The Journal of Business Logistics (JBL), published by the Council of Supply Chain Management Professionals (CSCMP), is recognized as one of the world's leading academic supply chain journals. But sometimes it may be hard for practitioners to see how the research presented in its pages applies to what they do on a day-to-day basis. To help bridge that gap, CSCMP's Supply Chain Quarterly challenges the authors of selected JBL articles to explain the real-world applications of their academic work.
THE ARTICLE
"Crowdsourcing Last Mile Delivery: Strategic Implications and Future Research Directions," by Vincent E. Castillo of The Ohio State University, John E. Bell of the University of Tennessee, William J. Rose of University College Dublin, and Alexandre M. Rodrigues of the University of Tennessee. Published in the December 2017 issue of the Journal of Business Logistics.
THE UPSHOT
As e-commerce sales continue to grow, last-mile delivery has become increasingly important to retailers. In response, many companies have started experimenting with "crowdsourced logistics" (CSL) to fulfill their customers' desire for fast, on-demand delivery. This sharing economy model patterns itself after ride-sharing services such as Uber or Lyft, but instead of transporting people, the drivers transport goods.
Because the sharing economy model is so new, it's not yet clear just how effective CSL is as a delivery strategy. For example, when companies work with a driver on an individual contract basis, they expose themselves to more risk and uncertainty than when they have a dedicated fleet of full-time drivers. That's because, under the sharing economy model, drivers manage their own schedules and work as long or as little as they desire. Therefore, companies cannot be certain of the supply of drivers that will be available to them at a particular time.
To get a better idea of how CSL compares to a dedicated fleet, the article's authors designed a simulation model of delivery services from an Amazon distribution center to 1,000 customer locations throughout New York City. The model compared the logistics effectiveness of a traditional dedicated fleet of delivery drivers to the use of crowdsourced logistics.
The article's lead author, Vince Castillo explained to Supply Chain Quarterly Executive Editor Susan K. Lacefield what the model revealed about crowdsourced logistics and how companies can apply these findings.
Why were you interested in studying crowdsourced logistics?
We wanted to study the last-mile delivery version of crowdsourced logistics for a few reasons. First, at that point in time, most of the academic literature was focused on the ridesharing model that moves people rather than goods, so there was an opportunity to try to build knowledge about and draw attention to this phenomenon that was emerging in practice. Second, the topic is one that we thought both practitioners and academics would be interested in. This meant that as long as we could develop a rigorous study, it would definitely have relevance, and both of those things are required to make worthwhile contributions. Finally, with the continued growth of e-commerce, the importance of last-mile delivery, and the impression that crowdsourced last-mile delivery could be a scalable solution, we felt this was a timely study to undertake.
Why did you decide to use a simulation model to look at the logistics effectiveness of crowdsourced logistics vs. a more traditional fleet of delivery drivers and vehicles?
Being such a novel innovation for delivery, we wanted to learn if and how CSL affects a shipper's last-mile strategy and more generally, its supply chain strategy. To answer these questions and to understand how and when CSL could be used in practice, we felt it was important to first understand the capabilities of a crowdsourced fleet in terms of logistics effectiveness. But for those capabilities to make any sense, we needed a comparative baseline, which is why we chose to think about CSL's effectiveness relative to a fleet of dedicated delivery agents. We were hoping to find differences in logistics effectiveness between the two fleet types that we could use to build middle-range theory about the contexts in which CSL might be used.
What results did the model show, and were any of them surprising to you?
We had some results that were somewhat counterintuitive and rather surprising. There are a number of differences between crowdsourced and dedicated fleet types that shippers have to consider when using CSL. We focused on one new variable in this study—the uncertainty in a supply of crowdsourced drivers that emanates from their autonomy. It's this autonomy of gig economy workers that intrigued us because it is common to all types of services that can be crowdsourced, so our findings could feasibly be more generalized. By looking first at the uncertainty in the availability of a supply of crowdsourced drivers, we expected that effectiveness in terms of total deliveries and on-time delivery rate would be lower for CSL than in a dedicated fleet of drivers across a number of delivery scenarios. Our hypotheses in these cases were mostly supported, and we confirmed that most of the time, dedicated is likely to be more effective than crowdsourced delivery.
However, when we increased delivery demand intensity (increasing the number of orders received and with less time between order receipts), we found that there were cases in which CSL was actually more effective than the dedicated fleet in terms of making more total deliveries. This was one of the surprising results because we expected that a dedicated fleet with known capacity and availability would always outperform the crowdsourced fleet comprised of amateurs who may or may not accept deliveries they're offered. It turns out though that when the fixed-size dedicated fleet reaches maximum utilization, additional delivery requests received beyond the capacity of that dedicated fleet are more likely to be late or even rejected, potentially meaning lost sales. Thus, fewer deliveries can be made because of the fixed capacity if the dedicated fleet is too busy. CSL, on the other hand, doesn't have the same upper boundary on its capacity, so a company could activate a crowdsourced fleet in the event demand starts rising above a certain level to respond in kind and perhaps not lose out on any sales.
How could practitioners apply your research?
I would say that practitioners interested in crowdsourcing last-mile delivery should recognize that this research highlights some of the nuance that they need to understand before employing this business model. CSL is not a panacea for last-mile delivery, and I don't recommend that anyone doing home delivery go and cancel their dedicated delivery contracts in favor of a fully crowdsourced last-mile strategy. However, there are other benefits, namely in the use of CSL as a backup plan to be able to serve delivery demand when it surges unexpectedly. That is, CSL appears to be a way of increasing agility and responsiveness in the last mile of the supply chain. Furthermore, CSL could also be used where delivery time windows are not critical to customer service—like in the case of online returns. These two applications need more research though, which we are currently undertaking.
For this particular study you looked at an Amazon distribution center in Manhattan. Do you think your results would have been significantly different if you had used a different kind of company or a different location?
Yes, and in fact, if you look at other types of companies that are crowdsourcing last-mile delivery, the product type seems to make a difference. For instance, shipping groceries and meals from local restaurants have been some of the more successful ventures, while a startup that crowdsourced flower delivery recently went out of business. Now there could be any number of reasons that the latter firm did not succeed, but the product seems to be important, namely because different products have different demand predictability, which affects intensity of on-demand delivery orders received.
I would also expect that in practice, CSL's effectiveness would differ across cities. For CSL to be somewhat reliable, you have to be near a population that is amenable to working in the gig economy. That mostly exists in large cities for the time being, although there are an increasing number of citizens from rural areas interested in working gig economy jobs. Furthermore, cities are designed differently with some being more conducive to logistics traffic than others as well as having different policies and regulations to account for. It's a question certainly worth exploring more deeply.
What do you see as the key takeaway message?
At first glance, it may seem like the draw of CSL is that it is cheaper than dedicated delivery, but this isn't necessarily the case. Companies typically guarantee an hourly wage or pay drivers by the mile on top of a per delivery wage. The primary benefit of CSL is actually increased agility, responsiveness, and flexibility in the last mile, which goes a long way to increasing repeat- purchase behavior and customer-service quality. Furthermore, crowdsourcing provides the potential for shippers to acquire a scalable last-mile delivery solution that has a much higher capacity than a dedicated fleet...if they can find the right formula that works for them.
Economic activity in the logistics industry expanded in November, continuing a steady growth pattern that began earlier this year and signaling a return to seasonality after several years of fluctuating conditions, according to the latest Logistics Managers’ Index report (LMI), released today.
The November LMI registered 58.4, down slightly from October’s reading of 58.9, which was the highest level in two years. The LMI is a monthly gauge of business conditions across warehousing and logistics markets; a reading above 50 indicates growth and a reading below 50 indicates contraction.
“The overall index has been very consistent in the past three months, with readings of 58.6, 58.9, and 58.4,” LMI analyst Zac Rogers, associate professor of supply chain management at Colorado State University, wrote in the November LMI report. “This plateau is slightly higher than a similar plateau of consistency earlier in the year when May to August saw four readings between 55.3 and 56.4. Seasonally speaking, it is consistent that this later year run of readings would be the highest all year.”
Separately, Rogers said the end-of-year growth reflects the return to a healthy holiday peak, which started when inventory levels expanded in late summer and early fall as retailers began stocking up to meet consumer demand. Pandemic-driven shifts in consumer buying behavior, inflation, and economic uncertainty contributed to volatile peak season conditions over the past four years, with the LMI swinging from record-high growth in late 2020 and 2021 to slower growth in 2022 and contraction in 2023.
“The LMI contracted at this time a year ago, so basically [there was] no peak season,” Rogers said, citing inflation as a drag on demand. “To have a normal November … [really] for the first time in five years, justifies what we’ve seen all these companies doing—building up inventory in a sustainable, seasonal way.
“Based on what we’re seeing, a lot of supply chains called it right and were ready for healthy holiday season, so far.”
The LMI has remained in the mid to high 50s range since January—with the exception of April, when the index dipped to 52.9—signaling strong and consistent demand for warehousing and transportation services.
The LMI is a monthly survey of logistics managers from across the country. It tracks industry growth overall and across eight areas: inventory levels and costs; warehousing capacity, utilization, and prices; and transportation capacity, utilization, and prices. The report is released monthly by researchers from Arizona State University, Colorado State University, Rochester Institute of Technology, Rutgers University, and the University of Nevada, Reno, in conjunction with the Council of Supply Chain Management Professionals (CSCMP).
Grocers and retailers are struggling to get their systems back online just before the winter holiday peak, following a software hack that hit the supply chain software provider Blue Yonder this week.
The ransomware attack is snarling inventory distribution patterns because of its impact on systems such as the employee scheduling system for coffee stalwart Starbucks, according to a published report. Scottsdale, Arizona-based Blue Yonder provides a wide range of supply chain software, including warehouse management system (WMS), transportation management system (TMS), order management and commerce, network and control tower, returns management, and others.
Blue Yonder today acknowledged the disruptions, saying they were the result of a ransomware incident affecting its managed services hosted environment. The company has established a dedicated cybersecurity incident update webpage to communicate its recovery progress, but it had not been updated for nearly two days as of Tuesday afternoon. “Since learning of the incident, the Blue Yonder team has been working diligently together with external cybersecurity firms to make progress in their recovery process. We have implemented several defensive and forensic protocols,” a Blue Yonder spokesperson said in an email.
The timing of the attack suggests that hackers may have targeted Blue Yonder in a calculated attack based on the upcoming Thanksgiving break, since many U.S. organizations downsize their security staffing on holidays and weekends, according to a statement from Dan Lattimer, VP of Semperis, a New Jersey-based computer and network security firm.
“While details on the specifics of the Blue Yonder attack are scant, it is yet another reminder how damaging supply chain disruptions become when suppliers are taken offline. Kudos to Blue Yonder for dealing with this cyberattack head on but we still don’t know how far reaching the business disruptions will be in the UK, U.S. and other countries,” Lattimer said. “Now is time for organizations to fight back against threat actors. Deciding whether or not to pay a ransom is a personal decision that each company has to make, but paying emboldens threat actors and throws more fuel onto an already burning inferno. Simply, it doesn’t pay-to-pay,” he said.
The incident closely followed an unrelated cybersecurity issue at the grocery giant Ahold Delhaize, which has been recovering from impacts to the Stop & Shop chain that it across the U.S. Northeast region. In a statement apologizing to customers for the inconvenience of the cybersecurity issue, Netherlands-based Ahold Delhaize said its top priority is the security of its customers, associates and partners, and that the company’s internal IT security staff was working with external cybersecurity experts and law enforcement to speed recovery. “Our teams are taking steps to assess and mitigate the issue. This includes taking some systems offline to help protect them. This issue and subsequent mitigating actions have affected certain Ahold Delhaize USA brands and services including a number of pharmacies and certain e-commerce operations,” the company said.
Editor's note:This article was revised on November 27 to indicate that the cybersecurity issue at Ahold Delhaize was unrelated to the Blue Yonder hack.
The new funding brings Amazon's total investment in Anthropic to $8 billion, while maintaining the e-commerce giant’s position as a minority investor, according to Anthropic. The partnership was launched in 2023, when Amazon invested its first $4 billion round in the firm.
Anthropic’s “Claude” family of AI assistant models is available on AWS’s Amazon Bedrock, which is a cloud-based managed service that lets companies build specialized generative AI applications by choosing from an array of foundation models (FMs) developed by AI providers like AI21 Labs, Anthropic, Cohere, Meta, Mistral AI, Stability AI, and Amazon itself.
According to Amazon, tens of thousands of customers, from startups to enterprises and government institutions, are currently running their generative AI workloads using Anthropic’s models in the AWS cloud. Those GenAI tools are powering tasks such as customer service chatbots, coding assistants, translation applications, drug discovery, engineering design, and complex business processes.
"The response from AWS customers who are developing generative AI applications powered by Anthropic in Amazon Bedrock has been remarkable," Matt Garman, AWS CEO, said in a release. "By continuing to deploy Anthropic models in Amazon Bedrock and collaborating with Anthropic on the development of our custom Trainium chips, we’ll keep pushing the boundaries of what customers can achieve with generative AI technologies. We’ve been impressed by Anthropic’s pace of innovation and commitment to responsible development of generative AI, and look forward to deepening our collaboration."
Businesses engaged in international trade face three major supply chain hurdles as they head into 2025: the disruptions caused by Chinese New Year (CNY), the looming threat of potential tariffs on foreign-made products that could be imposed by the incoming Trump Administration, and the unresolved contract negotiations between the International Longshoremen’s Association (ILA) and the U.S. Maritime Alliance (USMX), according to an analysis from trucking and logistics provider Averitt.
Each of those factors could lead to significant shipping delays, production slowdowns, and increased costs, Averitt said.
First, Chinese New Year 2025 begins on January 29, prompting factories across China and other regions to shut down for weeks, typically causing production to halt and freight demand to skyrocket. The ripple effects can range from increased shipping costs to extended lead times, disrupting even the most well-planned operations. To prepare for that event, shippers should place orders early, build inventory buffers, secure freight space in advance, diversify shipping modes, and communicate with logistics providers, Averitt said.
Second, new or increased tariffs on foreign-made goods could drive up the cost of imports, disrupt established supply chains, and create uncertainty in the marketplace. In turn, shippers may face freight rate volatility and capacity constraints as businesses rush to stockpile inventory ahead of tariff deadlines. To navigate these challenges, shippers should prepare advance shipments and inventory stockpiling, diversity sourcing, negotiate supplier agreements, explore domestic production, and leverage financial strategies.
Third, unresolved contract negotiations between the ILA and the USMX will come to a head by January 15, when the current contract expires. Labor action or strikes could cause severe disruptions at East and Gulf Coast ports, triggering widespread delays and bottlenecks across the supply chain. To prepare for the worst, shippers should adopt a similar strategy to the other potential January threats: collaborate early, secure freight, diversify supply chains, and monitor policy changes.
According to Averitt, companies can cushion the impact of all three challenges by deploying a seamless, end-to-end solution covering the entire path from customs clearance to final-mile delivery. That strategy can help businesses to store inventory closer to their customers, mitigate delays, and reduce costs associated with supply chain disruptions. And combined with proactive communication and real-time visibility tools, the approach allows companies to maintain control and keep their supply chains resilient in the face of global uncertainties, Averitt said.
Specifically, the new global average robot density has reached a record 162 units per 10,000 employees in 2023, which is more than double the mark of 74 units measured seven years ago.
Broken into geographical regions, the European Union has a robot density of 219 units per 10,000 employees, an increase of 5.2%, with Germany, Sweden, Denmark and Slovenia in the global top ten. Next, North America’s robot density is 197 units per 10,000 employees – up 4.2%. And Asia has a robot density of 182 units per 10,000 persons employed in manufacturing - an increase of 7.6%. The economies of Korea, Singapore, mainland China and Japan are among the top ten most automated countries.
Broken into individual countries, the U.S. ranked in 10th place in 2023, with a robot density of 295 units. Higher up on the list, the top five are:
The Republic of Korea, with 1,012 robot units, showing a 5% increase on average each year since 2018 thanks to its strong electronics and automotive industries.
Singapore had 770 robot units, in part because it is a small country with a very low number of employees in the manufacturing industry, so it can reach a high robot density with a relatively small operational stock.
China took third place in 2023, surpassing Germany and Japan with a mark of 470 robot units as the nation has managed to double its robot density within four years.
Germany ranks fourth with 429 robot units for a 5% CAGR since 2018.
Japan is in fifth place with 419 robot units, showing growth of 7% on average each year from 2018 to 2023.