1,876
Views
1
CrossRef citations to date
0
Altmetric
Case Report

A sectoral perspective on distribution structure design

ORCID Icon, ORCID Icon, ORCID Icon, & ORCID Icon
Pages 1011-1039 | Received 29 Jan 2020, Accepted 06 Nov 2020, Published online: 22 Nov 2020

Figures & data

Figure 1. Distribution channel layouts (based on Kuipers and Eenhuizen Citation2004, adapted).

Figure 1. Distribution channel layouts (based on Kuipers and Eenhuizen Citation2004, adapted).

Table 1. Characteristics of fashion case interviews.

Table 2. Characteristics of consumer electronics (CE) case interviews.

Table 3. Characteristics of online retail (OR) case interviews.

Table 4. Sum of mentions of subfactors per main factor and sector.

Figure 2. Ranking of main factors based on scores corrected for splitting bias.

Figure 2. Ranking of main factors based on scores corrected for splitting bias.

Figure 3. Correlations of main factor scores between sectoral decision-makers (left) and between sectoral decision-makers and previous BWM research by Onstein et al. (Citation2019b) (right).

Figure 3. Correlations of main factor scores between sectoral decision-makers (left) and between sectoral decision-makers and previous BWM research by Onstein et al. (Citation2019b) (right).

Figure 4. Service level subfactor importance (0 = low, 1 = high).

Figure 4. Service level subfactor importance (0 = low, 1 = high).

Figure 5. Logistics costs subfactor importance (0 = low, 1 = high).

Figure 5. Logistics costs subfactor importance (0 = low, 1 = high).

Table 5. Factors influencing distribution structure design (DSD) according to case interviews.

Figure 6. Demand subfactor importance (0 = low, 1 = high).

Figure 6. Demand subfactor importance (0 = low, 1 = high).

Figure 7. Product characteristics subfactor importance (0 = low, 1 = high).

Figure 7. Product characteristics subfactor importance (0 = low, 1 = high).

Figure 8. Location subfactor importance (0 = low, 1 = high).

Figure 8. Location subfactor importance (0 = low, 1 = high).

Figure 9. Institutional subfactor importance (0 = low, 1 = high).

Figure 9. Institutional subfactor importance (0 = low, 1 = high).

Figure 10. Validated conceptual framework.

Figure 10. Validated conceptual framework.