Towards taxonomy architectureof knowledge managementfor third-party logistics

service providerR. Rajesh

Department of Mechanical Engineering,Noorul Islam University, Kumarakoil, India

S. PugazhendhiDepartment of Manufacturing Engineering,

Annamalai University, Chidambaram, India, and

K. GaneshGlobal Business Services – Global Delivery,IBM India Private Limited, Mumbai, India

Abstract

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to examine how the rapid pace of technological change,attrition rate, global complexities and the increasing amount of data and information available havecomplicated the task of managing knowledge for third-party logistics (3PL) service providers. Basedon literature, there is a need for research into the development of a generic taxonomy componentsframework (GTCF) for the implementation of knowledge management (KM) solution for 3PL serviceproviders.

Design/methodology/approach – A four-stage model has been devised for the development of aGTCF to implement KM solution for 3PL service providers. The authors proposed modified Q-sortmethod and also used Delphi analysis in the four-stage model. The KM components were identifiedthrough literature study and discussion with subject experts. The hierarchical structure of the taxonomywas derived and refined through a survey among 3PL experts by employing Q-sort method.

Findings – This paper makes several important contributions toward the objective of betterunderstanding the role of 3PL operations in knowledge creation. The feedback from the respondentsshows that the GTCF is of potential employment by 3PL service providers irrespective of the nature ofthe primary service they offer.

Research limitations/implications – The GTCF has been devised based on survey responsesgathered from 3PL experts in India. The findings of this study have implications for understanding thekey KM components required for 3PL service provider relationship and also the weightage for KMcomponents.

Practical implications – The aim of this research is for the development of a GTCF which can betaken as the base for implementation of KM solutions for 3PL service providers.

Originality/value – The contribution of this study lies in extending the body of knowledge of KMfor 3PL service providers. It tests a proposed framework which has only limited empirical validation,and provides a broader understanding of KM components required for 3PL service provider.

Keywords Knowledge management, Delphi method, Distribution channels and markets,Service industries

Paper type Research paper

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/1463-5771.htm

BIJ18,1

42

Benchmarking: An InternationalJournalVol. 18 No. 1, 2011pp. 42-68q Emerald Group Publishing Limited1463-5771DOI 10.1108/14635771111109814

1. IntroductionGrowth and globalization, coupled with recent advances in information technology (IT),have led many of the firms to introduce sophisticated knowledge management systems(KMS) in order to create sustainable competitive advantage (Ofek and Sarvari,2001). Knowledge management (KM) efforts typically focus on organizational objectivessuch as improved performance, competitive advantage, innovation, the sharing oflessons learned and continuous improvement of the organization. According toDu Plessis (2005), the overarching objective of KM is to create, share, harvest andleverage knowledge in order to initiate action based on knowledge, support businessstrategy implementation and realisation of business objectives, increase competitiveadvantage, create an innovative culture and environment and improve work efficiencythrough improved decision making, improved customer service, improved solution ofbusiness problems, increased productivity and improved leveraging of corporate andindividual knowledge. KM ensures the availability of and access to relevant, up-to-datestrategic knowledge on markets, products and services, competitors, processes andprocedures, employee skills and the regulatory environment, for decision making anddaily work activities. This ensures that the organization can act quickly to changes inthe marketplace and can act ahead of its competitors, i.e. it provides the organizationwith a competitive advantage in respect of agility. Efficiency is also increased due totime saving and prevention of duplication of work due to the availability of knowledge.

In recent years, the possibility of applying KM to logistics and to logistics planninghas been put forward in literature. Despite these discussions, KM has not beenimplemented in logistics in large-scale (Neuman and Tome, 2005). Logistics is definedas the planning, execution and control of the movement and placement of peopleand/or goods and of the supporting activities within a system organized to achievespecific objectives (ELA, 2004). Logistics is a critical function in supply chain andinclude planning (creating strategies of managing resources which are essential to fulfillneeds on particular goods and services), identifying sources of resources, fixing prices,deliveries and payments, managing resources and storing process, production, thestage of delivery and goods return. Nowadays, as competition becomes more intense,many firms are considering the option of outsourcing the logistics activities in order tostreamline their value chains. In the last decade, development of third-party logistics(3PL) service provider has been very important. There are several reasons for suchdevelopment, the most important being the trend to concentrate in the core business bymanufacturing companies and new technological advances. As in companies and thesociety in general, knowledge has been widely recognized and accepted as a strategicresource in the area of logistics too which includes 3PL providers. The biggest challengefor properly handling this strategic resource by applying KM methods and tools to bothspheres, the planning of logistics systems and processes and the operation of logisticsservices, consists in providing the right knowledge of the right quality and with the rightcosts at the right place and time. Major problems in implementing KM and running it inthe daily logistics business include financial limitations, time restrictions, as well asinsufficient structuring and presentation of knowledge.

It is observed that KM has not been considered or implemented in large-scale 3PLcompanies or logistics departments of larger firms because of the problems explainedwhich includes a proper structuring and presentation of knowledge. We are attemptingto devise a generic taxonomy component framework (GTCF) for the implementation

Taxonomyarchitecture

of KM for 3PL

43

of KM solution for 3PL service providers. This paper draws on literature and expertisefrom 3PL executives to propose taxonomy of strategies for KM for 3PL providers.We propose a four-stage model to develop the GTCF for KM implementation that willhelp the user to think, create and contribute knowledge in an organized fashion andhelp the user to access in the same fashion to enhance the use or re-use of knowledge. Theprimary purpose of this framework is to guide executives of 3PL on choices to initiateKM process according to goals, organizational character and technological, behaviouralor economic biases.

The paper is organized as follows: Section 2 details the research background andmotivation of research. Research methodology is explained in Section 3. The developmentof GTCF of KM for 3PL providers is detailed in Section 4. Managerial implications andfuture scope are discussed in Section 5. Section 6 concludes the paper.

2. Research background2.1 KM perspectiveThe KM architecture consists of four elements namely: knowledge components,KM process, IT and organizational aspects. Knowledge component includes knowledgedefinition and knowledge categories while KM process contains the steps andactivities to deal with knowledge. IT consists of IT-related support infrastructure such ascommunication lines, networks, database and many others. Lastly, organizationalaspects comprise the organizational structure, corporate culture and human resourcemanagement. Among these four elements, knowledge components and KM process arethe key components of the KM concept (Supyuenyong and Islam, 2006).

KM aids in planning, organizing, motivating and controlling of people, processes andsystems in the organization to ensure that its knowledge-related assets are continuouslyimproved and effectively employed. Knowledge-related assets include knowledge in theform of printed documents such as patents and manuals, knowledge stored in electronicrepositories such as best-practices database, employees’ knowledge about the best wayto do their jobs, knowledge that is held by teams concerning efficient and effectiveteamwork and knowledge that is embedded in the organization’s products, processes andrelationships. The processes of KM involve knowledge acquisition, creation, refinement,storage, transfer, sharing and utilization. The KM function in the organization facilitatesthese processes, develops methodologies and systems to support them and motivatespeople to participate in them. The broadest goal of KM is to improve organizationalperformance and the broadest intermediate goal is to facilitate organizational learning.An early view of organizational learning is as follows: “encoding inferences from historyinto routines that guide behavior” (Levitt and March, 1988). By motivating the creation,dissemination and application of knowledge, KM initiatives payoff by helping theorganization to achieve its goals. But in turn, knowledge is from and for the process.

From this perspective, organizational learning is one of the important ways in whichthe organization can utilize knowledge. King (2007) showed that KM has positivelyimproved organizational processes, such as innovation, collaborative decision makingand individual and collective learning. This improved organizational process produceintermediate outcomes such as better decisions and improved organizational behaviors,products, services, processes and relationships. This in turn, leads to improvedorganizational performance (Hansen et al., 1999). Earl (2001) has described various KMorganizational strategies or “schools of thought” at a more detailed level. Author has also

BIJ18,1

44

identified these empirically through observations in numerous companies. KM may beconducted across multiple organizations, such as with suppliers, partners andcustomers. Such KM activities obviously rely on communications networks and systems(Van de Ven, 2005). KMS refers to a system for managing knowledge in organizations,supporting creation, capture, storage and dissemination of information. It can comprisea part of a KM initiative (Paiva et al., 2007).

The steps to KM implementation are knowledge audit, strategic planning, systemdesign and architecture and phase-wise implementation and deployment. Recently, theterm “information system capability” (Bharadwaj, 2000) has been coined trying to linkthe notions of dynamic capability, i.e. the ability to integrate, build and reconfigureinternal and external competences to address rapidly changing environments anddouble-loop learning (Teece et al., 1997). As compared to the previous systems, in theinformation system capability framework, all organizational processes and practices areembedded in the information systems and the concern is rather with organizationallyinternal developments than with changes in the external environment.

The process of embedding the KM processes and KM practices needs a framework andit is termed as taxonomy. Taxonomy is a standardized set of terms, hierarchicallyorganized, used to categorize information and knowledge. The taxonomy generallyreflects how we think about our business, how we organize ourselves to conduct business,and/or how and what we deliver to our customers. The hierarchical organization is a usefulway to display relationships among terms, and makes it easier to find like items atmore general or more specific levels. At its most basic level, the taxonomy standardizeswhat we call things, making a consistent connection between an idea or concept and thewords we use to describe it. This standardization makes it easier for the ultimate user tofind what he or she is looking for. In other words, taxonomy is the apex operationalstructure of the enterprise and it covers and categorizes all functional aspects of theenterprise under different categories. The taxonomy should also be extensible to addressnon-document form of outputs as well (Reville et al., 2005).

Given this, the taxonomy for any organization is based on both explicit/structuredknowledge as well as tacit/unstructured knowledge. The taxonomy is classified into twolayers, the navigation layer and the content layer. The navigation layer provides theaccess path to the information category as required by the user and the content layerfacilitates a structured format for the storage and access of the right information. Thedetailed link between the knowledge components and the taxonomy is the taxonomycomponents framework.

2.2 KM and 3PLNowadays researchers are interested in the practical perspective which considersknowledge in dimensional aspects by looking from the nature of knowledge andoperational domain aspects by looking from organization operational context. Accordingto Kim et al. (2003), knowledge can be classified into two levels:

(1) Corporate-related knowledge. Dealing with objective, policy and strategies.

(2) Operation-related knowledge. Coping with the detailed of business task orprocess and uses for decision making and problem solving.

For both levels, knowledge can be of internal environment of organization such as policy,strategy, culture, internal processes and external environment such as knowledge

Taxonomyarchitecture

of KM for 3PL

45

about markets, customer, competition, technology trends or government policy. Theknowledge domains are viewed from different perspectives depending on the organizationtype and the context of research and 3PL industry can be viewed from this perspective.

Outsourcing logistics activities to specialized 3PL providers has become a rapidlyexpanding source of logistics cost savings, competitive advantage and customer serviceimprovements (Gunasekaran, 2002). The services offered by the 3PL service providercan vary from customer to customer. Normally, 3PL service providers and the personnelof 3PL service providers rely on personal experience and knowledge to executedifferent logistics services. Since the education background and perception between theoperations’ personnel and staff members are different, this makes the performance levelof 3PL firm fluctuate.

KM for 3PL service providers aims at improving the effectiveness of enterprises byraising the standards of efficiency of economic processes. As in companies and the societyin general, knowledge has been widely recognized and accepted as strategic resource in thearea of logistics too. The success of logistics and supply chain management does not onlydepend on the intensity and quality of material and information flow in a collaborativerelationship. This is also heavily affected by the kind and quality of collaboration betweenhuman resources involved on both sides of the collaborative relationship based onknowledge, understanding and trust. To support the success for logistics and supply chainmanagement, there are numerous varieties of methods and software tools available.Sometimes, unfortunately, the available methods and software dominate the creativeproblem solving. The initiative of KM for 3PL service providers will pave the path forcreative problem solving by utilizing the available standard methods and processes ofsoftware.

KM will help to create, store, access, use and reuse the information to improve thecreativity and innovation. An open dialogue about the information is required for allparties to arrive at a common understanding which is the foundation for integrateddecision making and united action. Utilizing effective communication to achieve a sharedinterpretation of disseminated information has been mentioned in strategic managementand marketing literature. Cumulative evidence from past research in operationsmanagement and other disciplines suggests that managing the ideas and knowledge ofindividual and organization will support the coordination and collaboration in greaterextent (Hult et al., 2004, 2006). Exploration of integration of logistics operation isparticularly interesting since logistics operations personnel must focus on both inboundand outbound flows (Kulkarni et al., 2004). The experience is outbound logistics is more oftacit in nature and explicit knowledge lie both in inbound and outbound logistics. Thereare various ways to capture, create, store, use and reuse tacit and explicit knowledge oflogistics. At the same time, the behavioral research is also highlighted in KM.

With this view in mind, modern logistics education and training is mostly orientedtowards future needs and requirements and it is significantly being changed. Thebiggest challenge for properly handling the planning of logistics systems and processesand the operation of logistics services by the way of KM methods and tools is to obtainthe right knowledge of the right quality and with the right costs at the right placeand time. Baumgarten and Thoms (2002) have highlighted that there are challengesin implementing KM solution and running it in the daily logistics business. Majorproblems observed in literature for the implementation of KM solution are financiallimitations, time restrictions, insufficient structuring and presentation of knowledge,

BIJ18,1

46

as well as methodical misconceptions. Further reasons for the acceptance problems andthe slack implementation of KM into logistic services planning, operation andmanagement are existing deficits in measuring the success of KM initiatives. Despite ofthis common understanding, KM has not been considered or implemented in large-scale3PL companies or logistics departments of larger firms.

2.3 Motivation for researchNo domain has remained untouched by the revolution in managing knowledge.All business firms, companies, etc. want to manage their organizational knowledge tosurvive in today’s market and 3PL is no exception to this phenomenon. However,every domain has specific problem areas concerned in developing KMS such as technicalknowledge bottleneck, lack of expert knowledge, distributed, unstructured anduntraceable knowledge, etc. 3PL is one such domain that emerges to be an industry withpotential problems in applying KM programs as well as potential opportunities byimplementing KM programs.

Once organizations embraced the concept that knowledge could make a difference toperformance and that somehow it should be managed better, they often have not knownwhere to start. Insufficient structuring and presentation of knowledge is cited to be oneof the major problems in implementing KM. Therefore, there is a need for models,frameworks, or methodologies that can help corporate executives to understand the sortof KM processes and to identify those that make sense in their context.

