Decision analysis of warehouse productivity performance indicators to enhance logistics operational efficiency

Abstract

PurposeThe warehouse industry is one of the backbones in the logistics operation which involves several activities i.e. storage, receiving, picking and shipping of goods/cargoes. This study analyzes the most important warehouse productivity indicators for improving warehouse operation efficiency.Design/methodology/approachThis study presents an empirical methodology of the fuzzy analytical hierarchy process (FAHP) method, an integration between the fuzzy logic method with an analytical hierarchy process (AHP) method incorporated with the adoption of quantitative and systems theories under the modern management theory approach.FindingsThe results indicate that the weight values of the main criteria which lead by the criterion “Space (0.4005)” at the top ranking, followed by Information System (0.2445), Labor (0.2065) and Equipment (0.1484). In addition, the weight values and ranking of the 16 sub-criteria are also highlighted which the sub-criterion “Warehouse Management System (0.2445)” scores the highest weight value and followed by Storage Space Utilization (0.1043) and Throughput (0.0722) accordingly.Research limitations/implicationsFinally, this research contributed to enrich the literature, while highlighting a series of recommendations on the top three most significant productivity performance indicators that can be useful in further research.Originality/valueA generic analysis model developed with the adoption of three study theories: quantitative, system and productivity theories.

A Method of Assessing the Effectiveness of the Use of Available Resources When Implementing Production Processes

“…The author's contribution to the academic literature is the development of a new method of assessing the effectiveness of the use of available resources when implementing production processes and verification of its applicability in the actual production process of the automotive industry. The method was developed in response to the research gap identified in the literature review [2,14,16,17,[27][28][29][30][31][35][36][37][38][39][40][41], which showed that there is a lack of a quantitative method for assessing the production processes effectiveness, which, taking into account the categorization of the production losses, would allow at the same time to evaluate the main areas (production and production-related) contribution in the generation of these losses. The literature review of the latest research in the field of manufacturing engineering [7,[19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26] showed that researchers are currently focusing more on developing digital tools for Industry 4.0 than on assessment methods.…”

“…Productivity indicators relate to production assumptions, and evaluate the results for various groups of resources, which in turn makes it possible to partially identify areas where production losses are generated. The effectiveness assessment takes into account the assessment of availability and performance for selected groups of resources, but it is neither comprehensive nor standardized for all areas [28].…”

“…The aspect of complex and detailed effectiveness assessment could influence (even in the era of Industry 4.0, even more so in the coming era of Industry 5.0) the development or at least the possibility of verifying the effectiveness of other proposals for new methods or improvements in manufacturing engineering. Recent scientific papers presenting current methods of effectiveness assessment [16,[27][28][29][30][31] indicate the lack of a quantitative method for assessing the production processes effectiveness, which, taking into account the categorization of the production losses, would allow at the same time to evaluate the main areas (production and production-related) contribution in the generation of these losses. The method is based on a set of quantitative indicators and takes into account the categorization of production losses.…”

A model to describe logistics service architecture based on product architecture

“…3PL providers offer a set of basic services along with a variety of additional services. Basic services include the activities related to transporting goods or receiving, storing, and shipping items from warehouses (Abdul Rahman et al, 2021;Soinio et al, 2012), whereas additional services, or value-added services (VAS), are customer-specific (Bowersox et al, 2002;Soinio et al, 2012). The delivery of additional services may strengthen the relationship between 3PL providers and customers (van Hoek, 2000;Jum'a and Basheer, 2023).…”

Roadmap to enhance the insertion of social sustainability in logistics systems

“…, 2020). Additionally, Abdul Rahman et al. (2021) emphasize that it is important to continuously analyze and evaluate logistics strategies in order to obtain long-term competitive advantages.…”