1
Making the last-mile count: the influence of relational
aspects on a supplier’s decision to participate in a UCC
initiative
Thesis, MSc Supply Chain Management
University of Groningen, Faculty of Economics and Business
June 24, 2019 Lisa Oostendorp Student Number: S2703483 Email: l.m.a.oostendorp@student.rug.nl Word count: 9.924 Supervisor
dr. ir. P. (Paul) Buijs
Co-assessor
2
ABSTRACT
Purpose: The purpose of this thesis is to provide insights into relationships within supply
chains with an Urban Consolidation Center (UCC). The aim of this study is to explore how supply chain relationships are affected when a UCC is introduced and to provide an
understanding of how these changes influence a supplier’s decision to participate in a UCC initiative.
Methodology: The empirical evidence was gathered by means of an exploratory embedded
single case study of a UCC, interviewing the UCC operator, eight suppliers, two buyers and the last-mile logistics provider.
Findings: Aspects of buyer-seller relationships influence the decision to participate in a UCC
initiative both directly and indirectly. The relationship between a supplier, its buyer, the TPL provider and the UCC operator can reduce barriers for participation.
Practical implications: This study highlights the importance for UCC operators to pay close
attention to involving suppliers in the development of a UCC initiative in an early stage to encourage enthusiasm and provide transparency. The focus of UCC operators when communicating a UCC initiative to suppliers should not only be on cost benefits and improved efficiency, but also on the safeguarding of quality service and flexibility in the delivery process.
Limitations and future research: This embedded single case study has mainly focused on
suppliers who had little choice but to participate in a UCC initiative due to pressure from their important buyer. Future research could broaden the insights from this study by investigating the relational influence on a supplier’s decision to participate by including suppliers that are not using a UCC initiative or are using a UCC initiative voluntarily.
Acknowledgement: I would like to thank my supervisor P. Buijs for supervising me
3
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. INTRODUCTION ... 4
2. THEORETICAL BACKGROUND ... 6
2.1 Attractiveness of the UCC ... 6
2.2 Relational aspects ... 7
2.2.1 Buyer-seller relationships ... 8
2.2.2 Third Party Logistics Relationships ... 9
2.2.3. Relationship with the UCC ... 10
2.3 Stakeholder involvement ... 11 3. METHODOLOGY ... 12 3.1 Research design ... 12 3.2 Research setting ... 13 3.3 Data collection ... 14 3.4 Data analysis... 15 4. RESULTS ... 16 4.1 Buyer-seller relationships ... 16
4.2 Relationship with TPL provider ... 18
4.3 Relationship with UCC operator ... 19
5. DISCUSSION... 20
5.1 Discussion of results and research propositions ... 20
5.1.1 Buyer-seller relationships and the decision to participate in a UCC initiative ... 21
5.1.2 Relationship with TPL provider and decision to participate in a UCC initiative ... 22
5.1.3. Relationship with UCC and the decision to participate in a UCC initiative ... 23
5.2 Theoretical contributions ... 24
5.3 Managerial contributions ... 25
5.4. Policy implications ... 26
5.5 Limitations and future research ... 27
6. CONCLUSION ... 27
REFERENCES ... 29
APPENDIX A. TIME SCHEDULE ... 35
APPENDIX B. CODING TREE ... 36
APPENDIX C. QUOTES ... 38
APPENDIX D. INTERVIEW PROTOCOL ... 41
1. Information research project (Dutch) ... 41
2. Information research project (English) ... 43
3. Interview protocol suppliers ... 44
4. Interview protocol public organizations ... 52
4
1. INTRODUCTION
Delivery of goods to cities is crucial to attain attractive urban areas with shops, restaurants, public buildings and other businesses (Nordtømme, Bjerkan & Sund, 2015). However, the distribution flow of goods into cities causes many negative effects for the environment and residents of the city, such as air pollution, traffic and congestion issues and noise hindrance (Lagorio, Pinto & Golini, 2016). With sustainability policies high on the agenda of many governments, cities are aiming to increase efficiency of goods distribution while trying to reduce its negative effects (Nordtømme et al., 2015). A widely explored method to achieve this is the use of an Urban Consolidation Centre (UCC). A UCC can be characterized as ‘a system that decouples long-distance transport, typically with large trucks, and last-mile transport within urban areas, often with vehicles designed for urban transport’ (Björklund, Abrahamsson & Johansson, 2017, p. 37). In the UCC, often located just outside city boundaries, goods from various suppliers are consolidated and delivered to the city center. These goods are often delivered in environmentally friendly vehicles and in more efficient round trips (Gogas & Nathanail, 2017). The number of vehicles entering the city center can be reduced, which protects the urban areas from congestion, and the impact of goods distribution on the environment and safety of inhabitants is limited. A visualization of the distribution of goods with and without a UCC and the corresponding stakeholders can be found in Figure 1.1.
Figure 1.1. Overview of stakeholders in the distribution flow with and without a UCC
5 customers of the UCC are the supplier, the TPL provider and the buyer (Russo & Comi, 2010). The supplier is an important customer of the UCC as they provide the volume that is needed to achieve economies of scale (Russo & Comi, 2010; Le Pira, Marcucci, Gatta, Ignaccolo, Inturri, & Pluchino, 2017). Besides the importance of supplier participation for the financial success of a UCC, their participation is also critical to achieve the aforementioned environmental and social benefits of city logistics initiatives. As suppliers are key players in urban freight transport, their participation in a UCC initiative can have a substantial impact on reducing the number of vehicles in city centers (Taniguchi, 2014).
Despite the importance of supplier participation, current UCC literature has mainly focused on the UCC itself (Van Duin, Van Dam, Wiegmans & Tavasszy, 2016) and to some extent on the role of the buyer (Paddeu, 2017). There has been some research in UCC literature that addresses stakeholder involvement, but these studies mainly focus on the importance of stakeholder collaboration (Le Pira et al., 2017). The supplier perspective is seldom included in UCC studies, which is remarkable due to their important role in distribution.
Research that has discussed the supplier perspective is solely focused on operational evaluations, such as assessing costs and benefits in logistics, mostly based on mathematical modelling (Janjevic & Ndiaye, 2017; Roca Riu, Estrada & Fernández, 2016). The use of a UCC would theoretically reduce the logistics cost for a supplier due to time savings and increased flexibility (Taniguchi & Van Der Heijden, 2000; Janjevic & Ndiaye, 2017). One would expect that these benefits provide enough motivation for suppliers to participate in such an initiative. The fact that this is not the case in practice either means that the actual logistics costs for suppliers are not decreasing as proposed in the literature, or that other aspects besides costs pose barriers for suppliers. This lack of comprehensive view on possible barriers for suppliers drives the need to review how the UCC actually affects a supplier’s distribution process and more importantly, the relationships within. Adding a UCC in the supply chain changes the distribution process and affects various stakeholders within the supply chain. These stakeholders all must deal with a new actor and therefore relationships between them inevitably change. However, a full understanding of how and to what extent these relationships actually change has not been examined in UCC literature.
6 knowledge on barriers for suppliers in UCC initiatives. The following research question will be addressed: How do changes in supply chain relationships influence the decision of suppliers to participate in a UCC initiative?
This thesis will add to current UCC knowledge by analyzing the relational aspects that play a role in a supplier’s decision to participate in a UCC initiative. When it becomes clear to what extent these aspects form a barrier for suppliers to participate, initiators of the UCC can take these into account and try to find ways to overcome these barriers. In addition, the findings might give a better understanding to why UCCs have difficulties to become financially viable, despite the cost benefits that can be achieved on the operational level.
This paper will be structured as follows. In the following section, important aspects related to the attractiveness of a UCC and relationships within the supply chain will be outlined. In the third section, the methodology of this paper will be provided. The paper continues with presenting the results. In the discussion and conclusion section, the results will be discussed and theoretical and managerial implications that can be derived from this study will be presented.
2. THEORETICAL BACKGROUND
2.1 Attractiveness of the UCC
The attractiveness of a UCC to suppliers can be increased by showing its ability to eventually decrease costs in the supply chain (Janjevic & Ndiaye, 2017). Cost reductions can include elements such as time and distance savings and a reduction in fuel, maintenance and driver costs due to a decrease in the number of stops (Janjevic & Ndiaye, 2017). In addition, suppliers are able to deliver a larger capacity to the UCC, as they do not have to take into account possible vehicle restrictions, narrow streets or capacity restrictions at the buyer. This means the supplier can decrease the number of times it needs to distribute its goods. Furthermore, the distance to the UCC is generally closer than the distance to the buyer, which leads to a reduction in fuel and driver costs (Roca-Riu, Estrada & Fernández, 2016).
7 a barrier for suppliers to participate in a UCC initiative. However, as we know that in practice the cost aspect is not sufficient to explain why UCCs have difficulties attracting enough customers, this thesis will from here on out focus on relational aspects.
2.2 Relational aspects
The influence of relational aspects on UCC viability has not yet been examined in literature so far but given the impact of a UCC on various relationships within the supply chain, it could be expected that it can play a role in a supplier’s decision to participate in a UCC initiative. Therefore, exploring them might offer other insights into why UCCs still struggle to attract sufficient participation. Multiple relations are affected when adding a UCC in a supply chain, involving the supplier, the buyer, the TPL provider. An overview of the relationships that are affected and the way they are affected is presented in Table 2.1.
Buyer TPL
provider
UCC Relational changes
Supplier X
Supplier loses control over last mile delivery, no longer directly responsible for delivery to the buyer.
Supplier X
Supplier needs to make changes in agreements with TPL providers as they have to hand out part of their core business to the UCC
Supplier X UCC is an extra stop in the distribution process that
the supplier needs to make agreements with
Buyer X Buyer might get deliveries from another provider
as they are used to, might affect service at delivery
Buyer X
As supplier is no longer responsible for last mile delivery, buyer needs to contact the UCC when there are issues with deliveries
TPL
provider X
TPL provider needs to deliver goods to or from the UCC instead of delivering it from the supplier to the buyer themselves
Table 2.1. Overview of affected relationships in the supply chain when participating in a UCC initiative
8 elaborated on by using both existing theories from Supply Chain literature, namely buyer-seller relationship and Third Party Logistics theory, and knowledge from UCC literature. General knowledge on buyer-seller relationships and Third Party Logistics theory will be used to provide a generic overview of aspects in such relationships and can then be applied in the context of UCC participation to explain the consequences of changes in these relationships. Current knowledge on stakeholders in UCC literature will be used to extent the views on relational aspects. Second, the influence of stakeholder pressure on suppliers to participate in a UCC initiative will be introduced elaborating on existing stakeholder theory knowledge.
2.2.1 Buyer-seller relationships
Without the use of a UCC, the supplier is delivering its goods to the buyer directly or via a warehouse, either by own transport or by vehicles from the TPL provider. One of the reasons suppliers choose to deliver goods by own transport is to secure access to up-to-date knowledge regarding transport related costs and to secure close relationships with buyers (Hedvall, Dubois & Lind, 2017). If they choose to outsource their transportation activities to a TPL provider or UCC, they need to ensure that the quality of the relationship with the buyer is not affected, as there is a loss of control over the actual delivery to the buyer.
Relationship quality is defined as ‘an overall assessment of the strength of the relationship and the extent to which it meets the needs and expectations of the parties based on a history of successful encounters or events’ (Smith, 1998, p.78). As it is far less costly to keep an existing buyer instead of seeking new ones, customer satisfaction is an important operational objective for many suppliers (Hill & Alexander, 2017). If buyers are supplied with goods and services that meet their expectations, they are more likely to continue the use of those goods and services from that particular supplier (Park, 2019). Customer satisfaction is also susceptible to the interpersonal performances by the supplier (Humphreys & Williams, 1996). Examples of such interpersonal performance include personal contact, using experience and knowledge when responding to a buyer’s request and collaborating with them to create a win-win solution in case of a problem (Humphreys & Williams, 1996). Maintaining good relationships with buyers, ensuring their trust and satisfying their needs is therefore an important aspect to the supplier.
9 relationship with the buyer. The service that a supplier purchases from the UCC might therefore go further than just consolidation and transportation activities, by also including service related issues, such as flexibility in delivery and quality service (Hedvall et al., 2017).
2.2.2 Third Party Logistics Relationships
From the 1980s onwards, suppliers have increasingly made use of TPL providers to outsource their non-core activities, such as transport and logistics activities (Patterson, Ewing & Haider, 2010). By outsourcing these activities, the supplier can focus on its own core competencies (Vasiliauskas & Jakubauskas, 2007). In general, TPL providers already have important transport and logistics assets available, such as vehicles and warehouses, which gives them the advantage of economies of scale. A relationship between a supplier and its TPL provider can be seen as a vertical alliance (Carbone & Stone, 2005; Leuschner, Carter, Goldsby & Rogers, 2014). A vertical logistics alliance is defined as a ‘long-term formal or informal relationship between shippers and TPLs to render all or a considerable number of logistics activities for the shipper and TPLs see themselves as long-term partners in this arrangement’ (Bagchi and Virum, 1998, p.193). According to Bask (2001), the term Third Party Logistics is grounded in a triadic form of relationship, where three dyadic relationships exist: 1) the relationship between the supplier and the TPL provider, 2) the relationship between the buyer and the TPL provider and 3) the relationship between the seller and the buyer.
10 If a TPL provider offers additional services as an extension of the basic services, the supplier needs to be assured that the strategic performance of these services is ensured (Van Hoek, 2000). This emphasizes that not just price is relevant in TPL provider relationships, customer care related parameters as well.
There are multiple risks involved when outsourcing transport and logistics activities, such as loss of critical information, potential of misunderstandings and a lack of control (Huo, Ye & Zhao, 2015). To meet strategic requirements and to build collaborative relationships, many suppliers already have long-term contracts with their TPL providers in place (Huo et al., 2015). Suppliers evaluate the value a UCC can offer by comparing it with what their current TPL provider is offering. Only if the UCC service performance results in either higher service levels and/or lower costs than the current situation, the UCC becomes attractive (Van Duin et al., 2016).
If the supplier does decide to participate in a UCC initiative, its agreements with its current TPL provider may need to be altered. Where beforehand the TPL provider was responsible for the total distribution flow, they are now no longer responsible for the last-mile delivery. Also, when the supplier participates in a UCC initiative while also making use of a TPL provider, there is another additional actor between the supplier and the buyer.
2.2.3. Relationship with the UCC
Participating in a UCC initiative leads to a loss of direct contact between the supplier and its buyer. Given the importance of meeting a buyer’s needs, the relationship with the UCC is of high value to the supplier. The relationship between a supplier and the UCC can be compared to the relationship between a supplier and a TPL provider. In both cases, the supplier is not responsible for delivery and needs to make clear agreements on meeting a buyer’s SLAs. However, when adding a UCC in the supply chain, the supplier needs to specify delivery requirements to not only the TPL provider for the line haul delivery, but also to the UCC for securing quality of the last-mile delivery. This leads to an additional contract with the UCC encompassing agreements regarding SLAs and legal responsibility for goods (Allen, Browne, Woodburn & Leonardi, 2014).
11 question the utility of the UCC as, in their opinion, the consolidation of goods is already optimal. In addition, if the TPL provider offered services to the supplier next to basic services, they may lose control over these services as well, as they are now performed by the UCC. This would mean that the TPL provider has to hand over part of its core business to the UCC, which makes the UCC a competitor in the eyes of the TPL provider (Van Duin et al., 2016).
The buyer also needs to deal with the UCC when issues arise with deliveries, such as loss of goods or damaged goods. As the supplier is no longer directly responsible for deliveries, the buyer needs to contact the UCC in case of such issues. This requires a relationship with the UCC operators.
2.3 Stakeholder involvement
With sustainability issues high on the agenda, organizations are under pressure to act more sustainable (Meixell & Luoma, 2015). Scott (2003) argues in his research that managers of organizations make decisions regarding sustainability under pressure from external stakeholders. Stakeholder pressure is therefore an important motivation for companies to make their distribution process more sustainable. Institutional environments can influence the decision making of organizations, which results in an organization’s strategic responses aiming to deal with the pressure they perceive from stakeholders (Oliver, 1991).
12 Especially public institutions are considered significant stakeholders in encouraging organizations to act sustainable by exerting pressure through rules and policies in the transport sector, such as time windows, emission free zones and restrictions for heavy trucks (Zawawi et al., 2018). Restrictions like these force suppliers to re-evaluate their current distribution process. A supplier might be forced to make use of a UCC and TPL providers might be forced to invest in more sustainable vehicles. In addition, changes in a buyer’s demands regarding sustainability can pressure suppliers into implementing sustainability in their distribution process. If buyers demand sustainability as a prerequisite when selecting suppliers, suppliers are forced to either meet the buyer’s demand, or risk losing the buyer.
3. METHODOLOGY
3.1 Research design
13
3.2 Research setting
This study took place at a UCC near Amsterdam. This UCC has been set up by a collaboration of a private organization and two public organizations, who in this study also function as the buying organizations. The unit of analysis for this research is the decision for a supplier to participate in a UCC, which will be explored through multiple perspectives. To collect the empirical data needed to answer the research question, all involved stakeholders whose relationships are affected by the UCC have been interviewed, being the supplier, the buyer, the TPL provider and the UCC operator.
A total of seven suppliers were interviewed who all distribute part of their goods via a UCC because their buyer demanded this from them through tenders. This provided insights in the pressure the suppliers experience from their buyer and how the use of the UCC has affected their relationship with their possible TPL provider and buyer. In addition, as these suppliers deliver only part of their goods to the UCC, interviewing them also provided interesting insights into why they are not delivering all of their products via a UCC.
The first criterium to select cases was whether suppliers use a TPL provider to deliver goods to the UCC. Both suppliers that have a TPL provider and suppliers that handle the distribution process by own-account were selected for this research. Suppliers that use own account transport might have less incentive to participate in a UCC, as they have already invested in their fleet of vehicles and employ truck drivers. The second criteria to select cases is whether suppliers already have own warehouses where goods are consolidated or cross-docked. Adding a UCC in the distribution flow is an additional stop, but if suppliers already have a warehouse that does a similar operation as the UCC, they might be less inclined to participate. By understanding the similarities and differences between the cases, a better understanding can be achieved on how and why the perspective of the suppliers may differ. An overview of the selected cases can be found in Table 3.1.
14
Case Code name Use of TPL
provider
Use of own warehouse / cross dock
Case 1 S1 Yes Yes
Case 2 S2 Yes Yes
Case 3 S3 Yes Yes
Case 4 S4 Yes Yes
Case 5 S5 No Yes
Case 6 S6 No Yes
Case 7 S7 Yes No
Table 3.1. Supplier case selection
3.3 Data collection
Semi-structured interviews were used to gather the primary data because it creates an opening for a real, two-way conversation, while still including the questions that are relevant to conduct the research (Galletta, 2013). Semi-structured interviews provide the opportunity to explore opinions and perceptions of the interviewees. By personalizing the interview questions based on the given answers, additional interesting information was gathered. All interviews have been conducted by two or more investigators, which allowed for an increase in confidence of the findings (Eisenhardt, 1989).
An interview protocol was constructed to increase the reliability of this study (Yin, 1994) and can be found in appendix D, where the background of the study, the aim of the research and the practical information of the interview, such as length, is described. Interview questions will consist of questions related to the relationships with possible TPL providers and buyers. Insights in current relationships was gathered as well as how the UCC has changed these relationships. With consent of the interviewee, the interviews were recorded. This guarantees the correct transcription and analysis of the interviews (Karlsson, 2016).
15 Office from the buying organizations were interviewed on their reasoning to demand the use of a UCC from their suppliers and how this affected their relationship with the supplier. In addition, two hub operators and one business developer at the TPL provider have been interviewed.
Next to data gathering through semi-structured interviews, quantitative data was collected by means of questions based on a Likert scale. All suppliers were asked to fill out a form to rate the importance of several aspects that influence the decision to participate in a UCC initiative. The form can also be found in appendix D. The interviewees were asked to rate the aspects on a Likert scale from 1-5, where 1 is ‘not important at all’ and 5 is ‘very important’. These results provided a general insight in the aspects that play a role when deciding to participate in a UCC initiative and to what extent they may be decisive.
3.4 Data analysis
16 coding tree with all first order concepts, second order themes and aggregate dimensions can be found in appendix B.
4. RESULTS
The following section will present the results based on the empirical data gathered from the interviews. Based on the quotes and secondary concepts, four aggregate dimensions were constructed. The aggregate dimensions are compared to existing theories in Supply Chain literature and current knowledge in UCC literature and can be grouped into the following three categories: 1) buyer-seller relationships, 2) relationship with TPL provider and 3) relationship with UCC.
4.1 Buyer-seller relationships
17 Interviewees agreed less on the importance of personal contact with the buyer. Four out of seven suppliers claim that personal contact is important to add value to the relationship. “Our added value lies in personal contact, not the transport.” [S1]. In one case, personal contact between the supplier and the buyer turned out to be the reason for the growth of the company in a relatively short period. “Personal contact with our buyers is the most important thing in our business. It is the reason that our business experiences such growth.” [S5]. However, one supplier stated that personal contact is not relevant for the relationship with the buyer, as he believes the buyer is too large to care. “Personal contact is not important to our buyer. In a building like this, where our buyer is located, he doesn’t care how it is delivered. As long as the goods get delivered, the SLA is met and there is no damage.” [S2]. However, none of the suppliers claimed that using a UCC had an impact on the level of personal contact as they were used to. Based on the data, personal contact does not seem to be an aspect of buyer-seller relationships that affects the decision to participate in a UCC initiative.
