Background: Informatization has enabled global logistics and supply chains (LSC) to capitalize on data-driven analytics to improve logistics performance. At the country level, logistics performance is gauged through the logistics performance index (LPI), where globally 61.25% or 98 countries perform below the mean LPI score. Previous studies focused on logistics informatization in high and moderate LPI rank economies. The paper aims to conduct an exploratory case study in a low LPI performing country to assess the informatization practices of logistics entities and develop a logistics informatization continuum to unlock data analytics for other countries. Methods: The study implements qualitative methods to develop strategic recommendations to reduce global logistics imbalance. We employ a two-layer methodology consisting of thematic analysis and a novel strategic choice approach (SCA) to involve stakeholders for recommendations on obstruction. For thematic analysis, 16 semi-structured interviews were conducted from logistics companies, also onboard 10 trade associations and government representatives for the SCA analysis. Results: We observed many obstructions in informatization; low willingness on informatization, fear of information leakage by humans, low-reciprocity for collaboration, the myth of information and communication technologies (ICT) as an expensive tool, self-interest, and opportunistic behavior. Conclusion: Information-centric and integrated LSC enables data-driven technologies for real-time decision making, vigilance, and data analytics to distinguished the success of a country?s logistics performance. Originality: This study explores the informatization conformity in the logistics sector to connect data analytics. We introduced a novel strategic choice approach in the technology domain for problem structuring. The paper further contributes by suggesting a logistics informatization continuum for low LPI countries to straighten digitalization in the logistics sector.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Anwar et al. (2022) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: