CHAPTER 5 Conclusion
5.4 Future development
ANP (Analytical Network Process) approach is an effective alternative to alleviate the problem of AHP, and ANP is regard as the general form of AHP (Saaty, 2006), developed in order to take the interdependencies between factors into consideration. ANP is more concerned with network structure that allows for dependence. There is a capacity to prioritize groups or clusters of elements which are interdependence. ANP can also support the complicated, networked decision making with various intangible criteria. Thus, ANP is always applied to solve the problem of dependence among alternative or criteria of AHP.
For the future research could use different methods. For example, ANP (Analytic Network Process) or Fuzzy Theory. In actually AHP is widely known as a multi-criteria decision making (MCDM) method. The most criticized aspect is the use of a ratio scale in pairwise comparisons, rather than an interval scale commonly used in multi-attribute utility theory.
For instance, when evaluating different suppliers, due to incomplete and uncertain information regarding potential suppliers and their performance, decision makers often find it is difficult to express their preferences precisely. The AHP method assumes that factors and dimensions are independent. However, ANP method could be used to investigate the relationship among criteria and sub criteria.
40
Reference
Asuquo, M., Coward, I., & Yang, Z. (2014). Modeling selection of third party ship management services. Case Studies on Transport Policy, 2(1), 28-35.
Bowersox, D.J. and Daugherty, P. (1990), Logistical Excellence: It’s Not Business as Usual, Digital Press, Burlington, MA.
CSCMP (2006) Supply Chain and Logistics Terms and Glossary. Bellevue.
Cooper, M. C., & Gardner, J. T. (1993). Building Good Business Relationships: More than Just Partnering or Strategic Alliances? International Journal of Physical Distribution &
Logistics Management, 23(6), 14-26.
Daim, T. U., Udbye, A., & Balasubramanian, A. (2012). Use of analytic hierarchy process (AHP) for selection of 3PL providers. Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, 24(1), 28-51.
Damme, D. A. v., & Amstel, M. J. P. v. (1996). Outsourcing Logistics Management Activities. The International Journal of Logistics Management, 7(2), 85-94.
Domingues, M. L., Reis, V., & Macário, R. (2015). A Comprehensive Framework for Measuring Performance in a Third-party Logistics Provider. Transportation Research Procedia, 10, 662-672.
Govindan, K., Rajendran, S., Sarkis, J., & Murugesan, P. (2015). Multi criteria decision making approaches for green supplier evaluation and selection: a literature review. Journal of Cleaner Production, 98, 66-83.
Ho, W., Dey, P. K., & Lockström, M. (2011). Strategic sourcing: a combined QFD and AHP approach in manufacturing. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, 16(6), 446-461.
Hoek, R. I. v. (2001). The contribution of performance measurement to the expansion of third party logistics alliances in the supply chain. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 21(1/2), 15-29.
Kannan, V. R., & Tan, K. C. (2002). Supplier Selection and Assessment: Their Impact on Business Performance. Journal of Supply Chain Management, 38(3), 11-21.
Qureshi, M. N., Kumar, D., & Kumar, P. (2008). An integrated model to identify and classify the key criteria and their role in the assessment of 3PL services providers. Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics, 20(2), 227-249.
41
Rabinovich, E., Windle, R., Dresner, M., & Corsi, T. (1999). Outsourcing of integrated logistics functions: An examination of industry practices. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, 29(6), 353-374.
Rahman, Z. (2004). Use of Internet in supply chain management: a study of Indian companies.
Industrial Management & Data Systems, 104(1), 31-41.
Sahin, O., Mohamed, S., Warnken, J., & Rahman, A. (2013). Assessment of sea‐level rise adaptation options: Multiple‐criteria decision‐making approach involving stakeholders.
Structural Survey, 31(4), 283-
Saaty, T.L. (1980), “The analytic hierarchy process”, McGraw-Hill, New York.
Seyed-Alagheband, S.-A. (2011). 5 - Logistics Parties A2 - Kardar, Reza Zanjirani FarahaniShabnam RezapourLaleh Logistics Operations and Management (pp. 71-91).
London: Elsevier.
Sinkovics, R. R., & Roath, A. S. (2004). STRATEGIC ORIENTATION, CAPABILITIES, AND PERFORMANCE IN MANUFACTURER — 3PL RELATIONSHIPS. Journal of Business Logistics, 25(2), 43-64.
Spencer, M. S., Rogers, D. S., & Daugherty, P. J. (1994). JIT Systems and External Logistics Suppliers. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 14(6), 60-74.
Tahriri, F., Osman, M. R., Ali, A., Yusuff, R. M., & Esfandiary, A. (2008). AHP approach for supplier evaluation and selection in a steel manufacturing company. 2008, 1(2), 23.
Vaidyanathan, G. (2005). A framework for evaluating third-party logistics. Commun. ACM, 48(1), 89-94.
42
Appendices Part 1 A Hierarchy Framework of criteria
Company Goal (Select the best 3PL Providers)
43
Part 2
The Definition of Criteria and Sub-criteriaCriteria Sub-criteria Definition of Sub-criteria
A1. Information Technology B1. Data in real time Data in real time refer to 3PL send the data to the company in the real time.
B2. Accuracy of data Accuracy of data from 3PL sent to the company.
B3. Data security Data security of customers that 3PL providers must protect safely.