Contractual agreements with buyers do play an important role in whether to use a UCC or not. All seven suppliers use the UCC to deliver goods to one of their buyers. This does not mean however that they are able to serve all their other buyers via the UCC as well, as there are contractual obligations that prevent this. “We also have international contracts with some of our buyers. We have to meet certain KPIs. […] Those conditions conflict with the rules and regulations that governments decide to implement. We therefore can't just say 'let's deliver our goods at a UCC.' It doesn't work, those agreements are contractual.” [S3]. This implies that agreed upon KPIs between the supplier and the buyer can prevent the supplier from delivering goods to the UCC. Therefore, contractual agreements with the buyer directly influence a supplier’s decision to participate in a UCC initiative.
18
4.2 Relationship with TPL provider
All suppliers stated that demanding a change in the TPL provider’s distribution flow was not an issue, as it was just announced to them. “We just said to them: you have to go here instead of there. We will pay you from here to the UCC, that’s all.” [S5]. Four out of five suppliers that use a TPL provider to deliver their goods indicated they have a formal relationship with their TPL provider. “The relationship with our TPL provider is purely business.” [S2]. These TPL providers only provide basic services, such as the transportation of goods and warehousing. ”Our TPL provider only delivers our goods. We perform the service ourselves. The role of the TPL provider is much smaller” [S2]. They can therefore be categorized as transactional TPL service providers. In all four cases, the choice of TPL provider was based on costs and quality. “We chose our TPL provider based on costs. The one we have now is cheaper to deliver goods in this region, the other one we have is cheaper in the South of the Netherlands.” [S5].
None of the four suppliers has issues with switching TPL provider if they are not capable to meet the demands of the buyer, the UCC or the government. “We do not view it as an issue if we have to switch TPL provider. We have no emotional bond with them.” [S5]. One supplier stated that the objectives of a TPL provider should be aligned with the objectives of their organization, particularly regarding sustainability issues. “We use tenders to present our sustainable view and if we have to work with a TPL provider, we have to offer them what we think is necessary. If they can’t offer us that, we will have to choose another TPL provider.”[S4]. Another supplier mentioned that because there are so many TPL providers available to perform the basic services required, the decision to choose a TPL provider is purely based on cost. “We deliberately chose the TPL provider. If we have to make the calculation to see if it is more efficient to have our own vehicles and chauffeurs compared to working with a TPL provider. You see that if you have own transport, you only deliver your own goods. [...] The strength of our TPL provider is in distribution, they have 100 deliveries in every street. That is completely different in costs than when we need to do it ourselves.” [S3].
19 training for them in our own assembly department.” [S6]. This TPL provider can therefore be classified as a value-adding TPL service provider. They perform a value-adding service and there is a high degree of relational interaction between the supplier and TPL provider. However, this supplier does deliver part of its goods, mostly single-units, via the UCC.
The buyer stated that it does not matter to them who is delivering the goods, as long as they are delivered. “It does not matter to me if other vehicles deliver the goods. I think that the person from the faculty does not care as well. The most important thing is that it gets delivered and that the process goes smoothly. That there are no disruptions.” [C1].
Suppliers value the attractiveness of a UCC by comparing it to what their current TPL provider is offering. “Maybe it is possible to use a hub for all our products. But what will you solve? Why would you consolidate products that are already transported with a utilization of 95-100%?” [S1]. However, in all cases engaging in a UCC has not influenced the performance of the TPL provider when delivering goods to other buyers and the existing relationships have not changed. It can therefore be concluded that using the UCC did not have an impact on the relationship with the TPL provider.
4.3 Relationship with UCC operator
Delivering goods via a UCC means that there is an extra actor that suppliers, buyers and TPL providers need to deal with. As suppliers were pressured into using the UCC by the buyer, they also need to build a relationship with a new, not self-chosen party. “We are forced to use this hub; we had no option to choose another one.”[S2]. However, in general suppliers value the relationship with the UCC operators. “Working with the UCC is very nice. I know [hub operator] and [commercial director] personally, I meet them once every month. We discuss how things are and what can be better.” [S2]. One supplier stated that they have developed a close relationship with the UCC. “We have a lot of contact with the UCC, on multiple levels. We have developed a close relationship over the past 1.5 year. With a high level of trust. [...]. We understand each other, we trust each other. So it works.” [S6].
20 Both the buyer and the UCC operator experience their relationship as close. This was to be expected, as the buyer chose the UCC for their deliveries. “The idea to use a hub came from the government. [...] Once we knew how we wanted to arrange it, we used a tender for parties that have electric vehicles. [Name of UCC] became the party to work with.” [C2]. Both buyers state that they are closely related to the UCC operators and that they work together. “In the past years we have continuously exchanged ideas with each other. We needed to overcome some barriers and restructure some processes, but we are still at the same table.” [C2]. Overall, the relationship with the UCC is experienced as positive from the perspective of the buyer. “We have a good relationship with the UCC. If for example a delivery gets lost, we contact the UCC and within an hour we receive a response. The condition is that we have to work together.” [C1]. The UCC operator feels that the buyer gave them the trust to use their experience to make the UCC a success. “The buyer has always said very clearly: you are the experts, we need you to help us.” [O1]
Suppliers that use a TPL provider to deliver their goods to the UCC stated that it was not a problem for the TPL provider to deliver the goods to the UCC instead of delivering it themselves. “Every TPL provider is relieved when they get some more air to breath, especially when you look at all the e-commerce deliveries. They don’t see the UCC as a threat because they get paid anyway.” [S4]. This is supported by the view from the TPL provider, who states that “We see the UCC as new buyers. It is not the case that our process changes because we use a UCC, because this is a completely new process.” [T1]. The TPL provider also states that they highly value the relationship with the UCC. “I believe we have created a nice collaboration with the UCC. [...] I am very satisfied with the UCC.” [T1]. They state that it is important to keep a close relationship to achieve the best outcomes. “It is a new concept, for all of us. [...] There are so many stakeholders involved and that demands attention. Decision-making processes don’t always go very fast, that makes it challenging. But I think we all have the same goal for the future. We all want to play an important role in sustainability issues. [...] But because it’s new, we are continuously learning.” [T1].
5. DISCUSSION
5.1 Discussion of results and research propositions
21 the results. From the data analysis, the identified concepts and the aggregate dimensions four propositions on the established relational influences on the decision to participate in a UCC initiative can be derived.
5.1.1 Buyer-seller relationships and the decision to participate in a UCC initiative
Contractual obligations and pressure from buyers directly influence the decision to participate in a UCC initiative. Power as the potential to influence is inherent to all buyer-seller relationships (Meehan & Wright, 2012). By pressuring the supplier into delivering goods via the UCC, the buyer exerts coercive power over the supplier. The decision to participate in a UCC initiative therefore not only relates to if the supplier is willing to engage, but more so if they are willing to lose a buyer if they don’t. This implies that pressure from buyers directly influences the decision to participate in a UCC. The same goes for contractual obligations. If there are contractual restrictions that state that a supplier is not allowed to deliver goods via a UCC, there is not much of a decision to make. Therefore, contractual agreements with the buyer also have a direct influence on the decision to participate in a UCC initiative. Based on the results, suppliers do not view personal contact as a barrier to participate in a UCC initiative. Most supplier value the level of personal contact, but none of them view participating in a UCC initiative as a threat to that level. We can therefore conclude that, based on the data, the decision to participate in a UCC initiative is not influenced by the level of personal contact. We can therefore propose the first research propositions as follows:
P1a. Contractual agreements and pressure from buyers directly influence the decision of a supplier to participate in a UCC initiative.
22 P1b. Quality service and flexibility in delivery indirectly influence the decision of a supplier to participate in a UCC initiative
Table 5.1 shows an overview of aspects of buyer-seller relationships and their direct or indirect influence on the decision to participate in a UCC initiative.
Relational aspect Decision to participate in a UCC initiative
Contractual agreements Direct influence
Pressure from buyer Direct influence
Quality service Indirect influence
Flexibility in delivery Indirect influence
Table 5.1. Influence of relational aspects on the decision to participate in a UCC initiative
5.1.2 Relationship with TPL provider and decision to participate in a UCC initiative
This study showed that suppliers are willing to switch TPL provider if another provider can offer services cheaper and/or better. It can therefore be assumed that they are also willing to choose a UCC to perform the services required. As UCCs can offer environmental and cost benefits, suppliers can consider a UCC to perform the consolidation and last mile delivery. However, as mentioned by Van Duin et al. (2016), the supplier evaluated the value of a UCC offering by comparing it with what their current TPL provider is offering now. This is in line with the findings, as suppliers demand the same commitment from the UCC as from their TPL provider.
23 P2. The performance of a TPL provider has an indirect influence on a supplier’s decision to participate in a UCC initiative.
In the case where the supplier does have a close relationship with the TPL provider and the TPL provider offers value-adding services, the supplier would still be willing to participate in a UCC initiative. However, a note must be made that this supplier is not able to distribute all his goods via the UCC due to the volume and size of the goods. Therefore, he needs to continue his relationship with its TPL provider to deliver the goods that don’t flow through the UCC. For the remaining goods, the supplier is willing to deliver them via a UCC. There have been no complaints from TPL providers when demanded to deliver their goods to the UCC instead of distributing them themselves. TPL providers do not see the UCC as a threat, but mainly as a frontrunner on the market. Therefore, based on the data in this study, a supplier’s decision to participate in a UCC is not influenced by the relationship with its TPL provider.
The findings showed that the relationship between the buyer and the TPL provider also does not influence a supplier’s decision to participate in a UCC initiative. As long as the goods are delivered according to agreed SLAs, the buyer does not mind who delivers these goods. Vehicle recognition also plays no role for the buyer.
5.1.3. Relationship with UCC and the decision to participate in a UCC initiative
24 UCC operators to share information about one’s own operations can lead to a stronger commitment and the stronger the commitment, the higher the level of trust. As suppliers are currently not delivering all of their products or supplying all of their buyers via the UCC, the good relationship established with the UCC operators can reduce barriers for suppliers in the decision to deliver more goods and/or more buyers via a UCC.
Besides the supplier’s relationship with the UCC, the buyer also experiences working with the UCC operators as positive. The buyer has been involved in the UCC initiative and has therefore built a close relationship with the UCC operators. The TPL provider also stated to have a good relationship with the UCC operators. Knowing that the UCC is well available for all parties and that a close relationship with the UCC operators might reduce concerns suppliers may have, the following research proposition can be formulated:
P3. A close relationship between the UCC operators and the supplier, the buyer and the TPL provider can reduce barriers for suppliers in deciding to participate in a UCC initiative.
5.2 Theoretical contributions
25
Figure 5.2. Visualization of changes in dyadic relationships in distribution flow
In addition, this study provides new insights into which relational aspects play a role in a supplier’s decision to participate in a UCC initiative. This study adds to current knowledge on UCCs that aspects of buyer-seller relationships play an important, if not dominating role in this decision process. Customer value, quality service and flexibility in delivery have been mentioned as highly important to suppliers. As customer satisfaction, and thus customer retention, is critical for firm performance (Hill & Alexander, 2017), suppliers view this as a major organizational objective. Even if the use of a UCC would be cost beneficial, most suppliers value the safeguarding of quality service even more. The relationship with the buyer and meeting SLA is a high priority to all suppliers. Meeting SLAs is a prerequisite when participating in a UCC. Currently, the uncertainty of a UCC meeting these SLAs can be seen as a barrier for suppliers to participate.
5.3 Managerial contributions
26 supplier’s feeling of being engaged and willingness to collaborate with the UCC. As the relationship with the UCC is highly valued for all stakeholders, being the supplier, the buyer and the TPL-provider, barriers for using the UCC for other goods and buyers as well might be reduced. UCC operators should therefore pay significant attention to building strong relationships with all parties.
This study showed that a supplier’s decision to participate in a UCC initiative is directly influenced by pressure from buyers. When suppliers were pressured to use the UCC, many had their concerns. However, due to the close collaboration of the supplier, the UCC operator, the TPL provider and the buyer no supplier is dissatisfied with participating in the UCC initiative. Due to the participation of suppliers, the UCC is now fully operational with large volumes flowing through it. Therefore, coercive pressure from both the government, by making stricter rules and regulations, and the buyer, by including the use of a UCC in a tender, the number of participants needed to achieve financial viability can be easier met.
5.4. Policy implications
Stricter rules and regulations implemented by governments, such as time windows and capacity restrictions, are an increasing challenge for suppliers, TPL providers and buyers located in these city centers. UCCs can provide a solution to this challenge by reducing the number of vehicles in city centers, driving with environmentally friendly vehicles and adjusting delivery as such that they are not restricted by time windows (Gogas & Nathanail, 2017). However, as this study showed, suppliers that participate in the UCC initiative are not delivering all of their goods or supplying all of their buyers. This means that either the supplier or the TPL provider still has to enter the city center to deliver the remaining goods and supply the remaining buyers.
27
5.5 Limitations and future research
As all studies, this research has some limitations. First, all seven selected suppliers are already participating in a UCC initiative. This selection proved to give interesting insights into the effect of a UCC on relationships in the supply chain. In addition, as all suppliers have experienced working with a UCC, they were able to provide valuable insights about their feelings and opinions based on their experience. Their experience allowed them to explain if and how their opinion and relationships have changed compared to their initial concerns. However, this study did not include the perspective from suppliers who chose not to participate in a UCC initiative or those who are still deciding. To extend the knowledge on barriers for suppliers, future research could broaden the research on relational aspects with more cases that have decided not to participate in a UCC initiative or who are still deciding. This research could expand knowledge from this study by asking these suppliers what they experience as the main barrier(s) for not participating and to what extent relational aspects influence this barrier(s).
Another limitation of this study is that all suppliers who participate in a UCC initiative had little or no choice but to participate due to pressure from their buyer. This provided interesting insights into the effect of stakeholder pressure on sustainability issues. However, the selected cases provide a one-sided image, as all of the suppliers stated that they did not have a choice. Therefore, future research could focus on suppliers who are deciding to participate in a UCC initiative without pressures from any stakeholders. This will also provide more insights into what extent coercive pressure benefits the financial viability of the UCC and if this is a necessary evil to make UCC initiatives a success when there is no public funding available.
6. CONCLUSION
This research has highlighted the importance of relational aspects in a supplier’s decision to participate in a UCC initiative. This study extends the current knowledge of UCCs by
28 service and flexibility in delivery, are a major objective to suppliers and can therefore pose a barrier if a UCC is not able to meet these demands. This study also showed that close
29
REFERENCES
Allen, J., Browne, M., Woodburn, A.G. and Leonardi, J. (2014). A review of urban consolidation centres in the supply chain based on a case study approach. Supply Chain Forum: an International Journal, 15 (4), 100-112.
Bagchi, P. K. and Virum, H. (1998). Logistical alliances: trends and prospects in integrated Europe. Journal of Business Logistics, 19(1), 191–213.
Bask, A.H. (2001). Relationships among TPL providers and members of supply chains – a strategic perspective. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 16(6), 470-486
Björklund, M., Abrahamsson, M. and Johansson, H. (2017). Critical factors for viable business models for urban consolidation centres. Research in Transportation Economics, 64, 36-47
Browne, M., Woodburn, A. and Allen, J. (2007). Evaluating the potential for urban consolidation centres. European Transport, 35, 46–63.
Carbone, V. and Stone, M.A. (2005). Growth and relational strategies used by the European logistics service providers: rationale and outcomes. Transportation Research Part E:
Logistics and Transportation Review, 41(6), 495-510
Clements, M.D.J. and Wilson, M.M.J. (2009). Aligning 3PL service bundles with relational integration: a conceptual model. International Journal of Services Technology and
Management, 12(1), 88-105
De Weerd, P.D. (2017, June 27). UvA en HvA bundelen aanvoer in één hub. Retrieved from: https://www.logistiek.nl/distributie/nieuws/2017/06/uva-en-hva-bundelen-aanvoer-een-hub-101156866? [Accessed 22-06-2019]
30 Eisenhardt, K.M. (1989). Building Theories from Case Study Research. The Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 532-550
Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Boston: Pitman.
Freeman, R. E., Harrison, J. S. and Wicks, A. C. (2007). Managing for stakeholders: Survival, reputation, and success. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press
Freeman, R.E., Harrison, J.S. and Zyglidopolous, S. (2018). Stakeholder Theory: concepts and strategies (Elements in Organization Theory). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Galletta, A. (2013). Mastering the semi-structured interview and beyond: From research design to analysis and publication. New York: New York University press.
Gioia, D. A., Corley, K. and Hamilton, A.L. (2013). Seeking Qualitative Rigor in Inductive Research: notes on the Gioia Methodology, Organizational Research Methods, 16(1), 15-31
Gogas, M. A. and Nathanail, E. (2017). Evaluation of Urban Consolidation Centers: A Methodological Framework. Procedia Engineering, 178, 461-471
Hedvall, K., Dubois, A. and Lind, F. (2017). Variety in freight transport service procurement approaches, Transportation Research Procedia, 25, 806–823
Hill, N. and Alexander, J. (2017). Handbook of Customer Satisfaction and Loyalty Measurement. 3rd edition. London: Imprint Routledge.
Humphreys, M.A. and Williams, M.R. (1996). Exploring the Relative Effects of Salesperson Interpersonal Process Attributes and Technical Product Attributes on Customer Satisfaction. Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Management, 16(3), 47-57
Huo, B., Ye, Y. and Zhao, X. (2015). The impacts of trust and contracts on opportunism in the 3PL industry: the moderating role of demand uncertainty. International Journal of Production Economics, 170, 160-170
31 Janjevic, M. and Ndiaye, A. (2017). Investigating the theoretical cost-relationships of urban consolidation centres for their users. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 102, 98–118.
Karlsson, C. (2016). Research Methods for Operations Management. Research Methods for Operations Management. New York: Routledge.
Kin, B., Verlinde, S., Van Lier, T. and Macharis, C. (2016). Is there life after subsidy for an urban consolidation centre? An investigation of the total costs and benefits of a privately initiated concept. Transportation Research Procedia, 12, 357-369
Lagorio, A., Pinto, R. and Golini, R. (2016). Research in urban logistics: a systematic literature review. International Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics Management, 46(10), 908-931
Le Pira, M., Marcucci, E., Gatta, V., Ignaccolo, M., Inturri, G. and Pluchino, A. (2017). Towards a decision-support procedure to foster stakeholder involvement and acceptability of urban freight transport policies. European Transport Research Review, 9(4), 54.
Leuschner, R., Carter, C.R., Goldsby, T.J. and Rogers, Z. (2014). Third-Party Logistics: A Meta-Analytic Review and Investigation of Its Impact on Performance. Journal of Supply Chain Management, 50(1), 21-43
Marcucci, E. and Danielis, R. (2008). The potential demand for an urban freight consolidation centre. Transportation, 35, 269–284
Matuleviciene, M. and Stravinskiene, J. (2015). The Importance of Stakeholders for Corporate Reputation. Engineering Economics, 26(1), 75–83
32 Meehan, J. and Wright, G.H. (2012). The origins of power in buyer-seller relationships. Industrial Marketing Management, 41, 669-679
Nordtømme, M.E., Bjerkan, K.Y. and Sund, A.B. (2015). Barriers to urban freight policy implementation: The case of urban consolidation center in Oslo. Transport Policy, 44, 179-186
Oliver, C. (1991). Strategic Responses to Institutional Processes. Academy of Management Review, 16(1), 145-179
Paddeu, D. (2017). The Bristol-Bath urban freight consolidation centre from the perspective of its users. Case Studies on Transport Policy, 5(3), 483-491.
Park, E. (2019). The role of satisfaction on customer reuse to airline services: An application of Big Data approaches, Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 47, 370-374
Patterson, Z., Ewing, G.O. and Haider, M. (2010). How different is carrier choice for third party logistics companies? Transportation Research Part E, 46, 764–774
Roca-Riu, M., Estrada, M. and Fernández, E. (2016). An evaluation of urban consolidation centers through continuous analysis with non-equal market share companies. Transportation Research Procedia, 12, 370 – 382
Russo, F. and Comi, A. (2010). A classification of city logistics measures and connected impacts. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2, 6355–6365
Scott, W. R. (2003). Institutional carriers: reviewing modes of transporting ideas over time and space and considering their consequences. Industrial and corporate change, 12(4), 879-894.
33 Taniguchi, E. (2014). Concepts of city logistics for sustainable and liveable cities. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 151, 310 – 317
Taniguchi, E. and Van Der Heijden, R.E.C.M. (2000). An evaluation methodology for city logistics, Transport Reviews, 20(1), 65-90
Trautmann, G., Turkulainen, V., Hartmann, E. and Bals, L. (2009). Integration in the Global Sourcing Organization: An Information Processing Perspective. Journal of Supply Chain Management, 45(2), 57-74
Van Duin, J.H.R., Van Dam, T., Wiegmans, B. and Tavasszy, L.A. (2016). Understanding Financial Viability of Urban Consolidation Centres: Regent Street (London), Bristol/Bath & Nijmegen. Transportation Research Procedia, 16, 61-80
Van Hoek, R.I. (2000). The Purchasing and Control of Supplementary Third-Party Logistics Services. The Journal of Supply Chain Management, 36(4), 14–26.
Vasiliauskas, A. and Jakubauskas, G. (2007). Principles and benefits of third party logistics approach when managing logistics supply chain. Transport, 12(2), 69-72
Wolf, J. (2014). The Relationship Between Sustainable Supply Chain Management,
Stakeholder Pressure and Corporate Sustainability Performance. Journal of Business Ethics, 119, 317–328
Yin, R. K. (1994). Case Study Research Design and Methods: Applied Social Research and Methods Series. Second edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications Inc.
35
APPENDIX A. TIME SCHEDULE
Planning Master Thesis 2019
MSc. Supply Chain Management M T W T F M T W T F M T W T F M T W T F M T W T F Group meeting with P. Buijs
Personal meeting with P. Buijs Familiarize with theme
Deadlines by P. Buijs Deadlines by the course
M T W T F M T W T F M T W T F M T W T F M T W T F Group meeting with P. Buijs
Personal meeting with P. Buijs Working on introduction Working on theoretical background Working on methodology
Deadlines by P. Buijs Deadlines by the course
M T W T F M T W T F M T W T F M T W T F M T W T F Personal meeting with P. Buijs
Working on interview protocol Planning interviews Conducting interviews Transcribing
Revidsing Research Proposal
Deadlines by P. Buijs Deadlines by the course
M T W T F M T W T F M T W T F M T W T F M T W T F Personal meeting with P. Buijs
Conducting interviews Transcribing Analysing data Writing results
Deadlines by P. Buijs Deadlines by the course
M T W T F M T W T F M T W T F M T W T F M T W T F Personal meeting with P. Buijs
Thesis related events Conducting interviews Transcribing Writing results Writing discussion Writing conclusion Finalizing Thesis Deadlines by P. Buijs Deadlines by the course
M T W T F
Deadline by the couse
24 May 2019
20 May 2019 27 May 2019 3 June 2019 10 June 2019 17 June 2019 1 april 2019 8 april 2019
15 april 2019 22 april 2019 29 april 2019 6 May 2019 13 May 2019 21 Jan. 2019 28 Jan. 2019 10 Dec. 2018
4 Feb. 2019 11 Feb. 2019 18 Feb. 2019 25 Feb. 2019 4 March 2019
36
APPENDIX B. CODING TREE
37
First order concepts Second order themes Aggregate dimension
38
APPENDIX C. QUOTES
Quote Coding
name First-order code “Als een lamp kapot is kunnen wij dat aan de klant doorgeven dat we
net in die ruimte zijn geweest. Dat is wel een dienst die wij hebben voor [klant]. Dat is zo groot, zo complex. Wij zijn de ogen en oren van de [klant]. Als iets kapot is, geven wij dat aan.”
S1 Supplier is the ‘eyes and ears’ of the
buyer
“Het leveren via de hub heeft zonder meer een positief effect op de
service naar onze klant.” S2
Delivery via UCC has positive impact on quality service
“Wij bieden ook Desktop delivery aan. […]. Ik hoor daar bij de hub
weinig klachten over, dat de dienstverlening minder is.” S3
UCC is able to perform desktop delivery without complaints from
customer “Ik moet wel zeggen, de relatie via de hub, dat maakt het wel wat
nauwer, je bent wel meer betrokken. Je hebt een gemeenschappelijk belang, de leverancier heeft zijn eigen belang, wij hebben ons eigen belang. Als dat dan samenkomt en het werkt, het ondersteunt elkaar, dan denk ik wel dat je daar meer uit kan halen. […]. Dat is onze ervaring. Je zit vaker met elkaar om de tafel, je ziet elkaar vaker. Dat is wel een groot verschil.”
C1 Deliveries via hub make relationship
with supplier closer
“We gaan vaak langs onze klant. De klant waardeert dat ook echt.
Dat is ook wel echt noodzakelijk.” S7 Buyer values personal contact
“De toegevoegde waarde zit in de service die wij leveren, niet het
transport.” S1 Added value for buyer lies in personal contact, not transport
“Het persoonlijk contact is het allerbelangrijkste. Daarmee zijn we zo
snel gegroeid.” S5
Personal contact with buyers most important reason for quick growth “Persoonlijk contact is niet belangrijk. In zo’n gebouw als dit, de
besteller zit hier, die interesseert het niets wanneer het komt, als het maar op tijd komt en als het SLA maar wordt voldaan en als het onbeschadigd komt.”
S2 Personal contact not important
“Sterker nog, wat je zegt, er zijn ook klanten waar we internationale contracten mee hebben. Daar moeten we aan een aantal KPIs voldoen. […]. De voorwaarden die zij stellen staan haaks op wat de zo’n gemeente in een keer bedenkt. Wij kunnen dat dan ook niet zomaar zeggen, dan leveren we dat af bij een hub. Dat werkt niet, dat is contractueel.”
S3
Contractual obligations with buyer prevent supplier from participating in
a UCC initiative
“Het was absoluut geen vrijwilligheid, het moet gewoon. We hadden
geen keus.” S2
Pressure from buyer leads to participating in a UCC initiative “Door het mee te nemen in een aanbesteding, dat geeft ons een stukje
ja, macht klinkt zo denigrerend. Maar door het op te leggen, mee te nemen als eis, moeten ze wel. Want ze willen ons heel graag als klant.”
C2
“We zeiden tegen hen [vervoerder]: jullie moeten daar en daar heen.
Wij betalen van hier naar daar, meer niet.” S5
Demanding from TPL provider to deliver to the UCC was no problem “De relatie met onze vervoerder is puur zakelijk.”
S2 Relationship with TPL provider is
purely business “De producten worden geleverd door de vervoerder, en de diensten
worden geleverd door onszelf.” S2
TPL provider only responsible for delivering goods “Wij hebben een vervoerder vanwege geld. Zij zijn weer goedkoper
in het zuiden van het land. Die ander die is hier lokaal weer goedkoper.”
S5 Choice of TPL provider based on
39
“Het is voor ons geen probleem om een andere vervoerder te kiezen
die goedkoper en/of beter is. Daar hebben wij geen emotie mee.” S5
No emotional bond with TPL provider, willing to switch “In aanbestedingen staat je duurzame verhaal en als wij met een
vervoerder werken, contractueel, dan moeten we ook met hun het duurzame verhaal kunnen aanbieden. Als zij daarin achterblijven dan kiezen we voor een ander.”
S4
If TPL provider is not able to meet sustainable demands, supplier will
switch “We kiezen bewust voor een vervoerder. De berekening van is het
efficiënter om eigen wagens, chauffeurs te hebben of met een vervoerder te werken. Daarin zie je dat als je eigen vervoer zou hebben, dan breng je alleen je eigen pakketjes weg. […]. De vervoerder hun kracht zit in fijnmazige distributie, op elke straat hebben ze 100 leveringen. Dan heb je een heel ander kostenmodel dan als wij dat zelf zouden moeten doen.”
S3 Choice for TPL provider because it is
cheaper than own transport
“Wij hebben toevallig deze vervoerder maar het kan ook iets anders
zijn.” S7
No specific reason for choice of TPL provider
“Ik doe persoonlijk al 12 jaar zaken mee, [bedrijf] zelf al well langer
geloof ik. […]. De relatie is 100% waardevol voor ons.” S6 Valuable relationship with TPL provider
“Ik heb bewerkstelligd dat de monteurs ook wisten wat voor een
meubels het waren, dat ze ook konden monteren.” S6
Investment in TPL provider to perform service “Destijds hebben ze allemaal een week lang alle meubels in de
assemblage afdeling gemonteerd en een interne opleiding gekregen.” S6
“Mij zou het niets uitmaken als andere voertuigen de goederen leveren. Ik denk dat degene van de faculteit dat ook niet zo veel uitmaakt. Het belang is dat het wordt geleverd en dat het proces soepel verloopt, en dat er geen verstoringen bij zijn. […]. Het stukje herkenning maakt niet zo veel uit.”
C1 Recognition of vehicle is not
important
“Stel je voor om de hele distributie uit te besteden […]. Misschien is dat technisch wel mogelijk. Maar wat los je er mee op? Die producten laten zich wel bundelen, maar waarom zou je producten gaan bundelen als je toch met een graad van 95-100% naar binnen gaat en weer terug gaat?”
S1 Consolidation at the UCC does not
increase efficiency
“We hadden geen keuze. Maar het is helemaal niet erg, want het is
best een leerzaam traject geweest.” S2 Forced relationship with UCC
“De hub is superfijn. Ik ken [hub operator] ook, jij hebt hem ook gezien. [Naam], de commercieel directeur, daar spreek ik eens in de maand wel eens mee af, hoe gaan dingen, hoe lopen dingen, wat kan beter.”
S2 Close relationship with UCC operators
“Wij hebben gewoon onze visie gegeven van hoe zouden wij het doen. Vanuit onze logistieke bril. Dat er misschien andere keuzes worden gemaakt, dat kan, maar dan hebben we wel onze input geleverd.”
O1 UCC operators assist suppliers
“Nu hebben we in het begin gemerkt dat we wekelijks wel merken van we missen dit of we missen dat. Maar ik denk dat de hub ook moet wennen aan het uitsorteringsproces, want de laatste weken/maanden is het echt goed.”
S3 Supplier is satisfied with UCC
“Het idee kwam van [naam] via Verkeer en Openbare Ruimte. […]. Toen we wisten hoe we het wilden hebben we een meervoudige onderhandse uitvraag gedaan van partijen van wie we wisten dat ze elektrische middelen hadden. Daar is [hub] de gegunde partij voor geworden.”
40
“In de afgelopen jaren zijn we steeds bezig met onze ideeën uit te wisselen en vorm te geven. Over alle hick-ups heen te stappen en herinrichten. Nou ja, we zitten nog steeds met elkaar aan tafel.”
C2
Good relationship between buyer and UCC
“De relatie met de hub is goed. Als er bijvoorbeeld iets zoek is, dan nemen we meteen contact op en binnen een uur krijgen we reactie. De voorwaarde is wel dat we nauw en goed moeten samenwerken.”
C1
“De klant heeft altijd heel duidelijk gezegd: jullie zijn de experts,
denk met ons mee.” O1
“Elke vervoerder is wel blij als ze ergens lucht krijgen, als je kijkt naar wat er door particulieren online besteld wordt, als het via een hub gaat. Ze zien het niet als bedreiging want ze krijgen toch wel betaald.”
S4 TPL provider does not see UCC as a
threat
“Wij zien de hub als een nieuwe klant. Het is niet zo dat door de samenwerking ons proces heel anders loopt, het is gewoon een heel
nieuw proces.” T1
Collaborating with UCC does not affect TPL’s current process “Ik denk dat we een hele mooie samenwerking hebben opgetuigd.
[…]. Ik ben zeer tevreden over de samenwerking.” T1
Good relationship between TPL provider and UCC “Het is nieuw, voor ons allemaal. […] We zijn nu met heel veel
verschillende stakeholders en dat vraagt wel de nodige aandacht. Processen gaan niet altijd heel snel, wat betreft besluitvorming, dus dat maakt het soms wel uitdagend. Maar ik denk dat we allemaal de juiste intentie hebben en het gezamenlijke doel voor de toekomst. We willen allemaal een belangrijke rol spelen in duurzame stadslogistiek. […] Maar omdat het nieuw is, moeten steeds blijven leren.”
41
APPENDIX D. INTERVIEW PROTOCOL
1. Information research project (Dutch)Aanleiding
De combinatie van de toenemende vraag naar goederenvervoer en de steeds strengere regelgeving zoals milieuzones en venstertijden zetten de logistieke sector onder druk. Een mogelijke oplossing voor dit probleem is het gebruik van een goederenhub. In een goederenhub kunnen goederen van verschillende leveranciers worden verzameld en vervolgens (met kleinere, mogelijk zero-emissie voertuigen) in een efficiënte route worden afgeleverd bij klanten. Dit kan verschillende voordelen opleveren, zoals minder CO2-uitstoot, meer
betrouwbare levertijden en minder verkeersdrukte in de binnenstad.
Onderzoek
Vanuit de Rijksuniversiteit Groningen (RuG) wordt onderzoek gedaan naar het gebruik van goederenhubs. Ik, student van de masteropleiding Supply Chain Management, doe van februari tot en met juni 2019 voor mijn scriptie onderzoek naar het perspectief van leveranciers op goederenhubs. Leveranciers zijn een belangrijke stakeholder omdat zij vaak de partij is die beslist om al dan niet via een hub te leveren. Het doel van het onderzoek is tweeledig: (1) inzicht krijgen in de redenen van leveranciers om wel of niet van een goederenhub gebruik te maken en (2) bepalen van de (potentiële) relationele impact van het gebruiken van een goederenhub op alle betrokken stakeholders in de supply chain.
Benodigde informatie
Om een compleet beeld te krijgen, zou ik graag een aantal medewerkers van verschillende afdelingen binnen de organisatie spreken die invloed hebben op het distributieproces. Hierbij valt te denken aan logistiek managers, transportplanners, salesmanagers en contractmanagers. Om het onderzoek op tijd af te kunnen ronden, zouden de gesprekken en de dataverzameling bij voorkeur plaatsvinden in maart/april 2019.
Uitkomsten onderzoek
43
2. Information research project (English)
Background and purpose of the research
The demand for goods in cities is increasing, while at the same time ensuring social security and quality of life. In addition, an increase in freight traffic in the inner city has a negative impact on the environment and road safety. A solution that is proposed for this problem is to use an Urban Consolidation Center (UCC). In this interview, the UCC will be referred to as hub.
44
3. Interview protocol suppliers
Introductie
• Bedanken voor meewerken aan het onderzoek
• Voorstelronde
• Toestemming vragen om het gesprek op te nemen voor analyse doeleinden.
• Vragen of anonimiteit persoon/organisatie gewenst is
• Duur van het gesprek: 60-90 minuten
Achtergrond en doel van het onderzoek
1. Door verstedelijking is de last-mile distributie van goederen een trending-topic. Onderzoek heeft aangetoond dat er op het gebied van stadslogistiek een efficiëntieslag behaald kan worden. Het gebruik van goederenhubs is een mogelijke oplossing die in de huidige literatuur wordt gezien als een efficiënte en economisch haalbare oplossing. Echter, in de praktijk merkt men dat veel initiatieven falen. Eén van de hoofdredenen is onvoldoende volume.
2. Wat we op dit moment zien, is dat leveranciers die momenteel via de hub leveren, dit niet op eigen initiatief doen. Ze worden gedwongen door klanten die hun inkoopkracht
gebruiken om leveranciers ertoe te zetten te leveren via de hub. Doordat de leverancier verantwoordelijk is voor de keuze van transport, kan deze een belangrijke invloed uitoefenen op de volumes van hubs. Echter zijn leveranciers nog niet zo huiverig op het gebruik van hubs. De redenen hiervoor willen wij graag nader bekijken.
3. We komen kijken wat de effecten zijn van het (potentieel) gebruik van de hub. We willen proberen een generiek beeld te creëren over de factoren die de keuze van de leverancier beïnvloeden om al dan niet te leveren via een goederenhub.
4. Doel van de case study: inzichten krijgen in de impact op relaties binnen de supply chain en hoe deze relaties het beslissingsproces van een leverancier om wel of niet mee te werken aan een hub beïnvloeden
Begin interview
