Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

ScienceDirect
Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

ScienceDirect
Procedia Manufacturing 00 (2019) 000–000
www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia

Procedia Manufacturing 55 (2021) 487–491

30th International Conference on Flexible Automation and Intelligent Manufacturing (FAIM2021)

15-18 June 2021, Athens, Greece.
The Impact of Logistics 4.0 on Performance in Manufacturing Companies:
A Pilot Study
Manuel Woschanka*, Patrick Dallasegab
a
Chair of Industrial Logistics, Montanuniversitaet Leoben, Austria
b
Faculty of Science and Technology, Free University of Bozen-Bolzano, Italy
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +433842 402-6023. E-mail address: manuel.woschank@unileoben.ac.at

Abstract

The application of Industry 4.0 technologies and technological concepts to logistics processes is termed ‘Logistics 4.0’. However, most of the
recent Logistics 4.0 studies are conceptual or theoretical and, therefore, miss an empirical validation of the proposed causal effects on logistics
performance, especially in manufacturing companies. By conducting a pilot study in Central Europe, this paper investigates the relationship
between Logistics 4.0 concepts and technologies and logistics performance indicators in manufacturing enterprises. As a result, the
implementation of smart and lean concepts has a major impact on logistics performance, whereas information and communication technologies,
as well as autonomous logistics systems and vehicles, are not completely implemented and exploited yet. The causal model, therefore, was
validated in a first step and will be extended by resilience and sustainability output indicators and revalidated in a larger field study in future
research attempts.

© 2020
© 2021The TheAuthors.
Authors. Published
Published by Elsevier
by Elsevier Ltd. Ltd.
Thisisisan
This anopen
openaccess
access article
article under
under the BY-NC-ND
the CC CC BY-NC-ND licenselicense (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)
Peer-reviewunder
Peer-review underresponsibility
responsibility of of
thethe scientific
scientific committee
committee of FAIM
of the the FAIM2020.2021.

Keywords: Logistics 4.0; pilot study; logistics performance; manufacturing; SMEs

1. Introduction requirements were identified through a literature review, by

using focus groups in Asia, Europe, and the USA, and by
The fourth industrial revolution, also called ‘Industry 4.0’, performing an international survey. They were categorized into
is transforming the manufacturing industry by increasing smart and lean supply chains (SAL), information and
digitization and automation of processes. Industry 4.0 aims at communication technologies (ICT), and autonomous logistics
merging information technology with production and logistics systems and vehicles (AUT). The complete list of requirements
processes [1]. Thereby, one of the most important technologies is included in section 3 (research design) of this paper.
are cyber-physical systems (CPS) that enable the self- Most of the works in literature are largely theoretical and
organization and self-control of production and logistics conceptual, indicating a relatively immature Logistics 4.0
systems [2]. Recently, the term Logistics 4.0 has emerged research and practice [8]. Specifically, there is a lack of
because of the application of Industry 4.0 technologies and evidence regarding the impact of Logistics 4.0 technologies
technological concepts to logistics processes [3,4]. According and technological concepts in manufacturing enterprises.
to Hofmann and Rüsch [5], supply chain transparency and To give a contribution to the previously identified research
flexibility as well as real-time tracking of material flows, are gap, the paper aims at answering the following hypotheses by
considered as the main characteristics of Logistics 4.0. conducting a pilot study:
During the project ‘SME4.0 - Industry 4.0 for SMEs’ a set
of requirements to implement Logistics 4.0 concepts in • H1: There is a significant relationship between SAL and
manufacturing companies was developed [6,7]. These logistics performance (LP) of manufacturing companies.
2351-9789 © 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.
2351-9789
This is an©open
2020 The Authors.
access Published
article under bytheElsevier Ltd.
CC BY-NC-ND license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)
This is an openunder
Peer-review access article under the CC
responsibility BY-NC-ND
of the license
scientific https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)
committee of the FAIM 2021.
Peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the FAIM 2020.
10.1016/j.promfg.2021.10.066
488 Manuel Woschank et al. / Procedia Manufacturing 55 (2021) 487–491
2 Author name / Procedia Manufacturing 00 (2019) 000–000
• H2: There is a significant relationship between ICT and LP
of manufacturing companies.
• H3: There is a significant relationship between AUT and
LP of manufacturing companies.
The pilot study was performed by using an online survey
that was distributed in Central Europe and conducted between
December 2020 and January 2021. The remainder of the paper
is structured as follows. Section two reports the literature
review of related works. Section three presents the research
methodology used in the paper. Section four presents the
results of the pilot study and section five the derived research
implications.
2. Related works
In an explorative research study, the authors isolated smart
and lean supply chains (SAL), intelligent logistics through ICT
and CPS (ICT), and smart and autonomous logistics systems
and vehicles AUT) as the main enables of Logistics 4.0 [6,7].
Consequently, this section reports related works in the field of
SAL, ICT, and AUT. Furthermore, the basic literature of LP
indicators is identified and discussed.
Doh et al. [9] suggest that Logistics 4.0 forces companies to
focus on man-machine interaction, information and
communication technology (ICT) as well as the usage of
advanced sensors, and the organization's improvement through
lean management. Similarly, Alias et al. [10] suggest that
adaptive processes and supporting information systems are the
main enablers to reach smart systems in manufacturing
companies. Moreover, researchers demonstrated that real-time
data, enabled by Industry 4.0 technologies, allow to
