GoBack

(1)

(2)

A framework to scope logistics initiatives

Johan W. Joubert

Department of Industrial and Systems Engineering, University of Pretoria [email protected]

Hans W. Ittmann

Center for Logistics and Decision Support, CSIR

[email protected]

(3)

Presentation outline

■ Perspective on Logistics

■ Joburg Metro’s Economic Development Unit (EDU)

■ The proposed framework

■ Example

■ Scoping an initiative

■ Calculating stakeholder fitness

■ Research agenda

(4)

Perspective on logistics

G o o d s , s e rv ic e s , a n d r e la te d in fo rm a ti o n

Road Rail

Air Water Pipeline

N e tw o rk in fr a s tr u c tu re T ra n s p o rt v e h ic le s a n d v e s s e ls

N o d e in fr a s tr u c tu re

Transport service provider 3

^rd

Party logistic service provider 4

^th

Party logistic service provider

Export venue

Warehouse

Point of Demand Import

venue

Warehouse

Point of Supply

P h y s

ic a l fr e ig h t

m v o m e n e t P h

y s ic a

l fr e ig h t

o m e v e m t n

freight logistics sector

O p e ra ti o n a l h u m a n r e s o u rc e s

Origin Destination

C o m m o d it ie s

Logistics enablers

(5)

Joburg’s Economic Development Unit (EDU)

■ Freight logistics acknowledged in Integrated Transport Plans at metropolitan (city) level

■ 9 Cities Network and the Transport Working Group

■

■ Sustainability — a political ideology

■ Return on investment requires beneficiaries to invest in

■ Beneficiaries’ participation required in project identification

■ Careful selection of beneficiaries required

(6)

Proposed framework

(7)

Proposed framework

V e h ic le s / v e s s e ls O p e ra ti o n a l h u m a n re s o u rc e s

Quantitative decision making

Knowledge management

Information

Service Supporter

Regulator

Operator

Supplier

Owner

N o d e i n fr a s tr u c tu re N e tw o rk i n fr a s tr u c tu re

Integration

Physical components

S ta k e h o ld e r ro le s

Co m m er ci al s er vi ce p or tfo lio

(8)

Proposed framework

29 30 31 32

25 26 27 28

21 22 23 24

V e h ic le s / v e s s e ls O p e ra ti o n a l h u m a n re s o u rc e s

Quantitative decision making

1 2 3 4

Knowledge management

Information

Service Supporter

Regulator

Operator

Supplier

Owner

N o d e i n fr a s tr u c tu re N e tw o rk i n fr a s tr u c tu re

5 6 7 8

9 10 11 12

13 14 15 16

17 18 19 20

Integration

Physical components

S ta k e h o ld e r ro le s

Co m m er ci al s er vi ce p or tfo lio

(9)

Proposed framework — an example

29 30 31 32

25 26 27 28

21 22 23 24

V e h ic le s / v e s s e ls O p e ra ti o n a l h u m a n re s o u rc e s

Quantitative decision making

1 2 3 4

Knowledge management

Information

Service Supporter

Regulator

Operator

Supplier

Owner

N o d e i n fr a s tr u c tu re N e tw o rk i n fr a s tr u c tu re

5 6 7 8

9 10 11 12

13 14 15 16

17 18 19 20

Integration

Physical components

S ta k e h o ld e r ro le s

Co m m er ci al s er vi ce p or tfo lio

(10)

Proposed framework — an example

29 30 31 32

25 26 27 28

21 22 23 24

V e h ic le s / v e s s e ls O p e ra ti o n a l h u m a n re s o u rc e s

Quantitative decision making

1 2 3 4

Knowledge management

Information

Service Supporter

Regulator

Operator

Supplier

Owner

N o d e i n fr a s tr u c tu re N e tw o rk i n fr a s tr u c tu re

5 6 7 8

9 10 11 12

13 14 15 16

17 18 19 20

Integration

Physical components

S ta k e h o ld e r ro le s

Co m m er ci al s er vi ce p or tfo lio

(11)

Proposed framework — an example

29 30 31 32

25 26 27 28

21 22 23 24

V e h ic le s / v e s s e ls O p e ra ti o n a l h u m a n re s o u rc e s

Quantitative decision making

1 2 3 4

Knowledge management

Information

Service Supporter

Regulator

Operator

Supplier

Owner

N o d e i n fr a s tr u c tu re N e tw o rk i n fr a s tr u c tu re

5 6 7 8

9 10 11 12

13 14 15 16

17 18 19 20

Integration

Physical components

S ta k e h o ld e r ro le s

Co m m er ci al s er vi ce p or tfo lio

(12)

Proposed framework — an example

29 30 31 32

25 26 27 28

21 22 23 24

V e h ic le s / v e s s e ls O p e ra ti o n a l h u m a n re s o u rc e s

Quantitative decision making

1 2 3 4

Knowledge management

Information

Service Supporter

Regulator

Operator

Supplier

Owner

N o d e i n fr a s tr u c tu re N e tw o rk i n fr a s tr u c tu re

5 6 7 8

9 10 11 12

13 14 15 16

17 18 19 20

Integration

Physical components

S ta k e h o ld e r ro le s

Co m m er ci al s er vi ce p or tfo lio

{ ³ ^, ⁷ ^, ⁸ }

3 =

C

(13)

Scoping an initiative

29 30 31 32

25 26 27 28

21 22 23 24

V e h ic le s / v e s s e ls O p e ra ti o n a l h u m a n re s o u rc e s

Quantitative decision making

1 2 3 4

Knowledge management

Information

Service Supporter

Regulator

Operator

Supplier

Owner

N o d e i n fr a s tr u c tu re N e tw o rk i n fr a s tr u c tu re

5 6 7 8

9 10 11 12

13 14 15 16

17 18 19 20

Integration

Physical components

S ta k e h o ld e r ro le s

Co m m er ci al s er vi ce p or tfo lio

(14)

Scoping an initiative

29 30 31 32

25 26 27 28

21 22 23 24

V e h ic le s / v e s s e ls O p e ra ti o n a l h u m a n re s o u rc e s

Quantitative decision making

1 2 3 4

Knowledge management

Information

Service Supporter

Regulator

Operator

Supplier

Owner

N o d e i n fr a s tr u c tu re N e tw o rk i n fr a s tr u c tu re

5 6 7 8

9 10 11 12

13 14 15 16

17 18 19 20

Integration

Physical components

S ta k e h o ld e r ro le s

Co m m er ci al s er vi ce p or tfo lio

(15)

Stakeholder fitness

s i = 2 × kH ∩ C i k + kL ∩ C i k

2 × k H k + k L k , ∀i ∈ { 1 , 2 , . . . , I }

(16)

Stakeholder fitness

s i = 2 × kH ∩ C i k + kL ∩ C i k

2 × k H k + k L k , ∀i ∈ { 1 , 2 , . . . , I }

Company

1 2 3 4 5

Calculated fitness 25% 44% 6% 31% 63%

Company

6 7 8 9 10

Calculated fitness 19% 19% 19% 19% 13%

(17)

Research agenda

(18)

Research agenda

■ Eliminate ambiguity of elements through questionnaire

■ Refine the calculation of fitness — penalize (or promote):

◆ Service offering

◆ Scope of initiative

(19)