Outline. Introduction. Introduction. Channel Service Supply Chain Modeling and Performance Measurement with A Taiwan Conveniences Store Case Study

Transcription

1 The 17 th Decision Analysis Symposium (DAS2014) Channel Service Supply Chain Modeling and Performance Measurement with A Taiwan Conveniences Store Case Study Outline Introduction Methodology Case study Discussion & Conclusion Authors: Hong Pin Tsai, Ming ChuanChiu 2014/1/ Introduction Introduction GDPof Serviceindustry in Taiwan Service oriented become dominant. Backstage support is very important, by the support of supply chain, company could generate more profit. However, there were several research to discuss service differentiation and service innovation. This study want to fill up the gap

2 What is Supply Chain? A supply chain is the context in which goods, services and information flow from the earliest supplier to the end user. (Baltacioglu et al.,2007) Supply chain classification Manufacturing oriented V.S. Service oriented Manufacturing supply chain process Service supply chain process Comparison Supply Chain Type Manufacturing supply chain Service supply chain Customer Attention Less emphasized Emphasized Supply chain length Long Short Supply chain type Pull and push Pull 5 6 Performance Evaluation Supply Chain type Same Manufacturing Cost Flexibility ProÞtability Supply chain comparisons table Service 7 Performance Evaluation Supply Chain type Different Manufacturing Inventory level Cycle time Lead time Productively Defectives rate Supply chain comparisons table Service Queuing time Convenience Responsiveness Assurance Empathy Tangibles Reliability 8 2

3 Service Supply Chain Model (Ellram et al., 2004) IUE Service Supply Chain Model. (Baltacioglu et al.,2007) Service Delivery Supplier Service provider Customer Demand Management Capacity Management Supplier Relationship Management Customer Relationship Management Service Performance Management Order Process Management 9 10 Research Question Research Gap Most models provide the framework without specific approach. There were still several drawbacks. e.g. How company mange supply chain? What management criteria should be includes to measure? This study develops service supply chain model that could provide systematic method to fill up the gap. Methodology The proposed method considers two directions (supply side and demand side) Utilize the fuzzy number to translate linguistic meaning. Compromise programing is applied to solve multi objective model

4 Evaluation criteria(supply planning ) Evaluation criteria(demand planning ) Service Quality Responsiveness Reliability Tangible Competiveness Relative market share Sales Growth Customer Loyalty Electronic commerce integration System Connection degree Support degree Data open degree Flexibility Coordination degree Extra bonus for service provider Innovativeness Cycle time of service renew Performance of the innovation process Service Performance Convenience Tangible Reliability Responsiveness Assurance Empathy Innovativeness Assurance Empathy System compatibility degree Cost of integration system Price Product price Service price Supply& Demand planning process Service supply chain Modeling Data collection Interview the experts and the customers This is a multi objective model, the parameters are following: Fuzzy AHP Output Decide criteria weights Assess suppliers and service provider. Implement service level of service provider and suppliers are possible supplier of a certain service, are possible services that provided by a certain supplier Decision variable: means that supplier i provides service j,

5 Notation Objective function is profit of service j provided by supplier i is satisfaction of company to supplier i which provided service j (supplier) is the lowest satisfaction for service j is the number of times that supplier i is capable to provide service j every year is the demand number of times of service j every year is the satisfaction of customer(demand) is the total fixed cost for the company is the tanning cost is the decorating cost is the decided customer relationship care level of the company Constraints Optimizing Service Supply Chain Compromise programming (Yu and Zeleney, 1974) s.t. (8), : weight of objective i

6 Case study Case study Survey Candidate Convenience store company (F company) The second largest convenience store company in Taiwan (28.9%) 2,800 stores 3 main existent services 18 suppliers are evaluated Supply Side(6 experts) Education Position 17% 17% 50% 50% 33% 33% Manager Store manager Master College Junior Section manager Working Years 17% 50% 33% 3~5 5~ Case study Survey Candidate Discussion Demand Side(30 customers) Occupation 3% 7% Age Gender 30% 20% 23% 10% 47% 40% 13% 10% 7% 60% Traditional industry Business Medicine & bio tech Student Information Technology Leisure & service Government official Others 30% 20~30 30~40 40~50 Male Female 23 If F company wants to increase more satisfaction, it might sacrifice many profits. Service provider could select weight by their prefer. 24 6

7 Discussion Conclusion Green: best suppliers due to the characteristic of robust. Blue: those suppliers should be terminated contract first. 25 This research systematically evaluates both supply and demand sides to improve the overall performance. Either side could enhance customer experience. This model could provide suggestions for decision makers in supplier selection. To provide a new way to construct channel service supply chain. 26 Conclusion Future work Investigate more factors to better evaluate the performance of service supply chain. Consider the interactions among different services Find the customer relationship function that would aid company to make decision accurately. Thanks for your attention Q&A

