The value of fourth-party logistics services in the humanitarian supply chain Open Access

In recent years, the broader topics of humanitarian supply chain management and more specifically collaboration and coordination among humanitarian organizations (HOs) have received significant attention in academia and practice (e.g. Altay and Green, 2006; Van Wassenhove, 2006; Jahre and Jensen, 2010; Kovács, 2011; Blecken et al., 2009; Akhtar et al., 2012; Schulz and Blecken, 2010; Jensen 2012). However, in the face of diminishing income due to the financial crisis (Dang et al., 2010; EFA Global Monitoring Report, 2011) humanitarian supply chain actors are seeking to increase the benefits of their organizations and services to save more lives and to supply beneficiaries with aid in the shortest time possible (Cozzolino et al., 2012). Specialized logistics knowledge is needed considering the complexity of logistics infrastructure during humanitarian action, the need for efficient processes as well as the sometimes problematic collaboration between actors in the humanitarian supply chain (Overstreet et al., 2011). Furthermore, donors more and more put HOs under pressure due to a perceived lack of transparency and accountability (Kopczak and Johnson, 2007).

Timeliness, flexibility and reliability of delivery are furthermore some key drivers that explain why HOs like UNICEF, IFRC, UNHRD and WFP develop logistics concepts for other HOs, share facilities and try to act as logistics alliances or logistics service providers (Heaslip, 2013). Although strategic literature recommends that firms focus on their core competences, unfortunately the core competency of many HOs does not comprise logistics activities or development of supply chain concepts.

However, in the commercial sector outsourcing of logistics activities became a trend in the 1990s (Laarhoven et al., 2000). This outsourcing of logistics is known under different terms such as “contract logistics”, “third party logistics” (3PL) or “logistics alliances” (Sink and Langley, 1997; Lieb et al., 1993). 3PL activities encompass transportation, customs services and warehousing as well as the related information flow for different industries (Langley et al., 2003; Hamdan and Rogers, 2008). “Third-party logistics (3PL) involves the use of external companies to perform logistics functions that have traditionally been performed within an organization. The functions performed by the third party (logistics provider) can encompass the entire logistics process or selected activities within that process” (Lieb et al., 1993, p. 38). Bagchi and Virum (1998) argued that a “logistics alliance as a long-term partnership arrangement between a shipper and a logistics vendor for providing a wide array of logistics services including transportation, warehousing, inventory control, distribution and other value-added activities“ (p. 93). A 3PL relation promotes cooperation while solutions are tailored to a specific industry or client and the benefits or risks can mostly be shared in a fair manner between two partners (i.e. buyer and seller; Selviaridis and Spring, 2007). Such developments increase customer satisfaction, provide access to a worldwide network for procurement and delivery of goods (Bask, 2001) and reduce costs of labour and assets (Bardi and Tracey, 1991). Fourth-party logistics (4PL) differs from 3PL because it does focus on a comprehensive supply chain perspective. It is a combination of different types of expertise, capabilities of management consulting, IT and 3PL activities (Skjoett-Larsen, 2000).

A 4PL provider is “[…] a supply chain integrator who assembles and manages the resources, capabilities and technologies of its organization with those of complementary service providers to deliver a comprehensive supply chain solution” (Bade and Mueller, 1999, p. 80). A 4PL concept often consists of several partners together in a joint venture organization and the 4PL provider is responsible for a considerable part of a supply chain. Recently, several logistics service provider initiatives have started in the humanitarian sector, where different organizations have collaborated to provide supply chain services in the humanitarian sector (Heaslip, 2013). However, little is known about the potential success of such a model in a humanitarian environment. In the commercial industry, there are several examples of successes of 4PL providers, e.g. Li and Fung steering a fashion retail supply chain (Christopher, 2005) or METRO MGL Logistik GmbH managing the end-to-end supply chain of METRO Group (Prümper and Butz, 2004). In this research paper, we aim to elicit to what extent and in what way the 4PL concept can could enhance performance of humanitarian supply chains. We focus on the following research question:

RQ1. In which way could a 4PL act as an innovative logistics concept for humanitarian supply chains?

We investigate the relevance and value of a 4PL concept for the humanitarian supply chain sector, we aim to understand why and how 4PL is an interesting concept and how could support service providers to create new 4PL concepts for the humanitarian supply chain sector. “To attain the expected benefits from the 4PL applications, companies have to identify a suitable 4PL model for the supply chain they will operate. […] Decision criteria have to be selected, identified alternatives have to be evaluated” (Büyüközkan et al., 2009, p. 113). Therefore, we apply an analytical hierarchy process (AHP) as our key research method (Saaty, 2001). This method allows structuring of decision problems in the format of a network. AHP considers the dependence between the criteria that are involved in the defined network structure among decision makers (Saaty, 2001) and allows for a systematic analysis (Jharkharia and Shankar, 2007).

The research paper is divided in six sections; the next section of this research introduces the 4PL concept and 4PL core components and it presents three examples from the humanitarian field of existing service operations mechanisms in the style of logistics service provider concept. We then detail our research methodology in Section 3. Data collection, results and analysis are outlined in Section 4. Section 5 discusses the values of 4PL in humanitarian supply chains and presents an example of a structure of collaboration by integrating a 4PL provider. Finally we conclude our research in Section 6.

According to Van Hoek and Chong (2001, p. 63), a 4PL provider is “[…] a supply chain service provider that participates rather in supply chain co-ordination than operational services”. This is highly information-based and coordinates multiple asset-based players on behalf of its client(s). A 4PL provider allows humanitarian supply chain actors to have a single point of accountability across the supply and demand chain. A 4PL actor provides competences in information technology and skills in forming and building successful supply chain relationships among the actors (Coyle et al., 2003). Furthermore, a 4PL provider is able to drive cost-cutting initiatives and to increase flexibility to handle supply and demand irregularities (Frost and Sullivan, 2005). A 4PL provider is characterized by outsourcing execution to a 3PL provider for an effective management of logistics processes (Hingley et al., 2011). In addition, a 4PL provider “[…] is treated as a strategic partner, rather than a tactical one and is a supply chain integrator that synthesizes and manages the resources, capabilities and technology of its own organization with those of complementary service providers to deliver a comprehensive supply chain solution” (Mukhopadhyay and Setaputra, 2006, p. 718). By using 4PL services customers – in the humanitarian supply chain sector this could be HOs, government, suppliers and private sector organizations – are ensured of cost and process transparency, process re-engineering, strategy development and better management of resources across their supply chain and can focus their efforts on core competences (Jensen, 2010; Hingley et al., 2011). The role and the work of a 4PL provider as well as the relevance of the 4PL concept for the entire supply chain is that “a 4PL provider is an independent, singularly accountable, non-asset based integrator of a client’s supply chains. The 4PL provider’s role is to implement and manage a value creating business solution through control of time and place utilities and influence on form and possession utilities within the client organization. Performance and success of the 4PL provider’s interventions are measured as a function of value creation within the client organization” (Win, 2008, p. 677).

Christopher (2005) presents four core components of a 4PL provider in such a venture as shown in Figure 1. The four core components give a description of a 4PL provider in the commercial sector and it is possible to relate these core components to the humanitarian sector. The first category is “architect/integrator”, which means that the 4PL provider has the competences to design and redesign a supply chain and has the needed skills to lead projects and to manage stakeholders. The second core component is called the “control room”. This means that a 4PL provider supports as a decision maker to manage the operations including management of 3PL providers and the development of specific logistics concepts for clients. The third core component is “infomediary” and deals with IT system integration, IT infrastructure provision, real-time data capture, data to information conversion, availability of information at point of need and technical support (Christopher, 2005). This component enables seamless integration of information across supply chains. The fourth core component is “resource provider” focusing at asset management of a 4PL provider.

Supply chains have diverged and new types of services and operators have emerged in the logistics sector (Bask et al., 2010). Generally, as an emerging trend it can be recognized that HOs act as logistics service providers, i.e. WFP transport and distributes relief items of HOs and UNHRD or IFRC have installed hubs for HOs (Heaslip, 2013) or e-procurement in the UN (Walker and Harland, 2008). The interest of servitization of operations in humanitarian supply chain is increasing (Oloruntoba and Gray, 2009) and it can be seen as an instrument to gain competitive advantage (Vandermerwe and Rada, 1988). The term servitization was set by Vandermerwe and Rada (1988). Servitization is a standardized and highly customized package of customer-focused goods, service support (Robinson et al. 2002), self-service and knowledge (Vandermerwe and Rada, 1988; Baines et al., 2009). Heaslip (2013) formulated four “areas that humanitarian logistics academics could apply to services in humanitarian logistics: (1) servitization in humanitarian logistics, (2) service developments in humanitarian logistics, (3) Humanitarian Organisations as logistics service providers (4) service standardization” (Heaslip, 2013, p. 43). Heaslip (2013) translated four servitization techniques that were determined by Baines et al. (2009) into the humanitarian supply chain context such as embedded services, comprehensive services, integrated solutions and distribution control.

The efficient organization of humanitarian supply chains relies on the support and supply chain management of logisticians on-site and off-site (Blecken et al., 2009). The wide range of humanitarian logistics processes in humanitarian relief operations implicates high costs: approximately between 40 and 60 per cent, but can sum up to 80 per cent of the total costs – relate to logistics activities, procurement costs included (Baumgarten et al., 2010; Long and Wood, 1995; Tomasini and Van Wassenhove, 2009; Van Wassenhove, 2006). As a result, optimized and efficiently coordinated humanitarian logistics that can be seen as the key performance driver for offering potential for saving logistics related costs, improving resource allocation, increasing service quality and reducing of complexity and lead times (Schulz, 2009; Tomasini and Van Wassenhove, 2009). Gebauer et al. (2006) recommend establishing a market-oriented service development and defining a clear service development process; expanding service offerings, starting with product-related services (i.e. items catalogue of WFP and IFRC) and proceeding to services supporting the client and establishing relationship marketing. We describe four logistics concepts that aim to optimize and coordinate humanitarian logistics efficiently, ensure collaboration and increase customer service satisfaction as follows.

Logistics Emergency Teams (LETs): have been launched in 2008, consist of four companies from the logistics, and transport industry: Agility, A.P. Moeller Maersk, UPS and TNT Express. These are four competitors in the commercial sector and they act as one business unit in the humanitarian logistics sector (Cozzolino, 2012). They have different corporate social responsibility programmes and are experienced in humanitarian relief operations. LETs assist the humanitarian logistics sector with emergency response logistics after an occurrence of the disaster. In this phase LETs – with the coordination of WFP as the global lead of the logistics cluster – offer logistics professionals, logistics knowledge and assets such as warehouses, trucks, forklifts and transportation services to the relief community in the first three to six weeks after the occurrence of a disaster (LogCluster, 2008) (Table I).

Logistics Cluster: in 2005, the UN established nine (later 11) collaborative platforms of humanitarian activity (referred to as “clusters”) to address the problem of coordination among agencies. The Logistics Cluster is located in Rome and takes a role as a humanitarian coordinator at field level to improve and promote partnerships between humanitarian actors in the area of providing warehousing and transport capacities with the objective to enhance overall emergency response efficiency and effectiveness. The Logistics Cluster is responsible for coordination, information management, supply of training for corporate partners, for developing tools to improve capacity and for providing logistics services to ensure effective and efficient emergency response logistics (LogCluster, 2013).

DHL DRT: the DHL DRTs step in to alleviate a possible lack of collaboration and coordination in humanitarian last mile distribution. Typically, regional airports are quickly congested during disaster response by supplies such as food, medical supplies and tents arriving from all over the world. Often there is no set disaster plan on how to manage such situations. The Disaster Response Teams (DRTs) cooperate closely with the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (UNOCHA). The DRTs consist of some 400 employee volunteers worldwide who are specially trained to handle the challenges of a deployment in the aftermath of a disaster. DRT team members help manage the logistics of disaster relief goods arriving at the airports. Together with local authorities and airport staff, they take care of incoming relief goods and set up and manage warehousing, which includes sorting and stocking goods. DHL has three DRTs in place. The teams are ready for deployment within 72 hours after being called. DHL aid & relief is a concept that has emerged as a supply chain solution for humanitarian relief operations. The logistics experts provide logistics services to the international aid, humanitarian and development sector for the three phases of disaster management such as preparation, post-disaster and regeneration and development of a region devastated by a natural disaster. After a detailed supply chain analysis, DHL selects different logistics provider’s activities for each phase (DPDHL, 2014).

In this section, we will apply multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDM) to define the relevant decisive criteria of 4PL services in a humanitarian supply chain and to identify how 4PL may be applied to humanitarian supply chains. We think this is particularly appropriate to our study because the “[…] 4PL operating model selection can be considered as multi-criteria decision making problem” (Büyüközkan et al., 2009, p. 113). In the operations research discipline, there are a variety of MCDM methods. For this research paper we use the AHP (Saaty, 1980) which solves multiple criteria problems in a hierarchical structure. This research method is a decision-supporting method that integrates qualitative and quantitative data for prioritizing alternatives when multiple criteria have to be considered or for evaluating complex multiple criteria alternatives (Saaty, 2001). Thomas L. Saaty shaped the AHP in 1970s (Saaty, 1990; Saaty and Vargas, 2001). With the AHP is possible to construct a real life decision-making problem in hierarchy as goal, criteria, sub-criteria and alternative (cf. Meixner and Haas, 2002). It means that the goal and criteria analytically are structured in a hierarchical order. Furthermore, with the AHP pairwise comparisons are possible to judge the relative importance/relevance of elements at each level of the hierarchy and evaluates alternatives at the lowest level of the hierarchy in order to make the best decision among multiple alternatives (cf. Sipahi and Timor, 2010). AHP is a preferred MCDM method in several business related disciplines (cf. Apostolou and Hassell, 1993; Liberatore and Nydick, 2008). The general AHP procedure is subdivided in five main steps:

1. problem definition and formulation, definition of the criteria and design of the hierarchy structure;

2. pairwise comparison of the clusters and pairwise comparison of the alternatives;

3. computation of total weight and proofing the consistency (if the consistency is not given then the elements have to be prejudged);

4. sensitivity analysis; and

5. evaluation of the alternatives.

The hierarchy structure (Step 1) has been developed based on the literature review. The decisive and crucial criteria for integrating and developing a 4PL concept into the humanitarian supply chain sector are depicted in Figure 2.

The 4PL provider is an enabler; the capabilities encompass a suitable logistics network, IT services and support, process design, information and material flow coordination between the customers, execution of business service such as procurement, distribution, warehousing and different value added services as well as service and carbon emission monitoring. Therefore we have used the four core components of Christopher (2005) “architect/integrator”, “decision maker/control room”, “supply chain infomediary” and “resource provider” for our AHP model. Because these provide an overview of the competences and skills of a 4PL service provider. The criteria in the proposed AHP have been classified into three categories: goals, clusters and alternative:

1. The overarching goal is identifying decisive criteria for a 4PL service provider in the humanitarian supply chains. The integration of 4PL in humanitarian supply chains is supportive because it is helpful, for example in reducing delivery costs; furthermore, it ensures transparency and accountability. The goal is connected to clusters.

2. The clusters encompass “architect/integrator” of supply chains, “resource provider”, “supply chain infomediary” and “control room”. We have decided to use the four core components provided by Christopher (2005) because these describe the key characteristics and skills of a 4PL provider. Furthermore, we have added criteria based on the review of the examples of logistics service providers in humanitarian supply chains and the servitization technique provided by Heaslip (2013) to the above mentioned components like, for example “coordination of Inkind donation” or “supporting in mitigating risks”. These criteria form the alternative.

3. Alternative are the ultimate objectives such as comprehensive services, stakeholder management, project management, providing resources such as fuel, warehouse and transportation capacities, or IT integration in supply chains, performance measurement system or quality management (more details in Table II). We have subgrouped these criteria to the four core components described by Christopher (2005). We have to add that we have removed one criteria “management of multiple 3PL provider” from control room and subgrouped it into architect/integrator because this criteria is to our point of view and discussion with practitioner during workshops related to project management; it fits more the humanitarian relief operation projects.

Each criteria of one level is compared to all other criteria of the same level. The results are summarized in a matrix (Zimmermann and Gutsche 1991). The required data for the AHP were collected by a questionnaire (Appendix). We used seven experts, coming from academia with knowledge of humanitarian supply chains (three participants) and from the humanitarian supply chain practice (four participants). They were based in Germany and Netherlands. The experts from the practice represent an HO, a consultant to the humanitarian sector and two experts from a 3PL service provider active in the humanitarian sector. For the applied method at least three experts are needed to have representative results (Jharkharia and Shankar, 2007; Coulter and Sarkis, 2006) therefore the selected sample size is sufficient (Table III).

For the comparison, a ratio scale of 1-9, which was proposed by Saaty (2001), has been used to compare any two criteria. The 1-9-point scale has proven to be an acceptable scale of measurement. The reason is that a 1-9 scale accurately represent an individual’s intensity of favourite (Harker and Vargas, 1987). The scale values are considered to be relative values: 1 indicates equal importance of the two criteria whereas 9 indicates a high importance of only one of the aspects.

The required data for the AHP were collected through a questionnaire (Appendix). All respondents preferred to remain anonymous hence names will not be presented for confidentially reasons. An exemplary question is given below in Figure 3.

For each question we contrasted two inducing factors in the network. In total we generated four clusters and 20 nodes (Figure 2). Each factor was compared with each other with respect to influences on 4PL using a fundamental scale between equally important (1) to extremely important (9). This questionnaire was tested with two persons from the academia. It should be also mentioned by a determination of high inconsistencies over the pair-wise-comparisons the judgment were revised. Hereby the experts were contacted again to judge their preferences once more.

Seven academic and practitioner experts from the humanitarian supply chain sector have contributed to assess the decisive criteria for a 4PL service provider in the humanitarian supply chain. We used SuperDecision software to obtain a weighted supermatrix. This weighted supermatrix identifies the rating of the elements after pairwise comparison. The cluster comparison shows that the most decisive criteria of a 4PL provider in humanitarian supply chains is “decision maker/control room” (33.42 per cent), followed by the criteria “supply chain infomediary” (27.84 per cent), “archtitect/integrator” (26.32 per cent) and “resource provider” (12.50 per cent) (Table IV).

Table V presents the overall priorities among all participants based on calculation of the average of their final judgments. From the group results we obtained that criteria such as “improve communication between actors” (39.23 per cent), “negotiation freight and storage contracts” (32.93 per cent), “experienced logistician” (27.52 per cent), “procurement and co-packing service” (23.76 per cent), “system and information integrator” (23.59 per cent) have the highest ranking among all other criteria.

To have a deeper insight in the results we have considered the results for each cluster (Table VI). First, the most decisive activities in the cluster “architect integrator” that should a 4PL service provider offer for the humanitarian supply chain sector based on the judgment of the experts are: management of multiple 3PL provider (20.66 per cent) followed by stakeholder management (16.51 per cent), supply chain redesigner (16.32 per cent) and continuous innovation (15.53 per cent).

Project management does not possess a high ranking because the HOs see themselves as project manager and they would not outsource such responsibility to a 4PL service provider. Nevertheless, they consider management of multiple 3PL provider as a task in managing project of relief operation. A 4PL provider should be a supply chain redesigner because for this component a high logistics and supply chain knowledge is needed. In such complex supply network, almost logistics experts can provide this competence and skills. However, the 4PL should have the capability to manage stakeholder such as customs clearance, carriers, warehouse keeper, etc. Here further high logistics skills and competences are required.

Second, the humanitarian supply chain sector need a 4PL service provider as a resource provider who is capable to negotiate freights and storage contracts (32.93 per cent) and offers procurement and co-packing service (23.76 per cent) instead of negotiating contracts with fuel provider (20.58 per cent).

Third, in the cluster “supply chain infomediary” we observed that the humanitarian supply chain sector focus on improving communication between actors (39.23 per cent) followed by system and information integrator (23.59 per cent). It shows that communication and information systems in humanitarian supply chain sector are still a challenge. The participant of one HO has provided us with a statement that communication and information systems is a challenge not because they do not have any ICT systems it is due to a plethora of ICT systems in the humanitarian sector which are not interoperable.

Nevertheless the 4PL provider should act as a decision maker, provide logistics skills and be an experienced logistician (27.52 per cent), improve communication between actors by establishing innovative logistics concept (2117 per cent) and establish a quality management system (19.30 per cent) that ensure the quality of logistics processes. Quality management in humanitarian supply chain is crucial in particular when a HO serves beneficiaries with drugs. Here is, for example mandatory that the complete medical supply chain is tracked and traced to avoid any cold chain failure. HOs that deal with drugs have to be always 100 per cent Good Distribution Practice (GDP) compliant. Furthermore, other HOs ensure their quality by establishing quality management guideline to guarantee a delivery of mobile hospitals in Syria without any missing or damaged spare parts.

The results show that a 4PL service provider should be able to manage 3PL service providers and stakeholders along a humanitarian supply chain. A 4PL provider should be able to provide transportation and warehouse capacities as well as experienced logisticians. Furthermore, a 4PL should be a supply chain redesigner and assist HOs with innovative logistics concepts that support them in their continuous improvement. The main criterion is that a 4PL service provider should develop concepts as well as technologies that support communication and collaboration between humanitarian supply chain actors throughout a supply chain.

To provide an overview we use the four main core components “architect/integrator”, “resource provider”, “supply chain infomediary” and “decision maker/control room” that are presented by Christopher (2005) to describe and summarize the components as well as tasks of a 4PL provider in humanitarian supply chains (Figure 4).

The first core component is “architect/integrator”. Hereby the 4PL provider with having specific knowledge, skills and competences about the humanitarian supply chain sector is able to make the supply chain working for the different actors along the humanitarian supply chain processes (cf. Jensen, 2010, 2012).

Emergency relief and the associated humanitarian aid have to be delivered more efficiently, as “[…] the most deadly killer in any humanitarian emergency is not dehydration, measles, malnutrition or the weather; it is bad management […]” (Telford, 1994). Therefore, a 4PL provider that is acting in the humanitarian supply chain sector can execute the second core component that is called “decision maker/control room”. Nevertheless, this phase has to be extended and reengineered that fits the humanitarian supply chain setting due to the nature of relief operations.

The third core component deals with IT system integration, IT infrastructure provision, real-time data capture, convert data to information, provide info to point of need and technical support (Christopher, 2005). This phase is needed. Taking into account that the increased attention to humanitarian supply chains was particularly sparked by the disastrous execution of logistics processes after the Indian Ocean tsunami in 2004; it resulted in high costs and the execution of logistics processes was flawed (cf. Kovács, 2011). The problems that need to be overcome in such natural disasters are various: information and communication network systems are destroyed, access to roads is limited, infrastructure is destroyed and equipment to remove destroyed buildings as well as resources such as trained local officials or volunteers are not available. All these problems complicate the coordination and organization of logistics in the aftermath of a disaster (cf. Pettit and Beresford, 2005; BBC, 2005).

The fourth core component resource provider fits in the humanitarian supply chain sector too without a need of modification. For example a humanitarian 4PL provider collaborates with different provider (cf. UNHRD, IFRC) of warehouses, cross docking depots or with firm owner specialized in packing as well as transportation services from the commercial sector to fulfil the demand of humanitarian supply chain sector.

A 4PL provider should be capable to create value added services (cf. Vandermerwe and Rada, 1988) for the humanitarian supply chain sector and to increase customer (i.e. beneficiary, donors, NGOs, etc.) satisfaction (cf. Oloruntoba and Gray, 2009). A 4PL provider acts as an independent, singularly accountable and non-asset-based integrator (i.e Jensen, 2010, 2012; Hingley et al., 2011), operates at operational, tactical and strategic levels as well as has the potential to coordinate logistics and manage resources across the network. Figure 5 shows an idea as an example of a 4PL provider in the humanitarian supply chain.

The proposed example shows that the 4PL service provider is responsible to ensure the information as well as material flow along the humanitarian supply chain.

The 4PL service provider in collaboration with the partnered HOs should capture data from, i.e. the host government about the affected country, i.e. no. of beneficiaries as well as the needed relief items. Furthermore, the 4PL service provider should be capable to gather data, consolidate physically the in-kind donated items, consolidate the relief items from different supplier, and report to partnered HOs. An integration of a collaborative tracking and tracing (cf. Mirzabeiki, 2013) among different actors could support the task. In addition, the 4PL service provider should consult humanitarian organization with unforeseen situation to mitigate risks, i.e. ensuring that there is enough fuel capacity to avoid any interruption of relief operation process.

Moreover, the 4PL service provider monitors cost drivers such as transportation costs, inventory holding costs, distribution costs, administration costs (cf. Akhtar et al., 2012) and packaging costs (cf. Sohrabpour et al., 2012), flexibility and timeliness (cf. Kopczak and Johnson, 2007). Another main task is to manage multiple 3PLs, to negotiate freight and warehouse contracts, to provide enough warehouse, freight as well as vehicle capacities, to manage the fleets as well as packaging services, to install reverse logistics concepts and to organize the last mile in an efficient manner with the carrier as well as the partnered HOs.

Implementation of 4PL in the humanitarian supply chain could enhance the long-term collaboration between the different humanitarian relief actors. There are a variety of values such as sharing transportation costs and modes, ensuring the last mile distribution, deploying new infrastructure, increasing responsiveness, promoting sharing information about the need of beneficiaries and in kind donations and synchronizing the logistics activities at tactical and operational level efficiently. Furthermore, it supports information sharing between supply chain members in developing countries in order to enable involved decision and policy makers, to collaborate and take actions towards decreasing supply chain sub-optimization (cf. Sohrabpour et al., 2012). In this designed example several qualitative, e.g. skills, information sharing, staff and knowledge and quantitative benefits e.g. cost reduction, establishing warehouses, improving sustainability and reduction of resources (cf. Razzaque and Cheng, 1998; Bhatnagar et al., 1999) can be enhanced. The 4PL concept allows the coordination and secures the planning of logistics activities and support the sharing of the qualitative and quantitative benefits by defining the information, financial and decision flow between the different humanitarian relief actors in such supply chain.

4PL concepts for the humanitarian sector so far have rarely been explored in academia as well as in practice. Actors in the field have only taken first cautious steps in this direction. Nevertheless, as experienced in the commercial logistics sector, also humanitarian logistics operations may profit from this general logistics management concept in the future.

In this paper, we highlighted examples of logistics services concepts that are used by HOs. These target efficient processes and an effective coordination of information, material as well as information flows among humanitarian supply chain actors in case of disasters.

In order to enhance management decision capabilities in this sensible field, crucial criteria for a successful development of 4PL in the humanitarian supply chain sector were identified by an elaborated AHP analysis using seven experts from academia (three participants) and practice (four participants) from the humanitarian supply chain sector based in Germany and Netherlands have contributed. The focus was to define the components that a 4PL service provider should possess. Based on the results we detailed the characteristics of a 4PL service provider in a humanitarian supply chain, using the four core components framework of Christopher (2005) as a basis. As such our research study presents the added value of a 4PL service provider in humanitarian supply chain, for example simplifying collaboration between different actors, sharing transportation costs and modes, ensuring the last mile distribution, increasing responsiveness, and synchronization of the logistics activities on a tactical and operational level efficiently.

One interesting aspect we came across in our research is the relation between academic and practice experts from the humanitarian sector. The expert discussion has shown that humanitarian supply chain professionals require from academic partners that they speak the same “language” and should provide solutions and services that are simple to implement in practice during a relief operation and that provide an added value that addresses their needs.

Further research may focus on three main aspects. First, it is necessary to detail the specific application of quality measures and standards in order to identify further application areas like for example transparency, cost sharing, infrastructure, responsiveness, information and demand management as well as logistics synchronization (demand of beneficiaries, supply of relief goods globally, logistics transport and warehousing capacities). All these aspects have to be specified and defined for supportive 4PL concepts.

Second, 4PL research has to be connected to the question of general development of platforms and standards in the sector by large actors like UN OCHA, IFRC, WFP, MSF and others in order to enable a seamless cooperation of actors (government and non-government) with logistics service providers as well as other partners (governments, military, fire and police departments, etc.).

Third, it can safely be assumed that further details for 4PL applications have to be checked for different disaster types as well as regional and cultural differences in order to apply feasible solutions in the humanitarian sector. It has to be presumed that concepts being successful in Asia may not be successful in Africa or South America, and vice versa.

Altogether, our paper shows that the basic concept of a 4PL in the humanitarian supply chain could improve and enhance efficiency and effectiveness due to an improved collaboration between the humanitarian supply chain actors. It can be an interesting path of inquiry for the development of excellence in managing humanitarian supply chains, which may benefit human fate and well-being in distress situations.

“Fourth-party humanitarian logistics”

4PL business is an extension of 3PL business. Then the differentiation between the 3PL and 4PL is the involvement of supply chain management and supply chain integration. This includes the management and integration of several organizations in the supply chain and extended the tasks to the company borders of the customer. The objective is to establish complete supply chain solution. The 4PL provider monitor the performance and present it to the customer, this includes measurable indicators such as delivery quality, delivery flexibility and delivery reliability. The 4PL provider has to ensure the fulfilment of performance efficiency. The 4PL provider is an enabler; the capabilities encompass a suitable logistics network, IT services and support, process design, information and material flow coordination between the customers, execution of business service such as procurement, distribution, warehousing and different value added services as well as service and carbon emission monitoring.

Objectives of the research study:

• Identification and verification of essential criteria for a fourth party logistics provider in humanitarian logistics

• Development of humanitarian logistics concepts

• Elaboration of coordination and cooperation possibilities in the humanitarian logistics sector

Working instructions:

• The time exposure for filling in is approx. 20 minutes

• The data collected will be dealt with in strict confidence and used exclusively for scientific research purposes. The data will be analysed anonymously.

The first category is “architect/integrator”, which means that the 4PL provider has the competences to design and redesign a supply chain and has the needed skills to lead projects and to manage stakeholders. The second core componentis called the “decision maker/control room”. This means that a 4PL provider supports as a decision maker to manage the operations including management of 3PL providers and the development of specific logistics concepts for clients. The third core componentis “supply chain infomediary” and deals with IT system integration, IT infrastructure provision, real-time data capture, convert data to information, provide info to point of need and technical support. This component enables seamless integration of information across supply chains. The fourth core component is “resource providers” focusing at asset management of a 4PL provider.

Fixed Figure 1 

Fixed Figure 2 

Fixed Figure 3 

Resource provider

Fixed Figure 4 

Fixed Figure 5 

Hella Abidi completed her training in 2002 as a Forwarding Clerk (Speditionskauffrau IHK) at Dachser GmbH & Co. KG in Cologne. After a stay in Switzerland, she studied the Advanced Vocational Training as “Verkehrsfachwirtin (IHK)” at the Chamber of Commerce and Industry Cologne. Abidi adopted various activities in the department of international transport planning, sales and customer service in the company Dachser, Mannheim and Cologne. In 2007 she started at the FOM University of Applied sciences a part-time study programme in business science, with main subjects logistics and supply management. 2010, Abidi finished the studies with success as Diplom-Kauffrau (FH). For her thesis she was awarded with the BVL Thesis Award 2010. Since March 2011 she works as a Research Associate at the Institute of Logistics & Management Services (ild) of FOM University of Applied Sciences in Essen and is a Senior Lecturer for logistics at the FOM University of Applied Sciences in Germany. In September 2012 she started her PhD at the VU University Amsterdam. Hella Abidi is the corresponding author and can be contacted at: hella.abidi@fom-ild.de

Dr Sander de Leeuw is an Associate Professor of Logistics at the Faculty of Economics and Business Administration of the VU University, Amsterdam (the Netherlands) and a Professor of Supply Chain Management at theNottingham Business School, Nottingham Trent University, Nottingham (UK). His specialization is Supply Chain Management, a field of business in which he has over 20 years of teaching, research and consulting experience. Prior to joining VU University, Sander held academic positions at MIT’s Center for Technology, Policy and Industrial Development, at Babson College and at Eindhoven University of Technology. He has extensive industrial experience as a Management Consultant at amongst others KPMG. Sander has an MSc and a PhD in Industrial Engineering/Management Science from the Eindhoven University (the Netherlands). His research focuses on behavioral aspects in operations, humanitarian supply chain management, e-commerce logistics and on analysing best practices in supply chain management.

Matthias Klumpp studied economics and business administration after a vocational degree in logistics (Speditionskaufmann IHK, 1996) at the University Leipzig and the IECS Strasbourg from 1995 to 1998 (Diplom-Kaufmann, Diplom-Volkswirt). Parallel to his Professional Consultant Career in Strategy Management, logistics and education (zeb/, conoscope) he also obtained a PhD at the University Leipzig in 2007 and started as a Professor at the FOM University of Applied Sciences. He founded the Institute for Logistics and Service Management (ild) at FOM in 2009. He is a Member of the scientific committee for the German national excellence cluster “LogistikRuhr” funded by the German national ministry for research (BMBF) and has done research or EU ERASMUS teaching stays in Australia, China, Finland, France, Netherlands, Norway, Spain, Turkey and the USA.