deliverable final benchmarking report on supply chain … · · 2015-07-03deliverable final...

BE LOGIC

DELIVERABLE

FINAL BENCHMARKING REPORT ON SUPPLY CHAIN LEVEL D5.1

Grant Agreement Number: TREN/FP7TR/218694/”BE LOGIC”

Project Acronym: BE LOGIC

Project Title: Benchmark Logistics for Co-modality

Funding Scheme: Collaborative project

Beneficiary

Work Package WP5

Lead Beneficiary MOBYCON

Due Date 28-02-2011

Actual Delivery Date 21-03-2011

Classification

PU Public x

PP Restricted to other programme participants (including Commission Services)

RE Restricted to a group specified by the consortium (including Commission Services)

CO Confidential, only for members of the consortium (including Commission Services)

IN Internal, only for member of the consortium (excluding Commission Services)

BE LOGIC/WP5/Deliverable5.1/3/21/2011 5:21 PM/ page 2 of 25

Document Title: WP number:

Final benchmarking report on supply chain level 5

Document number:

D5.1

Document History Version Comments Date Authorised by

Number of pages: 25

Number of annexes: 4

Responsible Organisation: Principal Author(s):

Ronald Jorna MOBYCON

Liesbeth van Alphen

Contributing Organisation(s): Contributing Author(s):

AUEB

D’Appolonia

ECORYS

HERRY

ISL

NewRail

UIRR

VGTU

Konstantinos Zografos

Valerio Recagno, Michela Briano, Sara Fozza

Jeroen Bozuwa, Menno Broere

Norbert Sedlacek

Holger Kramer

Thomas Zunder, Dewan Islam

Eric Feyen

Vladas Sturys

WP Leader Name: Ronald Jorna

WP Leader Organisation: MOBYCON

Disclaimer

The content of the publication herein is the sole responsibility of the publishers and it does not

necessarily represent the views expressed by the European Commission or its services.

While the information contained in the documents is believed to be accurate, the author(s) or any

other participants in the BE LOGIC consortium make no warranty of any kind with regard to this

material including, but not limited to the implied warranties of merchantability and fitness for a

particular purpose.

Neither the BE LOGIC consortium nor any of its members, their officers, employees, or agents

shall be responsible or liable in negligence or otherwise howsoever in respect of any inaccuracy or

omission herein.

Without derogating from the generality of the foregoing neither the BE LOGIC consortium nor any

of its member, their officers, employees, or agents shall be liable for any direct or indirect or

consequential loss or damage caused by or arising from any information advice or inaccuracy or

omission herein.

BE LOGIC/WP5/Deliverable5.1/3/21/2011 5:21 PM/ page 3 of 25

Table of Contents

1 Short introduction to the BE LOGIC project 5

2 Objectives and setup of the Work Package 6 2.1 Objective of the work package 6 2.2 The position of WP5 within BE LOGIC 6 2.3 The function and design of the tool 6 2.4 Set up of the work package 7

3 Evaluating the Logistics Benchmarking Tool 8 3.1 Comments received in first round of interviews 8 3.2 Comments received in second round of interviews 9 3.3 User Satisfaction Analysis 10

4 Recommendations 13

5 Comparison of Progress to Plan 15

Appendices Appendix A: The Logistics Benchmarking Tool 17 Appendix B: Interviewed Companies/Organisations 21 Appendix C: Interview Structure Template 23 Appendix D: List of comments on the Logistics Benchmarking Tool 24

BE LOGIC/WP5/Deliverable5.1/3/21/2011 5:21 PM/B page 4 of 25

Summary

This report presents an overview of the progress and achievements that were made in WP5, starting from the development of the first version of the Logistics Benchmarking Tool up till the evaluation of the second version of the tool. The work package consisted of two interview rounds. In the first round, the Excel version of the Logistics Benchmarking Tool was tested and evaluated by companies that are active in the transport or logistics sector. Their comments were used to develop the improved and online version of the tool. This version was again presented to a set of companies, both the companies that were approached during the first interview round as well as other companies. At the time of writing, the second round of interviews has been closed and the BE LOGIC project is coming to an end. Based on the comments on the latest version of the tool, recommendations are proposed for the further development of the tool.


