Access to this full-text is provided by MDPI.
Content available from Sustainability
This content is subject to copyright.
sustainability
Article
Sustainable Logistics Management in the 21st
Century Requires Wholeness Systems Thinking
David Holman 1, *, Pavel Wicher 1, Radim Lenort 1, Venuše Dolejšová2, David Staš 1
and Ioana Giurgiu 1
1Department of Logistics and Quality Management, ŠKODA AUTO University, Na Karmeli 1457,
MladáBoleslav 293 01, Czech Republic; pavel.wicher@savs.cz (P.W.); radim.lenort@savs.cz (R.L.);
david.stas@savs.cz (D.S.); ext.ioana.giurgiu@savs.cz (I.G.)
2Manufactus GmbH, Theresienstrasse 8, 82319 Starnberg, Germany;
venuse.dolejsova@manufactus-partner.com
*Correspondence: david.holman@savs.cz; Tel.: +420-608-974-865
Received: 23 October 2018; Accepted: 20 November 2018; Published: 24 November 2018
Abstract:
The 21st century is characterised by the unprecedented speed and scope of changes, creating
a new external environment, where the logistics systems are managed. The latest development in
logistics management is influenced by sustainability, which complements the economic dimension
with environmental and social dimensions. The fundamental principle of logistics management is
systems thinking (ST). Until now, the reductionism ST (RST), focusing on the maximal economic
performance of a logistics system’s parts and interactions has been applied. However, the RST
approach does not sufficiently consider the implication of the external environment to the economic
performance. The article’s aim is the introduction of the new wholeness ST (WST) approach
and confirmation of its fundamental role in deriving of the performance of the selected logistics
system’s parts and interactions from the external environment. WST’s role was demonstrated
in a case study, comparing the WST and RST approach in management of particular automotive
logistics’ system. The WST approach in the management of the whole selected logistics system
assures a considerable reduction in the consumption of resources. Based on the comparative case
study’s results, the conceptual framework for the application of the WST approach in all sustainable
dimensions is proposed.
Keywords:
sustainable logistics management; wholeness systems thinking; lean management;
logistics system
1. Introduction
The first decades of 21st century are defined by the unprecedented speed and scope of changes
(e.g., customer satisfaction in terms of demanded product complexity, product delivery lead time,
and requirements of stakeholders in environmental and social aspects). In addition to the changes,
the importance of uncertainty and risks resulting from the changes has been increasing dramatically.
Thanks to these changes, logistics management (LM) must adopt new managerial concepts.
One of the recent leading concepts in the business sphere is sustainability, which complements the
economic dimension with environmental and social dimensions. Application of the sustainability
theory in LM has led to a new concept—sustainable logistics management (SLM).
The system theory is the crucial methodological approach applied in LM [
1
–
3
]. Any system
consists of parts, interactions and purposes [
4
]. The current systems thinking approach identified
in LM has been defined for the purpose of the paper as the reductionism systems thinking (RST)
approach (see Section 4.1). It replaces the previous reductionism. Reductionism expected that the
Sustainability 2018,10, 4392; doi:10.3390/su10124392 www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability
Sustainability 2018,10, 4392 2 of 26
optimal performance of the collection of parts could be attained by maximising the performance of
each individual part. RST defines the system as the sum of the parts and interactions creating the
system’s purpose, which attains additional qualities beyond the parts themselves [
5
,
6
]. The system’s
performance, defined by RST, is the maximised performance of its parts and interactions. According
to the three years of research presented in Section 3.1, RST assumptions result in over-performance
of the whole defined system. Such over-performance is caused by insufficient consideration of the
external environment for the performance of the defined system’s parts and interactions, resulting
in consumption of a useless amount of resources from the whole selected system perspective.
The three-year research project identified the research gap in systems thinking and led to the definition
of the new Wholeness Systems Thinking (WST) approach. The WST approach identifies the new
role of a system’s purpose, deriving the performance of the selected system’s parts and interactions.
Furthermore, the WST approach defines the properties of the selected system’s purpose as derived
from the superior system (external environment), which the selected system is a part of.
The article’s aim is the introduction of the new WST approach and confirmation of the significant
role of the external environment in deriving the logistics system’s purpose, which is further responsible
for defining the sustainable performance of a logistics system’s parts and interactions. Supporting the
article’s main aim, three sub-aims are defined. The first defines the new WST approach in general
and in comparison with previous approaches and in the context of the economic dimension of SLM.
It states that, the system’s purpose is defined by the external environment and afterwards derives
the optimal performance of the studied logistics system’s parts and interactions. The second aim
proves that WST, in comparison to RST, leads to the optimal economic performance in managing
a particular logistics system. The third and final aim is to propose the conceptual framework (CF) for
the application of the WST approach in all sustainable dimensions of SLM.
2. Literature Research
2.1. Theoretical Background
In this section, the current state of knowledge in the systems thinking, LM, logistics system,
sustainable development (SD) and SLM is reviewed. Systems thinking has roots in General System
Theory (GST) [
7
]. Its goal is the formulation and derivation of these principles that are valid for
systems in general. They are of a physical, biological or sociological nature. It could be called the
general science of the whole. In modern science, GST presents the focus on interactions of the parts of
the system creating the whole, replacing the previous era of Descartes’ scientific reductionism focused
on the analysis of the properties of the parts creating the whole. After the introduction of GST in
the 1950s, the main focus of systems thinking development was oriented on cybernetics or technical
systems [
8
]. The sociological part of the systems thinking development has become relevant starting
in the 1990s [
9
]. Interactions between the parts creating the whole systems are the corner stone of
the systemic thinking used in social sciences that understands synthesis as a tool to create the whole,
after taking the system apart through analysis. The original systemic thinking describes the analysis
as the disassembly of the whole into individual parts, and the synthesis as the composition of the
individual parts into the functional whole [
10
]. However, this approach systematically eliminates the
role of the surrounding environment—the superior system. Especially nowadays, when everything
changes at an unpredictable speed and the only certainty we have about the future is that it will
be different, this is a significantly limiting factor. Ackoff discussed that synthesis and analysis are
both essential, complementary aspects of systems thinking. Systems thinking consists of analysis and
synthesis. Analysis focuses on structure. It reveals how things work. Synthesis focuses on function
which reveals why things operate as they do. It does not mean that synthesis is more valuable than
analysis. It means that they are complementary. Analysis looks into the system; synthesis looks
outward to consider the systems environment. Both views assessing the system’s understanding and
development have the same importance [11].
Sustainability 2018,10, 4392 3 of 26
The study is also based on the following definitions of LM and logistics systems and the
interrelationship of these terms. LM plans, implements and controls the efficient and effective forward
and reverse flow and storage of goods, services and related information between the point of origin
and the point of consumption in order to meet customers’ requirements. Actually, LM is considered
part of SCM. SCM encompasses the planning and management of all activities involved in sourcing
and procurement, conversion and all other LM activities. It includes all of the LM activities noted
above, as well as manufacturing operations, and it drives coordination of processes and activities
with and across marketing, sales, product design, finance and information technology [
12
]. One of
the key parts of LM and SCM is the flow of the resources needed to satisfy customer requirements,
which is subject to the order fulfilment process (OFP). An adequate OFP needs to be implemented
cross-functionally with the coordination of key suppliers and customers [13].
Flow of the resources between the point of origin and the point of consumption requires
interconnection of at least two or more parts. The definition of a system that is a set of two or
more elements is as follows: the behaviour of each part has an effect on the behaviour of the whole;
the behaviour of the elements and their effects on the whole are interdependent; elements of a system
are so interconnected that their independent subgroups cannot be formed [
14
]. In fact, LM is planning,
implementing and controlling a logistics system consisting of at least two interacting parts influencing
the properties of the whole system and vice versa [
15
]. The logistics system deals with the flow of
orders, transformed into deliveries within and across the companies. Part of the logistics system that
links the company (e.g., producer) with suppliers is called inbound logistics and the company with
customers is called outbound logistics. Transformation of the final or semi-final customer orders into
their deliveries is the flow consuming resources.
In the past few decades, LM and SCM incorporate spheres of SD [
16
]. SD was introduced
in “Our Common Future” report (Brundtland Report) by the World Commission on Environment
and Development (Brundtland Commission) in 1987 [
17
]. The Brundtland Report defined SD as
“[the] development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future
generations to meet their own needs” and presented three dimensions of sustainability: economic
growth, environmental protection, and social equality. This concept has been further developed
by Elkington in 1998 as the Triple Bottom Line (TBL) concept [
18
]. TBL attempts to treat all three
dimensions of sustainability with equal importance and thus could be considered an integrative theory
of sustainability [
19
]. These studies of sustainability refer to the macro-economic perspective. For the
purpose of the research, the authors of the paper apply a micro-economic viewpoint defined by the
management literature. The most respected definition of business sustainability is by Sikdar [
20
]:
“a wise balance among economic development, environmental stewardship, and social equity”.
Definitions of SLM are based on the combination of sustainable theory and LM. Given this fact,
SLM can be defined as “a resource management process that combines SD with a logistics system;
SLM offers companies economic, environmental and social benefits, such as an increase in asset
utilization, enhanced customer service, increased energy efficiency, reduced impact on the community,
and improved quality of life.” [
15
]. Today, SLM is considered an integral part of sustainable supply
chain management (SSCM) [
21
–
23
]. From this point of view, SLM can be defined as “the management
of material, information and capital flows as well as cooperation among companies along the supply
chain while taking goals from all three dimensions of SD, i.e., economic, environmental and social,
into account which are derived from customer and stakeholder requirements” [24].
2.2. Development of Systems Thinking in LM and SLM
Before the 1990s, the business environment was characterised by a reductionist way of thinking,
disassembling the whole business into individual parts, strategic business units (SBU) and maximising
its performance. Reductionism succeeded in increasing the efficiency of production processes
and, from the 1960s in the US, also logistics processes. Production and logistics shortages were
transformed into significant surpluses (ability to produce and deliver more than the expectations of final
Sustainability 2018,10, 4392 4 of 26
customers). The supply exceeded demand and businesses started to improve their efficiency by internal
integration [
25
]. During the 1990s, new technologies such as EDI or integrated software solutions (MRP
and ERP) enabled the improvement of not only separated parts, but also their interactions [
26
]. It was
the era of the wide distribution of internal and external integration in LM and the beginning of Supply
Chain Management (SCM), which could be understood as the start of systems thinking’s application
in this sphere [
27
]. Reductionism was replaced by systems thinking, which is defined for the paper’s
purpose as the RST approach. RST defines the system as the sum of the parts and interactions, making
the system’s purpose more valuable than just the previous reductionism. It understands the business
as a collection of the parts (SBUs) and their interactions. The purpose of RST is to maximise the profit
(minimise the unit costs) by increasing the performance of parts and their interactions. The meaning
of the RST approach could be compared to holism or the holistic approach as well. However, holism
or the holistic approach is understood more as focusing on the interactions of parts, creating the
bigger whole, than just the collection of the parts. Another description is that the parts of the whole
are in intimate interconnection, such that they cannot exist independently of the whole or cannot be
understood without reference to the whole, which is greater than the sum of its parts [
4
–
6
]. Moreover,
holism and the holistic approach lacks the systematic and methodical consideration of the external
environment, a deficiency in the systems thinking approaches.
The LM in SCM context, especially the Lean, Agile, Resilient, and Green (LARG) SCM concept,
describes the strong correlation between changing conditions in the business environment and the
aspiration of the academic sphere to develop new and efficient SCM, including LM attitudes [
28
–
30
].
Christopher argues for a change in the logic of SCM because of the enormous variability and increasing
turbulence [
31
] and utilisation of a customer-oriented principle through the implementation of the pull
principle, not only between a customer and the marketing department of the final producer, but even
in all the previous chains and processes [
32
]. The whole purpose of LM is to provide customers with
the level and quality of services that they require, and to do so at the lowest possible total LM cost [
33
].
Given the fluctuations in the market from globalisation and the expectations of the demanding
customer, real production volumes change dramatically, and forecasting is less and less accurate.
The uncertainty and risks resulting from the external environment are affecting the optimal
performance of systems parts and interactions in a significant way [
34
,
35
]. After almost 30 years
of innovations, which could be described by the RST approach, serious surpluses in the performance of
a logistics’ system parts and interactions are still identified. The RST approach does not sufficiently take
account of today’s unprecedented speed and scope of changes in a turbulent business environment.
Figure 1depicts the development of systems thinking connected with the development of market
conditions during the last decades. The described logistics system is defined from the supplier
to the customer, i.e., it consists of the supplier, producer and customer of the system elements.
Reductionism explains that produced quantities exceeded demanded quantities because of particular
improvements in LM elements. Over-performance of separated elements is caused by increasing
particular productivity. RST explains that the improvement in over-performance was made by internal
and external integration of the logistics system (e.g., by EDI, MRP, ERP and SCM systems), including
forecasting of the final customer orders. Nevertheless, the over-performance, caused by particular
improvements and partial consideration of customers’ requirements by forecasting of the orders in
a dramatically changing external environment, is still significant. The authors of the article argue that
it is caused by the current RST approach, which is unable to explain systematically the importance of
the external environment, i.e., real customers’ expectations, for the optimal performance of selected
logistics system’s parts and interactions. Furthermore, it could be the reason for the discussion about
the application of systems thinking among academics [36,37].
Sustainability 2018,10, 4392 5 of 26
Sustainability 2018, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 5 of 26
Figure 1. Development of the reductionism and systems thinking approaches connected with LM and
SLM elements performance.
Sustainability began to be of interest to LM and SCM researchers at the start of the second decade
of the 21st century, which has resulted in the development of SLM and SSCM concepts [38]. Its
application was extended from the original economics performance to the environmental impact and
community quality of life [39]. The current RST approach considers three dimensions of SD
separately, which is argued between the scientists [40] and results in over-performance, i.e., over-
consumption of resources from the wholeness perspective. Performance derived by the external
environment/customer expectations, implemented in the selected system´s parts and interactions by
the system´s purpose, eliminates over-performance and assures considerable savings of resources in
the whole logistics system. The optimal performance is to produce what is expected (not less, not
more), i.e., what the customer is willing to pay for. Therefore, the smooth flow of real customer orders
transformed into the deliveries through the whole integrated logistics system creates reasonable
limits for economics performance of its particular parts and interactions.
For that reason, the authors of the article proposed a new systems thinking approach—WST,
which defines methodically the relation of a system´s elements, especially that between the system´s
purpose and the significant role of superior systems, representing the external environment. The WST
approach contributions, i.e., explaining and underscoring the importance of the superior system´s
and the external environment created by customers´ expectations in the economic dimension of
sustainability, are demonstrated by a comparative case study of the current RST and proposed WST
approaches. Based on the case study’s results, the CF proposes the application of the WST approach
in other dimensions of sustainability in LM.
3. Materials and Methods
The article´s main aim is the introduction of the new WST approach and the confirmation of the
significant role of the external environment for deriving the logistics system´s purpose, which is
further responsible for defining the optimal sustainable performance of logistics systems´ parts and
interactions. The article´s main aim is supported by three sub-aims, which are briefly introduced with
their methods of achievement in this chapter.
3.1. Sub-Aim 1: WST Approach Introduction and Definition
The important role of the external environment, superior system, in performance of the selected
system’s parts and interactions was revealed during the three-year research project, completed by
the authors at SKODA AUTO University in 2017. The project studied several practical case studies
and performed critical a literature review from systems thinking, sustainability, automotive logistics
and supply chain management. The practical application of the current RST approach in systems
thinking identified that it cannot adequately describe and systematically apply the importance of the
external environment, represented by the superior system for optimal, sustainable performance of a
system´s parts and interactions. The important role of the external environment, superior system, in
deriving of the system´s purpose for the optimal performance of system parts and interactions started
to be studied [41–44]. The application of the current RST system approach during researching the
Figure 1.
Development of the reductionism and systems thinking approaches connected with LM and
SLM elements performance.
Sustainability began to be of interest to LM and SCM researchers at the start of the second
decade of the 21st century, which has resulted in the development of SLM and SSCM concepts [
38
].
Its application was extended from the original economics performance to the environmental impact and
community quality of life [
39
]. The current RST approach considers three dimensions of SD separately,
which is argued between the scientists [
40
] and results in over-performance, i.e., over-consumption of
resources from the wholeness perspective. Performance derived by the external environment/customer
expectations, implemented in the selected system’s parts and interactions by the system’s purpose,
eliminates over-performance and assures considerable savings of resources in the whole logistics
system. The optimal performance is to produce what is expected (not less, not more), i.e., what the
customer is willing to pay for. Therefore, the smooth flow of real customer orders transformed into
the deliveries through the whole integrated logistics system creates reasonable limits for economics
performance of its particular parts and interactions.
For that reason, the authors of the article proposed a new systems thinking approach—WST,
which defines methodically the relation of a system’s elements, especially that between the system’s
purpose and the significant role of superior systems, representing the external environment. The WST
approach contributions, i.e., explaining and underscoring the importance of the superior system’s
and the external environment created by customers’ expectations in the economic dimension of
sustainability, are demonstrated by a comparative case study of the current RST and proposed WST
approaches. Based on the case study’s results, the CF proposes the application of the WST approach in
other dimensions of sustainability in LM.
3. Materials and Methods
The article’s main aim is the introduction of the new WST approach and the confirmation of
the significant role of the external environment for deriving the logistics system’s purpose, which is
further responsible for defining the optimal sustainable performance of logistics systems’ parts and
interactions. The article’s main aim is supported by three sub-aims, which are briefly introduced with
their methods of achievement in this chapter.
3.1. Sub-Aim 1: WST Approach Introduction and Definition
The important role of the external environment, superior system, in performance of the selected
system’s parts and interactions was revealed during the three-year research project, completed by
the authors at SKODA AUTO University in 2017. The project studied several practical case studies
and performed critical a literature review from systems thinking, sustainability, automotive logistics
and supply chain management. The practical application of the current RST approach in systems
thinking identified that it cannot adequately describe and systematically apply the importance of the
external environment, represented by the superior system for optimal, sustainable performance of
a system’s parts and interactions. The important role of the external environment, superior system,
Sustainability 2018,10, 4392 6 of 26
in deriving of the system’s purpose for the optimal performance of system parts and interactions
started to be studied [
41
–
44
]. The application of the current RST system approach during researching
the project contains a serious level of over-performance, consuming an unnecessary amount of
resources [
45
,
46
]. Thus, the role of the external environment, creating the reasonable borders for
the elimination of ever-present over-performance in studied logistics and supply chains systems,
needed to be systematically defined and verified. Kolb’s theory of learning style [
47
], which combines
inductive and deductive methods in researching new knowledge and understanding, was used during
the development of the new WST approach. In the inductive part, the new role of analysis, synthesis
and system’s purpose was identified by reflective observation during the research project. The abstract
conceptualisation enabled the definition the RST approach and the WST approach (see Section 4).
The proposed WST approach was compared with the actual RST approach in a case study in the
deductive part (see Section 5).
3.2. Sub-Aim 2: Comparison of RST and WST Approaches in the Economic Dimension of SLM
To achieve the second sub-aim, a case study that compared the RST and WST approaches in
a particular automotive logistics system was chosen as the main research method. According to
Yin [
48
], case studies can be divided into three categories: exploratory, descriptive and explanatory.
To verify the benefits of the WST approach, the exploratory case study was used since the WST
approach, which was being investigated, was a new phenomenon. The WST approach was verified on
the economic dimension of sustainability (see Section 5).
In the case study, Integrated Kanban System (IKS) was used as a tool for visualising and evaluating
the ability to manage a selected logistics system with respect to a superior system, i.e., customer orders.
IKS helped to visualise the quantity of resources needed to produce the same quantity of products
during the application of the RST and WST approaches. In this manner, the case study allowed for
a comparison of the traditional RST approach describing the logistics systems management by focusing
on analytical improvements of system parts and interactions and the new WST approach considering
the influence of the external environment (customer requirements), which had a significant impact
on the performance and consumption of resources of the whole logistics system, including its parts
and interactions.
IKS is an e-kanban system for production, LM and SCM [
49
]. It is a real-time connection of
external suppliers and customers by recording the movement of each single kanban, which enables
the implementation of a complete kanban pull system in the whole logistics system. IKS kanban flow
is made by scanning the kanban cards via barcode readers or RFID chips. Continuous visualisation
identifies the precise quantity of kanbans in scheduling, Work in process (WIP), finished goods,
transported goods and customer stock triggered by real consumption (see Table 1).
Table 1. Visualisation of kanban localisation in the IKS logistics system.
Supplier
WIP Supplier work in progress waiting for completion
Finished goods (FG)
Number of finished goods in distribution stock of supplier
Transported goods Number of finished goods in transport
Customer Customer stock (CS) Number of finished goods in material stock of customer
The kanban system depends on the number of containers circulating in the kanban loop. The fixed
level of stock and quantity of containers at each stage in a logistics system is calculated based on
concrete circumstances. There are three kanban levels to be balanced in the IKS, production lot size
level, safety stock level and minimum stock level. Customer stock and transported goods are covered
by the minimum stock level, preventing the interruption of customer production and fluctuation.
The safety stock level contains the maximum number of kanbans at WIP and finished goods serviced by
the supplier. The production lot size level contains the optimal production quantity from the supplier.
Sustainability 2018,10, 4392 7 of 26
The total amount of containers in the logistics system kanban loop is the sum of the previously
mentioned three levels.
Traditional MRP/ERP solutions offer static and fragmented data, updated by rigid time cycles.
IKS offers dynamic online visualisation of real production and logistics performance between external
partners, which improves integration of the whole logistics system. IKS integrates real customer
requirements and enables improvements of productions and logistics processes in the whole logistics
system (see Table 2).
Table 2. MRP/ERP and IKS visibility difference of real customer consumption.
IKS Visibility of Real Customer Consumption MRP/ERP Visibility, Forecasting Data
Supplier
WIP
Supplier
WIP
Finished goods (FG) Finished goods (FG)
Transported goods Transported goods
Customer Customer stock (CS) Customer Forecasting of real consumption
Integration based on real visibility
of customer consumption
Integration based on forecasting of
customer consumption
3.3. Sub-Aim 3: Proposal of the CF of WST Approach Application in SLM
Based on the achievement of previous sub-aims, the proposed CF defines key variables,
sustainable superior systems and the sustainable external environment represented by sustainable
dimensions and visualises their relationships with the studied logistics system through the verified
WST approach. Key assumptions, principles and benefits assuring the optimal wholeness performance
of a selected system from the perspective of all sustainable dimensions are described in Section 6.
4. WST Approach Introduction and Definition
4.1. WST Approach Definition in General
Systems thinking is a perspective of seeing and understanding systems as wholes rather than
as collections of parts. Systems behaviour is present when the system is operating as one; it is
not merely the sum of the individual components. Systems thinking is a methodical approach to
understanding problematic situations and identifying solutions to these problems [
14
]. Systems
thinking helps to organise studied system elements to reach a desired purpose. Systems thinking
consists of parts, interactions and purpose (4). The systems thinking elements could be visualised as
a pyramid hierarchy, which is critical for further comparison of current and proposed systems thinking
approaches. The pyramid hierarchy describes a certain order of system elements (parts, interactions,
and purpose). A system consists of at least two interacting parts. The system purpose is the one which
none of its parts have. Any part of the system influences directly or indirectly the system purpose and
the system purpose influences every part or interaction of the system. The mutual relation between
system elements is critical for the performance of the system as a whole [
11
]. The important role of the
external environment in assessing the system in the systems thinking was already discussed [
9
,
11
].
Nevertheless, the systematic definition of the role, structure and mutual interactions of a system’s
elements and the external environment considering the system’s performance as a whole has not been
proposed yet. Wholeness is defined as the state of forming a complete and harmonious whole, a unity
in other words. Therefore, the proposed ST approach, defining the relation between the system’s
elements and implementing the role of the superior system/external environment for the performance
of the system’s elements (purpose, parts, and interactions) and the system as the whole is defined
as WST.
The new understanding of the role and importance of purpose in a system’s pyramid hierarchy is
defined by the Wholeness Synthesis (WS) and Wholeness Analysis (WA) (see Figure 2). The current
general understanding of analysis is taking a system apart and synthesis is putting the parts together
Sustainability 2018,10, 4392 8 of 26
to create the whole system. It eliminates the important influence of the external environment, superior
system, on the performance of the system’s elements (parts, interactions, and purpose).
Sustainability 2018, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 8 of 26
Figure 2. Development of the system´s purpose role in considering external environment represented
by a superior system in reductionism and systems thinking pyramid hierarchy.
The system purpose is the system element responsible for the performance of system parts and
interactions, considering the important role of the external environment. WS synthesises the system
purpose from the superior system perspective. The performance of a system’s purpose is derived
from the superior system and is defined in three steps:
1. Identifying the superior system,
2. Understanding the superior system,
3. Identifying the purpose of the studied system in the superior system.
The third step of WS interconnects the influence of external environment, superior system, into
the performance of studied system purpose. WA breaks a system down into elements (parts, and
interactions) from a system purpose perspective (the purpose was already defined as WS). The WA
is defined also in three steps:
1. Taking a studied system apart (parts, and interactions) from the purpose perspective (as defined
by WS).
2. Understanding each part taken separately.
3. Aggregating understanding of the parts and interactions into understanding of the whole
system.
The first step assures the system purpose perspective and interconnection with the external
environment (see the third step of WS). The crucial contribution of the WST approach is an
understanding of the fundamental role of the studied system purpose, synthesised from the external
environment—superior system, for specifying the optimal performance of parts and interactions in
the studied system. It systematically enables the prevention of system over-performance (see Figures
1 and 2). The development of the role of a system´s purpose in the systems thinking pyramid is
described as follows:
Reductionism—the purpose is the sum of the parts. (The collection of parts is analysed from the
individual parts perspective into individual parts; the parts are motivated to maximise the
performance; the better the performance of the parts, the better the performance of the whole.)
RST—the purpose is the sum of the parts and interactions. (The whole system is analysed from
the perspective of individual parts into individual parts and interactions; the parts and
interactions are motivated to maximise the performance; the parts and interactions are
synthesised into the best possible performance of the whole system.)
WST—the purpose of the whole system is synthesised from the superior system (representing
the external environment) perspective through WS; it creates limits for the performance of
Figure 2.
Development of the system’s purpose role in considering external environment represented
by a superior system in reductionism and systems thinking pyramid hierarchy.
The system purpose is the system element responsible for the performance of system parts and
interactions, considering the important role of the external environment. WS synthesises the system
purpose from the superior system perspective. The performance of a system’s purpose is derived from
the superior system and is defined in three steps:
1. Identifying the superior system,
2. Understanding the superior system,
3. Identifying the purpose of the studied system in the superior system.
The third step of WS interconnects the influence of external environment, superior system,
into the performance of studied system purpose. WA breaks a system down into elements (parts,
and interactions) from a system purpose perspective (the purpose was already defined as WS). The WA
is defined also in three steps:
1.
Taking a studied system apart (parts, and interactions) from the purpose perspective (as defined
by WS).
2. Understanding each part taken separately.
3.
Aggregating understanding of the parts and interactions into understanding of the whole system.
The first step assures the system purpose perspective and interconnection with the external
environment (see the third step of WS). The crucial contribution of the WST approach is
an understanding of the fundamental role of the studied system purpose, synthesised from the external
environment—superior system, for specifying the optimal performance of parts and interactions in the
studied system. It systematically enables the prevention of system over-performance (see Figures 1
and 2). The development of the role of a system’s purpose in the systems thinking pyramid is described
as follows:
•
Reductionism—the purpose is the sum of the parts. (The collection of parts is analysed from
the individual parts perspective into individual parts; the parts are motivated to maximise the
performance; the better the performance of the parts, the better the performance of the whole.)
Sustainability 2018,10, 4392 9 of 26
•
RST—the purpose is the sum of the parts and interactions. (The whole system is analysed from the
perspective of individual parts into individual parts and interactions; the parts and interactions
are motivated to maximise the performance; the parts and interactions are synthesised into the
best possible performance of the whole system.)
•
WST—the purpose of the whole system is synthesised from the superior system (representing the
external environment) perspective through WS; it creates limits for the performance of studied
system parts and interactions; the purpose is analysed by WA into the performance of the system’s
parts and interactions.
Given the serious changes in the external environment, the systematic identification of the
studied system’s purpose in the superior system, representing the external environment, is responsible
for optimal performance and consumption of resources of studied system’s parts and interactions.
The WST approach application in systems understanding and development consists of three steps:
1. Identification of the studied and superior systems,
2. WS of the studied system purpose in the superior system,
3. WA of the studied system purpose into the studied system parts and interactions.
The fundamental role of a system’s purpose is the basis of the difference between the current
RST and the new WST approach in understanding and assessing the systems. Thus, the new systems
thinking definition that takes into account the important role of the external environment due to the
new role of the system’s purpose is needed. Based on the presented assumptions, the WST approach
can be defined as follows: understanding and assessment of the whole system, consisting of parts,
interactions and a purpose, which requires the WS of the studied system purpose from the superior
system perspective, and the WA of the studied system into parts and interactions from the perspective
of the studied system’s purpose. The synthesised system purpose interconnects systematically the
superior system, representing the external environment, with the studied system and expresses the
active role in defining performance of the studied system’s elements (parts and interactions).
4.2. WST Approach Application in the Economic Dimension of SLM
The application of the WST approach in the visualisation of system’s pyramid is depicted in
Figure 3. The pyramid includes the new important role of the studied system’s purposes and WS and
WA in the economic dimension of SLM, which consists of 4 elements (customer, producer, and two
suppliers). The three steps of the WST approach application are applied. The first step is identification
of the studied (suppliers and producer) and superior (producer and customer) systems. The second
step is WS of the studied system (suppliers and producer) purposes in the superior system (customer
and producer). The third step is WA of studied system purposes (suppliers and producer) into
the studied system parts and interactions. The systematic application of the WST approach in the
economic dimension of sustainability explains the important role of the customer in the subsequent
phase of the OFP transforming the orders into deliveries. A defined logistics system consists of the
logistics system’s parts (suppliers, producer, and customer) and their interactions managing the flow
of the orders transformed into the deliveries from the point of origin to the point of consumption.
The customer represents the superior system (external environment) deriving the purpose of the
studied systems, which is responsible for performance of the studied system elements.
Sustainability 2018,10, 4392 10 of 26
Sustainability 2018, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 10 of 26
Figure 3. Three steps of the WST approach application in a defined logistics system.
Previous systems thinking approaches did not express and systematically describe the
important role of the system´s purpose, derived from the external environment for performance of a
logistics system’s parts and interactions.
The reductionist and systems thinking approaches define different purposes (see the previous
subchapter). This difference can be illustrated in the economic dimension of SLM: Reductionism
describes the purpose of businesses as the sum of maximum profits of defined logistics systems parts
(suppliers, producers, and customers). Reductionism analyses the particular parts with its concrete
departments and motivates them to reach maximum profit and minimum unit costs, without
consideration of interactions with other parts of a logistics system. Particular improvements of parts,
without consideration of interactions and purpose, were responsible for a serious amount of over-
performance resulting in significant consumption of resources. RST’s purpose is created by the sum
of maximum profits (minimum unit costs) of the analysed particular parts and their interactions in a
logistics system. The purpose consists of analysing the performance of parts and their interactions
and synthesising them into the maximum performance of the whole logistics system. The importance
of RST´s purpose for systematic elimination of over-performance is passive. The customer
requirements representing the superior systems are not directly deriving the performance of the
logistics system´s parts and interactions. The superior system is represented by forecasted volumes
of customer orders in general, which better organises and plans the existing performance of the
logistics system´s parts and interactions than the previous reductionism. The role of the superior
system/external environment in assessing the studied system is already considered. Nevertheless, it
is used inadequately for deriving the performance of a logistics system´s parts and interactions,
which does not allow for considerable reduction or elimination of over-performance. Therefore, it is
considered an inadequate reflection of the external environment. The systematic consideration of the
superior system is proposed by the WST approach. WST’s purpose of the studied system is
synthesised by the WS from the superior system, concrete customer expectations expressed by real
orders. The studied system´s purpose is broken down by WA into the performance of parts and its
interactions directly derived from the customer requirements. The logistics system´s parts and
interactions directly adjust their performance according to the real requirements of the external
Figure 3. Three steps of the WST approach application in a defined logistics system.
Previous systems thinking approaches did not express and systematically describe the important
role of the system’s purpose, derived from the external environment for performance of a logistics
system’s parts and interactions.
The reductionist and systems thinking approaches define different purposes (see the previous
subchapter). This difference can be illustrated in the economic dimension of SLM: Reductionism
describes the purpose of businesses as the sum of maximum profits of defined logistics systems
parts (suppliers, producers, and customers). Reductionism analyses the particular parts with its
concrete departments and motivates them to reach maximum profit and minimum unit costs, without
consideration of interactions with other parts of a logistics system. Particular improvements of
parts, without consideration of interactions and purpose, were responsible for a serious amount of
over-performance resulting in significant consumption of resources. RST’s purpose is created by the
sum of maximum profits (minimum unit costs) of the analysed particular parts and their interactions
in a logistics system. The purpose consists of analysing the performance of parts and their interactions
and synthesising them into the maximum performance of the whole logistics system. The importance
of RST’s purpose for systematic elimination of over-performance is passive. The customer requirements
representing the superior systems are not directly deriving the performance of the logistics system’s
parts and interactions. The superior system is represented by forecasted volumes of customer orders in
general, which better organises and plans the existing performance of the logistics system’s parts and
interactions than the previous reductionism. The role of the superior system/external environment
in assessing the studied system is already considered. Nevertheless, it is used inadequately for
deriving the performance of a logistics system’s parts and interactions, which does not allow for
considerable reduction or elimination of over-performance. Therefore, it is considered an inadequate
reflection of the external environment. The systematic consideration of the superior system is proposed
by the WST approach. WST’s purpose of the studied system is synthesised by the WS from the
superior system, concrete customer expectations expressed by real orders. The studied system’s
purpose is broken down by WA into the performance of parts and its interactions directly derived
Sustainability 2018,10, 4392 11 of 26
from the customer requirements. The logistics system’s parts and interactions directly adjust their
performance according to the real requirements of the external environment (in comparison with
previous forecasted requirements), which is considered an optimal performance resulting in reasonable
consumption of resources.
For the superior systems defined in the environmental and social dimensions of SLM, the roles of
the studied system’s purpose, WS, and WA are proposed to be applied analogically in Section 6.
5. Comparative Case Study of the RST and WST Approaches in the Economic Dimension of SLM
The WST approach benefits were verified in the comparative case study of the automotive logistics
system. Logistics systems in automotive generally consist of a large number of participants (1000 s
of first-tier suppliers, second-tier suppliers and third-tier suppliers, which are interconnected by
numerous forwarders and logistics services providers). The feasibility of a complex logistics system
within the comparative case study requires its simplification.
5.1. Logistics System Description
The selected logistics system consisted of 125 suppliers (delivering 6000 components), a producer
(manufacturing 640 components) and 32 customers. From an automotive perspective, it means
there were 125 third-tier suppliers, 1 second-tier supplier and 32 first-tier suppliers in this system.
The simplified logistics system studied in the comparative case study consisted of 2 suppliers
(third-tier suppliers), 1 producer (second-tier supplier) and 1 customer (first-tier supplier) presented
in Figure 4. Within the simplified logistics system, the product portfolio was simplified as well.
The producer produced only one product, consisting of two components, which were supplied by two
of the suppliers.
Although the whole automotive logistics system was not included, the verification of the WST
approach contributions is possible. System simplification results in identifying the repeating patterns
in studying systems [
50
]. The simplification of the logistics system used in the case study means
identifying the similar system elements (parts, interactions and purpose, which could be identified
either at the studied, simplified logistics system or in the whole automotive logistics system) and
their patterns and characteristics and studying them in a mutual context, including the role of the
external environment. These patterns or characteristics are identified either in the whole system or
in the simplified system. The same wholeness qualities, which are essential for the studied structure,
are identified. The WST approach application explains the difference between reductionism and
simplification. A simplified logistics system, applied in the case study, was managed with the respect
to the WST system’s purpose or, if applicable, the external environment and their mutual context,
which has the same pattern and characteristics as in the whole automotive logistics system.
The presented case study compares different quantities of resources needed for fulfilling the same
quantity of customer orders. The comparison is made between the traditional RST approach utilising
MRP/ERP systems to optimise resources capacity and logistics flows, and the new WST approach
based on the kanban (pull) principle and other lean tools implemented for logistics flows and resources
planning and control. These systems, in general, include strategical, tactical, and operational planning
levels. The level included in the case study is an operational one, which manages the flow of the orders
and its transformation into deliveries.
RST encourages the logistics system elements and interactions (with the help of the forecasting of
the customer orders) to maximise the performance of the whole system. The pull principle corresponds
to the WST approach. This approach understands the logistics system as a system dependent on the
superior system, where customer (the first-tier and second-tier suppliers) requirements determine the
optimal performance of the logistics system’s elements and interactions of the producer and suppliers
(the second- and third-tier suppliers production and delivery processes). The WST approach motivates
the logistics system’s elements and interactions to adjust flexibly its performance based on the real
Sustainability 2018,10, 4392 12 of 26
consumption of resources by customer and the producer (the first- and second-tier suppliers) (see
Figure 4).
Sustainability 2018, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 12 of 26
Figure 4. Case study logistics system structure comparing the RST and WST approaches in SLM.
The comparison of both approaches was made over 52 working days. Given the comparability
of case study results (there were different ordered quantities during the testing period), an
adjustment of trends influencing the ordered quantities was made.
RST and WST performance was measured by KPIs. Commonly used KPIs in LM addressing the
economic dimension of sustainability are inventory costs, logistics costs per unit, labour efficiency,
utilisation of capacities, process cycle time, flexibility of production, etc. [51]. These KPIs motivated
the studied logistics system´s parts and interactions to reach minimum unit costs without
consideration of the superior system, external environment (see the RST purpose in Section 4.2). The
WST approach required appropriate KPIs, enabling it to measure the contributions resulting from
consideration of the external environment to the optimal performance of the studied system´s
purpose, parts, and interactions (see the WST purpose in Section 4.2). The KPIs measuring the studied
logistics system´s performance were the total lead time and total stock level. These KPIs are able to
express the wholeness contributions of the WST approach because they represent the role of the
logistics system’s purpose of customer satisfaction. It replaced the former RST purpose, maximum
profit, minimum unit costs of a logistics system´s parts, and interactions. The wholeness perspective
measurement supposes the ability to measure and compare the optimal performance of the whole
process within and across the companies included in the studied logistics system. The comparisons
of WST and RST approaches can be evaluated according to other indicators that respect the wholeness
sustainable system thinking approach, but for the purposes of the article, the selection of the two
indicators is sufficient.
5.2. RST Planning Principles
The RST SLM works with forecasting of the orders. Based on forecasted information, the
particular logistics system elements plan the maximum performance (warehousing, production, and
distribution). The production processes of all of the logistics system´s elements are managed by
classical ERP software maximising the utilisation of all considered elements and interactions.
Production is organised according to production efficiency in high-volume batches, without
considering the customer requirements (only forecasted customer requirements are considered).
Each part of the logistics system is managed and optimised separately according to the forecasted
volumes. The forecasted production volume is distributed in the whole logistics system every week
(7 working days). The people responsible for organising the flow of the orders (buyers at the producer
and the customer) see static data about only their particular production sites at the end of the week
(actual warehouse level of components and finished goods, forecasted production for next week,
production capacity, and number of components in transportation).
Figure 4. Case study logistics system structure comparing the RST and WST approaches in SLM.
The comparison of both approaches was made over 52 working days. Given the comparability of
case study results (there were different ordered quantities during the testing period), an adjustment of
trends influencing the ordered quantities was made.
RST and WST performance was measured by KPIs. Commonly used KPIs in LM addressing the
economic dimension of sustainability are inventory costs, logistics costs per unit, labour efficiency,
utilisation of capacities, process cycle time, flexibility of production, etc. [
51
]. These KPIs motivated the
studied logistics system’s parts and interactions to reach minimum unit costs without consideration of
the superior system, external environment (see the RST purpose in Section 4.2). The WST approach
required appropriate KPIs, enabling it to measure the contributions resulting from consideration of
the external environment to the optimal performance of the studied system’s purpose, parts, and
interactions (see the WST purpose in Section 4.2). The KPIs measuring the studied logistics system’s
performance were the total lead time and total stock level. These KPIs are able to express the wholeness
contributions of the WST approach because they represent the role of the logistics system’s purpose
of customer satisfaction. It replaced the former RST purpose, maximum profit, minimum unit costs
of a logistics system’s parts, and interactions. The wholeness perspective measurement supposes the
ability to measure and compare the optimal performance of the whole process within and across the
companies included in the studied logistics system. The comparisons of WST and RST approaches
can be evaluated according to other indicators that respect the wholeness sustainable system thinking
approach, but for the purposes of the article, the selection of the two indicators is sufficient.
5.2. RST Planning Principles
The RST SLM works with forecasting of the orders. Based on forecasted information, the particular
logistics system elements plan the maximum performance (warehousing, production, and distribution).
The production processes of all of the logistics system’s elements are managed by classical ERP
software maximising the utilisation of all considered elements and interactions. Production is
organised according to production efficiency in high-volume batches, without considering the customer
requirements (only forecasted customer requirements are considered). Each part of the logistics system
is managed and optimised separately according to the forecasted volumes. The forecasted production
volume is distributed in the whole logistics system every week (7 working days). The people
responsible for organising the flow of the orders (buyers at the producer and the customer) see
Sustainability 2018,10, 4392 13 of 26
static data about only their particular production sites at the end of the week (actual warehouse level
of components and finished goods, forecasted production for next week, production capacity, and
number of components in transportation).
The production processes in the logistics system were described by the demanded quantities
(pieces, and containers), container lot sizes, production lot sizes, and delivery times (see Table 3).
Production was managed by forecasted production volumes at each stage of the logistics system.
The RST purpose, maximising the performance of particular logistics system elements led to certain
characteristics of RST SLM: fluctuation in demand, unlevelled production, including in-balance human
resources, once-a-week delivery, unstable dispatch and delivery times, quality issues, maximising
production lot sizes, container volumes, and delivery frequency. Fluctuations in demand were the
source of serious waste (thanks to the well-known bullwhip effect). The studied logistics system
hardly followed the customer expectation changes and trends, which built slow moving and obsolete
inventory in each of the logistics system’s elements. There was a list of internal and external negative
influences on the real flow of the orders and deliveries. Internal sources were quality of finished
goods, availability of components, human and production resources, influence of salesmen, etc.,
while external sources can be described by quality and quantity of components, containers, failures of
transportation, etc.
The RST SLM planning principles are described by a traditional understanding of analysis,
taking a system apart (warehousing, production, and distribution), maximising the performance
of parts and interactions and synthesis, summarising the parts and interactions together to create
the whole system. The role of the external environment was inadequately considered by forecasted
customer requirements, which did not derive the performance of studied logistics system’s parts
and interactions (parts and interactions were still motivated to maximise its performance, which
was afterwards fulfilling the customers’ requirements). Therefore, the whole system performance
depended on the performance of the system’s parts and interactions, without direct consideration of
the external environment, resulting in the over-performance of the whole system.
Table 3. Case study of RST planning details.
Supplier 1 Producer
Container lot size (pcs) 450 Container lot size (pcs) 270
Minimal production lot size (pcs) 450 Minimal production lot size (pcs) 5400
Delivery time (days) 5 Delivery time (days) 10
Supplier 2 Customer Requirements
Container lot size (pcs) 1000 Delivery quantity (containers) 20–40
Minimal production lot size (pcs) 5000 Delivery frequency
once per week
Delivery time (days) 5
5.3. WST Planning Principles
After the WST approach implementation (pull principle, IKS, lean tools, etc.), the SLM works
with the real flow of the orders and real consumption of resources within and across the logistics
system (customer, producer and suppliers). The particular logistics system’s elements (warehousing,
production, distribution, etc.) plan their optimal performance according to the real situation at
each stage of the logistics system from its customer’s perspective, which prevents higher or lower
performance of all the system’s elements. The case study’s WST planning details are presented in
Table 4. The WST SLM planning principles are described by the WST approach, including a new
understanding of synthesis (WS) and analysis (WA). WS defines the superior system expectations,
which are represented by new customer orders. WA systematically implements these expectations
into the performance of the logistics system elements (warehousing, production and distribution).
Such an attitude assures the customer satisfaction (characterised by flexibility, quality and availability)
Sustainability 2018,10, 4392 14 of 26
requiring the optimal consumption of resources. There are three steps in the WST approach application
(see Figure 3):
1.
Identification of the studied and superior systems. The customer is the superior system of the
producer. The producer is the studied system and superior system of the suppliers. The suppliers
are studied systems.
2. WS of the studied system’s purpose in the superior system:
•Identification of the superior system: customer and producer.
•
Understanding of the superior system: customer produces and delivers the components
to the Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM), which requires frequent deliveries of
high-complexity products. These products are assembled from hundreds of components.
Following the OEM requirements, the customer expects high-quality products with reliable
delivery services.
•
Identification of the purpose of the studied system in the superior system: based on the
understanding of the customer’s requirements, the producer needs to assure the expected
product and delivery services.
The same is applied identically for the producer as a superior system and suppliers as
studied systems.
3. WA of the studied system’s purpose into the studied system’s parts and interactions:
•
Analysis ofthe system (producer warehousing, production, and distribution) from the
perspective of the studied system’s purpose (defined by WS).
•
Definition of the performance of parts and interactions according to the customer’s
expectation and perspective. The optimal performance of the studied system’s parts is
not maximum performance (minimum unit costs) but the performance required by the
superior system, i.e., the customer (delivery quantity and frequency per day; see Table 4).
•
Aggregation of the performance of parts and interactions defined by the customer’s
perspective, which creates the efficient flow of the resources through the entire studied
system process, i.e., the producer.
The same is applied identically for the two suppliers.
Table 4. Case study of WST planning details.
Supplier 1 Producer
Container lot size (pcs) 450 Container lot size (pcs) 270
Minimal production lot size (pcs) 450 Minimal production lot size (pcs) 5400
Delivery time (days) 2 Delivery time (days) 10
Maximum number of containers at supplier 14 Maximum number of containers at customer 11
Maximum number of containers at customer 10
Supplier 2 Customer Requirements
Container lot size (pcs) 1000 Delivery quantity (containers) 2–8
Minimal production lot size (pcs) 2000 Delivery frequency
once per day
Delivery time (days) 2
Maximum number of containers at supplier 7
Maximum number of containers at customer 5
5.4. Case Study Results
The IKS system enables comparison of the traditional RST approach and innovative WST approach
in SLM by means of two KPIs, the total lead time and the total stock level.
Sustainability 2018,10, 4392 15 of 26
5.4.1. Lead Times Results
The lead time of a particular logistics system’s elements is the sum of their individual times
(processing time, holding time of finished goods, transporting time and holding time in the customer
stock). The lead time of the entire logistics system is given by the sum of supplier 2’s lead time (higher
than supplier 1’s lead time) and the producer’s lead time.
The whole structure of lead times can be seen in Table 5. The total lead time of WST SLM was
reduced by 49.7% in comparison with the total lead time of RST SLM.
Table 5. Lead times in the studied logistics system.
SLM element Time
Average Amount of
Days Spent in RST
SLM
Average Amount of
Days Spent in WST
SLM
Supplier 1
Processing time 3.0 1.1 (−65.1%)
Holding time of FG 3.1 4.4 (41.9%)
Transporting time 1.0 0.9 (−10.0%)
Holding time in CS 5.8 3.0 (−48.3%)
Lead time 12.9 9.4 (−27.1%)
Supplier 2
Processing time 3.5 1.7 (−51.4%)
Holding time of FG 4.1 2.0 (−51.2%)
Transporting time 0.9 1.0 (11.1%)
Holding time in CS 6.0 1.5 (−75.0%)
Lead time 14.5 6.2 (−57.2%)
Producer
Processing time 3.1 1.7 (−45.2%)
Holding time of FG 2.6 2.4 (−7.7%)
Transporting time 3.8 1.0 (−73.7%)
Holding time in CS 8.0 1.6 (−80.0%)
Lead time 17.5 6.7 (−61.7%)
Whole examined part
of SLM Lead time 32.0 16.1 (−49.7%)
The WST SLM approach, including WS and WA, explains, in scholarly terms, the influence
of lean management tools and the principles to reduce the total lead time by 49.7% in the whole
studied automotive logistics system, producing the same number of products that satisfy the customer.
The significant time-savings were possible due to the application of the new way of systems thinking
within and across the studied logistics system participants. The specific application of the WST
approach needs to be organised properly not only at the operational level of the studied logistics
system activities to complete the long-term perspective’s expectations.
Qualitative benefits were not part of the case study; however, experience from day-to-day
operations identified the following positive aspects of the WST approach during the ongoing
case study:
1.
Cooperative atmosphere with simultaneous control of inventory of all the participants enables
the creation of standardised expectable processes.
2.
Increased stability in the production cycle in terms of run timing and volume enables better
assumption for optimal planning of capacity and resources.
3.
Freeing up the resources to focus on improving processes and relationship rather than
just trouble-shooting.
4.
The WST approach’s operations are smooth, instead of common stress, occurring in the
RST execution.
5.
In WST, the producer and suppliers can access customer inventory situation any time, without
waiting for orders. Urgent orders, which are common for RST, disappear.
Sustainability 2018,10, 4392 16 of 26
5.4.2. Stock Level Results
The total quantity of containers in the studied system represents the success of integration and
the whole economic effect of the pull principle and lean tools’ implementation. It also represents
the reasonable costs needed for the production required by the customer. The IKS system visualises
the quantity of containers in a graphical form (see Figures 5–7). The blue column represents the
quantity of containers in the customer stock. The yellow column shows the transported quantity.
The turquoise column represents the finished goods in the supplier stock. Finally, the grey column
represents suppliers WIP quantity of containers. The red dash curve in the WST approach represents
the minimum stock level, the yellow dash curve represents the safety stock level, and the green dash
curve represents the production lot size level (see Section 3.2).
RST SLM results for supplier 1: The flow of the orders from the producer and material flow was
managed by the ERP/MRP system (accumulating the customer requirements into large-order lot sizes).
The previously mentioned planning principles led to the results described in the left subfigure of
Figure 5. Partial optimisation of production and logistics processes supported by this prediction led to
fluctuations in the total quantity of containers in the whole system. The main source of fluctuations
was the customer’s stock changes. Every day, the total quantity of containers ranged from 31 to 64.
WST SLM results for supplier 1: Elimination of production fluctuation, real-time visibility of the
flow, execution by end operators, increase of delivery velocity, standardisation and other lean tools
and principles led to a stable, everyday total quantity of containers with ranges from 20 to 23 (see the
right subfigure of Figure 5). There is room for possible improvements in the quantity of the safety
stock level, which means the quantity of containers was reduced by the same level as that for supplier
2 (see Figure 6).
Sustainability 2018, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 16 of 26
5.4.2. Stock Level Results
The total quantity of containers in the studied system represents the success of integration and
the whole economic effect of the pull principle and lean tools’ implementation. It also represents the
reasonable costs needed for the production required by the customer. The IKS system visualises the
quantity of containers in a graphical form (see Figures 5–7). The blue column represents the quantity
of containers in the customer stock. The yellow column shows the transported quantity. The
turquoise column represents the finished goods in the supplier stock. Finally, the grey column
represents suppliers WIP quantity of containers. The red dash curve in the WST approach represents
the minimum stock level, the yellow dash curve represents the safety stock level, and the green dash
curve represents the production lot size level (see Section 3.2).
RST SLM results for supplier 1: The flow of the orders from the producer and material flow was
managed by the ERP/MRP system (accumulating the customer requirements into large-order lot
sizes). The previously mentioned planning principles led to the results described in the left subfigure
of Figure 5. Partial optimisation of production and logistics processes supported by this prediction
led to fluctuations in the total quantity of containers in the whole system. The main source of
fluctuations was the customer’s stock changes. Every day, the total quantity of containers ranged
from 31 to 64.
WST SLM results for supplier 1: Elimination of production fluctuation, real-time visibility of the
flow, execution by end operators, increase of delivery velocity, standardisation and other lean tools
and principles led to a stable, everyday total quantity of containers with ranges from 20 to 23 (see the
right subfigure of Figure 5). There is room for possible improvements in the quantity of the safety
stock level, which means the quantity of containers was reduced by the same level as that for supplier
2 (see Figure 6).
Figure 5. Quantities of container units in RST SLM and WST SLM for supplier 1.
RST SLM results for supplier 2: the ERP/MRP system was well managed until the producer
demand slowed down in the middle of the period. The ordering frequency was longer with smaller
quantities due to the designed phase-out and the Customer demand was partially fulfilled by newly
designed part replacement. This unexpected change has also heavily impacted the supplier finished
goods stock and obligation. The quantity of containers ranged from 22 to 53 (see the left subfigure of
Figure 6).
WST SLM results for supplier 2: Mutual lean tools´ and principles´ implementation, including
minimisation of production lot size and increasing delivery frequency, has impacted the producer’s
stock and supplier’s finished goods stock. It supported maximal flexibility and minimal risk of
obsolete inventory. The quantity of containers ranged from 10 to 12 (see the right subfigure of Figure
6).
Figure 5. Quantities of container units in RST SLM and WST SLM for supplier 1.
RST SLM results for supplier 2: the ERP/MRP system was well managed until the producer
demand slowed down in the middle of the period. The ordering frequency was longer with smaller
quantities due to the designed phase-out and the Customer demand was partially fulfilled by newly
designed part replacement. This unexpected change has also heavily impacted the supplier finished
goods stock and obligation. The quantity of containers ranged from 22 to 53 (see the left subfigure of
Figure 6).
WST SLM results for supplier 2: Mutual lean tools’ and principles’ implementation, including
minimisation of production lot size and increasing delivery frequency, has impacted the producer’s
stock and supplier’s finished goods stock. It supported maximal flexibility and minimal risk of obsolete
inventory. The quantity of containers ranged from 10 to 12 (see the right subfigure of Figure 6).
Sustainability 2018,10, 4392 17 of 26
Sustainability 2018, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 17 of 26
Figure 6. Quantities of containers in RST SLM and WST SLM for supplier 2.
RST SLM results for the producer: The producer was expecting the impact of high demand
because of the customer sales campaign in the first one-third of the period. In the middle one-third
period, the customer sales were average, and the stock was consumed smoothly without
replenishment. In the last one-third period, the customer advised a schedule of two-day production
maintenance and placed a large order to the producer to cover this period. The quantity of containers
ranged from 49 to 102 (see the left subfigure of Figure 7).
WST SLM results for the producer: The customer kept a higher standard of inventory level which
was fulfilled by the producer for the flexible support of the customer’s demand, including sales
campaigns and preventive maintenance of the customer. The quantity of containers ranged from 19
to 27 (see the right subfigure of Figure 7).
Figure 7. Quantities of containers in RST SLM and WST SLM for the producer.
Figures 5–7 illustrate results of the pull principle and lean tools’ implementation in the particular
logistics system elements. The total effect in the whole studied logistics system is shown in Table 6.
The average quantities of containers during the whole tested period are shown. The total number of
containers in the whole examined logistics system decreased by 65.1%, which was three time smaller
in the WST SLM in comparison with the RST SLM. The clear influence of the consideration of the
external environment/superior system was identified. Due to the application of the WST approach
including WS, WA and the role of the system´s purpose in the definition of optimal performance of
the production and logistics processes of the customer, producer and the suppliers systems enables
the serious reduction of containers and resource consumption in terms of the components’
availability for the production of the same quantity of outputs. The suppliers and the producer
benefited from the intensive cooperation with its customers (the producer and the customer) and
reached significant savings in consumption of resources connected with the flow of containers
quantities in the studied logistics system, which can be observed in Table 6.
Figure 6. Quantities of containers in RST SLM and WST SLM for supplier 2.
RST SLM results for the producer: The producer was expecting the impact of high demand
because of the customer sales campaign in the first one-third of the period. In the middle one-third
period, the customer sales were average, and the stock was consumed smoothly without replenishment.
In the last one-third period, the customer advised a schedule of two-day production maintenance and
placed a large order to the producer to cover this period. The quantity of containers ranged from 49 to
102 (see the left subfigure of Figure 7).
WST SLM results for the producer: The customer kept a higher standard of inventory level
which was fulfilled by the producer for the flexible support of the customer’s demand, including sales
campaigns and preventive maintenance of the customer. The quantity of containers ranged from 19 to
27 (see the right subfigure of Figure 7).
Sustainability 2018, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 17 of 26
Figure 6. Quantities of containers in RST SLM and WST SLM for supplier 2.
RST SLM results for the producer: The producer was expecting the impact of high demand
because of the customer sales campaign in the first one-third of the period. In the middle one-third
period, the customer sales were average, and the stock was consumed smoothly without
replenishment. In the last one-third period, the customer advised a schedule of two-day production
maintenance and placed a large order to the producer to cover this period. The quantity of containers
ranged from 49 to 102 (see the left subfigure of Figure 7).
WST SLM results for the producer: The customer kept a higher standard of inventory level which
was fulfilled by the producer for the flexible support of the customer’s demand, including sales
campaigns and preventive maintenance of the customer. The quantity of containers ranged from 19
to 27 (see the right subfigure of Figure 7).
Figure 7. Quantities of containers in RST SLM and WST SLM for the producer.
Figures 5–7 illustrate results of the pull principle and lean tools’ implementation in the particular
logistics system elements. The total effect in the whole studied logistics system is shown in Table 6.
The average quantities of containers during the whole tested period are shown. The total number of
containers in the whole examined logistics system decreased by 65.1%, which was three time smaller
in the WST SLM in comparison with the RST SLM. The clear influence of the consideration of the
external environment/superior system was identified. Due to the application of the WST approach
including WS, WA and the role of the system´s purpose in the definition of optimal performance of
the production and logistics processes of the customer, producer and the suppliers systems enables
the serious reduction of containers and resource consumption in terms of the components’
availability for the production of the same quantity of outputs. The suppliers and the producer
benefited from the intensive cooperation with its customers (the producer and the customer) and
reached significant savings in consumption of resources connected with the flow of containers
quantities in the studied logistics system, which can be observed in Table 6.
Figure 7. Quantities of containers in RST SLM and WST SLM for the producer.
Figures 5–7illustrate results of the pull principle and lean tools’ implementation in the particular
logistics system elements. The total effect in the whole studied logistics system is shown in Table 6.
The average quantities of containers during the whole tested period are shown. The total number of
containers in the whole examined logistics system decreased by 65.1%, which was three time smaller
in the WST SLM in comparison with the RST SLM. The clear influence of the consideration of the
external environment/superior system was identified. Due to the application of the WST approach
including WS, WA and the role of the system’s purpose in the definition of optimal performance of the
production and logistics processes of the customer, producer and the suppliers systems enables the
serious reduction of containers and resource consumption in terms of the components’ availability
for the production of the same quantity of outputs. The suppliers and the producer benefited from
the intensive cooperation with its customers (the producer and the customer) and reached significant
savings in consumption of resources connected with the flow of containers quantities in the studied
logistics system, which can be observed in Table 6.
Sustainability 2018,10, 4392 18 of 26
Table 6. Stock level in the studied logistics systems.
SLM Element Stock Average Amount of
RST SLM Containers
Average Amount of
WST SLM Containers
Supplier 1
WIP 8.3 2.3 (−72.3%)
Finished goods (FG) 18.8 9.8 (−47.9%)
Transported goods 2.8 2.3 (−17.9%)
Customer stock (CS) 16.4 7.3 (−55.5%)
Total amount 46.3 21.7 (−53.1%)
Supplier 2
WIP 6.8 2.7 (−60.3%)
Finished goods (FG) 18.8 3.4 (−81.9%)
Transported goods 1.7 1.7 (0.0%)
Customer stock (CS) 11.6 2.5 (−78.4%)
Total amount 38.9 10.3 (−73.5%)
Producer
WIP 10.8 5.8 (−46.3%)
Finished goods (FG) 18.8 8.6 (−54.3%)
Transported goods 14.6 3.5 (−76.0%)
Customer stock (CS) 30.1 5.8 (−80.7%)
Total amount 74.3 23.7 (-68.1%)
Whole examined part
of SLM Total amount 159.5 55.7 (−65.1%)
The 52-working-day case study enables the comparison of the different systems thinking
approaches influencing the quantity of components needed for the same output of the defined logistics
system. The significant difference in performance (expressed by the quantity of components needed
for the same customer requirements) of studied logistics systems elements (WIP, finished goods,
transported goods, and customer stock) between maximal performance (RST SLM approach) and
performance derived from the superior system (WST SLM approach) is visible in the percentage
changes of the average amount of containers of each logistics system’s parts and interactions in brackets
(see Table 6). Online visibility of real superior system requirements, resulting in better responses
to customer requirements and levelled production volumes, enables decreases in the quantity of
containers in the WIP of the logistics system by 72.3% for supplier 1, 60.3% for supplier 2 and 46.3% for
the producer. Flexible management of resources, standardization, and predictability of daily activities
enabled the reductions of the containers quantity in finished goods by 47.9% for supplier 1, 81.9% for
supplier 2 and 54.3% for the producer. A newly released regular transportation time-schedule and shift
to the delivery of mixed loads of different components to more points of consumption has enabled
reductions of containers in transported volumes by 17.9% for supplier 1 and 76% for the producer.
Reduction of shortages, elimination of mistakes, immediate solving of quality issues and the ability to
see and adjust the lot sizes of production and delivery reduced the over-performance of the further
processes and resulted in the reductions of 55.5% for supplier 1, 78.4% for supplier 2 and 80.7% for the
producer containers needed in the customer stock.
Structured evaluation of the RST and WST approach comparison in the studied logistics system
explained and demonstrated the significant savings of resources and quantity of containers needed for
the same logistics system’s output. The transition of the meaning of the system’s purpose from maximal
performance of logistics system parts and interaction to a performance defined by a superior system,
i.e., the external environment, leads to the concrete, quantified results, which are visible from the
wholeness perspective due to the total stock level KPI, able to clarify and compare total consumption
of resources in the whole studied logistics system, rather than particular consumption or resources
in the particular parts and interactions of the logistics system. The concrete changes dramatically
improving the wholeness performance, such as online visibility of customer requirements, levelled
the production volumes. Flexible management of resources, standardisation, regular transportation
time-schedule, delivery of mixed loads of components to more points of consumption, reduction of
Sustainability 2018,10, 4392 19 of 26
shortages, elimination of mistakes, immediate problems-solving as well as adaptability of production
and delivery lot sizes results from the application of different purposes of the logistics system.
The WST approach explaining the presented concrete changes had a similar level of effect to the
second wholeness KPI, the total lead time (see Table 5). The RST purpose, sum of the maximised
performance of parts and interactions resulting in minimised unit costs (consumption of resources),
causes the over-performance visible in the wholeness perspective. The minimised unit costs of each
part of the logistics system measured by traditional KPI’s (inventory costs, logistics costs per unit,
labour efficiency, utilisation of capacities, and process cycle time) prevents the application of previous
wholeness changes because it could cause an enhancement of particular costs. The operational level
of SLM should be managed by the WST purpose, considering customers’ real consumption needs
representing the external environment, in order to derive performance of the selected system’s parts
and interactions and eliminate their inefficient performance from the wholeness perspective.
5.5. General Case Study Contributions
The RST approach could be explained as a “producing more” attitude. Increases in produced
quantity, and maximum particular performance cause minimum unit costs of particular elements
and their interactions in the logistics system. Minimum unit costs prioritise exploitation of available
capacities and technologies. The wholeness picture enables a view that such an attitude causes
over-performance, overproduction consuming a serious amount of resources in the logistics system
as the whole. However, the purpose of the logistics system, studied from the superior system, is not
maximal performance of parts and interactions (warehousing, production, and distribution) generating
maximum profit, but maximal satisfaction of the customer’s expectations (following the real customers’
orders). The WST approach could be explained as a “consuming less” attitude. Reduction of consumed
resources through the elimination of the over-performance (of parts and interactions by considering
the role of the dramatically changing external environment) could result in higher particular unit costs
of parts and interactions in some cases, but the total consumption of resources in the whole logistics
system is significantly less. The main reason is the wholeness perspective enabling an evaluation
of current activities and its meaningfulness from the superior system, i.e., customers’ requirements
expectations (system purpose), not out of maximising performance of parts and interactions. The WST
approach presents the systematic change in a system’s purpose, which could be understood as the
innovation in effectiveness (doing the right things), not the change in the efficiency of a system’s parts
and interactions (doing things right).
The crucial role of the external environment implemented by a system’s purpose in the optimal
performances of logistics system’s parts was verified in the economic dimension of SLM. The 65%
reduction of total stock level and 50% reduction in total lead time reduction represent the positive
benefits of the WST approach. The significant impact of the WST approach application could be
expected in the environmental and social dimension, which will be proposed by the CF in Section 6.
5.6. Case Study Limitations
The following limitations of the study have been identified. The verification of the study is
processed on the operational level of simplified automotive logistics system, in order to sufficiently
visualise the specific WST approach benefits in comparison with the previous RST approach.
Nevertheless, the crucial assumption of successful implementation and complete exploitation of
the expected contributions in the whole SLM, in the long-term perspective, is the application of the
WST approach in all the logistics system activities at the tactical and strategical level as well. Concretely,
actually used MRP solutions for tactical and strategical planning (e.g., long-term resources planning,
machine capacity or shift pattern) needs to start considering the role of the external environment
(WST approach) because of the significant reduction of total resources consumption. For example,
the WST approach should be applied during the planning of the final or semi-final new products’
complexity (caused by material, technological or design requirements), levelling of serial production
Sustainability 2018,10, 4392 20 of 26
(called heijunka in lean terminology), etc. The authors of the research focus on the forward flow in
logistics’ system. However, there are several other approaches investigated in the literature, such as
resilient, reverse, closed-loop or circular flow.
6. CF of WST Application in all Dimensions of SLM
Based on the results of previous research, the aim of the CF is to define the assumptions, principles
and benefits of the application of the tested WST approach in all dimensions of sustainability in SLM.
SLM offers companies economic, environmental and social benefits, such as an increase in asset
utilisation, enhanced customer service, increased energy efficiency, reduced impact on the community
and improved quality of life [
52
]. A sustainable logistics system focuses on logistics operations
(e.g., supplier selection, procurement, manufacturing, warehousing and delivery), in order to reduce
a company’s costs, lessen its environmental impact and address the impact it has on society [
15
]. SLM is
the system enabling a company to maximise the profitability, minimise the environmental impact and
improve the community’s quality of life [
39
]. Actual application of SD in SLM is characterised by the
RST approach or, if applicable, the RST purpose definition (see Section 4.1) focusing on maximising of
the system elements’ performance in order to get the best possible performance of the whole system
from a three-dimensional perspective.
The application of SD in LM is facing two major challenges. The currently used RST approach
does not lead to the optimal performance of a logistics system as a whole, which was verified in
economic dimension of SLM by the case study. At the same time, it is argued that the separation of
the sustainability concept into three pillars is the reductionism approach, which tends to emphasise
potentially competing interests instead of focusing on the linkages and interdependencies between
pillars [
40
], which is not optimal from the wholeness perspective as well. The aim of the proposed CF
is to solve the first problem: how to identify purposes of three separated sustainable dimensions and
improve the performance of SLM’s elements in order to reduce consumption of total SLM resources.
The proposed CF does not solve the second problem, the identification of the one sustainable dimension
integrating the previous three, which could be further transferred by the WST approach into the
performance of SLM’s elements. The future research, balancing the interactions of three sustainable
pillars (applying the WST approach to identify the superior system expectation), needs to be carried out.
Based on the definition of the WST approach (see Section 4.1) and sustainability literature
research, three principles for applying the WST approach in all dimensions of SLM (see Figure 8) could
be identified:
1.
The selected system’s purposes are defined by superior systems (external environment), which are
in the case of SLM represented by three sustainable dimensions: economic, e.g., customer’s
requirements represented by orders; natural environment, e.g., environmental requirements
represented by United Nations (UN); social, e.g., society requirements represented by employees
and authorities.
2.
The superior systems, representing the external environment of an SLM system are created
by stakeholders (customers, employees, community groups, authorities, Non-governmental
organizations (NGOs), etc.). In an earlier approach, the individual stakeholders focused on their
goals within the framework of individual sustainable dimensions. At present, stakeholders’
requirements are intertwined with each dimension. Customers are no longer focused on
just economic goals related to price and customer service, but they are required to meet
the goals related to other dimensions of sustainability (natural environment and social
responsibility). Satisfaction of economic requirements in terms of price, quality, availability,
etc., are complemented by environmental requirements in the field of green logistics, for example,
preferring green transport and social requirements, taking into account the principles of the
fair-trade foundation, etc.
Sustainability 2018,10, 4392 21 of 26
3.
The wholeness KPIs need to be identified in each dimension of sustainability to measure the
performance of the whole selected logistics system in particular dimensions (total lead time,
carbon footprint, quality of life, etc.), enabling the visualisation of the wholeness benefits.
Sustainability 2018, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 21 of 26
3. The wholeness KPIs need to be identified in each dimension of sustainability to measure the
performance of the whole selected logistics system in particular dimensions (total lead time,
carbon footprint, quality of life, etc.), enabling the visualisation of the wholeness benefits.
Figure 8. Conceptual Framework of the WST approach in all dimensions of SLM.
CF visualises the new role of the system´s purposes in all dimensions of SLM. The passive role
of the system´s purposes results from the RST approach, where the purposes and requirements of the
three-dimensional external environment are identified indirectly in terms of predicting of customers´
requirements, general declaration of percentage reduction of environmental impact (e.g., CO2) or
quality of life improvements. The RST approach’s purpose is defined as the sum of the systems´
elements (parts and interactions). Furthermore, systems elements are motivated to maximise their
performance without methodical consideration of the external environment.
The WST approach emphasises the active role of the system´s purpose. The three steps of WS
methodically define the SLM´s purposes, real superior systems´ requirements, representing external
environment in all SLM´s dimensions. The flow of real customers´ orders, concretely addressing the
environmental impact reduction or quality of life improvements to the system´s elements, represents
the real external environment requirements, which are directly transmitted by three steps of WA into
the performance of the SLM´s elements. Therefore, the performance of the SLM´s elements consumes
significantly fewer resources in fulfilling the economic, environmental and social requirements. The
contributions of the active role of the system´s purposes, directly deriving the performance of the
system´s elements, was confirmed by the comparative case study in the economic dimension of SLM.
7. Conclusions
The article studies the research gap in systems thinking. Systems thinking helps organise a
studied system’s elements to reach a desired purpose. The main effort of researchers in the field is
dedicated to the analysis of a system’s elements (parts and interactions) and their synthesis in
reaching the desired purpose. The same situation was identified in the application of systems
thinking in practice when researching several case studies in automotive SLM and SSCM in the
presented three-year research project. Understanding a system´s purpose is currently reduced as the
result of the interconnections of its parts and interactions without systematic consideration of the
Figure 8. Conceptual Framework of the WST approach in all dimensions of SLM.
CF visualises the new role of the system’s purposes in all dimensions of SLM. The passive role of
the system’s purposes results from the RST approach, where the purposes and requirements of the
three-dimensional external environment are identified indirectly in terms of predicting of customers’
requirements, general declaration of percentage reduction of environmental impact (e.g., CO
2
) or
quality of life improvements. The RST approach’s purpose is defined as the sum of the systems’
elements (parts and interactions). Furthermore, systems elements are motivated to maximise their
performance without methodical consideration of the external environment.
The WST approach emphasises the active role of the system’s purpose. The three steps of WS
methodically define the SLM’s purposes, real superior systems’ requirements, representing external
environment in all SLM’s dimensions. The flow of real customers’ orders, concretely addressing the
environmental impact reduction or quality of life improvements to the system’s elements, represents
the real external environment requirements, which are directly transmitted by three steps of WA into
the performance of the SLM’s elements. Therefore, the performance of the SLM’s elements consumes
significantly fewer resources in fulfilling the economic, environmental and social requirements.
The contributions of the active role of the system’s purposes, directly deriving the performance
of the system’s elements, was confirmed by the comparative case study in the economic dimension
of SLM.
7. Conclusions
The article studies the research gap in systems thinking. Systems thinking helps organise a studied
system’s elements to reach a desired purpose. The main effort of researchers in the field is dedicated to
the analysis of a system’s elements (parts and interactions) and their synthesis in reaching the desired
purpose. The same situation was identified in the application of systems thinking in practice when
researching several case studies in automotive SLM and SSCM in the presented three-year research
project. Understanding a system’s purpose is currently reduced as the result of the interconnections
Sustainability 2018,10, 4392 22 of 26
of its parts and interactions without systematic consideration of the external environment. The role
of external environment for system’s elements performance is considered indirectly (in economic
dimensions by forecasting the customers’ requirements). Therefore, the actual system’s thinking
approach, applied in theory and practice, was labelled as the RST approach.
The RST approach understands the system’s purpose, out of the system’s pyramid, as the sum
of the system’s parts and interactions. The RST approach replaces the previous reductionism and
improves the performance of the parts through the important role of their interactions. The RST
approach contains the identification of the external environment’s requirements through the forecasted
customer requirements in the economic dimension of sustainability. Although it improves the system’s
performance, it is still perceived as an inadequate consideration of the external environment. The reason
is that it has not studied sufficiently the internal, mutual interdependencies of the system’s elements
(parts, interactions and purpose) and their relations with the external environment methodically so
far. The significant role of the external environment (superior systems) for the wholeness system’s
performance arises in the era of unprecedented speed and scope of changes in worldwide market
conditions, creating a new, demanding surrounding environment. If the system’s parts and interactions
are managed to perform more or less than which is required by the superior system (e.g., due to the
innovation in efficiency of parts and interactions), it results in the ineffective performance of the
studied system as a whole. The implication of the absent significance of the role of the external
environment causes the ineffective consumption of resources of the whole selected system. Therefore,
the proposed WST approach methodically interconnects the external environment represented by
the superior system with the studied system through its purpose. The system’s purpose considers
the internal and external environment methodically through WS and WA. The new systems thinking
approach was labelled as WST because it understands the system’s purpose in terms of the whole,
thus complementing the systematic internal part through the methodical consideration of the external
environment that constitutes the meaning of wholeness of the system’s purpose. The WST approach
ensures that the performance of the studied system’s parts and interactions is directly managed by the
requirements of the superior system.
The WST approach in systems thinking is proposed in general and in the economic dimension
of the SLM context. In general, the WST approach emphasises the new role of the system’s purpose
visualised in the systems’ pyramid, which is not a passive result of the maximal performance of the
studied system’s parts and interactions. It emphasises the purpose’s active role in deriving the system’
parts and interactions performance. From the economic dimension of the SLM perspective, the RST
approach defines the purpose of the studied logistics system as the sum of maximum profits (minimum
unit costs) of the analysed particular parts and interactions of the logistics system. The superior
system is represented by the forecasted volumes of customers’ orders. Therefore, it is considered as
an inadequate role for the external environment in SLM. The new system’s purpose is defined by WST.
The specific customer’s real consumption (resulting in the new orders) creates the reasonable limits to
eliminate over/under-performance of the studied system’s parts and interactions. The methodical
consideration of the superior system’s requirements, transmitted in parts and interactions performance,
results in the considerable reduction of the resources needed for fulfilment of the studied system’s
purpose, i.e., customers’ orders in the economic dimension of SLM.
The comparative case study testing the period of the application of the RST and WST approaches
was visualised in IKS. The IKS visualisation enabled the verification of the important role of the
system’s purpose in defining the performance of the studied logistics system’s parts and interactions
required by the superior system, which the selected system is a part of. A significant difference in the
consumption of resources was identified (expressed by the KPI’s total quantity of containers and total
lead time needed for the fulfilment of the same customer requirements) in the studied logistics system’s
elements described in IKS as “WIP”, “Finished Goods”, “Transported Goods” and “Customer Stock”.
The methodically implemented role of the superior system through the studied system’s purpose
enabled significant savings of the consumed resources in satisfying the same customer requirements.
Sustainability 2018,10, 4392 23 of 26
The case study’s KPIs confirmed that approximately 50% of resources in terms of the total quantity of
containers with the components and the total lead time could be saved. Innovation in effectiveness
presented by the new system’s purpose (defined by the WST approach) considers, in methodological
terms, the external environment, which requires significantly fewer total resources than the RST
system’s purpose reached by innovation in efficiency applied to studied logistics system’s parts
and interactions.
The similar conclusion to that in the case study comparison can be seen from a comparison
in the Volkswagen Group (VW) and Toyota Group (Toyota) management system. Toyota and VW
could be characterised by the WST approach and the RST approach, respectively. These leading
automotive manufactures are selling relatively comparable quantities of cars a year. Nevertheless,
their wholeness productivity expressed by the operating profit margin and number of employees is
significantly different (see Table 7).
Table 7. Comparison of selected data in Volkswagen Group and Toyota Group [53–57].
Data 2016 2013
VW Toyota 1VW Toyota 2
Vehicle sales (thousands units) 10.4 10.2 39.7 9.9 3
Employees (thousands) 627 364 563 339
Operating profit margin (%) 3.3 7.2 5.9 8.9
1
Fiscal year ended on 31 March 2017.
2
Fiscal year ended on 31 March 2014.
3
Including consolidated numbers of
the whole Toyota concern (Toyota, Lexus, Daihatsu and Hino).
Profit and sales quantities of cars in VW are supported by very efficient and technologically
developed particular logistics system’s parts and interactions. However, maximisation of the efficiency
of a particular system’s elements, assuring the minimal unit costs without systematic consideration
of the external environment, cannot assure the effectiveness of the whole system. On the contrary,
Toyota’s logistics system is rather effective, managed predominantly by the pull principle following
customer satisfaction, which assures significant reduction of total costs.
Based on the successful verification of the WST approach application in the economic dimensions
of SLM, the CF proposes the WST approach application in all sustainable dimensions. The WST
application revealed the SLM system’s purposes in general: customer’s requirements in the economic
dimension, environmental requirements in the environmental dimension and social requirements in
the social dimension. The requirements of the superior systems identified by WS are transmitted by WA
into the performance of the SLM system’s elements. It implies significantly less resource consumption
of the whole SLM system. The innovative system’s purpose for understanding and methodical
interconnection of the surrounding environment causes the significant reduction of resources in
achievement of the studied logistics system’s sustainable goals.
The new WST approach, methodically considering seriously changing the external environment
in the 21st century assures the sustainable performance of the whole logistics system, resulting in
a considerable reduction in resources’ consumption.
The WST application was tested in automotive SLM. Nevertheless, the role of the external
environment, influencing methodically the performance of a system’s elements, is relevant in all
other economic systems, e.g., supply chains performing in the 21st century business environment.
The future research should identify the prudent balance between the three sustainable dimensions.
The systematically defined prudently balanced Wholeness Sustainability Purpose, interconnected by
the WST approach with selected SLM, brings improvements in performance setup, resulting in further
reduction of resource consumption.
Author Contributions:
D.H. prepared a definition of the RST approach and proposal of the WST approach used
in SLM, the literature review from the area of the systems thinking, participated in the case study preparation and
discussion of the obtained results. P.W. and R.L. prepared the literature review of the SLM, and participated in the
Sustainability 2018,10, 4392 24 of 26
case study preparation and discussion of the obtained results. V.D. prepared the IKS system description and data
for the case study. D.S. and I.G. participated in the case study preparation. All authors have read and approved
the final manuscript.
Funding:
This research was funded by Internal Gran Agency of SKODA AUTO University grant number
SGS/2015/02.
Acknowledgments:
This work was supported by the Internal Grant Agency of SKODA AUTO University
(No. SGS/2015/02).
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
References
1.
Waller, M.A.; Fawcet, S.E.; Johnson, J.L. The Luxury Paradox: How Systems Thinking and Supply Chain
Collaboration Can Bring Sustainability into Mainstream Practice. J. Bus. Logist.
2015
,36, 303–305. [CrossRef]
2.
Gammelgaard, B. Schools in Logistics Research? A Methodical Framework for Analysis of the Discipline.
IJPD LM 2004,6, 479–491.
3.
Randall, W.S.; Farris, M.T.I. Supply Chain Financing: Using Cash-to-Cash Variables to Strengthen the Supply
Chain. Int. J. Phys. Distrib. Logist. Manag. 2009,39, 669–689. [CrossRef]
4. Meadows, D.H. Thinking in Systems; Earthscan: London, UK, 2009.
5.
Checkland, P.B.; Poulter, J. Learning for Action. A Short Definitive Account of Soft System Methodology, and Its
Use Practitioners, Teachers and Students; John Wiley and Sons: London, UK, 2006.
6. Jackson, M.C. Systems Thinking: Creative Holism for Managers; John Wiley and Sons: London, UK, 2003.
7.
Bertalanffy, L. General System Theory. Foundations, Development, Applications; George Braziller: New York, NY,
USA, 1969.
8. Ashby, W.R. Introduction to Cybernetics; Chapman and Hall: London, UK, 1956.
9.
Senge, P. The Fifth Discipline. The Art and Practice of The Learning Organization; Doubledey: New York, NY,
USA, 1990.
10.
Bartlett, G. Systemic Thinking. A Simple Thinking Technique for Gaining Systemic (Situation-Wide) Focus.
The International Conference on Thinking. 2001. Available online: http://www.probsolv.com/systemic_
thinking/Systemic%20Thinking.pdf (accessed on 3 January 2018).
11. Ackoff, R.L. Akoff’s Best; John Wiley & Sons: Toronto, ON, Canada, 1999.
12.
CSCMP Definition of Supply Chain Management. Available online: https://cscmp.org/CSCMP/Educate/
SCM_Definitions_and_Glossary_of_Terms/CSCMP/Educate/SCM_Definitions_and_Glossary_of_Terms.
aspx?hkey=60879588-f65f-4ab5-8c4b-6878815ef921 (accessed on 20 May 2018).
13.
Lambert, D. An Executive Summary of Supply Chain Management. Process, Partnerships, Performance; Supply
Chain Management Institute: Sarasota, FL, USA, 2008.
14.
Edson, R. Systems Thinking. Applied. A Primer; Applied Systems Thinking Institute: Arlingotn, VA, USA, 2008.
Available online: https://www.anser.org/docs/systems_thinking_applied.pdf (accessed on
1 September 2018
).
15.
Wichaisri, S.; Sopadang, A. Sustainable Logistics System: A Framework and Case Study. In Proceedings of
the Industrial Engineering and Engineering Management (IEEM), Bangkok, Thailand, 10–13 December 2013;
pp. 1017–1021.
16.
Ansari, Z.N.; Kant, R. A state-of-art literature review reflecting 15 years of focus on sustainable supply chain
management. J. Clean. Prod. 2017,142, 2524–2543. [CrossRef]
17.
World Commission on Environment and Development. Our Common Future; Oxford University: Oxford,
UK, 1987.
18.
Elkington, J. Partnerships from cannibals with forks: The triple bottom line of 21st-century business. Environ.
Qual. Manag. 1998,8, 37–51. [CrossRef]
19.
Das, D. Development and validation of a scale for measuring Sustainable Supply Chain Management
practices and performance. J. Clean. Prod. 2017,164, 1344–1362. [CrossRef]
20. Sikdar, S.K. Sustainable development and sustainability metrics. AIChE J. 2003,8, 1928–1932. [CrossRef]
21.
Wittstruck, D.; Teuteberg, F. Understanding the success factors of sustainable supply chain management:
Empirical evidence from the electrics and electronics industry. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag.
2012
,19,
141–158. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2018,10, 4392 25 of 26
22.
Esfahbodi, A.; Zhang, Y.; Watson, G. Sustainable supply chain management in emerging economies:
Trade-offs between environmental and cost performance. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2016,181, 350–366. [CrossRef]
23.
Hong, J.; Zhang, Y.; Ding, M. Sustainable supply chain management practices, supply chain dynamic
capabilities, and enterprise performance. J. Clean. Prod. 2018,172, 3508–3519. [CrossRef]
24.
Seuring, S.; Müller, M. From a literature review to a conceptual framework for sustainable supply chain
management. J. Clean. Prod. 2008,16, 1699–1710. [CrossRef]
25.
Coyle, J.J.; Bardi, E.J.; Langley, C.J. Management of Business Logistics: A Supply Chain Perspective; South-Western
College Pub: Cincinnati, OH, USA, 2003.
26.
Fera, M.; Macchaiaroli, R.; Fruggiero, F.; Lambiase, A.; Miranda, S. Application of a business process model
(BPM) method for a warehouse RFId system implementation. Int. J. RF Technol. 2017,8, 57–77. [CrossRef]
27.
Coyle, J.J.; Langley, C.J.; Novack, R.A.; Gibson, B. Supply Chain Management: A Logistics Perspective; Cengage
Learning: Boston, MA, USA, 2016.
28.
Holman, D.; Jirsák, P. Unified Theory of SCM Competitiveness in 21st century (Principles of paradigmatic
change MassSCM > LeanSCM). In Proceedings of the CLC 2013: Carpathian Logistics Congress, Cracow,
Poland, 9–11 December 2013; pp. 244–251.
29.
Carvalho, H.; Duarte, S.; Machado, C. Lean, agile, resilient and green: Divergencies and synergies. Int. J.
Lean Six Sigma 2011,2, 151–179. [CrossRef]
30. Kavanagh, S.; Cole, J. LEAN Achieving Critical Mass. GFR 2013,29, 12–20.
31.
Christopher, M.; Holweg, M. “Supply Chain 2.0”: Managing supply chains in the era of turbulence. Int. J.
Phys. Distrib. Logist. Manag. 2011,41, 63–82. [CrossRef]
32.
Christopher, M.; Ryals, L.J. The Supply Chain Becomes the Demand Chain. J. Bus. Logist.
2014
,35, 29–35.
[CrossRef]
33. Christopher, M. Logistics and Supply Chain Management, 3rd ed.; FT Prentice Hall: Harlow, UK, 2005.
34.
Fera, M.; Fruggiero, F.; Lambiase, A.; Macchiaroli, R.; Miranda, S. The role of uncertainty in supply chains
under dynamic modeling. Int. J. Ind. Eng. Comput. 2017,8, 119–140. [CrossRef]
35.
Siddiqui, A.W.; Raza, S.A. Electronic supply chains: Status & perspective. Comput. Ind. Eng.
2015
,88,
536–556.
36.
Nilson, F.; Gammelgaard, B. Moving beyond the systems approach in SCM and logistics research. Int. J.
Phys. Distrib. Logist. Manag. 2012,42, 764–783. [CrossRef]
37. Lindskog, M. Systems theory: Myth or mainstream? Logist. Res. 2012,4, 63–81. [CrossRef]
38.
Grant, G.B.; Trautrims, A.; Wong, C.Y. Sustainable Logistics and Supply Chain Management; Kogan Page:
London, UK, 2015.
39.
Wang, J.; Zhang, D. Study on the mechanism of logistics system sustainability. In Proceedings of the 2007
IEEE International Conference on Automation and Logistics, Jinan, China, 18–21 August 2007; pp. 2165–2169.
40. Grace, W.; Pope, J. A Systems Approach to Sustainability Assessment; Edward Elgar: Northampton, UK, 2015.
41.
Holman, D.; Lenort, R.; Staš, D.; Wicher, P.; Dieiev, O. System Solution of SCM in Automotive Improves
Productivity in Metallurgical Industry. In Proceedings of the METAL 2016: 25th International Conference on
Metallurgy and Materials, Brno, Czech Republic, 25–27 May 2016; TANGER: Ostrava, Czech Republic, 2016;
pp. 1818–1821.
42.
Holman, D.; Jirsák, P.; Kršˇnáková, L.; Janˇcík, J. Application of Simulation in Metallurgy Supply Chain
Optimization. In Proceedings of the METAL 2015: 24rd International Conference on Metallurgy and
Materials, Brno, Czech Republic, 3–5 June 2015; TANGER: Ostrava, Czech Republic, 2015; pp. 1939–1944.
43.
Michna, J.; Holman, D.; Lenort, R.; Staš, D.; Wicher, P. Traditional Cost Accounting as the Key Obstacle to
Reach Sustainable SCM Solution in the Industry of the 3rd Millennium. In Smart City 360
◦
; Leon-Garcia, A.,
Lenort, R., Holman, D., Staš, D., Krutilova, V., Wicher, P., Cagáˇnová, D., Špirková, D., Golej, J., Nguyen, K.,
Eds.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2016; pp. 640–647.
44.
Cee, J.; Dieiev, O.; Holman, D.; Lenort, R.; Staš, D.; Wicher, P. System Oriented Sustainable Supply Chain
Management Innovations in Automotive Industry—ŠKODA AUTO Case Study. Komunikacie
2016
,18, 54–59.
45.
Holman, D.; Lenort, R.; Wicher, P.; Staš, D.; Famin, D. Whole Chain Management (WCM)—The New
Concept—The New Competitive Advantage. In Proceedings of the CLC 2016: Carpathian Logistics Congress,
Jesenik, Czech Republic, 4–6 November 2016; TANGER: Ostrava, Czech Republic, 2017; pp. 398–405.
Sustainability 2018,10, 4392 26 of 26
46.
Holman, D.; Lenort, R.; Staš, D.; Wicher, P.; Famin, D. Holistic System Thinking in Supply Chain
Management—3PL (Meaningful Solution with Half of Resources). In Proceedings of the CLC 2017:
Carpathian Logistics Congress, Liptovsky Jan, Slovakia, 28–30 June 2017; TANGER: Ostrava, Czech Republic,
2017; pp. 198–203.
47.
Kolb, D.A. Expertiential Learning: Experience as the Source of Learning and Development; Pearson Education:
Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA, 2015.
48. Yin, R.K. Case Study Research: Design and Methods; SAGE: Beverly Hills, CA, USA, 1984.
49.
Kanban System for Production and Logistics. Available online: http://www.manufactus.com/portfolio/iks-
integrated-kanban-system/?lang=en (accessed on 2 January 2018).
50.
Laszlo, E. The Systems View of the World. A Holistic Vision for Our Time; Hampton Press: New York, NY,
USA, 2002.
51.
Feliu, J.G.; Morana, J. Assessing urban logistics pooling sustainability via a Hierarchic Dashboard from
a Group Decision Perspective. In Sustainable Logistics (Transport and Sustainability, Volume 6); Emerald Group
Publishing Limited: Bingley, UK, 2014; pp. 113–135.
52.
Moldawska, A.; Torgeir, W. Development of manufacturing sustainability assessment using systems thinking.
Sustainability 2016,8, 5. [CrossRef]
53.
Responsibility and Change: Sustainability Report 2016. Available online: http://sustainabilityreport2016.
volkswagenag.com/home.html (accessed on 29 December 2017).
54.
Toyota: Annual Report 2017. Available online: http://www.toyota-global.com/pages/contents/investors/
ir_library/annual/pdf/2017/annual_report_2017_fie.pdf (accessed on 29 December 2017).
55.
Toyota Motor Corporation: Annual Report, Year Ended March 31. 2014. Available online: http:
//www.toyota-global.com/pages/contents/investors/ir_library/annual/pdf/2014/ar14_e.pdf (accessed
on 29 December 2017).
56.
Toyota Relinquishes Top Global Sales Spot to VW in 2016. Available online: https://www.reuters.
com/article/us-toyota-sales/toyota-relinquishes-top-global-sales-spot-to-vw-in-2016-idUSKBN15E0F4
(accessed on 30 December 2017).
57.
Toyota Retains Global Auto Crown in 2013, Sees Strong 2014. Available online: https://www.
reuters.com/article/us-toyota-forecasts/toyota-retains-global-auto-crown-in-2013-sees-strong-2014-
idUSBREA0M0F320140123 (accessed on 30 December 2017).
©
2018 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Available via license: CC BY 4.0
Content may be subject to copyright.