As the foundation for all activities within the corporation relating to explicit andtacit knowledge, a taxonomy can further a wide range of corporate objectives, such asenabling business processes, protecting intellectual property and building the foundationfor compliance. Each organization requires a different taxonomy because each has uniqueprocesses, organizational configurations, core competencies and histories. However,a unified KM taxonomy framework for a typical business group may be attempted.As explained earlier, the detailed link between the knowledge components and thetaxonomy is the taxonomy components framework. From the literature, it is evidentthat there is no generic base KM taxonomy framework for 3PL service providers for theimplementation of KM solution. There is a need to develop the generic taxonomiccomponents framework with respect to the industry so that it can be taken as a base forthe implementation of KM solution (Chua, 2004). The taxonomy framework will pave thepath for the implementation of KM solution and the activities that fall under the differentknowledge management process such as collection, validation, preparation for sharing,access/sharing, learning, usage, validation, updation and creation (Chua, 2004; El-Dirabyand Zhang, 2006). Marasco (2007) indicated the research need in the domain of knowledgemanagement for 3PL service providers. By combining the interpretations of Chua (2004)and Marasco (2007), it is evident that the development of GTCF for the implementation ofKM solution for 3PL service providers received less attention. It is also clear that there is aneed for research in the domain of KM with the focus on the development of GTCFespecially with the weightage for the KM components. In order to embark a path in theliterature, we made an attempt to devise a generic framework for the KM solutionimplementation for 3PL service providers.

Founded on the research background explained, for our research, we havethe following main research questions, derived from detailed literature review anddiscussion with industry experts, which will drive our work:

Taxonomyarchitecture

of KM for 3PL

47

RQ1. What are the critical KM components and sub-components that drive thesuccess of 3PL service provider?

RQ2. What is the base structure of taxonomy framework to build the KMarchitecture for 3PL service providers?

RQ3. What is the weightage for the selected components of KM taxonomyframework?

The research problem is, then, to develop:

(1) set of KM components and sub-components to build up the effectiveness oforganization;

(2) propositions for KM components and sub-components and validate them usingmodified Q-sort method; and

(3) base generic KM taxonomy components framework for 3PL service providersbased on composite statistical and decision-making model.

3. Research methodologyThe study of KM and taxonomy development needs a clear understanding ofknowledge components. Ideally, to answer our questions we should get a sample of3PL service providers and experts in the field of 3PL and we should initially collect theKM components and sub-components based on brainstorming and semi-structuredinterviews. The discussion with 3PL service provider is targeted based on their businessvision and mission. The semi-structured discussion with industry experts is based on thecollected literature. The idea is to understand the set of components and sub-componentswhich need to be part of KM solution portal so that it will be captured from theorganization for use and reuse to enhance the innovation and creativity element.

The above scenario, although theoretically and opinion-based possible, has severalproblems: the first one is related to practical issues. It does not seem realistic that we willbe able to obtain a number of organizations that will let us use them as our researchgrounds. The second problem is related to an important issue that whether these KMcomponents and sub-components will have an impact for the organization effectivenesssince many other components and sub-components variables may also affect theperformance of the knowledge-intensive business process. Finally, even if we couldovercome the first two problems, the time required to accomplish our measurement goalswill exceed all practical boundaries up to the point to make this research project obsolete.In order to overcome the problems presented above, we propose to devise a systematicapproach. Based on preliminary collection of KM components and sub-components,we need to develop the proposition in order to develop and validate the taxonomyframework. The devised proposition needs to be evaluated statistically for reliabilityand construct validity. There are various methods to evaluate the propositions and toaccess the reliability and construct validity. Authors proposed a modified Q-sort methodbased on the work of Nahm et al. (2002). Based on the results of modified Q-sort method,the GTCF for KM solution implementation will be developed. All the KM componentsand sub-components cannot be weighed equally and we need to have the GTCF withthe weightage. Authors use Delphi method to derive the weightage for KM componentsand sub-components. Of course, the experiment does have some problems, too.Particularly, we will reduce the generalizability of our conclusions; but we remind

BIJ18,1

48

the reader that this research project is intended to be an exploratory study for thedevelopment of GTCF which can act as a base for any 3PL service provider.

3.1 Research framework for taxonomy developmentWe will concentrate on a four-stage approach to developing the taxonomy:

. Stage 1: is concerned with collection of terms that seem to represent concepts thatare “high value” to the organization. Literature review and interviews with 3PLexperts and practitioners help to identify the contents that 3PL providers careabout. This also helps toward better understanding of the problems they are tryingto solve and understanding the concepts that are important to them. Contentanalysis is performed to break down the taxonomy into smaller, more easilymanaged facets leading to the identification of main and sub-components.

. Stage 2: is concerned with brainstorming discussions and interviews withsubject matter experts both from academia and industry, to form thepropositions in developing the taxonomy that is concerned with theclassification of items.

. Stage 3: is concerned with the evaluation of the propositions to determine ifthe proposed structure will make sense to the end-users. This is performed by theQ-sort technique wherein several people index the same items and inconsistenciesin indexing can point out problems within the taxonomy. It also involvesthe refining of the taxonomy wherein user and subject matter expert feedbackare reviewed and agreed-to changes are incorporated. The review and refiningprocess is continued to build depth into the taxonomy.

. Stage 4: is concerned with ordering the components based on relative importanceto the particular organization and their level of detail.

Figure 1 shows the four stages of the proposed model to devise the GTCF for theimplementation of KM solution for 3PL service providers. The first stage is concernedwith the collection of main and sub-components for KM from the research and businessliterature and pre-structured interviews with top executives and officials of 3PL firms.From the pre-structured interview with top executives and officials of 3PL firms,

Figure 1.Four-stage model

for research

Step 2: Devise measures based propositionsmethodology: brainstorming, discussions with academia and industry experts

Step 3: Evaluation of the propositions and finalisation of componentsmethodology: a modified Q-Sort method was proposed to evaluate the propositions and to finalize the

main and sub-components

Step 4: Assigning weightage of the components by delphi analysis

Step 1: Component collectionmethodology: detailed literature review of published reports and interaction with experts

Taxonomyarchitecture

of KM for 3PL

49

we have considered eight critical functions such as transportation, facility structure,human resource, information and communication, tender details, agreement details,customer service and quality control to form the first level of knowledge taxonomy forthis study. This is the first level of taxonomy and termed as “taxonomy maincomponents”. Similarly, from the background of research and business literature anddiscussions with academia and industry experts, we have devised a set ofsub-components of each taxonomy main component, which is the second level oftaxonomy and it is termed as “taxonomy sub components”. These main andsub-components will help contributor to think, create, store and contribute knowledge inan organized fashion and help the user to access in the same fashion to enhance theuse/re-use of knowledge. Any 3PL service provider can use the set of componentsprovided in this study directly for their organization or else they can add or modifythe components according to the needs and expectations of the firm. The second stageinvolves the development of propositions with respect to main and sub-components. Wedevised the propositions with respect to business and research literature. 3PL serviceproviders can use the same propositions or otherwise they can devise according to theirfirm. The third stage is concerned with the evaluation of propositions and finalization ofthe main and sub-components. We proposed a modified Q-sort method to evaluate thepropositions and also to finalize the main and sub-components in order to create thetaxonomy components framework. Q-sort technique is a statistical tool wherein severalpeople index the same items and inconsistencies in indexing can point out problemswithin the taxonomy and also the technique lends itself for refining of the taxonomy.All the main and sub-components were scrambled and a questionnaire is developed forevaluation by subject experts. This technique can be directly used for the new/changedpropositions, if any, by 3PL service provider. The main and sub-components arefinalized based on the reliability and content validity to build up sound taxonomyarchitecture.

It is to be noted that a common framework for KM taxonomy could be inhibitedby contextual factors. Taxonomies are the classification scheme used to categorizea set of information items. They represent an agreed vocabulary of topics arrangedaround a particular theme. A hierarchical taxonomy has a tree-like structure with nodesbranching into sub-nodes (as shown in Figure 1) where each node represents a topic witha few descriptive words. The taxonomy presents a hierarchy of descriptive categoriesor items but even with a detailed taxonomy, the classification scheme cannot conveythe relative importance of the taxonomy nodes nor the relationship among the nodes,which is exactly the contextual information needed to transform information intoknowledge. The fourth stage is concerned with ordering the components based onrelative importance and their level of detail and hence to identify the weightage for eachmain and sub-components of the GTCF Delphi method is employed.

By using the four-stage model, we focused to develop a GTCF with main andsub-components for 3PL service providers as shown in Figure 2.

This research is aimed for the development of GTCF which can be taken as basefor implementation of KM solution for 3PL service providers; nevertheless, a 3PL serviceprovider can revise the base according to the requirements. In this direction, thisresearch also provides support for 3PL service providers to revise the base based on thefour-stage model. If the 3PL service provider wants to redo the whole exercise, thenthe four-stage model can be leveraged directly to re-create the customized GTCF.

BIJ18,1

50

4. Development of GTCF for KM solution implementationThe four-stage model is explained in detail.

4.1 Stage 1: component collectionBased on analysis by industry experts, discussions with senior executives of major3PL service providers and a detailed literature review, we collected the main andsub-components in order to devise the GTCF. The main components considered are:

1. Transportation.

2. Facility structure.

3. Human resource.

4. Information and communication.

5. Tender details.

6. Agreement details.

7. Quality control.

8. Customer service.

The sub-components for the main component “transportation” are:

1.1 Transportation booking information.

1.2 Freight bill information.

1.3 Pickup and delivery procedures.

1.4 Transit time information.

Figure 2.Generic taxonomy

components framework

KM Taxonomy solution

Transportation Facility structure

Sub-components Sub-components

Human resource Information and communication

Tender details Agreement details

Customer service Quality control

Sub-components Sub-components

Sub-components Sub-components

Sub-components Sub-components

Taxonomyarchitecture

of KM for 3PL

51

1.5 Insurance and reliability requirements of freight.

1.6 Carrier problems and solutions.

1.7 Container problems and solutions.

1.8 Government regulations for transportation.

1.9 Security of goods in transportation.

1.10 Transportation performance measures and indicators.

1.11 Transportation network design.

1.12 Shipment problems and solutions.

1.13 Routing and scheduling of vehicles.

1.14 Maintenance of equipments.

1.15 Dock information.

The sub-components for the main component “Facility structure” are:

2.1 Warehouse insurance information.

2.2 Consolidation process.

2.3 Facility security information.

2.4 Automation technologies for material handling.

2.5 Shipment problems and solutions.

2.6 Handling of exceptions and failures in warehouse.

2.7 Load planning information.

2.8 Warehouse network design.

2.9 Warehouse requirements.

2.10 Packing information.

2.11 Storing system information.

2.12 Warehouse equipment and shipment tracking and tracing database.

The sub-components for the main component “Human resource” are:

3.1 Time standards.

3.2 Workload planning and scheduling.

The sub-components for the main component “Information and communication” are:

4.1 Best practices in IT system.

4.2 Warranty information.

4.3 Wireless and mobile solution information.

4.4 Business-to-business portal information.

4.5 E-commerce information.

4.6 Web and legacy system issues.

4.7 Global positioning system information.

4.8 License for information system.

BIJ18,1

52

The sub-components for the main component “Tender details” are:

5.1 Best practices in tender.

5.2 Effect of termination.

5.3 Benchmarking in tender.

The sub-components for the main component “Agreement details” are:

6.1 Contractual issues.

6.2 Tender agreement parties.

6.3 Definition of agreement terms.

6.4 Object of agreement.

6.5 Liabilities and obligations estimates.

6.6 Terms of delivery and packaging.

6.7 Payment terms.

6.8 Ownership of goods in warehouse.

6.9 Early termination.

6.10 Liability for damages.

6.11 Product liability.

6.12 Applicable law and settlement of disputes.

6.13 Time of validity and termination.

6.14 Return of confidentiality agreement.

6.15 Ownership of intellectual property rights and improvements.

The sub-components for the main component “Quality control” are:

7.1 Product audit.

7.2 Quality regulatory requirements.

7.3 Quality policies.

7.4 Quality performance indicators.

7.5 Quality process flows.

7.6 Quality control manuals and procedures.

7.7 Audit manuals.

7.8 Process audit.

The sub-components for the main component “Customer service” are:

8.1 Customer emergency orders.

8.2 Customer’s customer database.

8.3 Customer complaint and feedback system.

8.4 Customer performance indicators.

8.5 Customer satisfaction monitoring plans.

8.6 Customer-related problems and solutions.

Taxonomyarchitecture

of KM for 3PL

53

8.7 Quality deviations.

8.8 Customer database.

4.2 Stage 2: propositions development for measuresThe propositions are derived based on brainstorming discussions with academia andindustry experts with the list of main and sub-components. The propositions aredetailed here:

P1. All the sub-components or items (1.1-1.15) listed in Stage 1 are related tothe main component “transportation”.

P2. All the sub-components or items (2.1-2.12) listed in Stage 1 are related to themain component “facility structure”.

P3. All the sub-components or items (3.1 and 3.2) listed in Stage 1 are related tothe main component “human resource”.

P4. All the sub-components or items (4.1-4.8) listed in Stage 1 are related to themain component “information and communication”.

P5. All the sub-components or items (5.1-5.3) listed in Stage 1 are related tothe main component “tender details”.

P6. All the sub-components or items (6.1-6.15) listed in Stage 1 are related to themain component “agreement details”.

P7. All the sub-components or items (7.1-7.8) listed in Stage 1 are related tothe main component “quality control”.

P8. All the sub-components or items (8.1-8.8) listed in Stage 1 are related to themain component “customer service”.

We proposed modified Q-sort method for evaluation of these propositions and tofinalize the components in order to develop the GTCF.

4.3 Stage 3: proposition evaluation and components finalization4.3.1 Item generation and validation using modified Q-sort method. The Q-sorttechnique is a useful tool for measuring attitudes and is intriguing in several aspects.The Q-sort technique was originally developed by Stephenson in 1935 and waspublished as a note in Nature, titled “Technique of factor analysis”. The Q-sort providesattitude descriptors selected by the researcher based on content validity, variability anddifferentiation among individuals. The goal of using Q-sort method is to develop andvalidate a Q-sort instrument to select the components for KM solution for 3PL serviceproviders.

The Q-sort method is an iterative process in which the degree of agreement betweenjudges forms the basis of assessing construct validity and improving the reliability of theconstructs. The Q-sort method was devised by Nahm et al. (2002) as a method of assessingreliability and construct validity of questionnaire items that are generated for surveyresearch. This method is modified and applied as a pilot study, which comes after thepre-test and before administering the questionnaire items as a survey (Nahm et al., 2002).The method is simple, cost efficient and accurate and provides sufficient insight into

BIJ18,1

54

potential problem areas in the questionnaire items that are being tested. The presentstudy proposes a modified Q-sort technique that helps to check the construct validity aswell as to fit-in the sub-components into the main components in a proper way.

Proper generation of measurement items of a construct determines the validity andreliability of an empirical research. The KM main components are termed as constructs.The very basic requirement for a good measure is content validity, which means themeasurement items contained in an instrument should cover the major content of aconstruct (Churchill, 1979). Content validity is usually achieved through interviews withpractitioners and academicians. A list of initial items for each construct was generatedbased on a comprehensive review of relevant literature and interviews with practitionersand academicians as explained earlier in Stage 1. Once item pools were created, items forthe various constructs were reviewed by two academicians and a doctoral student, andfurther re-evaluated through a structured interview with one practitioner. The focus is tocheck the relevance of each construct and its definition and clarity of wordings of samplequestionnaire items. Based on the feedback from the academicians and the practitioner,redundant and ambiguous items were either modified or eliminated. New items wereadded whenever deemed necessary. The result was the following number of items ineach pool entering the Q-sort analysis. There were a total of nine pools (including a groupcalled not-applicable) and 72 items as shown in Table I.

4.3.2 Scale development. Items placed in a common pool were subjected totwo Q-sort rounds. The objective was to pre-assess the convergent and discriminantvalidity of the scales by examining how the items were sorted into various factorsor dimensions. The basic procedure was to have relevant respondents representing thetarget population to (in our case, purchasing/materials/supply chain/operations vicepresidents and managers, academicians, 3PL managers and supply chain practitioners)act as judges and sort the items into several groups, each group corresponding to a factoror dimension, based on similarities and differences among items. An indicator ofconstruct validity was the convergence and divergence of items within the categories.If an item was consistently placed within a particular category, then it was considered todemonstrate convergent validity with the related construct, and discriminant validitywith the others. Analysis of inter-judge disagreements about item placement identifiedboth bad items, as well as weakness in the original definitions of constructs. Based on themisplacements made by the judges the items could be examined and inappropriate orambiguous items could be either modified or eliminated.

Main components of KM Number of sub-components in main component

Transportation (TR) 15Human resources (HR) 2Tender details (TD) 3Quality control (QC) 8Not applicable (NA)Facility structure (FC) 13Information and communication (IC) 8Agreement details (AD) 15Customer service (CS) 8

Table I.Components and

sub-components of KMfor 3PL service provider

Taxonomyarchitecture

of KM for 3PL

55

4.3.3 Sorting procedures. A 11-page questionnaire with a covering letter wasprepared and sent to 225 judges which includes the directors/chief executive officer(CEOs)/vice presidents/engineers of outsourcing organizations; directors/CEOs/vicepresidents/engineers of 3PL service providers and academicians related to KMdomain. Within a gap of three months, we received response from 105 judges and therepresentative population is shown in Figure 3. The 72 items were presented in thequestionnaire in a scrambled manner and the definitions of the components were givento the judges. The judges were then asked to fit-in/relate each sub-component to any oneof the main components to the best of their knowledge. “not applicable” category wasalso included to ensure that the judges did not force any item into a particular category.The sample Q-sort questionnaire is shown in Table II. A pair of judges that included avice president and purchasing manager was also formed to ensure that the perceptionof the target population is included in the analysis. Judges were allowed to ask as manyquestions as necessary to ensure they understood the procedure.

4.3.4 Inter-rater reliabilities. To assess the reliability of the sorting conducted by thejudges, three different measures were used. First, for the pair of judges in each sortingstep, the inter-judge raw agreement scores were calculated. This was done by countingthe number of items both judges agreed to place in a certain category. An item wasconsidered as an item with agreement, though the category in which the item was sortedtogether by both judges may not be the originally intended category. Second, the level

Figure 3.Description of modifiedQ-sort judges

33%

30%

16%

21%

Academecians

Outsourcing organisations

3PLSPs

SCM consultants

Main componentsSub-components of KM TR FS HR IC TD AD CS QC NA

Warehouse insurance information

Notes: TR, transportation; FS, facility structure; HR, human resource; IC, information andcommunication; TD, tender details; AD, agreement details; CS, customer service; QC, quality controland NA, not applicable

Table II.Sample modified Q-sortquestionnaire

BIJ18,1

56

of agreement between the two judges in categorizing the items was measured usingCohen’s (1960) Kappa. This index is a method of eliminating chance agreements, thusevaluating the true agreement score between two judges. Third, item placement ratio or(Moore and Benbasat, 1991) hit ratio was calculated by counting all the items that werecorrectly sorted into the target category by the judges for each round and dividing themby the total number of items.

4.3.5 Results of first sorting round. In the first round, the inter-judge raw agreementscore, which is the ratio of number of agreements to total item placement, averaged to 93percent (Table III), the initial overall placement ratio of items within the targetconstructs was 89.72 percent (Table IV), and the Cohen’s Kappa score averaged to 0.918.

The calculation for Cohen’s Kappa coefficient is shown below:

K ¼NiXii 2

PiðXiþXþiÞ

N 2i 2

PiðXiþXþiÞ

where Ni is the number of total items.

Judge 1TR FS HR IC TD AD QC CS NA

Judge 2 TR 14 1FS 12 1HR 2IC 7 1TD 2 1AD 1 14QC 8CS 8NA

Notes: Total item placement: 72; number of agreements: 67; agreement ratio: 0.93; TR, transportation;FS, facility structure; HR, human resource; IC, information and communication; TD, tender details; AD,agreement details; CS, customer service; QC, quality control and NA, not applicable

Table III.Inter-judge raw

agreement scores – firstsorting round

Actual categoriesTR FC HR IC TD AD QC CS NA %

Theoretical categories TR 1,401 95 44 35 88.9FC 90 1,160 75 40 84.9HR 210 100IC 10 20 745 65 88.6TD 262 53 83.1AD 40 39 125 1,325 15 31 84.1QC 840 100CS 840 100NA

Notes:Total item placements: 7,560; number of agreements: 6,783; overall “hit ratio”: 89.72 percent; TR,transportation; FS, facility structure; HR, human resource; IC, information and communication; TD,tender details; AD, agreement details; CS, customer service; QC, quality control and NA, not applicable

Table IV.Items placement ratios:

first sorting round

Taxonomyarchitecture

of KM for 3PL

57

Xii is the total number of items on the diagonal (the number of items agreed onby two judges).

Xiþ is the total number of the items on the ith row of the table.

X þ i is the total number of items on the ith column of the table:

K ¼ð72Þð67Þ2 768

ð72Þð72Þ2 768¼ 0:918

For Kappa, no general agreement exists with respect to required scores. However,several studies have considered scores greater than 0.65 to be acceptable ( Jarvenpaa,1989). Landis and Koch (1977) have provided a more detailed guideline to interpretKappa by associating different values of this index to the degree of agreement beyondchance. They suggest the following guideline:

Value of Kappa – Degree of agreement beyond chance

0.76-1.00 – excellent

0.40-0.75 – fair to good (moderate)

0.39 or less – poor

Following the guidelines of Landis and Koch (1977) for interpreting the Kappacoefficient, the value of 0.918 indicates an excellent level of agreement (beyond chance)for the judges in the first round. However, this value is lower than the value for rawagreement which is 0.93. The level of item placement ratios averaged to 0.897. Forinstance, the lowest item placement ratio value was 0.831 for the component “tenderdetail”, 0.841 for the component “agreement details”, 0.849 for the component “facilitystructure”, 0.886 for the component “information and communication” and 0.889 for thecomponent “transportation” indicating a comparatively low degree of construct validity.

Feedback from both judges was obtained on each item and incorporated intothe modification of the items and in this case, overall, five items were deleted. The deleteditems are container problems and solutions from transportation component, automationtechnologies for material handling from facility structure component, effect of terminationfrom tender details component, return of confidentiality agreement from agreement detailscomponent and web and legacy system issues from information and communicationcomponents. The numbers of items for each construct after the first round of modifiedQ-sort are shown in Table V. There were a total of nine pools and 67 items.

