The field research was conducted between December 2022 and April 2023, through emails, phone calls, and websites. Through these channels, it was possible to simulate the process of hiring transportation services with eight companies that provide RFT services.
In response to the preferences of our field research participants, the companies involved in the simulation were anonymized and assigned letters A to H. To ensure uniformity across all selected companies, specific criteria were applied: each company offered cargo insurance in case of damage, possessed a minimum of one year’s experience in the RFT market, maintained active customer service via phone or internet, and had publicly available online reviews assessing their performance.
The simulation involved sending a request for a quote for the transportation of three tons of soybeans, covering a distance of 605 km along the São Paulo (SP) to Belo Horizonte (MG) route.
Based on the data collected through the questionnaires and the analyses conducted, the field research contributed to identifying the best company options for transporting this cargo, aiming for an informed and effective decision-making process.
After defining the decision model and collecting the field research data, the data were tabulated and processed, assessments of the criteria and the overall evaluation for each company were calculated, and a sensitivity analysis was conducted. This section will include the following subsections: data analysis and application of sensitivity analysis.
4.1. Data Analysis
The data collected during the field research were processed using the Hiview3 software following the decision model. After performing the necessary calculations, the results of the assessments for criteria, sub-criteria, and the overall evaluation were compiled for each of the eight companies.
The results analysis will utilize the tabulation of the scores for each of the FPVs and, in the end, will present the company with the highest global score for providing this service.
4.1.1. Analysis of FPV 1—Total Freight Cost
Managers responsible for hiring land transportation services must be constantly vigilant regarding the efficiency of internal company processes, as well as market parameters. Therefore, it is essential to conduct a thorough analysis of the freight costs applied to the various routes used [
43].
As explained in the theoretical framework, transportation costs represent a significant portion of logistics costs. Therefore, reducing these costs becomes a priority for many companies, which requires the FPVs to have a greater impact on the decision model, with a weight of 55%.
The desired minimum price for this simulation was obtained through the ANTT (Agência Nacional de Transportes Terrestres) freight table, which, based on Ordinance No. 5 of 17 February 2023, for bulk solids [
61], provided a price of USD 420.40 for this transport, considering displacement costs in USD/km (USD 353.98 for 605 km) and loading and unloading of soybeans (USD 66.42) in a two-axle truck. The original price was provided in the official Brazilian coin, Real (BRL), and converted at a rate of BRL5.09/USD.
It was then decided that to assign scores according to the Likert scale, it would be necessary to define price ranges, which, for simulation purposes, were established as follows:
Excellent: ≤USD 451;
Good: ≤USD 589;
Regular: ≤USD 687;
Poor: ≤USD 785;
Very Poor: >USD 982.
After collecting the prices from each of the companies for this route, the Hiview3 software was used to generate scores between 0 and 10 for each of them, which can be observed in
Table 4.
Although none of the companies was able to achieve the maximum score in this FPV, the highest score observed was 7.5, obtained by companies C, D, E, G, and H. This translates to the fact that most of them offered total prices in the “Good” range for this service. Company A, with the second lowest score of 2.5, offered a price range between USD 687 and USD 785. Companies B and F, holding the minimum score in this FPV, offered prices exceeding USD 982.
It is worth noting that while this is the most significant FPV in the model, due to the similar prices, it remains to be seen how each of the companies performed in the other assessed aspects to determine the most suitable company for this transportation.
4.1.2. Analysis of FPV 2—Inherent Aspects of Transportation
In general, aspects inherent to cargo transportation should be taken into consideration when planning and executing a company’s logistics to ensure efficiency and process safety, while minimizing risks and costs.
The FPV for aspects inherent to transportation is the second in terms of weight, accounting for 20% of the model and encompassing three EPVs, with their respective weights: delivery time (75%), fleet age (15%), and cargo location service (10%).
Delivery time (75%): Ballou (2011) [
8] emphasizes that meeting delivery deadlines is one of the most crucial measures of logistic efficiency since it directly impacts customer satisfaction and a company’s revenue. He argues that on-time delivery is a key factor in increasing customer loyalty and enhancing brand reputation.
The ideal delivery time for this simulation took into account two factors:
The general rule for driver working hours states that the working day should not exceed 8 h according to art. 58 of Decree-Law No. 5452/1943—Consolidation of Labor Laws—CLT [
62].
According to the Brazilian Traffic Code (CTB), the maximum speed allowed for trucks is 80 km/h on single-lane highways and 90 km/h on highways of two or more lanes [
63].
Respecting the mentioned regulations and establishing an average speed of 85 km/h for truck drivers, the minimum delivery time for this cargo was set as one business day, with one travel day corresponding to the maximum score on this EPA. Each additional day in the deadline reduces the score by exactly one rating on the Likert scale, as follows:
Excellent = one business day;
Good = two business days;
Regular = three business days;
Poor = four business days;
Very Poor ≥ five business days.
Table 5 summarizes the scores obtained by each of the companies for EPV 2.1—Delivery Time.
