Simulador de redes de sensores

In this section, claim 1 is evaluated by discussing those propositions that show a statistically significant difference between Dutch and Flemish respondents.

It is hard to find commensurable LSPs with whom it is possible to cooperate for (non-) core activities (I1).

Flemish LSPs consider it more difficult to find colleague companies with whom they can cooperate to the benefit of both. The average evaluation of proposition I1 by the Flemish LSPs is 3.81 and for the Dutch 3.54. This difference is significant at the 1% confidence level. Although the transport sector in Flanders suffers from roughly the same difficulties as the Dutch (low capacity utilisation, frequent empty hauling, negative public image, low profit margins etc.), LSPs are more reluctant to cooperate in Flanders as compared to the Netherlands. As a result of this difference in attitude, in contrast to Flanders, in the Netherlands there are many reported examples of horizontal cooperation. A selection of them is presented in Table 7-5.

Horizontal Cooperation in Transport and Logistics 116

Name

Bouwvervoer Groep E.R. 3

Dailyfresh E.R. 5

Distribouw E.R. 6

Euromovers E.R. 10

Fritom E.R. 11

IDS E.R. 14

IJmond transport groep E.R. 16

Mondial movers E.R. 20

Nedvan E.R. 22

System Alliance E.R. 29

Teamtrans E.R. 30

Topmovers E.R. 32

Transport Groep Gelderland E.R. 32 Table 7-5 Some Dutch horizontal cooperation initiatives

In Flanders, such cooperations are much harder to find and if they arise, more than often Dutch partners are involved (e.g. Octo Logistics and Transmission). The interviews with industry experts indeed indicated that the Dutch have a more proactive attitude towards industry threats and innovative logistics concepts involving a high degree of cooperation. On the other hand, the opportunities are valued likewise by the Dutch and the Flemish respondents. Therefore, a possible explanation for the fact that the number of Flemish cases lags behind could be the more conservative commercial attitude in Flanders. Moreover, it is also possible that a reluctance to large-scale publicity for horizontal cooperations plays a role in Flanders.

A fair allocation of the benefits is essential for a successful cooperation (I5),

Smaller companies in the cooperation may lose customers or get pushed out of the market completely (I7), and

Benefits cannot be shared in a fair way, the larger players will always benefit most (I8)

The impediments related to gain sharing and market positions were considered most severe by the Flemish. The differences between both surveys are quite strong, given the average of 3.93 for the Flemish, and 3.58 for the Dutch. I7 has a difference that is significant at the 5% confidence level, I5 and I8 even at the 1% level. Respondents had the possibility to comment on why they do not cooperate in the current situation, and the linking pin in these explanations was that companies are too self-focused. Small companies fear that the larger ones will exploit them, while the large companies hesitate to put their individual market dominance at stake. However, the Dutch cases of horizontal cooperation mentioned in Table 7-5 however illustrate that successful cooperation is possible.

Chapter 7: A Comparative Analysis of Dutch and Flemish LSPs' Attitudes 117

Gain sharing issues are crucial to cooperations, but can be tackled when crystal clear arrangements are agreed upon before starting the cooperation. Especially in the beginning, pragmatism is the best concept. Clear rules of thumb that are supported by all partners provide a fruitful starting point. Once the cooperation becomes more established and stable, more advanced gain sharing rules can be installed that guarantee fairness. Possible allocation rules will be discussed in more detail in Chapter 9 and Chapter 10.

Cooperation is greatly hampered by the required indispensable ICT-investments (I9).

Cooperation cannot occur without the exchange of information. Since the transport sectors in both the Netherlands and Belgium predominantly consist of small and medium sized companies, customer and order administration is still mostly done via telephone, fax and/or email. These companies lack the critical mass to install an EDI or web-based information exchange platform, which makes the sharing of information difficult and labour intensive. Successful implementations of horizontal cooperation frequently have a small number of employees whose prime job is to support and coordinate the cooperation. All partners together pay the salary of these ‘cooperation champions’. This of course requires the cooperation to be quite intense to make the human capital investment profitable. Again, the data show that Flemish LSPs are the most reluctant.

Customers ask you to engage in horizontal cooperation (G3) and

In the present situation, you are interested in (intensified) horizontal cooperation (G4).

Since both propositions expose differences that are significant on the 5% level, it is hypothesised that the Flemish LSPs experience stronger internal and external drives to cooperate horizontally than the Dutch. Open questions in the Flemish questionnaire indicated that there is a growing interest of LSPs in cooperation with competitors. However, the subject is still relatively taboo. A number of respondents state that they are, sometimes pushed by customers, interested in horizontal cooperation, but do not know how to start. There seems to be only limited communication within the sector and therefore suitable partners are hard to find. The survey indicates that customers that actively encourage LSPs to participate in horizontal cooperation are mainly active in the (petro-) chemical industry. The reasons for this are the enormous volumes handled by the shippers and the relatively small capacities of LSPs capable of serving these shippers. Also, the specialised trucks and tankers active in this industry are very expensive pieces of equipment. By means of order exchange, pooling of resource pooling, and backloads improvement, the total fleet needed by the few transport companies that are qualified for the transport of chemicals can be downsized. For an analysis of the potential of horizontal cooperation in the petrochemical industry, see McKinnon (2004b). Industries with small numbers of shippers and carriers, such as the chemical industry, provide promising fields for horizontal cooperation, because this simplifies communication and visibility. The fact that shippers sometimes ask LSPs to

Horizontal Cooperation in Transport and Logistics 118

cooperate horizontally once again illustrates the potential of horizontal cooperation in logistics for Flanders.