Distribution structures, as studied in this paper, involve the spatial layout of the freight transport and storage system used to move goods between production and consumption locations. Decisions on this layout are important to companies as they allow them to balance customer service levels and logistics costs. Until now there has been very little descriptive research into the factors that drive decisions about these structures. Moreover, the literature on the topic is scattered across various research streams. In this paper we review and consolidate this literature, with the aim to arrive at a comprehensive list of factors. Three relevant research streams were identified: Supply Chain Management (SCM), Transportation and Geography. The SCM and Transportation literature mostly focus on distribution structure including distribution centre (DC) location selection from a viewpoint of service level and logistics costs factors. The Geography literature focuses on spatial DC location decisions and resulting patterns mostly explained by location factors such as labour and land availability. Our review indicates that the main factors that drive decision-making are “demand level”, “service level”, “product characteristics”, “logistics costs”, “labour and land”, “accessibility” and “contextual factors”. The main trade-off influencing distribution structure selection is “service level” versus “logistics costs”. Together, the research streams provide a rich picture of the factors that drive distribution structure including DC location selection. We conclude with a framework that shows the relative position of these factors. Future work can focus on completing the framework by detailing out the sub factors and empirically testing the direction and strength of relationships. Cooperation between the three research streams will be useful to further extend and operationalize the framework.
Distribution structures, as studied in this paper, involve the spatial layout of the freight transport and storage system used to move goods between production and consumption locations. Decisions on this layout are important to companies as they allow them to balance customer service levels and logistics costs. Until now there has been very little descriptive research into the factors that drive decisions about these structures. Moreover, the literature on the topic is scattered across various research streams. In this paper we review and consolidate this literature, with the aim to arrive at a comprehensive list of factors. Three relevant research streams were identified: Supply Chain Management (SCM), Transportation and Geography. The SCM and Transportation literature mostly focus on distribution structure including distribution centre (DC) location selection from a viewpoint of service level and logistics costs factors. The Geography literature focuses on spatial DC location decisions and resulting patterns mostly explained by location factors such as labour and land availability. Our review indicates that the main factors that drive decision-making are “demand level”, “service level”, “product characteristics”, “logistics costs”, “labour and land”, “accessibility” and “contextual factors”. The main trade-off influencing distribution structure selection is “service level” versus “logistics costs”. Together, the research streams provide a rich picture of the factors that drive distribution structure including DC location selection. We conclude with a framework that shows the relative position of these factors. Future work can focus on completing the framework by detailing out the sub factors and empirically testing the direction and strength of relationships. Cooperation between the three research streams will be useful to further extend and operationalize the framework.
Spatial decisions on distribution channel layout involve the layout of the transport and storage system between production and consumption as well as the selection of distribution centre locations. Both are strategic company decisions to meet logistics challenges, i.e. delivering the right product at the right location on time. In this paper we study the main factors and sub factors that drive spatial decisions on distribution channel layout. The current literature has a strong focus on normative approach and lacks descriptive research into these factors. In the second part of the study, we investigated the importance of the factors. Best-Worst Method (BWM) has been used to calculate the factor weights. BWM provides consistent results and requires fewer comparisons than ‘matrix based’ methods. An online survey was used to collect the data. According to total sample of respondents, the most important factors are ‘Logistics costs’, ‘Service level’ and ‘Demand level’. Logistics costs being the most important factor is in line with Supply Chain Management literature. Logistics experts consider ‘Customer demand’ as the second most important factor, whereas decision makers consider ‘Service level’ the second most important factor. A limitation of the research is that the majority of respondents are from Europe and the USA. For future research we suggest to test how respondents from non-Western countries value the importance of several factors.
The energy transition is a highly complex technical and societal challenge, coping with e.g. existing ownership situations, intrusive retrofit measures, slow decision-making processes and uneven value distribution. Large scale retrofitting activities insulating multiple buildings at once is urgently needed to reach the climate targets but the decision-making of retrofitting in buildings with shared ownership is challenging. Each owner is accountable for his own energy bill (and footprint), giving a limited action scope. This has led to a fragmented response to the energy retrofitting challenge with negligible levels of building energy efficiency improvements conducted by multiple actors. Aggregating the energy design process on a building level would allow more systemic decisions to happen and offer the access to alternative types of funding for owners. “Collect Your Retrofits” intends to design a generic and collective retrofit approach in the challenging context of monumental areas. As there are no standardised approaches to conduct historical building energy retrofits, solutions are tailor-made, making the process expensive and unattractive for owners. The project will develop this approach under real conditions of two communities: a self-organised “woongroep” and a “VvE” in the historic centre of Amsterdam. Retrofit designs will be identified based on energy performance, carbon emissions, comfort and costs so that a prioritisation strategy can be drawn. Instead of each owner investing into their own energy retrofitting, the neighbourhood will invest into the most impactful measures and ensure that the generated economic value is retained locally in order to make further sustainable investments and thus accelerating the transition of the area to a CO2-neutral environment.
Traffic accidents are a severe public health problem worldwide, accounting for approximately 1.35 million deaths annually. Besides the loss of life, the social costs (accidents, congestion, and environmental damage) are significant. In the Netherlands, in 2018, these social costs were approximately € 28 billion, in which traffic accidents alone accounted for € 17 billion. Experts believe that Automated Driving Systems (ADS) can significantly reduce these traffic fatalities and injuries. For this reason, the European Union mandates several ADS in new vehicles from 2022 onwards. However, the utility of ADS still proves to present difficulties, and their acceptance among drivers is generally low. As of now, ADS only supports drivers within their pre-defined safety and comfort margins without considering individual drivers’ preferences, limiting ADS in behaving and interacting naturally with drivers and other road users. Thereby, drivers are susceptible to distraction (when out-of-the-loop), cannot monitor the traffic environment nor supervise the ADS adequately. These aspects induce the gap between drivers and ADS, raising doubts about ADS’ usefulness among drivers and, subsequently, affecting ADS acceptance and usage by drivers. To resolve this issue, the HUBRIS Phase-2 consortium of expert academic and industry partners aims at developing a self-learning high-level control system, namely, Human Counterpart, to bridge the gap between drivers and ADS. The central research question of this research is: How to develop and demonstrate a human counterpart system that can enable socially responsible human-like behaviour for automated driving systems? HUBRIS Phase-2 will result in the development of the human counterpart system to improve the trust and acceptance of drivers regarding ADS. In this RAAK-PRO project, the development of this system is validated in two use-cases: I. Highway: non-professional drivers; II. Distribution Centre: professional drivers.
Traffic accidents are a severe public health problem worldwide, accounting for approximately 1.35 million deaths annually. Besides the loss of life, the social costs (accidents, congestion, and environmental damage) are significant. In the Netherlands, in 2018, these social costs were approximately € 28 billion, in which traffic accidents alone accounted for € 17 billion. Experts believe that Automated Driving Systems (ADS) can significantly reduce these traffic fatalities and injuries. For this reason, the European Union mandates several ADS in new vehicles from 2022 onwards. However, the utility of ADS still proves to present difficulties, and their acceptance among drivers is generally low.As of now, ADS only supports drivers within their pre-defined safety and comfort margins without considering individual drivers’ preferences, limiting ADS in behaving and interacting naturally with drivers and other road users. Thereby, drivers are susceptible to distraction (when out-of-the-loop), cannot monitor the traffic environment nor supervise the ADS adequately. These aspects induce the gap between drivers and ADS, raising doubts about ADS’ usefulness among drivers and, subsequently, affecting ADS acceptance and usage by drivers.To resolve this issue, the HUBRIS Phase-2 consortium of expert academic and industry partners aims at developing a self-learning high-level control system, namely, Human Counterpart, to bridge the gap between drivers and ADS. The central research question of this research is:How to develop and demonstrate a human counterpart system that can enable socially responsible human-like behaviour for automated driving systems?HUBRIS Phase-2 will result in the development of the human counterpart system to improve the trust and acceptance of drivers regarding ADS. In this RAAK-PRO project, the development of this system is validated in two use-cases:I. Highway: non-professional drivers;II. Distribution Centre: professional drivers.Collaborative partners:Bielefeld University of Applied Sciences, Bricklog B.V., Goudappel B.V., HaskoningDHV Nederland B.V., Rhine-Waal University of Applied Sciences, Rijkswaterstaat, Saxion, Sencure B.V., Siemens Industry Software Netherlands B.V., Smits Opleidingen B.V., Stichting Innovatiecentrum Verkeer en Logistiek, TNO Den Haag, TU Delft, University of Twente, V-Tron B.V., XL Businesspark Twente.
