What is the main points from the UPS case?
Wanted to create are more efficient tool for planning their routes
- change management was crucical
- Had issues with the data accuracy
- Difference between model optimal routes and practical solutions
What does the UPS case have in common with you case?
Data not accurate enough → NatMilk needs to find out how long the pipelines should be.
Internal resistance to change.
What is the overall purpose of ORION according to Pidd (1999)
o ORION is somewhere between decision automation and routine decision support → The driver may still have the final action. The intention of ORION is to automatize the route for the drivers (so very little interactions of the drivers is necessary)
ORION is used frequently and uses a huge amount of data.
Can ORION and the UPS case be identified as a mess?
o It is a mess: A range of problems and uncertainty because the problem formulation is not clear → they want to minimize distance, but they don’t know what the distances are and they have a hard time defining the constraints.
maybe not ONLY minimize distance but also construct routes that are consistent
What problem structuring method is used in the UPS case?
o Dissolving:
Solving → used in the vehicle problem and TSPTW.
Resolve → need to change the way data is being collected
Clinical approach and research approach are used together → design approach
What is the B-Kay Tech case concerning?
- The case is about horizontal collaboration in logistics.
- B-Kay Tech distribute electronic consumers good
- Vendor-managed inventory collaboration with the two biggest retailers → higher delivery order stability → service level grew and inventory levels were reduced
What is the similarities between the B-Kay Tech case and you case?
- Multiple actors
- Multiple perspectives in both cases
- Key uncertainty:
NatMilk: The future relationship with the local agencies and a possible negotiation
B-Kay Tech: If Ware-Touch will be willing to join the collaboration - Horizontal collaboration
B-Kay tech found out that the savings of doing horizontal collaboration with only one partner didn’t result in large savings, but they believe if the integrate with multiple partners the savings will increase.
NatMilk can also make use of horizontal collaboration as they have very large capacities in their pipes and facilities. Such collaboration would minimize the share of the fixed cost for NatMilk.
How is the 6 principled suggested by Pidd 1999 seen in the B-Kay Tech case?
o Pidd(1999) - principle 3: To collaborate both companies need to modify their replenishment system
o Pidd (199) - principle 5: Make their own data since they find out that the data they use are not accurate enough.
How can the B-Kay tech case be identified as a mess according to Rosenhead?
- Multiple actors: B-Kay, Waretouch, logistic provider (customer?).
Are the customers an actor? Customers want good service and get the products cheaply. If the customers is added to the mess does it then add something to the mess? Try to keep the mess as simple as possible and exclude what you don’t need → Here the customer should be excluded from the mess - Multiple perspectives: Shipments should be regular/irregular?
- Conflicting interests: How do they divide the gain from the transportation (maybe more a question of fairness → intangibles instead of conflicting interest)
- Important intangibles: Missing stockout costs
- Key uncertainty: Demand distribution, potential 4% growth
What problem structuring method is used in the B-Kay Tech case?
- Resolving: Analyzing what is going on (diagnosis) → find the symptoms of low vehicle utilization. Negotiate with both companies without making a model and computations.
- Solvings: Find the optimal contract with some objective assuming a demand distribution and service level
o Ignore that there are two different companies
