Chapter 6 Conclusions
6.3 Future Development and Limitations
Future research could use different methods, e.g., ANP (Analytic Network Process) or Fuzzy Theory. Although AHP is widely known as a multi-criteria decision making (MCDM) method, it has often been criticized in the literature (Goodwin and Wright, 2004). The most criticized aspect is the use of a ratio scale in pairwise comparisons, ratherthan an interval scale commonly used in multi-attribute utility theory. In the conventional AHP, a pairwise comparison is made by using a nine-point ratio scale (Saaty, 1980) to represent a decision maker’s judgment or preference. Even though a crisp scale of 1 to 9 may be easy to apply and use, it does not explicitly take into account the aspects of uncertainty, vagueness, or fuzziness commonly inherent in human decision making processes. 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 dimensions and factors. Fuzzy AHP approach seems to be particularly effective in reducing the uncertainty in the determination of the relative weight given to the different factors and in determining the impact of each alternative provider on the attributes considered.
In this research, only in T.T. Company is studied. However, future research could extend their studied subjects to other Thai companies. Thailand is in the middle rank in logistics development among ASEAN members. However, logistics outsourcing will become a common practice in Thailand. The results of our study and other papers will be useful for Thai companies to select appropriate 3PLs.Reference
Aghazadeh S.M. (2003), “How to choose an effective third party logistics provider”, Management Research News, 26(7), 50-58.
Akarte M.M., Surendra N.V., Ravi B., and Rangaraj N. (2001), “Web based casting supplier
evaluation using analytical hierarchy process”, Journal of the Operational Research
Society, 52(5), 511–522.
Alsuwehri, and Y. (2011), “Supplier evaluation and selection by using the analytic hierarchy
process approach”, Kansas: Faculty of the Graduate School of The University of
Kansas.
Biggam, J. (2011), “Succeeding with your master dissertation”, A step-by-step Handbook, Open University Press, UK.
Bhatnagar R., Sohal A.S., and Millen R. (1999), “Third party logistics services: a Singapore
perspective”, International Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics
Management, 29(9), 569–587.
Bottani E., and Rizzi A. (2006), “A fuzzy TOPSIS methodology to support outsourcing of
logistics services”, Supply Chain Manage: International Journal 11(4), 294-308.
Bowersox, D.J., Closs, D.J. and Stank, T.P., (2000), “Tenmega-trends that will revolutionize
supply chain logistics”, Journal of Business Logistics, 21(2), 1-16.
Boyson, S., Corsi, T., Dresner, M., and Rabinovich, E. (1999), “Managing third party
logistics relationships: what does it take”. Journal of Business Logistics, 20(1), 73–
100.
Cabala P., (2010), “Using the analytic hierarchy process in evaluating decision alternatives,”
Operations Research and Decisions, 1, 5-23.
Chan A.P.C., and Chan A.P.L. (2004), "Key performance indicators for measuring
construction success", Benchmarking: An International Journal, 11(2), 203 – 221.
Chen, K. Y. and Wu, W. T. (2011), “Applyıng analytic network process in logistics service
provider selection—a case study of the industry investing in Southeast Asia”,
International Journal of Electronic Business Management, 9 (1), 24–36.
Chow, C.C., and Luk, P. (2003), “A strategic service quality approach using analytic
hierarchy process”, Management Service Quality, 15(3), 278–289.
Chuang P.T. (2001), “Combining the analytic hierarchy process and quality function
deployment for a location decision from a requirement perspective”, International
Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, 18(11), 842–849.
Dagdeviren, M., Akay, D., Kurt and M. (2004), “Analytic hierarchy process and execution in
work assessment process”, Gazi University Faculty of Engineering and Architecture
Bulletin, 19(2), 131-138.
Efendigil, T., Ö nüt., S., and Kongar, E. (2008), “A holistic approach for selecting a
third-party reverse logistics provider in the presence of vagueness”, Computers & Industrial
Engineering, 54(2), 269-287.
Elvira Haezendonck (2007), “Transport project evaluation : extending the social cost-benefit
approach”, association with the Belgian-Dutch Association for Institutional and
Political Economy, 69-70.
Erdal Ç akir (2009), “Logistics outsourcing and selection of third party logistics service
provider (3PL) via fuzzy AHP”, T.C BAHÇ ESEHIR, master thesis, university institute
of science industrial engineering, 16-18.Fu, K., Xu, J., Zhang, Q., and Miao, Z. (2010), “An AHP-based decision support model for
3PL evaluation”, Service System and Service Management (ICSSSM), 1-6.
Ghodsypour S.H., and O’Brien C. (1998), “A decision support system for supplier selection
using an integrated analytic hierarchy process and linear programming”,
International Journal of Production Economic, 56-57, 199–212.
Gol, H. and Saaty, B. (2007), “Third party logistics provider selection: insights from a
Turkish automotive company”. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal,
12 (6), 379–384.Hertz S., and Alfredsson M. (2003), “Strategic development of third party logistics
providers”, Industrial Marketing Management, 32(2), 139–149.
Huang D., and Kadar M. (2002), “Third party logistics in China: still a tough market”, Mercer Travel Transportation, 9(2), 3-10.
IWLA (2003), the International Warehouse Logistics Association (IWLA), Retrieved 20 January 2015, from www.iwla.com
Kandakoglu, A., Metin Celik, and Ilker Akgun (2009), “A multi-methodological approach for
shipping registry selection in maritime transportation industry”, Mathematical and
Computer Modelling, 49(3-4), 586-597.
Kannan V.R., and Tan KC., (2002), “Supplier selection and assessment: Their Impact on
Business Performance”, Journal Supply Chain Management, 38(4), 11-21.
Kivijarv H. i, and Tuominen M. (1991), “A method for evaluation of production–distribution
investments”, International Journal of Production Economics, 24(1-2), 115–128.
Kivijarv H. i, and Tuominen M. (2005), “A method for evaluation of production–distribution
investments” International Journal of Production Economics, 24, 115–129.
Korpela J., and Lehmusvaara A. (1999), “A customer oriented approach to warehouse
network evaluation and design” International Journal of Production Economics, 59(1–
3), 135–146.
Korpela J., and Tuominen M. (1996),” A decision aid in warehouse site selection”
International Journal of Production Economics, 45(1–3), 169–180.
Liu, F.F., and Hai, H.L. (2005), “The voting analytic hierarchy process method for selection
supplier”, International Journal of Production Economics, 97 (3), 308-31.
Liu, H., and Wang, W. (2009), “An integrated fuzzy approach for provider evaluation and
selection in third-party logistics”. Expert Systems with Applications, 36, 4387–4398.
Manda Srinath (2012), “An insight into the evolution of Thailand's 3PL industry”, Retrieved 28 January 2015, from http://www.logisticsdigest.com/component/content/article/28-november-2006/37-an-insight-into-the-evolution-of-thailand%5C's-3pl-industry.html McGinnis, M.A., Kochunny, C.M. and Ackerman, K.B. (1995), “Third party logistics
choice”, The International Journal of Logistics Management, 6(2), 93-102.
Moberg C.R.., and Speh T.W. (2004), “Third party warehousing selection: A comparison of
national and regional firms”, Mid-American Journal Business, 19(2), 71-76.
Nayyar, D. (2003), “Globalization and development”, in Rethinking Development Economics, ed. Ha-JoonChang, pp. 61–82.
Omkarprasad S. Vaidy, and Sushil Kumar (2006), “Analytic hierarchy process: An overview
of applications”, European Journal of Operational Research 169(1), 1–29.
Park, Y. Jung Kyu Choi, and Anming Zhang (2009), “Evaluating competitiveness of air
cargo express services”, Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation
Review, 45(2), 321-334.
Paweł Cabal, (2010), “Using the analytic hierarchy process in evaluating decisions
alternative”, Operation Research and Decisions, 1, 1-23.
Pettofrezzo, and Anthony J. (1966), “Matrices and transformations” Dover Publications, Inc., New York, 86.
Qureshi, M.N., Kumar, D., and Kumar, P. (2007), “Selection of potential 3PL service
providers using TOPSIS with interval data”, Industrial Engineering and Engineering
Management, 1512-1516.
Razzaque M.A., and Sheng C.C. (1998), “Outsourcing of logistics functions: a literature
survey” International Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics Management, 28
(2), 89–107.Saaty, T.L. (1980), “The analytic hierarchy process”, McGraw-Hill, New York.
Saaty, T.L. (1994), “How to make a decision: The analytical hierarchy process” Interfaces 24(6), 19-43.
Saaty, T.L. (1986), “Axiomatic foundation of the analytic hierarchy process” Management Science, 32(7), 841.
Saaty, T.L. (1999), “The seven pillars of the analytic hierarchy process” ISAHP Proceedings, Kobe, 15.
Saaty, T.L. and Vargas, L.G. (2001), “The seven pillars of the analytic hierarchy process”, International Series in Operations Research & Management Science, 34(1), 27- 46.
Schniederjans M.J., Schniederjans A.M., and Schniederjans D.G. (2005), “Outsourcing and
insourcing in an international context” M.E.Sharpe, New York.
Selviaridis K., and Spring M. (2007), “Third party logistics: a literature review and research
agenda”, International Journal Logistics Manage, 18(1), 125-150.
Setthakaset P., and Basnet C. (2005), “Third party logistics in Thailand – from the users’
perspective”, In: Research Methodologies in Supply Chain Management, edited by
Kotzab H, Seuring S, Muller M, Reiner G. Berlin: Physica-Verlag, 203-218.Sink, H.L., and Langley Jr. C.J. (1997), “A managerial framework for the acquisition of
third-party logistics services”, Journal Business Logistics, 18(2), 163-187.
Skjoett-Larsen T. (2000), “Third party logistics-from an inter-organizational point of view”,
International Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics Management, 30(2), 112–
127.
Spencer M.S., Rogers D.S., and Daugherty P.J. (1994), “JIT systems and external logistics
suppliers”, International Journal Operations and Production Management, 14(6),
60-74.
Tahriri, F., Osman, M.R., Ali, A., Yusuff, R.M., and Esfandiary, A. (2008), “AHP approach
for supplier evaluation and selection in a steel manufacturing company”, Journal of
Industrial Engineering and Management, 1(2), 54-76.
Tam, M. and Rao Tummala, V.M., (2001), “An application of the AHP in vendor selection of
a telecommunications system”, Omega, 29(2), 171-182.
Tudela, A., Akiki, N., and Cisternas, R. (2006), “Comparing the output of cost benefit and
multi-criteria analysis: an application to urban transport investment”, Transportation
Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 40(5), 414 – 423.
Wang, G., Huang, S.H., and Dismukes, J.P. (2004), “Product-driven supply chain selection
using integrated multi criteria decision-making methodology”, International Journal of
Production Economics, 91, 1-15.
Weber C.A., and Current J.R. (1993), “A multiobjective approach to supplier selection”, European Journal of Operational Research, 68, 173-184.
Weber C.A., Current J.R., and Benton W.C. (1991), “Supplier selection criteria and
methods” European Journal of Operational Research, 50, 2–18.
Xia, W., and Wu, Z. (2007), “Supplier selection with multiple criteria in volume discount
environments”, Omega The International Journal of Management Science, 35,
494-504.
Yoo, K.E. and Choi, Y.C. (2006), “Analytic hierarchy process approach for identifying
relative importance of factors to improve passenger security checks at airports”,
Journal of Air Transport Management, 12(3), 135-142.
Zhang, H., Li X., and Liu, W. (2006), “An AHP/DEA methodology for 3PL vendor selection
in 4PL”, National Engineering Research Center for CIMS, 646-655.
Appendices
Questionnaire: Factors Affecting Logistics Outsourcing Decision.
This is an anonymous academic questionnaire for a study of master thesis paper in Global Business Program, Soochow University, the Republic of China. The purpose of this study is to understand the critical factors considered to select a logistics outsourcing provider for Thailand Company. All information that you provide is only used for our research purpose and absolutely confidential. Please feel the ease to answer it. If you have any question while filling out the questionnaire, please feel free to contact me.
Sincerely,
Thank you for your participation and assistance
東吳大學企業管理研究所
Advisor: Chih-Ming Lee, Ph.D.