B4. IT infrastructure IT infrastructure of Logistics providers offers to their customers. Such as, IT solution, hardware, software, network resources and services.
A2. Relationship B5. Personal Relationship The relationship between the logistics providers and the company.
B6. Good Communication
The communication between logistics provider and company by distribute the effective information.
B7. Easy to work with
The easy way to dealing with 3PL
44 B8. Decrease Labor
problem
The company can reduce the manpower in the logistics’ field within the company
B9. Network Coverage The network connection of logistics provider with their co-operations.
A3. Operation performance B10. Reliability The reliability’s performance of 3PL that can show the trustworthy to the company.
B11. On-time delivery The abilities of logistics provider can deliver the goods to the company’s customers on time.
B12. Document Accuracy The document in which 3PL provider doing with the right information provide to the firm needs.
B13. Transportation safety The logistics providers transport the customer’s product with no broken and safely at the end user.
45
A4. Capabilities B14. Expertise The knowledge and skills of the logistics providers to handle with any problem for the company.
B15. Flexibility The ability of 3PL manages space, labor and transportation in term of seasonal change by quick shipping of goods to the right location.
B16. Cost reduction The company can negotiate the cost reduction with the 3PL in some situations.
B17. Financial stability The stability of 3PL’s financial performance with company can ensure that the logistics providers can continually working with company.
B18. Management quality The capability of logistics provider can control the good service quality and controlling the internal and external change.
A5. Service B19. Value-added The extra service from logistics provider offer to the customer without customer’s requirement.
B20. Customer Support The supporting from 3PL to help firm planning, doing, checking and take action for transportation.
46
B21. Problem solving The power of logistics provider can solve the problem when the customer need and acquire.
B22. Variety 3PL providers typically specialize in integrated operation, warehousing and transportation service that can be scaled and customized to customer’s need.
B23. Quality The intention of 3PL provider to the customer in term of product loss or damage and prompt to take a responsible for that case.
47
Part 3 The Description and example of Questionnaire form.
The following table we would like your explicit opinion in order to select various alternative.
The pair wise compare scale was used explain the importance of one element over another.
Explanation Numeric Values
If Option A and Option B are equally important : Please Mark 1 If Option A is moderately more important than Option B : Please Mark 3 If Option A is strongly more important than Option B : Please Mark 5 If Option A is very strongly more important than Option B : Please Mark 7 If Option A is extremely more important than Option B : Please Mark 9
Use even numbers for neutral judgments 2,4,6,8
Table 1- Saaty Comparison Scale Example:
Given Options A & B, you can judge their relative importance as shown below example:
If you think the option ‘Information Technology (A1)’ in column A is equal important option ‘Relationship (A2)’ in column B, then you mark 1 with (O) on the middle.
If you think the option ‘Information Technology (A1)’ in column A is strongly more important than the option ‘Relationship (A2)’ in column B, then you mark 5 with (O) on the left hand side.
If you think the option ‘Relationship (A2)’ in column B is extremely more important than the option ‘Information Technology (A1)’ in column A, then you mark 9 with (O) on the right hand side.
48
The important level of comparison
Options A
9:1 8:1 7:1 6:1 5:1 4:1 3:1 2:1 1:1 1:2 1:3 1:4 1:5 1:6 1:7 1:8 1:9
Options B
Information technology
(A1)
9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Relationship
(A2) Information
technology (A1)
9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Relationship
(A2) Information
technology (A1)
9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Relationship
(A2)
Extremely Very Strong Strong Moderate Equal Moderate Strong Very Strong Extremely
49
Part 4 The questionnaire form: The analysis of the Criteria part comparison.
With respect to compare on “Criteria”
Using the scale from 1 to 9 (where 9 is extremely and 1 is equally important), please indicate (O) On the relative importance of options A (left column) to options B (right column).
Options A
Extremely Very Strong Strong Moderate Equal Moderate Strong Very Strong Extremely
50
Part 5 The questionnaire form: The Sub criteria part comparison.
With respect to compare on “Information Technology”
Using the scale from 1 to 9 (where 9 is extremely and 1 is equally important), please indicate (O) On the relative importance of options A (left column) to options B (right column).
Options A
Extremely Very Strong Strong Moderate Equal Moderate Strong Very Strong Extremely
51
With respect to compare on “Relationship”
Using the scale from 1 to 9 (where 9 is extremely and 1 is equally important), please indicate (O) On the relative importance of options A (left column) to options B (right column).
Options A
Extremely Very Strong Strong Moderate Equal Moderate Strong Very Strong Extremely
52
With respect to compare on “Operation Performance”
Using the scale from 1 to 9 (where 9 is extremely and 1 is equally important), please indicate (O) On the relative importance of options A (left column) to options B (right column).
Options A
Extremely Very Strong Strong Moderate Equal Moderate Strong Very Strong Extremely
53
With respect to compare on “Capabilities”
Using the scale from 1 to 9 (where 9 is extremely and 1 is equally important), please indicate (O) On the relative importance of options A (left column) to options B (right column).
Options A
Extremely Very Strong Strong Moderate Equal Moderate Strong Very Strong Extremely
54
With respect to compare on “Services”
Using the scale from 1 to 9 (where 9 is extremely and 1 is equally important), please indicate (O) On the relative importance of options A (left column) to options B (right column).
Options A
Extremely Very Strong Strong Moderate Equal Moderate Strong Very Strong Extremely