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 2014/1/18 1 2 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. 3 4 1
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
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. 11 12 3
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 13 14 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, 15 16 4
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 17 18 Constraints Optimizing Service Supply Chain Compromise programming (Yu and Zeleney, 1974) s.t. (8), : weight of objective i 19 20 5
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 5~9 9 21 22 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
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 27 28 7
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), 277 295. 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), 105 124. Büyüközkan, G., Çifçi, G., & Güleryüz, S. (2011). Strategic analysis of healthcare service quality using fuzzy AHP methodology. Expert Systems with Applications, 38(8), 9407 9424. Beamon, B. M. (1998). Supply chain design and analysis: Models and methods. International journal of production economics, 55(3), 281 294. 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), 151 170. Charnes, A., Cooper, W. W., & Rhodes, E. (1978). Measuring the efficiency of decision making units. European journal of operational research, 2(6), 429 444. 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), 801 818. 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), 256 279. 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), 14 22. Chang, D. Y. (1996). Applications of the extent analysis method on fuzzy AHP.European journal of operational research, 95(3), 649 655. Doney, P. M., Barry, J. M., & Abratt, R. (2007). Trust determinants and outcomes in global B2B services. European Journal of Marketing, 41(9/10), 1096 1116. De Waart, D., & Kemper, S. (2004). Five steps to service supply chain excellence. Supply Chain Management Review, 8(1), 28 35. Ellram, L. M., Tate, W. L., & Billington, C. (2004). Understanding and managing the services supply chain. Journal of Supply Chain Management, 40(4), 17 32. 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), 333 347. 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), 189 199. Meyera, M. H., & DeToreb, A. (2001). Perspective: Creating a platform based approach for developing new services. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 18(3), 188 204. Min, H., & Zhou, G. (2002). Supply chain modeling: past, present and future.computers & Industrial Engineering, 43(1), 231 249. 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), 13 22. 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), 4 15. 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), 1 15. Xue, L., Ray, G., & Sambamurthy, V. (2013). The impact of supply side electronic integration on customer service performance. Journal of Operations Management, 31(6), 363 375. Yasin, M. M., & Gomes, C. F. (2010). Performance management in service operational settings: a selective literature examination. Benchmarking: An International Journal, 17(2), 214 231. Yu, P. L., & Leitmann, G. (1974). Compromise solutions, domination structures, and Salukvadze's solution. Journal of Optimization Theory and Applications, 13(3), 362 378. 29 30 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
Case study Result of evaluation National brand product service Sub criteria A1 0.128 A11 0.129 A12 0.206 A13 0.122 A14 0.168 A15 0.375 A2 0.352 A21 0.406 A22 0.224 A33 0.37 A3 0.154 A31 0.157 A32 0.365 A33 0.307 A34 0.126 A35 0.045 A4 0.284 A41 0.432 A42 0.568 A5 0.082 A51 0.624 A52 0.376 Private brand product service Sub criteria A1 0.136 A11 0.144 A12 0.183 A13 0.167 A14 0.154 A15 0.352 A2 0.329 A21 0.415 A22 0.259 A33 0.326 A3 0.146 A31 0.15 A32 0.357 A33 0.304 A34 0.132 A35 0.057 A4 0.291 A41 0.687 A42 0.313 A5 0.098 A51 0.702 A52 0.298 Electronic commerce service Sub criteria A1 0.242 A11 0.167 A12 0.172 A13 0.175 A14 0.231 A15 0.255 A2 0.216 A21 0.458 A22 0.315 A33 0.227 A3 0.207 A31 0.147 A32 0.2 A33 0.237 A34 0.212 A35 0.204 A4 0.106 A41 0.412 A42 0.588 A5 0.229 A51 0.467 A52 0.533 Weight Profit Satisfaction Profit (NT Million) Satisfaction 0.1 0.9 31327 0.574 0.3 0.7 35415 0.558 0.5 0.5 35707 0.555 0.7 0.3 35707 0.555 0.9 0.1 35707 0.555 Original 30159 0.557 33 34 Weight Profit Satisfaction National brand product service Private brand product service Electronic commerce service 0.1 0.9 a1,a2,a5 b1,b2,b4 c2,c3,c4 0.3 0.7 a1,a2,a3 b1,b2,b5 c1,c3,c4,c5 0.5 0.5 a1,a2,a3 b1,b2,b5 c1,c3,c5,c6 0.7 0.3 a1,a2,a3 b1,b2,b5 c1,c3,c5,c6 0.9 0.1 a1,a2,a3 b1,b2,b5 c1,c3,c5,c6 Original a3,a4 b1,b2,b5 c1,c3,c4 35 9