Department of Business Administration Researcher: MS. Panomporn Saejeng Global Business Program Soochow University E-mail: Jessie.pett@gmail
TEL: +886 9 355 598 05 2015 January
70
Part 1. A Hierarchy Framework of Factors
Part 2 The Table of the Definitions of Factors
Dimension Factor Definition of Factor
General Company Consideration
(A1)
Price(B1) The price that has to be paid to the 3PL for service.
Location(B2) It refers to the distance between providers and the company. Shorter distance enables to save time and money on distribution and marketing of the products.
Expand Market(B3) To help the company to enter new market or expand into new customers.
Own Strategic Asset(B4) The 3PL is willing to invest in equipment or assets relate to logistic and information technology.
Globalization(B5) The 3PLs expand to support company’s business in many countries.
Relationship (A2)
Personal Relationship(B6) The personal relationship between the logistics provider and the company.
Good Communication(B7) The com m unication between the logistics provider and the com pany involves identifying how to distribute information effectively.
Easy to work with(B8) The 3 PL is easy to deal with.
Decrease Labor
Problem(B9) Allow the company to decrease the manpower related to logistics inside company.
Network Coverage(B10) Measuring the performance of a 3PL’s transportation network sharing cooperation between logistics service providers.
Capabilities (A3)
IT Systems(B11) IT-capability refers the computer systems used for tracking, tracing, and confirmation.
The IT system of 3PL should be compatible with the company’s system.
Management Quality (B12) The ability of management in providing good service and maintaining a competitive advantage.
Special Expertise(B13) Special skill or knowledge in logistics and good at problem solving.
Cost Reduction(B14) The 3PL is capable to cut its cost further under the company’s requirement.
Flexibility(B15)
The ability of the 3PL to adapt to market demands. In another words, the ability of the 3PL to respond to potential internal or external changes affecting its value delivery, in a timely and cost-effective manner.
Financial Stability(B16) The 3PL which has a sound financial performance could ensure the continuity of
The feelings about how people consider about the providers. It refers to the actual ability in satisfying the needs of their customers. Reputation can be regarded as an initial image for company.
Reliability (B18)
T o ensure that products or services are reliable consistent and contribute to overall customer satisfaction.
On-time Performance(B19) It is measured as percentage of achievement within a window of time that brackets the customer-requested date and/or the business’ committed date.
Speed(B20) The 3PL could deliver products quickly and no less than other 3PL.
Customer Service (A5)
Service Quality(B21)
Quality of the provider includes many aspects such as accuracy of order fulfillment, less loss and damage, promptness in attending customers' complaints, commitment to continuous improvement, etc.
Variety of Service(B22)
To offer the basic functions of logistics to the customers such as, pick and pack, warehousing, and distribution (business) and advanced value-added services such as:
tracking and tracing, cross-docking, specific packaging, or providing a unique security system.
Customer Support(B23) Include assistance in planning, installing, training, troubleshooting, maintenance, upgrading and disposal of a product.
Expand long term business with customer(B24)
The 3PL have a good relationship with the customers and know desire of company as well. Referring to include shared risks and rewards, ensure cooperation between the company and the 3PL.
Part 3. The Checkboxes Base on the Level of Important in Comparison of two Factors
(1.) Description for Questionnaire
Pair-wise comparison measurement scales. The importance level are divided into 1 to 9。
Meaning
Equal Important Moderate Important Strong Important Very Strong Important Extreme Important
Intermediate values between two adjacent judgment
Intensity of importance
1 3 5 7 9 2,4,6,8
(2.) Example of fulfill a questionnaire
If the key factors affecting the purchase of a house are price and place, a decision maker by his/her who has experience and expertise in this field feels：
「Price」≧「Location」 that means the decision maker thinks price is more importance than location.
