Published at : 17 May 2024
Volume : IJtech
Vol 15, No 3 (2024)
DOI : https://doi.org/10.14716/ijtech.v15i3.5431
Harri Pyykkö | VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland Ltd., P.O. Box 1000, FI-02044 VTT, Finland |
Arttu Lauhkonen | VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland Ltd., P.O. Box 1000, FI-02044 VTT, Finland |
Ville Hinkka | VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland Ltd., P.O. Box 1000, FI-02044 VTT, Finland |
Hannu Karvonen | VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland Ltd., P.O. Box 1000, FI-02044 VTT, Finland |
Pekka Leviäkangas | University of Oulu, P.O. Box 8000, FI-90014 University of Oulu, Finland |
The rapid increase in business-to-consumer online
retail has challenged the existing distribution models. Seamlessly integrated,
more sustainable and digitalized last-mile distribution processes are vital to
meeting the requirements posed by future online retail. Investments to new and
more advanced technological solutions are needed to improve the operational
performance and to meet all the external requirements. The variety of available
technological solutions creates a significant, multi-layered challenge to
individual organizations’ ability to select the most fit-for-purpose technology
for their own and their customers’ needs. This is a well-recognized issue at
the front end of the innovation process and it calls for deep insight before
proceeding to actual product development. This paper describes how
domain-specific benchmarking can be a valid tool for increasing strategic
knowledge and supporting technology investment decisions. In this research, 16
technologies and technology topics applied to distribution logistics were
evaluated in terms of the technologies’ perceived feasibility. The feasibility
comprised three technology dimensions – applicability, tangibility and maturity
- as benchmarking indicators, chosen on the basis of literature. The demonstrated
application of domain-specific benchmarking supports managerial evaluations of
individual technologies, as well as enables further customizing the
benchmarking indicators to be used in the proposed model.
Benchmarking; Distribution; Last-mile distribution; Online retail; Technology
The consumer goods value chain and distribution are influenced by several technology and market trends such as digitalization, individual selection, consumer-centric business, e-commerce and new service models (Alicke, Rexhausen, and Seyfert, 2017). In 2019, online retail constituted 14.1% of the total worldwide retail, and the turnover of online retail is projected to experience an annual growth of more than 10% (Statista, 2020). Efficient logistics and technological infrastructure are the key drivers of online retail. However, effectively organizing the delivery of physical goods from the producer to the consumer, especially in the context of last-mile operations, has been a challenge (Piroth Rüger-Muck, Bruwer, 2020; Hsiao et al., 2018; Lim, Jin, and Srai, 2018, Vanelslander, Deketele, and Van-Hove, 2013). Generally, the last-mile section of the supply chain has been recognized as the costliest, and operationally and environmentally most ineffective, individual element of the entire process (Gevaers, Van-de-Voorde, and Vanelslander, 2014).
The results of a recent study (Vakulenko
et al., 2019) highlight the
crucial role of the seamless alignment of last-mile operations in the overall
customer experience, further raising the importance of fluent operational
performance. However, though multiple novel technologies exist for developing
new distribution models, problems adopting them into the organization of
efficient delivery have restricted the wider growth of online retail because
poor execution of logistics demotivates consumers from using online stores (Lin
et al., 2016). Additionally, the
environmental impacts of last-mile logistics are significant and therefore, new
technological solutions are expected to provide greener alternatives (Kusrini
et al., 2020) and align with
future regulatory requirements (Ranieri et al., 2018).
Digitalization is rapidly advancing in the
field of logistics, with numerous incremental changes occurring simultaneously
in logistics processes (Yu et al., 2017). Despite the range of new technologies available today,
the challenge remains in how they could fully benefit and be customized to the
specialized processes of particular domains like distribution logistics (Amling
and Daugherty, 2018). A recent survey on the
logistics of small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) (Kianto et
al., 2018) indicated a shortage of
strategic knowledge management, especially regarding new technology. Durst
and Evangelista (2018) made similar
observations of Swedish and Italian third-party logistics companies andidentified
organizational knowledge management to be a major performance driver in
logistics.
New delivery technologies should also be
risk-free (as far as possible), offer better consumer experiences, and fit
their lifestyle to gain their acceptance (Zhou et
al., 2020; Wang et al., 2018). Cano et al. (2021) highlight that securing logistics efficiency and maintaining competitive
advantage are possible only by adopting and investing in advanced technological
solutions. Technological investments are also needed in interfacing
infrastructure and key human skills and competencies, and they will need to be
made before, or at the same time as, substantial cash outlays are committed to
the technology. In the worst-case scenario, investments in new technology
solutions that eventually turn out to be unfeasible may cause devastating
financial losses. In most business organizations, the question of technological
uncertainties is a strategic one, as it is linked to managerial decisions on
technology investments and gaining added value (Berawi,
2021). Due to the accelerating level of
digitalization and turbulent global environments, many scholars (Gassmann
and Schweitzer, 2014; Kim and Wilemon, 2002; Cagan and Vogel, 2002) emphasize the importance of gaining knowledge related to
the front-end phase. In order to make successful investment decisions and
overcome various uncertainties, such as being able to scope which technologies
are the most fit-for-purpose for specific products, managers will be required
to gather perceivable experiences to support the decision-making (Schweitzer,
2014; Cagan and Vogel, 2002). Kianto
et al. (2018) further adduce
the potential of increasing collective knowledge and reducing technological
uncertainty, especially among SMEs in logistics, by strengthening technological
knowledge-sharing platforms and procedures.
In sum, the challenges identified by the
literature address the different needs of consumers, intermediate customers,
and end customers, as well as understanding the risks and benefits of multiple
available technologies, which make managerial decisions and choices a demanding
task, entailing considerable uncertainties. Hence, this paper focuses on
decision-making at the front end of the innovation phase of product development
in the case of online retail-related last-mile deliveries. The paper has three
aims: (1) to develop a conceptual model for classifying alternative
technologies or technology trends to support decision-making, (2) to
demonstrate the feasibility of the model for evaluating alternative last-mile
technologies for online retail, and (3) to provide usable insight, especially
for practitioners, on the applicability of different last-mile technologies.
The first aim is clearly to present the model as a hypothesis, the
applicability of which needs to be assessed by the managers of practice and the
validity by the researchers. The second aim the demonstration will serve as a
first-step model validity test. The proposed model is novel and the foremost
contribution of this research. The model’s application in this paper is
primarily to measure the consensus of manager’s perception of the
applicability, tangibility, and maturity of alternative technologies when
considering investment decisions. In a more general sense, the aim is to assist
in better informed decision making and to reduce uninformed risks in technology
deployment.
The emerging technologies are identified on
the basis of a literature analysis. The third aim is conditional to the first
two. Demonstrating the model to evaluate emerging technologies will provide
direct information about their acceptability, maturity, and applicability if
the model is deemed valid. The demonstration uses survey data from logistics
and supply chain managers evaluating the identified emerging technologies. The
model’s demonstration is not validation, however, but yet a necessary step towards
validation. The overall research design is constructive (Pasian
and Turner, 2015). The proposed model
represents the construct object. One application of the model is to use it as a
measurement tool for applicability, tangibility, and maturity assessment of
last-mile technologies.
2.1.
Benchmarking
The methodological approach was done with a benchmarking (BM) method focusing on last-mile and online retail domain companies to gain and manage domain-specific knowledge. Mann et al. (2010) describe the key elements of BM as including 1) seeking the best solutions by learning from other organizations in the selected area, 2) analysis of the results to gain knowledge for one’s own organization, and 3) the eventual implementation of the most suitable practices. The gained BM information allows organizations to recognize and effectuate corrective measures within their existing operations (Dobni and Klassen, 2021). BM supports the change process within organizations, upgrading their processes for future demands (Dattakumar and Jagadeesh, 2003).
Despite being a useful tool for raising awareness and supporting decision-making, BM information is really only a guideline. Beyond simply gathering information, the primary objectives of benchmarking can be summarized as learning and understanding how other organizations achieve superior performance, with further analysis aimed at aligning this knowledge with the strategic decision (Wudhikarn et al., 2020). BM processes often consist of four main phases: (1) planning, (2) collection of the data, (3) analyses of data, and (4) integration of the BM results into internal decision-making processes (Kyrö, 2004). As the acquired BM results are generally targeted at continuous improvement (Wudhikarn et al., 2020), the proposed model has been described as a BM circle needing regular updates (see Figure 1).
Figure 1 Front End BM Process Conjunction with the
Proposed Model
2.2.
Constitution of the Proposed Model
To
develop an overview of emerging technologies and broader technology topics that
potentially provide solutions for future distribution logistics in the online
retail context, we conducted a literature review of journal articles and other
scientific publications. The main method was an online search for articles
published after 2014, i.e., within the last 5 years before the search began.
The search criteria were combinations of the following words or phrases:
retail, customer, consumer, last mile, delivery, distribution, emerging,
digital, technology, ICT, online, supply chain, city, logistics, renewal, and
B2C. The literature findings were analyzed qualitatively in a concept-driven
way (Schreier,
2014), and the technology topics with links to distribution logistics (TDLs)
were selected based on the analysis. The classification of
technologies is a synthesis of the literature and is based on researchers’
brainstorming. Hence, the process of classification was a heuristic process. The
empirical part of this study evaluates the present role and attitudes of
relevant stakeholders regarding emerging technologies. The
evaluation includes 16 emerging technology topics chosen from the literature
review, which concentrated on technologies already being used in production.
The literature review process is summarized in Table 1.
The adoption of new technologies is a complex and multi-dimensional
process with various dependencies that also need to be acknowledged in BM
studies (Azadegan and Teich, 2010). The conducted
literature review showed various models on how to evaluate the development of
technologies and categorize the factors related to the adoption of different
technologies. Models and theories typically focus on either the developmental
stages of a technology over time or describe the processes of adoption and
commercialization potential. After scoping the research literature, the
considered benchmarking indicators (BMI) in this study are the Technology
Acceptance Model (TAM) (Maranguni? and Grani?, 2015), the Technology
Readiness Level (TRL) (Olechowski et al., 2020) and the Diffusion of Innovations theory (DoI) (Rogers, Singhal, and
Quinlan, 2014). The three BMIs selected to measure the emerging
technologies’ perceived development stages were (1) ‘Range of application
possibilities’ / BMI1, (2) ‘Tangibility’ / BMI2, and (3)
‘Maturity’ / BMI3.
Table 1 Inclusion,
Exclusion, and Prioritization Criteria of Publications
Type |
Criteria |
Additional information |
Inclusion |
Abstract, concluding chapters and/or keywords
indicate that last-mile logistics or delivery logistics in general are a key
topic in the publication. |
The search was not limited to specific journals in
order to include all potentially relevant publications.
|
|
Publications are written in English. |
English is the most common language in
international logistics research. |
Prioritization |
Peer-reviewed publications were prioritized as the
most important sources. |
Peer-reviewed publications support the quality
control of the work. |
|
Abstract, concluding chapters and/or keywords
indicate that last-mile operations and emerging technologies in that field
are key areas of focus in the publication. |
|
Exclusion |
Studies
that are clearly focusing on other transportation research domains than
last-mile distribution processes. In line with earlier studies (Huebner, Kuhn, and Wollenburg,
2016) last-mile
distribution can be considered an individual research area with its’ own
characteristics. |
|
2.3. Collection of Empirical Data and Nomination of
TDLs
The selected TDLs1-16 are
presented in Table 2. These TDLs have already passed through the earliest
stages of implementation and are being applied in some industries. However,
they are not yet widely utilized in distribution logistics operations. The TDL variety serves the purpose of getting
more information on the suitability of the proposed model, as it was expected
that the survey respondents would use a wider scale in their rating if the TDLs
were more divergent.
Table 2 TDLs and Their Possible Applications in Last-mile Distribution Context
Table 2 TDLs and Their Possible Applications in Last-mile Distribution Context (Cont.)
Data and Results
3.1. Conceptual Models to Approach Technology Implementation
To evaluate the
maturity of an individual technology, NASA has developed the Technology
Readiness Level (TRL) concept, which also provides assessment tools. The TRL
scale includes nine levels, starting from TRL 1 where only the basic conceptual
idea of a technology has been reported, and ending with TRL 9 where the
technological capabilities have already been verified in an actual operational
system (Olechowski
et al., 2020). The European Association of Research and
Technology Organisations, EARTO (2014), underlines that among EU member states, there is a
need for a more comprehensive understanding of the TRL scale principles in
order to have this visible in the technological research schemes of research
institutes, industries, and governmental actors. This technology model is
naturally associated with our survey’s ‘maturity’ level assessment, which has
been selected here as BMI3
Technologies will
require an extensive end-user portfolio if they are to be widely recognized,
and various factors affecting the acceptance of new technology also depend on
the individual characteristics of the end-user. According to Maranguni? and Grani?,
(2015), external variables such as social influence play a
crucial role when end-users are introduced to new technology and are developing
their overall attitudes and intentions regarding the technology's potential
practical applications. These influencing factors are further divided into
perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use. The former portrays the level
of usefulness of a new technology to be used as a part of or replacing an
existing process. The latter describes how easily the new technology can be
used based on the end-users’ experiences. (Venkatesh and Davis, 2000). In addition to the
conceptual framework linking the result demonstrability directly to the
perceived usefulness, there are also empirical studies that have demonstrated a
correlation between result demonstrability and intent to use the particular
technology (Venkatesh
and Davis, 2000). This model corresponds to our survey’s assessment
of ‘tangibility’, as it is assumed that the tangibility of a given technology
is elementally associated with the prospective use. Therefore, this technology
model has been selected as BMI2.
There can be a variety of heterogeneous
end-users using the same technologies in different business areas. The
end-users can be differentiated based on their individual capabilities and
business models. The different types of user categorization are based on their
general willingness to adopt new innovations like new technologies. Widely
cited theory of Diffusion of Innovations categorizes adopters into five groups
depending on their capability and willingness to adopt new innovations. The
categories were (1) innovators (2.5%), (2) early adopters (13.5%), and (3)
early majority (34%), late majority (34%), and laggards (16%) who are the most
reluctant to adopt new innovations (Rogers, Singhal, and Quinlan, 2014). Based on this
model, it can be assumed that when a technology is being widely used and/or
utilized in the everyday lives of the general public, it has already passed
various phases and adopter categories. The diffusion process is linked to our
survey’s BMI1 ‘range of applications’, as it is expected that the
more there is ‘range’, the higher is the probability of diffusion.
3.2. Empirical Survey among Last-mile Organizations
The
developed model was tested by conducting an empirical survey. The main target group
of the survey was professionals in Finland dealing with distribution solutions
of online retail from different perspectives, including companies operating in
nine individual business sectors. The survey link and/or email invitation were
sent to 241 email addresses of relevant organizations located in Finland. It was estimated that
the majority of the leading experts in the field in Finland belong to that
group. Even if the respondent rates typically remain modest in these kinds of
surveys, it was also estimated that number of responses would be appropriate
for model testing purposes, even if a smaller number of respondents would mean
higher deviations.
Figure 2 Respondents Business Sectors (a) and Respondents’ Roles in Their
Organizations (b)
Several SDs were calculated for each dimension and were between 1.61 (SD
value of maturity of wireless sensor networks) and 2.60 (SD value of maturity
of crowdsourcing). The average values of the SDs are shown in the second column
from the right and reflect the unity of answers for each technology topic. In
other words, the smaller the average of the SDs, the more consistent were the
views of the respondents towards the technology. Based on the average values of
the SDs, location technologies, IoT, AI, machine learning, and WSN had the most
consistent responses. Crowdsourcing, self-driving vehicles, and blockchain
technologies had the highest average SDs (>2.24). Under each BMI, the
leftmost column in the group shows the average score for each dimension (avg.).
The rank column shows the order of the TDLs in the range of application
possibilities and was therefore ranked first under this category. The average
score of the three BMIs was calculated for each TDL and is shown in the
rightmost column. The survey results are presented as a spider diagram in
Figure 3. The technology topics have been arranged based on the average score
of the three BMIs (Tot. Avg.), resulting in a clockwise decrease in scores.
Table 3 The Detailed Survey Results
Table 3 The Detailed Survey Results (Cont.)
Figure 3 Spiderweb Diagram of the Survey Results
Discussion
4.1. Analysis of the Survey Results
The goal of the conducted survey was to gain a picture of online retail and distribution professionals’ views on the range of possibilities for applying the chosen technologies. Based on the results, there are generally high expectations that digitalization will significantly improve various aspects of logistics. However, as history has shown, not all technologies maintain their position and they can quickly give way to a more suitable innovation. Other aims of the survey were to analyze how clearly these technologies are linked to practical operations in last-mile logistics, how specific the solutions are that these technologies can offer (tangibility), and how advanced, proven, and ready-to-implement (maturity) the technologies are perceived to be. All of the technologies received an average score above 5.0 on a scale of 0–10 for tangibility and range of application possibilities. This indicates that the chosen 16 technologies based on the literature review findings have at least some levels of support among logistics experts.
The maturity score varied from 3.48 (drones and robots) to 8.09 (location technologies, GPS), which was to be expected, given that some of the technologies are broadly used in other industries and/or the logistics sector, while others are clearly at an earlier phase of deployment — especially from the perspective of last mile distribution. Technologies that are already widely used tend to receive high ratings in maturity and tangibility (location technologies, RFID, smart locker, and post systems). This may partly reflect the extensive use of these technologies in some industries where their implementation has reached all groups of technology adopters presented in the Diffusion of Innovations theory (Rogers, Singhal, and Quinlan, 2014). Figure 4 visualizes the unity of answers and their potential impact on general awareness of technologies.
Figure 4 Mapping of TDLs based on
Their Average SDs and Number of Respondents
ICT technologies, such as Big Data analytics,
AI and machine learning, cloud computing, and online platforms and
applications, were perceived to have a high range of application possibilities
but had relatively average scores for maturity and tangibility. This suggests
that the potential of these technologies has been noted but there is some
uncertainty as to their possible roles in distribution logistics. From the
perspective of TAM (Maranguni? and Grani?,
2015), the
perceived usefulness is still incomplete, and the concrete benefits are
unclear. The technology concepts that received a relatively low score in the
range of application possibilities and tangibility were crowdsourcing, drones
and robots, immersive technologies, and blockchain. This indicates that these
technologies are still mostly used by early adopters presented in the Diffusion
of Innovations theory (Rogers, Singhal, and
Quinlan, 2014), and their perceived usefulness (Venkatesh and Davis, 2000) in the daily operations of
distribution logistics is less clear compared to technologies that received
higher technology dimension scores. Technologies such as location technologies (e.g.,
GPS), online platforms and applications, AI and machine learning, and IoT
received a high number of responses with low SDs. The respondents' familiarity
with these topics may indicate the widespread visibility of these technologies.
4.2. Limitations and Future Research Perspectives
Despite the fierce competition and regulatory limitations affecting especially what type of information horizontal competitors are able to share, it is claimed that regular BM studies arranged regularly by an impartial organization could improve the awareness of technology trends within the specific domain. The limitations, however, steer the selection of BMIs, as they are not allowed to have economic or otherwise sensitive dimensions. Therefore, it is proposed to use non-confidential BMIs and perceived dimensions reflected from well-known theories. The obtained general trend information can further be utilized in decision-making processes at the front end of the innovation phase, at a time when considering technology investments and their feasibilities for specific purposes are particularly relevant. The proposed model is scalable, and the number of BMIs can be increased if they are considered useful in future studies. Additionally, the BMIs can be adjusted to incorporate other noticeable dimensions for each TDL, like disruptive potential, sustainability, or any other dimension based on the focus of future studies. The number of emerging technology topics continues to grow while others are being replaced or merged. Therefore, the selection of TDLs for inclusion in a BM study should be updated regularly.
This BM survey was used to demonstrate the use of the
conceptual model that assessed the emerging technologies in terms of their
maturity, acceptability, and applicability. The proposed conceptual model was
based on BM methodology, technology adoption theories, and trend scoping. The
model was demonstrated to be usable in mapping and measuring the perceived
potential and suitability in the selected scope of online retail-related
last-mile logistics. The results of the survey data used for demonstration confirmed
the applicability of the proposed conceptual model, but the wider application
and use require more research. Intuitively, the proposed model should be
applicable to almost any domain for the assessment of technology and,
therefore, could assist in decision-making regarding technology investments. The
role of technologies in logistics is growing along with digitalization. The
proposed model and its demonstration can help bring clarity and understanding
to the prospective, yet in many respects, uncertain and risky technologies. The
theoretical contribution of this paper is the merging of different technology
models and their inherent perspectives into a framework that can be used for
technology evaluation before significant investments and commitments are made.
While the emphasis is on bringing forth a tool for the practice, the proposed
conceptual model is novel and, therefore sets a hypothesis to be tested further
by future research and practice. However, to genuinely test the proposed model,
the results should be investigated after couple of years to see the actual
development in the industry. Then, it would be possible to research the
weaknesses of the model.
This
paper is a component of the Open Mode – Towards Customer-Centric Supply Space
Management research project, generously funded by Business Finland. The authors
also extend their appreciation to the ADMIRAL project, supported by the
European Union’s Horizon Europe Research and Innovation Programme under Grant
Agreement No. 101104163. It is important to emphasize that the content of this
paper rests solely on the responsibility of the authors, and the funders bear
no responsibility for any data, methods, or conclusions presented herein.
Filename | Description |
---|---|
R2-IE-5431-20230717003657.docx | Manuscript with revisions R2 |
Alicke, K.,
Rexhausen, D., Seyfert, A., 2017. Supply Chain 4.0 in Consumer Goods. Mckinsey
& Company, Volume 1 (11), pp. 1–11
Amling, A.,
Daugherty, P.J., 2018. Logistics and Distribution Innovation in China. International
Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, Volume 59(3),
pp. 323–332
Azadegan, A., Teich,
J., 2010. Effective Benchmarking Of Innovation Adoptions: A Theoretical
Framework for E-Procurement Technologies. Benchmarking: An international
journal. Volume 17(4), pp. 472-490
Berawi, M.A., 2021.
Philosophy of Technology Design: Creating Innovation and Added Value. International
Journal of Technology, Volume 12(3), pp. 444–447
Boysen, N., Fedtke,
S., Schwerdfeger, S., 2021. Last-Mile Delivery Concepts: A Survey From An
Operational Research Perspective. OR Spectrum, Volume 43, pp.
1–58
Cagan, J., Vogel,
C.M., 2002. Creating Breakthrough Products: Innovation From Product Planning
to Program Approval. Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall
Cano, J.A.,
Gómez-Montoya, R.A., Salazar, F., Cortés, P., 2021. Disruptive and Conventional
Technologies for the Support of Logistics Processes: A Literature Review. International
Journal of Technology, Volume 12(3), pp. 448–460
Castillo, V.E., Bell,
J.E., Rose, W.J., Rodrigues, A.M., 2018. Crowdsourcing Last Mile Delivery:
Strategic Implications and Future Research Directions. Journal of Business
Logistics, Volume 39 (1), pp. 7–25
Chen, C., Demir, E.,
Huang, Y., Qiu, R., 2021, The Adoption of Self-Driving Delivery Robots in Last
Mile Logistics. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation
Review, Volume 146, p. 102214
Dattakumar, R Jagadeesh,
R., 2003. A Review Of Literature On Benchmarking. Benchmarking: An International
Journal, Volume 10(3). pp.176-209
Dekhne, A., Hastings,
G., Murnane, J., Neuhaus, F., 2019. Automation In Logistics: Big
Opportunity, Bigger Uncertainty. McKinsey & Company
Dobni, C.B., Klassen,
M., 2021. The Decade Of Innovation From Benchmarking To Execution. Journal Of
Business Strategy. Volume 42 (1). pp. 23-31
Durst, S.,
Evangelista, P., 2018. Exploring Knowledge Management Practice in 3rd
Party Logistics Service Providers. VINE Journal of Information and Knowledge
Management Systems, Volume 48(2), pp. 162–177
EARTO, 2014. The TRL
Scale as a Research & Innovation Policy Tool – EARTO Recommendations.
Available online at
https://www.earto.eu/wp-content/uploads/The_TRL_Scale_as_a_R_I_Policy_Tool_-_EARTO_Recommendations_-_Final.pdf,
Accessed on February 3, 2020
Gassmann, O.,
Schweitzer, F., 2014. Managing the Unmanageable: The Fuzzy Front End of
Innovation, Springer, p. 3–14
Gevaers, R., Van-de-Voorde,
E., Vanelslander, T., 2014. Cost Modelling and Simulation of Last-mile
Characteristics in an Innovative B2C Supply Chain Environment with Implications
on Urban Areas and Cities. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences,
Volume 125, pp. 398–411
Giuffrida, N.,
Fajardo-Calderin, J., Masegosa, A.D., Werner, F., Steudter, M., Pilla, F.,
2022. Optimization and Machine Learning Applied to Last-Mile Logistics: A
Review. Sustainability, Volume 14(9), p. 5329
Hinkka, V., 2012.
Challenges For Building RFID Tracking Systems Across the Whole Supply Chain. International
Journal for RF Technologies: Research and Applications, Volume 3(3), pp.
201–218
Hsiao, Y.-H., Chen,
M.-C., Lu, K.-Y., Chin, C.-L., 2018. Last-Mile Distribution Planning For
Fruit-And-Vegetable Cold Chains. International Journal of Logistics
Management, Volume 2 (3), pp. 862–886
Huebner, A.H., Kuhn,
H., Wollenburg, J., 2016. Last Mile Fulfilment and Distribution in Omni-Channel
Grocery Retailing: A Strategic Planning Framework. International Journal of
Retail & Distribution Management, Volume 44(3)
Kianto, A., Hussinki,
H., Vanhala, M., Nisula, A-M., 2018. The State of Knowledge Management in
Logistics SMEs: Evidence from two Finnish regions. Knowledge Management
Research & Practice, Volume 16(4), pp. 477–487
Kim, J., Wilemon D.,
2002. Focusing The Fuzzy Front-End in New Product Development. R&D
Management, Volume 32(4), pp. 269–279
Kusrini, E., Kartohardjono, S., Putra,
N.S.D., Budiyanto, M.A., Wulanza, Y., Berawi, M.A., Suwartha, N., Maknun, I.J., Asvial, M.,
Setiawan, E.A., Suryanegara, M., Harwahyu, R., Yatmo, Y.A., Atmodiwiryo, P.,
2020. Science, Engineering and Technology for Better Future. International
Journal of Technology, Volume 11(7), pp. 1286–1291
Kyrö, P. 2004.
Benchmarking as an action research process. Benchmarking: An International
Journal, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 52-73
Lemke, J., Iwan, S.,
Korczak, J., 2016. Usability of the Parcel Lockers from the Customer
Perspective – The Research in Polish Cities. Transportation Research
Procedia, Volume 16, pp. 272–287
Lim, S.F.W.T., Jin,
X., Srai, J.S., 2018. Consumer-Driven E-Commerce: A Literature Review, Design
Framework, And Research Agenda on Last-Mile Logistics Models. International
Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, Volume 48(3),
pp. 308–332
Lin, Y., Luo, J.,
Cai, S., Ma, S., Rong, K., 2016. Exploring The Service Quality in The Ecommerce
Context: A Triadic View. Industrial Management & Data Systems,
Volume 116 (3), pp. 388–415
Mann, S.R., Abbas,
A., Kohl, H., Orth, R., Görmer, M., 2010. Global Survey on Business Improvement
and Benchmarking. Germany: Global benchmarking Network. Available online at
http://publica.fraunhofer.de/documents/N-153910.html, Accessed on January 12, 2021
Maranguni?, N., Grani?,
A., 2015. Technology Acceptance Model: A Literature Review From 1986 To 2013. Universal
Access In The Information Society, Volume 14, pp. 81-95
Nowicka, K., 2014.
Smart City Logistics on Cloud Computing Model. Procedia – Social and
Behavioral Sciences, Volume 151, pp. 266–281
Olechowski, A.L., Eppinger,
S.D., Joglekar, N., Tomaschek, K., 2020. Technology Readiness Levels: Shortcomings
and Improvement Opportunities. Systems Engineering, Volume 23 (4),
pp. 395-408
Pasian, B., Turner, R., 2015. Design Methods
and Practices for Research of Project Management. 1st Edition.
Routledge
Pigatto, G., Machado,
J.G.D.C.F., Negreti, A.D.S., Machado, L.M., 2017. Have You Chosen Your Request? Analysis of
Online Food Delivery Companies in Brazil. British Food Journal, Volume
119(3), pp. 639–657
Piroth, P.,
Rüger-Muck, E., Bruwer, J., 2020. Digitalization In Grocery Retailing in
Germany: An Exploratory Study. The International Review of Retail,
Distribution and Consumer Research, Volume 30(5), pp. 479–497
Ranieri, L., Digiesi,
S., Silvestri, B., Roccotelli, M., 2018. A Review of Last Mile Logistics
Innovations in an Externalities Cost Reduction Vision. Sustainability,
Volume 10(3), pp. 782–799
Remondino, M., 2020.
Augmented Reality In Logistics: Qualitative Analysis For A Managerial
Perspective. International Journal of Logistics Systems and Management,
Volume 36(1), pp. 1–15
Rogers, E.M.,
Singhal, A., Quinlan, M.M., 2014. Diffusion Of Innovations. In An Integrated
Approach To Communication Theory And Research, pp. 432–448. Routledge
Schreier, M., 2014.
Qualitative Content Analysis. Sage Handbook of Qualitative Data Analysis. SAGE
Publications Ltd
Schweitzer, F., 2014.
Integrating Customers at the Front End of Innovation. In: Management of the
Fuzzy Front End of Innovation. Springer, Cham
Statista, 2020. ECommerce
Market Report. Statista Digital Market Outlook. November 2020
Trebar, M., Lotric,
M., Fonda, I., Pletersek, A., Kovacic, K., 2013. RFID Data Loggers in Fish
Supply Chain Traceability. International Journal of Antennas and Propagation,
Volume 2013, pp. 1–9
Vakulenko, Y., Shams,
P., Hellström, D., Hjort, K., 2019. Online Retail
Experience and Customer Satisfaction: The Mediating Role of Last Mile Delivery.
The International Review of Retail, Distribution and Consumer Research,
Volume 29(3), pp. 306–320.
Vanderroost, M.,
Ragaert, P., Verwaeren, J., De Meulenaer, B., De Baets, B., Devlieghere, F.,
2017. The Digitization of A Food Package’s Life Cycle: Existing And Emerging
Computer Systems In The Logistics and Post-Logistics Phase. Computers in
Industry, Volume 87, pp. 15–30
Vanelslander, T.,
Deketele, L., Van-Hove, D., 2013. Commonly Used E-Commerce Supply Chains for
Fast Moving Consumer Goods: Comparison and Suggestions for Improvement. International
Journal of Logistics Research and Applications, Volume 16(3), pp. 243–256
Venkatesh, V., Davis,
F.D., 2000. A Theoretical Extension of The Technology Acceptance Model: Four
Longitudinal Field Studies. Management Science, Volume 46, pp. 186–204
Wang, X., Yuen, K.F.,
Wong, Y.D., Teo, C.C., 2018. E-Consumer Adoption of Innovative Last-Mile
Logistics Services: A Comparison of Behavioural Models. Total Quality
Management & Business Excellence, Volume 31, pp. 1–27
Wang, Y., 2019.
Understanding The Impact of Emerging Technologies on The Freight Sector.
Future of Mobility: Evidence Review 2019. University of Cardiff
Wudhikarn, R.,
Chakpitak, N., Neubert, G., 2020. Improving Strategic Benchmarking of
Intellectual Capital Management. Sustainability. Volume 12 (10174)
Yu, Y., Wang, X.,
Zhong, R.Y., Huang, G.Q., 2017. E-Commerce Logistics in Supply Chain
Management: Implementations and Future Perspective in Furniture Industry. Industrial
Management & Data Systems, Volume 117 (10), pp. 2263–2286
Zhong, D.R.Y., Tan,
P.K., Bhaskaran, P.G., 2017. Data-Driven Food Supply Chain Management and
Systems. Industrial Management & Data Systems, Volume 117 (9), pp.
1779–1781
Zhou, M., Zhao, L.,
Kong, N., Campy, K.S., Xu, G., Zhu, G., Cao, X., Wang, S., 2020. Understanding
Consumers’ Behavior to Adopt Self-Service Parcel Services for Last-Mile
Delivery. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Volume 52, pp.
1–12