【正文】 ation and management, transport, handling, location and management of infrastructures, order cycle management .It can be said that there has nearly always been a dichotomy in research between the areas of marketing and logistics.Hence, the trend has been for the research that is most focused on the external environment to e predominantly from marketing—notably whenever thinking about the profit side of managing the enterprise.The trend for research that focuses on the enterprise’s internal (organizational) environment has e, among others, essentially from logistics—notably whenever thinking about managing the enterprise from the cost perspective.Whereas research related to the enterprise’s external environment has been mostly developed around the legitimacy of the market and its corresponding paradigm,in relation to the internal environment the research has concentrated on organizational and shareholder legitimacies, corresponding, respectively, to the internal and capital paradigms.It can therefore be said that research in marketing, in the past, focused mainly on the enterprise’s external environment, while in logistics, research was more internally oriented.Today it is recognized that this positional dichotomy gave rise to great many frictions and only contributed to a pletely unnecessary intensification of conflict.Sustained stability and proper results have never been achieved through excessively radical positions。 only more recently has it been mon sense that this is done through balance, even if unstable, where both multidisciplinary and multifunctional constructions have bee both desirable and current practice.In the midst of this dichotomy in the development of research, logistics looked for new development and it also started assuming clearly the external side of the enterprise.This meant it could extend its actual thinking to a set of enterprises upstream and downstream of the frontiers of the enterprise itselfgiving rise to the supply chain management logic. Thus, logistics began dealing, more clearly, not only with internal (organizational) and shareholder legitimacy but also the legitimacy of the market,pleting all its natural reasoning and spreading.Today, nobody finds it strange to define logistics as low cost client service but, just a few years ago it was preferable to place this challenge in a more restrained fashion, ., the right product in the right place at the right time for the minimum cost (or, even more plete,the 7 Right’s perspective: the right product, to the right client, in the right quantity, in the right condition, at the right place, at the right time and at the right cost).While it is true that the distinction between those two definitions is almost semantic, the fact is that the evolution that we have seen in recent years in logistics has been possible because the right product at the right price and at the right time has started, unreservedly, to be considered as client service, or to be included in a client service holistic perspective.Thus, the challenge facing logistics today (or supply chain management if one prefers to open the scope and to add multiple pany participation, although the fundamentals are the same) is a challenge of service at low cost. Since the area has been developed encapsulating all pany dimensions, ., internal (organizational), market and capital legitimacies and their respective paradigms, logistics knowledge has been developed as a nonparadigmatic area in both theoretical and practical terms.Furthermore, it will be difficult in the futureexcept if the development does not follow the same patternsto recognize logistics, or supply chain management, as being a specific science with its own paradigm—is that the purpose?—in order to obtain certain achievements that, at least for a period of time, provide somehow standard models to specific problems and correspondent solutions for a munity of practitioners [1]. Isn’t it better—for being richer in terms of thoughts and reasoning—to maintain the area as an open one, receiving contributions from other paradigmatic areas and evolving integrating other knowledge and paradigms?In other words, isn’t it more interesting to maintain the area in the absence of its own paradigm and evolving and enriching it with systematic integration of the knowledge being from other areas, both entrepreneurial (marketing, finance, production, human resources, to namesome) or general (systems thinking, biological, sociological or psychological approaches, to name a few)?Perhaps in the past, when trying to resolve more internal enterprise matters, logistics might have taken a much more organizational stance or, alternatively, one which defended the concerns of shareholders much strongly and to opt for a specific enterprise paradigm—would it be wise? That type of development would have taken logistics and, consequently, supply chain management, to an atrophy and to a restrictive area of knowledge and, probably, ending up by being a subarea of another one.This way, with proper transversal characteristics (vis224。 vis with functional areas of panies) and always looking for other areas’ developments (specifically entrepreneurial and, also, general developments, ing from other areas of knowledge), catching ideas and integrating them in its own body of knowledge, logistics and supply chain management are presented today as being much more rich then they were in the past.It was much easier, of course, to acmodate to one of the paradigms which explain the internal dynamics of the enterprise itself—a school which emerged mainly from the operations management side [28].Meanwhile, the school ing from operations management was enriched with other lines of thought that have worked in parallel to place logistics clearly near the market paradigm and never stopped making the link between the place variable of the marketing and the logistic clien