HOW TO MATERIALISE SYNERGIES IN TRANSPORT LOGISTICS

Gerwin Zomer TNO Mobility & Logistics Sandra Krupe TNO Mobility & Logistics ABSTRACT This paper describes the challenges and success factors of realizing collaboration in intermodal transport, stressing the importance of sound business models based on creating synergies for all parties involved. It includes an analysis of success full and less success full intermodal and non-intermodal case studies on the type of synergies aimed for and the drive behind the start up of the initiative. A synthesis of the analysis shows similarities between the drive to explore synergies and the type of synergy that is realized or aimed for. The analysis also provides insight in situational factors that increase the success rate in realising network synergy. Keywords: synergy, logistics, intermodal transport, collaboration, organisation

INTRODUCTION It appears to be challenging to set up collaboration initiatives in transport and organise it successfully by realising synergies in their logistic networks. Many organisations are reluctant to introduce intermodality and lack of trust, unwillingness to offer transparency or the poor organisation of the collaboration cause many collaboration initiatives to fail [Zomer, 2009]. This paper will provide answers to the question why some collaborative business models are successful whereas many others fail. A better understanding of the critical success factors and business model characteristics will lead to increasing the success rate of collaboration initiatives in transport logistics. More success stories in turn will take away the reluctance of supply chain partners to explore synergies in transport or go intermodal. The paper starts explaining the complexity in organising intermodal transport. Then a classification of different types of synergies in transport and logistics will be explained, followed by a classification of the main drivers to explore synergies. These classifications will then be applied to a series of successful best practices © Association for European Transport and contributors 2009

1

in intermodal transport. The portfolio tool helps in analysing the best practice examples. Since the analysis does not show many successful examples of network synergy, the analysis is elaborated with successful non-intermodal transport examples of realising network synergy. In a synthesis the results are compared and lessons on how to materialise synergies are concluded

ORGANISING COMPLEXITY IN INTERMODAL TRANSPORT A number of organisational characteristics of intermodal transport make it more complex to set up intermodal services than for single mode transport. The number of actors and the dependencies between them require coordination, as well as organised collaboration, in order to create the required transparency to build trust among the actors. Successful intermodal transport services and initiatives are built on a well balanced division of activities, responsibilities, costs and benefits among the different actors involved in the transport chain [Vrenken, 2005]. Ideally the underlying organisation and business models should provide benefits to all actors involved, creating a win-win situation and should guarantee that the roles and tasks of all actors involved are clear and non-conflicting. Organising the collaboration in (intermodal) transport chains and developing the right business models are key success factors. PROMIT research shows the organisation and business models behind successful and non-successful intermodal solutions [PROMIT, 2009]. The successful collaborative business models all aim at materialising some form of synergy in transport and logistics. The next section discusses the different forms of synergy in transport and logistics.

SYNERGY IN LOGISTIC NETWORKS (SYLONET) Cooperation in supply chain networks occurs in various forms. From literature, we can identify horizontal cooperation, vertical cooperation, physical, control, information and network integration [TNO Inro, 2003-1]. The idea is to create synergy through cooperation in the form of efficiency (cost savings) and effectiveness (service improvements) or through other benefits like enlarging turnover and enlarging the learning ability of an organisation. One of the characteristics of intermodal transport is the involvement of a larger number of actors in the door to door chain than with road only transport. To ensure a smooth service in the intermodal network the actors often build partnerships to align their individual services. Except for the usual way of cooperation (vertical cooperation, i.e. supply chain management), we can also think of combined activities of producers or carriers through the bundling of activities or volumes (horizontal cooperation). An important argument for

© Association for European Transport and contributors 2009

2

cooperation and the success of cooperation lies in the fact that the involved partners expect to realise synergy. The SYLONET research (synergy in logistics networks) has identified a clear typology of synergy, based on two dimensions [TNO Inro, 2003-1]:
The term of cooperation, varying from short term to long term.
The objectives of cooperation, including better utilisation of assets, better coordination and realising new structures. These two dimensions result in a classification of three clusters of synergy, see figure 1:
Operational synergy (OS) is often aimed at better utilisation of assets within the existing basic distribution structure. OS often requires limited exchange of data and minimum joint investments, whereas benefits can be realised on short term. OS often involves horizontal cooperation, for instance to jointly consolidate cargo volumes.
Coordination synergy (CS) aims at better tuning demand and supply within existing basic structures. CS requires a higher level of coordination and vertical cooperation. Joint investments in information systems are often required to obtain synchronisation benefits. Due to CS better inventory management, shorter lead times and lower inventory levels can be realised. Typical examples of coordination synergy are Vendor Managed Inventory (VMI) and cross-docking.
Network synergy (NS) aims at long term collaboration with possible joint new investments to pursue structural benefits, resulting in changes in the basic network structure. NS involves redesign of processes and locations in the network. The decision making processes have a longer time horizon then for OS and CS. NS appears when producers collaborate to integrate their stock holding locations as well as the delivery to their customers. Often a logistic service provider coordinates NS. In contrast to CS, the control mechanism is fully transparent. Transparency on demand forecast and status information on transport and inventory levels are crucial to materialise benefits in minimum inventory levels, low transport costs, and better service. A typical example of a logistic concept for network synergy is Collaborative Planning, Replenishment and Forecasting (CPRF). Also the concept of Cross Chain Control Centres (4C) is strongly related to network synergy. Both concepts are explained below: -

Collaborative Planning, Forecasting and Replenishment (CPFR) is a concept that aims to enhance supply chain integration by supporting and assisting joint practices. CPFR seeks cooperative inventory management through joint visibility and replenishment of products throughout the supply chain. Information is shared

© Association for European Transport and contributors 2009

3

between suppliers and retailers supporting planning and satisfying customer demands. A supportive system of shared information allows for continuous updating of inventory and upcoming requirements, making the end-to-end supply chain process more efficient. Decreased expenditures for merchandising, inventory, logistics, and transportation across all trading partners create efficiency. CPFR was initiated by Wal-Mart, SAP, i2 (now JDA) and Benchmarking Partners. Wal-Mart and its suppliers (e.g. Sara Lee, Kimberly-Clark, Mars, Pfizer) implemented CPFR successfully [WIKIPEDIA, 2009-1]. -

Cross Chain Control Centres (4C) are coordination centres from which multiple supply chains are jointly coordinated and controlled, supported by modern technology, advanced software concepts, and supply chain professionals [Commissie van Laarhoven, 2005]. For this form, coordination does not only aim at the physical flow of goods, but also integrates this with information and financial flows like forecasting, financial engineering and data management. Joint control and consolidation of information- and goods flow of multiple supply chains can result in significant reductions in supply chain costs. Successful examples of 4C resulting in network synergy are illustrated later in this paper.

Figure 1 classifies the three clusters of synergy in a portfolio. New structures

New processes, new locations

op m en t

lin e

Network synergy

de ve l

Better coordination

Operational synergy

Beter utilization

Short

Figure 1 2003-1)

New processes, same location

Coordination synergy

Term of cooperation

Same processes and locations

Long

Synergy classification in the SYLONET synergy portfolio (TNO,

© Association for European Transport and contributors 2009

4

This synergy portfolio is used as an instrument to analyse best practice examples of collaboration in transport and logistics. Before applying this portfolio to the best practices, we first discuss the different drivers for exploring synergies.

DRIVERS FOR EXPLORING SYNERGY Synergy in logistic networks often aims at efficiency gains (e.g. cost savings), improved effectiveness (e.g. service improvements), or increased turnover and market share. The driver for companies to explore possible synergies can be either offensive or more defensive. The authors of this paper distinguish three main categories of drivers:
An offensive approach is characterised by the willingness to be innovative in order to distinguish from competitors, to enlarge the market share, or to develop new markets. Innovativeness is the key.
A defensive reactive approach follows from the need to make necessary adjustments to the logistic concept in order to survive in the long term in competitive markets. The pressure comes from the market (continuity is in danger). Sense of urgency is the key.
In a defensive proactive approach the driver follows from societal pressure. Increased awareness of the business activities’ carbon footprint as well as policies to fight road congestion, to internalise external impacts of transport, and to stimulate the use of intermodal transport work as a stimulus for companies to explore synergies in transport logistics. These categories of drivers as well as the synergy portfolio have been applied to a series of intermodal best practices, specifically selected from the perspective of organisation and business models. The next section describes these best practices in more detail.

ANALYSIS OF PROMIT INTERMODAL BEST PRACTICES In PROMIT (Promoting Intermodal Transport), a European Research project (FP6), more than 60 intermodal best practices have been collected and described from the following viewpoints [PROMIT, 2009]: • Organisation and business models. • Intermodal infrastructure and equipment. • Information and Communication Technologies. • Operation and services. • Security, Safety, Legislation and Policy.

© Association for European Transport and contributors 2009

5

TNO coordinated the analysis of best practices from the viewpoint of “organisation and business models”. In this task, nine best practices were analysed in detail with the aim to describe the organisational aspects and the business models that make these best practices in particular successful. More specific, the analysis focused on five priority topics: 1. Integration of intermodal transport in logistics and supply chain concepts. 2. Agreement on roles, risks and responsibilities. 3. Integrating funding in intermodal cost & financial models. 4. Service level agreements (SLA’s). 5. Coordinating networks, capacities and time tables. In this section we position the best practices in the synergy portfolio. In doing so, we briefly describe the background, the realised or expected synergy effects and the main driver behind the success of each of the nine best practices. Figure 2 shows the result of this mapping exercise for the nine best practices. A: Cargonet is a subsidiary from Swedish and Norwegian national railway companies, established to make a successful transition from conventional rail wagon transport to intermodal rail shuttle services. The national railway companies were losing market share in the single wagon load market to road transport. This could only be changes by creating a more efficient and reliable service and by offering door-to-door transport to the European continent. The main drive for the success of this service is therefore defensive by nature, responding to the difficult market conditions and fierce competition of road transport. Cargonet entered into partnership agreements with intermodal operators of continental rail shuttle servics like Hupac and Kombiverkehr thus creating a broader network of rail shuttle services within a commercial successful business concept. Through this concept, Cargonet combined two individual networks with the network of Hupac and Kombiverkehr providing reliable end-to-end solutions to shippers from and to the Nordics. The Cargonet partners coordinated the rail network, the capacities and the time tables for rail shuttles. In addition, Cargonet offers services such as custom clearance, collection and delivery of containers. With this cooperation the partners in Cargonet created coordination synergy, by combining their individual offerings into something that is worth more than the two individual networks. With this cooperation Cargonet realised in the first two years 30% growth of transport units in Norway and 38 MNOK increase in EBIT.

B: Distrivaart is a project that tried to realise palletised inland waterway transport (IWT) services of fast moving consumer goods in a network approach by means of horizontal cooperation [TNO Inro, 2003-2]. The project aimed at offering a national covered transportation network for distribution of consumer goods between manufacturers’ DC’s and supermarket chains. Relatively small ships sailed in a high frequency schedule enabling cheap and fast transhipment which

© Association for European Transport and contributors 2009

6

was highly competitive with road transport. Distrivaart aimed to reach 3 types of synergy: 1. Firstly Distrivaart aimed at reaching operational synergy by improving the utilisation of existing resources. 2. Secondly it tried to reach coordination synergy by a better tuning of needs between the various partners in the chain. The application of vendor managed inventory (VMI) is an example of the coordination of activities between retailers and manufacturers. 3. Finally it aimed at network synergy by using the vessel as a floating stock, radically changing the base form of the network. The driver behind this project was offensive and highly innovative by nature. Transport of palletised consumer goods by barge hasn’t been applied before. The barge has been designed specifically for the handling and storage of pallets. Unfortunately during the implementation phase the project failed. Although in theory the concept would be very beneficial to all parties involved, in practice it required large investments and it involved taking risks before the benefits could be reaped. C: Stora Enso is an integrated paper, packaging, and forest products company. Its main production facilities are in the Nordic countries. A large part of the market is on continental Europe. In order to achieve a customer, demand driven, responsive logistics operation, Stora Enso established local distribution centres (DCs) close to the customers. The port of Göteborg was established as main hub to service these DCs. For the distribution Stora Enso developed a logistic concept based on an innovative loading unit, the Stora Enso Container Unit or SECU, which was designed to optimise the specific supply chains of Stora Enso and enabled Stora Enso to reduce the logistics cost of this network. In the development of this innovative logistics concept, Stora Enso cooperated closely with ports in Belgium, UK and Germany. The port of Zeebrugge and European Ro-Ro company SeaRo invested in real estate, equipment and ICT to handle the cargo from Stora Enso on the mainland. Stora Enso also has close cooperation with transport companies like Green Cargo, Cobelfret and B&N Nordsjöfrakt. Stora Enso completely redesigned its supply chain structure, and started to work with new processes on different locations. Joint investments with its partners were made for long term collaboration. This is a typical example of the creation of network synergy, which has turned out very successful for Stora Enso. Results include the reduction of costs, while improving the lead times, reliability and frequency. Its driver was mainly offensive to be able to reap the benefits that were available by changing their supply chain.

D: Coca Cola Drikker (CCD) integrated different intermodal services (rail, shortsea) into their Norwegian supply chain and reduced inefficiencies in freight flows to low density areas by close collaboration with forwarders. In the northern region CCD outsourced its distribution to Mack Breweries, a company with a

© Association for European Transport and contributors 2009

7

comparable customer base and a comparable logistics network in Norway. The type of synergy can be categorised as coordination synergy, with better coordination of transport capacity and modes. The cooperation will last for at least 3 years and is captured in contracts. The driver behind this initiative is defensive but proactive. At the one sight, CCD needs to use cheaper modes of transport as road transport on the large distances in Norway is too expensive. At the other sight, CCD strives for a green image by using environmentally friendly transport. E: Eurogate is as a global terminal operator Eurogate confronted with enormous growth of transshipment in its sea terminals. The hinterland transport creates major constraints for terminal productivity and its growth strategy. Eurogate found its solution in obtaining control over the hinterland operations by investing in trimodal inland ports and developing shuttle services between its German seaports and these inland terminals via Boxxpress. With this cooperation the partners created coordination synergy, by combining their individual offerings into a network of sea and hinterland terminals. The main driver for the success of this concept is defensive and reactive by nature, reacting on difficult market conditions, high congestion in the sea ports and fierce competition of road transport. F: Flora Holland is the worlds largest flower auction and is the international market leader in floriculture sales with six auction locations situated close to the most important production areas in the Netherlands. Though not active in the distribution processes of flowers itself, Flora Holland acts as a supply chain facilitator. Controlling the information flows enables them to develop innovative intermodal solutions for sea and rail transport. In a joint venture with TransFresh, Flora Holland introduced its Fresh Flower Solutions in maritime transport enabling them to deliver fresher flowers during longer transportation lead times and thus maximise profitability for its breeders. In 2009, Flora Holland also realised it’s first rail transport of plants to Italy, with the aim to scale up to a weekly transport of plants to Italy, Poland and Romania for about 10 exporters of plants. Flora Holland has outsourced the control of this supply chain to E-logistics control, a fourth party logistic service provider (4PL). The cooperation can be characterised as medium term, using new type of transport between existing locations. This needs to be carefully tuned with the various actors in the transport chain. The partners are therefore currently striving for coordination synergy. Flora Holland also investigates new locations that can function as a hub for fine distributions. These developments are steps in the transition from coordination synergy towards network synergy. Flora Holland is afraid that large and dense cargo flows will increasingly go directly from breeders to retailers due to the scale increase that takes place on both sizes. The flower auction continually needs to show and increase its added value to cope with this development. In this sense the actions to explore forms of synergy are defensive and reactive by nature.

© Association for European Transport and contributors 2009

8

G: Rhinecontainer is an operator of inland waterway transport (IWT) services between the seaports of Rotterdam and Antwerp and the inland terminals along the Rhine. Rhinecontainer found a way to cope with the inefficiencies and low degree of cooperation in this highly competitive market. This concept is based on strong cooperation with the terminal operators in the seaports and inland ports based on Service Level Agreements (SLAs) in order to generate reliable IWT services. Rhinecontainer created operational synergy by designing different roundtrips for upper, middle and lower Rhine ports which optimises their use of resources and increases the occupancy rate of the vessels. With the establishment of SLAs between the seaports and inland ports Rhinecontainer tried to improve the coordination between its activities and terminal activities in ports and terminals. This tends towards coordination synergy, but is still somewhat weak as there are many initiatives between seaports and hinterland locations that all are fighting for priority of the sea terminals. The driver behind this initiative is defensive and reactive by nature. Rhinecontainer needs to offer a reliable and cost efficient service to compete against road transport. Rhinecontainer is part of the success full Wincanton Group. In 2008 they handled 500.000 TEU and they opened a sixed tri-modal terminal along the rhine. H: SINGER is a European project in which a consortium of partners realised and currently operates rail services for international combined transport, with Slovenia as gateway country between West and Central/Eastern countries. Ljubljana acts as a central hub on the North-South corridor between Balcan countries and North-Western Europe as well as the East-West corridor between Italy and the Balcan countries. Different rail networks have been aligned with each other with respect to train lengths, capacities and time tables. The partners draw on the advantages of each other in accessing the local transport market, such as risk-sharing through the joint purchase of rail services and harmonisation of networks and schedules. On an operational level the operators intensified their cooperation by aligning all procedures on the terminals. The SINGER consortium acts as one organisation for its customers. The type of synergy that is created with this cooperation can be defined as coordination synergy with some elements of operational synergy attached. This initiative is driven by the available funds of the European Commission to develop intermodal initiatives on the TENT corridors. As such there is a defensive but proactive driver for societal benefits. I: Duferco, a global steel company with production locations in Italy solved the problem of the large distances between the main steel plants in the south of Italy and the rolling mills in the North of Italy by changing their distribution structure. An alternative would have been to relocate one of the plants, but then they could not benefit from the port location for the incoming goods or from the central location of Milan close to their customers. After a comparison between road, sea, and rail transport Duferco opted for high frequent rail shuttle services and could obtain very competitive prices since their main cargo flow was solving serious imbalances in existing rail freight services in this North-South corridor. In

© Association for European Transport and contributors 2009

9

cooperation with TrenItalia Duferco changed its logistics system. Currently Trenitalia runs 5 trains per week for Duferco. This type of cooperation is based on the better utilisation of existing infrastructure and existing locations. The cooperation will probably hold for a longer term. This is also due to the fact that the Italian rail freight market is still dominated by the national railways. The achieved synergy can be classified as operational. The driver behind this initiative is defensive reactive. The road distance and the costs associated with road transport were too high to have a successful business case in Italy. The results of mapping these nine intermodal best practices in the synergy portfolio are presented in figure 2.

New processes, new locations

B C

Network synergy

New processes, same location

F

Better coordination

E A D

Coordination synergy H

G

Operational synergy

Short

Figure 2

Same processes and locations

I

Beter utilization

Playingfield of cooperation

Goal of cooperation

New structures

Long Term of cooperation

A

Cargonet

D

Coca Cola

G

Rhinecontainer

B

Distrivaart

E

Eurogate

H

Singer

C

Stora Enso

F

Flora Holland

I

Duferco

The PROMIT cases plotted in the SYLONET synergy portfolio

© Association for European Transport and contributors 2009

10

SUCCESFUL NON-INTERMODAL PRACTICES OF NETWORK SYNERGY Since the mapping of intermodal best practices resulted in only very limited examples of successfully materialising network synergy (i.e. despite a positive business case Distrivaart was not fully implemented), we decided to include in the analysis also successful examples of realising network synergy, which were not subject of analysis in PROMIT and neither aimed at developing intermodal transport services in particular. These best practices include alliances in road distribution and examples of cross chain collaboration and control between shippers (4C). System Alliance Europe is a cargo network bundling the competences of leading medium-sized logistic service providers offering customers a European platform for groupage transport when turning to their regional partner. In groupage transport small consignments are consolidated to create as much as possible full truck loads. The cooperation started in 2005 with 16 medium-sized freight forwarders from 5 European countries. Currently 49 partners with 170 branches from 24 countries belong to System Alliance Europe. Through its gateway concept, the members of System Alliance Europe have the opportunity to organise shipments to final destinations, using the network of other membership partners, without involving these partners in the contact with customers [WIKIPEDIA, 2009-2]. It is an open network, meaning that the users can choose between the networks from different partners. Well documented procedures guarantee a smooth throughput through the system. This gateway concept is particularly effective in offering transport services to destinations for which otherwise no daily departures can be offered. This alliance is a clear example of network synergy, which on an operational level increases the occupancy of the resources and on a more strategic level offers the opportunity to enter into large tender propositions for major shippers, thus competing with the major European forwarders like DHL and Kuehne & Nagel. TransMission is an alliance of independent family companies in transport and distribution in the Benelux, each with a strong regional network and mainly active in national distribution of parcels, pallets and general cargo. With 1,100 employees and 460 lorries, seventeen partners collectively handle a total of 12,000 shipments every day. TransMission offers fixed-route transport and network distribution, as well as custom services before, during and after transport. The members of the alliance make individual agreements with customers, apply joint cross-docking to consolidate and distribute shipments and invoice each other for ‘internal services’. The joint IT platform, developed in-house, is the base for the collaboration and offers the necessary transparency. TransMission has a central management board that is responsible for vision and strategic

© Association for European Transport and contributors 2009

11

development, planning, IT, network management and if necessary financial settlement. TransMission is an extensive form of cooperation, acting as one recognisable party to its customers by applying common processes and a strong uniform branding, using the same logo, the fleet of trucks equipped with the Transmission logo and in red colour, even the uniforms are uniform. Cross Chain Control Centers (4C) have the objective to design and optimise dynamic and sustainable supply chain networks. The objective is to create collaboration between shippers to improve their supply chains and materialise synergies in their chains, under the coordination of an external partner. The concept of “4C” is one of the main research topics of the Laarhoven Committee and the Dutch Logistic Topinstitute, which was recently founded in The Netherlands to concentrate and merge the existing know-how, knowledge and expertise in different Dutch research institutes and Universities in order to build an international top reputation on logistics and supply chain research. 4C is about the transition from business networks to sectoral or even cross-sectoral networks, ensuring a fair distribution of the benefits [Commissie van Laarhoven, 2008]. A good example of a 4C is the collaboration between Hero - a producer of soft drinks - and SCA – a producer of hygiene products - with their main logistic service providers Bakker Logistiek and Nabuurs [Ploos van Amstel, 2009] . The two shippers combine their distribution to wholesalers and large retail distribution centers, based on the shared user concept for consumer goods consolidation. For that purpose, Bakker and Nabuurs developed a large warehouse facility in Hazeldonk (south of Breda), which they jointly operate. Also the collaboration between Douwe Egbers, Unipro Bakery and Van Heezik in “KOUD” is a good example of 4C [TNO, 2006]. In this concept, the shippers consolidate the transport activities of deep frozen shipments, under coordination of logistic service provider Van Heezik. A third example of 4C is the collaboration between Lever-Faberge and Kimberly-Clark [TNO, 2006]. They jointly developed a manufacturing consolidation center in Raamsdonkveer and found a partner in ACR Logistics to consolidate the logistic services.

SYNTHESIS Several successful examples illustrate that synergies of all kinds can be realised in transport and logistics as well as in intermodal transport. The analysis of the PROMIT cases indicates that most intermodal best practices involve coordination synergy. This can easily be explained, since applying intermodal transport solutions requires strong coordination along the transport chain between the different supply chain partners. A defensive reactive approach, responding to an apparent sense of urgency appears to be the strongest driver to explore coordination synergy opportunities and overcoming obstacles and resistance, as follows from the cases of Cargonet, FloraHolland and Eurogate.

© Association for European Transport and contributors 2009

12

Operational synergy often aims at better utilisation of resources. OS is relatively simple to achieve. The presence of rail and IWT shuttle services have made it relatively easy for shippers or logistics service providers to make use of existing intermodal services. For the operators of these services this often means a better occupancy of their trains and vessels. The Duferco and Rhinecontainer cases both aim at better utilising the trains and vessels. The driver to achieve better OS is actually quite straightforward; the benefits are easy to see. However, it often requires an urgent need to explore OS, which also appears from the defensive reactive driver in the Duferco and Rhinecontainer cases. Realising network synergy is the most challenging form of cooperation, with huge potential benefits in case of successful implementation. The driver to explore this kind of synergy often follows from an offensive attitude towards innovativeness and the readiness to distinguish. Since it is based on long term collaboration and requires considerable investments, lack of trust and transparency constitute a larger risk of failure for the implementation than for a defensive driver. Some ambitious examples supported by positive business cases fail during implementation, for instance in the Distrivaart case. From the analysis of successful network synergy cases in the previous section as well as the Stora Enso case it follows that there are two situations that allow becoming successful in realising network synergy.
It either requires a strong supply chain partner that has the power to control its transport chain, like in the Stora Enso case. In such situations, this powerful supply chain partner ‘forces’ its supply chain partners to adjust their processes in order to realise the synergy whereas this powerful partner also claims the majority of the benefits arising from network synergy.
Another situation resulting in successful network synergy is when different supply chains collaborate, often involving non-competing shippers from different industries, but with similar distribution patterns. The shippers and their logistic service providers need to show willingness to increase transparency. This situation is often the case in successful examples of Cross Chain Control Centres. The collaboration between Hero and SCA, between Douwe Egberts and Unipro, between Lever Faberge and Kimberly Clark and between Coca Cola and Mack are good examples. In these cases, the synergy benefits are usually shared quite equally between the involved partners.

© Association for European Transport and contributors 2009

13

CONCLUSIONS There are many successful examples in which synergies are realised in transport and logistics by collaboration. Operational synergy is easiest to realise. It often requires a sense of urgency to successfully explore operational synergy. Best practices in intermodal transport often involve coordination synergy. The defensive reactive approach is the strongest driver to explore coordination synergies. Realising network synergy is most challenging but can also offer huge benefits. It is often an offensive innovative drive that brings companies to explore network synergies. Two situations give good ground for successful implementation, a strong push by the dominant partner in a supply chain, or a more opportunistic search for horizontal collaboration between often non-competing shippers with similar distribution patterns, like the successful examples of 4C show. A better understanding of the main drivers to explore synergy, the critical success factors and the business model characteristics will lead to an increasing number of successful collaboration initiatives in transport logistics. More success stories in turn will break down the reluctance of supply chain partners to explore synergies in transport or go intermodal. And in the end we all win.

REFERENCES Commissie Van Laarhoven (2006), Naar een vitalere supply chain door krachtige innovatie : Eindrapportage Commissie Van Laarhoven, Delft. Commissie Van Laarhoven (2008), Logistiek en supply chains: Visie en ambitie voor Nederland, Delft. Ploos van Amstel, W. (2009), De supply chain van SCA en HERO: een unieke LAT relatie, from: http://www.delaatstemeter.nl/leerzame-voorbeelden/de-latsupply-chain-van-sca-en-hero/ PROMIT (2009), Deliverable D3.3 PROMIT Best Practice Handbook, Basel. TNO Inro (2003-1) Synergievoordelen in Logistieke NETwerken (SYLONET), Eindrapport deel I, TNO Inro rapport 023N105320, Delft. TNO Inro (2003-2), Distrivaart Economics, Deelrapport inzicht in de economische aspecten, Delft. TNO (2006), HANDBOEK Generieke procesaanpak Verladerssamenwerking, TNO rapport 2006-D-R0904, Delft. Vrenken H., Macharis C., Wolters P. (2005) Intermodal Transport in Europe, Brussels. Wikipedia (2009-1). Retrieved August 2, 2009, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collaborative_Planning,_Forecasting,_and_Replenish ment.

© Association for European Transport and contributors 2009

14

Wikipedia (2009-2). Retrieved August 3, 2009, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/System_Alliance_Europe Zomer, G.R. (2009) Presentation at the PROMIT Final Conference 2009, Istanbul 11-12 February

© Association for European Transport and contributors 2009

15