8 Reference Reference Arlbjørn, J. S., Freytag, P. V., & de Haas, H. (2011). Service supply chain management: A survey of lean application in the municipal sector. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, 41(3), Baltacioglu, T., Ada, E., Kaplan, M. D., Yurt and, O., & Cem Kaplan, Y. (2007). A new framework for service supply chains. The Service Industries Journal, 27(2), Büyüközkan, G., Çifçi, G., & Güleryüz, S. (2011). Strategic analysis of healthcare service quality using fuzzy AHP methodology. Expert Systems with Applications, 38(8), Beamon, B. M. (1998). Supply chain design and analysis: Models and methods. International journal of production economics, 55(3), Bruce, M., Daly, L., & Towers, N. (2004). Lean or agile: a solution for supply chain management in the textiles and clothing industry? International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 24(2), Charnes, A., Cooper, W. W., & Rhodes, E. (1978). Measuring the efficiency of decision making units. European journal of operational research, 2(6), Cho, D. W., Lee, Y. H., Ahn, S. H., & Hwang, M. K. (2012). A framework for measuring the performance of service supply chain management. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 62(3), Coello, C. A. C., Pulido, G. T., & Lechuga, M. S. (2004). Handling multiple objectives with particle swarm optimization. Evolutionary Computation, IEEE Transactions on, 8(3), Cook, J. S., DeBree, K., & Feroleto, A. (2001). From Raw Materials to Customers: Supply Chain Management in the Service Industry. SAM Advanced Management Journal, 66(4), Chang, D. Y. (1996). Applications of the extent analysis method on fuzzy AHP.European journal of operational research, 95(3), Doney, P. M., Barry, J. M., & Abratt, R. (2007). Trust determinants and outcomes in global B2B services. European Journal of Marketing, 41(9/10), De Waart, D., & Kemper, S. (2004). Five steps to service supply chain excellence. Supply Chain Management Review, 8(1), Ellram, L. M., Tate, W. L., & Billington, C. (2004). Understanding and managing the services supply chain. Journal of Supply Chain Management, 40(4), Fitzgerald, L, Johnston, R, Brignall, TJ, Silvestro, R, & Voss, C. (1991). Performance Measurement in Service Businesses. London: Chartered Institute of Management Accountants. Gaudreault, J., Forget, P., Frayret, J. M., Rousseau, A., Lemieux, S., & D'Amours, S. (2010). Distributed Operations Planning In The Lumber Supply Chain: Models And Coordination. International Journal of Industrial Engineering: Theory, Applications and Practice, 17(3). Gunasekaran, A., Patel, C., & McGaughey, R. E. (2004). A framework for supply chain performance measurement. International journal of production economics, 87(3), Grant, R. M. (2010). Contemporary strategy analysis and cases: text and cases. Wiley. com. Hersh M. Seymour. (2009). Chain of command. New York: HarperCollins. Huang, S. H., Uppal, M., & Shi, J. (2002). A product driven approach to manufacturing supply chain selection. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, 7(4), Meyera, M. H., & DeToreb, A. (2001). Perspective: Creating a platform based approach for developing new services. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 18(3), Min, H., & Zhou, G. (2002). Supply chain modeling: past, present and future.computers & Industrial Engineering, 43(1), Mohaghar, A., Fathi, M. R., & Jafarzadeh, A. H. (2013). A Supplier Selection Method Using AR DEA and Fuzzy VIKOR. International Journal of Industrial Engineering: Theory, Applications and Practice, 20(5 6). Neely, A. D., Adams, C., & Kennerley, M. (2002). The performance prism: The scorecard for measuring and managing business success: Prentice Hall Financial Times London. Patel, M. H., Wei, W., Dessouky, Y., Hao, Z., & Pasakdee, R. (2009). Modeling and Solving an Integrated Supply Chain System. International Journal of Industrial Engineering: Theory, Applications and Practice, 16(1), Sengupta, K., Heiser, D. R., & Cook, L. S. (2006). Manufacturing and service supply chain performance: a comparative analysis. Journal of Supply Chain Management, 42(4), Simonovic, S. P., & Burn, D. H. (1989). An improved methodology for short term operation of a single multipurpose reservoir. Water Resources Research, 25(1), 1 8. Wang, G., Huang, S. H., & Dismukes, J. P. (2004). Product driven supply chain selection using integrated multi criteria decision making methodology. International journal of production economics, 91(1), Xue, L., Ray, G., & Sambamurthy, V. (2013). The impact of supply side electronic integration on customer service performance. Journal of Operations Management, 31(6), Yasin, M. M., & Gomes, C. F. (2010). Performance management in service operational settings: a selective literature examination. Benchmarking: An International Journal, 17(2), Yu, P. L., & Leitmann, G. (1974). Compromise solutions, domination structures, and Salukvadze's solution. Journal of Optimization Theory and Applications, 13(3), Information Supplier Purchasing Internal users Finance Ultimate Customer Capacity Management Demand Management Customer Relationship Management Supplier Relationship Management Service Delivery Management Cash Flow Management 31 Sub criteria Description Service Performance(b1) Convenience(b11) Tangible(b12) Reliability(b13) Responsiveness(b14) Assurance(b15) Empathy(b16) Innovativeness(b17) It s easy for customers to get service and providers provide localized services and commodity If the environment is clean and properly decorated Provider s ability to perform the promised service dependably and accurately Willingness to help customers Knowledge and courtesy of personnel and their ability to inspire trust and confidence Individualized attention and caring the firm provides for its customer Performance of the innovation result. Cost(b2) Training cost, decorating cost Cost of maintaining customer satisfaction 32 8

9 Case study Result of evaluation National brand product service Sub criteria A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A Private brand product service Sub criteria A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A Electronic commerce service Sub criteria A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A Weight Profit Satisfaction Profit (NT Million) Satisfaction Original Weight Profit Satisfaction National brand product service Private brand product service Electronic commerce service a1,a2,a5 b1,b2,b4 c2,c3,c a1,a2,a3 b1,b2,b5 c1,c3,c4,c a1,a2,a3 b1,b2,b5 c1,c3,c5,c a1,a2,a3 b1,b2,b5 c1,c3,c5,c a1,a2,a3 b1,b2,b5 c1,c3,c5,c6 Original a3,a4 b1,b2,b5 c1,c3,c4 35 9