Integrating B2C Parcel Delivery with B2B City Distribution

(1)

Integrating B2C Parcel Delivery with B2B

City Distribution

A design science approach

MSc Technology and Operations Management

University of Groningen, Faculty of Economics and Business

Arie Bijl

a.bijl.6@student.rug.nl

Student number: S2362724

Supervisor: Prof. dr. K.J. Roodbergen, University of Groningen

Second assessor: Dr. ir. S. Fazi, University of Groningen

January 29

th

, 2018

Acknowledgements:

(2)

2 Abstract

The growth of e-commerce has led to an increasing number of deliveries to cities. Currently, last-mile delivery is inefficient with a low drop density, which has negative environmental and societal consequences for cities. This paper introduces Integrated City Distribution, an innovative concept that integrates B2C parcel delivery with B2B city distribution in the same delivery route from Urban Consolidation Centres, in order to attain a higher drop density. Three existing parcel distribution concepts are designed within Integrated City Distribution through a design-science approach and validated through interviews with stakeholders from practice. The findings indicate that parcel lockers, pickup points and micro-hubs each have distinctive strengths and weaknesses within Integrated City Distribution. A refined solution is designed, involving an integration of parcel delivery and collection from micro-hubs. Although Integrated City Distribution could increase the drop density, it may also lead to higher costs, higher delivery lead times and conflicts with the current interests of key stakeholders in last-mile distribution.

Keywords: Last-mile delivery, B2C parcel delivery, B2B city distribution, urban

consolidation centres, parcel lockers, pickup points, micro-hubs

(3)

3

1. INTRODUCTION

Today, the internet is commonly used as a means to purchase goods (Cherrett et al., 2017). This trend is illustrated in the dramatic growth of global e-commerce sales, which is expected to exceed $10 trillion worldwide by 2018, where business-to-consumers (B2C) sales represent around $2.4 trillion (Weber, 2017; Ducret, 2014). Due to the rise in online shopping, more and more vehicle trips are required to deliver goods to receivers in cities (Allen et al., 2017). As a consequence, delivery vehicles may visit the same streets more than three times per day (Financieel Dagblad, 2016). The final delivery phase, which is referred to as the ‘last mile’, is a direct cause of traffic congestion, noise and pollution in cities (Savelsbergh and Van Woensel, 2016). Currently, last-mile delivery to stores and consumers in cities are carried out in separate delivery rounds from national, regional or local distribution centres (Topsector Logistiek, 2017). This is done by multiple logistics service providers with often only partially filled vehicles, resulting in a low drop density, which refers to the number of deliveries per delivery round (Gevaers et al., 2011, p.11). An idea from practice is to integrate last-mile delivery to stores and consumers, using hubs in urban areas to consolidate deliveries to stores and deliveries to parcel distribution points in city centres (Hendriks, 2017). Thereby, a higher drop density could be attained, which could result in substantial savings in kilometres, emissions and costs (Quak, 2012).

In B2B distribution to stores in cities, a well-known initiative that increases the drop density of last-mile delivery is the City Distribution concept (Allen et al., 2017). This refers to the consolidation of B2B shipments from multiple freight carriers at Urban Consolidation

Centres (UCCs), which are hubs closely located to the city, from which the bundled final

delivery is made (Triantafyllou et al., 2014). This entails that shipments from multiple carriers are delivered to stores in the city through the same last-mile delivery round. The city distribution network mostly supplies to small retail stores, which are ordering more frequently and in smaller volumes nowadays (Ducret, 2014). The main benefit of the city distribution concept is that fewer vehicle trips are required for delivery to stores, which reduces emissions and congestion in the city centre (Cherrett et al., 2017).

(6)

6 In order to deliver parcels more sustainably and efficiently in cities, a solution suggested in practice is to integrate parcel delivery with the city distribution network (Hendriks, 2017). This idea implies that goods designated for stores and consumers are consolidated in UCCs and delivered to the city using the same delivery rounds. In these delivery rounds, stores would be supplied directly from the UCC, whereas parcels for consumers would be delivered to parcel distribution points in the city centre. For example, parcels could be delivered to a

Micro-hub, which is a small distribution point set-up much closer to the city centre compared

to the UCC. From these Micro-hubs, the final delivery to consumers’ homes can be carried out with a bicycle or handcart (Janjevic and Ndiaye, 2014). Other options to deliver parcels to the city from the UCC include Parcel lockers, which are groups of box units located at public places, where parcels can be collected by consumers at any time of the day (Iwan et al., 2016; Morganti et al., 2014). Throughout this paper, the bundled last-mile delivery of B2B and B2C shipments by the same vehicle, from UCCs to the city, is referred to as Integrated City

Distribution.

In this paper, we design a solution within the Integrated City Distribution concept in order to increase the drop density of last-mile distribution. The designed solution consists of multiple components, where each component represents a parcel distribution concept in the city that is supplied from the Integrated City Distribution network. We focus explicitly on the last-mile delivery from the UCC to the city. Thus, the delivery of parcels to UCCs and the return flows of parcels from the city are left aside for our present purpose.

We do this through a design science study. As part of the design science approach, this paper answers the following sub-questions:

 Which urban parcel distribution concepts are available in literature?

 Who are the main stakeholders involved in the solution design according to literature?  What are their goals?

 Which requirements should the solution meet?

(7)

7

2. BACKGROUND

This chapter consists of a literature review of several important concepts related to last-mile distribution. As discussed in Chapter 1, the central objective of this paper is developing a solution that increases the drop density of last-mile distribution. Section 2.1 further addresses the drop density measure, as well as the differences with other measures that can be used to assess the efficiency within last-mile distribution. Section 2.2 provides a further explanation of city distribution, since the designed solution considers the integration of parcel delivery with city distribution. Since these flows would be integrated at UCCs, this concept is also further explained here. Section 2.3 further elaborates on parcel delivery, whereas Section 2.4 provides a comparison of city distribution and parcel delivery in order to discuss the most important differences between both types of delivery. Section 2.5 provides an overview of existing parcel distribution concepts that are currently used to deliver parcels to cities. Since these concepts could be components of the designed solution within Integrated City Distribution, the most important differences and similarities between these alternatives are discussed. Finally, Section 2.6 describes the stakeholders involved in the solution, as well as their main goals.

2.1 Last-mile distribution

This section distinguishes between the most important goals related to last-mile distribution. As already addressed in Chapter 1, the growth of e-commerce has resulted in an increasing number deliveries to cities (Savelsbergh and Van Woensel, 2016; Ducret, 2014). This development has an impact on several performance measures in the last mile, such as the

mileage (i.e. distance travelled in miles or kilometres), load factors (i.e. the utilization of

vehicles), and drop densities (Edwards et al., 2010; Quak, 2012). Many initiatives that are being implemented by carriers or shippers aim to increase the efficiency in the last mile by reducing the mileage, by improving load factors or by increasing drop densities (Allen et al., 2017). These initiatives often also reduce the pressure placed on the road network in cities (Allen et al., 2017) and therefore, these measures do not only influence economical aspects, but also environmental and societal aspects (Arviddson et al., 2013; Edwards et al., 2010).

(8)

8 significantly over the course of the last-mile delivery round (Arviddson et al, 2013), whereas the drop density usually remains constant (Edwards et al., 2010). Therefore, our study focuses on the drop density of last-mile distribution.

One way to increase the drop density is by consolidating goods from multiple carriers to a given geographic area, such as a postal code, which can result in decreased costs and emissions per drop (Savelsbergh and Van Woensel, 2016; Quak, 2012). This is essentially what is done in a city distribution network, which is addressed in the next section.

2.2 City Distribution

The city distribution concept has been highly popularized in literature due to its potential environmental benefits (Allen et al., 2012). As already mentioned in Chapter 1, city distribution entails the consolidation of B2B goods from multiple freight carriers at UCCs, which are typically located in close proximity to the city centre (Triantafyllou et al., 2014). Hence, UCCs are not dedicated to a specific carrier (Van Rooijen and Quak, 2010; Topsector Logistiek, 2017). Currently, the city distribution network is mostly used to supply small retail stores, restaurants and offices (Cherrett et al., 2017) and attains a higher drop density in the last mile by consolidating high frequency, low volume deliveries (Van Rooijen and Quak, 2010). In contrast, large retail chains with stores in multiple cities are more commonly supplied through full-truckload delivery from centrally located distribution centres (Topsector Logistiek, 2017). This type of delivery is already highly efficient and therefore not seen as suitable for urban consolidation initiatives (Van Rooijen and Quak, 2010).

One common objection to UCCs is the assertion that they lead to higher delivery costs as a result of double handling (Allen et al., 2017). The extra handling of materials typically also leads to longer delivery lead times, which refers to the time between consumers placing orders and deliveries being made (Allen et al., 2017, p.1). On the other hand, the consolidation of goods at UCCs could result in cost reductions in other aspects through, for example, less time being spent on deliveries in congested areas and higher drop densities in the last mile (Allen et al., 2012). However, the most important benefit from city distribution is its positive effects on cities and their inhabitants (Van Rooijen and Quak, 2010). This is due to the fact that fewer vehicles with higher drop densities are used for store deliveries, which can reduce congestion and noise in cities (Cherrett et al., 2017). At the same time, freight carriers can benefit from the initiative by having only one drop location instead of many deliveries across city centres (Triantafyllou et al., 2014).

2.3 Parcel delivery

(9)

9 al., 2017; Cherrett et al., 2017). Thereby, the unaligned delivery rounds are carried out more frequently, further decreasing the drop density (Allen et al., 2017).

In a recent study by Cherrett et al. (2017), the effects of consolidating parcels from multiple carriers in a UCC is considered based on a delivery audit and an online shopping survey. Although not actually implemented in practice, their findings suggest that consolidated parcel delivery to 14 student halls of residence across Southampton could lead to a decrease from 13.000 courier trips to less than 300 consolidated trips annually. This suggests that consolidation of parcels from multiple carriers in UCCs could significantly increase the drop density. However, Cherrett et al. (2017) do not consider the integration with store deliveries. Since our study does consider this integration, Section 2.4 discusses the most important differences between city distribution and parcel delivery.

2.4 A comparison of city distribution and parcel delivery

Literature suggests that there are key differences between last-mile distribution to stores and consumers. In general, parcel delivery is considered as much more complex and inefficient than city distribution (Allen et al., 2012; Bask et al., 2012). In this section, we make a comparison between both types of delivery to cities.

A first main difference between city distribution and parcel delivery, is that the latter is typically focused around areas with relatively high inter-drop distances (i.e. distances between delivery locations), whereas the city distribution network mostly supplies to stores in city centres with low inter-drop distances (Bask et al., 2012). Second, the possibility of a failed delivery is much larger in parcel delivery (Gevaers et al., 2009) A failed delivery occurs if the consumer is not at home when the final delivery is made, which is undesirable for consumers, but also leads to inefficient operations for parcel carriers. This happens much more often is parcel delivery, since consumers are oftentimes away from home during delivery hours, whereas store opening hours are known in advance by the carrier (Gevaers et al., 2009; Song et al., 2009). According to Morganti et al. (2014), another key difference is that delivery to businesses often involves larger delivery volumes to one location, whereas delivery to consumers is much more fragmented, where the delivery often entails a single parcel. A final main difference relates to the very narrow delivery windows of parcel delivery to homes. Since many time slots may be used, the number of parcel delivery rounds to cities increase, decreasing the drop density (Agatz et al., 2008). According to Gevaers et al. (2011), the time sensitivity of parcel delivery leaves less scope for the consolidation of goods, like in city distribution.

(10)

10

2.5 Urban parcel distribution concepts

In literature, many alternative parcel distribution concepts have been proposed in order to overcome problems associated with parcel delivery to cities, such as failed deliveries and high inter-drop distances (Morganti et al., 2014; Allen et al., 2017; Iwan et al., 2016). These distribution concepts aim to increase the delivery efficiency in the last mile. This is often achieved by increasing the number of successful first-time deliveries, by reducing the distances between deliveries across cities or by consolidating goods closer to the reception point (Morganti et al., 2014; Ducret, 2014; Janjevic and Ndiaye, 2014). In this section, a distinction is made between attended and unattended parcel distribution concepts.

Attended Collection Points

Pickup points

Pickup points in cities have been introduced as a solution for home-delivery failures (Weltevreden, 2008). In this delivery method, parcels are delivered to designated pickup points (e.g. local shops, convenience stores) by parcel carriers. Consumers are informed through a message when a parcel is ready for collection (Morganti et al., 2014). Hence, the consumer is required to make the final leg of the journey. Besides reducing delivery failures, pickup points also result in improved drop densities by increasing the number of deliveries made per drop (Iwan et al., 2016). This alternative is most suitable for high density city centres or residential areas which are easily accessible (Visser et al., 2014).

Click & Collect services

Large online retailers that also have a physical store in cities have started using click & collect services (Allen et al., 2017). In this concept, ordered items of online retailers are delivered to the physical store in cities and collected by consumers (Visser et al., 2014). Similar to pickup points, this concept also reduces delivery failures and allows larger volumes of parcels to be delivered to one location, improving the drop density (Allen et al., 2017). However, click & collect services can provide better service to consumers, as the point of collection is the store itself. Also, it can increase the cost-efficiency due to larger number of shipments to one location (Visser et al., 2014).

Unattended Collection Points

Parcel lockers

(11)

11 2008). Besides, this concept is also perceived as less personal by consumers (Morganti et al., 2014).

Shared reception boxes

Shared reception boxes are in many ways similar to parcel lockers. The main difference is that shared reception boxes are typically sited in high density residential areas around blocks of apartments or flats (Wang et al., 2014). In contrast to parcel lockers, shared reception boxes are only accessible to a specific group of people that live in the remote area (Moroz and Polkowski, 2016). For consumers, shared reception boxes are, compared to the previous alternatives, most convenient in terms of the travel time and flexibility to collect parcels, as they are located close to the consumer’s home. From the carrier’s perspective, investment costs in shared reception boxes may be high, but studies suggest that they can reduce overall delivery costs by more than 50% (Punakivi and Tanskanen, 2002).

Micro-hubs

Up till now, the distribution concepts that have been discussed entail the final delivery point of parcels, where consumers have to travel a certain distance for collection. In contrast, micro-hubs have been introduced to consolidate goods closer to the final delivery point in cities, from where delivery rounds with shorter inter-drop distances are carried out (Janjevic and Ndiaye, 2014). A micro-hub facility can take many forms, such as a container, an empty store premise or a mobile form, such as a trailer or truck (Ducret, 2014). In these facilities, deliveries can be transferred from a truck to flexible and non-polluting vehicles, such as bicycles, which are used for the delivery to the final consumer addresses (Janjevic and Ndiaye, 2014). Micro-hubs offer the advantage of green and efficient distribution in the city centre through delivery by bicycles and by downscaling the consolidation effort (Janjevic et al., 2013). However, due to the extra consolidation, handling and costs of the facility, this concept can only endure in the long-term if the costs and benefits are shared among participating parties through a sound business model (Allen et al., 2017)

2.6 Overview of stakeholders

The challenge for last-mile distribution is not solely in designing and implementing innovative solutions that increase the efficiency, but also in making the solution fair and acceptable for all stakeholders involved (Harrington et al., 2016). Each involved stakeholder has different goals which need to be taken into account (Ballantyne et al., 2013). In this section, the stakeholders involved in the Integrated City Distribution solution are described, it is motivated why they are involved as stakeholders and finally, their main goals are provided in Table 2.1. The main stakeholders are: UCCs, receivers, parcel carriers, shippers and the local government.

Urban Consolidation Centres (UCCs)

(12)

12 Receivers

This stakeholder group refers to end consumers and businesses. Consumer receivers refer to private individuals in or close to the city, whereas business receivers are (retail) stores that receive goods through the City Distribution network. As consumers are demanding ever faster, reliable and convenient delivery services, they are a key stakeholder to consider (Allen et al., 2017).

Parcel carriers

Parcel carriers are companies that deliver light-weight parcels (31.5kg at most), within specific timeframes, to consumers (Ducret, 2014). Currently, they are responsible for last-mile deliveries from their own regional or local distribution centres. In the Netherlands, the number of active B2C parcel carriers is relatively limited. The market is dominated by a few large players, which are: PostNL, DHL, GLS, DPD and UPS (Topsector Logistiek, 2017).

Shippers

This category encompasses the actors who send their parcels and arrange distribution (Ballantyne et al., 2013). Shippers are an important stakeholder to consider, since they are clients of parcel carriers that carry out the delivery of parcels. Since our research is in the context of e-commerce, this stakeholder category only encompasses retailers selling their goods via the internet.

Local government

This category encompasses the local authorities that set regulations on the local road network and the accessibility of the city centre. Local authorities create both opportunities and barriers for last-mile distribution (Ballantyne et al., 2013). They do so in order to maintain an attractive urban area. Local authorities may also have a role in facilitating for available space and subsidies for UCCs (Allen et al., 2012). This stakeholder group also includes the residents in cities.

Stakeholder goals

(13)

(14)

14

(15)

3. METHODOLOGY

In this section, it is described how this research is conducted. Section 3.1 motivates the choice for the design science methodology. Section 3.2 explains and motivates the steps of the regulative design science cycle that are executed in this study. In Section 3.3, the process of data collection through interviews is described, including the aim of the interviews and the details of the participants. Finally, Section 3.4 discusses how the data is analysed.

3.1 Choice for the Design Science method

The methodology of this research is design science, since the aim of this research is primarily related to problem solving, rather than the accumulation of theoretical knowledge (Holmström et al., 2009). Two important components of design science research are the focus on a practical problem that is experienced by stakeholders, and the focus on an intervention or solution (Van Aken, 2007). Unlike other methods that are used in Operations management research, the ultimate goal of design science is to change the current state of the world by solving this practical problem (Holmström et al., 2009). In order to reach this goal, first a deep understanding of the problem situation and its context should be developed. Afterwards, a solution to this problem is designed (Van Aken et al., 2016). Both of these design science components are in line with the goal of this research. In this research, first an understanding of the problems related to last-mile distribution is developed. Next, the goal is to design a solution for this problem by inventing something new, by integrating existing theories or by adapting existing solutions of other contexts to the context of Integrated City Distribution (Holmström et al., 2009). In this study, we adapt an existing solution in the B2B context, since Integrated City Distribution involves the integration of parcel delivery with city distribution. In addition, existing urban parcel distribution concepts are considered within this new context.

3.2 The Regulative Design Science Cycle

This design science research is executed by following the regulative design science cycle, since this is a suitable approach to solve practical problems (Wieringa, 2009). This section explains how the steps of the regulative design science cycle are executed in this study.

Problem investigation

The first step of this cycle is to do a problem investigation. In order to perform the problem investigation, Section 2.6 identified the main stakeholders and their goals from literature. Hence, in Chapter 2, the following sub-question is answered:

 Who are the main stakeholders involved in the solution design according to literature?  What are their goals?

(16)

16 Integrated City Distribution is further explained, the design inputs are determined and the requirements of the solution are derived from this list of stakeholder goals (Wieringa, 2009). Thereby, the following sub-question is answered:

 Which requirements should the solution meet?

Solution Design

In the solution design phase of the regulative design cycle, a solution is developed to solve a practical problem (Wieringa, 2009). In our study, the input for the solution design was obtained through face-to-face conversations with an expert of city distribution from practice and through literature. In this step of the regulative design science cycle, urban parcel distribution concepts are designed within the scope of Integrated City Distribution, in order to be able to deliver parcels to cities through this network. Therefore, existing parcel distribution concepts are identified from literature in Section 2.5, which answers the following sub-question:

 Which urban parcel distribution concepts are available in literature?

Since several urban parcel distribution concepts are designed within Integrated City Distribution, the separate designs are referred to as solution components. These are introduced in Chapter 4.

Design Validation

In the design validation phase, the designed solution is evaluated. There are many evaluation methods that can be used in design science (Hevner et al., 2004). In choosing an appropriate method for evaluation, Venable et al. (2012) distinguish between ex ante and ex post evaluation, as well as artificial (in an unreal setting) and naturalistic evaluation (in a real setting). In our study, the design is developed prior to the evaluation and therefore involves an ex post evaluation. Furthermore, a naturalistic evaluation method is more suitable than artificial evaluation (Venable et al., 2012). This is because the designed solution has to please heterogeneous groups of stakeholders and the effectiveness of the solution should be evaluated in a real-world context. For such an evaluation, case studies are viewed as an appropriate method (Hevner et al., 2004; Venable et al., 2012), since a case study allows for the evaluation of a design within a real-world context (Costa et al., 2016). Within this approach, interviews can be used for the ex post validation of a design (Costa et al., 2016). In this study, this is executed by interviewing multiple stakeholders from practice about the effects and the feasibility of the design, which is further addressed in Section 3.3.

(17)

17 solution components is made in order to analyze how each solution component satisfies solution requirements (Wieringa, 2009).

The external validity of the design is not explicitly tested in this research. Thus, we cannot state with certainty that the design would have the same effects if implemented in a slightly different context (Wieringa, 2009). However, we hypothesize that the design can be used for multiple types of goods, within different cities and by various companies, since different and geographically dispersed company participants are included within most stakeholder groups.

The design validation relates to the following sub-question:

 What is the validity of the designed solution according to stakeholders in practice?

Design Refinement

The last step of the regulative design cycle, which is the implementation of the solution, is not executed in this study due to time constraints. Instead, in line with the iterative and cyclical aspect of design science (Van Aken et al., 2016; Wieringa, 2009), the design is refined based on the design validation phase. This is because the evaluation of a design can result in the identification of weaknesses and areas for improvement (Hevner et al., 2004). This refined design is not validated in our research due to time constraints.

3.3 Data Collection

The company involved in this study is Binnenstadservice, which is a Dutch company that operates the city distribution network and UCCs in multiple cities in the Netherlands. Before the solution design, an interview with the company representative of Binnenstadservice was conducted to examine the list of stakeholder goals. After the solution design, 18 stakeholders from practice have been interviewed for the design validation. From each stakeholder group (UCCs, carriers, shippers, local government and receivers), multiple participants are interviewed. Almost all interviews were conducted in the Netherlands. Besides, an interview via Skype was conducted with the manager of Stadsleveransen, which operates a UCC in Gothenburg.

(18)

18 The data collection process is structured by the design of an interview protocol ahead of the interviews (Voss et al., 2002), which is displayed in Appendix A. This protocol includes a clear explanation of Integrated City Distribution and the separate solution components, along with a list of open and semi-structured questions. During the interviews, the funnel model was applied (Voss et al., 2002). This means that broad and open-ended questions were posed first, and as the interview progressed, more specific questions were asked regarding the solution components, as these involve urban parcel distribution concepts that were already familiar to most participants. The details regarding the interviews are shown in Appendix C.

3.4 Data Analysis

The first step of the data analysis was to transcribe the interview recordings verbatim, resulting in raw data (Dresch et al., 2015). In total, the interview transcripts consist of 220 pages with a total of 112,322 words. Next, the coding process was executed. Therefore, the database of interview transcripts was imported in Atlas.ti (version 7), which facilitates qualitative data analysis.

The coding process was carried out through a three step coding procedure, which is in line with the approach suggested by Miles et al. (1994). First, relevant quotes and sentences were given a first-order code. These codes were grouped into second-order themes, which were based on existing literature. First-order codes that did not fit into these deductive themes were temporarily grouped into a different category. For highly relevant and frequently occurring information, new categories were formed inductively. This was done through a cyclical process, going back and forth between the different coding levels (Saldaña, 2015). Towards the end of this procedure, all second-order categories were aggregated into third-order codes, which represent the dimensions of stakeholder interests on a more abstract level. Altogether, the coding process narrowed down a list of 261 first-order codes to 25 second-order codes and 7 aggregate dimensions. The end-result is the coding tree, of which an excerpt is displayed in Appendix B. This coding tree provides an overview of relevant data obtained through the interviews, which relate to the views of stakeholders regarding the designed solution components.

(19)

19

4. PROBLEM INVESTIGATION AND SOLUTION DESIGN

In Chapter 1 and 2, it is explained that the overall goal of this study is to improve the drop density in last-mile distribution. Based on a suggestion from practice (Hendriks, 2017), Chapter 1 introduced the Integrated City Distribution concept as a possible way to attain a higher drop density in cities. Section 4.1 further elaborates on this new concept. Also, since the integration of delivery to stores and delivery to widely dispersed consumer addresses would not be feasible within the same delivery round, we consider the use of parcel distribution concepts to realize Integrated City Distribution. Therefore, this section also motivates which existing parcel distribution concepts, identified from literature in Section 2.5, are designed within Integrated City Distribution. In Section 4.2, the designed solution is presented.

4.1 Detailed problem investigation

Integrated City Distribution implies that, for parcel carriers, the final destination of parcels becomes the UCC, rather than final delivery locations in cities. Since UCCs only facilitate short-term storage of goods, the arriving parcels are consolidated as soon as possible with B2B shipments and transferred to the vehicle used for final delivery to the city. Thus, the delivery route to the city consists of groups of parcels (B2C) and shipments to stores (B2B). Based on the size of the city, this could either be delivered in one route, or divided over separate routes per geographical area. In this route, businesses receive large palletized shipments directly at their stores, whereas parcels for consumers are delivered to urban parcel distribution points. Here, we consider the existing alternatives introduced in Section 2.5: pickup points, click & collect services, parcel lockers, shared reception boxes and micro-hubs. Below, we motivate that not all of these concepts are included in the solution.

First, click & collect services are not further considered in the solution design, since this alternative can typically only be used by online retailers that have a physical store location in the cities (i.e. multi-channel retailers) (Allen et al., 2017). Since the majority of online retailers nowadays do not operate from a physical store (Cherrett et al., 2017), only a very small fraction of parcels delivered through Integrated City Distribution could be delivered to these stores. Furthermore, click & collect services are very similar to pickup points (Visser et al., 2014), and therefore it is chosen to only include pickup points in the solution.

(20)

20 The remaining three urban concepts, i.e. parcel lockers, pickup points and micro-hubs, are all designed within Integrated City Distribution, and will therefore be referred to as solution

components. As already explained in Section 2.2, UCCs bundle shipments for multiple

carriers and are therefore not dedicated to a specific carrier. Hence, the designed parcel distribution concepts are also considered to be accessible for all parcel deliveries made from the UCC. Although these solution components could be used in concurrence and are not mutually exclusive, the aim is to evaluate the effects of the separate concepts within Integrated City Distribution.

Based on the list of stakeholder goals from Section 2.6, several requirements for the solution are derived, which are shown in Table 4.1. Only the goals that fit within our scope have been translated into solution requirements, which represents the last-mile delivery flow only. Therefore, not all stakeholder goals identified in Section 2.6 are translated to a requirement.

Solution requirements Stakeholder goals

(from Table 2.1)

1. Reduction in CO2 emission in cities 1, 5, 6

2. Reduction in the number of delivery vehicles in cities 2, 3, 4, 7, 12

3. Improvement of delivery success rate 8, 9, 10, 11

4. Improvement of parcel collection convenience for consumers 14, 22 5. Maintain high level of service and contact 19, 20, 21 6. Maintain low delivery lead time (at least next-day delivery) 17, 18, 23

7. The solution should be cost efficient 9, 12

Table 4.1: Requirements for the solution derived from stakeholder’s goals

4.2 Solution design

Solution Component 1: Parcel lockers

(21)

21

Figure 4.1: Solution Component 1: Parcel lockers

Solution Component 2: Pickup points

The second solution component represents the delivery to pickup points through Integrated City Distribution. Since it is known from literature that there are large differences between pickup points and parcel lockers in terms of service (Visser et al., 2014; Weltevreden, 2008), both concepts represent separate components within Integrated City Distribution. Like parcel lockers, pickup points can also be effective both in- and outside the city centre, as long as consumer density is sufficient (Visser et al., 2014). Therefore, this solution component also considers the pickup points both in- and outside the city centre. Pickup points are often located in supermarkets, convenience stores and in small local shops (Morganti et al., 2014). Similar to the first solution component, we do not differentiate between these types of locations for pickup points. Figure 4.2 illustrates the pickup point design.

Figure 4.2: Solution Component 2: Pickup points

(22)

22

Solution Component 3: Micro-hubs

The third solution component represents the delivery of parcels to micro-hubs through Integrated City Distribution. Here, parcels that are designated for consumers in a specific geographic area (e.g. postal code) are delivered to a micro-hub that is located in close proximity to consumers’ homes. From these micro-hubs, home-delivery rounds are carried out using only zero-emission delivery modes (Janjevic and Ndiaye, 2014). In our micro-hub design, we consider the use of bicycles for home delivery, as this delivery mode is enabled through the lower inter-drop distances (Maes and Vanelslander, 2012). Due to the involvement of bicycle logistics, the parcels need not be delivered to the actual city centre, where access restrictions may be in place (Janejvic et al., 2013). In order to facilitate the move towards zero-emission delivery in city centres (Harrington et al., 2016), the micro-hubs are therefore located outside the city centre. Similar to the previous solution components, we do not distinguish between different forms of micro-hubs, such as empty store premises, containers or mobile trucks. Besides, we consider an unattended micro-hub that does not involve the possibility for collection, as the combination with a service point could lead to higher costs (Janjevic et al., 2013). Figure 4.3 illustrates the micro-hub design.

Figure 4.3: Solution Component 3: Micro-hubs

(23)

23

5. DESIGN VALIDATION

This chapter discusses the findings of this research based on the analysis of the interviews with stakeholders. This chapter is organized by first discussing general findings regarding Integrated City Distribution, which are similar for all three solution components. Next, the findings of the three solution components are discussed separately. This is done by discussing their strengths and weaknesses within four dimensions: Environment/society, efficiency, flexibility and service level, since these dimensions were also used to distinguish between goals of stakeholders in Section 2.6, in line with Harrington et al. (2016). Finally, in Section 5.5, an overview is provided on how each design scores on the solution requirements of Section 4.1. Throughout this chapter, quotes of participants are used for clarification of the findings. Whenever a quote is used, the company and participant number is shown in parentheses, which relate to the overview of participants provided in Appendix C.

5.1 Findings regarding Integrated City Distribution

Stakeholders expressed different views and opinions regarding the overall concept of Integrated City Distribution, irrespective of whether parcels are delivered to parcel lockers, pickup points or micro-hubs via this integrated network. First, stakeholders agreed that the success of solutions in last-mile distribution highly depend on how well they are perceived by consumers, as the parcel distribution sector is seen as highly customer-driven. At the same time, stakeholders acknowledged that last-mile distribution initiatives that have a collaborative character, like Integrated City Distribution, are very complex, due to the involvement of a variety of stakeholders with conflicting interests. Regarding our solution, UCCs and local authorities were quite positive and also felt high urgency for it. In their view, the solution can increase the drop density and thereby contribute to solving the problems experienced by last-mile distribution in cities. However, whereas UCCs perceived Integration City Distribution as realizable, other stakeholders questioned its feasibility. Carriers and shippers expressed strong concerns about the efficiency and the collaborative character of the solution, which is seen as incompatible with the high competition in the parcel delivery sector. Also, the consequences of the solution for the delivery lead time were perceived negatively. Consumer participants also felt little urgency, as they are more concerned with fast delivery services and convenience, rather than sustainability

(24)

24 In contrast, carrier participants (PostNL, P11, P12) stated that the solution could only be feasible for areas where carriers cannot attain high drop densities independently. PostNL stated that they already consolidate their deliveries to most cities in local hubs, which is seen as a more efficient way to distribute than Integrated City Distribution, as the latter involves extra consolidation at UCCs. Two shippers (P10, P17) also questioned the efficiency of the solution due to the extra consolidation, stating that parties would have to give up profit if this would be implemented.

With respect to the collaborative character of the solution, several other issues were addressed by carriers and shippers. Carriers want to maintain control over their own distribution network and volume, whereas shippers want to maintain the ability to compete with other shippers through innovative fulfilment and delivery services. These interests would both be harmed if all deliveries to cities are consolidated in UCCs. The same stakeholders also expressed concerns about how the revenue model would be discussed between the participating parties: “The biggest challenge is to discuss this openly with

multiple parties” (PostNL, P11).

With respect to the delivery lead time, all stakeholders agreed that same- and next-day delivery are highly unlikely within Integrated City Distribution, due to the extra delivery and handling at the UCC. Although two consumers (P8, P18) stated that they do not desire same-day delivery, they do perceive next-same-day delivery as a fact of life nowasame-days. The solution would therefore conflict with their interests. Due to all aforementioned issues, shipper and carrier interviewees did not see the solution as feasible in today’s market, as the following quotes illustrate: “This has no chance of success” (Blokker, P10) and “Maybe this could

work in the future, but the solution is a bridge to far for the current market” (PostNL, P12).

Two shippers did, however, encourage the idea, since it involves a more sustainable delivery alternative to their customers. However, all shipper participants feel that the ball is in court of the parcel carriers, who need to be willing to open up their network for consolidation and collaboration with other parties. In contrast to this, UCCs feel that large shippers themselves are the engines that can bring about this solution, by pushing their logistics service providers towards more sustainable last-mile solutions. As one participant said it: “Shippers are the

only ones that can make the difference by pushing carriers to choose alternative solutions, such as this” (Binnenstadservice Maastricht, P4).

In the next paragraphs, the findings of each designed parcel distribution concept within Integrated City Distributions are discussed separately. An excerpt of the coding tree is displayed in each paragraph. As explained in Section 3.4, the coding tree is the end-result of the analysis of the interviews. The coding trees provided in Sections 5.2, 5.3 and 5.4 each provide an overview of the main factors that have emerged from the interviews, which relate to the strengths and weaknesses of each design according to stakeholders.

5.2 Findings regarding Parcel Lockers

(25)

25

Second-order codes Third-order codes

Figure 5.1 – Coding tree excerpt of Parcel lockers design

First, most stakeholders agreed that this solution would have a significant impact on reducing vehicle movements in the city. Interviewees (P1, P15) stated that delivery rounds to the city would become shorter through this solution component, since multiple parcels can be delivered to the same location and fewer deliveries to consumer addresses would be carried out. As a result, the delivery to parcel lockers could make the last-mile delivery round more compact. In addition, UCCs (P4, P16) stated that the integration of store deliveries with parcel delivery to lockers is very flexible, since lockers both in- and outside the city centre would always be accessible, even early in the morning. Furthermore, regarding the positive impact on delivery success, interviewees agreed that this would be an effective solution to the common problem of delivery failures. The following quote supports this: “With parcel

lockers, there is a 100% chance of delivery, which is very interesting for us, but also for carriers and our consumers” (Retailer: The Musthaves, P17). Based on coding tree, we can

also conclude that stakeholders value the parcel locker design due to the high collection flexibility, since it involves the possibility of 24/7 collection by consumers. Thereby, the direction and autonomy of consumers on when to have access to their parcels is increased.

(26)

26 service and security of personal collection: “I would rather collect a parcel in a more

personal way” (Consumer, P8). Finally, our findings indicate that the parcel locker solution

would only be applicable for a small volume of deliveries, as several stakeholders emphasized that consumers strongly prefer home delivery. This was supported by the consumer participants (P8, P18).

5.3 Findings regarding Pickup Points

Figure 5.2 displays an excerpt of the coding tree that relates to the pickup point design

Figure 5.2 – Coding tree excerpt of Pickup point design

In terms of environmental, societal and efficiency-related considerations, all participants view the delivery to pickup points as highly similar to the use of parcel lockers within Integrated City Distribution. In particular, their positive impacts on the amount of delivery rounds, the drop density and delivery success are seen as similar, as is illustrated through the high similarity of both coding trees. However, in terms of flexibility and service, some important differences between the alternative designs were expressed.

First, as shown in the coding trees, pickup points do not have the same level of flexibility as parcel lockers, since most pickup points are only open during the day. This is seen as a problem by consumers and shippers, who prefer high accessibility of parcel collection points for consumers. Besides, UCCs (P4, P15) mentioned that pickup points within Integrated City Distribution also entail lower flexibility from a delivery perspective. Some of these stores may be closed on Mondays or not open before the afternoon, which could make the integration with store deliveries more complicated than with parcel lockers.

(27)

27 through the following quotes of a shipper and consumer respectively: “At stores, there is

always someone available to help, which is particularly useful for older customers”

(Bol.com, P9) and: “Having someone in front of you handing over your parcel is a real

advantage” (Consumer, P18).

5.4 Findings regarding Micro-hubs

In Figure 5.3, the coding tree excerpt relating to the micro-hub design is shown.

Figure 5.3 – Coding tree excerpt of Micro-hub design

In addition to reducing vehicle activity and congestion in the city, local government stakeholders stated that the implementation of micro-hubs has a large effect on reducing emissions. This is due to the possibility to carry out deliveries with a bicycle, which contributes to the zero-emission city logistics vision by municipalities: “Micro-hubs work

best in stimulating bicycle logistics” (Gemeente Groningen, P1). Other stakeholders agreed

about the possibility of zero-emission delivery through micro-hubs, but analyzed this solution more in terms of efficiency-related aspects.

(28)

28 suitable design by all stakeholders. This is because this design involves delivery to the consumer’s home with very limited changes for consumers, whereas the other designs entail alternatives to home delivery. The following quote illustrates this: “The only difference for

consumers would be that the deliverer comes with a bicycle, instead of with a van”

(Provincie Drenthe, P5).

However, as shown in the coding tree, concerns were also addressed regarding the efficiency of micro-hubs, due to the extra costs of adding a consolidation and handling point compared to the parcel locker and pickup point solution components. Two shippers (P10, P17) therefore questioned whether micro-hubs could exist without subsidy from local authorities. Furthermore, another shipper (P9) stated that the micro-hub design, combined with bicycle delivery, does not reduce delivery failures and is therefore less efficient than parcel lockers and pickup points. In contrast to this, a bicycle courier (P6) mentioned that he is barely bothered by the not-at-home problem, since bicycle deliveries can be flexibly scheduled according to consumers’ wishes: “We can deliver flexibly from 8am until 8pm, which makes

it easy to make an appointment with the consumer” (Go-Fast Bicycle Courier, P6). This

suggests that the micro-hub solution component, involving the flexibility of bicycle logistics, can also lead to an increased delivery success rate.

Finally, stakeholders expressed different views about the locations of micro-hubs. UCCs (P4, P15, P16) stated that they should be located in the city centre, as close as possible to the customers, as this enhances delivery efficiency. On the contrary, other stakeholders (P5, P6) emphasized that they should be placed outside the city centre, where they are better accessible for large vehicles and contribute to creating an emission-free city centre: “A

micro-hub in this area [city centre] would completely ignore the overall idea to create an emission-free city centre” (Go-Fast Bicycle Courier, P6).

5.5 Overview of the findings

(29)

29

Solution requirements Parcel

lockers Pickup points Micro- hubs Reasoning

(based on coding tree and findings)

1. Reduction of CO2

emission in cities 

Micro-hubs involve zero-emission home delivery through bicycles, which is seen by stakeholders as leading to a significant reduction of CO2 in cities.

2. Reduction of the number of delivery vehicles in cities

  

Stakeholders agreed that Integrated City Distribution reduces the number of vehicles, since bundled delivery can improve the drop density. Here, no difference between the solution components was expressed.

3. Improvement of delivery

success rate   

Parcel lockers and Pickup points do not involve home delivery and thereby fewer delivery failures occur. The findings suggest that micro-hubs also increase the delivery success rate, since last-mile bicycle deliveries can be more flexibly scheduled with consumers.

4. Improvement of

collection convenience for consumers



Stakeholders agreed that Parcel lockers include the highest convenience for consumers due to their 24/7 accessibility. Pickup points were perceived as less flexible from a collection point of view

5. Maintain high level of customer service and contact

 

Stakeholders agreed that Pickup points result in high service to consumers and are a good way to maintain customer contact. Parcel lockers are perceived as impersonal. Micro-hubs were considered as most manageable for consumers, since it involves home delivery

6. Maintain low delivery lead time (at least next-day delivery)

Stakeholders agreed that Integrated City Distribution reduces the delivery lead time due to the extra consolidation of parcels at UCCs. Next-day delivery was seen as highly unlikely through Integrated City Distribution

7. The solution should be cost-efficient

UCCs perceived the solution as cost-efficient due to the higher drop density, but other stakeholders (carriers and shippers) argued that the extra delivery and handling at UCCs results in lower cost-efficiency.

(30)

30

6. DISCUSSION

Extant literature in the field of last-mile distribution emphasizes the need for innovative solutions that are capable of improving the efficiency of delivery, whilst reducing the environmental and societal impacts on cities (Navarro et al., 2016; Allen et al., 2017; Savelsbergh and Van Woensel, 2016). The main challenge in designing and implementing effective last-mile solutions pertains to the variety of stakeholders involved, which all have different objectives and requirements that need to be balanced (Ballantyne et al., 2013; Harrington et al., 2016). Our research has designed a solution within Integrated City Distribution, an innovative concept for last-mile distribution that has not yet been studied to date. Our main focus has been on the integrated delivery from UCCs to stores and parcel distribution concepts in cities, where the effectiveness of multiple parcel distribution concepts is evaluated. However, the findings also indicate that stakeholders have different views and perceptions regarding Integrated City Distribution, irrespective of the type of parcel distribution concept that is used in cities. Therefore, we first discuss our findings in relation to what is known in literature about collaborative initiatives in last-mile distribution. After, we discuss the strengths and weaknesses of the designed solution components, in order to suggest a refined design.

6.1 Integrated City Distribution

Many initiatives in urban distribution fail in an early stage due to the lack of participation from stakeholders (Lindawati et al., 2014; Allen et al., 2012). The main motivating factors for stakeholders to participate are the expected benefits derivable from a solution’s efficiency and sustainability (Handoko and Lau, 2016; Lindawati et al., 2014). In our research, most stakeholders acknowledged that the designed solution can have significant environmental and societal benefits. However, stakeholders had different views about the efficiency of Integrated City Distribution. First of all, many stakeholders confirmed that the solution increases the drop density and minimises inter-drop distances in cities. This is line with Quak (2012) and Allen et al. (2017), who suggest that the bundling of shipments from multiple online retailers and carriers in collaborative last-mile distribution networks could increase efficiency and reduce the costs per drop. However, our findings also suggest that the delivery to shared consolidation centres is perceived as leading to extra unnecessary handling and costs. This is due to the fact that many large carriers already consolidate parcels at their own hubs in order to attain a high utilization in their delivery rounds to cities (Allen et al., 2016; Navarro et al., 2016). Hence, parcel carriers already focus on increasing the delivery efficiency of their own volumes (Ducret, 2014; Xiao et al., 2017), which leaves less scope for our solution.

(31)

31 also requires a sound business model, where the costs and benefits are fairly shared between participating stakeholders (Allen et al., 2017; Ducret, 2014). Discussing and implementing this requires the readiness to collaborate, involvement and openness (Kauf, 2016). However, this conflicts with the fierce competition that exists in the parcel distribution sector (Xiao et al., 2017).

It is known in city distribution literature that only a small fraction of carriers (i.e. between 16-18%) are willing to participate in UCC schemes (Regan and Golob, 2005). However, Holguín-Veras and Sánchez-Díaz (2016) suggest that the reluctance of shippers to participate is the main obstacle to UCC adoption, since carriers cannot use a UCC without the shippers’ consent. Several stakeholders from practice support this statement. Shippers are most afraid to expose information and relinquish control over their deliveries (Lindawati et al., 2014; Holguín-Veras and Sánchez-Díaz, 2016). In addition to this, our findings also suggest that shippers are disinclined towards the solution as it harms their ability to compete with other shippers through unique delivery services. For instance, online retailers are increasingly trying to differentiate by offering later cut-off times and same-day delivery (Cherrett et al., 2017). The same applies to carriers, who consider delivery speed as a key logistics capability (Jon-kun Cho et al., 2008). Thus, solutions based on the consolidation of shipments for a given geographical area conflict with these goals. For consumers, the solution conflicts with their desires for next-day delivery (Cherrett et al., 2017), since the extra consolidation of parcels at UCCs increases the delivery lead time.

When focusing solely on the distinctive strengths and weaknesses of the designed solution components within Integrated City Distribution, several key findings have emerged, which are discussed in the next section.

6.2 Solution components

First, the views of stakeholders support previous studies, where it is stated that unattended delivery concepts strongly reduce delivery failures (Iwan et al., 2016; Allen et al., 2017). In addition, although not all stakeholders agreed, it was stressed by a bicycle courier that the micro-hub design can also increase parcel delivery success. This is supported by Clausen et al. (2016), who found that deliveries with cargo bikes fail less often, due to the better possibility to schedule deliveries according to consumers’ wishes. Thus, we hypothesize that the all designed solution components can increase the delivery success of parcels, but the highest increase can be achieved by parcel lockers and pickup points.

(32)

32 flexibility of delivery within Integrated City Distribution can be achieved through parcel lockers.

However, the findings also support previous studies that parcel lockers imply lower service to consumers (Weltevreden, 2008; Iwan et al., 2016; Morganti et al., 2014), as pickup points are perceived as more personal, safe and easy to use. It is also confirmed that shippers value pickup points, since delivery to pickup points is typically more efficient than home delivery (Visser et al., 2014) and can enhance customer satisfaction (Xiao et al., 2017). Hence, we hypothesize that high customer service within Integrated City Distribution can be achieved through pickup points.

Furthermore, the findings suggest that micro-hubs are the best distribution concept to reduce emissions. This is due to the fact that lower inter-drop distances enable emission-free transport means (Ducret, 2014). Stakeholders that are concerned with environmental aspects were therefore most pleased with this alternative. According to literature, the aim of downscaling the consolidation of goods is to increase delivery efficiency in congested urban areas (Janjevic et al., 2013). For such concepts, the volume of delivery is seen as a determinant of their feasibility (Janjevic and Ndiaye, 2014; Ducret, 2014), which was supported by stakeholders. Besides, our finding seem to confirm that the extra delivery to micro-hubs and the subsequent transfer of parcels to bicycles is only interesting if cities are poorly accessible for parcel delivery vans or trucks (Janjevic and Ndiaye, 2014). Stakeholders perceived the micro-hub solution component as more feasible and beneficial in cities with strict access regulations. In those areas, bicycles can overcome the access restrictions and thereby increase delivery flexibility (Maes and Vanelslander, 2012). This suggests that the delivery conditions and regulations in cities could also be a motivating factor for stakeholders to participate in urban collaborative distribution initiatives (Lindawati et al., 2014). We hypothesize that, as access restrictions to cities increase, the micro-hub solution component can increase delivery efficiency and enable fine-meshed distribution to consumers.

Finally, stakeholders supported the notion that distribution concepts that replace home delivery can only be applied for a limited volume of parcels (Morganti et al., 2014; Allen et al., 2017). This is because home delivery is seen as a key feature of B2C e-commerce and highly preferred by many consumers (Moroz and Polkowski, 2016). Since micro-hubs are the only design that entails home delivery, this was generally perceived as the most feasible alternative when volumes are sufficient. We therefore hypothesize that Integrated City Distribution requires a distribution concept that enables home delivery.

6.3 Design refinement

(33)

33 consumers to collect parcels, since this can further reduce delivery failures and increase service (Iwan et al., 2016; Weltevreden, 2008).

In the decision for an attended or unattended collection point, the volume of parcels delivered via micro-hubs is a key determinant. Therefore, this should be considered during implementation. If the volume is large, micro-hubs should be combined with a pickup point that is manned during the day, whereas parcel lockers located at the micro-hub are used for flexible delivery and off-hours collection. In this way, the benefits of both types of collection concepts can be combined. However, in case the volume of parcels is not sufficient for integrating it with a (manned) pickup point, only parcel lockers should be used as a collection point, in order to make the solution more cost-efficient. In Figure 5.4, the refined solution with delivery to and from micro-hubs and self-pick-up by consumers is illustrated.

(34)

34

7. CONCLUSION

This study considered Integrated City Distribution as an innovative concept to increase the drop density in last-mile distribution, and thereby increase the efficiency and sustainability of delivery to cities. Within this concept, three different parcel distribution concepts were designed, through a design-science approach, and evaluated through interviews with key stakeholders within last-mile distribution. Stakeholders from practice confirm that delivery to parcel lockers, pickup points and micro-hubs through the Integrated City Distribution network has the potential to increase the drop density in the last mile. Thereby, the amount of required vehicles and delivery rounds could reduce, relieving the environmental and societal pressures of distribution to cities. Although each parcel distribution concept has key advantages and disadvantages, our findings suggest that micro-hubs combined with bicycle logistics is the most feasible distribution concept within Integrated City Distribution. Micro-hubs comply with the vision of zero-emission delivery in city centres, can facilitate efficient and flexible distribution to poorly accessible city areas and are most manageable for consumers, who prefer home-delivery. However, our findings also suggest that parcel distribution concepts that enable collection by consumers are highly valued from an efficiency, flexibility and consumer service perspective. Therefore, the designed micro-hub solution within Integrated City Distribution is refined by integrating it with parcel lockers and, if sufficient volumes are delivered, with a pickup point that both enable parcel collection. Hereby, an innovative urban distribution point is formed that could be the most effective parcel distribution concept within Integrated City Distribution.

On a higher level, our study indicates that the implementation of Integrated City Distribution through a combination of parcel lockers, pickup points and micro-hubs is not desirable for all stakeholders from practice. The interviews with stakeholders have revealed several factors that hinder the willingness of stakeholders to participate in Integrated City Distribution. Our findings suggest that carriers and shippers are the most reluctant stakeholders for this concept. Explanations for this can be found in the characteristics of the parcel delivery sector, where the competition between online retailers and their carriers is high as parties are aiming to differentiate through innovative and unique delivery services. Therefore, the willingness of shippers and carriers to deliver their goods to UCCs and share the same vehicle in last-mile delivery rounds is low. Stakeholders from practice are also concerned with the extra consolidation at UCCs, as this could lead to higher costs from an individual stakeholders’ perspective and increase the total delivery lead time of products ordered by consumers. Until such obstacles can be overcome or lightened, the implementation of Integrated City Distribution would not be beneficial for all involved stakeholders.

7.1 Limitations and future research

(35)

Integrating B2C Parcel Delivery with B2B City Distribution