1 Short introduction to the BE LOGIC project

BE LOGIC stands for benchmarking logistics. It is a research project within the seventh Framework Programme of the European Union. The scope of BE LOGIC is co-modality: within the project, current logistics strategies are compared to alternatives that include other modes of transport. In doing this, attention is paid both to the transport chains as well as to the available terminals. Since the kick off in September 2008, the BE LOGIC project team has been working on finding a method to improve the efficiency within and across different modes of transport and supporting the development of a quality system. The chosen approach includes the viewpoint of the policy maker, the transport chains and the transhipment points. By taking these three elements into account, we aim at presenting a thoroughly investigated view of the potential room for improvement in the logistics sector. The project has been split into eight work packages (WPs). This report focuses on the progress of the fifth work package. A Logistics Benchmarking Tool was developed that aims to support transport and logistics companies in their strategic choices concerning the selection of modalities on specific routes. It finally presents a set of recommendations on how to further develop the Logistics Benchmarking tool. In this report Chapter two gives a short description of work package five, its objectives and its three tasks. Chapters three summarises the progress and achievements that were made, while chapter four presents a general overview of the comments of the users when testing the Logistics Benchmarking Tool. In chapter five, several recommendations are made on how to proceed in the future, based on the comments as described in the previous chapter. Chapter six briefly presents the deliverables and milestones for this work package. Finally, chapter seven analyses whether the activities in WP5 were performed along the initial planning of 2008.


2 Objectives and setup of the Work Package

2.1 Objective of the work package

The objective of WP5 is defined as follows in Annex I of the BE LOGIC grant agreement: “To assess transport logistics performance in quantitative terms at the level of European transport chains. The internal strengths and weaknesses of different modes separately and in comparison with each other will be measured reliably.”

2.2 The position of WP5 within BE LOGIC

The starting point for WP5 was the Overall Benchmark Framework developed in WP2, and more specifically the Indicators for Transport Chain Benchmark in task 2.3. The indicators developed in WP2 for the transport chain benchmarking have been applied to real-life transport chains across Europe. (The benchmark of a real-life transport chain will hereinafter be referred to as a (test) case). This benchmarking is supported by a benchmarking tool (the Logistics Benchmarking Tool) that has been developed for this project specifically. More information on the tool can be found in the next chapter. The multimodal container terminal database that was developed in WP6 has been linked to the aforementioned benchmarking tool, which significantly increases its functional value. 2.3 The function and design of the tool

A tool has been designed in order to facilitate the benchmarking of transport chains. This tool, first programmed in Excel and later on programmed in an online application, aims at collecting a certain amount of required information for the benchmarking of a company’s current practice with one or two intermodal alternatives. It then uses this information to calculate which of the compared alternatives performs best. The main aim of the tool is to give users the possibility to compare their current practices with alternatives on a strategic level. It is meant as a trigger for a more critical and more in-depth investigation into the effects of choosing another transport mode for an existing transport route. The benchmarking process is built on six main indicators (taken from task 2.3):

Transport cost (quotation) Transport time Flexibility Punctuality Quality Sustainability.

These were retrieved from interviews with several companies and were considered important and used by all interviewees. In order to increase the flexibility of the tool, sub indicators were defined for each of the aforementioned indicators. An important aspect of the tool is the element of filling in personal weight to the six main indicators: it gives the user the possibility to customize the comparison of options to the company-specific strategy. A screenshot-walkthrough of the Logistics Benchmarking Tool can be found in Appendix A.


2.4 Set up of the work package

Three main tasks are defined within WP5. Mobycon leads this work package and its tasks. 1. Benchmark of first range of transport chain (Task 5.1) This benchmarking phase, in practise referred to as ‘the first round’, initially consisted of a request for ten test cases/interviews per partner. In other words, all BE LOGIC partners were asked to perform ten test cases with companies in the logistics/shipper industry, in which the aforementioned excel tool and the project idea as a whole would be presented and evaluated. Halfway the first round however, it was decide to lower the number of requested cases to five. The decision to change the requested number of cases for the first round was based on two arguments. First of all, several partners/users of the tool indicated that the tool needed to be improved in order to obtain realistic/feasible results. Second, a preliminary analysis of the comments on the tool, revealed a high level of repetition and a low level of new insights. It has therefore been decided to base the improved version of the tool, the final tool, on the comments generated through five in-depth test cases per partner. The interviews took place between November 2009 and February 2010. 2. Benchmark of second range of transport chain (Task 5.2) Based on the comments that were generated through the first round of test cases, an improved and online version of the tool has been built. A second round of test cases with companies has been organised. For this second round, the BE LOGIC partners were asked to perform ten interviews in which specific test cases were analysed. This took place between November 2010 and February 2011. 3. Synthesis of results (Task 5.3) At the end of the fifth work package, an overview is created of this package’s findings. The comments that were gathered through the interviews have been analysed. This analysis, which is presented in chapter four, leads to useful insights on the usefulness and future potential of the Logistics Benchmarking Tool. The effectiveness of the tool in providing its user with realistic insights in other transportation options is critically evaluated. Recommendations are made on future action to be undertaken with regard to the development and implementation of the tool. At the time of writing, we are entering the last month of the BE LOGIC project. All comments that were made by the partners and the participants about the performed cases have been collected and analysed. Their comments have been translated into recommendations. Information on the development of the Logistics Benchmarking Tool will be presented in the next chapter.


3 Evaluating the Logistics Benchmarking Tool

As was mentioned before, the Logistics Benchmarking Tool was developed in two phases: a basic Excel-sheet to test the tool’s methodology and a more sophisticated and methodologically improved online version. The BE LOGIC partners have presented both versions of the tool to companies in Europe. The comments resulting from the first testing round were used to improve the tool right away. The comments resulting from the second round have been analysed and translated into recommendations. An overview of the most recurring comments is presented below. 3.1 Comments received in first round of interviews

The received comments were divided over 4 categories, reflecting the type of comment: methodological comments (‘Methodology’), programming errors (‘Programming Error’), comments reflecting the ease of use of the tool (‘Usability’), and a set of comments that could not be divided over the three aforementioned categories

(‘Other’). The most important comments are presented per category. Methodology

The user should have the opportunity to leave a sub-indicator blank, so that it does not influence the assessment of the transport chain at all.

The final outcome should be presented in combination with the chosen ranking/score for the indicators in order to support the user in understanding the outcome and in order to allow him/her to ‘play’ with the ranking and gain more insight in the boundaries of the logistics system.

The tool should present the values for the sub-indicators of the different alternatives on one page, since the relative differences between the alternatives is of importance in the chosen methodology.

Programming Error No noteworthy errors were mentioned. This is most probably the result of the internal tests that were performed prior to the external testing. Usability

Shippers/Carriers do not have the insight to provide all information on sub-indicator level. In several cases, the input of more than one stakeholder is required.

The final outcome should also be represented by graphs. The final tool should automatically find alternative transport options. A manual or short explanation must be provided on how to use the different ‘tabs’ in the e-

tool. It is suggested to use informative question marks to improve the ease of use.


Other Ecotransit does not cover Greece and Macedonia. (This issue resolved itself as Ecotransit

recently launched their worldwide tool). The final tool should plot the alternatives on a map.

Apart from the last comment, all comments listed above (and more) have been taken into account when developing the online version of the Logistics Benchmarking Tool. It is still our believe that plotting the alternatives on a map would be a positive development, but it has proven to be too time and resource consuming to implement within the BE LOGIC run time. In that same line of reasoning, it was decided not to implement a number of suggested adaptations to the first online version of the Logistics Benchmarking Tool. However, they are still regarded as valuable comments that should be taken into consideration in the future. 3.2 Comments received in second round of interviews

The online tool was launched on the BE LOGIC website, together with the European Intermodal Route Finder (EIRF) that was developed in WP6. Both tools have been presented to companies, after which an online survey was filled in per case, as well as a written evaluation report. The comments received were divided over 4 categories, reflecting the type of comment:

methodological comments (‘Methodology’), programming errors (‘Programming Error’), comments reflecting the usefulness of the tool (‘Usefulness’), and comments reflecting the ease of use of the tool (‘User-friendliness’) .

It was decided to create this slightly different set of categories in order to better fit the specific comments that were made by the users. As in the previous subchapter, the most important comments are presented per category. Methodology The most substantial methodology comment is that ‘It should be possible to add weights to the sub indicators as well’. This comment should be taken into account when further developing the Logistics Benchmarking Tool. Programming Error No noteworthy errors were mentioned. This is most probably the result of the internal tests that were performed prior to the external testing. Usefulness

It would be very valuable if the user could add company-specific indicators to be taken into account when comparing alternatives.

A route planner should be integrated into the Logistics Benchmarking Tool. Dimensions (volume) and weight of freight should be included in the Logistics

Benchmarking Tool. It is not possible to compare alternatives starting from/heading to different terminal

locations.


User-friendliness Working through the tool is too time-consuming. It should be possible to go back in the tool more than one step at a time (through the

navigation menu on the left). Value would be added if more information was automatically inserted into the tool

(compared to manually). On top of these main comments, we received a series of more low-level and detailed suggestions from the interviewees. These can be found in appendix C. 3.3 User Satisfaction Analysis

The online survey was developed on Surveymonkey.com, a website that offers survey software and that is easy to use both from the researcher’s as from the respondent’s point of view. Another valuable feature in this software is the possibility to plot graphs from the respondents’ answers, thereby graphically supporting the analyses. These graphs will be presented and analysed below. The interviewees were asked to evaluate the Logistics Benchmarking Tool on ten subjects, rating these subjects from very good to very bad on a five-point scale. The average outcome of these evaluations per subject is presented in the graph below. It should be explained here how to interpret the values on the horizontal axis below. The values represent the average answers per subject. These averages are calculated by multiplying the answer value with the percentual share of the total number of answers per subject (very good = 1, good = 2, neutral = 3, bad = 4, very bad = 5).


Graph 1: Average answers in the Logistics Benchmarking Tool survey

Analysing the graph above leads to the conclusion that the interviewees are positive on each aspect of the tool, apart from the time required to fill it in. This latter subject was rated neutral, inclining to ‘bad’. This conclusion fits the overall impression after having analysed all interview reports. The users were positive about the Logistics Benchmarking Tool as a whole, but emphasized that it needs to be adapted in a way that makes it less time-consuming.


Graph 2: Answers in the Logistics Benchmarking Tool survey per answer option

Graph 2 represents the same answers, but analysed on a more detailed level. This graph plots the number of respondents that have selected a certain answer. It can be concluded here that the majority of the subjects was dominantly rated as being ‘Good’, which is a very positive result. Again, the subject ‘Time required to fill in the tool’ was rated lower. One can also observe that the ‘Usefulness of the results’ is mainly rated as being ‘Neutral’. This is due to the fact that a large group of the users indicated that the process of comparing and weighing alternatives is of course being implemented in every company, be it often as a thinking process rather than an explicitly calculated process of which the outcomes can be shared with others. Where many interviewees see added value in the tool’s capabilities, they do not perceive it as bringing a completely new aspect to their companies. We expect that this explains why ‘Neutral’ was often chosen to rate the subject of usefulness. It can be concluded that the tool is received overall as a positive addition to current systems. However, several companies indicated that the tool would not be used by all companies and for daily purposes. It was mainly commented that the tool could have large added value when considering new transport lanes, to gain a first insight in the realistic possibilities. Also, a large group of the users saw potential in the tool with regard to the visual representation of results. It


could be used as support when communicating a certain decision both internally (to colleagues and managers) and to clients. To conclude with the respondents overall feeling about the tool: 75 per cent of the respondents would recommend the tool to others, either in the stage it is right now, or after a few improvements were made (34 per cent of the respondents would recommend the tool without further improvements). Additionally, a short analysis was made of a small subset of the performed interviews with the aim to grasp potential trends with regard to the content of the used performed case studies. The percentages presented below should merely be seen from a trend perspective, rather than hard figures. The analysis of 10-15 case studies revealed that out of the six main indicators, cost is most often selected as the most important indicator. It was selected as being the predominant indicator in 60 per cent of the cases. Also, the cost of co-modal transport is found to be cheaper in 80 per cent of the cases. Combining this knowledge, it is not surprising that when comparing a unimodal base case with a co-modal alternative, the latter is calculated as the best option in 80 per cent of the cases.


4 Recommendations

An analysis of the interviewees’ reactions to the Logistics Benchmarking Tool in the second round reveals that the majority see the tool as a well-structured support to strategic decision making. Both in small and larger companies, the comparison of options is often a process that takes place in one’s mind. To see this process being explicitly translated into a tangible tool was received as a valuable contribution. Interviewees claim that communicating a trade-off with colleagues, managers or customers benefits from this tool and more specifically the way in which the results are visually presented. While seeing the potential benefits, some companies indicated that their current way of working, without the tool, has been satisfactory in the past, and that they would probably not use the tool for daily planning purposes. However, a large part of the companies indicated that he tool is especially useful when trying to grasp the pros and cons of new lanes. Having said that, their comments also emphasized the fact that certain elements can be improved. To summarize, the most important recommendations on further improvements regarding the usefulness of the tool are that:

Users should be able to work through the tool faster; as it is already possible to only select a small set of indicators for comparison, a possible solution would simply be to make the user interface more user-friendly.

The tool should be partly automated. More specifically information on transport time and emissions could be automatically retrieved from other tools/websites.

Users should be able to select non-terminal locations in order to more easily compare door-to-door transport.

Users should be able to add their own additional indicators to the tool in order to take them into account when comparing alternatives. While the majority of the interviewees completely agree with the 6 defined indicators, it is argued that having the option to add a business or case-specific indicator would only add to the overall value of the tool.

Even though BE LOGIC’s focus has been on SME’s from the very beginning, it was decided to interview a wide array of companies in order to be able to analyse the tool from different angles. An interesting conclusion after talking to larger companies (mainly shippers) is that they see potential for using the Logistics Benchmarking Tool when evaluating and comparing incoming tender applications. It is recommended to further look into the possibilities for this specific use of the tool.


5 Comparison of Progress to Plan

The consortium’s initial intention with regards to WP5 was to test the developed benchmarking tool by performing a small number of extensive case studies. It was soon decided however to alter this approach and instead to perform a much larger number of interviews in which the tool was presented and commented on by companies. As mentioned before, company-specific data was used for each interview, in order to maximize the interviewee’s feeling with the tool’s potential and to receive more valuable critique. This change in plan has proven to be an improvement to the project, as it has lead to having more than 75 individual opinions instead of just five or six. An internal change that was made to our planning was to delay the second round of interviews. This was decided on in order to allow for the Logistics Benchmarking Tool to be thoroughly tested internally before launching it online, and to have sufficient time to link the EIRF to it. It was agreed on by the involved consortium partners (Ecorys, D’Appolonia and Mobycon) that this approach would significantly improve the level of quality. Looking back on the work package’s progress as we are reaching the end of the project, our conclusion is that all initially set goals have been reached. A Logistics Benchmarking Tool has been developed, evaluated, improved and re-evaluated.


Appendices


Appendix A: The Logistics Benchmarking Tool A number of screenshots of the Logistics Benchmarking Tool are presented in this Appendix, in order to give the reader a first impression of its possibilities. The example of a transport from Paris to Milano was used. The tool starts with defining the base case, indicating the distance, the mode of transport and possible intermediate points (see figure 1).

Figure 1: Definition of ‘base case’

Then, for this base case alternative, the key performance indicators and subindicators have to be filled in by the users of the e-tool. These (sub)indicators can be either quantitative (see example in figure 2) or qualitative (see example in figure 3).


Figure 2: Example of quantitative indicator ‘time’

Figure 3: Example of qualitative indicator ‘flexibility’

For the indicator ‘environmental sustainability’ the e-tool makes use of the website www.ecotransit.org. The results from this website can be copied to the Logistics Benchmarking Tool (see figure 4).


Figure 4: Example of the environmental indicator

The tool includes CO2, NOx, Non-Methan Hydro Carbons and particles. Depending on the priorities of the users it can give different weights to each of these pollutants. Then, the same steps have to be completed for the intermodal alternative, e.g. from Paris to Milano via Turino. Once this has been completed, the user will give weights to each of the six main indicators that were chosen at the start of the tool, i.e. transport time, costs, flexibility, reliability, quality and environmental emissions. After all these inputs have been given, the user is able to go to the results of the benchmarking of these two transport alternatives: road-only or train from Paris (via Turino) to Milano. Figure 5 shows that in this example the rail alternative is worse than the road alternative on the indicators ‘transport time’ and ‘costs’. On the indicator ‘environmental sustainability’ rail is performing better. For the other indicators the scores are equal. Given the weights allocated to each of the indicators, the overall score of ‘road’ is 10,89% better than the ‘rail’ alternative. However, if the weight of the indicator ‘environmental sustainability’ would have been significantly higher, the result would have been rather different. Apart from a tabular presentation, graphics are also available, as well as an output-file in pdf-format.


Figure 5: Comparing the two alternatives

The BE LOGIC tools can be found on www.be-logic.info.


Appendix B: Interviewed Companies/Organisations The list below presents an overview of all the companies that were interviewed during the second round of testing of the Logistics Benchmarking Tool.

Lindt & Sprungli (AT) Fachhochschule des bfi Wien (AT) Dynea Asutria GmbH (AT) Sunpor Kunststoff GmbH (AT) Bene AG (AT) Ecoplus Logistic Cluster Lower Austria (AT) Tiger Coatings GmbH (AT) Ewals Cargo Care (BE) Haesaerts Intermodal NV (BE) Proctor & Gamble (BE) Kuehne+Nagel NV (BE) Mediterranean Shipping Company (CH) Trans Global Projects GmbH (DE) Hansa Meyer (DE) Kotanyi (DE) Transintra (DE) Dachser (DE) ArcelorMittal Bremen (DE) HRL Eurocargo (DE) Allied Forwarding Group (DE) TTS (DE) Terratrans (DE) Inseneriehitus (EE) American President Lines Estonia (EE) CMA-CGM Tallinn (EE) Continental Cargo (EE) 4U Logistics (EE) Sitraco S.A. (GR) Heracles General Cement Company (GR) Nestle Waters, Nestly Hellas S.A. (GR) Hellenic Fine Oils S.A. (GR) Mega Disposables S.A. (GR) Tasty Foods S.A. – Pepsico Intl (GR) Azzurra ATM (IT) Autotrasporti Montanino (IT) Captrain Italia Srl (IT) Italcontainer (IT) Interporto Bologna (IT) Poddighe (IT) iLog (IT) Cemat (IT) Contship Italia (IT)


ACE Logistics UAB (LT) DB Schenker (LT) Rhenus Svoris (LT) Arijus (LT) Finejas JSC (LT) Ad rem JSC (LT) Deivra JSC (LT) MOL Logistics (NL) Van Dieren Maritime (NL) MARS Nederland (NL) HZ Transport (NL) HSF Logistics (NL) OPDR Netherlands Agencies BV (NL) PCT/Nijhof-Wassink (NL) Den Hartogh (NL) FloraHolland (NL) BCTN (NL) DSM (NL) Vliegasunie (NL) Groningen Railport (NL) R. Swagemakers (NL) Van Den Bosch Transporten (NL)


Appendix C: Interview Structure Template

Dear partner, Please use this checklist when evaluating the EIRF and the Benchmarking Tool with the interviewee in face-to-face or telephonic interviews. The objective of this list is to serve as a guideline in order to maximize the amount of useful comments retrieved from an interview. Please take notes using the following set-up if the interviewee expresses specific comments/tips. Name of Organisation/Company: Name of Interviewee: Name of Interviewer:

1. EIRF

1.1 Usefulness 1.2 Completeness 1.3 Accuracy 1.4 Ease of use 1.5 Overall/other comments

2. Benchmarking Tool 2.1 Available indicators 2.2 Available subindicators 2.3 Option to select relevant (sub)indicators 2.4 Ease of use when filling in (sub)indicators 2.5 Ease of use when establishing the transport chain 2.6 Presentation of results in numbers 2.7 Presentation of results graphically 2.8 Usefulness of results 2.9 Time required to fill in the tool 2.10 Overall ease of use 2.11 Recommending the tool to others 2.12 Overall/other comments


Appendix D: List of comments on the Logistics Benchmarking Tool.

The following table provides an overview of the detailed comments on the Logistics Benchmarking Tool (LBT).

Comment Category of

comment Comment 1 Methodology Quality and Reliability can be merged into one category. 2 Methodology The 'value of cargo transported' should be included as a sub indicator. 3 Methodology Complaints made by the recipient' should be included under Reliability.4 Methodology Opportunity cost should be included as a sub indicator. 5 Methodology It should be possible to add weights to the sub indicators as well.

6 Methodology Qualitative and quantitative indicators should not be combined into one tool.

7 Programming error The page view jumps to the bottom of the page when clicking on a question mark.

8 Programming error The icon in the pdf represents a passenger train, while the tool focuses on freight transport only.

9 Usefulness A route planner should be integrated into the LBT.

10 Usefulness Dimensions (volume) and weight of freight should be included in the LBT.

11 Usefulness More indicators should be taken into account.

12 Usefulness The results are not useful enough since the user will usually already know the outcome.

13 Usefulness

It is not possible to compare alternatives starting from/heading to different terminal locations (e.g. a transport from Antwerp to Milano vs. Rotterdam to Milano).

14 Usefulness The final comparison table is not clear.

15 Usefulness Terminal fees and terminal waiting times are highly important in the choice for using a terminal. They should be linked to the tool.

16 Usefulness It would be very valuable if a user could add a company-specific indicator in a blank field.

17 Usefulness It should be possible to add weights to different segments of a route, as their importance may vary.

18 Usefulness The results should be explained more clearly.

19 User-friendliness There should be a help function.

20 User-friendliness There should be a more detailed explanation for first time users. 21 User-friendliness The interface of the LBT is too complex.

22 User-friendliness It would be an improvement if the indicator weights and emission weights could be fixed per account.

23 User-friendliness It takes too long to go through the LBT. 24 User-friendliness The link to Ecotransit in the LBT did not work. 25 User-friendliness The tool gives different website displays for Firefox and MS Explorer


(MS Explorer is difficult to read + links are at the bottom of the page).

26 User-friendliness It is not possible to cancel a line; the user has to restart the tool.

27 User-friendliness Value would be added if more information was automatically inserted into the tool (compared to manually).

28 User-friendliness Having to save every row in the LBT is not adding to the ease of use.

29 User-friendliness It is rather difficult at this time to understand how to fill in the tool if origin and destination are not terminal cities.

30 User-friendliness It should be possible to go back in the tool more than one step at a time (through the navigation menu on the left).

31 User-friendliness The tool should be translated into German to overcome language issues and increase the attractiveness of the LBT.

32 User-friendliness It is too time consuming to fill in the information for the cost, time and environment indicators.

33 User-friendliness Default values should be used for cost and environment.

34 User-friendliness It would be helpful if the tool could present average values for cost and transport time.

deliverable final benchmarking report on supply chain … · · 2015-07-03deliverable final...

Documents