Current advancements of and future developments for fourth party logistics in a digital future

Schramm, Hans-Joachim; Czaja, Carolin Nicole; Dittrich, Michael; Mentschel, Matthias Article Current advancements of and future developments for fourth party logistics in a digital future Logistics Provided in Cooperation with: MDPI – Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute, Basel Suggested Citation: Schramm, Hans-Joachim; Czaja, Carolin Nicole; Dittrich, Michael; Mentschel, Matthias (2019) : Current advancements of and future developments for fourth party logistics in a digital future, Logistics, ISSN 2305-6290, MDPI, Basel, Vol. 3, Iss. 1, pp. 1-17, https://doi.org/10.3390/logistics3010007 This Version is available at: https://hdl.handle.net/10419/310043 Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen: Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden. Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen. Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. Terms of use: Documents in EconStor may be saved and copied for your personal and scholarly purposes. You are not to copy documents for public or commercial purposes, to exhibit the documents publicly, to make them publicly available on the internet, or to distribute or otherwise use the documents in public. If the documents have been made available under an Open Content Licence (especially Creative Commons Licences), you may exercise further usage rights as specified in the indicated licence. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ logistics Article Current Advancements of and Future Developments for Fourth Party Logistics in a Digital Future Hans-Joachim Schramm 1,2,* , Carolin Nicole Czaja 1, Michael Dittrich 3and Matthias Mentschel 4 1Department of Global Business and Trade, Institute for Transport and Logistics Management, WU Wirtschaftsuniversität Wien, 1090 Wien, Austria; [email protected] 2Department for Operations Management, Copenhagen Business School, 2000 Frederiksberg, Denmark 3Accenture Strategy—Supply Chain Management ASG, Accenture, 8001 Zürich, Switzerland; [email protected] 4Accenture Strategy—Supply Chain Management ASG, Accenture, 80807 München, Germany; [email protected] *Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +43-1-31336-5891 Received: 31 December 2018; Accepted: 4 February 2019; Published: 11 February 2019   Abstract: This paper aims to analyze the potential future of the 4PL concept based on expert opinions with special regard to the influence of digitalization coming with a disruptive trans-formation of supply chains. Service arrangements, provider capabilities and benefits resulting from a 4PL partnership are compared in current and future configurations. The research follows an explorative mixed methods approach with semi-structured interviews followed by an expert panel. This builds a basis for an online survey questionnaire to inquire on important future aspects for the 4PL concept by a sample of respondents from multinational companies. Our results show a clear trend away from simply organizing transportation and logistics activities towards the provision of an IT platform as well as further value-added service activities such as planning, analytics and monitoring. Along with this, IT capabilities appear to be an important differentiator for 4PL providers in the future. Moreover, relationships between 4PL providers and their clients become closer and more strategic, which leads to a customer valuing not only direct cost reductions but rather improvements resulting from optimized operations through superior analysis and planning functions. Keywords: fourth-party logistics (4PL); digitalization; IT capabilities 1. Introduction About 20 years ago, Andersen Consulting (now Accenture) coined a novel concept of logistics outsourcing called fourth party logistics (4PL) as a modern solution to supply chain challenges [ 1 ]. This is complementing third party logistics (3PL) well established in the industry today with 3PL providers (3PLP) offering a large variety of standardized solutions [ 2 ]. Hence, 4PL providers (4PLP) are usually regarded to serve as an almost asset-free integrator between its clients and 3PLPs for managing complex supply chains [ 1 , 3 ]. Although studies at the early stages expected a high growth of the 4PL concept until 2010 [ 4 ], it has only gained significant attention in recent years with increasing importance [ 5 – 11 ]. Moreover, authors like [ 12 – 17 ] vaguely proclaim further developments towards higher levels of fifth party logistics (5PL) or even more, which may be merely speculation than real trends observed. However, there is an uprising trend of digitalization [ 18 ] coming along with a disruptive transformation of supply chains [ 19 ] and resulting in a change of product or service offering [ 20 , 21 ] which impacts significantly how organizations manage their boundaries [ 22 ]. This offers new Logistics 2019,3, 7; doi:10.3390/logistics3010007 www.mdpi.com/journal/logistics Logistics 2019,3, 7 2 of 17 opportunities for 4PLPs to benefit from better technological abilities for integration arise as IT advancements have been always identified to be an important driver in upcoming outsourcing developments [ 15 , 23 ] and an important success factor for 4PLPs [ 24 ]. Whereas the 4PL concept has been widely discussed in extant literature [ 7 ] and case studies from successful implementations are known (e.g., [ 8 , 15 , 25 – 36 ]), information on future configurations of the 4PL concept are rarely available and mainly focus on potential drivers for future development. This situation thrives to identify services future 4PLPs will offer along with benefits for their clients. The aim of this paper is to explore current advancements of the 4PL concept in practice and make predictions about how future 4PL configurations may evolve under the influence of digitalization. More specifically, we look at three areas directed at analyzing the adoption of 4PL services in practice today as well as the 4PL concept of the future. They are 4PL solutions (i.e., services offered by 4PLPs), 4PL providers (i.e., market environment of 4PLPs), 4PL customer benefits (i.e., benefits arising from using 4PL services along with its drawbacks) which form a conceptual framework under a mixed methods research design further elaborated in Section 2. In Section 3, we discuss our empirical results in the light of extant 4PL literature for better understanding of the aspects mentioned. Following this, conclusions and limitations as well as topics for future research are provided in Section 4. 