1. The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/1463-5771.htm
BIJ
18,1 Towards taxonomy architecture
of knowledge management
for third-party logistics
42
service provider
R. Rajesh
Department of Mechanical Engineering,
Noorul Islam University, Kumarakoil, India
S. Pugazhendhi
Department of Manufacturing Engineering,
Annamalai University, Chidambaram, India, and
K. Ganesh
Global Business Services – Global Delivery,
IBM India Private Limited, Mumbai, India
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to examine how the rapid pace of technological change,
attrition rate, global complexities and the increasing amount of data and information available have
complicated the task of managing knowledge for third-party logistics (3PL) service providers. Based
on literature, there is a need for research into the development of a generic taxonomy components
framework (GTCF) for the implementation of knowledge management (KM) solution for 3PL service
providers.
Design/methodology/approach – A four-stage model has been devised for the development of a
GTCF to implement KM solution for 3PL service providers. The authors proposed modified Q-sort
method and also used Delphi analysis in the four-stage model. The KM components were identified
through literature study and discussion with subject experts. The hierarchical structure of the taxonomy
was derived and refined through a survey among 3PL experts by employing Q-sort method.
Findings – This paper makes several important contributions toward the objective of better
understanding the role of 3PL operations in knowledge creation. The feedback from the respondents
shows that the GTCF is of potential employment by 3PL service providers irrespective of the nature of
the primary service they offer.
Research limitations/implications – The GTCF has been devised based on survey responses
gathered from 3PL experts in India. The findings of this study have implications for understanding the
key KM components required for 3PL service provider relationship and also the weightage for KM
components.
Practical implications – The aim of this research is for the development of a GTCF which can be
taken as the base for implementation of KM solutions for 3PL service providers.
Originality/value – The contribution of this study lies in extending the body of knowledge of KM
for 3PL service providers. It tests a proposed framework which has only limited empirical validation,
Benchmarking: An International
and provides a broader understanding of KM components required for 3PL service provider.
Journal Keywords Knowledge management, Delphi method, Distribution channels and markets,
Vol. 18 No. 1, 2011
pp. 42-68 Service industries
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
1463-5771
Paper type Research paper
DOI 10.1108/14635771111109814

2. 1. Introduction Taxonomy
Growth and globalization, coupled with recent advances in information technology (IT), architecture
have led many of the firms to introduce sophisticated knowledge management systems
(KMS) in order to create sustainable competitive advantage (Ofek and Sarvari, of KM for 3PL
2001). Knowledge management (KM) efforts typically focus on organizational objectives
such as improved performance, competitive advantage, innovation, the sharing of
lessons learned and continuous improvement of the organization. According to 43
Du Plessis (2005), the overarching objective of KM is to create, share, harvest and
leverage knowledge in order to initiate action based on knowledge, support business
strategy implementation and realisation of business objectives, increase competitive
advantage, create an innovative culture and environment and improve work efficiency
through improved decision making, improved customer service, improved solution of
business problems, increased productivity and improved leveraging of corporate and
individual knowledge. KM ensures the availability of and access to relevant, up-to-date
strategic knowledge on markets, products and services, competitors, processes and
procedures, employee skills and the regulatory environment, for decision making and
daily work activities. This ensures that the organization can act quickly to changes in
the marketplace and can act ahead of its competitors, i.e. it provides the organization
with a competitive advantage in respect of agility. Efficiency is also increased due to
time saving and prevention of duplication of work due to the availability of knowledge.
In recent years, the possibility of applying KM to logistics and to logistics planning
has been put forward in literature. Despite these discussions, KM has not been
implemented in logistics in large-scale (Neuman and Tome, 2005). Logistics is defined
as the planning, execution and control of the movement and placement of people
and/or goods and of the supporting activities within a system organized to achieve
specific objectives (ELA, 2004). Logistics is a critical function in supply chain and
include planning (creating strategies of managing resources which are essential to fulfill
needs on particular goods and services), identifying sources of resources, fixing prices,
deliveries and payments, managing resources and storing process, production, the
stage of delivery and goods return. Nowadays, as competition becomes more intense,
many firms are considering the option of outsourcing the logistics activities in order to
streamline their value chains. In the last decade, development of third-party logistics
(3PL) service provider has been very important. There are several reasons for such
development, the most important being the trend to concentrate in the core business by
manufacturing companies and new technological advances. As in companies and the
society in general, knowledge has been widely recognized and accepted as a strategic
resource in the area of logistics too which includes 3PL providers. The biggest challenge
for properly handling this strategic resource by applying KM methods and tools to both
spheres, the planning of logistics systems and processes and the operation of logistics
services, consists in providing the right knowledge of the right quality and with the right
costs at the right place and time. Major problems in implementing KM and running it in
the daily logistics business include financial limitations, time restrictions, as well as
insufficient structuring and presentation of knowledge.
It is observed that KM has not been considered or implemented in large-scale 3PL
companies or logistics departments of larger firms because of the problems explained
which includes a proper structuring and presentation of knowledge. We are attempting
to devise a generic taxonomy component framework (GTCF) for the implementation

3. BIJ of KM solution for 3PL service providers. This paper draws on literature and expertise
18,1 from 3PL executives to propose taxonomy of strategies for KM for 3PL providers.
We propose a four-stage model to develop the GTCF for KM implementation that will
help the user to think, create and contribute knowledge in an organized fashion and
help the user to access in the same fashion to enhance the use or re-use of knowledge. The
primary purpose of this framework is to guide executives of 3PL on choices to initiate
44 KM process according to goals, organizational character and technological, behavioural
or economic biases.
The paper is organized as follows: Section 2 details the research background and
motivation of research. Research methodology is explained in Section 3. The development
of GTCF of KM for 3PL providers is detailed in Section 4. Managerial implications and
future scope are discussed in Section 5. Section 6 concludes the paper.
2. Research background
2.1 KM perspective
The KM architecture consists of four elements namely: knowledge components,
KM process, IT and organizational aspects. Knowledge component includes knowledge
definition and knowledge categories while KM process contains the steps and
activities to deal with knowledge. IT consists of IT-related support infrastructure such as
communication lines, networks, database and many others. Lastly, organizational
aspects comprise the organizational structure, corporate culture and human resource
management. Among these four elements, knowledge components and KM process are
the key components of the KM concept (Supyuenyong and Islam, 2006).
KM aids in planning, organizing, motivating and controlling of people, processes and
systems in the organization to ensure that its knowledge-related assets are continuously
improved and effectively employed. Knowledge-related assets include knowledge in the
form of printed documents such as patents and manuals, knowledge stored in electronic
repositories such as best-practices database, employees’ knowledge about the best way
to do their jobs, knowledge that is held by teams concerning efficient and effective
teamwork and knowledge that is embedded in the organization’s products, processes and
relationships. The processes of KM involve knowledge acquisition, creation, refinement,
storage, transfer, sharing and utilization. The KM function in the organization facilitates
these processes, develops methodologies and systems to support them and motivates
people to participate in them. The broadest goal of KM is to improve organizational
performance and the broadest intermediate goal is to facilitate organizational learning.
An early view of organizational learning is as follows: “encoding inferences from history
into routines that guide behavior” (Levitt and March, 1988). By motivating the creation,
dissemination and application of knowledge, KM initiatives payoff by helping the
organization to achieve its goals. But in turn, knowledge is from and for the process.
From this perspective, organizational learning is one of the important ways in which
the organization can utilize knowledge. King (2007) showed that KM has positively
improved organizational processes, such as innovation, collaborative decision making
and individual and collective learning. This improved organizational process produce
intermediate outcomes such as better decisions and improved organizational behaviors,
products, services, processes and relationships. This in turn, leads to improved
organizational performance (Hansen et al., 1999). Earl (2001) has described various KM
organizational strategies or “schools of thought” at a more detailed level. Author has also

4. identified these empirically through observations in numerous companies. KM may be Taxonomy
conducted across multiple organizations, such as with suppliers, partners and architecture
customers. Such KM activities obviously rely on communications networks and systems
(Van de Ven, 2005). KMS refers to a system for managing knowledge in organizations, of KM for 3PL
supporting creation, capture, storage and dissemination of information. It can comprise
a part of a KM initiative (Paiva et al., 2007).
The steps to KM implementation are knowledge audit, strategic planning, system 45
design and architecture and phase-wise implementation and deployment. Recently, the
term “information system capability” (Bharadwaj, 2000) has been coined trying to link
the notions of dynamic capability, i.e. the ability to integrate, build and reconfigure
internal and external competences to address rapidly changing environments and
double-loop learning (Teece et al., 1997). As compared to the previous systems, in the
information system capability framework, all organizational processes and practices are
embedded in the information systems and the concern is rather with organizationally
internal developments than with changes in the external environment.
The process of embedding the KM processes and KM practices needs a framework and
it is termed as taxonomy. Taxonomy is a standardized set of terms, hierarchically
organized, used to categorize information and knowledge. The taxonomy generally
reflects how we think about our business, how we organize ourselves to conduct business,
and/or how and what we deliver to our customers. The hierarchical organization is a useful
way to display relationships among terms, and makes it easier to find like items at
more general or more specific levels. At its most basic level, the taxonomy standardizes
what we call things, making a consistent connection between an idea or concept and the
words we use to describe it. This standardization makes it easier for the ultimate user to
find what he or she is looking for. In other words, taxonomy is the apex operational
structure of the enterprise and it covers and categorizes all functional aspects of the
enterprise under different categories. The taxonomy should also be extensible to address
non-document form of outputs as well (Reville et al., 2005).
Given this, the taxonomy for any organization is based on both explicit/structured
knowledge as well as tacit/unstructured knowledge. The taxonomy is classified into two
layers, the navigation layer and the content layer. The navigation layer provides the
access path to the information category as required by the user and the content layer
facilitates a structured format for the storage and access of the right information. The
detailed link between the knowledge components and the taxonomy is the taxonomy
components framework.
2.2 KM and 3PL
Nowadays researchers are interested in the practical perspective which considers
knowledge in dimensional aspects by looking from the nature of knowledge and
operational domain aspects by looking from organization operational context. According
to Kim et al. (2003), knowledge can be classified into two levels:
(1) Corporate-related knowledge. Dealing with objective, policy and strategies.
(2) Operation-related knowledge. Coping with the detailed of business task or
process and uses for decision making and problem solving.
For both levels, knowledge can be of internal environment of organization such as policy,
strategy, culture, internal processes and external environment such as knowledge

5. BIJ about markets, customer, competition, technology trends or government policy. The
18,1 knowledge domains are viewed from different perspectives depending on the organization
type and the context of research and 3PL industry can be viewed from this perspective.
Outsourcing logistics activities to specialized 3PL providers has become a rapidly
expanding source of logistics cost savings, competitive advantage and customer service
improvements (Gunasekaran, 2002). The services offered by the 3PL service provider
46 can vary from customer to customer. Normally, 3PL service providers and the personnel
of 3PL service providers rely on personal experience and knowledge to execute
different logistics services. Since the education background and perception between the
operations’ personnel and staff members are different, this makes the performance level
of 3PL firm fluctuate.
KM for 3PL service providers aims at improving the effectiveness of enterprises by
raising the standards of efficiency of economic processes. As in companies and the society
in general, knowledge has been widely recognized and accepted as strategic resource in the
area of logistics too. The success of logistics and supply chain management does not only
depend on the intensity and quality of material and information flow in a collaborative
relationship. This is also heavily affected by the kind and quality of collaboration between
human resources involved on both sides of the collaborative relationship based on
knowledge, understanding and trust. To support the success for logistics and supply chain
management, there are numerous varieties of methods and software tools available.
Sometimes, unfortunately, the available methods and software dominate the creative
problem solving. The initiative of KM for 3PL service providers will pave the path for
creative problem solving by utilizing the available standard methods and processes of
software.
KM will help to create, store, access, use and reuse the information to improve the
creativity and innovation. An open dialogue about the information is required for all
parties to arrive at a common understanding which is the foundation for integrated
decision making and united action. Utilizing effective communication to achieve a shared
interpretation of disseminated information has been mentioned in strategic management
and marketing literature. Cumulative evidence from past research in operations
management and other disciplines suggests that managing the ideas and knowledge of
individual and organization will support the coordination and collaboration in greater
extent (Hult et al., 2004, 2006). Exploration of integration of logistics operation is
particularly interesting since logistics operations personnel must focus on both inbound
and outbound flows (Kulkarni et al., 2004). The experience is outbound logistics is more of
tacit in nature and explicit knowledge lie both in inbound and outbound logistics. There
are various ways to capture, create, store, use and reuse tacit and explicit knowledge of
logistics. At the same time, the behavioral research is also highlighted in KM.
With this view in mind, modern logistics education and training is mostly oriented
towards future needs and requirements and it is significantly being changed. The
biggest challenge for properly handling the planning of logistics systems and processes
and the operation of logistics services by the way of KM methods and tools is to obtain
the right knowledge of the right quality and with the right costs at the right place
and time. Baumgarten and Thoms (2002) have highlighted that there are challenges
in implementing KM solution and running it in the daily logistics business. Major
problems observed in literature for the implementation of KM solution are financial
limitations, time restrictions, insufficient structuring and presentation of knowledge,

6. as well as methodical misconceptions. Further reasons for the acceptance problems and Taxonomy
the slack implementation of KM into logistic services planning, operation and architecture
management are existing deficits in measuring the success of KM initiatives. Despite of
this common understanding, KM has not been considered or implemented in large-scale of KM for 3PL
3PL companies or logistics departments of larger firms.
2.3 Motivation for research 47
No domain has remained untouched by the revolution in managing knowledge.
All business firms, companies, etc. want to manage their organizational knowledge to
survive in today’s market and 3PL is no exception to this phenomenon. However,
every domain has specific problem areas concerned in developing KMS such as technical
knowledge bottleneck, lack of expert knowledge, distributed, unstructured and
untraceable knowledge, etc. 3PL is one such domain that emerges to be an industry with
potential problems in applying KM programs as well as potential opportunities by
implementing KM programs.
Once organizations embraced the concept that knowledge could make a difference to
performance and that somehow it should be managed better, they often have not known
where to start. Insufficient structuring and presentation of knowledge is cited to be one
of the major problems in implementing KM. Therefore, there is a need for models,
frameworks, or methodologies that can help corporate executives to understand the sort
of KM processes and to identify those that make sense in their context.
As the foundation for all activities within the corporation relating to explicit and
tacit knowledge, a taxonomy can further a wide range of corporate objectives, such as
enabling business processes, protecting intellectual property and building the foundation
for compliance. Each organization requires a different taxonomy because each has unique
processes, organizational configurations, core competencies and histories. However,
a unified KM taxonomy framework for a typical business group may be attempted.
As explained earlier, the detailed link between the knowledge components and the
taxonomy is the taxonomy components framework. From the literature, it is evident
that there is no generic base KM taxonomy framework for 3PL service providers for the
implementation of KM solution. There is a need to develop the generic taxonomic
components framework with respect to the industry so that it can be taken as a base for
the implementation of KM solution (Chua, 2004). The taxonomy framework will pave the
path for the implementation of KM solution and the activities that fall under the different
knowledge management process such as collection, validation, preparation for sharing,
access/sharing, learning, usage, validation, updation and creation (Chua, 2004; El-Diraby
and Zhang, 2006). Marasco (2007) indicated the research need in the domain of knowledge
management for 3PL service providers. By combining the interpretations of Chua (2004)
and Marasco (2007), it is evident that the development of GTCF for the implementation of
KM solution for 3PL service providers received less attention. It is also clear that there is a
need for research in the domain of KM with the focus on the development of GTCF
especially with the weightage for the KM components. In order to embark a path in the
literature, we made an attempt to devise a generic framework for the KM solution
implementation for 3PL service providers.
Founded on the research background explained, for our research, we have
the following main research questions, derived from detailed literature review and
discussion with industry experts, which will drive our work:

7. BIJ RQ1. What are the critical KM components and sub-components that drive the
18,1 success of 3PL service provider?
RQ2. What is the base structure of taxonomy framework to build the KM
architecture for 3PL service providers?
RQ3. What is the weightage for the selected components of KM taxonomy
48 framework?
The research problem is, then, to develop:
(1) set of KM components and sub-components to build up the effectiveness of
organization;
(2) propositions for KM components and sub-components and validate them using
modified Q-sort method; and
(3) base generic KM taxonomy components framework for 3PL service providers
based on composite statistical and decision-making model.
3. Research methodology
The study of KM and taxonomy development needs a clear understanding of
knowledge components. Ideally, to answer our questions we should get a sample of
3PL service providers and experts in the field of 3PL and we should initially collect the
KM components and sub-components based on brainstorming and semi-structured
interviews. The discussion with 3PL service provider is targeted based on their business
vision and mission. The semi-structured discussion with industry experts is based on the
collected literature. The idea is to understand the set of components and sub-components
which need to be part of KM solution portal so that it will be captured from the
organization for use and reuse to enhance the innovation and creativity element.
The above scenario, although theoretically and opinion-based possible, has several
problems: the first one is related to practical issues. It does not seem realistic that we will
be able to obtain a number of organizations that will let us use them as our research
grounds. The second problem is related to an important issue that whether these KM
components and sub-components will have an impact for the organization effectiveness
since many other components and sub-components variables may also affect the
performance of the knowledge-intensive business process. Finally, even if we could
overcome the first two problems, the time required to accomplish our measurement goals
will exceed all practical boundaries up to the point to make this research project obsolete.
In order to overcome the problems presented above, we propose to devise a systematic
approach. Based on preliminary collection of KM components and sub-components,
we need to develop the proposition in order to develop and validate the taxonomy
framework. The devised proposition needs to be evaluated statistically for reliability
and construct validity. There are various methods to evaluate the propositions and to
access the reliability and construct validity. Authors proposed a modified Q-sort method
based on the work of Nahm et al. (2002). Based on the results of modified Q-sort method,
the GTCF for KM solution implementation will be developed. All the KM components
and sub-components cannot be weighed equally and we need to have the GTCF with
the weightage. Authors use Delphi method to derive the weightage for KM components
and sub-components. Of course, the experiment does have some problems, too.
Particularly, we will reduce the generalizability of our conclusions; but we remind

8. the reader that this research project is intended to be an exploratory study for the Taxonomy
development of GTCF which can act as a base for any 3PL service provider. architecture
3.1 Research framework for taxonomy development of KM for 3PL
We will concentrate on a four-stage approach to developing the taxonomy:
.
Stage 1: is concerned with collection of terms that seem to represent concepts that
are “high value” to the organization. Literature review and interviews with 3PL 49
experts and practitioners help to identify the contents that 3PL providers care
about. This also helps toward better understanding of the problems they are trying
to solve and understanding the concepts that are important to them. Content
analysis is performed to break down the taxonomy into smaller, more easily
managed facets leading to the identification of main and sub-components.
.
Stage 2: is concerned with brainstorming discussions and interviews with
subject matter experts both from academia and industry, to form the
propositions in developing the taxonomy that is concerned with the
classification of items.
.
Stage 3: is concerned with the evaluation of the propositions to determine if
the proposed structure will make sense to the end-users. This is performed by the
Q-sort technique wherein several people index the same items and inconsistencies
in indexing can point out problems within the taxonomy. It also involves
the refining of the taxonomy wherein user and subject matter expert feedback
are reviewed and agreed-to changes are incorporated. The review and refining
process is continued to build depth into the taxonomy.
.
Stage 4: is concerned with ordering the components based on relative importance
to the particular organization and their level of detail.
Figure 1 shows the four stages of the proposed model to devise the GTCF for the
implementation of KM solution for 3PL service providers. The first stage is concerned
with the collection of main and sub-components for KM from the research and business
literature and pre-structured interviews with top executives and officials of 3PL firms.
From the pre-structured interview with top executives and officials of 3PL firms,
Step 1: Component collection
methodology: detailed literature review of published reports and interaction with experts
Step 2: Devise measures based propositions
methodology: brainstorming, discussions with academia and industry experts
Step 3: Evaluation of the propositions and finalisation of components
methodology: a modified Q-Sort method was proposed to evaluate the propositions and to finalize the
main and sub-components
Figure 1.
Four-stage model
Step 4: Assigning weightage of the components by delphi analysis for research

9. BIJ we have considered eight critical functions such as transportation, facility structure,
18,1 human resource, information and communication, tender details, agreement details,
customer service and quality control to form the first level of knowledge taxonomy for
this study. This is the first level of taxonomy and termed as “taxonomy main
components”. Similarly, from the background of research and business literature and
discussions with academia and industry experts, we have devised a set of
50 sub-components of each taxonomy main component, which is the second level of
taxonomy and it is termed as “taxonomy sub components”. These main and
sub-components will help contributor to think, create, store and contribute knowledge in
an organized fashion and help the user to access in the same fashion to enhance the
use/re-use of knowledge. Any 3PL service provider can use the set of components
provided in this study directly for their organization or else they can add or modify
the components according to the needs and expectations of the firm. The second stage
involves the development of propositions with respect to main and sub-components. We
devised the propositions with respect to business and research literature. 3PL service
providers can use the same propositions or otherwise they can devise according to their
firm. The third stage is concerned with the evaluation of propositions and finalization of
the main and sub-components. We proposed a modified Q-sort method to evaluate the
propositions and also to finalize the main and sub-components in order to create the
taxonomy components framework. Q-sort technique is a statistical tool wherein several
people index the same items and inconsistencies in indexing can point out problems
within the taxonomy and also the technique lends itself for refining of the taxonomy.
All the main and sub-components were scrambled and a questionnaire is developed for
evaluation by subject experts. This technique can be directly used for the new/changed
propositions, if any, by 3PL service provider. The main and sub-components are
finalized based on the reliability and content validity to build up sound taxonomy
architecture.
It is to be noted that a common framework for KM taxonomy could be inhibited
by contextual factors. Taxonomies are the classification scheme used to categorize
a set of information items. They represent an agreed vocabulary of topics arranged
around a particular theme. A hierarchical taxonomy has a tree-like structure with nodes
branching into sub-nodes (as shown in Figure 1) where each node represents a topic with
a few descriptive words. The taxonomy presents a hierarchy of descriptive categories
or items but even with a detailed taxonomy, the classification scheme cannot convey
the relative importance of the taxonomy nodes nor the relationship among the nodes,
which is exactly the contextual information needed to transform information into
knowledge. The fourth stage is concerned with ordering the components based on
relative importance and their level of detail and hence to identify the weightage for each
main and sub-components of the GTCF Delphi method is employed.
By using the four-stage model, we focused to develop a GTCF with main and
sub-components for 3PL service providers as shown in Figure 2.
This research is aimed for the development of GTCF which can be taken as base
for implementation of KM solution for 3PL service providers; nevertheless, a 3PL service
provider can revise the base according to the requirements. In this direction, this
research also provides support for 3PL service providers to revise the base based on the
four-stage model. If the 3PL service provider wants to redo the whole exercise, then
the four-stage model can be leveraged directly to re-create the customized GTCF.

10. KM Taxonomy solution
Taxonomy
architecture
Transportation Facility structure of KM for 3PL
Sub-components Sub-components
51
Human resource Information and communication
Sub-components Sub-components
Tender details Agreement details
Sub-components Sub-components
Customer service Quality control
Figure 2.
Generic taxonomy
Sub-components Sub-components components framework
4. Development of GTCF for KM solution implementation
The four-stage model is explained in detail.
4.1 Stage 1: component collection
Based on analysis by industry experts, discussions with senior executives of major
3PL service providers and a detailed literature review, we collected the main and
sub-components in order to devise the GTCF. The main components considered are:
1. Transportation.
2. Facility structure.
3. Human resource.
4. Information and communication.
5. Tender details.
6. Agreement details.
7. Quality control.
8. Customer service.
The sub-components for the main component “transportation” are:
1.1 Transportation booking information.
1.2 Freight bill information.
1.3 Pickup and delivery procedures.
1.4 Transit time information.

11. BIJ 1.5 Insurance and reliability requirements of freight.
18,1 1.6 Carrier problems and solutions.
1.7 Container problems and solutions.
1.8 Government regulations for transportation.
1.9 Security of goods in transportation.
52 1.10 Transportation performance measures and indicators.
1.11 Transportation network design.
1.12 Shipment problems and solutions.
1.13 Routing and scheduling of vehicles.
1.14 Maintenance of equipments.
1.15 Dock information.
The sub-components for the main component “Facility structure” are:
2.1 Warehouse insurance information.
2.2 Consolidation process.
2.3 Facility security information.
2.4 Automation technologies for material handling.
2.5 Shipment problems and solutions.
2.6 Handling of exceptions and failures in warehouse.
2.7 Load planning information.
2.8 Warehouse network design.
2.9 Warehouse requirements.
2.10 Packing information.
2.11 Storing system information.
2.12 Warehouse equipment and shipment tracking and tracing database.
The sub-components for the main component “Human resource” are:
3.1 Time standards.
3.2 Workload planning and scheduling.
The sub-components for the main component “Information and communication” are:
4.1 Best practices in IT system.
4.2 Warranty information.
4.3 Wireless and mobile solution information.
4.4 Business-to-business portal information.
4.5 E-commerce information.
4.6 Web and legacy system issues.
4.7 Global positioning system information.
4.8 License for information system.

12. The sub-components for the main component “Tender details” are: Taxonomy
5.1 Best practices in tender. architecture
5.2 Effect of termination. of KM for 3PL
5.3 Benchmarking in tender.
The sub-components for the main component “Agreement details” are: 53
6.1 Contractual issues.
6.2 Tender agreement parties.
6.3 Definition of agreement terms.
6.4 Object of agreement.
6.5 Liabilities and obligations estimates.
6.6 Terms of delivery and packaging.
6.7 Payment terms.
6.8 Ownership of goods in warehouse.
6.9 Early termination.
6.10 Liability for damages.
6.11 Product liability.
6.12 Applicable law and settlement of disputes.
6.13 Time of validity and termination.
6.14 Return of confidentiality agreement.
6.15 Ownership of intellectual property rights and improvements.
The sub-components for the main component “Quality control” are:
7.1 Product audit.
7.2 Quality regulatory requirements.
7.3 Quality policies.
7.4 Quality performance indicators.
7.5 Quality process flows.
7.6 Quality control manuals and procedures.
7.7 Audit manuals.
7.8 Process audit.
The sub-components for the main component “Customer service” are:
8.1 Customer emergency orders.
8.2 Customer’s customer database.
8.3 Customer complaint and feedback system.
8.4 Customer performance indicators.
8.5 Customer satisfaction monitoring plans.
8.6 Customer-related problems and solutions.

13. BIJ 8.7 Quality deviations.
18,1 8.8 Customer database.
4.2 Stage 2: propositions development for measures
The propositions are derived based on brainstorming discussions with academia and
industry experts with the list of main and sub-components. The propositions are
54 detailed here:
P1. All the sub-components or items (1.1-1.15) listed in Stage 1 are related to
the main component “transportation”.
P2. All the sub-components or items (2.1-2.12) listed in Stage 1 are related to the
main component “facility structure”.
P3. All the sub-components or items (3.1 and 3.2) listed in Stage 1 are related to
the main component “human resource”.
P4. All the sub-components or items (4.1-4.8) listed in Stage 1 are related to the
main component “information and communication”.
P5. All the sub-components or items (5.1-5.3) listed in Stage 1 are related to
the main component “tender details”.
P6. All the sub-components or items (6.1-6.15) listed in Stage 1 are related to the
main component “agreement details”.
P7. All the sub-components or items (7.1-7.8) listed in Stage 1 are related to
the main component “quality control”.
P8. All the sub-components or items (8.1-8.8) listed in Stage 1 are related to the
main component “customer service”.
We proposed modified Q-sort method for evaluation of these propositions and to
finalize the components in order to develop the GTCF.
4.3 Stage 3: proposition evaluation and components finalization
4.3.1 Item generation and validation using modified Q-sort method. The Q-sort
technique is a useful tool for measuring attitudes and is intriguing in several aspects.
The Q-sort technique was originally developed by Stephenson in 1935 and was
published as a note in Nature, titled “Technique of factor analysis”. The Q-sort provides
attitude descriptors selected by the researcher based on content validity, variability and
differentiation among individuals. The goal of using Q-sort method is to develop and
validate a Q-sort instrument to select the components for KM solution for 3PL service
providers.
The Q-sort method is an iterative process in which the degree of agreement between
judges forms the basis of assessing construct validity and improving the reliability of the
constructs. The Q-sort method was devised by Nahm et al. (2002) as a method of assessing
reliability and construct validity of questionnaire items that are generated for survey
research. This method is modified and applied as a pilot study, which comes after the
pre-test and before administering the questionnaire items as a survey (Nahm et al., 2002).
The method is simple, cost efficient and accurate and provides sufficient insight into

14. potential problem areas in the questionnaire items that are being tested. The present Taxonomy
study proposes a modified Q-sort technique that helps to check the construct validity as architecture
well as to fit-in the sub-components into the main components in a proper way.
Proper generation of measurement items of a construct determines the validity and of KM for 3PL
reliability of an empirical research. The KM main components are termed as constructs.
The very basic requirement for a good measure is content validity, which means the
measurement items contained in an instrument should cover the major content of a 55
construct (Churchill, 1979). Content validity is usually achieved through interviews with
practitioners and academicians. A list of initial items for each construct was generated
based on a comprehensive review of relevant literature and interviews with practitioners
and academicians as explained earlier in Stage 1. Once item pools were created, items for
the various constructs were reviewed by two academicians and a doctoral student, and
further re-evaluated through a structured interview with one practitioner. The focus is to
check the relevance of each construct and its definition and clarity of wordings of sample
questionnaire items. Based on the feedback from the academicians and the practitioner,
redundant and ambiguous items were either modified or eliminated. New items were
added whenever deemed necessary. The result was the following number of items in
each pool entering the Q-sort analysis. There were a total of nine pools (including a group
called not-applicable) and 72 items as shown in Table I.
4.3.2 Scale development. Items placed in a common pool were subjected to
two Q-sort rounds. The objective was to pre-assess the convergent and discriminant
validity of the scales by examining how the items were sorted into various factors
or dimensions. The basic procedure was to have relevant respondents representing the
target population to (in our case, purchasing/materials/supply chain/operations vice
presidents and managers, academicians, 3PL managers and supply chain practitioners)
act as judges and sort the items into several groups, each group corresponding to a factor
or dimension, based on similarities and differences among items. An indicator of
construct validity was the convergence and divergence of items within the categories.
If an item was consistently placed within a particular category, then it was considered to
demonstrate convergent validity with the related construct, and discriminant validity
with the others. Analysis of inter-judge disagreements about item placement identified
both bad items, as well as weakness in the original definitions of constructs. Based on the
misplacements made by the judges the items could be examined and inappropriate or
ambiguous items could be either modified or eliminated.
Main components of KM Number of sub-components in main component
Transportation (TR) 15
Human resources (HR) 2
Tender details (TD) 3
Quality control (QC) 8
Not applicable (NA)
Facility structure (FC) 13 Table I.
Information and communication (IC) 8 Components and
Agreement details (AD) 15 sub-components of KM
Customer service (CS) 8 for 3PL service provider

15. BIJ 4.3.3 Sorting procedures. A 11-page questionnaire with a covering letter was
18,1 prepared and sent to 225 judges which includes the directors/chief executive officer
(CEOs)/vice presidents/engineers of outsourcing organizations; directors/CEOs/vice
presidents/engineers of 3PL service providers and academicians related to KM
domain. Within a gap of three months, we received response from 105 judges and the
representative population is shown in Figure 3. The 72 items were presented in the
56 questionnaire in a scrambled manner and the definitions of the components were given
to the judges. The judges were then asked to fit-in/relate each sub-component to any one
of the main components to the best of their knowledge. “not applicable” category was
also included to ensure that the judges did not force any item into a particular category.
The sample Q-sort questionnaire is shown in Table II. A pair of judges that included a
vice president and purchasing manager was also formed to ensure that the perception
of the target population is included in the analysis. Judges were allowed to ask as many
questions as necessary to ensure they understood the procedure.
4.3.4 Inter-rater reliabilities. To assess the reliability of the sorting conducted by the
judges, three different measures were used. First, for the pair of judges in each sorting
step, the inter-judge raw agreement scores were calculated. This was done by counting
the number of items both judges agreed to place in a certain category. An item was
considered as an item with agreement, though the category in which the item was sorted
together by both judges may not be the originally intended category. Second, the level
21%
33%
Academecians
Outsourcing organisations
3PLSPs
SCM consultants
16%
Figure 3.
Description of modified
Q-sort judges
30%
Main components
Sub-components of KM TR FS HR IC TD AD CS QC NA
Warehouse insurance information
Table II. Notes: TR, transportation; FS, facility structure; HR, human resource; IC, information and
Sample modified Q-sort communication; TD, tender details; AD, agreement details; CS, customer service; QC, quality control
questionnaire and NA, not applicable

16. of agreement between the two judges in categorizing the items was measured using Taxonomy
Cohen’s (1960) Kappa. This index is a method of eliminating chance agreements, thus
evaluating the true agreement score between two judges. Third, item placement ratio or
architecture
(Moore and Benbasat, 1991) hit ratio was calculated by counting all the items that were of KM for 3PL
correctly sorted into the target category by the judges for each round and dividing them
by the total number of items.
4.3.5 Results of first sorting round. In the first round, the inter-judge raw agreement 57
score, which is the ratio of number of agreements to total item placement, averaged to 93
percent (Table III), the initial overall placement ratio of items within the target
constructs was 89.72 percent (Table IV), and the Cohen’s Kappa score averaged to 0.918.
The calculation for Cohen’s Kappa coefficient is shown below:
P
N i X ii 2 i ðX iþ X þi Þ
K¼ P
N 2 2 i ðX iþ X þi Þ
i
where Ni is the number of total items.
Judge 1
TR FS HR IC TD AD QC CS NA
Judge 2 TR 14 1
FS 12 1
HR 2
IC 7 1
TD 2 1
AD 1 14
QC 8
CS 8
NA
Table III.
Notes: Total item placement: 72; number of agreements: 67; agreement ratio: 0.93; TR, transportation; Inter-judge raw
FS, facility structure; HR, human resource; IC, information and communication; TD, tender details; AD, agreement scores – first
agreement details; CS, customer service; QC, quality control and NA, not applicable sorting round
Actual categories
TR FC HR IC TD AD QC CS NA %
Theoretical categories TR 1,401 95 44 35 88.9
FC 90 1,160 75 40 84.9
HR 210 100
IC 10 20 745 65 88.6
TD 262 53 83.1
AD 40 39 125 1,325 15 31 84.1
QC 840 100
CS 840 100
NA
Notes: Total item placements: 7,560; number of agreements: 6,783; overall “hit ratio”: 89.72 percent; TR, Table IV.
transportation; FS, facility structure; HR, human resource; IC, information and communication; TD, Items placement ratios:
tender details; AD, agreement details; CS, customer service; QC, quality control and NA, not applicable first sorting round

17. BIJ Xii is the total number of items on the diagonal (the number of items agreed on
18,1 by two judges).
Xiþ is the total number of the items on the ith row of the table.
X þ i is the total number of items on the ith column of the table:
ð72Þð67Þ 2 768
58 K¼ ¼ 0:918
ð72Þð72Þ 2 768
For Kappa, no general agreement exists with respect to required scores. However,
several studies have considered scores greater than 0.65 to be acceptable (Jarvenpaa,
1989). Landis and Koch (1977) have provided a more detailed guideline to interpret
Kappa by associating different values of this index to the degree of agreement beyond
chance. They suggest the following guideline:
Value of Kappa – Degree of agreement beyond chance
0.76-1.00 – excellent
0.40-0.75 – fair to good (moderate)
0.39 or less – poor
Following the guidelines of Landis and Koch (1977) for interpreting the Kappa
coefficient, the value of 0.918 indicates an excellent level of agreement (beyond chance)
for the judges in the first round. However, this value is lower than the value for raw
agreement which is 0.93. The level of item placement ratios averaged to 0.897. For
instance, the lowest item placement ratio value was 0.831 for the component “tender
detail”, 0.841 for the component “agreement details”, 0.849 for the component “facility
structure”, 0.886 for the component “information and communication” and 0.889 for the
component “transportation” indicating a comparatively low degree of construct validity.
Feedback from both judges was obtained on each item and incorporated into
the modification of the items and in this case, overall, five items were deleted. The deleted
items are container problems and solutions from transportation component, automation
technologies for material handling from facility structure component, effect of termination
from tender details component, return of confidentiality agreement from agreement details
component and web and legacy system issues from information and communication
components. The numbers of items for each construct after the first round of modified
Q-sort are shown in Table V. There were a total of nine pools and 67 items.
Main components of KM Number of sub-components in main component
Transportation (TR) 14
Human resources (HR) 2
Tender details (TD) 2
Quality control (QC) 8
Table V. Not applicable (NA)
Components and Facility structure (FC) 12
sub-components after Information and communication (IC) 7
first round of modified Agreement details (AD) 14
Q-sort method Customer service (CS) 8

18. 4.3.6 Results of second sorting round. Again, same judges were involved in the second Taxonomy
sorting round. In the second round, the inter-judge raw agreement scores averaged to architecture
100 percent, the initial overall placement ratio of items within the target constructs was
100 percent and the Cohen’s Kappa score averaged to 1.00. At this point, we stopped the of KM for 3PL
Q-sort method at round two, for the raw agreement score of 1.0, Cohen’s Kappa of 1.0, and
the average placement ratio of 1.0 which were considered an excellent level of inter-judge
agreement, indicating a high level of reliability and construct validity. Based on the 59
modified Q-sort method, we devised the GTCF for the implementation of KM solution for
3PL service providers which is shown in Figure 4.
4.4 Stage 4: Delphi analysis
The Delphi method was developed in the mid-1950s by researchers at the Rand
Corporation. The Delphi technique was conceived as a way to predict the impact
of technologies or interventions on complex systems, and was thus used frequently
in the social and health-care context (Sackman, 1975). The Delphi method is
traditionally based on three fundamental concepts. The first concept is anonymity. The
participants never know each other during the process. Each participant submits his
or her opinions independently, by completing an especially designed questionnaire. The
replies are then disclosed to all participants, without disclosing the name of the
particular respondent. The second concept is controlled feedback. The process consists
of several rounds, during each of which the respondents are asked to judge all the
opinions expressed in the previous rounds, which are often presented in the form of
statistics. The last concept is statistical group response. The Delphi method reaches a
“collective opinion” or a “collective decision” and expresses it in terms of a statistical
score.
4.4.1 Delphi panel and data collection. From the modified Q-sort method, we have
67 strategies for developing the GTCF for the implementation of KM solution for 3PL
service providers. The main goal of the Delphi research is to assign weightage for each of
the main and sub-components. The Delphi panel members were considered eligible for
Delphi panel if they were employed in top positions in 3PL industries or working as
supply chain management consultants in leading outsourcing organizations. A total of
70 members were identified as eligible for panel membership and were mailed a letter
soliciting their participation in the study. A total of 30 members volunteered to
become panel members and participate in the data-collection process. The panel
comprised of 53 percent supply chain management consultants from the leading
outsourcing organizations and 47 percent the top officials of the 3PL service providers.
The panel members were mailed a four-page questionnaire and a covering letter.
The panel members were asked to indicate their relative importance of the various
sub-components, reflecting the weightage of that sub-component, on a 1-5 Likert scale.
The cover letter described the purpose of the research and instructed the panel members
to return the questionnaires only if they were willing to participate in the study.
Panelists were given a two-week return date deadline in the cover letter. We received all
the 30 filled-in questionnaires within 20 days.
4.4.2 Delphi analysis. The Delphi analysis for the weightage of KM components of
GTCF of 3PL service providers is tabulated in Table VI. The weightage for the main
and sub-components are determined as the ratio of the mean of observations of all
respondents to the maximum scale value, namely 5.

19. BIJ
18,1
60 KM Taxonomy solution
Transportation • Transportation booking information
• Freight bill information
• Pick-up and delivery procedures
• Transit time information
• Insurance and reliability requirements of freight
• Carrier problems and solutions
• Government regulations for transportation
• Security of goods in transportation
• Transportation performance measures and indicators
• Transportation network design
• Shipment problems and solutions
• Routing and scheduling of vehicles
• Maintenance of equipments
• Dock information
Facility structure • Warehouse insurance information
• Consolidation process
• Facility security information
• Shipment problems and solutions
• Handling of exceptions and failures in warehouse
• Load planning information
• Warehouse network design
• Warehouse requirements
• Packing information
• Storing system information
• Warehouse equipment and shipment tracking and
tracing database
Human • Time standards
resources • Work load planning and scheduling
Information and • Best practices in IT system
communication • Warranty information
• Wireless and mobile solution information
• Business to business portal information
• E-commerce information
• Global positioning system information
• License for information system
(continued)
Figure 4.
GTCF based on modified
Q-sort method

20. KM Taxonomy solution
Taxonomy
architecture
Tender details • Best practices in tender of KM for 3PL
• Benchmarking in tender
• Contractual issues
Agreement details • Tender agreement parties 61
• Definition of agreement terms
• Object of agreement
• Liabilities and obligations estimates
• Terms of delivery and packaging
• Payment terms
• Ownership of goods in warehouse
• Early termination
• Liability for damages
• Product liability
• Applicable law and settlement of disputes
• Time of validity and termination
• Ownership of intellectual property rights and
improvements
Quality control • Product audit
• Quality regulatory requirements
• Quality policies
• Quality performance indicators
Information and • Quality process flows
communication • Quality control manuals and procedures
• Audit manuals
• Process audit
Customer service • Customer emergency orders
• Customer’s customer database
• Customer complaint and feedback system
• Customer performance indicators
• Customer satisfaction monitoring plans
• Customer related problems and solutions
• Quality deviations
• Customer database Figure 4.
4.5 Respondents comments
The GTCF of KM was shared with the respondents and their feedback with regard to the
potential utility of the proposed framework was sought. Many of the respondents
expressed that the GTCF will be very useful and they can use this as a base for the
implementation of KM solution for the organization. Comments stated by some of
the respondents are provided below:
It’s an excellent base framework and any 3PL service provider can leverage this efficiently –
Senior Design Specialist, International Chemical Company, India.
We are really happy that now we can use this directly for our organization for the
implementation of KM Solution – Consultant, Multi National Company Private Limited,
India.

21. BIJ S. no. KM main and sub-components for GTCF Weightage
18,1
1 Transportation 0.920
1.1 Transportation booking information 0.877
1.2 Freight bill information 0.921
1.3 Pick-up and delivery procedures 0.649
1.4 Transit time information 0.709
62 1.5 Insurance and reliability requirements of freight 0.591
1.6 Carrier problems and solutions 0.548
1.7 Government regulations for transportation 0.465
1.8 Security of goods in transportation 0.830
1.9 Transportation performance measures and indicators 0.662
1.10 Transportation network design 0.482
1.11 Shipment problems and solutions 0.607
1.12 Routing and scheduling of vehicles 0.615
1.13 Maintenance of equipments 0.446
1.14 Dock information 0.552
2 Facility structure 0.812
2.1 Warehouse insurance information 0.643
2.2 Consolidation process 0.587
2.3 Facility security information 0.535
2.4 Shipment problems and solutions 0.724
2.5 Handling of exceptions and failures in warehouse 0.773
2.6 Load planning information 0.510
2.7 Warehouse network design 0.643
2.8 Warehouse requirements 0.670
2.9 Packing information 0.613
2.10 Storing system information 0.611
2.11 Warehouse equipment 0.488
2.12 Shipment tracking and tracing database 0.606
3 Human resource 0.5466
3.1 Time standards 0.541
3.2 Workload planning and scheduling 0.639
4 Information and communication 0.76
4.1 Best practices in IT system 0.719
4.2 Warranty information 0.629
4.3 Wireless and mobile solution information 0.551
4.4 Business to business portal information 0.710
4.5 E-commerce information 0.429
4.6 Global positioning system information 0.375
4.7 License for information system 0.431
5 Tender details 0.653
5.1 Best practices in tender 0.600
5.2 Benchmarking in tender 0.526
6 Agreement details 0.666
6.1 Contractual issues 0.400
6.2 Tender agreement parties 0.466
6.3 Definition of agreement terms 0.480
6.4 Object of agreement 0.440
6.5 Liabilities and obligations estimates 0.533
Table VI. 6.6 Terms of delivery and packaging 0.560
Weightage of KM 6.7 Payment terms 0.853
components of GTCF of 6.8 Ownership of goods in warehouse 0.706
3PL service providers (continued)

22. Taxonomy
S. no. KM main and sub-components for GTCF Weightage
architecture
6.9 Early termination 0.520 of KM for 3PL
6.10 Liability for damages 0.760
6.11 Product liability 0.533
6.12 Applicable law and settlement of disputes 0.573
6.13 Time of validity and termination 0.720 63
6.14 Ownership of intellectual property rights and improvements 0.666
7 Quality control 0.946
7.1 Product audit 0.906
7.2 Quality regulatory requirements 0.840
7.3 Quality policies 0.906
7.4 Quality performance indicators 0.800
7.5 Quality process flows 0.906
7.6 Quality control manuals and procedures 0.866
7.7 Audit manuals 0.893
7.8 Process audit 0.852
8 Customer service 0.933
8.1 Customer emergency orders 0.893
8.2 Customer’s customer database 0.906
8.3 Customer complaint and feedback system 0.840
8.4 Customer performance indicators 0.906
8.5 Customer satisfaction monitoring plans 0.773
8.6 Customer-related problems and solutions 0.880
8.7 Quality deviations 0.626
8.8 Customer database 0.813 Table VI.
GTCF can act as decision support framework for Indian 3PL service provider and this will be
enhanced as expert system – Faculty, University of Louborough, UK.
3PL service provider can use GTCF framework and can easily fit according to the
requirements of the organization – Analyst, AFL Logistics Private Limited, India.
Lot of scope for easy implementation of KM using this GTCF of KM. A decision support
system can be developed to execute the process for any 3PL service provider – Executive
Engineer, Lakshmi Machine Works, Limited, Coimbatore, India.
5. Discussion
The GTCF developed in this paper can be directly taken as base for any 3PL service
provider in building KM solution and the practice managers may concentrate on the
components based on the weightage derived based on Delphi analysis. The key
functions that play a more significant contribution towards building a KM solution
can be identified. The study indicates, for example, that the practice managers should
concentrate more on freight bill information, transportation booking information and
security of goods in transportation considering the transportation function. Handling of
exceptions and failures in warehouse, shipment problems and solutions and warehouse
requirements are found to be the critical components that need prime attention as far as
facility structure is concerned. Workload planning and scheduling is the prime
component of the human resource function. Practice managers need to concentrate on
best practices in IT system and warranty information in the context of information
and communication function. Payment terms, liability for damages, time of validity

23. BIJ and termination and ownership of goods in warehouse of agreement details function are
18,1 the critical components that need focused attention. Product audit, quality process flows,
quality policies and audit manuals of quality control function are the key components
that should be given more importance by the practice managers. In the aspect of
customer service function, customer’s customer database, customer performance
indicators and customer emergency orders are the significant components that should
64 be concentrated by the KM managers.
The main strength of the framework proposed in this article is that it:
.
identifies the key components for the KM framework for 3PL service providers;
.
explicitly links the defining components and sub-components;
.
formulates a generic KM taxonomy framework; and
.
determines the weightage of each component and sub-component with the
respective appropriate management instruments.
A careful diagnosis of the KM components and sub-components for the GTCF is
carried out and any organization can apply this framework as an analytical and
action-oriented management tool. However, it is to be noted that when selecting a KM
solution to implement, it needs to be tied to the core issues and business drivers for that
company or field as KM solutions are not “one-size-fits-all” and need to be tailored for
each organization. Such a diagnosis will allow top management to adapt a required and
customized design of the KM taxonomy solution in relation to the specificity of the
business priorities. This implies the need for management’s continuous (re)assessment
and (re)action rather than isolated, discrete and informal management initiatives.
A few major lessons for practicing managers from our research stand out. First, the
implementation of KM solution for 3PL service provider, as discussed in this paper,
typically requires a GTCF. The KM solution needs to be developed, implemented and
maintained. The implementation plan of KM solution includes various KM components
and sub-components. Therefore, implementation of KM solution may not be feasible if
there is no preparation of a basic conceptual framework which is indeed necessary for all
knowledge-intensive organizations.
A second lesson is that the implementation of a KM solution for 3PL service provider
requires attention to critical components pertaining to strategic, organizational and human
issues such as transportation, facility structure, human resources, information and
communication, tender details, agreement details, quality control and customer service.
Correctly identifying the KM components category and paying due attention according
to the weightage of the components involved combined with careful management
interventions may reduce negative effects of changing economic conditions and thus
enhance the likelihood of success. The strategic, organizational and human issues are
closely related as linkages in the components. In fact, it is difficult to imagine management
in general and KM in particular in today’s organizations without applying certain strategies
and policies. Neither is it possible to exclude the organizational and the human factors from
the set of KM considerations and practices. Recognizing the importance of these dimensions
and their mutual interdependencies does not, however, extricate the pressure among the
decision makers/strategic planners when it comes to concrete management actions. It is
an idealistic view to recommend treating all the components as equally important all
the time in terms of top management attention. One way of coping with this situation

24. is to shift the priority based on the weightage and also considering the internal and external Taxonomy
circumstances while keeping in mind (and never fully ignoring) the other issues. architecture
Third, attempt to implement the KM solution based on generic taxonomic
components framework requires more financial, organizational and human resources of KM for 3PL
and without serious commitment of these resources it is unlikely to lead to success.
Therefore, a careful estimation of both the amount and quality of the resources needed
for the design and development of KM solution is needed. While it is impossible to 65
predict the exact duration of the period for implementation of KM solution, it is clear that
a premature transition to another category may compromise the entire KM solution
development project and have longer term negative consequences on both the attitudes
and actual behaviors of organizational members in relation to knowledge creation and
sharing as well as financial and strategic impact.
Finally, whether companies are able and willing to invest in KM solutions is
dependent on whether these systems promise to deliver important and clear benefits.
The latter is often wrongly taken for granted. Therefore, it is worth developing a
checklist of components with weightage that need to be seriously considered before
investing in a KM solution. As a sum up, it is highly relevant to conduct a careful
analysis of current and future needs in terms of implementation of KM solutions before
embarking on this demanding journey. Such an analysis is likely to benefit from
attention to the main elements outlined in the framework. Many efforts in establishing
KM solutions fail because management neglect to integrate strategy related, structural
and cultural elements simultaneously, but rather tend to focus on only some of these
while ignoring others. The target customer for this research is logistics service providers
and the research can be strengthened by focusing on fourth-party logistics provider.
In recent times, there is a demand for developing an understanding of the link between
KM and business performance. Of particular interest is to explore how KM can support
companies in improving their performances and also the role of benchmarking in this
context. Researchers have started investigating how benchmarking can contribute to
exploring and exploiting the link between KM initiatives and business performance for
organizational value creation. Marr (2004) argues that organizational competencies
are based on intellectual capacity (IC) and their improvement takes place through the
management of IC or KM, which is at the heart of business performance improvement and
value creation. Knowledge processes are the critical link between IC and business
performance. In order to execute strategy, organizations need to understand processes on
an operational level and for this reason, the usage of operational knowledge process
benchmarking is suggested. Further as posited by Massa and Testa (2004) benchmarking,
looking outside the firm boundaries and performing comparison with others in terms of
both practices and performances, enables the process of acquiring external explicit/tacit
knowledge. Such acquired knowledge, once integrated with previous internal knowledge
of the firm, creates new knowledge that may give rise to improvements and innovations.
To conclude, creating a consistent classification framework will allow us to achieve
greater efficiency, effectiveness and innovation. Nevertheless, we cannot blindly pursue
this and only both continuously and vigilantly measuring and adapting our tools to user
processes and needs can ensure that we are truly achieving the goals of KM to quickly
and precisely share and reuse knowledge throughout the enterprise whenever
and wherever it is needed. And in this direction, it is believed, that the present work
contributes significantly.

25. BIJ 5.1 Future research directions
18,1 The future research can be targeted on the following ways: it is construed that the
proposed GTCF can be adopted by any company in the 3PL business either directly in
its present form or with incorporation of suitable changes according to their context
and priorities. However, the practical application of the proposed approach stands to be
done and work may be extended in this regard. The way of considering the phases
66 and work flows for guiding KM project implementation utilizing the GTCF is needed.
The practical issues concerned with the implementation of KMS in 3PL business
as well as its influence on business outcomes are to be explored. Also, the problem of
incorporating the metrics for KM and knowledge processing in GTCF and the issue of
how it can be linked to business outcomes needs attention of researchers. The sustainable
innovation and the way of conceptualization in GTCF can also be considered for future
research. The consideration of comprehensive goal of KM policies and programs to
maximize transparency and sustainable innovation can be an extension in GTCF.
6. Conclusion
This research makes several important contributions toward the objective of better
understanding the role of 3PL operations in knowledge creation. First, it develops a more
comprehensive theoretical and operational approach to the shared interpretation process
by adopting a theoretical framework that emerges from knowledge-related literature.
Based on the detailed literature review of published reports and observations, discussion
from industry experts, semi-structured interviews with directors, managers and
professional consultant and using sound theory building methods, this study proposed a
set of taxonomy components of various functions of organization for the implementation
of KM for 3PL service providers. We proposed a four-stage model to develop GTCF which
is critical for the implementation of KM solution for 3PL service providers. We proposed
modified Q-sort method and used Delphi analysis in the four-stage model. 3PL service
providers can employ this model for creating a new customized taxonomy components
framework. If the present set of components suits well to the needs and expectations of
the firm, then this can be used directly for the implementation of KM solution. Further,
any 3PL service provider can take this GTCF as a base and devise according to the needs
of their industry for implementation of KM solution. This GTCF for KM implementation
will help contributor to think, create, store and contribute knowledge in an organized
fashion and help the user to access in the same fashion to enhance the use/re-use of
knowledge.
References
Baumgarten, H. and Thoms, J. (2002), Trends und Strategies in the Logistic – Supply Chains,
Wandel, Berlin.
Bharadwaj, A. (2000), “A resource-based perspective on information technology and firm
performance: an empirical investigation”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 169-96.
Chua, A. (2004), “Knowledge management system architecture: a bridge between KM consultants
and technologists”, International Journal of Information Management, Vol. 24 No. 1,
pp. 187-98.
Churchill, G.A. (1979), “A paradigm for developing better measures of marketing constructs”,
Journal of Marketing Studies, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 64-73.

26. Cohen, J. (1960), “A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales”, Educational and Psychological Taxonomy
Measurement, Spring, pp. 37-46.
architecture
Du Plessis, M. (2005), “Drivers of knowledge management in the corporate environment”,
International Journal of Information Management, Vol. 25, pp. 193-202. of KM for 3PL
Earl, M. (2001), “Knowledge management strategies”, Journal of Management Information
Systems, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 215-33.
ELA (2004), European Logistics Association: Draft Version of the Revised ELA Terminologyin 67
Logistics, ELA, Brussels (unpublished).
El-Diraby, T.E. and Zhang, J. (2006), “A semantic framework to support corporate memory
management in building construction”, Automation in Construction, Vol. 15 No. 4, pp. 504-21.
Gunasekaran, A. (2002), “Editorial: benchmarking in logistics”, Benchmarking: An International
Journal, Vol. 9 No. 4, pp. 324-5.
Hansen, M.T., Nohria, N. and Tierney, T. (1999), “What’s your strategy for managing
knowledge?”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 77 No. 2, pp. 106-16.
Hult, G.T.M., Ketchen, D.J. and Slater, S.F. (2004), “Information processing, knowledge
development, and strategic supply chain performance”, Academy of Management Journal,
Vol. 47 No. 2, pp. 241-53.
Hult, G.T.M., Ketchen, D.J., Cavusgil, S.T. and Calantone, R.J. (2006), “Knowledge as a strategic
resource in supply chains”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 24 No. 5, pp. 458-75.
Jarvenpaa, S. (1989), “The effect of task demands and graphical format on information
processing strategies”, Management Science, Vol. 35 No. 3, pp. 285-303.
Kim, Y.G., Yu, S.H. and Lee, J.H. (2003), “Knowledge strategy planning: methodology and case”,
Expert Systems with Applications, Vol. 24, pp. 295-307.
King, W.R. (2007), “Keynote paper: knowledge management: a systems perspective”,
International Journal of Business Systems and Research, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 5-28.
Kulkarni, S.S., Magazine, M.J. and Raturi, A.S. (2004), “Risk pooling advantages of
manufacturing network configuration”, Production & Operations Management, Vol. 13
No. 2, pp. 186-99.
Landis, J.R. and Koch, G.G. (1977), “The measurement of observer agreement for categorical
data”, Biometrics, Vol. 33, pp. 159-74.
Levitt, B. and March, J.G. (1988), “Organizational learning”, Annual Review of Sociology, Vol. 14,
pp. 319-40.
Marasco, A. (2007), “Third-party logistics: a literature review”, International Journal of
Production Economics, Vol. 113 No. 1, pp. 127-47.
Marr, B. (2004), “Measuring and benchmarking intellectual capital”, Supply Chain Management:
An International Journal, Vol. 11 No. 6, pp. 559-70.
Massa, S. and Testa, S. (2004), “Innovation or imitation? Benchmarking:
a knowledge-management process to innovate services”, Benchmarking:
An International Journal, Vol. 11 No. 6, pp. 610-20.
Moore, G. and Benbasat, I. (1991), “Development of an instrument to measure the perceptions of
adopting an information technology innovation”, Information Systems Research, Vol. 2
No. 3, pp. 192-222.
Nahm, A., Solis-Galvan, L.E., Rao, S. and Ragu-Nathan, T.S. (2002), “The Q-sort method:
assessing reliability and construct validity of questionnaire items at a pre-testing stage”,
Journal of Modern Applied Statistical Methods, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 114-25.

27. BIJ Neuman, G. and Tome, E. (2005), “Knowledge management and logistics: an empirical
evaluation”, Proceedings of I-KNOW’05, Graz, pp. 96-103.
18,1 Ofek, K. and Sarvari, M. (2001), “Leveraging the customer base: creating competitive advantage
through knowledge management”, Management Science, Vol. 47 No. 11, pp. 1441-56.
Paiva, E.L., Roth, A.V. and Fensterseifer, J.V. (2007), “Organizational knowledge and the
manufacturing strategy process: a resource-based view analysis”, Journal of Operations
68 Management, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 115-32.
Reville, E., Sarkis, J. and Acosta, J. (2005), “Towards a knowledge management and learning
taxonomy for research joint ventures”, Technovation, Vol. 25 No. 11, pp. 1307-16.
Sackman, H. (1975), Delphi Critique, Lexington Books, Lexington, MA.
Supyuenyong, V. and Islam, N. (2006), “Knowledge management architecture: building blocks
and their relationships”, PICMET 2006 Proceedings, Istanbul, pp. 1210-19.
Teece, D.J., Pisano, G. and Shuen, A. (1997), “Dynamic capabilities and strategic management”,
Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 18, pp. 509-33.
Van de Ven, A.H. (2005), “Running in packs to develop knowledge-intensive technologies”,
MIS Quarterly, Vol. 29 No. 2, pp. 365-78.
Further reading
Vesey, J.T. (1991), “The new competitors: they think in terms of speed-to-market”, Academy of
Management Executive, Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 23-33.
Corresponding author
R. Rajesh can be contacted at: rajesh1576@yahoo.co.in
To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com
Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints