A Study on Performance Measures of 3PL Providers in the Automobile Industry

• Main Authors: Tung, Kuang-Chuan, 佟廣傳
• Other Authors: Chiang, Chi
• Format: Others
• Language: zh-TW
• Published: 2012
• Online Access: http://ndltd.ncl.edu.tw/handle/44903063005193639475

碩士 === 國立交通大學 === 管理學院管理科學學程 === 100 === The Automobile industry involves not only the vehicle manufacturers but also the upstream component manufacturers, downstream dealers and repair shops. It is a fairly large system and plays an important role in industrial output of many countries. With the complication and specialization of auto-related logistics activities, many third-party logistics (3PL) service providers came into being. They offer their customers the specialized equipment, knowledge and services including transportation and distribution, warehouse management and distribution processing, etc. A good 3PL provider can help an enterprise improve its supply chain logistics, reduce non-productive fixed costs, and enable it to focus its resources on developing core competencies. Therefore, how to select appropriate 3PL providers as logistics outsourcing partners is extremely important. The objective of this research is mainly focused on 3PL providers in the automobile industry. It captured expert opinions from industry, government, and academic experts through literature review, expert survey and importance analysis. Analytic hierarchy process approach (AHP) was applied to develop an objective evaluation method and a specific rating scale with performance appraisal indicators and weights. This evaluation tool can be used not only to select logistics outsourcing partners by vehicle manufacturers but also to develop core competencies and improve performance of priority items by 3PL providers. The findings of this research eventually yielded five key performance appraisal dimensions and twenty three secondary indicators which can be summarized as follows： I.Customer Service Appraisal Dimension (Overall weights of five indicators: 36.1%) Ⅱ.Enterprise Capability Dimension (Overall weights of five indicators: 26.1%) Ⅲ.Operational Efficacy Dimension (Overall weights of seven indicators: 13.5%) Ⅳ.Managerial Efficacy Dimension (Overall weights of four indicators: 13.4%) Ⅳ.Personnel and equipment Dimension (Overall weights of two indicators: 10.8%)