4PL Digital Business Models in Sea Freight Logistics: The Case of FreightHub
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Literature Review
2.1. Classification Scheme of Business Models of Logistics Services
2.2. Innovation Potential of Digital Business Models
2.3. Digitalization in Maritime Freight Transportation
3. FreightHub’s Business Model
4. Conceptualization of a 4PL Digital Business Model in Sea Freight Logistics
4.1. Comparison of 3PL and 4PL Business Model Elements
4.2. Value Creation, Delivery, and Capture in Sea Freight Logistics
4.2.1. Value Creation
4.2.2. Value Delivery
4.2.3. Value Capture
5. Conclusions: Contribution, Limitations, and Future Research Avenues
Author Contributions
Funding
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Gruchmann, T.; Schmidt, I.; Lubjuhn, S.; Seuring, S.; Bouman, M. Informing logistics social responsibility from a consumer-choice-centered perspective. Int. J. Logist. Manag. 2019, 30, 96–116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hofmann, E.; Osterwalder, F. Third-party logistics providers in the digital age: Towards a new competitive arena? Logistics 2017, 1, 9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Uber Freight. Tap a Button, Book a Load. Available online: https://freight.uber.com (accessed on 1 February 2020).
- Schramm, H.J.; Czaja, C.N.; Dittrich, M.; Mentschel, M. Current Advancements of and Future Developments for Fourth Party Logistics in a Digital Future. Logistics 2019, 3, 7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Gruchmann, T.; Melkonyan, A.; Krumme, K. Logistics business transformation for sustainability: Assessing the role of the lead sustainability service provider (6PL). Logistics 2018, 2, 25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Saglietto, L.; Cézanne, C. A bibliometric analysis of research on 4PL. Int. J. Transp. Econ. 2015, 42, 461–465. [Google Scholar]
- Parida, V.; Sjödin, D.; Reim, W. Reviewing Literature on Digitalization, Business Model Innovation, and Sustainable Industry: Past Achievements and Future Promises. Sustainability 2019, 11, 391. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Kovács, G.; Spens, K. Abductive reasoning in logistics research. Int. J. Phys. Distrib. Logist. Manag. 2005, 35, 132–144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Köylüoglu, G.; Krumme, K. Kriterienfindung für nachhaltige Geschäftsprozesse in der Logistik—Eine Aufarbeitung bestehender Probleme und möglicher Chancen. In Corporate Social Responsibility in der Logistikbranche: Anforderungen an Eine Nachhaltige Unternehmensführung; Erich Schmidt Verlag: Berlin, Germany, 2014. [Google Scholar]
- Pflaum, A.; Gundelfinger, C.; Naumann, V.; Schwemmer, M. Transportlogistik 4.0; Fraunhofer Institut: Erlangen, Germany, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Becker, W.; Eierle, B.; Fliaster, A.; Ivens, B.; Leischning, A.; Pflaum, A.; Sucky, E. Geschäftsmodelle in der digitalen Welt. Strategien, Prozesse und Praxiserfahrungen; Springer Gabler: Wiesbaden, Germany, 2019. [Google Scholar]
- Gammelgaard, B.; van Hoek, R.; Stefansson, G. Collaborative logistics management and the role of third-party service providers. Int. J. Phys. Distrib. Logist. Manag. 2006, 36, 76–92. [Google Scholar]
- Halldórsson, Á.; Kovács, G.; Wolf, C.; Seuring, S. Environmental impacts as buying criteria for third party logistical services. Int. J. Phys. Distrib. Logist. Manag. 2010, 40, 84–102. [Google Scholar]
- Jayaram, J.; Tan, K.C. Supply chain integration with third-party logistics providers. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2010, 125, 262–271. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lai, F.; Chu, Z.; Wang, Q.; Fan, C. Managing dependence in logistics outsourcing relationships: Evidence from China. Int. J. Prod. Res. 2013, 51, 3037–3054. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Leuschner, R.; Carter, C.R.; Goldsby, T.J.; Rogers, Z.S. Third-party logistics: A meta-analytic review and investigation of its impact on performance. J. Supply Chain Manag. 2014, 50, 21–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Govindan, K.; Chaudhuri, A. Interrelationships of risks faced by third party logistics service providers: A DEMATEL based approach. Transp. Res. Part E: Logist. Transp. Rev. 2016, 90, 177–195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Singh, R.K.; Gunasekaran, A.; Kumar, P. Third party logistics (3PL) selection for cold chain management: A fuzzy AHP and fuzzy TOPSIS approach. Ann. Oper. Res. 2018, 267, 531–553. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Krakovics, F.; Leal, J.E.; Mendes Jr, P.; Santos, R.L. Defining and calibrating performance indicators of a 4PL in the chemical industry in Brazil. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2008, 115, 502–514. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hsiao, H.I.; Kemp, R.G.M.; Van der Vorst, J.G.A.J.; Omta, S.O. A classification of logistic outsourcing levels and their impact on service performance: Evidence from the food processing industry. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2010, 124, 75–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hingley, M.K.; Lindgreen, A.; Grant, D.B.; Kane, C. Using fourth-party logistics management to improve horizontal collaboration among grocery retailers. Supply Chain Manag. Int. J. 2011, 16, 316–327. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Saglietto, L. Towards a classification of fourth party logistics (4PL). Univ. J. Ind. Bus. Manag. 2013, 1, 104–116. [Google Scholar]
- Mehmann, J.; Teuteberg, F. The fourth-party logistics service provider approach to support sustainable development goals in transportation–a case study of the German agricultural bulk logistics sector. J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 126, 382–393. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Täuscher, K.; Laudien, S.M. Understanding platform business models: A mixed methods study of marketplaces. Eur. Manag. J. 2018, 36, 319–329. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Porter, M.E.; Heppelmann, J.E. How smart, connected products are transforming companies. Harv. Bus. Rev. 2015, 93, 96–114. [Google Scholar]
- Rachinger, M.; Rauter, R.; Müller, C.; Vorraber, W.; Schirgi, E. Digitalization and its influence on business model innovation. J. Manuf. Technol. Manag. 2019, 30, 1143–1160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ehret, M.; Wirtz, J. Unlocking value from machines: Business models and the industrial internet of things. J. Mark. Manag. 2017, 33, 111–130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Bressanelli, G.; Adrodegari, F.; Perona, M.; Saccani, N. Exploring how usage-focused business models enable circular economy through digital technologies. Sustainability 2018, 10, 639. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Porter, M.E.; Heppelmann, J.E. How smart, connected products are transforming competition. Harv. Bus. Rev. 2014, 92, 64–88. [Google Scholar]
- Annarelli, A.; Battistella, C.; Nonino, F. How Product Service System Can Disrupt Companies’ Business Model. In The Road to Servitization; Springer: Cham, Germany, 2019; pp. 175–205. [Google Scholar]
- Pflaum, A.; Klötzer, C. Von der Pipeline zur Plattform–Strategische Implikationen für das Unternehmen. In Geschäftsmodelle in der Digitalen Welt; Springer Gabler: Wiesbaden, Germany, 2019; pp. 57–74. [Google Scholar]
- Teece, D.J. Business models, business strategy and innovation. Long Range Plan. 2010, 43, 172–194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Teece, D.J.; Linden, G. Business models, value capture, and the digital enterprise. J. Organ. Des. 2017, 6, 8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Cenamor, J.; Parida, V.; Wincent, J. How entrepreneurial SMEs compete through digital platforms: The roles of digital platform capability, network capability and ambidexterity. J. Bus. Res. 2019, 100, 196–206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Grubic, T.; Jennions, I. Remote monitoring technology and servitised strategies–factors characterising the organisational application. Int. J. Prod. Res. 2018, 56, 2133–2149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Clausen, U.; Geiger, C. Verkehrs- und Transportlogistik, 2nd ed.; Springer Veiweg (VDI): Berlin, Germany, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- FreightHub. Intelligentes Transportmanagement Dank Künstlicher Intelligenz und Algorithmen. Whitepaper. Available online: https://freighthub.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/FreightHub_Whitepaper_Intelligentes_Transportmanagement-1.pdf (accessed on 1 February 2020).
- FreightHub. E-Supply Chain: So Gelingt das Proaktive Management Ihrer Geschäftsprozesse. Available online: https://freighthub.com/de/blog/proaktives-management-der-geschaeftsprozesse/ (accessed on 1 February 2020).
- Tüllmann, C.; Prasse, C.; Sagner, D.; Piastowski, H. Prozesse durch Digitalisierung nachhaltig optimieren. In Future Challenges in Logistics and Supply Chain Management; Fraunhofer IML: Dortmund, Germany, 2016. [Google Scholar]
- Jaskólski, K. Availability and Integrity Model of Automatic Identification System (AIS) Information. Ph.D. Thesis, GRIN Verlag, Munich, Germany, 2014. [Google Scholar]
- Gruchmann, T.; Seuring, S. Explaining logistics social responsibility from a dynamic capabilities perspective. Int. J. Logist. Manag. 2018, 29, 1255–1278. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hodkinson, P.; Hodkinson, H. The Strengths and Limitation of Case Study Research. In Making an Impact on Policy and Practice; University of Leeds: Leeds, UK, 2001. [Google Scholar]
- Chiarini, A. Lean production: Mistakes and limitations of accounting systems inside the SME sector. J. Manuf. Technol. Manag. 2012, 23, 681–700. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Melkonyan, A.; Krumme, K.; Gruchmann, T.; Spinler, S.; Schumacher, T.; Bleischwitz, R. Scenario and strategy planning for transformative supply chains within a sustainable economy. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 231, 144–160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Study | Summary |
---|---|
Gammelgaard et al. [12] | Gammelgaard et al. [12] empirically study the role of the different parties in logistics. They define three types of 3PL service providers: carriers, logistics service providers, and logistics service intermediaries. The authors create a collaborative logistics management model, which captures the different actors and presents the information and material flows between the actors. |
Halldórsson et al. [13] | Halldórsson et al. [13] examine whether environmental issues are a 3PL provider selection criterion. Their study is based on nine cases (three 3PLs and six buyers of 3PL services). The authors conclude that 3PL providers show an increased interest in environmental issues on the one hand, while 3PL buyers’ decisions continue to strongly depend on performance targets, such as price, quality, and timely delivery. |
Jayaram and Tan [14] | Jayaram and Tan [14] have found that there are differences in the performances of companies that involve logistics providers in their operations and those that do not. Based on survey research, their study shows that 3PL selection criteria and relationship building positively influence company performance. |
Lai et al. [15] | Lai et al. [15] collect data from 134 3PL customers to test different hypotheses. After their evaluation, the authors state that relationship quality plays a critical role in logistics outsourcing relationships. They show that, through inter-organizational relationships and integration, customers of 3PL service providers can use their dependency on those providers to effectively improve their financial performance. |
Leuschner et al. [16] | Leuschner et al. [16] carry out a meta-analytical approach and conduct a review of empirical literature regarding 3PL. They find that a close and collaborative relationship between the 3PL customer and the 3PL service provider can improve the logistics service and overall business performance. However, they note that there are no conclusive statements in the literature regarding trust and commitment in 3PL-supplier-buyer relationships. Trust, therefore, should be built through safeguarding mechanisms to avoid opportunistic behavior. |
Govindan and Chaudhuri [17] | Govindan and Chaudhuri [17] analyze the risks faced by logistics service providers. For this purpose, they used a multi-criteria-decision-making approach called the “Decision Making Trial and Evaluation Laboratory” (DEMATEL). They find that the relationship, at distance, between the logistics provider and the customer is a risk, and call for more collaboration and integration. It is particularly important to build up trust, which leads directly to cooperation and indirectly to the development of commitment. |
Hofmann and Osterwalder [2] | Hofmann and Osterwalder [2] particularly look at the impact of digitalization on 3PL business models. By proposing a theoretical framework, they conclude that logistics service providers face significant hardships from new technologies, such as autonomous vehicles and 3D printing, as well as from platform-based business models and the sharing economy. They further see digitalization as an opportunity to enable forward or backward integration between 3PL customers and their suppliers. |
Singh et al. [18] | Singh et al. [18] state that logistics providers have an important role in making cold supply chains for perishable food and pharmaceutical products more efficient. The authors identify ten criteria (e.g., warehousing facilities, customer service, etc.) that are suitable for the 3PL selection process. They state that 3PL providers must work in cold chain under highly uncertain conditions and, therefore, must develop a hybrid fuzzy approach. The results imply that a 3PL provider should focus on continuous process improvement (e.g., by using advanced technologies). |
Study | Summary |
---|---|
Krakovics et al. [19] | Krakovics et al. [19] create a robust performance measurement model to evaluate logistics operators. They consider the case of a company, which decided to terminate its direct contract with a 3PL for operating its logistics activities and, instead, contracted a 4PL to handle the entire outsourcing process, and to hire and monitor the necessary 3PL services needed. As a result, efficiency indicators (e.g., for distribution efficiency or internal storage inventory accuracy) were defined to evaluate 3PL performance and determine 4PL goals. |
Hsiao et al. [20] | Hsiao et al. [20] provide a framework to analyze the effect outsourcing various business activities has on logistics service performance. They show that outsourcing has no direct impact on service performance (delivery reliability, flexibility, and lead-time). Through network and overall supply chain optimization, however, 4PL providers could step in to deal with this demand complexity, as they generally have superior capabilities for combining and managing different resources. |
Hingley et al. [21] | Hingley et al. [21] conduct an exploratory qualitative study with three participating suppliers, three logistics service providers, and one grocery retailer, aiming to determine the general drivers and barriers that can arise when 4PL service providers are introduced to promote horizontal collaboration. The authors find that large 3PL service providers can deliver 4PL services. Despite the performance benefits achieved through 4PL services, 4PL providers negatively impact retailer-supplier collaboration. The grocery retailer would rather keep control of the supply chain than become more cost efficient with a 4PL service. |
Saglietto [22] | Saglietto [22] proposes an analysis of the 4PL community based on an empirical study of all logistics service providers operating in France, using information obtained from the DIANE database and selected websites. As a result, the author presents a new taxonomy and definition of the 4PL, and states that 4PLs require more intensive use of information technology, pooling of resources, and skilled human capital than other logistics service providers. |
Mehmann and Teuteberg [23] | Mehmann and Teuteberg [23] examine and describe the long-term implementation of 4PL in the agricultural bulk logistics sector. The authors identify and validate 4PL attributes with seven case studies. The key contribution of their study lies in describing the usage, benefit, and organizational structure of the 4PL approach with elements of the work system theory. |
Schramm et al. [4] | Schramm et al. [4] analyze the potential future of the 4PL concept based on expert opinions, with a special emphasis on digitalization. Their research follows an explorative mixed methods approach with semi-structured interviews and an online survey questionnaire. The authors find that IT capabilities will be an important differentiator for 4PL providers in the future. Further, relationships between 4PL providers and their clients can become closer and more strategic, which leads to a customer valuing, not only direct cost reductions, but rather improvements resulting from optimized operations through superior analysis and planning functions. |
Study | Summary |
---|---|
Porter and Heppelmann [29] | Porter and Heppelmann [29] examine how smart, connected products reshape competition in industries and can expand industry boundaries. These products consist of three elements: physical components, smart components (IT as an integral part of the product), and connectivity components (additional functions in the product’s cloud and its interaction with other devices). Smart, connected products require companies to build and support a new technology infrastructure (“technology stack”). The authors discuss ten strategic choices through which companies may gain competitive advantage. These include choosing between building functionalities into the product or into the cloud, between internal development and outsourcing of smart capabilities and infrastructures, and between the product portfolio itself and disintermediate distribution channels and service networks. The authors also identify pitfalls to avoid, such as adding functionalities for which customers will not pay, underestimating security and privacy risk, or failing to anticipate new, competitive threats with superior technology. |
Porter and Heppelmann [25] | Porter and Heppelmann [25] focus on the internal perspective and explore how smart, connected products affect functions within companies. Core functions—such as product development, IT, manufacturing, logistics, and marketing and sales—are affected, and new functions—such as data organization or customer success management—emerge. Concerning logistics, the authors state that the roots of smart, connected products are in logistics, and, today, these allow for continuous tracking of products, their conditions, and their surrounding environments, which bears the potential for transformation. Smart, connected products allow companies to move from traditional ownership models to new business models, such as the product-as-a-service model, in which customers pay for the use of a product rather than buying the product itself. To support this new model, companies must learn to track customer usage and satisfaction to adapt marketing and service activities accordingly. |
Ehret and Wirtz [27] | Ehret and Wirtz [27] use entrepreneurship and transaction cost theories to examine conditions for designing non-ownership business models for the Industrial Internet of Things (IIoT). Entrepreneurship theory, thereby, focuses on the positive form of uncertainty upsides, and outlines opportunities for machine owners to offer assets and outputs as a service. Transaction Cost Theory, on the other hand, stresses that IIoT opportunities enable companies to better manage uncertainty downsides, and encourage users of machines to give up ownership and only purchase the output. The authors identify three types of IIoT-enabled business models: business models for asset-driven IIoT opportunities, business models for service innovation aiding manufacturing, and service-driven business models targeted at end users. Research gaps with respect to IIoT business models are seen in empirical research, revealing evidence about the role of infrastructures, how best to orchestrate human actors and machines, and how best to design the architecture of ownership for the diverse assets needed to provide services. |
Bressanelli et al. [28] | Bressanelli et al. [28] examine the role of digital technologies (IoT, big data, analytics) as enablers of the Circular Economy (CE) in usage-focused business models. They develop a research framework to describe how eight functionalities of digital technologies affect value drivers for CE. The eight enabling functionalities are: improving product design, attracting target customers, monitoring and tracking product activity, providing technical support, providing preventive and predictive maintenance, optimizing product usage, upgrading the product, and enhancing renovation and end-of-life activities. The research then uses a case study to analyze how these functionalities affect the three CE value drivers: increasing resource efficiency, extending product lifespan, and closing the loop. The findings show that companies need to couple IoT with big data analytics to move to CE. Moreover, four of the functionalities increase resource efficiency and extend product lifespan in the use phase, but do not effect closing the loop. Therefore, to close the loop, companies should focus on functionalities at the start and the end of product life. Research gaps still exist with respect to product-focused and result-focused business models, as well as other digital technologies. |
Rachinger et al. [26] | Rachinger et al. [26] state that a research gap exists in examining how digitalization impacts business model innovation insofar as empirical insights in this field are still limited. Therefore, they carry out a qualitative investigation, collecting data from 12 informants working in two industries: the media and the automotive industry. In their results, they outline the influences of digitalization on business model elements (value proposition, value creation, value capture) and the associations with dynamic capabilities for both industries. The findings show that digitalization is generally considered important. It is the value proposition itself, as well as the position in the value network, that determine the perceived available options for business model innovation when it comes to digitalization. The study identifies organizational capacities and employee competences as future challenges. |
Annarelli et al. [30] | Annarelli et al. [30] discuss Product Service Systems (PSS) as a business model focused on providing a marketable set of sustainable products and services to fulfill customer needs. They analyze PSS using the Business Model Canvas and Business Model Innovation Process. Six key elements of a PSS business models are introduced: design of the offering, value co-creation, functional integration with partners, degree of servitization, pre-sale and after-sale value communication, short-term and long-term commitment, and customer retention. Digitalization can make the transition to PSS more scalable, offering gradual servitization of value chains. |
Parida et al. [7] | Parida et al. [7] propose a research agenda on leveraging digitalization for business model innovation. Their literature review identifies five theoretical perspectives regarding digital business models in the B2B context: resource-based view and dynamic capabilities, transition theory, entrepreneurship, transaction cost theory, and platform theory. They also discuss how digitalization can enable innovation across the three business model elements of value creation, value delivery, and value capture. |
Pflaum and Klötzer [31] | Pflaum and Klötzer [31] discuss strategic approaches for transforming from product-oriented business models to data-oriented business models. They differentiate two pathways for this transition. First, companies may digitalize their own products and services, turning them into smart products and services. Second, companies may use digital solutions from third parties to make corporate processes more effective, efficient, and agile. A key consequence of transitioning toward a digital business model is that the data produced by the smart product becomes the key asset instead of the physical product itself. Furthermore pipeline-shaped supply-chains are replaced by data-driven and platform-based ecosystems with multiple corporate actors. |
Value Dimensions | Selected Opportunities and Risks for DBMs | |
---|---|---|
Value Creation: What is offered to the customer? | Opportunities |
|
Risks | ||
Value Delivery: How is the promised value delivered to the customer? | Opportunities |
|
Risks |
| |
Value Capture: How is the value delivered to the customer, transformed into revenues and profits for the firm? | Opportunities | |
Risks |
|
Actors | Responsibilities | Documents |
---|---|---|
Freight forwarder | Appointing the freight carrier | Forwarding contract |
Carrier | Carrying out shipment via road, rail, or inland waterway | Contract of carriage |
Seaport forwarder | Determining the seaports, terminal operator, and shipping company | Issue of bill of lading |
Terminal operator | Handling at the port or terminal (clearance of the freight carrier, temporary storage of goods) | |
Shipping company | Carrying out sea transport, crewing, maintenance, and ship repair; if applicable, drawing up stowage plans for container ships, ship financing | Sea freight contract, presentation of bill of lading |
Shipping broker | Brokering charterer and shipping company (or cargo space and charterer) | Charter parties (BIMCO) |
Port clearance agent | Registering and de-registering ships with the port authorities, handling customs clearance, procuring necessary equipment and provisions, etc. | Various documents for port authorities, customs, and shipping company |
Value Dimensions | 3PL Business Models | 4PL Business Models | |
---|---|---|---|
Value Creation | Opportunities |
| |
Risks |
| ||
Value Delivery | Opportunities | ||
Risks |
| ||
Value Capture | Opportunities |
| |
Risks |
|
© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Gruchmann, T.; Pratt, N.; Eiten, J.; Melkonyan, A. 4PL Digital Business Models in Sea Freight Logistics: The Case of FreightHub. Logistics 2020, 4, 10. https://doi.org/10.3390/logistics4020010
Gruchmann T, Pratt N, Eiten J, Melkonyan A. 4PL Digital Business Models in Sea Freight Logistics: The Case of FreightHub. Logistics. 2020; 4(2):10. https://doi.org/10.3390/logistics4020010
Chicago/Turabian StyleGruchmann, Tim, Nadine Pratt, Jan Eiten, and Ani Melkonyan. 2020. "4PL Digital Business Models in Sea Freight Logistics: The Case of FreightHub" Logistics 4, no. 2: 10. https://doi.org/10.3390/logistics4020010