Main components of KM Number of sub-components in main component

Transportation (TR) 14Human resources (HR) 2Tender details (TD) 2Quality control (QC) 8Not applicable (NA)Facility structure (FC) 12Information and communication (IC) 7Agreement details (AD) 14Customer service (CS) 8

Table V.Components andsub-components afterfirst round of modifiedQ-sort method

BIJ18,1

58

4.3.6 Results of second sorting round. Again, same judges were involved in the secondsorting round. In the second round, the inter-judge raw agreement scores averaged to100 percent, the initial overall placement ratio of items within the target constructs was100 percent and the Cohen’s Kappa score averaged to 1.00. At this point, we stopped theQ-sort method at round two, for the raw agreement score of 1.0, Cohen’s Kappa of 1.0, andthe average placement ratio of 1.0 which were considered an excellent level of inter-judgeagreement, indicating a high level of reliability and construct validity. Based on themodified Q-sort method, we devised the GTCF for the implementation of KM solution for3PL service providers which is shown in Figure 4.

4.4 Stage 4: Delphi analysisThe Delphi method was developed in the mid-1950s by researchers at the RandCorporation. The Delphi technique was conceived as a way to predict the impactof technologies or interventions on complex systems, and was thus used frequentlyin the social and health-care context (Sackman, 1975). The Delphi method istraditionally based on three fundamental concepts. The first concept is anonymity. Theparticipants never know each other during the process. Each participant submits hisor her opinions independently, by completing an especially designed questionnaire. Thereplies are then disclosed to all participants, without disclosing the name of theparticular respondent. The second concept is controlled feedback. The process consistsof several rounds, during each of which the respondents are asked to judge all theopinions expressed in the previous rounds, which are often presented in the form ofstatistics. The last concept is statistical group response. The Delphi method reaches a“collective opinion” or a “collective decision” and expresses it in terms of a statisticalscore.

4.4.1 Delphi panel and data collection. From the modified Q-sort method, we have67 strategies for developing the GTCF for the implementation of KM solution for 3PLservice providers. The main goal of the Delphi research is to assign weightage for each ofthe main and sub-components. The Delphi panel members were considered eligible forDelphi panel if they were employed in top positions in 3PL industries or working assupply chain management consultants in leading outsourcing organizations. A total of70 members were identified as eligible for panel membership and were mailed a lettersoliciting their participation in the study. A total of 30 members volunteered tobecome panel members and participate in the data-collection process. The panelcomprised of 53 percent supply chain management consultants from the leadingoutsourcing organizations and 47 percent the top officials of the 3PL service providers.The panel members were mailed a four-page questionnaire and a covering letter.The panel members were asked to indicate their relative importance of the varioussub-components, reflecting the weightage of that sub-component, on a 1-5 Likert scale.The cover letter described the purpose of the research and instructed the panel membersto return the questionnaires only if they were willing to participate in the study.Panelists were given a two-week return date deadline in the cover letter. We received allthe 30 filled-in questionnaires within 20 days.

4.4.2 Delphi analysis. The Delphi analysis for the weightage of KM components ofGTCF of 3PL service providers is tabulated in Table VI. The weightage for the mainand sub-components are determined as the ratio of the mean of observations of allrespondents to the maximum scale value, namely 5.

Taxonomyarchitecture

of KM for 3PL

59

Transportation • Transportation booking information• Freight bill information • Pick-up and delivery procedures• Transit time information• Insurance and reliability requirements of freight• Carrier problems and solutions• Government regulations for transportation• Security of goods in transportation• Transportation performance measures and indicators• Transportation network design• Shipment problems and solutions• Routing and scheduling of vehicles• Maintenance of equipments• Dock information

KM Taxonomy solution

Facility structure • Warehouse insurance information• Consolidation process• Facility security information• Shipment problems and solutions• Handling of exceptions and failures in warehouse• Load planning information• Warehouse network design• Warehouse requirements• Packing information• Storing system information• Warehouse equipment and shipment tracking and

tracing database

Humanresources

• Time standards• Work load planning and scheduling

Information andcommunication

• Best practices in IT system• Warranty information• Wireless and mobile solution information• Business to business portal information• E-commerce information• Global positioning system information • License for information system

(continued )

Figure 4.GTCF based on modifiedQ-sort method

BIJ18,1

60

4.5 Respondents commentsThe GTCF of KM was shared with the respondents and their feedback with regard to thepotential utility of the proposed framework was sought. Many of the respondentsexpressed that the GTCF will be very useful and they can use this as a base for theimplementation of KM solution for the organization. Comments stated by some ofthe respondents are provided below:

It’s an excellent base framework and any 3PL service provider can leverage this efficiently –Senior Design Specialist, International Chemical Company, India.

We are really happy that now we can use this directly for our organization for theimplementation of KM Solution – Consultant, Multi National Company Private Limited,India.

Figure 4.

KM Taxonomy solution

Tender details • Best practices in tender• Benchmarking in tender

Agreement details

Quality control

Customer service

• Contractual issues• Tender agreement parties• Definition of agreement terms• Object of agreement• Liabilities and obligations estimates• Terms of delivery and packaging• Payment terms• Ownership of goods in warehouse• Early termination• Liability for damages• Product liability• Applicable law and settlement of disputes• Time of validity and termination• Ownership of intellectual property rights and

improvements

• Product audit• Quality regulatory requirements• Quality policies

Quality performance indicators• Quality process flows• Quality control manuals and procedures• Audit manuals• Process audit

• Customer emergency orders• Customer’s customer database• Customer complaint and feedback system• Customer performance indicators• Customer satisfaction monitoring plans• Customer related problems and solutions• Quality deviations• Customer database

•Information andcommunication

Taxonomyarchitecture

of KM for 3PL

61

S. no. KM main and sub-components for GTCF Weightage

1 Transportation 0.9201.1 Transportation booking information 0.8771.2 Freight bill information 0.9211.3 Pick-up and delivery procedures 0.6491.4 Transit time information 0.7091.5 Insurance and reliability requirements of freight 0.5911.6 Carrier problems and solutions 0.5481.7 Government regulations for transportation 0.4651.8 Security of goods in transportation 0.8301.9 Transportation performance measures and indicators 0.6621.10 Transportation network design 0.4821.11 Shipment problems and solutions 0.6071.12 Routing and scheduling of vehicles 0.6151.13 Maintenance of equipments 0.4461.14 Dock information 0.5522 Facility structure 0.8122.1 Warehouse insurance information 0.6432.2 Consolidation process 0.5872.3 Facility security information 0.5352.4 Shipment problems and solutions 0.7242.5 Handling of exceptions and failures in warehouse 0.7732.6 Load planning information 0.5102.7 Warehouse network design 0.6432.8 Warehouse requirements 0.6702.9 Packing information 0.6132.10 Storing system information 0.6112.11 Warehouse equipment 0.4882.12 Shipment tracking and tracing database 0.6063 Human resource 0.54663.1 Time standards 0.5413.2 Workload planning and scheduling 0.6394 Information and communication 0.764.1 Best practices in IT system 0.7194.2 Warranty information 0.6294.3 Wireless and mobile solution information 0.5514.4 Business to business portal information 0.7104.5 E-commerce information 0.4294.6 Global positioning system information 0.3754.7 License for information system 0.4315 Tender details 0.6535.1 Best practices in tender 0.6005.2 Benchmarking in tender 0.5266 Agreement details 0.6666.1 Contractual issues 0.4006.2 Tender agreement parties 0.4666.3 Definition of agreement terms 0.4806.4 Object of agreement 0.4406.5 Liabilities and obligations estimates 0.5336.6 Terms of delivery and packaging 0.5606.7 Payment terms 0.8536.8 Ownership of goods in warehouse 0.706

(continued )

Table VI.Weightage of KMcomponents of GTCF of3PL service providers

BIJ18,1

62

GTCF can act as decision support framework for Indian 3PL service provider and this will beenhanced as expert system – Faculty, University of Louborough, UK.

3PL service provider can use GTCF framework and can easily fit according to therequirements of the organization – Analyst, AFL Logistics Private Limited, India.

Lot of scope for easy implementation of KM using this GTCF of KM. A decision supportsystem can be developed to execute the process for any 3PL service provider – ExecutiveEngineer, Lakshmi Machine Works, Limited, Coimbatore, India.

5. DiscussionThe GTCF developed in this paper can be directly taken as base for any 3PL serviceprovider in building KM solution and the practice managers may concentrate on thecomponents based on the weightage derived based on Delphi analysis. The keyfunctions that play a more significant contribution towards building a KM solutioncan be identified. The study indicates, for example, that the practice managers shouldconcentrate more on freight bill information, transportation booking information andsecurity of goods in transportation considering the transportation function. Handling ofexceptions and failures in warehouse, shipment problems and solutions and warehouserequirements are found to be the critical components that need prime attention as far asfacility structure is concerned. Workload planning and scheduling is the primecomponent of the human resource function. Practice managers need to concentrate onbest practices in IT system and warranty information in the context of informationand communication function. Payment terms, liability for damages, time of validity

S. no. KM main and sub-components for GTCF Weightage

6.9 Early termination 0.5206.10 Liability for damages 0.7606.11 Product liability 0.5336.12 Applicable law and settlement of disputes 0.5736.13 Time of validity and termination 0.7206.14 Ownership of intellectual property rights and improvements 0.6667 Quality control 0.9467.1 Product audit 0.9067.2 Quality regulatory requirements 0.8407.3 Quality policies 0.9067.4 Quality performance indicators 0.8007.5 Quality process flows 0.9067.6 Quality control manuals and procedures 0.8667.7 Audit manuals 0.8937.8 Process audit 0.8528 Customer service 0.9338.1 Customer emergency orders 0.8938.2 Customer’s customer database 0.9068.3 Customer complaint and feedback system 0.8408.4 Customer performance indicators 0.9068.5 Customer satisfaction monitoring plans 0.7738.6 Customer-related problems and solutions 0.8808.7 Quality deviations 0.6268.8 Customer database 0.813 Table VI.

Taxonomyarchitecture

of KM for 3PL

63

and termination and ownership of goods in warehouse of agreement details function arethe critical components that need focused attention. Product audit, quality process flows,quality policies and audit manuals of quality control function are the key componentsthat should be given more importance by the practice managers. In the aspect ofcustomer service function, customer’s customer database, customer performanceindicators and customer emergency orders are the significant components that shouldbe concentrated by the KM managers.

The main strength of the framework proposed in this article is that it:. identifies the key components for the KM framework for 3PL service providers;. explicitly links the defining components and sub-components;. formulates a generic KM taxonomy framework; and. determines the weightage of each component and sub-component with the

respective appropriate management instruments.

A careful diagnosis of the KM components and sub-components for the GTCF iscarried out and any organization can apply this framework as an analytical andaction-oriented management tool. However, it is to be noted that when selecting a KMsolution to implement, it needs to be tied to the core issues and business drivers for thatcompany or field as KM solutions are not “one-size-fits-all” and need to be tailored foreach organization. Such a diagnosis will allow top management to adapt a required andcustomized design of the KM taxonomy solution in relation to the specificity of thebusiness priorities. This implies the need for management’s continuous (re)assessmentand (re)action rather than isolated, discrete and informal management initiatives.

A few major lessons for practicing managers from our research stand out. First, theimplementation of KM solution for 3PL service provider, as discussed in this paper,typically requires a GTCF. The KM solution needs to be developed, implemented andmaintained. The implementation plan of KM solution includes various KM componentsand sub-components. Therefore, implementation of KM solution may not be feasible ifthere is no preparation of a basic conceptual framework which is indeed necessary for allknowledge-intensive organizations.

A second lesson is that the implementation of a KM solution for 3PL service providerrequires attention to critical components pertaining to strategic, organizational and humanissues such as transportation, facility structure, human resources, information andcommunication, tender details, agreement details, quality control and customer service.Correctly identifying the KM components category and paying due attention accordingto the weightage of the components involved combined with careful managementinterventions may reduce negative effects of changing economic conditions and thusenhance the likelihood of success. The strategic, organizational and human issues areclosely related as linkages in the components. In fact, it is difficult to imagine managementin general and KM in particular in today’s organizations without applying certain strategiesand policies. Neither is it possible to exclude the organizational and the human factors fromthe set of KM considerations and practices. Recognizing the importance of these dimensionsand their mutual interdependencies does not, however, extricate the pressure among thedecision makers/strategic planners when it comes to concrete management actions. It isan idealistic view to recommend treating all the components as equally important allthe time in terms of top management attention. One way of coping with this situation

BIJ18,1

64

is to shift the priority based on the weightage and also considering the internal and externalcircumstances while keeping in mind (and never fully ignoring) the other issues.

Third, attempt to implement the KM solution based on generic taxonomiccomponents framework requires more financial, organizational and human resourcesand without serious commitment of these resources it is unlikely to lead to success.Therefore, a careful estimation of both the amount and quality of the resources neededfor the design and development of KM solution is needed. While it is impossible topredict the exact duration of the period for implementation of KM solution, it is clear thata premature transition to another category may compromise the entire KM solutiondevelopment project and have longer term negative consequences on both the attitudesand actual behaviors of organizational members in relation to knowledge creation andsharing as well as financial and strategic impact.

Finally, whether companies are able and willing to invest in KM solutions isdependent on whether these systems promise to deliver important and clear benefits.The latter is often wrongly taken for granted. Therefore, it is worth developing achecklist of components with weightage that need to be seriously considered beforeinvesting in a KM solution. As a sum up, it is highly relevant to conduct a carefulanalysis of current and future needs in terms of implementation of KM solutions beforeembarking on this demanding journey. Such an analysis is likely to benefit fromattention to the main elements outlined in the framework. Many efforts in establishingKM solutions fail because management neglect to integrate strategy related, structuraland cultural elements simultaneously, but rather tend to focus on only some of thesewhile ignoring others. The target customer for this research is logistics service providersand the research can be strengthened by focusing on fourth-party logistics provider.

In recent times, there is a demand for developing an understanding of the link betweenKM and business performance. Of particular interest is to explore how KM can supportcompanies in improving their performances and also the role of benchmarking in thiscontext. Researchers have started investigating how benchmarking can contribute toexploring and exploiting the link between KM initiatives and business performance fororganizational value creation. Marr (2004) argues that organizational competenciesare based on intellectual capacity (IC) and their improvement takes place through themanagement of IC or KM, which is at the heart of business performance improvement andvalue creation. Knowledge processes are the critical link between IC and businessperformance. In order to execute strategy, organizations need to understand processes onan operational level and for this reason, the usage of operational knowledge processbenchmarking is suggested. Further as posited by Massa and Testa (2004) benchmarking,looking outside the firm boundaries and performing comparison with others in terms ofboth practices and performances, enables the process of acquiring external explicit/tacitknowledge. Such acquired knowledge, once integrated with previous internal knowledgeof the firm, creates new knowledge that may give rise to improvements and innovations.

To conclude, creating a consistent classification framework will allow us to achievegreater efficiency, effectiveness and innovation. Nevertheless, we cannot blindly pursuethis and only both continuously and vigilantly measuring and adapting our tools to userprocesses and needs can ensure that we are truly achieving the goals of KM to quicklyand precisely share and reuse knowledge throughout the enterprise wheneverand wherever it is needed. And in this direction, it is believed, that the present workcontributes significantly.

Taxonomyarchitecture

of KM for 3PL

65

5.1 Future research directionsThe future research can be targeted on the following ways: it is construed that theproposed GTCF can be adopted by any company in the 3PL business either directly inits present form or with incorporation of suitable changes according to their contextand priorities. However, the practical application of the proposed approach stands to bedone and work may be extended in this regard. The way of considering the phasesand work flows for guiding KM project implementation utilizing the GTCF is needed.The practical issues concerned with the implementation of KMS in 3PL businessas well as its influence on business outcomes are to be explored. Also, the problem ofincorporating the metrics for KM and knowledge processing in GTCF and the issue ofhow it can be linked to business outcomes needs attention of researchers. The sustainableinnovation and the way of conceptualization in GTCF can also be considered for futureresearch. The consideration of comprehensive goal of KM policies and programs tomaximize transparency and sustainable innovation can be an extension in GTCF.

6. ConclusionThis research makes several important contributions toward the objective of betterunderstanding the role of 3PL operations in knowledge creation. First, it develops a morecomprehensive theoretical and operational approach to the shared interpretation processby adopting a theoretical framework that emerges from knowledge-related literature.Based on the detailed literature review of published reports and observations, discussionfrom industry experts, semi-structured interviews with directors, managers andprofessional consultant and using sound theory building methods, this study proposed aset of taxonomy components of various functions of organization for the implementationof KM for 3PL service providers. We proposed a four-stage model to develop GTCF whichis critical for the implementation of KM solution for 3PL service providers. We proposedmodified Q-sort method and used Delphi analysis in the four-stage model. 3PL serviceproviders can employ this model for creating a new customized taxonomy componentsframework. If the present set of components suits well to the needs and expectations ofthe firm, then this can be used directly for the implementation of KM solution. Further,any 3PL service provider can take this GTCF as a base and devise according to the needsof their industry for implementation of KM solution. This GTCF for KM implementationwill help contributor to think, create, store and contribute knowledge in an organizedfashion and help the user to access in the same fashion to enhance the use/re-use ofknowledge.

References

Baumgarten, H. and Thoms, J. (2002), Trends und Strategies in the Logistic – Supply Chains,Wandel, Berlin.

Bharadwaj, A. (2000), “A resource-based perspective on information technology and firmperformance: an empirical investigation”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 169-96.

Chua, A. (2004), “Knowledge management system architecture: a bridge between KM consultantsand technologists”, International Journal of Information Management, Vol. 24 No. 1,pp. 187-98.

Churchill, G.A. (1979), “A paradigm for developing better measures of marketing constructs”,Journal of Marketing Studies, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 64-73.

BIJ18,1

66

Cohen, J. (1960), “A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales”, Educational and PsychologicalMeasurement, Spring, pp. 37-46.

Du Plessis, M. (2005), “Drivers of knowledge management in the corporate environment”,International Journal of Information Management, Vol. 25, pp. 193-202.

Earl, M. (2001), “Knowledge management strategies”, Journal of Management InformationSystems, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 215-33.

ELA (2004), European Logistics Association: Draft Version of the Revised ELA TerminologyinLogistics, ELA, Brussels (unpublished).

El-Diraby, T.E. and Zhang, J. (2006), “A semantic framework to support corporate memorymanagement in building construction”, Automation in Construction, Vol. 15 No. 4, pp. 504-21.

Gunasekaran, A. (2002), “Editorial: benchmarking in logistics”, Benchmarking: An InternationalJournal, Vol. 9 No. 4, pp. 324-5.

Hansen, M.T., Nohria, N. and Tierney, T. (1999), “What’s your strategy for managingknowledge?”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 77 No. 2, pp. 106-16.

Hult, G.T.M., Ketchen, D.J. and Slater, S.F. (2004), “Information processing, knowledgedevelopment, and strategic supply chain performance”, Academy of Management Journal,Vol. 47 No. 2, pp. 241-53.

Hult, G.T.M., Ketchen, D.J., Cavusgil, S.T. and Calantone, R.J. (2006), “Knowledge as a strategicresource in supply chains”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 24 No. 5, pp. 458-75.

Jarvenpaa, S. (1989), “The effect of task demands and graphical format on informationprocessing strategies”, Management Science, Vol. 35 No. 3, pp. 285-303.

Kim, Y.G., Yu, S.H. and Lee, J.H. (2003), “Knowledge strategy planning: methodology and case”,Expert Systems with Applications, Vol. 24, pp. 295-307.

King, W.R. (2007), “Keynote paper: knowledge management: a systems perspective”,International Journal of Business Systems and Research, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 5-28.

Kulkarni, S.S., Magazine, M.J. and Raturi, A.S. (2004), “Risk pooling advantages ofmanufacturing network configuration”, Production & Operations Management, Vol. 13No. 2, pp. 186-99.

Landis, J.R. and Koch, G.G. (1977), “The measurement of observer agreement for categoricaldata”, Biometrics, Vol. 33, pp. 159-74.

Levitt, B. and March, J.G. (1988), “Organizational learning”, Annual Review of Sociology, Vol. 14,pp. 319-40.

Marasco, A. (2007), “Third-party logistics: a literature review”, International Journal ofProduction Economics, Vol. 113 No. 1, pp. 127-47.

Marr, B. (2004), “Measuring and benchmarking intellectual capital”, Supply Chain Management:An International Journal, Vol. 11 No. 6, pp. 559-70.

Massa, S. and Testa, S. (2004), “Innovation or imitation? Benchmarking:a knowledge-management process to innovate services”, Benchmarking:An International Journal, Vol. 11 No. 6, pp. 610-20.

Moore, G. and Benbasat, I. (1991), “Development of an instrument to measure the perceptions ofadopting an information technology innovation”, Information Systems Research, Vol. 2No. 3, pp. 192-222.

Nahm, A., Solis-Galvan, L.E., Rao, S. and Ragu-Nathan, T.S. (2002), “The Q-sort method:assessing reliability and construct validity of questionnaire items at a pre-testing stage”,Journal of Modern Applied Statistical Methods, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 114-25.

Taxonomyarchitecture

of KM for 3PL

67

Neuman, G. and Tome, E. (2005), “Knowledge management and logistics: an empiricalevaluation”, Proceedings of I-KNOW’05, Graz, pp. 96-103.

Ofek, K. and Sarvari, M. (2001), “Leveraging the customer base: creating competitive advantagethrough knowledge management”, Management Science, Vol. 47 No. 11, pp. 1441-56.

Paiva, E.L., Roth, A.V. and Fensterseifer, J.V. (2007), “Organizational knowledge and themanufacturing strategy process: a resource-based view analysis”, Journal of OperationsManagement, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 115-32.

Reville, E., Sarkis, J. and Acosta, J. (2005), “Towards a knowledge management and learningtaxonomy for research joint ventures”, Technovation, Vol. 25 No. 11, pp. 1307-16.

Sackman, H. (1975), Delphi Critique, Lexington Books, Lexington, MA.

Supyuenyong, V. and Islam, N. (2006), “Knowledge management architecture: building blocksand their relationships”, PICMET 2006 Proceedings, Istanbul, pp. 1210-19.

Teece, D.J., Pisano, G. and Shuen, A. (1997), “Dynamic capabilities and strategic management”,Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 18, pp. 509-33.

Van de Ven, A.H. (2005), “Running in packs to develop knowledge-intensive technologies”,MIS Quarterly, Vol. 29 No. 2, pp. 365-78.

Further reading

Vesey, J.T. (1991), “The new competitors: they think in terms of speed-to-market”, Academy ofManagement Executive, Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 23-33.

Corresponding authorR. Rajesh can be contacted at: rajesh1576@yahoo.co.in

BIJ18,1

68

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.comOr visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints