Cross-Docking: Current Research Versus Industry Practice and Industry 4.0 Adoption

Abstract Cross-docking is a supply chain distribution and logistics strategy for which less-than-truckload shipments are consolidated into full-truckload shipments. Goods stored up to maximum of 24 hours in cross-docking terminal. In this chapter, we build on the literature review by Ladier Alpan (2016), who reviewed research conducted interviews with managers find gaps provide recommendations future research. We conduct systematic review, following framework from 2015 2020. focus papers that consider intersection industry, e.g., case studies or presenting real-world data. investigate whether has changed according (2016). Additionally, examine adoption Industry 4.0 practices research, related features physical internet, Internet Things cyber-physical systems methodologies studies. conclude only small adaptations have been done based but see growing attention concepts cross-docking, especially internet hubs. Keywords Materials handling Physical Systematic Supply Citation Akkerman, F., Lalla-Ruiz, E., Mes, M. Spitters, T. (2022), "Cross-Docking: Current Research Versus Practice Adoption", Bondarouk, Olivas-Luján, M.R. (Ed.) Smart – Better Management (Advanced Series Management, Vol. 28), Emerald Publishing Limited, Bingley, pp. 69-104. https://doi.org/10.1108/S1877-636120220000028007 Publisher: Limited Copyright © 2022 Fabian Eduardo Martijn Mes Taco Spitters. Published Limited. This work published under Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) licence. Anyone may reproduce, distribute, translate create derivative works book (for both commercial non-commercial purposes), subject full attribution original publication authors. The terms licence be seen at http://creativecommons.org/licences/by/4.0/legalcode. License Introduction minimizing long-term storage products parts, maximizing fleet utilization trucks dispatches. Over past decades, domain gained variety industries, retail, automotive, perishable goods pharmaceutics (van Belle, Valckenaers, & Cattrysse, 2012). At terminals, cargo typically less than hours. process terminals consists unloading, sorting temporarily storing inbound suppliers, after moved across terminal where they loaded outbound dispatched further down chain. Developments generated competitive advantages. market management becoming increasingly competitive, making it crucial optimize costs throughput stay as observed industries such retail chains, Walmart (Chen, Fan, Tang, 2009), mailing companies, UPS (Forger, 1995). Logistics-related activities one main cost drivers many (Gue, 2014; Wang, Ranganathan Jagannathan, Zuo, Murray, 2017). Furthermore, environmental impact becomes more important; every voluntary disclosure an additional 1000 metric carbon emissions, value company deteriorates $212,000 average (Matsumura, Prakash, Vera-Muñoz, 2014). Solution methods quantify minimize footprints development (Çolak et al., 2020; Nathanail, Terzakis, Zerzis, 2020). Hence, due nature low inventory levels higher trucks, found increasing amount (green) (Dadhich, Genovese, Kumar, Acquaye, 2015). There wide range quantitative various decision problems, truck scheduling (Berghman, Briand, Leus, Lopez, 2015; Bodnar, de Koster, Azadeh, Shakeri, Low, Turner, Lee, 2012), vehicle routing (Ahmadizar, Zeynivand, Arkat, Dondo Cerdá, 2015), truck-to-door assignment (Guemri, Nduwayo, Todosijević, Hanafi, Glover, 2019) shape (Bartholdi Gue, 2004). Due computational complexity majority proposed optimization models use simplifications. Often, do not match industry requirements, reviews suggest absence implementation (Ladier Alpan, 2016). To compare what commonly used literature, (2016) study divided two parts: state-of-the-art solution approaches operational on-site eight terminals. authors constructed comparing practice. A significant share modelling constraints performance measures adequately reflect practice recommended connecting changing settings indicators. aim performed survey described above was non-systematic way. methodology followed involved selected articles had written English include well-defined keywords, cross-dock, transhipment, etc. limited resulting level, 142 year 2015. Since then, numerous new within domain. interesting indications if there presence practical were work. 2016, three cross-docking. Buakum Wisittipanich (2019) period 2001–2017, exclusively type meta-heuristic solutions problems. Ardakani Fei (2020) extracts information about processes uncertainty planning. Theophilus, Dulebenets, Pasha, Abioye, Kavoosi timeframe 2016–2018 regarding problem. No Thus, select practice, case-based allows us gap between narrowed since 2016. developments academia regards 4.0. term coined Kagermann Wahlster (2011). revolution first moving hand labour machines (1760–1840), second faster transport communication using rail telegraph (1871–1914) third (late twentieth century) computers automation. fourth entails interconnection machines, transparency information, assistance human autonomous decision-making (Lu, Our examines degree adopted academic industry. obtained our before 2015, same elements classification i.e., settings, business level Indications change recommend starting points implementation-oriented Unlike follow primarily focused 2015–2020 managers. contributions chapter (1) summary 2015–2020, (2) changes (3) (4) remainder structured follows. First, era explained Section ‘Cross-Docking Era’. Next, ‘Methodology’. ‘Results’, outcomes presented. Finally, discuss findings ‘Discussion’, complementary ‘Extended Search Cross-Docking’ draw conclusions ‘Conclusion’. Cross-Docking Era defined consolidating (LTL) destination truckloads (FTL), trait (Boysen Fliedner, 2010). generally constitute unloading checking, sorting, temporary storage, transhipment loading trucks. give overview decisions Practice’. introduce its potential ‘Industry Components Manufacturing Logistics’. consolidation LTL fewer FTL transporting parts network consumers, warehouses producers. 24-hour time enables feasible production transportation products, food pharmaceutical industries. Successfully implementing operation strategies organization requires model operations (Stephan Boysen, 2011), finding gains analyzing integration suitability evaluating possible negative effects, delayed delivery times customer satisfaction double-handling costs. Successful company's seeks eliminate reduce redundant operations, movement (Enderer, Contardo, Contreras, 1980s, several done, trend. Only 2004, started receive scientific Belle 2012; feasibility benefits branch (Ponikierska Sopniewski, 2017), automotive (Witt, 1998), (Vasiljevic, Stepanovic, Manojlovic, 2013), (Benrqya, 2019; Buijs, Danhof, Wortmann, 2016) online (Cattani, Souza, Ye, benefit incorporating adopt holistic approach traditional warehousing (Vogt, Employing implies almost eliminating buffer network. local efficiency interdependent Planning entire crucial, indispensable coping disturbances (Ardakani Fei, Introducing reduction number trips (Buijs, Vis, Carlo, Initially, each suppliers producing unique would often directly ship batches their product costumers warehouse. These customers sometimes located high-traffic city hubs other types urban areas like foods. Last-mile takes (Nathanail By introducing intermediate stop terminal, all deliver frequently, specific demands. Fig. 1 illustrates difference classical direct (left) (right). cross-dock location indicated. Opens window.Fig. 1. Schematic Representation Classical Chain Chain; Meaning Decision Levels: (a) Cross-Dock Location Selection (d) Vehicle Routing Decision. Truck internal procedures vary per 2 general structure letters Figs. represent strategy. 2. I-Shaped Cross-Dock, (b) Design Terminal Layout, (c) Door Policy Assignment, (e) Scheduling (f) Internal Resource Scheduling. Typically, problems classified decision-making: strategic, tactical operational. utilize rephrased definition applied introduced van al. (2012). Strategic context deal layout planning centred around locations design concern characteristics, doors. Building shapes indicated letter, I, X, L comparison building choices can Bartholdi Gue (2004). optimal selection cost-to-quality real-estate acquisition, take needs variables account (Baglio, Perotti, Dallari, Garagiola, 2019). Tactical networks. involves deciding how flow through contains centre. refer Lim, Miao, Rodrigues, Xu (2005), Chen, Guo, Rodrigues (2006), Ma, (2011) examples works. Concerning planning, relate routing, scheduling, door resource scheduling. problem considers combining policies network, milk runs, flexibly supplier VRP multiple Nasiri, Rahbari, Werner, Karimi (2018). schedule (un)loaded dock regard service destinations follows: exclusive destination, (e.g., fresh, cooled storage) 2011). Moreover, addressed services, side opposite side. flexible mixed doors docked any door. recent example promising results Bodnar (2017). Lastly, relates coordination (un)loading, scanning, value-adding inside For workforce Tadumadze, Emde, Weidinger (2019). Considering rich family limit collection those addressing operations. Regarding latter, provided Boysen Fliedner (2010). naming inconsistent, different when referring Consequently, (2016): Truck-to-door assignment: It aims determining assigned to. explicitly considered. sequencing: order distance transported sequencing scheduling: temporal dimension long exceeded. distinction processed, while arrival/departure times. in-depth nuance reader referred aforementioned dependent another some way, syntheses Extensive synchronization (Buijs Enderer 2017; Luo, Yang, Logistics section, concept list components relevant After extensive search classification, Nazarov Klarin define ‘the networking capabilities devices seamless collaboration digital ecosystems increased efficiencies organizational chains transform society productivity efficiency’. Wagire, Rathore, Jain construct taxonomy They 13 distinct themes clustered five principal areas: realization strategies, standards reference architectures, smart factories, real-time data models. Ivanov, Dolgui, Battini, Das (2021) surveys among researchers current standing Operations Management. technological aspects Management: systems/embedded systems, (IoT), 3D printing/additive manufacturing, automated guided vehicles, (5) mobile robots, (6) augmented reality, (7) big analytics, (8) artificial intelligence, (9) track-and-trace (10) machine-to-machine communication, (11) cloud (12) (13) blockchain (14) RFID. Hofmann Rüsch (2017) Garay-Rondero, Martínez-Flores, Smith, Morales, Aldrette-Malacara recognize technology (digital) Based synthesize potentially summarized Table Synthesis Technological Cross-Docking. Technology Description Cyber-physical Integration computation things/distributed control Connectivity via AGVs/mobile robots Automated pre-defined path Artificial intelligence/big analytics modern computing better analysis Track-and-trace systems/RFID/smart sensors Tracking entities Machine-to-machine communication/networked automation Direct Source: (2017), Garay-Rondero (2019), Ivanov (2021). integrate (Lee Seshia, integrates computing, monitoring world (Sha, Gopalakrishnan, Liu, 2008). Inside these connected IoT, connectivity printers AGVs), sensors, software intelligence algorithms decision-making) embedded (Kumar, Tiwari, Zymbler, Examples (potential) manufacturing are: single platform, position-based interconnected vehicles prevent congestion, fill-level communicated RFID (Hofmann Rüsch, 2017) predict maintenance (Lee, Bagheri, Kao, topics (Table 1) Methodology out implemented over years, testing applying levels. differs focussing purpose extend settings. addition, As Kitchenham Charters (2007), develop protocol guide identification, extraction collected doing so, guidelines PRISMA method (Moher, Liberati, Tetzlaff, Altman, Group, 2009) also considering COCHRANE handbook (Higgins phases formulated: scope formulation questions, determination terms, exclusion inclusion criteria, synthesis findings. ‘Phase 1: Scope Review Questions’, questions explained. 2: Terms’, elaborate finally, detail criteria 3: Inclusion Exclusion Criteria’. Phase Questions systematically assess eligibility paper inclusion, formulate questions. address question: ‘To extent does practice?’ considered (i.e., operational) ‘What addressing?’ investigated proposed?’ extracted inclusion: indicators utilized?’, utilized method?’ ‘On tested?’ Terms databases Scopus Web Science. reports eligible inclusion. publications May 2020, source piloting queries, settle ‘cross-dock*’ OR ‘crossdock*’ ‘cross dock*’. conditions result 704 glance, pool biochemical name binding mechanism receptors proteins ligands. then filtered exclude biochemistry AND NOT (‘ligand*’ ‘protein*’), reduces 536. occurrence keywords hits logistics) remains unchanged, no mistakenly excluded. mentioned illustrated duplication removal, 337 records remain screening phase. Criteria Literature Review. titles, abstracts (‘cross-dock*’ dock*’) Filter ‘protein*’) Timeframe Jan 2015–May 2020 Language Source All Document Publication status enhance reproducibility robustness present including final (Denyer Tranfield, 2009; Higgins screen title, abstract phase read papers. phase, 55 screening. 3 shows used. 3. Exclusion. Practical presented Theoretical without real Quantitative object Targets Domain too Duplicate Non-English exclusion. Specific lies study, target remaining studies, 25 selection. outcome diagram 25, initial records. Flow Diagram. Descriptive thematic thematically answering 4