1. Evaluating the impact of RFID on warehouse process performance
Angeliki Karagiannaki
ELTRUN, Dept. of Management Science and Technology
ATHENS UNIVERSITY OF ECONOMICS AND BUSINESS
I am going to present you my phd thesis.
29/03/2011
RFID IN EUROPE - ACADEMIC WORKSHOP

2. RFID technology in supply chain processes
RFID reader
RFID tags
chip
antenna
Process-driven value
Physical flow process integration- process redesign
Object-connected ICT: the information is physically linked to the products (CASAGRAS, 2009)
RFID technology
Integration with Processes
Process performance
The starting point of our research is the RFID applications in the supply chain processes. Although RFID changes also the information flow, we are interested in the impact of RFID on the physical flow of the products. We want to investigate how the RFID technology is integrated within the business processes and show a correlation between employing RFID and process performance. In other words, we aim to give a credible assessment of the impact of RFID from a process-based perspective. We want to support the process-driven value of RFID.
we aim to signify the improvements attained by the RFID technology within a warehouse in terms of process performance metrics
General research scope: PROCESS-DRIVEN VALUE OF RFID
What is the impact of RFID and its subsequent changes in processes on process performance? 2

3. Research Approach MOTIVATION- PROBLEM DEFINITION
Approach: Literature Review
EXPLORATORY Phase
Approach: Case Study
HYPOTHESES GENERATING
RFID-enabled process redesign:
a reference framework
3PL warehouse
Manufacturing Facility
Retail Distribution Center
CONFIRMATORY Phase
Approach: Experimental Simulation
HYPOTHESES TESTING
Simulation model on process-driven value of RFID
Factors affecting the impact of RFID
RFID Assessment between the as-is vs. to-be processes
Form Research Objective
In order to understand the process-driven value of RFID, our research approach relied on three phases. Firstly, we did a thorough review of related studies that helped us to identify research gaps. Then as an exploratory phase we conducted three case studies that helped us to define specific questions. And finally we developed a simulation model to confirm our hypotheses.
Refined Research Questions 3

4. Case 1: a 3PL Warehouse Background Outcomes 03/2006- 01/2007
3PL company that deals with paper trading
a manual warehouse system with “some” computer control
the warehouse consists of a number of parallel aisles with paper rolls stored alongsides and are piled one on top of the other
Outcomes
Simulation model of receiving, storage, picking and shipping processes
Evaluation of the impact of RFID due to automation in terms of Time savings & Labor utilisation
Measurement
AS-IS model
RFID-enabled model
Comparison Result
% utilisation of scanning labor
9.60%
2.48%
Reduced 74%
% utilisation of storing/picking labor
19%
17.17%
Reduced 9.6%
% utilisation of unloading/loading labor
3.19%
Reduced 22.5%
Average time waiting for storing
27.72
26.55
Reduced 4.22%
Average time waiting for scanning
0.21
0.06
Reduced 71.4%
Average time waiting for loading
12.56
11.86
Reduced 5.58%
Let me give you a brief description of each case. The first case concerned a third-party logistics provider (3PL) that deals with paper trading. Regarding the implemented RFID application, the company took over the task of placing tags on the incoming products and RFID readers were placed at the major portals; at the receiving and shipping docks. Also the tagging was made on pallet-level. As such, the processes of receiving and checking out were supported by the RFID technology. The main objective was automation. Our contribution to this case was to develop a simulation model and compare the current system with the RFID-enabled one in terms of labor utilisation and time savings. Our results indicate that, by alleviating the ill effects of ‘manual’ scanning and verification, RFID accelerates substantially the receiving and shipping processes. 4

5. Case 2: Manufacturing Facility
Background
01/ /2008
a leading food company in Greece (more than 30% of market share) and one of the largest in Europe- the Frozen Foods Division
a project partly funded by the General Secretariat for Research & Technology, Ministry of Development of the Hellenic Republic
Outcomes
Requirements’ analysis, development and pilot implementation of a RFID-enabled traceability system within the central warehouse
Cost-benefit assessment of the proposed RFID system
The second case incorporated a leading food company. Here, regarding the RFID application implemented, the company took over the task of placing tasks to the products during the packaging process and RFID readers were placed on the shipping docks. Here, the objective was not only automation of the shipping process but also traceability. Having placed RFID readers in the shipping docks, the company could track each specific lot number. And this is really important when we talk about food products. So also the recall process was supported by the RFID. Our contribution o this case was to develop the RFID system, pilot tested it and finally give a cost-benefit assessment. 5

6. Case 3: a Retail Distribution Center
Background
07/ /2010
a retail distribution center of one of the biggest supermarket chains in Greece.
a typical retail distribution center that stores a wide variety of products until needed by the retail location
Data Collection
On-site observations in the research sites regarding the current production flow, process operations, processing times, resources and facility layout
Semi-structured interviews in the three research sites with managers and operational personnel
Official records retrieved from enterprise system
Outcomes
A more generic simulation model of receiving, storage, picking and shipping processes
Test various RFID implementations 6

7. Factors affecting RFID implementation
Description
RFID Tagging Level
represents what objects are being passed through the RFID enabled processes
RFID Tagging Process Responsibility
represents who has the responsibility to attach the RFID tags to the objects
In order to implement the RFID technology, one echelon of the supply chain should take the responsibility of introducing the new process of RFID tagging. There is no work that makes such assumption implicitly. In close that RFID has the potential to be a supply chain management technology. Based on their paper, they mention that it is essential to buy-in from suppliers to support a RFID initiative. Therefore, applying their findings to our context, we argue that the positioning of the new RFID tagging process is an important decision factor. To state the matter differently, it is important to test the impact that RFID has on the processes based on which echelon has the responsibility for the RFID tagging process.
Tagging Level
This choice makes case-level tagging versus pallet-level tagging an important decision.
Literature that supports this assertion: Karkkainen, 2003; Hardgrave and Miller, 2006; Loebbecke, 2007; Tajima, 2007; Lee, 2007; Boeck and Wamba, 2008; Roh et al., 2009; Becker et al., 2009
Tagging Responsibility
One echelon of the supply chain should take the responsibility of introducing the new process of RFID tagging
Literature that supports this assertion: Kim and Sohn, 2009; Boeck and Wamba 2008 7

8. Alternative RFID implementations
NEW Process
(RFID LABELING)
Process C (Picking)
Process D (Shipping)
Process B
(Put-away)
Process A
(Receiving)
…is not supported by RFID…
RFID IMPLEMENTATION 1
Functional level
Put-away + Picking + Shipping
RFID Tagging Level
Cases
RFID Tagging Responsibility
In-house
Process D (Shipping)
Process A (Receiving)
Process B
(Put-away)
Process C
(Picking)
…is not supported by RFID…
RFID IMPLEMENTATION 2
Έστω ότι ο οργανισμός που μελετάμε (focal firm) είναι ένα κέντρο διανομής ή αλλιώς μια κεντρική αποθήκη. Οι βασικές διαδικασίες που συναντάμε είναι η παραλαβή, η εναπόθεση των προϊόντων στους αποθηκευτικούς χώρους, έπειτα η συλλογή παραγγελιών και τέλος η αποστολή τους.
Έστω τώρα ότι η επιχείρηση αυτή θέλει να υποστηρίξει κάποιες από τις διαδικασίες με την τεχνολογία RFID. Εδώ σας δείχνω 2 διαφορετικές υλοποιήσεις στις οποίες μπορεί να προχωρήσει.
Functional level
Receiving + Shipping
RFID Tagging Level
Pallets
RFID Tagging Responsibility
Out-source

9. Numerous Alternative RFID Implementations
Numerous possible ways that the processes can be shaped
Different implementation  different value of RFID
no clear cut answer as to which RFID implementation is the best
Discrete Event Simulation as a decision support tool
design differently configured to-be implementations and
decide on a specific one based on a credible evaluation of the alternatives
So the problem is that there are numerous possible ways of implementing RFID within an organization's processes. Different implementation means different value. SO what is the best transition? So we use simulation to design and evaluate the alternatives.

10. Tagging Responsibility
Experimental Design
Tagging
Level
Tagging Responsibility
In-house
By all the suppliers
By the large suppliers
By the large suppliers & In-house
Pallets
Experiment 1
Experiment 3
Experiment 5
Experiment 7
Cases
Experiment 2
Experiment 4
Experiment 6
Experiment 8
Levels of Tagging Level
we choose pallet vs. case-levels as these are the levels of SKUs we encounter in the majority of warehouse processes
Levels of Tagging Responsibility
two extreme cases: the tagging process is deployed in-house or by all the suppliers,
a “common/popular” case: the tagging process is deployed by the large suppliers
a mixed case: the tagging process is deployed by both the suppliers and the focal firm 10

11. A Retail DC simulation model (SIMUL8 software)11

12. Simulation Study Steps
Process modelling
Level of detail
On-site Observation
Retrieving data from official records
Model validation 12

13. Model validation Validation with the managers
Independent T test using SPSS software
Test the null hypothesis that the distribution of the outputs is the same across categories of simulated and real data
Outputs
no. of orders per day, no. of pallets receiving for each supplier
Validation with the managers
historic data from the real system have been obtained:
part of these was used to feed real system input data into the simulation model and
the remaining data were used to test the quality of the simulation model. 13

14. Output Analysis
Run (8 to-be & 1 as-is) Simulation Experiments in the Simul8 Software
For each experiment, the simulation runs with 30 replications to eliminate the effects of random variants with:
Warm-Up Period (20 days=4 weeks)
Time-series method
Welch method
Run-length (70 days=14 weeks)
Robinson (1995) graphical method
Using the outputs of the experiments, run a two-factor multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) in the SPSS software
Independent variables
tagging level
tagging responsibility
Dependent variables
labor utilization
receiving, storage, picking, shipping, overall
time savings
average queuing time for unloading, scanning, checking-in, storing, checking-out picking time and overall 14

15. Hypothesis H1 Testing RFID effect on Labor Utilisation
Hypothesis H1: “The integration of RFID in warehouse processes has a positive effect on process performance in terms of labor utilisation. This effect varies depending on tagging level and who has the tagging responsibility.”
Whatever the tagging level, the RFID-enabled processes bring better results in terms of operational savings than the current situation (without RFID)
Whoever has the responsibility of the new tagging process, even if the focal firm decides to suffer the most from the new time & labor consuming tagging process, the RFID-enabled processes bring better results in terms of operational savings than the current situation (without RFID)
Based on the % improvement from the current system, case-level tagging brings significantly better results compared to pallet-level. Investment-wise it may be better to go for a case-level tagging if they want to reap the benefits.
Although the experiments that differentiate based on the tagging responsibility are statistically different, viewing the % improvement compared to as-is, it is obvious that the popular case of convincing the large suppliers to tag their products does not bring significantly different results compared to the remainder three. Investment-wise it may be better in all cases to incorporate the new process of tagging inhouse. 15

16. Hypothesis H2 Testing RFID effect on Time Savings
Hypothesis H2: “The integration of RFID in warehouse processes has a positive effect on process performance in terms of time savings. This effect varies depending on tagging level and who has the tagging responsibility.” 16

17. Tagging Level*Tagging Responsibility Labor Utilization
As-is
Experiment1
Experiment 5
Experiment2
Experiment7
Experiment3
Experiment6
Experiment8
Experiment4
It seems that the tagging level is more important regarding the outbound processes of a warehouse (i.e. picking & shipping) while the tagging responsibility impacts more on the inbound processes (i.e. receiving & storage)
The mixed experiment that incorporates the tagging process by both the focal firm and the large suppliers seem to have significant difference in some of these outputs from the experiment that incorporate the tagging process only by the large suppliers. This indicates that if the large suppliers take the responsibility of tagging the products, it is of value for the focal firm to tag the remainder products, although having a mixed model may have a negative effect in some parts of the warehouse.
Evidence is presented on how RFID impacts on the four processes of a warehouse separately. It seems that if RFID speeds up only the receiving process, it may made the put-away process a bottleneck. If the facility does not have enough room to store the off-loaded material on the receiving dock, then the gains from RFID are reduced or even negated. So it may be better to go for a full implementation if they want to reap the benefits. 17

18. Conclusions
RFID deployment within warehouse processes pays off the investment
numerous RFID implementations
each RFID implementation has different value
Understand the linkages between RFID assessment and simulation for:
evaluating RFID implementations in terms of process-driven savings (labor hours, processing times, etc.)
Elements of the framework
RFID-related experimental factors
the nature of RFID changes in the simulated processes
Practical Implications: A tool to assist companies in
evaluating their current position
identifying their RFID design choices and
supporting their decision on moving to a particular RFID implementation
To SCOR einai Process Reference model
a systematic methodology to efficiently design RFID implementations
Integrating simulation modelling in such a methodology can assist not only in extracting realistic RFID implementations but also in evaluating them at the shortest processing time and the lowest operating cost

