W20.0_GGS_Logistics & Warehousing System Selection


Problem Statement

Case study in a mining company has been selected to be explored to answer the problem: what are the feasible solutions that the project team in the company can use, in order to ensure the materials will be available for the project when needed? This blog will discuss and select the preferred alternative for Logistics and Warehousing, based on field force analysis results from week 8-12 blog postings. 

Feasible Alternatives

There are five feasible alternatives to consider for the procurement, logistics and warehousing of the project:

  1. Procurement, Logistic and Warehousing for the project are performed by the company’s Supply Chain Management (SCM) Department, as is (status quo).
  2. Procurement, Logistic and Warehousing for the project are performed by the project. SCM manager is reporting to the Project Manager.
  3. Procurement, Logistic and Warehousing for the project are performed by the company’s Supply Chain Management (SCM) Department, as is, but with simplified procedure and improvements
  4. Procurement, Logistic and Warehousing for the project are done by contractor (turn key project)
  5. Outsourcing ONLY the procurement function (NOT turnkey project, but JUST the procurement function), Logistic and Warehouse for the project are performed by the company’s Supply Chain Management (SCM) Department, as is, but with simplified procedure and improvements

Analysis and Criteria

Force Field Analysis technique has been used to analyze each alternatives. The following table shows the result for Logistic and Warehousing:

Table 20.1 Alternative comparison using Field Force Analysis – Logistic & Warehousing

Top three score alternatives (positive variance) have been chosen and will be compared using Compensatory Models, in order to select the most appropriate alternative for this company. As alternative 3 and alternative 5 are the same for logistics and warehousing, there will be only two alternatives to compare (alternative 3/5 and alternative 4).

Selection criteria are:

  1. Cost, all cost associated with change negative forces into positive forces
  2. Easy to implement, the easiest the implementation, less resistance, the better
  3. Time, time required to change the negative forces into positive forces 

The two (2) alternatives comparison after assessing each negative forces is shown in the following table 20.2

Table 20.2 Alternatives comparison data

The attribute weight and ordinal ranking is shown on table 20.3

Table 20.3 Attribute Weight – Ordinary Ranking

The non dimensional scaling of the possible attribute values are presented in table 20.4

Table 20.4 Dimensionless Values

By combining the weights and performance for each alternative, the results are shown on table 20.5

Table 20.5 Weighted Score

Conclusion

According to the additive weighting technique analysis above, the alternative 3 has the highest score; therefore, it is chosen as preferred alternative. Alternative 4 can be also applied for selected project, i.e. major/big scale project.

Performance monitoring and post evaluation of result

The alternative 3 has to be periodically evaluated and aligned with up to date logistics and warehousing system practicing.

 References:

  1. Brassad, M., Ritter, D. (2010), The Memory Jogger 2, Second Edition, GOAL/QPC
  2. Richardson, G., T., W., Supply Chain Management. Retrieved from: http://www.witiger.com/internationalbusiness/SupplyChainManagement.htm
  3. Mindtools, Force Field Analysis. Retrieved from http://www.mindtools.com/pages/article/newTED_06.htm
  4. Sullivan, G., William, Wicks, M., Elin, Koelling, Patrick, C. (2009), Engineering Economic, Fifteenth Edition. Pearson International Edition.
Advertisements

2 thoughts on “W20.0_GGS_Logistics & Warehousing System Selection

  1. AWESOME, Pak Gustaf!!! Nice work on this one!!

    Good problem statement, you followed the 7 step process and you supported your decision with 4 references which were properly cited using APA format.

    It doesn’t get much better than this!!!

    Keep up the great work and looking forward to see your W21 and W22 blog postings sharing your LESSONS LEARNED for other classes. For W21, I am looking for you to share your favorite tools/techniques that helped you generate a favorable return on training investment while in your W22 blog posting, I would like to see you share the “soft” or “people” lessons learned. Share with future classes what leadership, conflict resolution, motivational or team building skills you think will help them succeed on a team where you have little or no formal authority over anyone on your team.

    Keep up the good work and looking forward to seeing you in a couple of weeks!!

    BR,
    Dr. PDG, Lagos, Nigeria

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s