Example 1：If the decision maker believes 「Price」≧「Location」by a scale of「Moderate Important」, then the decision maker chooses the checkbox moderate important：
Dimension
Extreme Important
Very Strong Important
Strong Important
Moderate Important
Equal Important
Moderate Important
Strong Important
Very Strong Important
Extreme Important
Dimension
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
Price V Location
Price is moderately more important than location with 3:1
Example 2：If the decision maker believes「Location」≧「Price」by a scale of pairwise comparison「Equal Important」, then the decision maker chooses the checkbox equal important：
Dimension
Extreme Important
Very Strong Important
Strong Important
Moderate Important
Equal Important
Moderate Important
Strong Important
Very Strong Important
Extreme Important
Dimension
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
Price V Location
If the decision maker thinks Price = Place is equally important with 1:1
Example 3：If the decision maker believes「Location」 ≧ 「Price」 by a scale of pairwise comparison「Not Strong Important」, then the decision maker chooses the judgment which indicates the checkbox not strong important：
Dimension
Extreme Important
Very Strong Important
Strong Important
Moderate Important
Equal Important
Moderate Important
Strong Important
Very Strong Important
Extreme Important
Dimension
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
Price V Location
Location is strongly more important than location with 1:5
*For more information about the factors, please read the table of definitions of factors
(3.) Formal questionnaire
The correlation analysis between dimensions regarding selecting logistics outsourcing
This questionnaire divided into five dimensions :「General Company Consideration(A1)」 ,「Relationship(A2)」,「Capabilities(A3)」,
「Operational Performance(A4)」,「Customer Service(A5)」.
Please determine the important and priority of those five dimensions when selecting logistics outsourcing： (Please fill in their codes given above)
______________ ≧ ______________ ≧ ______________ ≧ ______________ ≧ ______________
(4.) The correlation analysis between factors
Compared to each other regarding「General Company Consideration」
This dimension divided into five factors:「Price(B1)」、「Location(B2)」、「Expand Market(B3)」、「Own Strategic Asset(B4)」、
「Globalization(B5)」.
Please determine the important and priority of those five factors regarding general company consideration： (Please fill in their codes that given above)
_________________ ≧ _________________ ≧ ________________≧ ________________ ≧ ________________
Compared to each other regarding「Relationship」
This dimension divided into five factors:「Personal Relationships(B6)」、「Good Communication(B7)」、「Easy to Work with(B8)」、「Decrease Labor Problem(B9)」、「Network Coverage(B10)」.
Please determine the important and priority of those five factors regarding relationship： (Please fill in their codes that given above)
________________ ≧ ________________ ≧ ________________ ≧ ________________ ≧________________
Compared to each other regarding「Capabilities」
This dimension divided into six factors :「IT Systems(B11)」、「Management Quality(B12)」、「Special Expertise(B13)」、「Cost Reduction(B14)」、「Flexibility(B15)」、「Financial Stability(B16)」.
Please determine the important and priority of those six factors compared to each factors regarding capabilities： (Please fill in their codes that given above)
_____________ ≧ _____________ ≧ _____________ ≧_____________≧_____________≧ _____________
Compared to each other regarding「Operational Performance」
This dimension divided into four factors follow「Reputation(B17)」、「Reliability(B18)」、「On-Time Performance(B19)」、
「Speed(B20)」.
Please determine the important and priority of those four factors compared to each factors regarding operational performance： (Please fill in their codes that given above)
___________________ ≧___________________≧ ___________________ ≧ ___________________
Compared to each other regarding「Customer Service」
This dimension divided into four factors :「Service Quality(B21)」、「Variety of service(B22)」、「Customer Support(B23)」、
「Expand Long Term Business with Customers(B24)」.
Please determine the important and priority of those four factors compared to each factors regarding customer service： (Please fill in their codes that given above)
_________________ ≧ _________________ ≧_________________≧ _________________
Part 4. Basic Information: Your personal information will keep confidential
1、Highest Education Level：
□
Lower than Bachelor Degree□
Bachelor Degree□
Master Degree□
Doctor Degree2、Age：
□
Less than 25□
25-35□
36-45□
46-55□
56-65□
More than 653、How long have you been in the company? ：
□
1-5 years□
6-10 years□
11-15 years□
16-20 years□
21-25 years□
26-30 years□
31-35 years□
36-40 years□
More than 40 years4、Title：__________________________________________
5、Suggestions:
End of the questionnaire, thank you for your participation!