of physical distribution on organizational performance in
agro marketing firms. The study is limited to organizational performance with
respect to physical distribution. The scope of the study will cover five (5)
agro marketing firms at Agege area of Lagos State. The companies are also limited to companies
dealing in poultry products.
These firms are:
1. Poultry Support Service Ltd 309, Old Abeokuta Expressway, Abattior,
2. Soleace & Moxie Inv. Ltd. 309, Old Abeokuta Expressway,
3. Solution Feeds Ltd. 305, Old Abeokuta
4. Sabina Pad Ent. Nig. Ltd. 311 Old Abeokuta Expressway,
5. Cervi – Plus. Abibatu Mogaji Market, Old
The study is relevant to managers of
agro marketing firms to expose them to systematic means of distributing their
products for greater performance.
This study is also of paramount
importance to academicians and practitioners as the proposed framework is
expected to uncover many neglected relationships that are of interest to
managers. In addition, specific patterns of physical distribution practices
would also be revealed which would further encourage managers to implement this
technique and possibly improve both physical distribution management and
Finally, the study is a contribution
to knowledge which could serve as a springboard for students, businessmen and
managers who are interested in pursuing a career in the field of physical
1.8 DEFINITION OF TERMS
Physical Distribution: Handling, moving, and storage of
goods from the point of origin to the point of consumption or use, via various
channels of distribution.
Postponement: The practice of moving forward one
or more operations or activities(making, sourcing and delivering) to a much
later point in the supplychain.
The provider of services who has entered into a physical distribution agreement
with the principal and accordingly has agreed to undertake physical
systems more efficient by buying a variety of products, in fairly large
quantities, and selling these items on to other businesses that require
relatively small quantities of a variety of goods.
involves on-farm and off-farm activities from the production to the commercialization
of agricultural products, such as post-harvest handling, processing, marketing
and related commercial activities.
marketing firms: consist
of interdependent sets of enterprises, institutions, activities, and
relationships that collectively develop and deliver material inputs to the
farming sector, produce primary commodities, and subsequently handle, process,
transport, market, and distribute food and other agro-based products to
Performance: This is
perceived performance indicator that measures performance of organisations
based on new customers generated, increase in sales growth and market share of
Performance: This is
perceived performance indicator that measures performance of organisations
based on customer retention ability of such organisations.
Organizational Performance: refers to how well an organization achieves
its market-oriented goals as well as its financial goals.
Agro Marketing: An
integrative force that matches production to customer needs and satisfaction in
the agricultural sector.
The moment in which the goods, after the agreed work has been carried out by
the physical distributor, are made available to the principal or entitled party.
Arzu, A. G., & Erman E. T.
(2010), Supply chain performance measurement: a literature review. International Journal of Production Research,
Beamon, B. M. (1999), Measuring
supply chain performance. International
Journal of Operations & Production Management, 19(3), 275-292.
Childhouse, P., Towill
D.R.( 2003), Simplified material flow holds the key to supply chain
integration. OMEGA 2003;31(1):17–27.
Christy, D. P., & Grout, J. R.
(1994), Safeguarding supply chain relationships. International Journal of Production Economics, 36(3), 233-242.
Cigolini, R., Cozzi .M,
Perona M. (2004), A new framework for supplychain management: conceptual model
and empirical test. International Journal of Operations and Production
M. A., & Lee, H. L. (1988), Strategic analysis of integrated production
distribution systems: models and methods. Operations Research, 36(2), 216-228.
Croom, .S, Romano .P.,
Giannakis M. (2000), Supply chain management: an analytical framework for
critical literature review. European Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management
2000; 6 (1):67–83.
Feldmann .M, Müller S.
(2003), An incentive scheme for true information providing in supply chains.
OMEGA 2003; 31 (2):63–73.
K. W., McGaughey, R., & Casey, M. (2006), Does supply chain management
strategy mediate the association between market
orientation and organizational performance? Supply Chain Management Journal, 11(5), 407-414.
Jones C. (1998), Moving
beyond ERP: making the missing link. Logistics Focus 1998; 6(7):2–7.
Lee, H. L., & Billington, C. (1992),
Managing supply chain inventory: pitfalls and opportunities. Sloan Management Review, 33, 65-73.
Moberg, C.R., Cutler B .D.,
Gross A., Speh, T.W (2002), Identifying antecedents of information exchange
within supply chains. International Journal of Physical Distribution and
Logistics Management 2002; 32 (9):755–70.
Tan, K.C., Lyman S.B,
Wisner J.D. (2002), Supply chain management: a strategic perspective.
International Journal of Operations and Production Management 2002; 22(6):614–31.Council
of Logistics Management. What it’s all about. Oak Brook: CLM, 2000.