56

Competitive Advantage with Logistics Information Technology.” Porter, Michael and James E. Heppelmann. “How Smart, Con-
International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management nected Products are Transforming Companies.” Harvard Business
42, no. 1 (2012): 8–35. Review 93, no. 10 (2015): 96–114.
Kerr, John. “Technology Outlook: Getting by without the Big Rai, Arun, Paul A. Pavlou, Ghiyoung Im, and Steve Du. “Interfirm
Buys.” Supply Chain Management Review 13, no. 1 (2009): 14–19. IT Capability Profiles and Communications for Cocreating
Leonard, Lori N. K. and Christine Clemons. “Supply Chain Relational Value: Evidence from the Logistics Industry.” MIS
Replenishment: Before-and-After EDI Implementation.” Quarterly 36, no. 1 (2012): 233–262.
Supply Chain Management: An International Journal 11, no. 3 Sanders, Nada. “How to Use Big Data to Drive Your Supply
(2006): 225–232. Chain.” California Management Review 58, no. 3 (2016): 26–48.
Min, Hokey. “Application of a Decision Support System to Strategic Savitske, Katrina. “Internal and External Logistics Information
Warehousing Decisions.” International Journal of Physical Distribu- Technologies: The Performance Impact in an International
tion & Logistics Management 39, no. 4 (2009): 270–281. Setting.” International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics
Moser, George and Peter Ward. “Which TMS Is Right for You?” Management 37, no. 6 (2007): 454–468.
Supply Chain Management Review 12, no. 3 (2008): 50–56. Schoenherr, Tobias. “Diffusion of Online Reverse Auctions for
New, Steve. “The Transparent Supply Chain.” Harvard Business B2B Procurement: An Explanatory Study.” International Journal
Review 88, no. 10 (2010): 76–82. of Operations & Production Management 28, no. 3 (2008): 259–278.
Pearcy, Dawn H. and Larry C. Guinipero. “Using e-Procurement Shamir, Joseph. “Machine Learning: A New Tool for Better Fore-
Applications to Achieve Integration: What Role Does Firm Size casting.” Supply Chain Quarterly 8, no. 4 (2014): 39–42.
Play?” Supply Chain Management: An International Journal 13, no. 1 Tomasi, Bill. “Information Without Borders.” Supply Chain Quarterly
(2008): 26–34. 10, no. 1 (2016): 28–32.

CASE
CASE 2.1 TO INVEST OR NOT TO INVEST? THAT IS THE QUESTION
Dean Pallotta was president and CEO of a medium-sized particular, he had been considering a decision to invest in a
firm that manufactured highly customized tiny homes (Mini) warehouse management system (WMS) to increase his vis-
in Toledo, Ohio. The firm had expanded from a local Mid- ibility of the large amount of inventory in his warehouse
west market to a national one, including Southern California which was located next to his production plant. Trans-
and New England. As markets had expanded, so too had portation costs were an emerging secondary concern, as
sources of supply for the company, with major suppliers of it had become increasingly difficult to plan shipments as
key building components located in Southern California, they expanded into new markets and sourced from a larger
the Pacific Northwest, and Michigan. Additionally, smaller number of suppliers. Thus, he was also intrigued about the
suppliers of building components were located around the potential benefits of implementing a transportation man-
globe. The decision to manufacture the Mini in Ohio had agement system (TMS).
been made for two reasons: Dean’s former associates in the In response to these challenges, Dean had assem-
auto industry were close by in Detroit, and the largest single bled a cross-functional team to look at some potential
component of the Mini—the truck or van chassis on which technology-based solutions. The team was made up of
the rest of the home is built—was purchased from one of himself, Jason Shea (VP of Logistics), Stephanie Zinger
the U.S. light-truck makers with a plant in Michigan. (Director of Purchasing), Ethan Mathews (Plant Manager),
Like others in the field, Dean’s company actually Jason Paul (Inventory Planner), and Augie Augustson
manufactured very few of the building components it used (Warehouse Manager). Some of the potential benefits the
to manufacture the Mini. Virtually the entire home was as- team had identified for implementing a WMS included:
sembled from components sourced from outside vendors.
1. Enhanced productivity for warehouse labor
There was, however, a well-defined order in which the
management
building components could most efficiently be assembled.
2. Increased visibility and traceability of inventory
Recently, it had become clear to Dean that warehouse and
3. Fewer picking errors
inventory costs associated with all of the required building
4. Improved responsiveness to the production plant
components were a relatively large portion of his expenses
5. Less paperwork
and that they might be ripe for a substantial reduction. In
 57

