Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Types
of Relationships
vertical relationships:
these refer to the traditional linkages between firms in the supply chain such as retailers, distributors, manufacturers, and parts and materials suppliers
horizontal relationships:
includes those business agreements between firms that have parallel or cooperating positions in the logistics process.
Collaborative:
Strategic:
Transactional
Relational
Vendor
Partner
Strategic Alliance
Regardless of form, relationships may differ in numerous ways. A partial list of these differences follows:
Duration
Obligations Expectations
Interaction/Communication
Cooperation Planning
Goals
Performance
Drivers
defined as compelling reasons to partner; all parties must believe that they will receive significant benefits in one or more areas and that these benefits would not be possible without a partnership
Facilitators
are defined as supportive corporate environmental factors that enhance partnership growth and development; As such, they are the factors that, if present, can help to ensure the success of the relationship
10
Ray A. Mundy, C. John Langley Jr., and Brian J. Gibson, Continuous Improvement in Third Party Logistics, (2001).
12
Collaboration:
Collaboration
Collaboration
Companies
13
14
Real and recognized benefits to all members Dynamic creation, measurement, and evolution of collaborative partnerships Co-buyer and co-seller relationships Flexibility and security Collaboration across all stages of business process integration Open integration with other services Collaboration around essential logistics flows
15
Essentially, a third-party-logistics firm may be defined as an external supplier that performs all or part of a companys logistics functions. Among these, multiple logistics activities are included, those that are included are integrated or managed together, and they provide solutions to logistics/supply chain problems.
17
transportation-based-UPS, FedEx, DHL, Ryder warehouse/distribution-based: DSC Logistics, Saddle Creek forwarder-based: Kuehne & Nagle, C.H. Robinson, Hub shipper/management-based: Caterpillar, Uniroyal financial-based: Fleet-Boston Financial, General Electric, Cass information-based firms: Transplace, Nistevo
18
19
20
1996 1997 1998 1999 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2008
21
Source: 2005 Tenth Annual 3PL Study, Georgia Tech and Cap Gemini LLC. Used with permission
23
24
25
26
27
Source: Accenture, Inc. Used with permission. *TM Registered trademark of Accenture, Inc.
31
32
33
Growing range of strategic services offered by 3PLs and 4PLs IT Capabilities to become an even greater differentiator Increased efforts to update, enhance, and improve 3PL provider-user relationships Emphasis on relationship reinvention, mechanisms for continual improvement, and solution innovation
34
35
Summary (cont.)
While nonusers of 3PL services have their reasons to justify their decision, these same reasons are sometimes cited by users as justification for using a 3PL. Customers have significant IT-based requirements of their 3PL providers, and they feel that the 3PLs are attaching a priority to respond to these requirements. Approximately two-thirds of the customers suggest 3PL involvement in their global supply chain activities. Although most customers indicate satisfaction with existing 3PL services, there is no shortage of suggestions for improvement.
38