immediately sense, and react to plan deviations in engineer-to-
order supply chains [11]. Similarly, Dallasega et al. [12]
identify that Industry 4.0 concepts influence proximity between
actors in construction supply chains. In [13] researchers
indicate that Logistics 4.0 can be reached by the integration of
horizontal and vertical value chains in terms of digitizing
services as well as products and customer relations.
Seitz and Nyhuis show that cyber-physical production
systems that are used to train employees have a fundamental
role in innovative learning factories of the future [14].
Considering works related to ICT, researchers categorize
IoT and big data as the predominant technologies in the field of
supply chain digitization [15]. Moreover, Furmann et al. [16]
present the concept of digital twins for logistics systems
allowing the adjustment of parameters and configurations in
real-time for the optimization of logistics processes. Evtodieva
et al. report that Logistics 4.0 can be reached by location
tracking systems, predictive analytic systems for demand
forecasting, artificial intelligence for warehouse management,
and chatbots in procurement [17]. Similarly, in further studies,
the authors highlight the importance of using advanced product
tracking systems by using the Internet of Things (IoT) and
radio-frequency identification (RFID) technologies to improve
productivity in logistics operations [18,19]. Considering recent
studies in the field of autonomous logistics systems and
vehicles (AUT), researchers like Doh et al. propose
autonomous container handling systems, tracking systems, and
self-guided vehicles as the main systems to reach the status of
Logistics 4.0 [20]. In further studies, the application of
enhanced material flow systems like modular plug-and-play
continuous conveying systems supported by AGVs and high-
bay storages are proposed as the main enablers of Logistics 4.0
[21]. Similarly, Modrak et al. report that the automatic control
of delivery processes and autonomous inventory management
systems are considered as the main enablers of Logistics 4.0
according to an expert survey [22].
Regarding the measurement of logistics performance, most
recent studies suggest a combination of time-, quality-, cost-,
and flexibility-based economic indicators to capture various
effects of Logistics 4.0-related measures on performance
outcomes [23,24].
3. Research design
In this section, the authors propose a research model that
investigates the relationship between Logistics 4.0-related
requirements and logistics performance. Therefore, the authors
use a set of indicators for the independent variables ‘smart and
lean supply chains’, ‘ICT and CPS’, and ‘automation’ by
referring to the studies of Dallasega et al. [6,7]. Moreover, the
dependent variable ‘logistics performance’ is based on the
studies of Power et al. [23] and Anand and Ward [24]. Fig. 1
displays the research model of this study.
Fig. 1. Research model.
Summarized, our model proposes a significant relationship
between SAL and LP (H1), ICT and LP (H2), and AUT and LP
(H3). The operationalization of the independent and dependent
variables is presented in Tab. 1. The independent variable
‘smart and lean supply chains’ (SAL) is measured by six items,
the independent variable ‘ICT and CPS’ (ICT) is measured by
seven items, the independent variable ‘automation’ is measured
by three items, and the dependent variable ‘logistics
performance’ is measured by eight items.
For the empirical testing of the proposed causal
relationships, the authors conduct a field study to gain crucial
insights based on the expert knowledge from key informants.
Due to a standardized and structured process, field studies
usually provide a high level of external validity, transferability,
and generalizability of the established research findings
because of their realistic setting [25,26,27]. The underlying
questionnaire is developed by using state of the art guidelines
for empirical research studies [27,28,29,30]. Moreover, the
 Manuel Woschank et al. / Procedia Manufacturing 55 (2021) 487–491 489
Author name / Procedia Manufacturing 00 (2019) 000–000 3

