Integral Logistics Management — Operations Management and Supply Chain Management Within and Across Companies

3.1.5b Design Options for Global Transportation Networks

Intended learning outcomes: Explain design options for global transportation networks. Describe some company cases.

previous subsection
next subsection

Continuation in next subsection (3.3.4b).

The portfolio in Figure 3.1.5.1 shows, in addition to the two classical designs (direct or indirect transport), two possible mixed designs for the transport between two locations L1 and L2. The four possible designs lie in four sectors in a two-dimensional space, spanned by the dimensions that correspond to the two (conflicting) groups of features.

Fig. 3.1.5.1        Features of and design options for transportation networks.

The sector T1 describes the design option direct transport between two locations. It is bene­ficial if a (full) truckload lot — i.e., a single delivery of minimum size or minimum weight that is sufficient for the rate for a full load by the selected means of transport — is to be transported between two locations (e.g., the manufacturer’s warehouse and a pickup site). This can result in lower transportation costs. The means of transport can be provided from the dispatcher’s own fleet, or by (full-)truckload (TL or FTL) carriers — i.e., transportation compa­nies that bill for the full utilization of the means of transport.

Last mile delivery represents a challenge. In this case the distributor supplies products itself to a range of customers on a route, instead of using a package delivery company. As the delivery vehicles used on at least part of the route are equivalent to “LTL carriers” (less than truck­load), the transportation costs are correspondingly higher. Providing the distance between the distributor’s depot and the customer is short and the routing and scheduling are effective, this is countered by a very short delivery lead time that generally cannot be matched by a package carrier company. Examples here are delivery of daily provisions and the supply of medicines to pharmacies. When the service is provided at the location of the object (e.g., maintenance and repair of installed appliances), the service provider must resolve a similar problem in terms of optimum route planning.

The opposite sector T4 describes the transportation between two locations by a package carrier via a special distribution center: Third-party logistics (3PL) providers in particular may possess distribution centers that offer a service infrastructure that extends beyond traditional transportation services; for example, for in-transit merge, or merging products from several manufacturers. Instead of receiving multiple deliveries, customers need only receive one shipment, which reduces their costs for transportation, handling goods in and putting the orders together themselves. However, this is offset by the longer duration owing to the special distribution center, where additional costs are also incurred for the work involved in combining the products. An example of this is the delivery of computers that are merged from components from a range of manufacturers (e.g., processor from brand x and screen from brand y).

The intermediate sector T2 describes the transportation between two sites by a package carrier. This option is selected if the size or weight of the delivery is too small or low to justify ordering transport specifically for this delivery. The package carrier helps in collecting additional shippers and therefore spreading the burden of costs for the full transport over a broader customer base. Such package carriers can also access their own network of transshipment centers, about which the customer need have no knowledge. Depending on the type of goods and specific transportation requirements, there may also be specialized carriers such as those that carry very high-value goods (e.g., money, precious gems, or precious metals), or those that specialize in express transportation where the customers’ tolerance time is short (e.g., for spare parts).

The intermediate sector T3 describes the transportation between two locations via transshipment centers. This option may be selected if an order comprises several products from different manufacturers and must be delivered without interim storage, or if an order is to be supplied by a given transportation that is approaching the destination location anyway. Cross-docking principles, which are designed for fast transfer through a transship­ment center, are therefore vital from the customer’s viewpoint. This design possibility leads to better utilization of LTL carriers along the whole route. However, it is even possible to use TL carriers. The pros are offset by a normally longer lead time owing to the diversion via the transshipment center and complex planning for load building and cross-docking operations. Examples here include regular deliveries to individual points of sale by a large wholesaler, or online orders that are delivered to pickup sites, or regular transport of groups of people to events at specific locations.

The four design options for the transport network in Figure 3.1.5.1 can, in principle, be selected for each of the four design options of production networks in Figure 3.1.1.2 to transport between two operations. The same holds for distribution networks in Figure 3.1.2.1 to deliver from a warehouse or directly from the production line to a customer or the customer’s unloading point or a pickup site. The same holds both for product returns and when the transport is not carried out to the end-customer, i.e., the consumer, but “only” to the depot at the next echelon of the distribution network structure, e.g., from the manufacturer to the wholesaler’s distribution center, or from a central distribution center to a retailer’s warehouse — see also Section 3.1.3. And the same also holds for service networks in Figure 3.1.4.1 for the transfer of the service object or its parts to multiple manufacturers or service providers, or for delivery of the object or parts back to the location after provision of the service, as well as for the transport of the service provider and its infrastructure closer to the object.

Company Cases: In the prior example, Hilti prefers option T3 for transport between the plant and the warehouses in the local market. This is due to the possibility for using an existing transport network, as the weight of the delivery is high. If the delivery volume of one production plant for one market is high enough, and accordingly the need for merged transport of products from different production plants is low, the direct transport between production plant and local market (option T1) also takes place. Direct transport by Hilti’s well-known red station wagons is used for transport from the local warehouse to the construction site (option T1).

De facto, the available transport network design options validate the selected design of the distribution and production network. Should the transport network from the last production or storage location to the customer fail to enable an efficient design for which the delivery lead time can be kept shorter than or equal to the customer’s tolerance time, a competing solution could clearly better serve the customer’s needs. If the provider still wishes to serve the customer, there is a need to redesign the distribution network, and possibly even the production network. Holcim, for example, deliberately cedes a customer to competitors as soon as it has no chance to meet the customer’s tolerance time with its actual production, distribution, and transport network. However, as the example of the plant in Ste. Genevieve (Missouri) shows, long-term investments in transportation infra­structure can change this situation. With the Panama Canal extension, Holcim considers whether or not to distribute cement to the West Coast of the USA as well from this plant. Likewise, with the availability of the new Gotthard railroad base tunnel, Holcim considers to distributing cement to North­ern Italy from its plants in northern Switzerland instead of producing locally, as soon as an existing quarry will be exploited, and instead of looking for a new quarry in northern Italy.

Not every activitiy along the supply chain can be clearly identified as part of production, distribution, or service. Certain activities, such as secondary packaging, adding information leaflets, or affixing a local sticker to electrical appliances, can be carried out both in the factory and in a suitable distribution center. Services such as clean­ing or battery charging can be handled by a pickup site. Other services, such as preproduction of catering products, can be performed at a produc­tion site with immediate distribution. Thus, a distribution network or also a service network can potentially develop into a production net­work. As for many other companies, this is also true in the case of Holcim, where the local “terminals” are not only elements of the distribution or service network structure, but can also be used to assemble specific or higher-level finished products (e.g., concrete) for local customers.

previous subsection
next subsection

Course section 3.1: Subsections and their intended learning outcomes

  • 3.1.2b Design Options for Global Distribution Networks
    3.1.2b Design Options for Global Distribution Networks

    Intended learning outcomes: Explain design options for global distribution networks. Describe some company cases.

  • 3.1.3 Network Structure for Decentralized Distribution
    3.1.3 Network Structure for Decentralized Distribution

    Intended learning outcomes: Disclose the distribution network structure and describe decision variables in its design. Present features such as available time for shopping, and simultaneously, capacity of an available means of transport of the customer, as well as the required geographical catchment area.

  • 3.1.3b Design Options for Retail Networks
    3.1.3b Design Options for Retail Networks

    Intended learning outcomes: For decentralized distribution, explain the portfolio for designing retail networks retail networks.

  • 3.1.4 Centralized Service Versus Decentralized Service
    3.1.4 Centralized Service Versus Decentralized Service

    Intended learning outcomes: Differentiate between centralized service and decentralized service. Present features such as the mobility cost ratio of the service, the degree of customer involvement in bringing and picking up the service object, as well as the need for repeated transfer of the service object.

Written by

View all posts by: