|
Calculation models are an essential tool for the future supply chain to determine the impact of the leading practices and solutions. As the industry tries to improve several parameters in the supply chain, how can it compare solutions that may have conflicting impact on, for example, CO2 emissions versus supply chain costs? We will examine the general characteristics of such calculation models.
In the calculation models used in the future supply chain research, the following parameters are considered: • Supply chain cost reduction (mainly on handling, storage and transport) • CO2 emissions (greenhouse gases) • Traffic congestion • Infrastructure simplification
The impact of these parameters on the bottom line can always be expressed in terms of multiplying a cost driver and a volume driver. For instance, the impact of transport on the bottom line can be expressed in terms of the cost per kilometer for the particular type of transport multiplied by the number of kilometers traveled. Reductions can either be made by reducing the cost driver (cheaper transport) or by reducing the volume driver (fewer kilometers through fuller trucks or redesign of the network).
While working through the different calculation models, it was found that the relative impact of these parameters on the bottom line was not equal. For parameters that already represent a large percentage of the bottom-line costs (like handling and transport), changes to these factors have substantial impact on the bottom line. For other parameters, the impact is (not yet) as big. Collaborative city replenishment involves concepts where the replenishment of products for several retailers into an urban area is consolidated at transfer points at the boundary of that urban area. The total impact on CO2 emissions and congestion can be improved relatively easily, but typically at the cost of introducing extra handling. Future solutions in this area therefore need to link closely with upstream storage and transfer choices, in order to avoid introducing unnecessary handling. At the same time, congestion charges will tip the balance in favour of collaborative city replenishment.
Collaborative warehouse and distribution looks at opportunities for manufacturers to consolidate warehouse operations and transport from production to the retailer transfer point. It is clear that the combination of warehousing and distribution can help provide the desired benefits. Only looking at consolidated transport can lead to extra handling and infrastructure complication (instead of simplification). Collaborative warehousing also offers CO2 and cost benefits through deploying greener buildings and (transport) assets. An alternative combination of collaborative city replenishment and collaborative warehouses is distribution centre collaboration for retailers. The aggregation of transport and storage for several retailers can have similar benefits as the model for collaborative warehousing. Neighbourhood delivery considers improvements in the delivery of goods to the final consumer, either coming from online ordering or the home delivery of products ordered in a store (such as white goods). The solution can be sought in consolidating these streams at consolidation centres at the boundary of the city and then delivering everything in efficient urban delivery routes or through neighborhood pick-up points.
A different (and often forgotten) viewpoint is the amount of CO2 emissions caused by consumers who drive by car to the store. Research shows that, for example, over 60 % of the total CO2 emissions for the transportation and storage of 1 kg of apples from New Zealand to a UK consumer’s home is caused by consumers who use their cars for shopping trips. Home delivery can improve this significantly.
It is evident that these models should also be considered in relation to collaborative city replenishment to stores, and where possible share a similar infrastructure.
Lead-time reduction looks at various ways in which the total lead time of the product can be reduced. Infrastructure simplification is an important ingredient for this; taking away unnecessary storage points can have a big impact on inventory costs, but also on the chain responsiveness. For instance, cross-docking at a retailer distribution centre (instead of keeping stock) typically requires the manufacturer to deliver store orders instead of consolidated replenishment orders. CO2 emissions reduction through local sourcing considers the trade-offs for remote sourcing between lower production cost and higher transport cost and CO2 emissions. It quickly shows that CO2 taxation needs to be quite severe to motivate more local sourcing. However, a combination of higher energy prices and CO2 emission taxation could tip that balance in the future.
|