In terms of the TMS, potential benefits were con- With regard to their suppliers, Stephanie often had the
sidered to be: opportunity, in the volatile mini-motor-home market, to buy
1. Increased service to customers, particularly on the out parts and component supplies from manufacturers that
were going out of business. Those components could be
West Coast
2. Potential to pool inbound shipments to reduce costs obtained at a substantial savings, with the requirement that
3. Potential inventory reductions from more reliable inventory in the particular parts be temporarily increased or
deliveries that purchases from existing vendors be temporarily cur-
tailed. She wondered how these opportunities would affect
4. Cash flow improvements from enhanced freight
payment the potential benefits of the technology investments.
5. Improved warehouse efficiency on inbound Ethan operated with the (generally tacit) assumption
that there would be some defective components purchased
shipments
and that there would likely be something wrong with his
In addition, several members of the team were product when it first came off the assembly line. For this rea-
advocating the idea of implementing both technologies son, the Minis were extensively tested (Their advertising said,
together so as to increase the potential to optimize both “We hope you’ll never do what we do to your Mini.”), as were
areas jointly. The argument was that these technologies the building components prior to installation. To the extent
tended to be implemented in silos and that the real value that only a few of a particular type of component were on
would be obtained by aligning them in support of overall hand or that the lead time became less certain, the interrup-
company goals. tion in the production schedule would be that much greater.
As they discussed their options, the team also raised It might entail expensive rush orders for replacement com-
a number of concerns. Dean was very concerned about ponents or equally expensive downtime for the entire plant.
the possible issues that might arise as he had previously Despite these concerns, Dean was painfully aware
worked at a company that had gone through a difficult that ignoring the warehousing and transportation prob-
ERP implementation. In particular, he had experienced lems would be a mistake. Something had to be done. While
first-hand the challenges of implementation. So, while the they were currently feeling the strain in the warehouse, the
potential benefits were exciting, the idea of embarking on transportation issues were beginning to be a bigger issue.
a WMS and/or TMS implementation was daunting to the As an aid to making the decision on whether to invest in a
team. Not only was their apprehension about the signifi- WMS and/or a TMS, Dean had worked with the team to
cant capital investment required to purchase the software, draw up a table that summarized the anticipated impacts
but the potential difficulty in implementing the software of implementing the technologies (see Exhibit 2.A). The
was a major concern. In particular, they worried about the figures are based on input from the potential technology
time it would take and how the employees would react to providers, forecasts from his marketing department, cost
the changes. projections from their IT department, and inputs from

TMS Project WMS Project WMS/TMS Project

Net Benefits $573,000 $245,000 $775,000
NPV $409,938 $172,902 $505,243
ROI 85% 75% 76%
Payback Period (months) 9 11 19
Profitability Index 673% 590% 488%
Upfront Costs $100,000 $50,000 $200,000
Risk Medium Low Very High

Exhibit 2.A Analysis of Potential Technology Projects

(continued )
58

the team members. As Dean reviewed the information in 2. Should the team take into account any other costs or ben-
preparation for the next team meeting, he wondered what efits from implementing the TMS? If so, what are they?
decision they should make. 3. What are the advantages and disadvantages of implement-
ing both technologies simultaneously?
4. If both technologies are adopted, what changes, if any,
should occur in the relationships between Pallotta’s firm
QuESTIONS
and his suppliers of components? His transportation
1. Should the team take into account any other costs or ben- providers? Discuss.
efits from implementing the WMS? If so, what are they? 5. What would you recommend the team decide to do? Why?