2. Research Design Mangan et al. [ 37 ] point out the importance of using a combination of qualitative and quantitative methods in logistics research. Mixed methods approaches consequently allow for a sequential use of information to apply the results of one method for the design of another [ 38 ]. The methodology applied here is a sequential fully mixed methods design with a dominant status of the quantitative method [ 39 ] which can be briefly described as follows: exploratory qualitative methods in form of (1) semi-structured interviews, followed by (2) an expert panel were conducted in a discovery-oriented manner to reveal the direction and explicitly formulated research hypotheses for a latter quantitative part of the study in form of (3) a structured online survey. 2.1. Semi-Structured Interviews Semi-structured interviews generally allow gathering new insights while leaving open room for participants to go into detail about their understanding of a concept but also allow interviewers to guide interviewees and ask further questions [ 40 ]. Accordingly, the setup in our study were one-hour telephone semi-structured interviews with a set of predetermined open-ended questions clustered into topics of 4PL solutions, 4PL providers and 4PL customer benefits today and in the future (see Figure 1). Logistics 2019, 3, x FOR PEER REVIEW 2 of 17 advancements have been always identified to be an important driver in upcoming outsourcing developments [15,23] and an important success factor for 4PLPs [24]. Whereas the 4PL concept has been widely discussed in extant literature [7] and case studies from successful implementations are known (e.g., [8,15,25–36]), information on future configurations of the 4PL concept are rarely available and mainly focus on potential drivers for future development. This situation thrives to identify services future 4PLPs will offer along with benefits for their clients. The aim of this paper is to explore current advancements of the 4PL concept in practice and make predictions about how future 4PL configurations may evolve under the influence of digitalization. More specifically, we look at three areas directed at analyzing the adoption of 4PL services in practice today as well as the 4PL concept of the future. They are 4PL solutions (i.e., services offered by 4PLPs), 4PL providers (i.e., market environment of 4PLPs), 4PL customer benefits (i.e., benefits arising from using 4PL services along with its drawbacks) which form a conceptual framework under a mixed methods research design further elaborated in Section 2. In Section 3, we discuss our empirical results in the light of extant 4PL literature for better understanding of the aspects mentioned. Following this, conclusions and limitations as well as topics for future research are provided in Section 4. 2. Research Design Mangan et al. [37] point out the importance of using a combination of qualitative and quantitative methods in logistics research. Mixed methods approaches consequently allow for a sequential use of information to apply the results of one method for the design of another [38]. The methodology applied here is a sequential fully mixed methods design with a dominant status of the quantitative method [39] which can be briefly described as follows: exploratory qualitative methods in form of (1) semi-structured interviews, followed by (2) an expert panel were conducted in a discovery-oriented manner to reveal the direction and explicitly formulated research hypotheses for a latter quantitative part of the study in form of (3) a structured online survey. 2.1. Semi-Structured Interviews Semi-structured interviews generally allow gathering new insights while leaving open room for participants to go into detail about their understanding of a concept but also allow interviewers to guide interviewees and ask further questions [40]. Accordingly, the setup in our study were one-hour telephone semi-structured interviews with a set of predetermined open-ended questions clustered into topics of 4PL solutions, 4PL providers and 4PL customer benefits today and in the future (see Figure 1). Figure 1. Overview of question frame for semi-structured interviews. Figure 1. Overview of question frame for semi-structured interviews. Logistics 2019,3, 7 3 of 17 Furthermore, purposeful sampling was applied to select suitable interview candidates for these semi-structured interviews. Accordingly, interviewees from multinational companies were selected based on their experience with the 4PL concept. In total, eleven interviews were conducted with four participants from the 4PL client’s side; three from logistics service providers, three from IT providers and one from a consulting firm. While this number of participants is not very high, [ 38 ] argues that especially in a mixed methods setting, sample size of such a first qualitative study may be lower as it only should provide input for a subsequent quantitative study. Results from these semi-structured interviews were analyzed based on the six-step approach by [ 41 ], as the goal of our analysis was to find supra-individual aspects and generate interpretive patterns. This procedure resulted in a theoretical generalization in which inferences from systematically analyzed patterns can be drawn. In the end, we obtained a set of observed aspects of the 4PL concept, which were further discussed in an expert panel to formulate explicit research hypotheses for the second part of the study. 2.2. Expert Panel In the expert panel, results of our semi-structured interviews were presented in form of a workshop followed by an intensive discussion. As [ 40 ] pointed out, semi-structured group interviews (such as this expert panel), allow for gathering a large range of experiences, and are therefore specifically interesting for the purpose of reflection and verification. The expert panel consisted of four participants from the consulting company Accenture who have been working in the field of logistics consulting for many years. The sample can therefore be regarded as a convenience sample (cf. [ 42 ]). However, these experts have already participated in many business transformations and especially supported 4PL projects with different clients coming along with broad knowledge of current 4PL settings and market environments from various perspectives. The expert panel resulted in a further clarification on the possible future of the 4PL concept, a definition of future 4PL characteristics and a formulation of explicit research hypotheses for the second part of the study. Based on the results of the semi-structured interviews, information from literature as well as the knowledge of the experts, three research hypotheses evolved along with underlying constructs and factors to quantify them (see Table 1). Table 1. Overview of research hypotheses, constructs and factors for the structured online survey. Hypothesis Constructs Factors RH1: 4PL Solutions INT INTISH, INTEIS, INTEIC, INTIIN EDA EDAANA, EDAPLA, EDAMON RH2: 4PL Providers DIG DIGPRO, DIGCOM, DIGAUT ITC ITINFR, ITBUSP, ITPROA RH3: 4PL Customer Benefits SCC SCCUNC, SCCDIV, SCCSIZ MSC MSCUNC, MSCDIV, MSCSIZ Our first research hypothesis targets future 4PL solutions and especially focuses on end-to-end supply chain integration which was an important aspect mentioned by participants in the semi-structured interviews. In the expert panel, aspects of integration or connectivity were intensively discussed because the participants agreed that providing this sort of 4PL service is a difficult endeavor. Moreover, it was argued that it is crucial that a supply chain is integrated before further 4PL services can be provided. This is because only through integration, information from different supply chain partners is combined and available for analysis in the first place. Consequently, the first research hypothesis was formulated as: Research Hypothesis 1 (RH1). The ability to integrate supply chain partners will be the key success factor for future 4PLPs because it turns data into information and will drive all further 4PL services like analytics, planning and monitoring. Logistics 2019,3, 7 4 of 17 In other words, a 4PLP’s service of integration (INT) provides the basis for other 4PL services (EDA), thus, integration positively influences their evolution. To measure this 4PL service of integration (INT), four factors were selected based on [ 43 ]. According to them, the 4PLP’s ability to foster information sharing (INTISH), external integration of its client with suppliers (INTEIS) as well as customers (INTEIC) and the client’s internal integration (INTIIN) are important factors that determine the performance of supply chain integration. While according to [ 43 ] information sharing measures the ability of information exchange between the company, its suppliers and customers, external integration with both customers and suppliers refers to the level of partnership and acknowledgement of external actors as part of the supply chain. Contrarily, they pointed out that internal integration refers to the cross-functional integration of internal functions. In this case, the integration of 4PLP with its client is measured because the service of integration is provided to the client. In terms of further services of effective data analysis (EDA), the factors analytics (EDAANA), planning (EDAPLA), and monitoring (EDAMON) activities were regarded. These services are in line with aspects frequently mentioned in the semi-structured interviews before. While planning and control activities as well as monitoring and reporting were mentioned as part of the current 4PL portfolio, analytics was one of the most mentioned aspects mentioned for the 4PL future. Following Figure 1, our second research hypothesis deals then with future characteristics of 4PLPs. The most mentioned aspect for 4PLP capabilities seems to be IT competence. Furthermore, 90% of the interviewees considered digital technologies as one of the most important aspects for future 4PLPs, being able to provide and/or apply digital technologies highlights the importance of IT capabilities indicated by the participants of semi-structured interviews. The expert panel agreed with this notion and further argued that IT capabilities may be more difficult to achieve for players in the 4PL market than other capabilities. Moreover, this can be explained through an uprising trend of digitalization of the logistics industry, too, in which also connectivity plays an important role. Hence, to take into account the influence of digitalization on the restructuring of the 4PL market, the second research hypothesis is: Research Hypothesis 2 (RH2). The rise of automation and digitalization will result in IT capabilities being the most important differentiating factor for future 4PLPs. This implies that IT capabilities of 4PLPs (ITC) are positively influenced by an increasing adaption of automation and digitalization (DIG). The construct of digitalization (DIG) is broken down into three factors: digitalization of processes (DIGPRO), digitalization of communication (DIGCOM) as well as automation of processes (DIGAUT). The construct of IT competence of a 4PLP (ITC) includes then three factors according [ 44 ] focusing on three aspects that describe the IT capability of a company. First, IT capability includes a good IT infrastructure (ITINFR). This comprises of a standardized and integrated platform for accurate and effective information gathering and sharing. Secondly, IT business spanning capability is mentioned (ITBUSP) and this aspect focuses on the ability for business partnerships and synergies. Lastly, the factor of IT proactive stance (ITPROA) is addressed, which coins at the company using resources for new business opportunities and especially focuses on the company’s ability to drive IT innovation. Our third research hypothesis considers the customer benefits that arise from using a 4PL service. The aspect mentioned most in the semi-structured interviews were operational improvements together with improvements from enhanced IT and data analysis. Operational improvements can result from different services a 4PLP offers. The result of the expert panel was to focus on the area of supply chain complexity as the management of this complexity may result in distinct improvements in the client’s operations. Scholars argued that a 4PL model can highly benefit a customer by reducing its logistics or supply chain complexity [ 24 , 45 , 46 ]. Moreover, Saglietto and Cézanne [ 7 ] found solving complex problems to be one of the main 4PL characteristics in their bibliometric analysis. This is why this Logistics 2019,3, 7 5 of 17 research hypothesis focuses on the aspect of the 4PLP managing the client’s complexity, thus resulting in benefits from reduced complexity for the client. Research Hypothesis 3 (RH3). Customers will put a higher focus on service benefits of 4PL than on costs in the future because additional 4PL services become crucial to manage complex supply chains effectively. It points to the fact that the higher the client’s supply chain complexity (SCC), the more it values a 4PL service of managed supply chain complexity (MSC). Therefore, the influence on participants’ perceptions of the complexity of their supply chain on the 4PL value creation by managing complexity in a supply chain was examined. To measure supply chain complexity (SCC), three factors suggested by [ 47 ] were used. One of these factors includes uncertainty in the supply chain (SCCUNC) which is related to lacking predictability or reliability of the supply chain. The factor of diversity (SCCDIV) targets both the multitude of products as well as supply chain partners (suppliers and customers) while size (SCCSIZ) is related to high product volumes or variety of activities [ 47 ]. Consequently, to quantify how a 4PLP may manage complexity (MSC), these three dimensions were rephrased in terms of 4PL services. Thus, the three factors used were managing uncertainty (MSCUNC), managing diversity (MSCDIV) as well as managing product volumes or variety of activities (MSCSIZ). 2.3. Structured Online Survey In this final stage of our research design, a structured online questionnaire was used to draw inferences on the aforementioned three research hypotheses evolving from the course of the expert panel. This method was chosen to fit the needs of respondents of availability at their convenience and completion at a later stage [ 48 ]. To guarantee that all survey questions were understandable and the online questionnaire was technically working, a pretest was conducted. The questionnaire itself consisted of a series of statements concerning the future of 4PLP in line with the constructs shown in Table 1. Therein, the participants were asked to choose the degree in percent to which they agreed with the mentioned statements with the help of a slider bar. In addition to this, several control variables were asked to put the data into context. To ensure a common understanding of the survey context, at the beginning, participants were informed about the definition of the future 4PLP as well as a definition for digitalization. In terms of sampling, we combined both sharpshooter and shotgun approaches as outlined by [ 49 ] to reach a maximum number of feedbacks within short time. First, personal and business contacts that are known experts in the field of 4PL were personally contacted in a sharpshooter approach. After a first invitation, follow-up emails were sent to known contacts in order to increase their response rate. To reach additional participants, the structured online survey was promoted via special interest groups in social networks like Facebook and LinkedIn and finally sent out to larger groups of experts via traditional mailing lists. 3. Results and Discussion The online questionnaire was open for 39 days and a total of 34 respondents completed the survey. Out of these, no record had to be generally excluded. The questionnaire was accessed at a total of 73 times while most respondents that got beyond the introductory page, also finished the survey. Based on the total of 34 respondents, 14 considered to be potential 4PL clients (41%), 7 logistics service providers (21%), 2 IT providers (6%) and 11 firms providing consultancy services (32%). Most respondents were from manufacturing (29%) or transportation and storage (21%) with the remainder spread over diverse sectors. Regarding firm size, 97% of the participants stated to work in companies with 1000 or more employees and only one person was from a company of less than 50 employees. Similarly, 91% of the companies featured annual sales revenues above € 250 m, only two respondents answered to be from a company between € 50 m and € 250 m and one below € 50 m. Thus, it can be concluded that almost all participants are from multinational companies located in the DACH region (i.e., Germany, Austria and Switzerland). Accordingly, a tendency towards European operations can Logistics 2019,3, 7 6 of 17 be observed: 21 respondents named a responsibility for operations in Europe and 13 on a global level. Exactly 50% of the respondents work on an operational level or are team leader responsible for one to five other employees. The others follow higher degrees of seniority while 24% of the participants are managers responsible for more than 100 employees. Finally, most respondents work in operations departments (68%). In the following, detailed results from the semi-structured interviews and structured online survey are presented including a comparison with extant literature for each of the three areas of 4PL solutions, 4PL providers and 4PL customer benefits as shown in Figure 1. 3.1. 4PL Solutions Firstly, we aimed at assessing 4PL service configurations that are currently offered. To asses this question, both findings from the initial semi-structured interviews as well extant scholarly literature on the 4PL concept were combined. Looking closer at the extant literature, 4PLPs are regarded to be foremost responsible for selecting suitable logistics service providers to enable the desired transport and logistics operations [ 50 – 52 ]. Moreover, 4PLPs are often associated with logistics planning and control activities. Win [ 52 ] argued that inventory management is one of the key 4PL activities. Warehouse management, inventory planning, forecasting activities, customs management, routing operations and network optimization are further activities performed by 4PLPs in this respect [ 23 , 32 , 52 ]. Additionally, 4PLPs are believed to have a consulting function and provide external expertise to their client company [ 32 , 46 , 50 ]. They provide such value-added services to the client depending on the companies’ needs [ 31 , 53 ]. The 4PLP is also often said to be an intermediary and integrator, thus providing supply chain integration [ 32 , 54 ]. In this context, they provide a single interface for the client to communicate with the other actors [1]. Nonetheless, based on the findings of the semi-structured interviews, it can be argued that in practice, 4PL solutions mainly center around transport management and 3PL selection as these two aspects were mentioned by all interviewees (see left side of Figure 2). This also includes aspects such as service audits, customs management and ensuring that logistics operations run smoothly. Furthermore, five interviewees named services related to logistics planning and control activities like planning activities, forecasting and inventory control. Additional to these basic service offerings, further services are demanded by clients, most commonly classical logistics planning and control mechanisms similarly to the offerings of traditional 3PLPs. However, depending on the client’s operations, as indicated by some interviewees, a 4PLP may be responsible for a greater set of activities because of the complexity of the client’s operations. Logistics 2019, 3, x FOR PEER REVIEW 6 of 17 while 24% of the participants are managers responsible for more than 100 employees. Finally, most respondents work in operations departments (68%). In the following, detailed results from the semistructured interviews and structured online survey are presented including a comparison with extant literature for each of the three areas of 4PL solutions, 4PL providers and 4PL customer benefits as shown in Figure 1. 3.1. 4PL Solutions Firstly, we aimed at assessing 4PL service configurations that are currently offered. To asses this question, both findings from the initial semi-structured interviews as well extant scholarly literature on the 4PL concept were combined. Looking closer at the extant literature, 4PLPs are regarded to be foremost responsible for selecting suitable logistics service providers to enable the desired transport and logistics operations [50–52]. Moreover, 4PLPs are often associated with logistics planning and control activities. Win [52] argued that inventory management is one of the key 4PL activities. Warehouse management, inventory planning, forecasting activities, customs management, routing operations and network optimization are further activities performed by 4PLPs in this respect [23,32,52]. Additionally, 4PLPs are believed to have a consulting function and provide external expertise to their client company [32,46,50]. They provide such value-added services to the client depending on the companies’ needs [31,53]. The 4PLP is also often said to be an intermediary and integrator, thus providing supply chain integration [32,54]. In this context, they provide a single interface for the client to communicate with the other actors [1]. Nonetheless, based on the findings of the semi-structured interviews, it can be argued that in practice, 4PL solutions mainly center around transport management and 3PL selection as these two aspects were mentioned by all interviewees (see left side of Figure 2). This also includes aspects such as service audits, customs management and ensuring that logistics operations run smoothly. Furthermore, five interviewees named services related to logistics planning and control activities like planning activities, forecasting and inventory control. Additional to these basic service offerings, further services are demanded by clients, most commonly classical logistics planning and control mechanisms similarly to the offerings of traditional 3PLPs. However, depending on the client’s operations, as indicated by some interviewees, a 4PLP may be responsible for a greater set of activities because of the complexity of the client’s operations. Figure 2. Comparison of 4PL solutions: results from semi-structured interviews. Compared with 4PL services as mentioned in extant literature, it is found that 4PL services mentioned generally correspond. Nevertheless, it is important to state that based on the first 4PL Figure 2. Comparison of 4PL solutions: results from semi-structured interviews. Logistics 2019,3, 7 7 of 17 Compared with 4PL services as mentioned in extant literature, it is found that 4PL services mentioned generally correspond. Nevertheless, it is important to state that based on the first 4PL information, its general basic service offerings should reach beyond services 3PLPs usually offer. According to the 4PL concept definition, 4PL services offered should be driven by integrative activities and focus on managing complex supply chains. Even though these aspects are mentioned by the interviewees, they seem not to receive the same broad acceptance today as outlined in extant literature. For the interpretation of these findings, it should be kept in mind that all interviewees have had prior experience with the 4PL concept. Consequently, based on these findings, it can be suggested that there is no standard 4PL service offering that finds agreement in practice except for basic transport and logistics management services. Furthermore, 4PL services can be manifold and specifically targeted at the client’s needs with different degrees of responsibilities given to 4PLPs. While its personnel may be onsite working directly hand-in-hand with the client, in other settings orders would simply be exchanged by electronic means (for example EDI) to be executed by them. Thereafter, the possible future for digital 4PL service configurations was examined. Therefore, results from the semi-structured interviews, the expert panel, as well as the structured online survey are jointly taken into account. Generally, there is a definite signal towards 4PLPs making an IT platform available (see right side of Figure 2). In the semi-structured interviews, providing an IT platform is one of the most-mentioned aspects in the future and in the online questionnaire, the issue whether a 4PLP has to provide an IT platform achieve high consent. Nonetheless, it is not defined whether the 4PLP itself is establishing and hosting such a platform or rather sources it from an external IT provider and then just supervises operations. In any case, it can be argued that having an effective IT platform may positively influence the integration of supply chain partners, especially because it enables information sharing. This is in line with [ 24 ] stating that by using IT systems effectively, transactional cost costs can be reduced by fostering co-operation and reducing complexity. 4PL integrative service activities is another aspect that was further examined in the online questionnaire. There, the respondents supported the observation that a 4PLP will foster integration (see Table 2). The highest consent can be observed with the 4PL engaging in information sharing activities (INTISH). Nevertheless, importance could also lie in facilitating external integration of suppliers (INTEIS) and customers (INTEIC) as indicated before. Table 2. Results concerning 4PL service of integration and 4PL effective data analysis. Respondent Category INT IIN INT EIS INT EIC INT ISH INT EDA ANA EDA PLA EDA MON EDA Customer 55% 72% 67% 76% 68% 73% 71% 78% 73% Logistics 50% 72% 60% 80% 66% 72% 73% 79% 73% IT Provider 39% - 60% - 52% 59% 54% 56% 56% Consulting 55% 71% 67% 82% 68% 80% 76% 78% 80% Total Average 53% 72% 65% 66% 66% 74% 72% 77% 74% On the contrary, the respondents are rather opposed to a 4PLP managing the companies’ internal integration (INTIIN). This is in line with a low rate of agreement regarding the 4PLP taking care of the clients’ IT infrastructure. Integrative and end-to-end solutions are also aspects pointed out in the semi-structured interviews as; however, the number of observations is higher for current than for future 4PL solutions (see Figure 2). Because the interviewees were asked about future differences, it is assumed that these aspects were simply not mentioned again. Additionally, results from the structured online survey show that integration, and especially information sharing between the actors facilitated by the 4PLP positively influence its abilities to provide further 4PL services related to data analysis. Subsequent factor analysis with stepwise linear regression revealed positive effect of 4PL information sharing (INTISH) on 4PL monitoring (EDAMON), a positive influence of INTISH on 4PL analytics (EDAANA) and a positive influence of both INTISH Logistics 2019,3, 7 8 of 17 and internal integration (INTIIN) on 4PL planning (EDAPLA) to be confirmed a (all highly statistically significant on a 5% level, see Appendix A). Overall, a strong positive linear influence of 4PL integration (INT) on 4PL data analysis (EDA) is obvious (Table 3). In conclusion, RH1 cannot be rejected because of a detected influence of 4PL integration (INT) on 4PL data analysis (EDA). Table 3. Results from factor analysis of INT on EDA, DIG on ITC and SCC on MSC. EDA ITC MSC Const. 32.977 (0.000) Const. 46.095 (0.013) Const. 62.479 (0.000) INT 0.617 (0.000) DIG 0.333 (0.130) SCC 0.165 (0.525) Adj. R20.642 Adj. R20.044 Adj. R20.014 ANOVA F = 2.426 (0.130) ANOVA F = 2.476 (0.130) ANOVA F = 0.415 (0.525) Analytics, planning and monitoring activities are issues raised in both surveys. Based on the perceptions of the interviewees, planning and monitoring are activities existent in the current 4PL portfolio (see Figure 2). On the contrary, value-added services like analytics are almost mentioned for future 4PLPs. In the structured online survey, results show greatest consent of analytics with 4PLPs taking care of monitoring activities (see Table 2). Nonetheless, the agreement with 4PL analytics and planning services is comparably high. Lastly, it should be noted that one of the major aspects pointed out in the semi-structured interviews is that partnership between 4PLPs and their clients are transferring from operational to more strategic relationships and simultaneously become closer. In the end, managing an effective partnership is the second most mentioned aspect for the future of the 4PL concept (see right side of Figure 2). This implies that 4PL providers do not only have to focus on presenting a good service portfolio but also need to bother about effectively managing their relationships with their clients ensuring trust. Moreover, transport services should remain relevant in the future, it can be expected that the 4PL service portfolio will be enhanced with further offers like the provision of an IT platform and resulting possibilities for effective and efficient data analysis. These tools will especially encompass analytics, planning mechanisms as well as monitoring and reporting activities. Providing an IT platform has the potential to get a base product of 4PL services and according to the discussion in the expert panel, this could also be the chance for a company to become a provider of an industry-wide adopted IT platform. 3.2. 4PL Providers This section points at the existing players in the market and possible white spots in the market. Because of a missing common understanding of 4PL concept, different taxonomies of 4PLPs have been suggested [ 23 , 32 , 52 , 55 ]. Razzaque and Chen Sheng [ 55 ] focused on the difference in an asset basis of the provider. Win [ 52 ] used these asset-basis criteria to differentiate between 3PL and 4PLPs and argues that there is a concern of 3PLPs offering 4PL services, because of their missing independency. Saglietto [ 32 ] identified four general categories of 4PLPs: (s1) 4PLPs that focus on document engineering activities, (s2) 4PLPs that develop integrated supply chain management software, (s3) 4PL subsidiaries of logistics groups with 3PL operations and (s4) pure 4PL players. While (s1) provide very dedicated services, (s2) offer both consultative skills of supply chain modeling and IT skills of infrastructure transformation, (s3) have their strength in offering global logistics solutions. While both entities may belong to logistics groups, they could be legally independent. Finally, (s4) combine different skills and rely on the expertise of their personnel so that they engage in consultative and IT related activities but are also knowledgeable in transport operations [ 32 ]. Pfohl et al. [ 23 ] identified four key players in their study: (p1) logistics system service providers, (p2) pure 4PL players, (p3) IT provider and (p4) consulting companies. Furthermore, they pointed out several advantages and disadvantages of these providers. Nevertheless, a comprehensive market report of 4PLPs in the DACH region similarly to [ 32 ] dealing with 4PLPs in France is virtually unknown to the authors. Logistics 2019,3, 7 15 of 17 11. Fulconis, F.; Paché, G. Supply chain monitoring: LLPs and 4PL providers as orchestrators. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 2018,238, 9–18. [CrossRef] 12. Screeton, J. 5pls? The next supply chain innovation. Logist. Transp. Focus 2009,2009, 30–34. 13. Vinay, V.; Kannan, G.; Sasikumar, P. Conceptual study on 3PL/4PL/new trends for service industry. Int. J. Serv. Technol. Manag. 2009,12, 3–22. [CrossRef] 14. Hill, B. Appeal of 4PL: Proliferation and differentiation as a 5PL. Logist. Transp. Focus 2011,2011, 42–45. 15. Hosie, P.; Sundarakani, B.; Tan, A.W.K.; Ko´zlak, A. Determinants of fifth party logistics (5PL): Service providers for supply chain management. Int. J. Logist. Syst. Manag. 2012,13, 287–316. [CrossRef] 16. Efremova, O.I.; Gabdullin, L.V. Logistic barter features as a new concept of supply chain management. Acad. Strat. Manag. J. 2016,15, 19–25. 17. Gruchmann, T.; Melkonyan, A.; Krumme, K. Logistics business transformation for sustainability: Assessing the role of the lead sustainability service provider (6PL). Logistics 2018,2, 25. [CrossRef] 18. Waller, M.A.; Fawcett, S.E. Data science, predictive analytics, and big data: A revolution that will transform supply chain design and management. J. Bus. Logist. 2013,34, 77–84. [CrossRef] 19. Berman, S.J. Digital transformation: Opportunities to create new business models. Strat. Leadersh. 2012 ,40, 16–24. [CrossRef] 20. Hess, T.; Matt, C.; Benlian, A.; Wiesböck, F. Options for formulating a digital transformation strategy. MIS Q. Exec. 2016,15. 21. Hofmann, E.; Osterwalder, F. Third-party logistics providers in the digital age: Towards a new competitive arena? Logistics 2017,1, 9. [CrossRef] 22. Fitzgerald, M.; Kruschwitz, N.; Bonnet, D.; Welch, M. Embracing digital technology: A new strategic imperative. MIT Sloan Manag. Rev. 2014,55, 1–12. 23. Pfohl, H.-C.; Wagner, S.; Ries, A.; Berbner, U.; Witte, H. 4th Party Logistics—Chancen und Herausforderungen; Darmstadt Technical University: Darmstadt, Germany, 2014. 24. Bourlakis, C.; Bourlakis, M. Information technology safeguards, logistics asset specificity and fourth-party logistics network creation in the food retail chain. J. Bus. Ind. Mark. 2005,20, 88–98. [CrossRef] 25. Bumstead, J.; Cannons, K. From 4PL to managed supply-chain operations. Logist. Transp. Focus 2002 ,4, 18–24. 26. Gattorna, J.; Ogulin, R.; Selen, W. An empirical investigation of 3rdand 4th-party logistics provider practices in Australia. In Proceedings of the 2nd ANZAM Operations Management Symposium, Melbourne, Australia, 17–18 June 2004; pp. 1–19. 27. Krakovics, F.; Leal, J.E.; Mendes, P., Jr.; Santos, R.L. Defining and calibrating performance indicators of a 4pl in the chemical industry in Brazil. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2008,115, 502–514. [CrossRef] 28. Hsiao, H.I.; Kemp, R.; Van der Vorst, J.; Omta, S.O. A classification of logistic outsourcing levels and their impact on service performance: Evidence from the food processing industry. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2010 ,124, 75–86. [CrossRef] 29. Hingley, M.; Lindgreen, A.; Grant, D.B.; Kane, C. Using fourth-party logistics management to improve horizontal collaboration among grocery retailers. Supply Chain Manag. Int. J. 2011,16, 316–327. [CrossRef] 30. Hingley, M.; Lindgreen, A.; Grant, D.B. Intermediaries in power-laden retail supply chains: An opportunity to improve buyer–supplier relationships and collaboration. Ind. Mark. Manag. 2015,50, 78–84. [CrossRef] 31. Papadopoulou, E.; Manthou, V.; Vlachopoulou, M. 4PL network partnerships: The pre-selection phase. Int. J. Logist. Res. Appl. 2013,16, 175–192. [CrossRef] 32. Saglietto, L. Towards a classification of fourth party logistics (4PL). Univ. J. Ind. Bus. Manag. 2013 ,1, 104–116. 33. Vivaldini, M.; Pires, S.R. Applying a business cell approach to fourth-party logistics freight management in the food service industry. Int. J. Logist. Res. Appl. 2013,16, 296–310. [CrossRef] 34. Abidi, H.; De Leeuw, S.; Klumpp, M. The value of fourth-party logistics services in the humanitarian supply chain. J. Hum. Logist. Supply Chain Manag. 2015,5, 35–60. [CrossRef] 35. Mehmann, J.; Teuteberg, F. Understanding the 4PL approach within an agricultural supply chain using matrix model and cross-case analysis. Int. J. Logist. Res. Appl. 2016,19, 333–350. [CrossRef] 36. Dircksen, M.; Magnin, G. Evaluation of synergy potentials in transportation networks managed by a fourth party logistics provider. Transp. Res. Procedia 2017,25, 824–841. [CrossRef] 37. Mangan, J.; Lalwani, C.; Gardner, B. Combining quantitative and qualitative methodologies in logistics research. Int. J. Phys. Distrib. Logist. Manag. 2004,34, 565–578. [CrossRef] Logistics 2019,3, 7 16 of 17 38. Morgan, D.L. Integrating Qualitative and Quantitative Methods: A Pragmatic Approach; Sage Publications: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2013. 39. Leech, N.L.; Onwuegbuzie, A.J. A typology of mixed methods research designs. Qual. Q. 2009 ,43, 265–275. [CrossRef] 40. DiCicco-Bloom, B.; Crabtree, B.F. The qualitative research interview. Med. Educ. 2006 ,40, 314–321. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 41. Meuser, M.; Nagel, U. Expertlnneninterviews—vielfach erprobt, wenig bedacht. In Qualitativ-Empirische Sozialforschung: Konzepte, Methoden, Analysen; Garz, D., Kraimer, K., Eds.; Westdt. Verlag: Opladen, Germany, 1991; pp. 441–471. 42. Patton, M.Q. Qualitative Evaluation and Research Methods; SAGE Publications: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 1990. 43. Zailani, S.; Rajagopal, P. Supply chain integration and performance: Us versus east asian companies. Supply Chain Manag. Int. J. 2005,10, 379–393. [CrossRef] 44. Lu, Y.; Ramamurthy, K. Understanding the link between information technology capability and organizational agility: An empirical examination. MIS Q. 2011, 931–954. [CrossRef] 45. Lu, Q.; Meng, F.; Goh, M. Choice of supply chain governance: Self-managing or outsourcing? Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2014,154, 32–38. [CrossRef] 46. Cézanne, C.; Saglietto, L. Redefining the boundaries of the firm: The role of 4PLs. Int. J. Logist. Manag. 2015 , 26, 30–41. [CrossRef] 47. DeLeeuw, S.; Grotenhuis, R.; van Goor, A.R. Assessing complexity of supply chains: Evidence from wholesalers. Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manag. 2013,33, 960–980. [CrossRef] 48. Dillman, D.A.; Smyth, J.D.; Melani, L. Internet, Mail, and Mixed-Mode Surveys: The Tailored Design Method; Wiley & Sons: Toronto, ON, Canada, 2011. 49. Larson, P.D. A note on mail surveys and response rates in logistics research. J. Bus. Logist. 2005 ,26, 211–222. [CrossRef] 50. Stefansson, G. Collaborative logistics management and the role of third-party service providers. Int. J. Phys. Distrib. Logist. Manag. 2006,36, 76–92. [CrossRef] 51. Fulconis, F.; Saglietto, L.; Paché, G. Strategy dynamics in the logistics industry: A transactional center perspective. Manag. Decis. 2007,45, 104–117. [CrossRef] 52. Win, A. The value a 4PL provider can contribute to an organisation. Int. J. Phys. Distrib. Logist. Manag. 2008 , 38, 674–684. [CrossRef] 53. Wang, X.; Persson, G.; Huemer, L. Logistics service providers and value creation through collaboration: A case study. Long Range Plan. 2016,49, 117–128. [CrossRef] 54. Büyüközkan, G.; Feyzio˘glu, O.; Ersoy, M.¸S. Evaluation of 4PL operating models: A decision making approach based on 2-additive choquet integral. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2009,121, 112–120. [CrossRef] 55. Razzaque, M.A.; Chen Sheng, C. Outsourcing of logistics functions: A literature survey. Int. J. Phys. Distrib. Logist. Manag. 1998,28, 89–107. [CrossRef] 56. Hertz, S.; Alfredsson, M. Strategic development of third party logistics providers. Ind. Mark. Manag. 2003 , 32, 139–149. [CrossRef] 57. Papadopoulou, E.; Manthou, V.; Vlachopoulou, M. Ocean carriers’ transition from transport providers to supply chain integrators: A case study. Int. J. Shipp. Transp. Logist. 2009,2, 76–94. [CrossRef] 58. Prockl, G.; Pflaum, A.; Kotzab, H. 3PL factories or lernstatts? Value-creation models for 3PL service providers. Int. J. Phys. Distrib. Logist. Manag. 2012,42, 544–561. [CrossRef] 59. Multaharju, S.; Hallikas, J. Logistics service capabilities of logistics service provider. Int. J. Logist. Syst. Manag. 2015,20, 103–121. [CrossRef] 60. Dutton, G. Supply chain integration—The rise of the 4PL—It takes more than strategy to implement supply chain optimization. World Trade 2009,22, 20–23. 61. Fulconis, F.; Saglietto, L.; Paché, G. Exploring new competences in the logistics industry: The intermediation role of 4PL. Supply Chain Forum Int. J. 2006,7, 68–77. [CrossRef] 62. Subramanian, N.; Gunasekaran, A.; Papadopoulos, T.; Nie, P. 4th party logistics service providers and industrial cluster competitiveness: Collaborative operational capabilities framework. Ind. Manag. Data Syst. 2016,116, 1303–1330. [CrossRef] 63. Li, W.; Zhong, Y.; Wang, X.; Cao, Y. Resource virtualization and service selection in cloud logistics. J. Netw. Comput. Appl. 2013,36, 1696–1704. [CrossRef] Logistics 2019,3, 7 17 of 17 64. Subramanian, N.; Abdulrahman, M.D.; Zhou, X. Integration of logistics and cloud computing service providers: Cost and green benefits in the chinese context. Transp. Res. Part E Logist. Transp. Rev. 2014 ,70, 86–98. [CrossRef] 65. Mladenow, A.; Bauer, C.; Strauss, C. “Crowd logistics”: The contribution of social crowds in logistics activities. Int. J. Web Inf. Syst. 2016,12, 379–396. [CrossRef] 66. Carbone, V.; Rouquet, A.; Roussat, C. The rise of crowd logistics: A new way to co-create logistics value. J. Bus. Logist. 2017,38, 238–252. [CrossRef] 67. Carbone, V.; Rouquet, A.; Roussat, C. A typology of logistics at work in collaborative consumption. Int. J. Phys. Distrib. Logist. Manag. 2018,48, 570–585. [CrossRef] 68. DHL. DHL Logistics Trend Radar—Version 2018-19; DHL Trend Research: Troisdorf, Germany, 2018. 69. Wamba, S.F.; Akter, S.; Edwards, A.; Chopin, G.; Gnanzou, D. How ‘big data’can make big impact: Findings from a systematic review and a longitudinal case study. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2015,165, 234–246. [CrossRef] 70. Wang, G.; Gunasekaran, A.; Ngai, E.W.; Papadopoulos, T. Big data analytics in logistics and supply chain management: Certain investigations for research and applications. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2016 ,176, 98–110. [CrossRef] © 2019 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).