authors use a membership directory from the sized companies. From the job position, 20.45% were CEOs,
Montanuniversitaet Leoben to contact relevant logistics, 56.82% were logistics, production, or supply chain managers,
production, or supply chain managers from manufacturing and 22.73% were classified as managers with a logistics-related
enterprises by using an online-based questionnaire. After 14 position. Out of all participating enterprises, 27.27% can be
days, the non-responding key informants will be reminded to assigned to the industrial branch of mechanical engineering,
complete the survey [27]. 15.91% can be assigned to automotive, 9.10% can each be
assigned to construction, metal, chemicals, and food, and the
Table 1. Variables and indicators. remaining 6.43% can be assigned to other manufacturing
Variable Indicator Description branches.
SAL SAL1 The identification and avoidance of material
flow breaks throughout the supply chain. Table 2. Descriptive results.
SAL2 The on-demand (Just-in-Time) production and
delivery of products to the customers. Indicator N Mean Std. Dev. Std. Error
SAL3 The availability of real-time order information SAL1 44 3.55 1.19 0.18
regarding the status of production and SAL2 44 3.59 1.35 0.20
shipping throughout the supply chain. SAL3 44 3.43 1.07 0.16
SAL4 The usage of advanced planning and control SAL4 44 3.52 1.21 0.18
systems (PPC) that allow to forecast rapidly SAL5 44 2.95 1.12 0.17
demand changes. SAL6 44 3.20 1.29 0.19
SAL5 The training and further qualification of ICT1 44 2.95 1.31 0.20
employees focusing on state-of-the-art ICT2 44 2.82 1.24 0.19
software and data analysis tools. ICT3 44 4.27 1.15 0.17
SAL6 The implementation of specific work ICT4 44 3.14 1.09 0.16
instructions for collaboration throughout the ICT5 44 3.30 1.23 0.19
supply chain by using ICT. ICT6 44 3.14 1.29 0.19
ICT ICT1 The digital connection of customers and ICT7 44 3.93 1.30 0.20
suppliers for an improved collaboration AUT1 44 3.07 1.37 0.21
throughout the supply chain. AUT2 44 2.59 1.15 0.17
ICT2 The digital tracking of products throughout the AUT3 44 2.59 1.17 0.18
supply chain. LP1 44 4.82 0.99 0.15
ICT3 The transparency of inventory levels and LP2 44 4.89 0.89 0.13
storage locations throughout the supply chain. LP3 44 4.09 1.03 0.16
ICT4 The limitation of data accessibility to different LP4 44 3.98 1.02 0.15
stakeholders in the supply chain. LP5 44 4.27 1.00 0.15
ICT5 The alignment of ERP/database systems LP6 44 5.39 0.97 0.15
throughout the supply chain. LP7 44 4.50 0.98 0.15
ICT6 The usage of decision support systems for LP8 44 4.93 1.09 0.16
planning and controlling of logistics (e.g., for
supplier selection decisions).
The authors conducted a non-response bias test which
ICT7 The ensurance of data security throughout the
supply chain. showed no significant differences in the variables (p-value
AUT AUT1 The usage of automated ordering systems. SAL: 0.427; p-value ICT: 0.537; p-value AUT: 0.585; p-value
AUT2 The self-control of material flow processes LP: 0.292) between earlier and later received survey responses
(autonomous processes).
AUT3 The self-control of warehousing processes [27,31].
(autonomous processes). In the next step, the authors computed the reliability of the
LP LP1 Delivery time independent and dependent variables. Thereby, the resulting
LP2 Delivery performance (delivery reliability)
LP3 Production costs
Cronbach´s alpha (CBA) values were 0.777 for SAL, 0.823 for
LP4 Inventory costs ICT, 0.832 for AUT, and 0.861 for LP. In sum, all computed
LP5 Overall market price of products or services CBA values are above the recommended threshold of 0.700,
LP6 Quality of products or services respectively 0.600 for explorative research studies, thus
LP7 Occurrence of complaints and claims
LP8 Delivery flexibility (changes in ensuring internal consistency reliability of the selected scales.
quantity/product mix) Therefore, the dependent and independent variables will be
calculated by using the arithmetic mean of the related items
4. Results [27,32,33].
Tab. 3 presents the results of the correlation analyses. The
The survey, including the necessary pretests, was conducted empirical results show a significant positive correlation
between December 2020 and January 2021. In sum, the authors between SAL and LP (Pearson coefficient 0.388; p-value:
contacted 2,004 participants. 669 participants partially 0.025), thus H1 can be tentatively corroborated. Moreover, no
completed the questionnaire leading to a final sample of 44 significant correlations were found between ICT and LP (H2)
fully completed questionnaires and a response rate of 2.20%. (Pearson coefficient 0.172; p-value: 0.266) as well as between
The descriptive results are displayed in Tab. 2. AUT and LP (H3) (Pearson coefficient 0.004; p-value: 0.977);
The final sample consists of 38.64% enterprises with less therefore, the hypotheses H2 and H3 must be rejected. The
than 100 employees, 29.55% enterprises with 101-250 empirical results show a significant positive correlation
employees, and 31.82% enterprises with more than 250 between SAL and LP (Pearson coefficient 0.388; p-value:
employees. Thus, the sample considers SMEs as well as big 0.025), thus H1 can be tentatively corroborated.
490 Manuel Woschank et al. / Procedia Manufacturing 55 (2021) 487–491
4 Author name / Procedia Manufacturing 00 (2019) 000–000

Table 3. Correlation analysis. performance indicators (LP) was investigated by using a survey
SAL ICT AUT LP in Central Europe. The results showed a positive significant
SAL Pearson 1 .797** .556** .338* relationship between SAL and LP. Up to now the effective
Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed) 0 0 0.025
usage of ICT and AUT is not fully exploited in manufacturing
N 44 44 44 44 companies. The results will be re-evaluated in a large-scale
ICT Pearson .797** 1 .598** 0.172 survey. The measurement of LP will be extended by using
Correlation sustainability- and resilience-orientated indicators.
Sig. (2-tailed) 0 0 0.266
N 44 44 44 44
AUT Pearson .556** .598** 1 0.004 CRediT author statement
Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed) 0 0 0.977
N 44 44 44 44 Manuel Woschank: Conceptualization, Methodology,
LP Pearson .338* 0.172 0.004 1 Formal analysis, Writing - Original Draft, Writing - Review &
Correlation Editing. Patrick Dallasega: Conceptualization, Methodology,
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.025 0.266 0.977
N 44 44 44 44 Writing - Original Draft, Writing - Review & Editing.

Moreover, no significant correlations were found between Acknowledgments

ICT and LP (H2) (Pearson coefficient 0.172; p-value: 0.266) as
well as between AUT and LP (H3) (Pearson coefficient 0.004;
p-value: 0.977); therefore, the hypotheses H2 and H3 must be
rejected. A detailed analysis further revealed significant
correlations between the indicators ICT3 and LP (Pearson
coefficient 0.337; p-value: 0.025) and ICT4 (Pearson
coefficient 0.332; p-value: 0.028) and the variable LP, and
significant correlations between the variable AUT and the
indicator LP4 (Pearson coefficient 0.329; p-value: 0.029).
5. Research implications
The pilot study presented in this article confirms the
reliability of the proposed model to measure the impact of
Logistics 4.0 on logistics performance in manufacturing
companies. Most respondents indicated that smart and lean
supply chains (SAL) have a significant impact on logistics
performance indicators. According to the respondents, AUT
only has also a significant impact on inventory costs (LP4).
Although ICT and AUT could have a potential impact on LP,
the output of the pilot study indicates that they are not fully
implemented in companies. Thus, their potential cannot be
fully exploited yet.
In future research, the authors plan to conduct a larger
survey because of the fruitful outcome of the pilot study. From
a techno-economic perspective, we plan to extend the model
with resilience and sustainability output indicators. This is,
because we believe that Logistics 4.0 concepts and
technologies have also a significant impact on the sustainability
and resilience of manufacturing companies, which is also
indicated in recent literature [34,35,36,37,38] and the European
strategy of Industry 5.0 [39].
6. Conclusion
In this study, the authors investigated the relationship
between Logistics 4.0 and various logistics performance
indicators. Therefore, the effects of 1) smart and lean supply
chains (SAL), 2) information and communication technologies
(ICT), and autonomous logistics systems and vehicles (AUT)
on time-, quality-, cost-, and flexibility-based logistics
This research is part of the project “SME 4.0 – Industry 4.0
for SMEs”, which has received funding from the European
Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation program
under the Marie Skłodowska-Curie grant agreement No.
734713.
References
[1.] Kagermann H, Wahlster W, Helbig J. Bericht der Promotorengruppe
Kommunikation Im Fokus: Das Zukunftsprojekt Industrie 4.0 -
Handlungsempfehlungen zur Umsetzung. URL: https://www.
bmbf.de/pub_hts/kommunikation_bericht_2012-1 (accessed
30.01.2021).
[2.] Rauch E, Seidenstricker S, Dallasega P, Hämmerl R. Collaborative cloud
manufacturing: Design of business model innovations enabled by
cyberphysical systems in distributed manufacturing systems. Journal of
Engineering. 3. p. 1-12; 2016.
[3.] Barreto L, Amaral A, Pereira, T. Industry 4.0 implications in logistics:
An overview. Procedia Manufacturing. 13. p. 1245–1252; 2017.
[4.] Müller JM, Voigt, KI. The impact of industry 4.0 on supply chains in
engineer-to-Order industries-an exploratory case study. IFAC-Papers
OnLine. 51. 11. P. 122–127; 2018.
[5.] Hofmann E, Rüsch M. Industry 4.0 and the current status as well as
future prospects on logistics. Computers in Industry. 89. p. 23–34; 2017.
[6.] Dallasega P, Woschank M, Ramingwong S, Tippayawong KY,
Chonsawat N. 2019. Field study to identify requirements for smart
logistics of European, US and Asian SMEs. Proceedings of the
International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Operations
Management, Bangkok, Thailand, March 5-7, 2019. p. 844–855; 2019.
[7.] Dallasega P, Woschank M, Zsifkovits H, Tippayawong KY, Brown CA.
2020. Requirement Analysis for the Design of Smart Logistics in SMEs.
In: Matt DT, Modrák V, Zsifkovits H (eds). Industry 4.0 for SMEs.
Cham: Springer International Publishing; 2020. p. 147–162.
[8.] Winkelhaus S, Grosse EH. 2020. Logistics 4.0: a systematic review
towards a new logistics system. International Journal of Production
Research. 58. 1. p. 18–43; 2020.
[9.] Doh SW, Deschamps F, Lima EP. Systems Integration in the Lean
Manufacturing Systems Value Chain to Meet Industry 4.0
Requirements. ISPE TE. p. 642–650; 2016.
[10.] Alias C, Salewski U, Ortiz Ruiz VE, Alarcón Olalla FE, Reymão N, do
Egypto J, Noche B. Adapting warehouse management systems to the
requirements of the evolving era of industry 4.0. ASME 2017 12th
International Manufacturing Science and Engineering Conference
collocated with the JSME/ASME 2017 6th International Conference on
Materials and Processing. American Society of Mechanical Engineers
Digital Collection. p. 1–14; 2017.
 Manuel Woschank et al. / Procedia Manufacturing 55 (2021) 487–491 491
Author name / Procedia Manufacturing 00 (2019) 000–000 5

[11.] Dallasega P, Rojas RA, Bruno G, Rauch E. An agile scheduling and [34.] Zunk B. M. Positioning “Techno-Economics“ as an interdisciplinary
control approach in ETO construction supply chains. Computers in reference frame for research and teaching at the interface of applied
Industry. 112. p. 103122; 2019. natural sciences and applied social sciences: An approach based on
[12.] Dallasega P, Rauch E, Linder C. 2018. Industry 4.0 as an enabler of Austrian IEM study programmes. International Journal of Industrial
proximity for construction supply chains: A systematic literature Engineering and Management. 9. 1. p. 17–23; 2018.
review. Computers in Industry. 99. p. 205–225; 2018. [35.] Ivanov D, Dolgui A, Sokolov B. The impact of digital technology and
[13.] Kovács G, Kot S. New logistics and production trends as the effect of Industry 4.0 on the ripple effect and supply chain risk analytics.
global economy changes. Polish Journal of Management Studies. 14. 2. International Journal of Production Research. 57. 3. p. 829–846; 2018.
p. 115-126; 2016. [36.] Imran A, Gölgeci I. Where is supply chain resilience research heading?
[14.] Seitz KF, Nyhuis P. Cyber-physical production systems combined with A systematic and co-occurrence analysis. International Journal of
logistic models-a learning factory concept for an improved production Physical Distribution and Logistics Management. 49. 8 . p. 793–815;
planning and control. Procedia CIRP. 32. p. 92–97; 2015 2019.
[15.] Schniederjans DG, Curado C, Khalajhedayati M. Supply chain [37.] Manavalan E, Jayakrishna K. A review of Internet of Things (IoT)
digitisation trends: An integration of knowledge management. embedded sustainable supply chain for industry 4.0 requirements.
International Journal of Production Economics. 220. p. 107439; 2020. Computers & Industrial Engineering. 127. p. 925–953; 2019.
[16.] Furmann R, Furmannová B, Więcek D. Interactive design of [38.] Bai C, Dallasega P, Orzes G, Sarkis J. Industry 4.0 technologies
reconfigurable logistics systems. Procedia engineering. 192. p. 207– assessment: A sustainability perspective. International Journal of
212; 2017. Production Economics. 229. p. 107776; 2020.
[17.] Evtodieva TE, Chernovа DV, Ivanova NV, Wirth J. The Internet of [39.] Industry 5.0. Report from the European Comission entitled: “Towards a
Things: Possibilities of Application in Intelligent Supply Chain sustainable, human-centric and resilient European industry”. URL:
Management. In: Ashmarina S, Mesquita A, Vochozka M (eds.). Digital https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/468a892a-5097-
Transformation of the Economy: Challenges, Trends and New 11eb-b59f-01aa75ed71a1/ (accessed 30.01.2021).
Opportunities, Cham: Springer; 2019. p. 395–403.
[18.] Valente FJ, Neto AC. Intelligent steel inventory tracking with
IoT/RFID. 2017 IEEE International Conference on RFID Technology &
Application (RFID-TA), 20-22 September 2017, Warsaw, Poland. p.
158–163; 2017.
[19.] Barreto L, Amaral A, Pereira T. Industry 4.0 implications in logistics:
an overview. Procedia Manufacturing. 13. p. 1245–1252; 2017.
[20.] Doh SW, Deschamps F, de Lima EP. Systems Integration in the Lean
Manufacturing Systems Value Chain to Meet Industry 4.0
Requirements. ISPE TE. p. 642-650; 2016.
[21.]Hofmann E, Rüsch M. Industry 4.0 and the current status as well as
future prospects on logistics. Computers in Industry. 89. p. 23-34; 2017.
[22.] Modrak V, Soltysova Z, Poklemba R. Mapping Requirements and
Roadmap Definition for Introducing I 4.0 in SME Environment.
Proceedings of the International Conference on Manufacturing
Engineering and Materials (ICMEM 2018), 18–22 June, 2018, Nový
Smokovec, Slovakia. p. 183–194; 2019.
[23.] Power D,Schoenherr T, Samson DA. The cultural characteristic of
individualism/collectivism: A comparative study of implications for
investment in operations between emerging Asian and industrialized
Western countries. Journal of Operations Management. 28. 3. p. 206-
222; 2010.
[24.] Anand G, Ward PT. Fit, Flexibility and Performance in Manufacturing:
Coping with Dynamic Environments. Production and Operations
Management. 13. 4. p. 369–385; 2004.
[25.] Maylor H, Blackmon KL. Researching business and management.
Houndmills et al.: Palgrave Macmillan; 2005.
[26.] Bortz J, Schuster C. Statistik für Human- und Sozialwissenschaftler. 7th
ed. Berlin et al.: Springer; 2010.
[27.] Woschank M. The Impact of Decision Making Process Maturity on
Decision Making Efficiency. Riga: University of Latvia; 2018.
[28.] Moosbrugger H, Kelava A. Testtheorie und Fragebogenkonstruktion.
2nd ed. Berlin et al.: Springer; 2012.
[29.] Kirchhoff S, Kuhnt S, Lipp P, Schlawin S. Der Fragebogen. Datenbasis,
Konstruktion und Auswertung. 5th ed. Wiesbaden: Verlag für
Sozialwissenschaften; 2010.
[30.] Porst R. Fragebogen. Ein Arbeitsbuch. 3rd ed. Wiesbaden: Verlag für
Sozialwissenschaften; 2011.
[31.] Armstrong JS, Overton TS. Estimating nonresponse bias in mail
surveys. In: Journal of Marketing Research. 14. 3. p. 396–402; 1977.
[32.] Heath A, Jean M. Why are there so few formal measuring instruments
in social and political research? In: Lyberg L, Biemer P, Collins M,
Leeuw E, de Dippo C,Schwarz N, Trewin D (eds.). Survey
measurement and process quality. New York: John Wiley & Sons;
1997. p. 71–86.
[33.] Hair JF, Black WC, Babin BJ, Anderson RE. Multivariate data analysis.
7th ed. Harlow: Pearson; 2014.