As it is possible to observe, company A achieved a result superior to the others, committing to completing the service in just one business day and receiving the maximum score for this criterion. The second-highest rated company was company B, with a score of 7.5, equivalent to a two-day business delivery. Companies C, D, G, and H received a score of 2.5, as they would need up to four business days to complete this service, while companies E and F received the minimum score, as they required at least five business days for delivery.
Fleet age (15%): Older fleets generate more negative externalities for society, such as increased air pollution, higher operational costs, and a greater likelihood of accidents. Owner-operator trucks have an average age of 23 years, in contrast to company-owned trucks, which have an average age of 13 years, and cooperative-owned trucks, which have an average age of 15 years [
64].
Based on the premise that the newer the fleet, the lower the chances of accidents during transit, the highest scores for this EPV were given to companies with more modern trucks. However, there should be some tolerance since even companies which typically have better conditions to renew their fleets frequently, have an average vehicle age of over a decade. Here are the criteria used to evaluate each company:
Excellent: ≤6 years;
Good: ≤9 years;
Regular: ≤12 years;
Poor: ≤15 years;
Very Poor: >18 years.
Table 6 summarizes the scores obtained by each of the companies for EPA 2.2—Fleet age:
Companies A, F, and H obtained the highest scores, reaching the maximum score as they were the only ones reporting fleet average ages of up to 6 years. Companies B, C, and E received a score of 7.5 as they reported fleet average ages of up to 9 years. Company D was evaluated with a score of 5, being the only one with a fleet average age of up to 12 years. Finally, company G received the lowest score in this EPV due to the average age of its fleet, which reached 15 years.
Cargo location service (10%): Some of the benefits of tracking systems include (1) the detection of violations, scheduling discrepancies, and unauthorized stops; (2) increased customer satisfaction by knowing their shipment can be located at any time; (3) more accurate delivery scheduling, providing customers with the opportunity for savings, efficiency, and fewer production disruptions; and (4) monitoring breakdowns, equipment failures, operator negligence, and accidents [
65].
This EPV was evaluated in a binary manner, where companies received the maximum score (10) when they had a cargo location system that could be accessed by the customer, or, in the absence of such systems, they received the minimum score (0). Other FPVs and EPVs that will be discussed later followed the same logic.
Table 7 summarizes the scores obtained by each of the companies for EPV 2.3—Cargo location service:
It is worth noting that this type of service is provided by all contacted companies. It was observed that, in all cases, these services could be accessed through the companies’ own websites.
Having presented the scores of the EPVs that make up the aspects inherent to transportation, it remains to examine the performance of each company in the FPV itself.
Table 8 presents the compiled scores.
It can be concluded that the companies that achieved the best results in this FPV were companies A and B, with scores of 10 and 7.75, respectively, while company F received the lowest score among all those evaluated, 2.5.
4.1.3. Analysis of FPV 3—Customer Service Channels
The compatibility of service channels among companies that provide services to other businesses is crucial [
29]. Hiring companies expect to receive quality service and often need quick responses to their demands. In this regard, the compatibility of service channels (such as email, phone, and chat) between companies can ensure smooth and effective communication, resulting in greater customer satisfaction.
Considering this aspect, the value of service channels’ participation in the decision-making process corresponds to 7.5% and is composed of three means frequently used by companies and consumers. Each of these channels was evaluated in a binary manner (0 and 10) and carries an equal weight of 1/3 in the calculation of the value: the WhatsApp messaging app, phone (mobile or landline), and email.
Table 9 gathers the scores of each company for each EPV, as well as the score of FPV 3—Service channels:
All evaluated companies received scores equal to or greater than 6.66 in the FPV, indicating that they all stated that they provide customer service through at least two of the three analyzed channels. It is worth noting that companies C, E, G, and H were the ones that received the highest scores, with the maximum score of 9.99. It should be emphasized that, due to the division of the FPV into three parts, the authors chose to maintain result precision rather than rounding to 1.
4.1.4. Analysis of FPV 4—Company Reputation
Reputation is a social construct that applies to both individuals and companies. In general, reputation refers to the opinion or evaluation that people have of someone or something.
Companies are required by the current market context to establish a positive image in front of their stakeholders and continuously improve it. This image is essential for corporate reputation, which is formed by a set of organizational attributes developed over time that influence stakeholders’ perception of the company [
66].
Corporate reputation results from various different factors, including performance, behavior, communication, and organizational characteristics. It reflects the accumulated perception of the public regarding the company’s past actions, its current behavior, and its future prospects for fulfilling its commitments [
67].
Currently, it is common for consumers to use the internet to check the reputation of services or companies based on online reviews on specialized websites, search engines, and social networks.
Online reviews play an important role in shaping a company’s reputation and are considered a valuable source of information for consumers [
68]. In fact, research found that 87% of consumers consult online reviews before making a decision to purchase a product or service, and 93% of them claim that these reviews influence their final purchasing decision. Additionally, research also showed that 79% of consumers trust online reviews in the same way they trust personal recommendations.
Considering the importance of online reviews in building a company’s reputation, or corporate reputation, this FPV accounts for 5% of the model. Three popular websites were chosen to collect user feedback: Reclame Aqui (popular Brazilian website that acts as an independent communication channel between consumers and companies, presenting customer reviews and scores), Google, and Facebook. Reviews are typically rated on a scale of 1 to 5, allowing for the distribution of scores as follows:
Excellent: ≥4.5;
Good: ≥4;
Average: ≥3;
Poor: ≥2;
Very Poor: <2.
In cases where companies received different ratings on review platforms, an arithmetic average was calculated for all the collected reviews. The formula used was as follows:
Table 10 gathers the ratings for each company for FPV 4—Company reputation.
In the evaluation of this FPV, companies A, B, and C obtained the highest ratings, being the only participants to achieve online ratings of 4.5 or higher. In contrast, company H received the lowest rating, with an online evaluation below 3. Company D received ratings between 5 and 7.5, resulting from online ratings between 3.0 and 4.4.
4.1.5. Analysis of FPV 5—Time in the Market
It is recommended that any type of outsourcing should take into consideration the hiring of companies with at least two years of experience [
29]. Some of the problems that may arise from hiring a partner with fewer years of experience include:
Inexperience: insufficient knowledge to deal with the challenges that arise in the day-to-day business, leading to errors and delays that can harm the contracting company.
Lack of references: with only a few years of operation, it can be difficult for the contracting company to verify the quality of the services provided and the reputation of the hired company. This increases the risk of hiring a company that does not deliver what was agreed upon.
Lack of structure: new companies may not have an appropriate organizational structure to handle large projects or a high volume of work.
Recognizing the importance of hiring companies with the highest level of market experience possible, this FPV represents 5% of the overall score and is divided as follows:
Excellent: ≥10 years;
Good: ≥8 years;
Regular: ≥5 years;
Poor: ≥3 years;
Very Poor < 3 years.
Table 11 summarizes the ratings for each company in FPV 5—Time in the market.
In the context of this FPV, companies B, C, D, and F achieved the highest ratings, standing out for having ten years or more of experience in the RFT sector, followed by companies E and G, with eight and five years of operation, respectively. On the other hand, companies A and H performed the worst as they have fewer than three years of experience in the field.
4.1.6. Analysis of FPV 6—Sustainability
Sustainability refers to the capacity to meet the needs of present generations without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. This definition was proposed by the World Commission on Environment and Development of the United Nations (UN) in 1987, in the report “Our Common Future.” Sustainability is a concept that involves actions and policies aimed at promoting balanced and integrated economic, social, and environmental development to ensure a sustainable future for the next generations [
69].
Considering the relevance of sustainability in business operations, this FPV represents 5% of the model and was created based on binary ratings (0 or 10), depending on whether the evaluated companies have adopted sustainability actions or not.
In the realm of cargo transportation, adopting measures to reduce pollutant emissions and resource usage, improve activity performance, reduce operational costs, optimize processes, and enhance the quality of life for employees are actions contributing to sustainability. To receive a rating in this FPV, companies should have at least one practice that demonstrates a commitment to sustainability [
70].
Table 12 gathers the ratings for each company in the FPV 6—Sustainability:
Among the evaluated companies, exactly four of them were found to promote sustainability initiatives. These companies are B, C, D, and F. On the other hand, the remaining companies stated that they have not implemented any activities of this nature thus far.
4.1.7. Analysis of the Global Scores
Having gone through the analysis and compilation of scores for all the EPVs and FPVs that make up the decision model, it remains to announce which of the eight evaluated companies obtained the highest overall score and, consequently, would be the most recommended company for transporting three tons of soybeans on the São Paulo (SP) to Belo Horizonte (BH) route. The summary of results can be found in
Table 13.
Company C was the highest rated among the interviewed companies, according to the decision model used, which took into account criteria related to service price, delivery time, fleet age, location services, contact channels, company reputation, market experience, online reputation, and sustainability. The choice of company C to carry out the cargo transportation highlights the importance of considering criteria beyond price that bring the highest possible quality to the service, reducing risks and losses for the contractor and the decision model user.
For a clearer view,
Table 14 lists all scores obtained by company C throughout this field research.
When considering the transportation of three tons of soybeans on the São Paulo (SP) to Belo Horizonte (BH) route, company C emerges as the most suitable and secure choice. Even with the second-best price (equal to or less than USD 589) and a delivery time of 4 business days, the company received perfect scores in significant criteria, such as cargo location service, efficient communication channels, a strong reputation in the market, a long history of operation, and a commitment to sustainability. These factors highlight that company C possesses a solid structure and is dedicated to providing high-quality service to its clients while mitigating relevant risks associated with cargo transportation. Therefore, considering the route and the type of cargo in question, company C is the safest and most appropriate choice for transporting the three tons of soybeans.