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

www.emeraldinsight.com/0957-4093.htm

Evaluating the causes of Uncertainty in

logistics
uncertainty in logistics operations
operations
Vasco Sanchez-Rodrigues, Andrew Potter and 45
Mohamed M. Naim
Innovative Manufacturing Research Centre, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to verify a transport uncertainty triad model taking a supply
chain perspective, and determine which different forms of uncertainty impact on transport
operations. The aim is to qualitatively evaluate the different types of uncertainty impacting on
transport operations rather than estimating the risk that each of them involved. The literature
indicates that there are many factors that influence transport operations. This paper aims to
determine the key factors that impinge practice.
Design/methodology/approach – On the basis of a literature review, a conceptual model was
developed to categorise the different factors that impact on transport operations. In order to
determine the credibility of this model and assess which factors are the main barriers to effective
transport operations a series of focus groups involving UK logistics practitioners and policy makers
was undertaken.
Findings – The findings indicate that the main drivers impacting on transport operations are delays,
delivery constraints, lack of coordination, and variable demand/poor information. The consequence of
these is to reduce the efficiency of transport operations. Also, in the overall focus groups’ data,
unplanned road congestion represents the biggest individual issue leading to uncertainty.
Research limitations/implications – The model is refined based only on participants’
perceptions. Therefore, further empirical-based research is needed to quantitatively validate it, for
each cluster identifying the frequency with which it occurs and the impact on economic and
environmental performance. This will further strengthen understanding of the main uncertainty
causes within supply chains in the UK. The model should also be tested through the investigation of
real-world situations, measuring the marginal impact of logistics disruptions, in economic and
environmental terms.
Practical implications – The paper highlights the importance of looking at the whole of the
logistics triad when dealing with uncertainty, as often there are multiple sources involving the
shipper, carrier and customer. Equally, the paper highlights the importance of external factors, and
managers need to consider how to deal with these issues. Although the easiest approach is to
accommodate them within operational plans, there is scope for engaging with policy makers to
identify ways forward.
Originality/value – Many researchers have developed supply chain uncertainty models focusing
mainly on manufacturing. Transport has traditionally been considered as a marginal activity within
supply chains and it has not been explicitly taken into account in those frameworks. It is necessary to
determine the forms of supply chain uncertainty that exist and their impact on transport operations,
as they will define the performance of logistics operations.
Keywords Supply chain management, Focus groups, Risk management, Transport management,
Uncertainty management
Paper type Research paper

Introduction The International Journal of Logistics

Managers require a broad view of the role and responsibilities of transport in an Management
Vol. 21 No. 1, 2010
integrated supply chain (Stank and Goldsby, 2000). Given that transport often connects pp. 45-64
companies to their customers, effective transport operations can enable the delivery of # Emerald Group Publishing Limited
0957-4093
customer value. Hence, integration at all levels is essential to improving supply chain DOI 10.1108/09574091011042179
IJLM performance (Stank and Goldsby, 2000; Mason and Lalwani, 2006). Uncertainty in the
supply chain, in the form of process and system variances, is an obstacle to the
21,1 effective management and control of operations (Mason-Jones and Towill, 1998).
Many researchers have developed supply chain uncertainty models focusing mainly
on manufacturing. Transport has traditionally been considered as a marginal activity
within supply chains (Stank and Goldsby, 2000) and it has not been explicitly taken
into account in those frameworks. It is necessary to determine the forms of supply
46 chain uncertainty that exist and their impact on transport operations, as they will
define the performance of logistics operations.
Uncertainty increases the risk within supply chains, and risk is a consequence of the
external and internal uncertainties that affect a supply chain. Our aim is to verify a
transport uncertainty triad model taking a supply chain perspective, and determine
which different forms of uncertainty impact on transport operations. At this stage of the
research, we aim to qualitatively evaluate the different types of uncertainty impacting on
transport operations rather than estimating the risk that each of them involved. In
developing this model, reference is made to the logistics triad concept, involving a
shipper, customer and logistics provider (or carrier). It has been argued that this is the
minimum unit of analysis required in supply chains (Beier, 1989). The verification
process adopts a focus group approach involving experts from the UK logistics industry.
The paper proceeds by presenting a synthesis of the recent research works in
manufacturing, transport and supply chain uncertainty. After that, the method
deployed to undertake the research is explained. Subsequently, the findings are
presented and the different uncertainties found in the research are mapped into the
conceptual model. Finally, we conclude the paper by highlighting the managerial
implications and limitations of the research.

Supply chain risk, vulnerability, and uncertainty

According to Van der Vorst and Beulens (2002), ‘‘Supply chain uncertainty refers to
decision making situations in the supply chain in which the decision maker does not
know definitely what to decide as he is [unclear] about the objectives; lacks information
about its environment or the supply chain; lacks information processing capacity; is
unable to accurately predict the impact of possible control actions on supply chain
behaviour; or, lacks effective control actions’’. In terms of sources of uncertainty, Davis
(1993) stated, ‘‘there are three distinct sources of uncertainty that plague supply chains:
suppliers, manufacturing, and customers. To understand fully the impact on customer
service and to be able to improve performance, it is essential that each of these to be
measured and addressed’’.
Risk is a function of outcome and probability and hence it is something that can be
estimated. If the probability that an event could occur is low but the outcome of that
event can have a highly detrimental impact on the supply chain, the occurrence of that
event represents a considerable risk for the chain. Uncertainty occurs when decision
makers cannot estimate the outcome of an event or the probability of its occurrence.
However, uncertainty increases the risk within supply chains, and risk is a
consequence of the external and internal uncertainties that affect a supply chain.
The optimum distribution network design is most at risk due to the uncertainties
associated with stock holding costs and delivery frequencies rather than customer
volume changes and transport tariffs (Lalwani et al., 2006). Increases in the
uncertainties in supply and demand, globalisation, reduction in product and
technology life cycles, and the use of outsourcing in manufacturing, distribution, and
logistics resulting in more complex supply networks, can lead to higher exposure to Uncertainty in
risks in the supply chain (Christopher and Lee, 2004). Haywood and Peck (2004) logistics
highlight that ‘‘a number of managerial trends including JIT delivery, supplier
rationalisation programmes and widespread outsourcing of non-core activities have all operations
served to increase the efficiency of supply networks’’, but at the same time, ‘‘there are
concerns that these measures appear to have increased supply chain vulnerability’’
(Svensson, 2000; McGillivray, 2000). All these supply chain measures are very often
imposed by the entity with the most power in the supply chain. For example, ‘‘the
47
retailer’s dominance over the manufacturer increases with the increase in the sensitivity
of retailer’s order quantity to manufacturer’s wholesale price under a limitation of retail-
market demand uncertainty’’ (Hua and Li, 2008). More recently, Peck (2009) established
that one of the main causes of supply chain risk is that business contingency planning
tends to extend only as far as the ability of an organisation to maintain its own core
operations under otherwise normal external conditions. Also, Rossi (2009) determined
that a more centralised network could present lower risks in several regards, such as
technology, supply chain, process, demand, and risk of exposition.
The transport uncertainties in the supply chain can increase risk and vulnerability.
This paper aims to evaluate the causes of supply chain uncertainty in transport
operations by applying the transport triad uncertainty model as a diagnostic tool rather
than a risk mitigation tool. In the next section, we explain how we developed this model.

Transport and supply chain uncertainty

A great deal of research has been undertaken on uncertainty in supply chain
management and particularly manufacturing. However, little research has been
undertaken including transport operations as a strategic member of the supply chain,
with hardly any work on the impact of uncertainty on transport operations within
supply chains. This part of the paper intends to define the existing gaps in the
literature regarding uncertainty within the logistics triad.
From the work of Davis (1993), Mason-Jones and Towill (1998) develop the
uncertainty circle model (see Figure 1), defining the different sources of uncertainty that
affect manufacturing operations. In doing so, they add one more source of uncertainty,
the control system. Furthermore, they emphasise that uncertainty initiated in the supply
side and manufacturing process can be mitigated by the application of lean-thinking
principles, but uncertainty caused by control systems and demand side requires
understanding of the dynamics of the whole supply chain (Mason-Jones and Towill,

Figure 1.
Uncertainty circles model
IJLM 1998). The recent body of work on supply risk and vulnerability has added an important
21,1 new dimension of exogenous events to the Uncertainty Circle (Peck et al., 2003).
Another framework that takes uncertainty into account is the SCOR model (Supply
Chain Council, 2005). In similar vein to Mason-Jones and Towill (1998), this model
includes the supplier side as ‘‘source’’, the manufacturing process as ‘‘make’’ and the
demand side as ‘‘deliver’’. It considers the logistics network concept by introducing the
48 repetitive source-make-deliver sequences. Furthermore, the model extends the ‘‘make’’
dimension by introducing the concept of ‘‘value adding’’. However, as with the
Uncertainty Circle model (Mason-Jones and Towill, 1998), it does not explicitly consider
transport as a strategic supply chain process.
Subsequently, the Uncertainty Circle model has been extended and adapted. Van der
Vorst and Beulens (2002) develop a typology of supply chain uncertainty adding three
dimensions to each source of uncertainty: quantity, quality, and time. Geary et al. (2002)
identify the main issues associated with different types of uncertainty based on
research from the automotive sector. They link the causes and effects of uncertainty or
supply chain disruption, such as data errors or excess variances. Furthermore, Peck et
al. (2003) add a dimension of exogenous events to the uncertainty circle. This may
include government regulations, terrorism, industrial action, and disease outbreaks.
These external factors can have a considerable impact on transport flows, such as road
closures because of flooding, accidents, terrorist attacks, or other disastrous events.
Alternatively, government interventions in the form of taxation or regulations can
encourage businesses to change their core strategies.
On the basis of the aforementioned criticism regarding transport in these
uncertainty frameworks, Sanchez-Rodrigues et al. (2007) develop a logistics-focussed
uncertainty model. As shown in Figure 2, the Logistics Uncertainty Pyramid Model

Figure 2.
Logistics uncertainty
pyramid model
includes five uncertainty sources that can affect transport operations. This represents Uncertainty in
an evolution of the research of Mason-Jones and Towill (1998) and Peck (2001). The logistics
uncertainty types are defined as:
operations
. Shipper: any uncertainty originating from the sender of products in the logistics
triad, which directly impacts upon transport performance. These may relate to
raw material sourcing, the production process or the activities involved in the
despatch process. 49
. Customer: any uncertainty that is produced by the receiver of products.
Examples include forecasting and ordering products or any delivery restrictions
that the customer imposes.
. Carrier: any anomalies that can be originated from the carrier and directly affect
the delivery process, such as vehicle failure or a lack of drivers.
. Control systems: any problems caused by inadequate and fragmented ICT
systems within the logistics triad, or the lack of physical monitoring systems.
. External uncertainty: any disruption caused by exogenous factors that are not
under the control of the logistics triad, including congestion, labour shortages
and volatility of fuel prices.
This model is primarily conceptual and needs validation. Therefore, the opinions of
logistics practitioners and policy makers are sought in order to determine the models’
credibility and applicability. The aim of this paper is to refine the conceptual model
developed by Sanchez-Rodrigues et al. (2007), mapping the most relevant uncertainties
found by the focus groups into the Logistics Uncertainty Pyramid Model.

Method
A focus groups method was chosen to consult UK practitioners and policy makers
regarding uncertainty types and their impact on logistics operations. The focus group
methodology has received little attention in logistics research (New and Payne, 1995;
Frankel et al., 2005), despite a number of advantages:
. leads to innovation in business-problem solving (Bryman, 2001);
. a high degree of flexibility regarding the research plan and process (Krueger,
1998); and
. small groups being representative of a big population (Krueger, 1998).
However, Bryman (2001) highlighted the limitations of focus groups including less control
over proceedings, a time-consuming analysis process, and difficulties with facilitation.
Prior to developing the model, a methodological framework was formulated to
clarify how the uncertainty model will evolve through our research (see Figure 3). This

Figure 3.
Evolution of the logistics
triad uncertainty model
IJLM recognises that we aim to verify the logistics triad uncertainty model previously
21,1 developed by Sanchez-Rodrigues et al. (2008). In the future, it will be further developed
and validated through the application of research methods such as focus groups,
surveys, and case studies. The data obtained from such empirical research will be used
to develop, refine and validate the model, so that it can be used both in industry and for
further academic research.
In the planning stage, seven potential venues were chosen taking into account major
50 logistics flows and business locations within the UK. By taking account of the
geographical location of potential participants, we hoped to increase participation by
reducing their journey time and inconvenience. A similar approach is adopted by New
and Payne (1995), Dainty et al. (2001), and Giunipero and Eltantawy (2004). Locations
were determined as a pilot session in Birmingham, two sessions in London, two in
Nottingham, and one in Cardiff and Edinburgh. Postal invitations were sent to 156
potential participants from logistic-related companies (manufacturers, retailers, 3PLs,
and technology providers), trade associations, government bodies and logistics
consultancy companies. These were generally people known to the research team – such
an approach is common amongst the logistics research works that have applied the focus
group method including New and Payne (1995), Mangan and Christopher (2005) and
Cullen and Webster (2007). The postal invitations included information about the
research project, a personal invitation letter and a response form to confirm attendance.
Participants were allocated to a focus group depending on their workplace location.
Where two sessions were held, they were free to choose the date that suited them.
From the initial mailing, 26 positive responses were received. A follow-up process
was undertaken combined with the addition of 21 more invitees. This involved e-mail
and telephone contact with the invitees to encourage them to attend. As a result, the
final number of participants was 58, giving a response rate from 171 invites of 34 per cent.
This figure excludes those who committed to attend but were unable to do so on the
day. The aim was to have eight participants per focus group, as this represents the
optimum size according to (Krueger, 1998). In reality, the size of focus group varied
between 5 and 12 (Morgan, 1998).
In each focus group, the question posed was:
Which are the most important causes of uncertainty that inhibit effectiveness of your
transport operations?
When this question was asked, each participant wrote their suggestions on Post-It
notes, one comment per note. After that, each participant presented and discussed
individually their notes, while the other group members were encouraged to intervene
in the discussion so ideas may be developed further. In this discussion, participants
said why their selected uncertainty causes have a significant impact on their
operations. The group as a whole then categorised the individual Post-It notes into
clusters. We stated to the participants that, given the phrasing of the question posed,
we were assuming that the number of Post-It notes reflected each issue’s relative
importance. Although no one objected to this assumption, the facilitator ran a
discussion asking participants to confirm that the largest cluster represents the biggest
challenge for their operations and/or industrial sectors. The session ended with a
cause-and-effect exercise to determine the main root causes of these clusters. The
clusters form the main unit of analysis of this paper. Notes were taken by the research
team and complemented by audio recordings, to which all participants agreed prior to
the focus group commencing.
 After the focus groups, scripts for each session were produced from the notes and Uncertainty in
recordings. The data were synthesised using two-way tables to compare individual issues
with top-level clusters, uncertainty types, and sectors. Also, clusters were compared with
logistics
the type of participants to see to what extent the participants’ background may influence operations
their perceptions. The classification is based on that developed by the European Logistics
Users, Providers and Enablers Group (ELUPEG)[1]. However, to avoid clusters becoming
too large, we disaggregate this categorisation into the following:
51
. Shipper: an organisation which ships products to a wide range of external
customers.
. Customer: a business that receives products from a wide range of shippers. They
may also have a distribution network internal to the company.
. Provider: companies where the main business is the provision of transport and
logistics services.
. Enabler: a company that provides technology or consultancy to facilitate the
movements of goods.
. Trade body: an organisation that represents a number of businesses from a
particular sector.
. Policy maker/influencer: government and other bodies that affect the external
environment within which transport operates.
Table I shows the breakdown of participants into these different categories.
Generally, when the focus groups methodology is applied, theory saturation is
reached after the fifth session (Morgan and Krueger, 1997). To confirm theory saturation,
the Post-It exercise was analysed. Figure 4(a) shows that the number of new issues raised

Supply chain role Number of participants Percentage of participants

Shipper 16 27
Customer 5 9
Provider 11 19
Enabler 9 15
Trade body 12 21 Table I.
Policy maker/influencer 5 9 Breakdown of focus
Total 58 100 group participants

Figure 4.
Theory saturation of the
focus group sessions
IJLM (on individual Post-It notes) per participant does appear to tail off. However, when
21,1 looking at clusters (Figure 4(b)), there are no new clusters between the fourth and sixth
focus groups. But, the seventh focus group represent a slight exception as new sectors
were involved that had not previously contributed to the focus groups. They identified
issues unique to their industries. Overall, however, we can be confident as to the
reliability of the findings. Focus groups are conducted in series, so when a point of theory
saturation is reached the researcher can stop the data collection (Krueger, 1998), since the
52 researcher does not obtain new input from additional participants.

Uncertainty within logistics triad

The first part of the analysis considers the results as a whole. Rather than looking at
the individual Post-It notes, the clusters form the basic unit of analysis with the
number of Post-Its within them being used to determine the relative importance of
each. It is assumed that more Post-Its equates to a cluster being a bigger source of
uncertainty. In relation to the model presented in Figure 2, Table II shows the relative
importance of the five causes of uncertainty within transport operations. The scores
are based on the total number of Post-It notes for each generic source of uncertainty.
Post-Its are counted multiple times if the type of uncertainty can arise from more than
one cause. Overall, most causes of uncertainty an equally represented, with the
exception of control systems. The bias of attendees towards shippers accounts for this
source receiving a slightly lower number of Post-It notes. The rating of control systems
may reflect on the level of usage of technology within freight transport, which can
often be quite low (for example, see Davies et al., 2007). Alternatively, it may be that the
perception of attendees reflects more general views on freight transport that it is there
to react to the demands of the supply chain (Potter and Lalwani, 2008), and that the
information systems that generate these requirements are beyond the scope of the
logistics triad.
Rather than looking at the individual Post-It notes, the clusters form the basic unit
of analysis with the number of Post-Its within them being used to determine the
relative importance of each. It is assumed that more Post-Its equates to a cluster being
a bigger source of uncertainty. The relative importance of the clusters is depicted in
Figure 5. It can be seen that four main themes emerge – delays, demand and
information issues, delivery constraints, coordination – and represent about 60 per cent
of Post-It notes. The terminology for the clusters is based on the views of the focus
groups participants. Definition of these terms can be found in Table III. The individual
issues behind these main clusters will be discussed in more detail later in the paper.
Of the other clusters, rigid infrastructure, cost, supply chain integration and
technology together represent 20 per cent of the total number of issues. The lack of
flexibility of both road and rail infrastructure is considered a major barrier in
achieving journey time reliability. Meanwhile, the transport costs of the supply chain

Source of uncertainty Number of Post-It notes

Shipper 50
Carrier 73
Table II. Customer 74
The original sources of Control system 22
transport uncertainty External 65
 Uncertainty in
logistics
operations

53
Figure 5.
Issues causing
uncertainty in transport
operations

are primarily affected by labour and asset utilisation. Participants commented that the
lack of supply chain integration within the logistics triad can cause serious issues with
coordination and communication between partners, ultimately impacting upon delays.
Most of the participants stated that there is an evident gap between the technological
capabilities within the logistics triad. This can be expected because carriers cannot
possibly keep the same pace of technological changes as their partners, since they
often have financial pressures impeding new technology acquisitions.
Other clusters have less than ten occurrences. Legislation is considered a source of
external uncertainty for the logistics triad, but participants usually focus on the issues
that can be changed internally instead. On the other hand, the issues under complexity,
inventory management and communication were implicitly related with the other
themes that have more occurrences. Complexity increases if the level of supply chain
coordination is low, and if there are significant constraints in the delivery process.
Furthermore, a not managing inventory in a coordinated manner can have a negative
impact on the demand and information processes. However, a lack of communication
and supply chain integration can negatively influence the logistics triad coordination.
As well as considering the population as a whole, the results are also classified
according to the role of the participant within the supply chain. The results from this can
be found in Table IV. Considering the core members of the logistics triad first (shipper,
customer, provider), it can be seen that all three members place a strong emphasis on
delays as a cause of uncertainty. This reflects the direct impact that these have on
operations. Both shippers and customers identify demand and information issues as
important. These are the members of the triad that would be affected more by these
types of issues. In contrast, shippers and providers also identify delivery constraints as
another important factor. It may be that because the constraints are often imposed by the
customer, they do not perceive them to impact upon their operations.
From the remaining classifications, enablers particularly identify coordination as an
issue. This reflects the fact that many of the companies within this cluster provide
software and other services linked to the coordination of supply chains. Therefore, they
are perhaps more likely to identify issues in this area. However, it could also be that,
because they sit outside the supply chain but have a view of all operations, they can
identify issues that those more involved in the operations cannot see. Many of the trade
bodies represent the freight transport industry, and therefore identify delays as a
significant cause of uncertainty. As with enablers, they can also take a broader view of
transport operations and therefore see infrastructure issues that do not affect
 54
21,1

groups
IJLM

Table III.

according to focus
Definitions of clusters
Cluster Definition

Delays Delays occur when a delivery process takes place later than scheduled. Delays are mostly caused by three
factors: road network congestion, supply disruptions, and operational problems in unloading and loading
Demand and information issues The demand from customers may be highly volatile and sudden changes may occur due to seasonality and
unexpected promotions. The main causes of this include demand volatility, poor demand forecast accuracy
and lack of information visibility
Delivery constraints Delivery constraints are restrictions in the delivery process that can limit normal transport operations.
Delivery constraints are a result of three main factors: delivery curfews at the customer facilities, restricted
delivery windows imposed by the customer, and limited storage capacity at the customer depots
Lack of coordination Uncertainty occurs when the logistics triad processes are not properly synchronised, the communication and
information flow is not effective. The main factors that cause a lack of coordination within the triad are high
customer demand for transport flexibility, disconnections between sales and logistics departments at the
company level and lack of integration between carriers and customers
Rigid infrastructure The infrastructure of the road and rail network is not flexible in the short term and so inhibits the
performance of transport. Rigid infrastructure can occur at company, supply chain and macro-level
Supply chain integration Integration within the logistics triad allows a holistic planning and execution of all the logistics triad
activities in the transfer of information and materials flow. Insufficient supply chain integration lessens the
visibility and transparency of information within the triad
Cost Cost uncertainty relates to staff and asset utilisation. Macro problems like driver shortages, volatility of fuel
prices and congestion charges can considerably affect cost. Internally, companies have operational issues that
negatively impact on cost as well
Technology The logistics triad members can have different levels of technology capability causing unavoidable
operational distortions in the information and communication flow and problems in the delivery process
Legislation Legislation determines the basic rules of the transport sector in the UK. It must be sufficiently flexible so
companies do not have constraints in terms of staff and assets. However, legislation can impose restrictions
on logistics companies that can affect as usual trends
Complexity Complexity can increase if there are many variables involved in the delivery process, leading to uncertainty.
Causes include different and diverse requirements from customers and drop deliveries to diverse portfolio of
customers
Inventory management issues An ineffective and fragmented inventory management approach can cause operational problems in transport
originating from a lack of stock available within the supply chain, and sub-optimal inventory policies
imposed by the customers
(continued)
Cluster Definition

Lack of communication Poor communication within the logistics triad at all levels leads to information uncertainty within the
logistics triad. Serious operational problems can originate through:
. Lack of communication regarding delivery failure from carrier to customer
. Insufficient driver-carrier communication
. Communication errors between shipper and customer that cause delivery refusals
Returns Any operational issues originating from the reverse supply chain, including processes like recycling, return
of defective products and logistics equipment, and remanufacturing
Global-sourcing Global sourcing imposes a challenge to the logistics triad, since the high dispersion of raw materials
increase the length of the supply chain. Causes of uncertainty include operational problems of information
visibility, insufficient stock and quality of products
Lack of managerial vision In the company boardroom, there may not be a clear vision of the logistics consequences from strategic
decisions. Logistics as a strategic activity is not embedded in other areas such as Sales, Design and
Manufacturing
Inter-modal operations A lack of fit between different transport modes, e.g. rail and road, can cause operational problems in inter-
modal operations. Also, operational issues originating by rigid inter-modal facilities can cause problems in
the delivery process

Table III.
logistics
operations

55
Uncertainty in
 56
21,1
IJLM

chain role
Table IV.

based on supply
Comparison of clusters
Themes
Total
Supply number
chain Demand/ Delivery Rigid SC Inventory Global Inter- of Post-It
role Delays information constraints Coordination infrastructure integration Cost Technology Legislation Complexity management Communication Vision Returns sourcing modal notes

Shipper 19 22 14 4 2 5 5 2 3 3 4 3 1 2 3 3 95
Customer 8 10 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 29
Provider 8 2 7 5 1 1 1 4 1 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 33
Enabler 4 2 4 15 2 3 2 1 0 2 0 2 4 1 0 0 42
Trade body 15 3 5 0 10 3 2 1 3 0 1 2 1 1 0 0 47
Policy
maker/
influencer 3 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 10
Total
number of
Post-It
notes 57 40 32 25 17 13 13 10 9 9 7 7 6 4 4 3 256
individual supply chains but do impact on the freight transport system as a whole. Uncertainty in
Finally, policy makers show a slight bias towards delays but there is insufficient data logistics
to draw meaningful conclusions.
operations
Causes of transport uncertainty
The above analysis reflects the clusters identified as the most important during the focus
groups. What is evident is that the sources of uncertainty emerge from throughout the
transport uncertainty model. The top three individual issues from the four largest
57
clusters are mapped onto the model to illustrate the impact of transport uncertainty. This
is shown in Figure 6, which provides greater depth in understanding to Table II and
Figure 4. Overall, the results suggest that suppliers, customers, and carriers should work
together more closely to identify these sources of uncertainty within their particular
supply chain and develop a plan together to address them. However, the biggest overall
contribution to uncertainty is congestion on the road network, which is beyond the scope
of the logistics triad. We now expand on the details for these four clusters, using the
focus group discussions to provide depth to the commentary.

Delays
Delays appear to be particularly important for shippers, customers, and providers, and
therefore affect all the triad members. Delays in the delivery process are caused by
disruptions in the supply chain processes, production, storage, shipping, and
transportation and unloading. Delays are considered the principal barrier in achieving

Figure 6.
Main uncertainty causes,
clusters and sources
IJLM a high level of delivery performance, since disruptions the supply chain processes have
a knock-on effect on transport reliability.
21,1 According to the focus groups participants, delays are mostly caused by three factors:
road network congestion, supply disruptions, and operational problems in unloading and
loading. Road network congestion is an external uncertainty source (see Figure 5) and
participants commented that it can be predictable in some cases but totally random and
unexpected in others. By applying routeing algorithms, the carrier can possibly predict
58 the expected congestion within the road transport network, so they can estimate the
fastest possible route. However, events such as accidents are not predictable at all,
although it was commented that their occurrence can be mitigated by the application of
GPS systems combined with the development of alternative plans regarding routeing.
Supply disruptions in the production and shipping process can have a negative
impact on the delivery process as well. This type of disruptions mostly occurs at the
shipper. This is more evident when the supplier is located overseas, so there is less
control over quality measures and delivery of overseas operations. Therefore, supply
disruption can be mitigated by developing a tight relationship with the shipper. On the
other hand, delays can originate in the unloading and loading process at both the
shipper and customer. Problems at unloading and loading facilities within the logistics
triad can be initiated by, for example, the unavailability of staff or unsuitable facilities
for loading and unloading.
In the cause-and-effect exercise, as shown in Figure 7, the focus group participants
concluded that this uncertainty cluster is due to a general lack of awareness at the
Sales Department of the transport process. So, when a new contract is signed and
agreed the targets and responsibilities that the carrier have are decided without having
a clear framework in terms of key performance indicators (KPIs) to monitored and
control the delivery process. This is the reason why usually there is not adequate

Figure 7.
Findings from the cause-
and-effect exercise
pricing model to charge the customer and shipper for inefficiencies, e.g. delays at Uncertainty in
loading and unloading bays, in the delivery process generated by them. logistics
Demand and information issues operations
This theme was considered the second most important barrier to achieving a high level
of logistics performance. Most of the group participants affected by this theme are
from shippers and customers, with 22 and ten occurrences, respectively (Figure 5). 59
These numbers are disproportionate to the number of attendees from these triad
members in the focus groups. In many of the suppliers that took part in the focus
groups, the demand from customers is highly volatile and suddenly changes due to
seasonality factors and unexpected promotions. Also, sub-optimal inventory policies
that do not include transport can increase dramatically the delivery frequency, and
consequently the likelihood of failure within the delivery process.
Demand and information issues originate from volatility of customer demand,
insufficient demand forecast accuracy, lack of information visibility, and sub-optimal
inventory policies imposed by the customer (Figure 5). Seasonality factors like the
weather can have a considerable impact on demand volatility, but unnecessary
promotions set by the customer can also produce sudden changes in the demand trend.
This can cause unexpected short-notice extra transport deliveries or last minute
cancellations of previously agreed loads. Meanwhile, insufficient information visibility
can reduce the accuracy of demand, increasing the levels of safety stocks at the shipper
and the number of unnecessary transport movements. Insufficient demand accuracy
can have a knock-on effect on the demand volatility of transport regarding volume.
In addition, a sub-optimal inventory policy designed by the customer without
including transport operations into the equation can increase the frequency of deliveries.
Therefore, the demand for transport artificially rises, adding an extra variable to the
complexity involved in the delivery process. This can have a negative impact on
transport utilisation and increase costs. Although one participant particularly identified
just-in-time as a cause of this, a more general view was that transport is often ignored in
inventory management. However, participants commented that this uncertainty can
potentially be mitigated by the implementation of horizontal integration initiatives, such
as inventory and transport consolidation either by the shippers or the carriers.
As depicted in Figure 7, the findings from the cause-and-effect exercise regarding
the root cause(s) of variable demand and/or inaccurate forecast were that this
uncertainty cluster occurs primarily because of insufficient coordination and
communication in the process of demand management and volume forecast within the
logistics triad. However, participants agree that there is not enough coordination and
communication within the logistics triad due to the fact that customers and shippers
are not properly penalised or charged for the volume forecast inaccuracy and/or late-
notification of extra volumes. In particular, there is not an appropriate pricing model
that can encourage them to provide the carrier with accurate and timely information on
the volumes to be moved.

Delivery constraints
Delivery constraints are restrictions in the delivery process that can limit normal
transport operations. They usually occur at the customer facilities, but sometimes
happen at the shipper’s facilities. Delivery constraints are considered by participants
the third most significant barrier in transport operations, since they can restrict the
IJLM unloading processes, causing queues that potentially delay the return of vehicles to
other loading points.
21,1 Delivery constraints are a result of three main factors: delivery curfews at the
customer facilities, tight delivery windows imposed by the customer, and limited
storage capacity at the customer depots (Figure 5). As with road network congestion,
delivery curfews are an external uncertainty source. Examples of the reasons for
delivery curfews include security issues with inventory and delivery drivers
60 (particularly with early morning and late night deliveries), or due to local restrictions
imposed to improve the quality of life for local residents. Limited storage capacity at
the customer distribution centres and stores restricts the volume of the delivery and
increases the delivery frequency, and as a consequence, the number of vehicles arriving
to storage points. This can encourage tighter and tighter delivery windows.
Six participants agreed that the tight delivery windows that the customer imposes on
carriers and shippers have a negative effect on the overall transport costs. They cause
excessive queuing time for vehicles. This increases the transport costs due to the idle
time of vehicle and drivers waiting for unloading. Delivery windows can also have a
knock-on effect on transport performance since transport journeys usually occur in
series. But participants felt that the negative effect of delivery windows can be mitigated
by tighter coordination from the customer side to increase synchronisation between
carriers, and greater levels of feedback information from the carrier to the customer.
According to the results of the cause-and-effect exercise presented in Figure 7,
delivery constraints are not mitigated appropriately due to the fact that generally
customers do not undertake a proper review of locality to asses the existent delivery
constraints at loading bays located in restricted areas. The only response that
customers have to mitigate delivery constraints are very tight delivery windows that
cause excessive queues and delays at distribution centres. The focus group
participants agreed that that occur due to the fact that the supply chain relationships
between customers and carriers or shippers are not very good.

Lack of coordination
A lack of coordination within the logistics triad and at the individual-company level
can cause disruptions in the delivery process. However, if there is a high level of
coordination within the triad, it can represent the principal enabler in reducing
uncertainty. Lack of coordination as a theme represents just over 10 per cent of the total
frequency from participants and particularly from enablers.
The main factors that cause a lack of coordination within the triad are high customer
demand for transport flexibility, functional barriers between sales and logistics
departments at the company level and lack of integration between carriers and
customers (Figure 5). In many of the industrial sectors represented, customers require a
high level of transport flexibility. This adds one more variable to the already complex
transport process, so tighter coordination is needed to mitigate the complexity. Moreover,
some participants felt that transport is not integrated in strategic processes, and the level
of communication within the triad is restricted because the carrier is usually a servant
rather than truly a partner. This occurs because within the carrier the sales department
is often disconnected of the logistics function, sales negotiate new contracts without
taking account of the logistics consequences of them. An example was given where the
sales department agrees loose and unachievable contracts with the customer and raises
the customer’s expectations regarding the level of transport service, and then the
logistics function fails to fulfil its expectations. However, a tight contract from the
beginning of the partnership can enable high levels of integration and coordination Uncertainty in
within the logistics triad. logistics
As Figure 7 shown, according to the findings of the cause-and-effect exercise, as
mentioned previously, the focus group participants concluded that the main factor that operations
contributes to insufficient coordination within the logistics triad is absence of an
appropriate pricing model to encourage more coordination and communication within
the supply chain, since the supply chain relationships between carriers, customers, and 61
shippers are not at the necessary state of maturity and trust.

Managerial implications
Although the participants in the focus groups were predominantly from the UK,
the research has identified a number of issues in relation to uncertainty within
transport operations. From this, it is possible to identify some generic managerial
implications. The research has highlighted the importance of looking at the whole of
the logistics triad when dealing with uncertainty as often there are multiple sources
involving the shipper, carrier, and customer. Equally, the research has highlighted
the importance of external factors and managers need to consider how to deal with
these issues. Although the easiest approach is to accommodate them within
operational plans, there is scope for engaging with policy makers to identify ways
forward. Indeed, the policy makers who did participate in the focus groups commented
that they found it beneficial to learn more about the challenges facing the logistics
industry.
Another issue that is becoming important for managers today is the issue of the
environment. Although this was not explicitly discussed within the focus groups, there
are clear links between efficiency and environmental impact. McKinnon (2007)
identifies the key factors that convert product volumes into transport demand. A
number of these factors are clearly influenced by the uncertainty issues identified, such
as (but not limited to):
. number of links in the supply chain – connected to inventory management
policies;
. modal split – influenced by the rigidity of infrastructure and delays within each
mode;
. average load – affected by delivery constraints for multiple drop deliveries;
. average percentage empty running – affected by delays; and
. fuel efficiency – affected by delays.
By focussing on the sources of uncertainty within the logistics triad, companies can
address the root causes of issues, rather than trying to optimise their response based
upon current constraints.
In enabling the above actions, the Logistics Uncertainty Pyramid Model is a tool
that can be applied to identify issues leading to uncertainty and their sources. As
demonstrated through Figure 5, issues can be mapped against their original sources
and from this an improvement plan targeting the appropriate areas can be developed.
Therefore, it can help senior managers and policy makers to identify the main root
causes of the barriers that impede economic and environmental sustainability in
logistics.
IJLM Conclusions and future research
There are four main causes of uncertainty in transport operations – delays, variable
21,1 demand/poor information, delivery constraints, and a lack of coordination. We can
conclude that the root causes of delays and variable demand/poor information is the
absence of an appropriate pricing mechanism through which customers could be
charge and/or penalise for their delays that they originate and their volume inaccuracy
and/or late notification of volume increases. Also, delivery constraints are not properly
62 reviewed locally at unloading destinations and there is generally insufficient
coordination and communication within the logistics triad since the relationships
between carriers, customers, and shippers are far from an ideal state of maturity and
trust. According to our findings, delays are the most important cause of uncertainty for
transport operations, which might be considered an intuitive result, but this research
shows its frequency relative to other issues. The consequence of these is to reduce the
efficiency of transport operations. Also, in the overall focus groups data, road
congestion represents the biggest individual issue leading to uncertainty. Although
congestion due to road works and peak traffic flows can be incorporated into transport
planning, unplanned congestion (for example, due to an accident) leads to greater
disruption. The challenge for transport providers is to mitigate the impact of this
unplanned congestion without impacting significantly on the efficiency of their
operations.
In terms of the sources of uncertainty, most issues arise from the shipper, carrier,
customer, or external environment. Only a limited number of issues relating to control
systems were raised. This is surprising given that control systems are likely to have a
major influence in determining the level of transport demand, and perhaps reflects the
lack of integration of transport operations with the rest of the supply chain. In looking
at individual roles within the supply chain, enablers particularly identify lack of
coordination as a major issue, whereas members of the logistics triad were more
concerned with operational issues. However, integration within the triad may enable
businesses to address these more effectively.
Our model has been refined based only on participants’ perceptions. As we said in
the method section, further empirical-based research is needed to quantitatively
validate it, for each cluster identifying the frequency with which it occurs and the
impact on economic and environmental performance. This will further strengthen our
understanding of the main uncertainty causes within supply chains in the UK. Those
internal to the logistics triad can be addressed while external issues need to be
accommodated, so methods for achieving both of these need to be identified through
the research. Furthermore, given the importance industry has attached to road
congestion, new and novel approaches enabling transport planning to respond to
unpredictable congestion needs to be developed, with minimal impact on both
environmental and economic performance.
At this stage of the research, the model has been refined through the application of
the focus group method. The main aim of this stage of the research was to explore
which are the main causes of supply chain uncertainty that impact on transport
operations rather than provide a comprehensive list of all uncertainties. The model
needs to be verified through the application of the survey method, so potential
participating companies can give frequency and impact scores to each uncertainty
causes found in the focus groups. The model should also be tested through the
investigation of real-world situations, measuring the marginal impact, in terms of
unnecessary miles, and probability of the supply chain uncertainty causes derived from
the focus groups. Moreover, the transport uncertainty model needs to be incorporated Uncertainty in
within a wider business process re-engineering approach to proactively develop and
evaluate solutions to reduce transport uncertainty within supply chains.
logistics
operations
Note
1. European Logistics Users Providers & Enablers Group (ELUPEG), available at:
www.elupeg.com/
63
References
Beier, F. (1989), ‘‘Transportation contracts and the experience effect: a framework for future
research’’, Journal of Business Logistics, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 73-89.
Bryman, A. (2001), Social Research Methods, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Christopher, M. and Lee, H. (2004), ‘‘Mitigating supply chain risk through improved confidence’’,
International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, Vol. 34 No. 5,
pp. 388-96.
Cullen, A.J. and Webster, M. (2007), ‘‘A model of B2B e-commerce based on connectivity and
purpose’’, International Journal of Operations and Production Management, Vol. 27 No. 2,
pp. 205-25.
Dainty, A.R.J., Millett, S.J. and Briscoe, G.H. (2001), ‘‘New perspectives of construction supply
chain integration’’, Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, Vol. 6 No. 4,
pp. 163-73.
Davies, I., Mason, R. and Lalwani, C. (2007), ‘‘Assessing the impact of ICT on UK general haulage
companies’’, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 106 No. 1, pp. 12-27.
Davis, T. (1993), ‘‘Effective supply chain management’’, Sloan Management Review, Summer,
pp. 35-46.
Frankel, R., Naslund, D. and Bolumole, Y. (2005), ‘‘The ‘‘white space’’ of logistics research: a look
at the role of methods usage’’, Journal of Business Logistics, Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 185-208.
Geary, S., Childerhouse, P. and Towill, D. (2002), ‘‘Uncertainty and the seamless supply chain’’,
Supply Chain Management Review, July/August, pp. 52-61.
Giunipero, L.C. and Eltantawy, R.A. (2004), ‘‘Securing the upstream supply chain: a risk
management approach’’, International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics
Management, Vol. 34 No. 9, pp. 698-713.
Haywood, M. and Peck, H. (2004), ‘‘Supply chain vulnerability within UK aerospace
manufacturing: development of a vulnerability management toolkit’’, Supply Chain
Practice, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 72-83.
Hua, Z. and Li, S. (2008), ‘‘Impacts of demand uncertainty on retailer’s dominance and
manufacturer-retailer supply chain cooperation’’, Omega, Vol. 36, pp. 697-714.
Krueger, R.A. (1998), Focus Groups: A Practical Guide for Applied Research, Sage Publications,
London.
Lalwani, C., Disney, S. and Naim, M. (2006), ‘‘On assessing the sensitivity uncertainty in
distribution network design’’, International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics
Management, Vol. 36 No. 1, pp. 5-21.
Mangan, J. and Christopher, M. (2005), ‘‘Management development and the supply chain manager
of the future’’, International Journal of Logistics Management, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 178-91.
McGillivray, G. (2000), ‘‘Commercial risk under JIT’’, Canadian Underwriter, Vol. 67 No. 1, pp. 26-30.
McKinnon, A. (2007), ‘‘CO2 emissions from freight transport in the UK’’, report prepared for the
Climate Change Working Group of the Commission for Integrated Transport, available at:
www.cfit.gov.uk/docs/2007/climatechange/index.htm (accessed 11 February 2008).
IJLM Mason, R.J. and Lalwani, C. (2006), ‘‘Transport integration tools for supply chain management’’,
International Journal of Logistics: Research and Applications, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 57-74.
21,1 Mason-Jones, R. and Towill, D. (1998), ‘‘Shrinking the supply chain uncertainty circle’’, Control,
September, pp. 17-22.
Morgan, D.L. (1998), Focus Groups as Qualitative Research, Sage Publications, London.
Morgan, D.L. and Krueger, R.A. (1997), The Focus Group Kit, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks,
64 CA.
New, J. and Payne, P. (1995), ‘‘Research frameworks in logistics – three models, seven dinners and
a survey’’, International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, Vol. 25
No. 10, pp. 60-77.
Peck, H. (2009), ‘‘Resilience in the food service sector supply chain networks’’, Proceedings of the
14th International Symposium on Logistics, Istanbul, Turkey, 5-9 July, pp. 230-6.
Peck, H., Abley, J., Christopher, M., Haywood, M., Saw, R., Rutherford, C. and Strathern, M. (2003),
Creating Resilient Supply Chains: A Practical Guide, Cranfield University, Cranfield.
Potter, A. and Lalwani, C. (2008), ‘‘Investigating the impact of demand amplification on freight
transport’’, Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Vol. 44
No. 5, pp. 835-46.
Rossi, S. (2009), ‘‘Supply chain risk management: a network perspective’’, Proceedings of the 14th
International Symposium on Logistics, Istanbul, 5-9 July, pp. 214-20.
Sanchez-Rodrigues, V., Stantchev, D., Potter, A., Naim, M.M. and Whiteing, A. (2008),
‘‘Establishing a transport operation focussed uncertainty model for the supply chain’’,
International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, Vol. 38 No. 5,
pp. 388-411.
Stank, T.P. and Goldsby, T.J. (2000), ‘‘A framework for transportation decision making in an
integrated supply chain’’, Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, Vol. 5 No. 2,
pp. 71-7.
Supply Chain Council (2005), Supply Chain Operations Reference Model – Version 7.0, Supply
Chain Council, Cypress, TX.
Svensson, G. (2000), ‘‘A conceptual framework for the analysis of vulnerability in supply chains’’,
International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, Vol. 30 No. 9,
pp. 731-49.
Van der Vorst, J. and Beulens, A. (2002), ‘‘Identifying sources of uncertainty to generate supply
chain redesign strategies’’, International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics
Management, Vol. 32 No. 6, pp. 409-30.

Further reading
Forza, C. (2002), ‘‘Survey research in OM: a process-based perspective’’, International Journal of
Operations and Production Management, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 152-94.
Frohlich, M.J. (2002), ‘‘Techniques for improving response rates in OM Survey’’, Journal of
Operations Management, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 53-62.

Corresponding author
Vasco Sanchez-Rodrigues can be contacted at: [email protected]

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: [email protected]

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints