EVALUATION OF THE SUSTAINABILITY OF PARTY LOGISTICS SERVICE PROVIDERS WITH FAILURE MODES AND EFFECTS ANALYSIS METHOD: APPLICATION IN A COMPANY

Abstract

Purpose- The purpose of this research is to increase customer satisfaction and business performance in the sector to eliminate failure situations of the processing phases of the departments of the business and to develop the quality of the system. The objective of this research is to enhance customer satisfaction and business performance by addressing and eliminating failure situations in the processing phases of the business departments and improving the quality of the system. To achieve this, the study focuses on evaluating third-party and fourth-party logistics service providers in the context of sustainability. While there are existing approaches to evaluate party logistics under general headings, there is a lack of specific studies focusing on companies operating in a single field. Therefore, this study aims to fill that gap by examining the business evaluation criteria of third-party and fourth-party logistics service providers for a white goods company in Turkey. Methodology- During the research, the concept of third-party logistics has gained attention within the scope of sustainability, the competition among organizations providing this service has become more intense, as have customer expectations. The research utilizes Failure Mode and Effects Analysis (FMEA) and Pareto Analysis (PA) to assess the sustainability of the supply chain and batch logistics for the company. Findings- As a result of the research, the findings in the direction of quality improvement-development within the scope of the service provided by the business are presented. The initial phase of process enhancement for logistics operations begins with the FMEA results. Development initiatives may begin if improvement initiatives are maintained. Development activities and resources ought to be distributed in accordance with this level of priority with regard to the first work that has to be performed to enhance the process. Conclusion- All risk considerations might not be realized inside a particular process since there are only a limited number of possibilities to be assigned for enhancement prosperity. By conducting risk prevention studies in accordance with the priorities that will be decided upon each period, it is intended to produce continuous improvement. Overall, while it may not be possible to address every risk, prioritizing risks and conducting risk prevention studies can help organizations achieve continuous improvement and increase their chances of success.

Keywords

• Failure Mode and Effects Analysis (FMEA)
• Pareto Analysis (PA)
• party logistics
• quality
• supply chain
• sustainability

References

1. Akın, B. (1996). İşletmelerde istatistik proses kontrol Bilim Teknik Yayınevi, İstanbul, Türkiye.
2. Akın, B. and Öztürk, E. (2005). İstatistik Proses Kontrol Tekniklerinin Bilgisayar Ortamında Uygulanması. 7. Ulusal Ekonometri ve İstatistik Sempozyumu, 2-15, İstanbul.
3. Altunbaş, D. (2003). Uluslararası sürdürülebilir kalkınma ekseninde Türkiye'deki kurumsal değişimlere bir bakış. Yönetim Bilimleri Dergisi, 1(1-2), 103-118.
4. Baykasoğlu, A., Dereli, T., Yılankıran, N. and Yılankıran, A.(2003). Hata Türü ve Etkileri Analizi ve Gaziantep’te Orta Ölçekli Bir Firmaya Uygulanması, II. Makine Tasarım ve İmalat Teknolojileri Kongresi, Konya, 157-163.
5. Bohling, T. , Bowman,D., LaValle, S., Mittal, V. and Narayandas, G.D.(2006). CRM implementation: effectiveness issues and insights. Journal of Service Research, 9(2), 184-194.
6. Vietnam Third Party Logistics (3PL) Market Outlook to 2022 - By Freight Forwarding and Warehousing 3PL Services and By International Companies and Domestic Companies, https://www.kenresearch.com/automotive-transportation-and-warehousing/logistics-and-shipping/vietnam-3pl-market/145653-100.html, (Access Date: 10.04.2023).
7. Chang, D-S. and Sun, KLP. (2009). Applying DEA to enhance assessment capability of FMEA. International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, 26(6), 629-643.
8. Chuang, PT. (2010). Incorporating disservice analysis to enhance perceived service quality. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 110(3), 1-22.

9. Chin, K.S., Wang, Y.M., Poon, G.K.K. and Yang J.B. (2009). Failure mode and effects analysis using a group-based evidential reasoning approach. Computers & Operations Research, 36, 1768–1779.
10. Dale, B.G. and Shaw, P. (1990), Failure mode and effects analysis in the U.K. motor industry: a state of the art study. Journal Quality and Reliability Engineering International, 6(3), 179-188.
11. Denson, W. K., (1992). The Use of Failure Mode Distrubitions in Reliability Analyses, RAC Newsletter (Reliability Analyses Centre, a Department of Defense Information Analyses Centre), p.3.
12. Dizdar, E. N. (2001). Tehlike Analiz Teknikleri, Gazi Üniversitesi, Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Yardımcı Ders Kitabı, Ekim, Ankara.
13. Dollar, D. and Kraay, A. (2001). The World Bank Development Research Group Macroeconomics and Growth April 2001, Policy Research Working Paper. https://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/419351468782165950/pdf/multi0page.pdf (Access Date: 10.04.2023)
14. Dulupçu, M. A. (2000). Sürdürülebilir kalkınma politikasına yönelik gelişmeler. Dış Ticaret Dergisi, 6(20), 46-70.
15. Elitaş, C. and Eleren, A. (2007). Hedef maliyetlemede hata türü ve etkileri analizi yöntemi ile risklerin değerlendirilmesi. Muhasebe ve Finansman Dergisi, 3(6) , 114-124 .
16. Eryürek, Ö. and Tanyaş, M. (2003). Hata türü ve etkileri analizinde maliyet odaklı yeni bir karar verme yaklaşımı. İTÜ Dergisi, 2(6), 31-40.
17. Estorilio, C, and Posso, RK. (2010). The reduction of irregularities in the use of process FMEA. International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, 27(6), 721-733.
18. Ford (1992). FMEA Handbook, Ford Motor Company Engineering Materials and Standarts, Dearborn, Michigan.
19. Franceschini, F. and Maurizio Galetto, M. (2001). A new approach for evaluation of risk priorities of failure modes in FMEA. International Journal of Production Research, 39(13), 2991-3002.
20. Gray, P. and Byun, J. (2001). Customer Relationship Management, Center for Research on Information Technology and Organizations University of California, March 2001.
21. Greenberg, P. (2004). CRM at the Speed of Light: Capturing and Keeping Customers in Internet Real Time, McGraw-Hill, Berkeley, CA.
22. Gunasekaran, A. and Ngai, E. W. T. (2009). Modeling and analysis of build-to-order supply chains. European Journal of Operational Research, 195(2), 319–334.
23. Hamilton, K. (1995). Sustainable development, the Hartwick rule and optimal growth. Environmental and Resource Economics, 5(4), 393-411.
24. Hepburn, C. (2006). Valuing the far-off future: discounting and its alternatives, (Ed.) G. Atkinson, S. Dietz, & E. Neumayer, Handbook of Sustainable Development, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, 109-24.
25. Ho, W., He, T., Lee, C. K. M. and Emrouznejad, A. (2012). Strategic logistics outsourcing: An integrated QFD and fuzzy AHP approach. Expert Systems with Applications, 39(12), 10841–10850.
26. Holweg, M. and Miemczyk, J. (2003). Delivering the 3-day car—the strategic implications for automotive logistics operations. Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management, 9(2), 63-71.
27. Hueting, R. and Reijnders, L. (1998). Sustainability is an objective concept. Ecological Econonomics, 27(2), 139-47.
28. Jayaram, J. and Tan, K.-C. (2010). Supply chain integration with third-party logistics providers. International Journal of Production Economics, 125(2), 262–271.
29. Kumar, S., Dieveney, E. and Dieveney, A. (2009). Reverse logistic process control measures for the pharmaceutical industry supply chain. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, 58(2), 188-204.
30. Ko, M., Tiwari, A. and Mehnen, J. (2010). A review of soft computing applications in supply chain management. Applied Soft Computing, 10(3), 661 - 674.
31. Liu, H.-C., Liu, L. and Liu, N. (2013). Risk evaluation approaches in failure mode and effects analysis: a literature review. Expert Systems with Applications, 40(2), 828- 838.
32. Munasinghe, M. (1993), Environmental Economics and Sustainable Development. The World Bank, Washington, D.C., p.95. https://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/638101468740429035/pdf/multi-page.pdf
33. Pillay, A. and Wang, J. (2003). Modified failure mode and effects analysis using approximate reasoning. Reliability Engineering & System Safety 79, 69–85.
34. Prendergast, G. P. (1995). The EC directive on packaging and packaging waste. Logistics Information Management, 8(3), 10–17.
35. Rajesh, R., Pugazhendhi, S., Ganesh, K., Muralidharan, C. and Sathiamoorthy, R. (2011). Influence of 3PL service offerings on client performance in India. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, 47(2), 149–165.
36. Reeves, K. A., Caliskan, F. and Ozcan, O. (2010). Outsourcing distribution and logistics services within the automotive supplier industry. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, 46(3), 459–468.
37. Redclift, M. (2005). Sustainable Development (1987-2005): An oxymoron comes of age. Sustainable Development, 13, 212-227.
38. Remmel, U. (1991). Integration of marketing and logistics: a way to competitive advantage in South Africa. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, 21(5), 28-41.
39. Sahnı, A. (1993). Using failure mode and effect analysis to improve manufacturing processes. Journal of Medical Device Diagnostic, 47-51.
40. Sankar, NR and Prabhu, BS. (2001). Modified approach for prioritization of failures in a system failure mode and effects analysis. International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, 18(3), 324–35.
41. Sezgin, M. and Kalaman, A. (2008). Turistik destinasyon çerçevesinde sürdürülebilir turizm yönetimi ve pazarlaması. Selçuk Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 19, 429-437.
42. Sinha, P.R., Whitmann, L.E. and Malzan, D. (2004). Methodology to mitigate supplier risk in an aerospace supply chain. Supply Chain Management of International Journal, 9(2), 154-168.
43. Slinger, M. (1992). To practise QFD with success requires a new approach to product design. Kontinuert Forbedring, 20-21.
44. Su, X., Deng, Y., Mahadevan, S. and Bao, Q. (2012). An improved method for risk evaluation in failure modes and effects analysis of aircraft engine rotor blades. Engineering Failure Analysis, 26, 164-174.
45. Types of Logistics & Its Difference, https://www.ithinklogistics.com/blog/types-of-logistics-its-difference/ (Access Date: 10.04.2023)
46. Van Leeuwen, JF., Nauta, MJ., de-Kaste, D., Odekerken-Rombouts, YMCF., Oldenhof, MT., Vredenbert, MJ. and Barends, DM. (2009). Risk analysis by FMEA as an element of analytical validation. Journal of Pharmaceutical and Biomedical Analysis, 50(5), 1085- 1087.
47. Wang, Y.-M., Chin, K.-S., Poon, G. K. K. and Yang, J.B. (2009). Risk evaluation in failure mode and effects analysis using fuzzy weighted geometric mean. Expert Systems with Applications, 36(2), 1195-1207.
48. Xiao, N., Huang, H-Z., Li, Y., He, L. and Jin, T. (2011). Multiple failure modes analysis and weighted risk priority number evaluation in FMEA. Engineering Failure Analysis, 18(4), 1162-1170.
49. Yılmaz, A. (1997). Hata Türü ve Etki Analizi, İstanbul Teknik Üniversitesi F.B.E. Yüksek Lisans Tezi, İstanbul.
50. Zairi, M. and Duggan, R. (1999). Best Practice-Process Innovation Management in Slinger M (1992). To practise QFD with success requires a new approach to product design. Kontinuert Forbedring, Butterworth-Heinemann, 104-139