Solving the last mile issue: reception box or delivery box?
Tóm tắt
One of the biggest challenges in B2C e‐commerce is the so‐called “last mile”, the home delivery service for the customer. Particularly in electronic grocery shopping it is difficult to combine profitability and high service level. The authors’ simulations suggest that the unattended reception of goods reduce home delivery costs considerably, by up to 60 percent. Unattended delivery has not been widely used because it requires investments and commitment from the customer. The two main approaches to unattended delivery are the reception box concept and the delivery box concept. The reception box is a refrigerated, customer‐specific reception box installed at the customer’s garage or home yard. The delivery box is an insulated secured box equipped with a docking mechanism. The reception box concept results in more effective home delivery transportation and the delivery box concept in smaller investment to achieve unattended receipt. This article assesses these two different concepts. The cost savings in transportation are analysed using simulation. The operational cost savings are compared to the respective investments required to calculate the payback period. Both concepts proved to be feasible but which one works better is not only a question of financial justification. The possible additional value to customers and overall suitability to the market must also be considered.
Từ khóa
Tài liệu tham khảo
Bramel, J., Simchi‐Levi, D. (1996), “Probabilistic analyses and practical algorithms for the vehicle routing problem with time windows”, Operations Research, May/June, Vol. 44 No. 3, pp.501‐10.
Brooksher, K. (1999), “E‐commerce and logistics”, Traffic World, Vol. 260 No. 7, pp. 31‐4.
Croft, J. (2000), “Dynamid boxes clever”, Financial Times, Companies & Finance, 8 July.
Dagher, N. (1998), “Online grocery shopping”, INSEAD, Fontainebleau, France.
Desrochers, M., Desrosiers, J. and Solomon, M. (1992), “A new optimization algorithm for the vehicle routing problem”, Operations Research, March/April, Vol. 40 No. 2, pp. 342‐55.
Feare, T. (1999), “Building a new kind of on‐line business”, Modern Materials Handling, Vol. 54 No. 9, pp. 66‐9 (http://www.manufacturing.net/magazine/mmh/archives).
Guglielmo, C. (2000), “Can Webvan deliver the goods?”, Inter@ctive Week, February 7, (http://www.zdnet.com/intweek/stories/news/0,4164,2429751,00.html).
Himelstein, L. (1999), “Can you sell groceries like books?”, Business Week, E‐Biz, July 26, No.3639, pp. 26‐9.
Jones, R. (2000), “A company tackles e‐deliveries”, abcNews.com, 8 September (http://more.abcnews.go.com/sections/business/thestreet/e‐deliveries000908.html).
Kallio, J., Kemppainen, K., Tarkkala, M. and Tinnilä, M. (2000), “New distribution models for electronic grocery strores”, LTT‐Research, Oy Publications, Helsinki.
Kohler, U. (1997), “An innovating concept for city‐logistics”, 4th World Congress on Intelligent Transport Systems, Berlin, Germany.
Kämäräinen, V., Saranen, J. and Holmström, J. (2001), “The reception box impact on home delivery efficiency in the e‐grocery business’’, forthcoming in International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management (http://www.tuta.hut.fi/ecomlog/).
Laseter, T., Houston, P., Chung, A., Byrne, S., Turner, M. and Devendran, A. (2000), “The last mile to nowhere”, Strategy + Business, September, Issue 20.
McKinnon, A. and Forster, M. (2000), “European logistical and supply chain trends 1999‐2005: the results of a Delphi survey”, Logistics Research Network 2000 Conference Proceedings, Cardiff, UK.
Nasdaq (2000), ‘‘Streamline.com to be delisted from Nasdaq National Market”, press release, November 28.
Peapod (2000), ‘‘Peapod acquires Streamline.com, Inc.’s operations in two key markets; exits Texas and Ohio; announces plans to enter Baltimore‐Washington”, press release, September 7 (http://www.peapod.com).
Perman, S. (2000), “ eScout pledge: I, George Shaheen, promise to … beat the living crap out of the competition”, eCompany Now, September, pp. 147‐54.
Punakivi, M., Saranen, J. (2001), “Identifying the success factors in e‐grocery home delivery”, forthcoming in International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management (http://www.tuta.hut.fi/ecomlog/).
Reda, S. (1998), ‘‘Internet food retailers face tough picking, delivery issues”, Stores, March, pp. 50‐1.
Saranen, J. and Småros, J. (2001), “An analytical model for home delivery in the new economy”, Working paper (http://www.tuta.hut.fi/ecomlog/).
Småros, J. and Holmström, J. (2000), “Reaching the consumer through e‐grocery VMI”, International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, Vol. 28 No. 2 (http://www.tuta.hut.fi/ecomlog/).
Småros, J., Holmström, J. and Kämäräinen, V. (2001), “New service opportunities in the e‐grocery business”, forthcoming in the International Journal of Logistics Management (http://www.tuta.hut.fi/ecomlog/).
Solomon, M. (1987),“Algorithms for the vehicle routing and scheduling problems with time window constraints”, Operations Research, March/April, Vol. 35 No. 2, pp. 254‐62.
Statistics Finland (1996), “Finland in statistics on CD – 1996” (in Finnish), http://tilastokeskus.fi/index_en.html, Statistics Finland, Helsinki.
Taniguchi, E. and Van Der Heijden, R. (2000), “An evaluation methodology for city logistics”, Transport Reviews, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 65‐90.
The Times (2000), “The e‐milkman cometh”, The Times, Weekend Shopping, September 2.
Tinnilä, M. and Järvelä, P. (2000), “First steps – second thoughts – third parties”, (in Finnish), Digital media report 1/2000, Tekes, Helsinki.
Witt, C. (1999), “Update: material handling in the food industry”, Material Handling Engineering, Vol. 54 No. 11, pp. 38‐50.
Yrjölä, H. (2000), “Physical distribution considerations for electronic grocery shopping”, Working paper (http://www.tuta.hut.fi/ecomlog/).