19. Publications (1) Journals
Chryssochoidis, G., A. Karagiannaki, K. Pramatari, O. Kehagia (2009). A cost-benefit evaluation framework of an electronic-based traceability system, British Food Journal, 111(6)
Karagiannaki, A. Papakyriakopoulos, D. and Bardaki, C. A framework for identifying RFID-enabled warehouse settings, Submitted to Industrial Management and Data Systems (IMDS) – to be published 30-Jun-2011, vol:111, iss:5
Karagiannaki, A., I. Mourtos and K. Pramatari. Measuring the impact of RFID on process performance metrics: a simulation study of the warehouse environment, Submitted to International Journal of Production Economics
Karagiannaki, A., Pramatari, K. and Doukidis, G.J. Decision Support for the Design of RFID implementations: Toward a Simulation Framework, Submitted to Journal of the Operational Research Society (JORS) – 1st revision
Karagiannaki, A. and Pramatari, K. The interaction effects of RFID tagging level and tagging responsibility on warehouse process performance, Submitted to the special issue: “Interdisciplinary Research in Operations Management” , International Journal of Production Economics
Book Chapters
Karagiannaki,A., C. Bardaki and K. Pramatari. “RFID and its role in food supply chain” in the book entitled: “Delivering performance in food supply chains”, Woodhead Publishing (forthcoming)
Karagiannaki,A. and K. Pramatari. “Leveraging RFID-enabled Traceability for the Food Industry: a case study” in the book entitled “Intelligent Agrifood Chains and Networks: Current Status, Future Trends & Real-life Cases” (forthcoming)
Andriana Dimakopoulou, Katerina Pramatari, Angeliki Karagiannaki, George Papadopoulos, Antonis Paraskevopoulos. “Investment evaluation of RFID technology applications: An evolution perspective” in the book entitled "Unique Radio Innovation for the 21st Century: Building Scalable and Global RFID Networks“(forthcoming) 19

20. Publications (2) Conferences
Karagiannaki, A., Pramatari, K. and Doukidis, G.J. (2010). Using simulation to design & evaluate RFID implementations in the supply chain, In the Proceedings of the Operational Research Society Simulation Workshop 2010 (sw10), March, Worcestershire, England
Panousis, K. and A. Karagiannaki (2009). Quantifying RFID-Enabled Traceability for the Food Industry: a Case Study. In the Proceedings of the 4th Mediterranean Conference on Information Systems (MCIS), September 25-27, Athens, Greece
Karagiannaki, A. and M. Kehagia (2009). Modeling the Warehouse Operations to Quantify the Value of RFID. In the Proceedings of the 4th Mediterranean Conference on Information Systems (MCIS), September 25-27, Athens, Greece
Karagiannaki, A. and K. Pramatari (2008). Towards a framework for simulating the impact of RFID on different warehouse settings, In the Proceedings of the 15th International Annual EurOMA Conference, June 15-18, Groningen, the Netherlands
Karagiannaki, A. and K. Pramatari (2008). “The impact of RFID on different levels of packaging for streamlining the warehouse operations”. In the Proceedings of the 1st Panhellenic Packaging Convention of Food & Drinks, March 17-18, Athens, Greece (best-paper award)
Bardaki,C., A. Karagiannaki and K. Pramatari (2008). A Systematic Approach for the Design of RFID Implementations in the Supply Chain. In the Proceedings of the Panhellenic Conference on Informatics (PCI 2008), August 28-30, Samos, Greece
Karagiannaki, A. and K. Pramatari (2008). Leveraging Traceability using RFID technology: a case study. In the Proceedings of the Department of Management Science & Technology (DMST) 5th Conference, May 8, Athens, Greece
Karagiannaki, A., I. Mourtos and K. Pramatari (2007). Simulating and Evaluating the Impact of RFID on Warehousing Operations: a case study. In the Proceedings of the Summer Computer Simulation Conference (SCSC), July 15-18, San Diego, CA
Bardaki, C., A. Karagiannaki, K. Pramatari (2007). A RFID-enabled Supply Chain Traceability System for The Food Industry. In the Proceedings of TRACE 3rd Annual Meeting, April 26-27, Crete, Greece
Karagiannaki, A. and L. Oakshott (2006). Simulation for Facility Layout Redesign. In the Proceedings of the 20th European Conference on Modelling and Simulation (ECMS), May 28-31, Bonn, Sankt Augustin, Germany
Karagiannaki, A., I. Mourtos and K. Pramatari (2006). Evaluating the impact of RFID in supply chain operations by using simulation: A review. In the Proceedings of the Department of Management Science & Technology (DMST) 3rd Conference, May 10, Athens, Greece
Bardaki, C., A. Karagiannaki, K. C. Pramatari, and I. Mourtos (2006). RFID technology: Simulating the impact on supply chain and demand in retail industry. In the Proceedings of the 21st European Conference in Operational Research (EURO XXI 2006), June 2-5, Reykjavik, Iceland 20

21. Thank you for your attention!
Questions 21

22. Research Objective & Questions
General Research Objective:
What is the impact of RFID on supply chain processes?
Specific research questions:
RQ1: How are supply chain processes redesigned due to RFID?
RQ2: What is the impact of RFID on supply chain process performance?
RQ3: Which factors influence the impact of RFID on supply chain process performance? 22

23. Integrative Model of IT Business Value
III. Macro Environment
Country characteristics
II. Competitive Environment
Industry characteristics
I. Focal Firm
IT Business Value Generation Process
Business Processes
Business Process Performance
IT Resources: Technology (TIR) & Human (HIR)
Complementarity Organizational Resources
Organizational performance
The first domain is the organization acquiring and deploying the IT resource, the focal firm. Within the focal firm, IT business value is generated by the deployment of IT and complementary organizational resources within business processes. As illustrated in Figure 1, application of IT and complementary organizational resources may improve business processes or enable new ones, which ultimately may impact organizational performance (Brynjolfsson and Hitt 2000). The focal firm
domain thus comprises the IT resource, complementary organizational resources, business processes, business process performance, and organizational performance.
Business processes are appropriate initial units of measurement of IT business value (Davenport and Short, 1990; Alter, 2003).
Business processes are mediators to the impact of IT on firm performance. IT and business processes are complimentary resources and as such they must be changed in a coordinated manner to improve performance (Barua et al., 1995).
Researchers may find it particularly beneficial to use intermediate-level dependent variables at the business process level (Wade and Hulland, 2004)
Melville et al.10, for example, propose a framework of IT business value, based on a review of the existing evidence on the business value of IT. Their framework (a) draws attention to the importance of measuring the impact at the process level and (b) highlights the role of complementarities and contextual factors. Figure I-4 summarizes some key statements and the contribution of this research to this thesis
Researchers have proposed several frameworks that conceptualize how IT can create business value. Melville et al.7 derive an integrative model of IT business value based on a review of the existing literature. In their model, IT resources affect business processes which, in turn, affect business process performance. This relationship is influenced by the availability of complementary internal resources and the resources and business processes of trading partners. Industry characteristics can shape how companies apply IT and whether IT leads to improved organizational performance. For example, time-sensitive industries may benefit more from IT’s ability to reduce cycle times than other industries. Furthermore, the reaction of competitors to the use of IT can differ due to, for example, differences in the degree of imitability. Country characteristics that can influence the attainment of IT business value include differences in basic infrastructure, regulatory and educational factors.
Trading Partners’ Resources and Business
Processes
Source: Melville et al., 2004, MIS Quarterly 23

24. Thesis Overview MOTIVATION- PROBLEM DEFINITION
Approach: Literature Review
EXPLORATORY Phase
Approach: Case Study
HYPOTHESES GENERATING
RFID-enabled process redesign:
a reference framework
3PL warehouse
Manufacturing Facility
Retail Distribution Center
CONFIRMATORY Phase
Approach: Experimental Simulation
HYPOTHESES TESTING
Simulation model on process-driven value of RFID
Factors affecting the impact of RFID
RFID Assessment between the as-is vs. to-be processes
Form Research Objective
Refined Research Questions 24

25. Three Cases CASE 1: Manufacturing Facility (01/2007- 07/2008) CASE 2:
3PL
Warehouse
(03/ /2007)
CASE 3:
Retail
Distribution Center
(07/ /2010)
Product Type /
Product IDs
-Frozen food
-Many productIDs
-Paper trading
-One productID
Fast moving consumer goods (FMCG)
Mechanisation Level /
Computer System
-Semi-automated
-WMS
-manual warehouse system with “some” computer control
-no WMS
-Semi-Automated
Storage System / Storage Assignment policy
-Many shelves with little automation
-Class based storage
- Garage-like: a number of parallel aisles with products piled one on top of the other
-Closest open location storage
-Many shelves
-Dedicated storage
Batching
Pick-by-order
Zoning
No zoning
Synchronised zoning
Routing
Heuristics
No routing policy
Order accumulation
Continuous
Discrete (wave picking)
Distinction based on van den Berg and Zijm, 1999; Rouwenhorst et. al,2000; De Koster et al., 2007; and Gu et al. 2007
Πώς διαφοροποιούνται εσωτερικά στις διαδικασίες τους με βάση βιβλιογραφία που ασχολείται με
May represent two different warehouses in the same SC, different stages in the same SC
Three cases were chosen that cover different types of warehouses in terms of product complexity, size, mechanisation level and other contextual factors as has been described by researchers that reviewed thoroughly the literature on warehouse design and operation (Ackerman, 1997; van den Berg and Zijm, 1999; Rouwenhorst et. al, 2000; Tompkins et al., 2003; De Koster et al., 2007; and Gu et al. 2007). 25

26. Warehouse Processes
Receiving
Storage
Order Picking
Shipping 26

27. Current Receiving Process Process Mapping & Modeling27

28. RFID-enabled Receiving Process Process Mapping & Modeling28

29. Current Storage Process Process Mapping & Modeling29

30. RFID-enabled Storage Process Process Mapping & Modeling30

31. Current Picking Process Process Mapping & Modeling31

32. RFID-enabled Picking Process Process Mapping & Modeling32

33. Current Shipping Process Process Mapping & Modeling33

34. RFID-enabled Shipping Process Process Mapping & Modeling34

35. RFID-enabled process redesign: A reference framework
Εffect type
Description
Referred to by
Dimension A: STRUCTURAL CHARACTERISTICS of a BP
Keith et al., 2002; Karkkainen, 2003; ; Alexander et al., 2003, Chappell et al., 2003; Lee et al., 2004; Srivastava, 2004; Lapide, 2004; Pramatari et al., 2005; Fleisch and Tellkamp, 2005; Atali et al., 2005; Angeles, 2005; Jones et al., 2005; Capone, 2005; Chuang and Shaw, 2005;
Lefebvre et al., 2005; Hardgrave and Miller, 2006; Gaukler et al., 2006; Loebbecke, 2007; Wang et al., 2008; Wu et al., 2006; Sellitto et al., 2007; Dutta et al., 2007; Tajima, 2007; Curtin et al., 2007; Attaran, 2007; Reyes and Jaska, 2007; Becker et al., 2009; Roh et al., 2009; Ferrer et al., 2010
A1: Task eliminationa,d,h
the elimination of unnecessary tasks from a business process
A2: Task composition a,b,d,e,g,h,i
the division of a general task into two or more alternative tasks or the integration of two or more alternative tasks into one general task
A3: Task addition
the addition of new tasks in a business process
Dimension B: WORKFLOW & POLICIES of a BP
B1: Task automationa,b,c,f,j
the automation of tasks or change in processing time
B2: Resequencinga,b,c,j
the change in a sequence/routing of tasks in a process
B3: Parallelisma,d,h,i
whether tasks may be executed in parallel
B4: Exceptiona,b
a deviation from a standardized process execution
Dimension C: ENTITIES INVOLVED in a BP
C1: Integrationa,c
the integration with the BP of a supplier
C2: Split responsibilitiesa,i
avoid assignment of task responsibilities to people from different units
C3: Resources eliminationa,b,f,i
minimize the number of persons involved in a business process
C4: Extra resourcesa
if capacity is not sufficient, consider increasing the number of resources
The RFID effect types derive from a wide literature review in the following research domains: Business Process Redesign and supplemented with practical experience of the authors in three case studies:
is not a model of a business process. It is rather an explicit set of ideas that helps in thinking about the business process in the context of RFID reengineering
The presentation of these effect types especially aims at BPR efforts where an existing business process is taken as basis for its redesign (Aldowaisan and Gaafar)
we classify the RFID effects towards the following dimensions of
a. Reijers & Mansar (2005), b. Hammer & Champy (1993), c. Balasubramanian & Gupta (2005), d. Van der Aalst & Van Hee (2004), e. van der Aalst (2001), f. Gunasekaranan and Nath (1997), g. Seidmann and Sundararajan (1997), h. Buzacott (1996), i. Rupp and Russell (1994), j Davenport (1993) 35

36. Factors affecting RFID- enabled process redesign
Tagging Level
This choice makes case-level tagging versus pallet-level tagging an important decision.
Literature that supports this assertion: Karkkainen, 2003; Hardgrave and Miller, 2006; Loebbecke, 2007; Tajima, 2007; Lee, 2007; Boeck and Wamba, 2008; Roh et al., 2009; Becker et al., 2009
Tagging Responsibility
One echelon of the supply chain should take the responsibility of introducing the new process of RFID tagging
Literature that supports this assertion: Kim and Sohn, 2009; Boeck and Wamba 2008
In order to implement the RFID technology, one echelon of the supply chain should take the responsibility of introducing the new process of RFID tagging. There is no work that makes such assumption implicitly. In close correspondence, there is a work by Kim and Sohn (2009) that investigate the cost of ownership for the RFID system. These researchers however give an economical and not a process-driven assessment of the costs when integrating such technology within supply chain processes. Support for this hypothesis can be also found in Also Boeck and Wamba (2008) who highlight the importance of the relationship between the supply chain members when implementing RFID. They propose that RFID has the potential to be a supply chain management technology. Based on their paper, they mention that it is essential to buy-in from suppliers to support a RFID initiative. Therefore, applying their findings to our context, we argue that the positioning of the new RFID tagging process is an important decision factor. To state the matter differently, it is important to test the impact that RFID has on the processes based on which echelon has the responsibility for the RFID tagging process. 36

37. Variation in RFID redesigns Warehouse processes
Tagging Level
Pallets
Tagging Responsibility
In-house
RFID effect type
Receiving
Storage
Picking
Shipping
A1: Task elimination
Manually scan each unloaded pallet; Apply a new label; Physically check the BOL and the packing slip; Enter data from paper BOL in the ERP;Verify quantity by looking up the PO; Visual count of pallets
Scan the bar code on the pallet and at the slot location in the racks; Manually insert barcode in case of , incorrect receipt of damaged or covered barcodes; Manually confirm the product assignment
Scan the bar code on the pallet and at the slot location in the racks; Manually insert barcode in case of , incorrect receipt of damaged or covered barcodes;Manually confirm the product picking; Placement in the wrong location, relocate pallet
Visual count of the cases picked; Physically check any discrepancies between the actual cases picked and the list of picking
A2: Task composition
Integration of:
Manually scan each unloaded pallet, Apply a new label, Physically check the BOL and the packing slip, Enter data from paper BOL in the ERP, Verify quantity by looking up the PO, Visual count of pallets
into one general task that of RECEIVE BOL
Division of the RECEIVE BOL into two alternatives based on whether the products are tagged or not by the upstream supplier
Scan the bar code on the pallet and at the slot location in the racks, Manually insert barcode in case of , incorrect receipt of damaged or covered barcodes, Manually confirm the product assignment
Division of the PUT-AWAY into two alternatives based on whether the products are tagged or not
Division of the REPLENISHMENT into two alternatives based on the tagging level
Scan the bar code on the pallet and at the slot location in the racks; Manually confirm the product picking, inventory update during the PALLET COMPOSITION.
Division of the PICKING into two alternatives based on the tagging level
Division of the PICKING into two alternatives based on whether the products are tagged or not
A3: Task addition
In case the focal firm does the tagging: Tagging process that includes: Break the shipment down to have access to each individual case; Tag cases; Rebuild pallets; Tag pallet; Ship tagged cases &pallets to the storage area
In case the upstream partner does the tagging: Drive the trailer through a RFID portal; automatic scan of the trailer; automatic upload a copy of BOL; automatic link the BOL to the PO; automatic create inventory; automatic initiate unloading
Automatic scan of pallets and storage locations by RFID reader; Automatic update information; Automatic inventory count
In case the products are tagged: Drive the trailer through a RFID portal; automatic scan of the trailer; automatic create a BOL; automatic create inventory; automatic initiate loading; Automatic check any discrepancies between the actual cases picked and the list of picking
B1: Task automation
Automatic check for any discrepancy (between BOL and PO);automatic enter data from BOL; faster repair in case of a failure, incorrect receipt of damaged or covered barcodes; faster cross-docking; automatic count & create inventory
automatic scan the pallet and dedicated rack; Automatic confirm the put-away on the dedicated rack in the system; automatic correlation between the pallet stored and the storage location; faster identification of the dedicated storage location
Automatic Scan the bar code on the pallet and at the slot location in the racks; Faster composition of a pallet; Faster repair time in case of a divergence
automatic scan of the trailer;automatic create a BOL; automatic create inventory; automatic initiate loading; Automatic check any discrepancies between the actual cases picked and the list of picking; faster compliance checks on the shipping dock
B2: Re-sequencing
Change of routing to attach tags, cross-docking movement, priority to out-of-stock products
B3: Parallelism
Tasks may be executed in parallel: check the BOL and the packing slip; Enter data from BOL in the ERP; automatic count & create inventory
Tasks may be executed in parallel: Inventory count; scan of pallets and storage locations by RFID reader
Tasks may be executed in parallel: Inventory count; scan of pallets and storage locations
Tasks may be executed in parallel: Visual count of the cases picked; Physically check any discrepancies between the actual cases picked and the list of picking
B4: Exception
Different process if the received products are tagged or not
Different process if the products are tagged or not based also on the tagging level
Different process based on the tagging level
Different process based on whether the products are tagged or not
C1: Integration
Tagging Process in case the upstream partner does the tagging
No integration with partners’ business processes
C2: Split responsibilities
In case the upstream partner does the tagging: avoid assignment of task responsibilities to people from storage process
In case the focal firm does the tagging: split storage labor responsibilities to the tagging process
C3: Resources elimination
In case the upstream partner does the tagging, eliminate resources in: Manually scan each unloaded pallet; Apply a new label; Physically check the BOL and the packing slip; Enter data from paper BOL in the ERP; Verify quantity by looking up the PO; Visual count of pallets
In case the focal firm does the tagging eliminate resources in storage process and allocate them in the Tagging process that includes: Break the shipment down to have access to each individual case; Tag cases; Rebuild pallets; Tag pallets; Ship tagged case s& pallets to the storage area
No elimination in the resources
Elimination of resources in: Visual count of the cases picked; Physically check any discrepancies between the actual cases picked and the list of picking
C4: Extra resources
In case the focal firm does the tagging extra resources are needed in: Tagging process that includes: Break the shipment down to have access to each individual case; Tag cases; Rebuild pallets; Tag pallets; Ship to storage
No need for extra resources
Tagging Level
Cases
Tagging Responsibility
By all suppliers 37

38. Business Process Performance Tagging Responsibility
Conceptual Model
RFID Technology
Business Processes
Business Process Performance
Tagging Level
Tagging Responsibility
(adapted from Melville et al., 2004
MIS Quarterly) 38

39. Research Hypotheses
Hypothesis H1: “The integration of RFID in warehouse processes has a positive effect on process performance in terms of labor utilisation. This effect varies depending on tagging level and who has the tagging responsibility.”
Hypothesis H2: “The integration of RFID in warehouse processes has a positive effect on process performance in terms of time savings. This effect varies depending on tagging level and who has the tagging responsibility.” 39

40. By the large suppliers & In-house
Experimental Design
In-house
By all the suppliers
By the large suppliers
By the large suppliers & In-house
Pallets
Redesign1
Redesign3
Redesign5
Redesign7
Cases
Redesign2
Redesign4
Redesign6
Redesign8
Tagging
Level
Tagging Responsibility
Levels of Tagging Level
we choose pallet vs. case-levels as these are the levels of SKUs we encounter in the majority of warehouse processes
Levels of Tagging Responsibility
two extreme cases: the tagging process is deployed in-house or by all the suppliers,
a “common/popular” case: the tagging process is deployed by the large suppliers
a mixed case: the tagging process is deployed by both the suppliers and the focal firm
Tagging responsibility
Tagging Level
Pallet
Item
Case
By all the suppliers
In-house
Solution Space: all possible conditions under which the ‘to-be’ model can be run 40

41. RFID Redesign 1 Tagging Level Pallet Tagging Responsibility In-house
RFID-enabled processes
Shipping
NEW PROCESS-
RFID TAGGING
RECEIVING
SHIPPING
STORAGE
ORDER PICKING
…is not supported by RFID…
…is not supported by RFID…
…is not supported by RFID… 41

42. RFID Redesign 2 Tagging Level Pallet Tagging Responsibility
By all the suppliers
RFID-enabled processes
Receiving- Partially Storage
RECEIVING
STORAGE
ORDER PICKING
SHIPPING
…is partially supported by RFID…
…is not supported by RFID…
…is not supported by RFID… 42

43. RFID Redesign 3 Tagging Level Pallet Tagging Responsibility
By all the suppliers
RFID-enabled processes
Receiving for the large suppliers’ products
RECEIVING
STORAGE
ORDER PICKING
SHIPPING
…is not supported by RFID…
…is not supported by RFID…
…is partially supported by RFID…
RECEIVING
…is not supported by RFID… 43

44. RFID Redesign 4 Tagging Level Pallet Tagging Responsibility
By large suppliers and in-house
RFID-enabled processes
Receiving for the large suppliers’ products and shipping
NEW PROCESS-
RFID TAGGING
RECEIVING
ORDER PICKING
SHIPPING
STORAGE
…is partially supported by RFID…
…is not supported by RFID…
ΠΑΡΑΛΑΒΗ
…is not supported by RFID… 44

45. RFID Redesign 5 Tagging Level Case Tagging Responsibility In-house
RFID-enabled processes
Storage-Order Picking – Shipping
NEW PROCESS-
RFID TAGGING
RECEIVING
STORAGE
ORDER PICKING
SHIPPING
…is not supported by RFID… 45

46. RFID Redesign 6 Tagging Level Case Tagging Responsibility
By all the suppliers
RFID-enabled processes
Receiving- storage-Order Picking – Shipping
RECEIVING
STORAGE
ORDER PICKING
SHIPPING 46

47. RFID Redesign 7 Tagging Level Case Tagging Responsibility
By the large suppliers
RFID-enabled processes
Receiving- storage-Order Picking – Shipping for the large suppliers’ products
RECEIVING
STORAGE
ORDER PICKING
SHIPPING
By the large suppliers
STORAGE
ORDER PICKING
SHIPPING
RECEIVING
…is not supported by RFID…
…is not supported by RFID…
…is not supported by RFID…
…is not supported by RFID… 47

48. RFID Redesign 8 Tagging Level Case Tagging Responsibility
By the large suppliers & in-house
RFID-enabled processes
Storage- Order Picking- Shipping
NEW PROCESS-
RFID TAGGING
RECEIVING
STORAGE
ORDER PICKING
SHIPPING
By the large suppliers
RECEIVING
…is not supported by RFID… 48

49. Simulation Model Specifications Learning from the preliminary work
(preliminary case)
Simulation Model 2
Simulation mode:
Exploratory experiments
confirmatory experiments
Bottom-up approach
Top-down approach
Narrow warehouse case
More generic warehouse type
Difficult to implement too many different experiments
Easy to implement many different experiments
Depends heavily on the specific cases data
Can be supported by simulated data
Difficult to reuse and reconfigure the model
Model is reusable, reconfigured 49

50. A Retail DC simulation model (SIMUL8 software)50

51. Model content (1) Products Orders Arrivals Product Carrier of SKU
The products are included as work items. Work items are anything processed through the simulation model. The products represent the flow through the warehouse that triggers the processes of receiving and storage. The products have specific IDs based on their type and supplier. The number of suppliers is eleven. The ten of them represent the large suppliers of the warehouse and the eleven one represents all the remainder suppliers. 80% of the products come from the large suppliers. As such, the products arriving from the large suppliers count for the 80% of the products entering the system.
Orders
The orders are also modelled as work items. They represent the flow through the warehouse that triggers the processes of picking and shipping.
Arrivals
Work Entry Points-These components control how work items arrive from outside of system. There are two entry points, one for the products’ arrivals of the eleven suppliers and one for the orders’ arrivals.
Product Carrier of SKU
When the products arrive into the system, the product carrier of SKU is pallets. The products are stored as pallets, decomposing them to cases based on a replenishment rule. The cases are removed from the system, in response to orders’ arrivals. As such, there is an iterative cycle.
Labor
The labor is included as Resources. Resources represent entities required in the work centres before work items can be processed. They are responsible for unloading, scanning, checking, storage, retrieval and loading of the products. All resources need to be modeled to give full statistics on queues and resource utilisation.
Processes
Four main processes are modelled that are spotted in any warehouse, namely receiving, storage, picking and shipping. These processes are decomposed to sub-activities and they are included as work centers. Work centers are steps where some action is taken on a work item, some time is taken to perform the task and requires one or more resources. Moreover, efficiency options are provided to simulate downtime that prevents the work centre from working all time. 51

52. Model content (2) Errors
They are included as Efficiency option. They represent misreads because of unlabeled products and covered or damaged barcodes resulting in rejected products that must be carried out manually, with the expected delay of the process.
Queues-Storage Areas
These components act as buffers in between steps in a process or as storage areas for inventory. Need to be modeled to give full statistics on queues and resource utilisation. The main queued include queue for unloading/loading, scanning, checking in/out
Work Exit Point
These are a means for work items to leave the simulation model.
Routings
They control how work items move from one activity or storage to another
Labels
These are individual pieces of information physically attached to the work items, such as the product carrier of SKU, the productID, the supplierID
Distributions
These are the heart of simulation, they are “number generators” used anywhere timing and number values, fixed or variable, are required
Visual Logic
This is an internal programming language to handle advanced user requirement 52

53. Model validation Validation with the managers
Independent T test using SPSS software
Test the null hypothesis that the distribution of the outputs is the same across categories of simulated and real data
Outputs
no. of orders per day, no. of pallets receiving for each supplier
Validation with the managers
historic data from the real system have been obtained:
part of these was used to feed real system input data into the simulation model and
the remaining data were used to test the quality of the simulation model. 53

54. Modeling the to-be processes on the simulation tool: A Framework
Type of changes
Description
Structural Characteristics
represents changes in the model structure
configure the simulation model on an aggregated level and not each process in depth
specification of the high-level operations to be supported by the RFID
Workflow & Policies
represents changes in the processes’ logic
how the simulation is going to be operated with regards to the workflow in each process along with the ongoing operating practices
Entities
represents changes in the entities’ characteristics
configure the characteristics of the objects that pass through the processes 54

55. Key Findings (1)
The integration of RFID in warehouse processes has a positive effect on process performance in terms of overall Labor Utilisation & Time Savings
Whatever the tagging level, the RFID-enabled processes bring better results in terms of operational savings than the current situation (without RFID)
Whoever has the responsibility of the new tagging process, even if the focal firm decides to suffer the most from the new time & labor consuming tagging process, the RFID-enabled processes bring better results in terms of operational savings than the current situation (without RFID)
The degree to which a focal firm can realize the RFID effect on process performance is moderated by two factors: Tagging level & Tagging responsibility
Based on the % improvement from the current system, case-level tagging brings significantly better results compared to pallet-level. Investment-wise it may be better to go for a case-level tagging if they want to reap the benefits.
Although the experiments that differentiate based on the tagging responsibility are statistically different, viewing the % improvement compared to as-is, it is obvious that the popular case of convincing the large suppliers to tag their products does not bring significantly different results compared to the remainder three. Investment-wise it may be better in all cases to incorporate the new process of tagging inhouse. 55

56. Key Findings (2) Decomposing the outputs:
 Labor Utilisation  Receiving – Storage – Picking – Shipping
 Time Savings  Average queuing time for unloading – Scanning - Checking-in/out –Storing - Picking time
It seems that the tagging level is more important regarding the outbound processes of a warehouse (i.e. picking & shipping) while the tagging responsibility impacts more on the inbound processes (i.e. receiving & storage)
The mixed experiment that incorporates the tagging process by both the focal firm and the large suppliers seem to have significant difference in some of these outputs from the experiment that incorporate the tagging process only by the large suppliers. This indicates that if the large suppliers take the responsibility of tagging the products, it is of value for the focal firm to tag the remainder products, although having a mixed model may have a negative effect in some parts of the warehouse.
Evidence is presented on how RFID impacts on the four processes of a warehouse separately. It seems that if RFID speeds up only the receiving process, it may made the put-away process a bottleneck. If the facility does not have enough room to store the off-loaded material on the receiving dock, then the gains from RFID are reduced or even negated. So it may be better to go for a full implementation if they want to reap the benefits.
Interaction effects of tagging level and tagging responsibility
It seems that when the level of tagging is pallet, there are no significant differences on the process performance based on who has the tagging responsibility.
Controversy, when the level of tagging is case, there is an interaction effect with the tagging responsibility. This means that it is of high importance who has the tagging responsibility. 56

57. Discussion of Findings
A snapshot of one part of the warehouse likely to underestimate impact
full implementation to reap the benefits
longer planning horizon
viewing also this as an investment in the relationship with key suppliers
Warehouse processes
It is a narrow view considering only the warehouse processes when depicting and evaluating the impact of RFID on process performance
Tagging level and tagging responsibility
Tagging responsibility represent the sharing of the tagging process or trading partners’ dependence; other studies only see the sharing of cost in terms of financial indicators and not process-driven ones
Consider not only the two factors of tagging level and tagging responsibility when evaluating the impact of RFID; other important aspects such as contextual factors that differentiate one warehouse from another (such as mechanisation level, size) may moderate the impact of RFID on process performance
RFID as a collaborative, supply chain, object-connected ICT
The two factors of tagging level and tagging responsibility represent a new set of factors that can not be regarded as organisation or human ones
Collaborative design between processes and RFID
The framework rules are thought to have a wide applicability across various supply chain processes and not only within the warehouse ones 57

58. Theoretical Implications
Regarding the research problem (i.e. process-driven value of RFID), the thesis:
Proposes a reference framework that conceptualizes how the warehouse processes are designed due to RFID
Develops a simulation model that can be used to estimate the impact of RFID technology within a warehouse in terms of process performance metrics (time savings and labor utilization)
Signifies important factors that influence the impact of RFID on process performance
Regarding the approach adopted (i.e. simulation), the thesis:
Signifies the linkages between RFID assessment and simulation by proposing a simulation framework of how to model the to-be processes on a simulation tool 58

59. Further Prospects
Use of the reference framework as a basis for depicting the impact of RFID on other supply chain processes
Use of the existing simulation model to perform different experiments.
For example, other important aspects such as contextual factors that differentiate one warehouse from another (such as mechanisation level, size) may moderate the impact of RFID on process performance
Using the simulation outputs as inputs in developing a cost-benefit model
Development of a more sophisticated model to investigate other impacts of RFID
Development of simulation models in order to investigate:
New leading practices/processes: Environmental Sustainability; In-store logistics with home shopping and neighbourhood distribution; Reverse logistics processes; Collaborative Warehousing & Transport; Collaborative City Replenishment; Multi-player information sharing
New Measurements (KPIs): Energy consumption; CO2 emissions (greenhouse gases); Traffic congestion; Water consumption; Security Compliance; Infrastructure simplification 59

60. Preliminary Case Overview
Background
3PL company that deals with paper trading
a manual warehouse system with “some” computer control
the warehouse consists of a number of parallel aisles with paper rolls stored alongsides and are piled one on top of the other
Objective
Model four distinct operations:
receiving, storage, picking and shipping
Evaluate the impact of RFID due to automation in terms of:
Time savings
Labor utilisation 60

61. Simulation Modeling (1/3)
Real world
Solutions/
Understanding
Computer
model
Conceptual
Model coding
Experimentation
Conceptual modeling
Implementation
Validation
Validation techniques
Process modeling of the four distinct warehouse operations
Model coding in SIMUL8 61

62. Simulation Modeling (2/3)
Real world
Solutions/
Understanding
Computer
model
Conceptual
Model coding
Experimentation
Conceptual modeling
Implementation
Validation
Validation techniques
Model validation
“subjectively eyeballing the timepaths” (Kleijnen, 1995)
confidence intervals
Experimentation
Determining Warm-Up Period
Time-series method
Welch method
Determining the run-length
Robinson (1995) graphical method
Steady state
Initial transient
Initial transient
Steady state
CI for the difference in the
warehouse inventory output:
=( , ) 62

63. Simulation Modeling (3/3)
Real world
Solutions/
Understanding
Computer
model
Conceptual
Model coding
Experimentation
Conceptual modeling
Implementation
Validation
Validation techniques
RFID performance advantages within the warehousing operations
Time savings and reduced labor utilisation due to:
automation
reduced errors
limited labor intervention and
reduced time to check for any discrepancies
Theory Confirmation:
Offer empirical evidence in support of the RFID improvements suggested in Lefebvre et al. (2006)
Measurement
AS-IS model
RFID-enabled model
Comparison Result
% utilisation of scanning labor
9.60%
2.48%
Reduced 74%
% utilisation of storing/picking labor
19%
17.17%
Reduced 9.6%
% utilisation of unloading/loading labor
3.19%
Reduced 22.5%
Average time waiting for storing
27.72
26.55
Reduced 4.22%
Average time waiting for scanning
0.21
0.06
Reduced 71.4%
Average time waiting for loading
12.56
11.86
Reduced 5.58% 63

64. Structural Characteristics
Map the type of changes in the MODEL STRUCTURE of the base simulation model
Task elimination
Scanning-out
Checking manually the outgoing shipment
Task addition
RFID labeling
Break the shipment down to have access to each individual case
Tag cases
Rebuild pallets
Tag pallets
Ship tagged cartons and pallets to the storage area 64

65. Workflow & Policies
Map the type of changes in the MODEL LOGIC of the base simulation model
ChgDsb
ChgRout
Task automation
Processing time(ProcTime); Change in Distributions (ChgDsb)
Exception
Error reduction (ErrRed);
Efficiency increase (Effic)
Resequencing
Change in Routing (ChgRout)
Resources Elimination
Resource reduction (Res)
ProcTime
ErrRed
Effic 65

66. Entities Changes in individual object characteristics
Product Carrier Pallet or Case
RFID Tagging  Tagged or Not Tagged
-Pallet
-Not tagged
-Pallet
-Tagged
-Pallet
-Not tagged
-Case
-Tagged
-Case
-Not tagged 66

67. Application of the framework: RFID effects in STRUCTURAL CHARACTERISTICS of BPs
Receiving
Storage
Picking
Shipping
A1:
Task elimination
Manually scan each unloaded pallet
Apply a new label
Physically check the BOL and PO
Enter data from paper BOL in the ERP
Verify quantity by looking up the PO
Visual count of pallets
Scan the bar code on the pallet and at the slot location in the racks
Manually insert barcode in case of , incorrect receipt of damaged or covered barcodes
Manually confirm the product assignment
Manually confirm the product picking
Placement in the wrong location, relocate pallet
Visual count of the cases picked
Physically check any discrepancies between the actual cases picked and the list of picking
A2:
Task composition
Integration of:
Manually scan each unloaded pallet, Apply a new label, Physically check the BOL and the packing slip, Enter data from paper BOL in the ERP, Verify quantity by looking up the PO, Visual count of pallets
into one general task of RECEIVE BOL
Division of the RECEIVE BOL into two alternatives based on whether the products are tagged or not by the upstream supplier
Scan the bar code on the pallet and at the slot location in the racks, Manually insert barcode in case of , incorrect receipt of damaged or covered barcodes, Manually confirm the product assignment
Division of the PUT-AWAY into two alternatives based on whether the products are tagged or not
Division of the REPLENISHMENT into two alternatives based on the tagging level
Scan the bar code on the pallet and at the slot location in the racks, Manually confirm the product picking, inventory update
during the PALLET COMPOSITION.
Division of the PICKING into two alternatives based on the tagging level
Division of the PICKING into two alternatives based on whether the products are tagged or not
A3:
Task addition
In case the focal firm does the tagging: Tagging process that includes
Break the shipment down to have access to each individual case
Tag cases
Rebuild pallets
Tag pallets
Ship tagged products to the storage
In case the upstream partner does the tagging:
Drive the trailer through a RFID portal
automatic scan of the trailer
automatic upload a copy of BOL
automatic link the BOL to the PO,
automatic create inventory-
automatic initiate unloading
Automatic scan of pallets and storage locations by RFID reader
Automatic update information
Automatic inventory count
In case the products are tagged:
automatic create a BOL
automatic create inventory
automatic initiate loading
Automatic check any discrepancies between the actual cases picked and the list of picking 67

68. Application of the framework: RFID effects in WORKFLOW AND POLICIES of BPs
Receiving
Storage
Picking
Shipping
B1:
Task automation
Automatic check for any discrepancy (between BOL and PO)
automatic enter data from BOL
faster repair in case of a failure, incorrect receipt of damaged or covered barcodes
faster cross-docking
automatic count & create inventory
automatic scan the pallet and dedicated rack
Automatic confirm the put-away on the dedicated rack in the system
automatic correlation between the pallet stored and the storage location
faster identification of the dedicated storage location
Automatic Scan the bar code on the pallet and at the slot location in the racks
Faster composition of a pallet
Faster repair time in case of a divergence
automatic scan of the trailer
automatic create a BOL
automatic create inventory
automatic initiate loading
Automatic check any discrepancies between the actual cases picked and the list of picking
faster compliance checks on the shipping dock
B2:
Re-sequencing
Change of routing to attach tags, cross-docking movement, priority to out-of-stock products
B3: Parallelism
Tasks may be executed in parallel
check the BOL and the packing slip
Enter data from BOL in the ERP
Inventory count
scan of pallets and storage locations by RFID reader
scan of pallets and storage locations
Visual count of the cases picked
Physically check any discrepancies between the actual cases picked and the list of picking
B4: Exception
Different process if the received products are tagged or not
Different process if the products are tagged or not based also on the tagging level
Different process based on the tagging level
Different process based on whether the products are tagged or not 68

69. Application of the framework: RFID effects in ENTITIES involved in BPs
Receiving
Storage
Picking
Shipping
C1: Integration
Tagging Process in case the upstream partner does the tagging
No integration with partners’ business processes
C2:
Split responsibilities
In case the upstream partner does the tagging: avoid assignment of task responsibilities to people from storage process
In case the focal firm does the tagging: split storage labor responsibilities to the tagging process
C3:
Resources elimination
In case the upstream partner does the tagging, eliminate resources in
Manually scan each unloaded pallet
Apply a new label
Physically check the BOL and the packing slip
Enter data from paper BOL in the ERP
Verify quantity by looking up the PO
Visual count of pallets
In case the focal firm does the tagging eliminate resources in storage process and allocate them in the Tagging process that includes
Break the shipment down to have access to each individual case
Tag cases
Rebuild pallets
Tag pallets
Ship tagged case s& pallets to the storage area
No elimination in the resources
Elimination of resources in
Visual count of the cases picked
Physically check any discrepancies between the actual cases picked and the list of picking
C4:
Extra resources
In case the focal firm does the tagging extra resources are needed in: Tagging process that includes
Break the shipment down to each individual case
Ship tagged products to the storage area
No need for extra resources 69

70. A framework for identifying RFID-enabled warehouse settings (submitted to IMDS)70

71. Hypothesis H1 Testing RFID effect on Labor Utilisation
Hypothesis H1: “The integration of RFID in warehouse processes has a positive effect on process performance in terms of labor utilisation. This effect varies depending on tagging level and who has the tagging responsibility.” 71