Talk:Cross-docking

Business Low‑importance

	Business portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of business articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BusinessWikipedia:WikiProject BusinessTemplate:WikiProject BusinessWikiProject Business articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Transport Low‑importance

	Transport portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Transport, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Transport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TransportWikipedia:WikiProject TransportTemplate:WikiProject TransportTransport articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Systems Low‑importance

	Systems science portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Systems, which collaborates on articles related to systems and systems science.SystemsWikipedia:WikiProject SystemsTemplate:WikiProject SystemsSystems articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is not associated with a particular field. Fields are listed on the template page.

Cross-docking[edit]

What is "correct" way to spell it: crossdock, cross-dock or cross dock? Nsaa 11:05, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

Two articles in the current version crossdock and cross-docking. Merge these articles? Nsaa 11:17, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

I agree that these pages should be merged. Seems do be done already.

What about the cross-docking with respect to ocking algorithms? No information about that on this page?

What are "ocking" algorithms? I don't think this page has much to do with drug design. Perhaps a disambiguation page is needed?

The last section of this entry really needs work. It isn't explained well; the 'systems' reference is unclear (does it refer to IT systems?); and it includes jargon (what is a KPI?). 12:35 PDT, August 2, 2006

The last section contians Apple Singh as a factor... Apple Singh is no factor... Why is it mentioned here? In-fact Apple Singh has no meaning. It is someone's name

KPI-> is Key performance Index. Its a way of measuring performance of a system. KPI is not a jargon. It is a well known management abbreviation

This seems to read more like a press release for Wal-mart than an encyclopedic entry. Sndtech (talk) 02:37, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I added a section on cross dock design. The source is John J. Bartholdi, III and Kevin R. Gue's article titled the best shape for a crossdock. Published in transportation science, vol 38, no 2, may 2004, pp. 235-244. I'm not sure how to cite a reference though and I'd appreciate if someone could add it for me.

Also, the question above about thespelling of crossdock - I see it used mostly as a single word, the Gue and Bartholdi article included. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.154.37.110 (talk) 04:37, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't like the extensive use of bullets on this page but I don't know to what extent they should be written out in sentence form. Any suggestions? Smit8750 (talk) 22:28, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that if cross docking was already used in 1930/1950, that the sentence "A computerized logistics system is needed" is incorrect. Probably this sentence can use a bit more nuance like 'this system requires all modules to be aligned seamlessly and is therefore hard to implement without a computerized system'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.35.200.100 (talk • contribs) 14:15, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cross-docking, transloading and team tracks[edit]

What are the differences or similarities between cross-docking and transloading and team track? Is one or two of things a subset of the other? Is there a way we could link these pages and clarify them? Is it possible that we might need to merge some or all of these pages and have these things as subsets? Give me your opinion on how we want to clean this up. As an example, this page for Adrian and Blissfield Rail Road's Lansing and Jackson Railroad lists all three of these under "services" seemingly implying that there are three distinct and seperate services. In that case, none of these pages need to be merged, but after reading all three, I'm having a very difficult time telling the difference between these rail services. --Criticalthinker (talk) 10:04, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone? --Criticalthinker (talk) 14:22, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

i think this raises a point that needs to be addressed in the article. A cross-dock is a facility, while the action or process is cross docking. The cross docking process in fact includes some other phrases, which are all subsets of the cross docking process. These are Flow Through and Transloading. The origin of cross docking in fact is from two sides. One of the maritime to land transfer process, and the other was the rail to road. There is no right answer, so i will draft a new section and add this information for completeness. Team track is not related to the process, rather is is a siding not belonging to a railroad where loading or unloading of trains may be performed by multiple users - the people utilizing the siding may use cross docking or not. I will incorporate this.

Johnjvogt (talk) 15:25, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Looking for collaborators to work with a new editor who is a domain expert[edit]

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

Johnjvogt is a new editor who has written books that might be useful in this article. The fact that he is the author creates a conflict of interest, so I reverted his changes and asked him to use the talk page to collaborate.

I don't have the time to do justice to his willingness to help out.

Please read his note to me on his talk page at User talk:Johnjvogt#Please avoid using Wikipedia for self-promotion and the edit I undid in the article page history.[1] davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 🎄 20:14, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Johnjvogt - you don't need to write polished prose; far more important is that you can find reliable sources (WP:RS) for all of the content you think should be in the article. With this, other editors will not find it difficult to put together usable content and you can work through this material, correcting misunderstandings we may have. It's probably the easiest way to achieve neutrality (WP:N) on a topic on which you have strong opinions. — Charles Stewart (talk) 21:21, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

i have read the comments. The Cross-Dock (correct spelling for a physical location) is for the movement of physical goods only. The shape changes with size, and we could add that to the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnjvogt (talk • contribs) 21:51, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Cross-dock" vs "Cross-docking" (was: Message of 21:54 15 December 2020)[edit]

The correct way to spell is cross-dock for the facility. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnjvogt (talk • contribs) 21:54, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Section heading changed)

I think this needs a little more justification. The Google Ngrams corpus (which gives simple lexical queries of the books Google scanned as part of the library project they used to found Google Books) has [cross dock] as the older term, but [cross docking] exploding in popularity between 1986 and 1993, remaining the more popular term ever since 1987 (see [2]; the query matches sequence but ignores punctuation). We can explain the evolution of the term and document distinctions between the terms, but the policy is to prefer the more popular term even if it can be seen as "less correct", provided it is not actively confusing or prejudicial. — Charles Stewart (talk) 12:42, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Enhanced article on Cross-Docks[edit]

I have read your comments. I responded to the spelling of cross-dock, and i liked the update on shape vs size, although that is somewhat beyond most readers. I present a far more detailed article for your comments. Please comment on this article and lets enhance what is currently published!!

Contents

Concept and Understanding

Definition [1]

Types of Cross-Dock[1].

Success factors for cross-docks

Type of sortation in the cross-dock

Physical facility layout – size and shape

Management of and Improvements in a cross-dock Johnjvogt (talk) 15:41, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Concept and Understanding

Cross-docks are facilities which function without storage in supply chains [1]. The function of the supply chain with a cross-dock is to offer a point of identification of the goods and a point of sorting of the goods to make the overall supply chain efficient. The facility will receive goods from suppliers, sort and then move the goods from the cross-dock to the downstream customers as soon as an economical load is achieved. The principle holds for both port facilities and land-locked facilities and for all the potential transport types, whether for inbound or outbound movement [1,2, 3].

The cross-dock probably evolved in two industries concurrently. It originated in the railroad system, where goods were moved across the platform from one rail car to another, or in the shipping industry, where the vessel was discharged or loaded across the dock and into a rail car. Irrespective of its origin, the intent in both industries was to move goods efficiently from one mode or medium of transport to the same or another mode of transport without storage [2].

Because cross-docks offer no storage, supply chains using cross-docking are different from the supply chains using warehouses. The storage capability in a warehouse decouples the inbound movement and the outbound movements. A cross-dock operates with inbound and outbound movements linked and only slightly delayed due to staging, and therefore cannot be optimized independently from the upstream and downstream processes[1]. The classic problem and cause of failure of cross-docks is where these two processes are not synchronized and the trucks with inbound deliveries are delayed for unloading, or they are unloaded faster than the downstream deliveries occur, and the cross-dock starts to clog with goods for staging and the efficiency drops, further exacerbating the problems.

Definition [1]

The cross-dock is a facility in a supply chain, which receives goods from suppliers and sorts these goods into alternative groupings based on the downstream delivery point. No reserve storage of the goods occurs, and staging occurs only for the short periods required to assemble a consolidated, economical load for immediate onward carriage via the same mode as the receipt, or a different mode.

Cross-docks exist in many different types of supply chains, including those sending parts and assemblies to manufacturing plants, those managing finished vehicle distribution using rail based cross-docks, those involved in retail distribution, and many others. Cross-docks can add value to supply chains where the potential exists to improve transport efficiency, reduce inventory, or speed movement of products. However, enabling a value added cross docking operation first requires a clear understanding of the three types of cross-docks and the factors necessary to identify each type successfully[1].

From its origin in maritime and land transport, the term cross docking describes the process of transferring goods, without storage, from one mode of transport to another mode of transport. Different terms have evolved from these different origins, such as Flow Through and even Transloading. These are in effect subsets of the cross docking process, and represent the same characteristics of a cross-dock (the facility) where goods are removed from one mode and transferred to another, or same mode to provide overall logistics chain effectiveness. Johnjvogt (talk) 15:35, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Types of Cross-Dock[1].

All cross-docks operate without storage and are aimed at making the supply chain efficient and effective. There are three factors which differentiate the types of cross-dock: Where in the supply chain the identification of specific items for a specific customer is done; Where the primary identification and sort for the items to be delivered to a customer is done; and Whether the supplier is providing only one or multiple products which have to be consolidated.

While these three factors could result in multiple different types of cross-docks, practically only three are valid. The three types of cross-dock can be named as follows, and are differentiated primarily by the initial point of identification of the item to be shipped: • Cross-Dock-Managed-Load (CML) • Joint-Managed-Load (JML) • Supplier-Managed-Load (SML)

The CML is the least efficient as the time and space required for the identification increases the size for the labelling, and adds a time delay. The JML is where the identification is done by the supplier, but the supplier sends then in a random order so a sort to match each item to an order (to ensure order integrity) is done in the cross-dock. This requires space and time, albeit less than the CML. In the SML process the items are identified when prepared for shipping, or at the end of manufacturing, and offers the greatest potential for efficiency as it minimizes the space and time in the cross-dock.

Work Done in the types of cross-dock versus the distribution center (DC) or warehouse [1, 2, 3]. A comparison of the activities or work done in a distribution center and the 3 types of cross-dock

This table shows how the SML is by far the most efficient means of moving goods to an end customer with the least amount of work done, and with no storage. The DC or warehouse performs a different function as it decouples the inbound and outbound deliveries by means of its storage.

Success factors for cross-docks [4,1]

The choice of whether a cross-dock will improve the overall efficiency of a supply chain is dependent on nine main factors, which are: • Appropriate products • Reliable, efficient suppliers • Expert and reliable supply chain service providers • Process improvement and problem-solving capability • Uniquely skilled management and staff • Well-chosen computer systems • Work balancing and minimization • Efficient physical facility design and layout • Understanding how cross-dock based supply chains work.

It becomes evident that cross-docks need to be carefully evaluated by experts before implementation and the above factors allow for a rational and sensible evaluation.

Type of sortation in the cross-dock[1]

The cross-dock is a sortation process within its direct operation. The sortation can be done by means of manual processes or these can be automated, or there can be a combination of these. While correctly designed automation is more efficient than manual sortation, it is designed for a maximum level of throughput, which is difficult to increase. It is capital intensive and, once chosen as to the type and method of sortation, cannot accept products which are not compatible. For example, one type of sortation is the pop-up sorter, and this cannot be set for very light and for very heavy products- the weight and size have to be within specific ranges. Whereas manual sortation does allow for relatively easy scaling, but requires more people, and more space for them to work. A simple comparison is shown below to show the choice of sortation and its implications.

Physical facility layout – size and shape[4,3,1]

A large number of issues decide on the ideal shape and size of the facility, and these are interrelated. The number of outbound doors will be decided by the downstream locations to be serviced, and the volume each location receives will determine the staging space within the facility. The inbound doors will be designed to match the throughput of the facility to service these downstream locations. The type of process – SML, JML or CML – will be chosen by the agreements with the suppliers and the technology utilized. The choice will influence the shape and size as the time and space within the cross-dock is the least if the SML process is utilized, while the CML will require the most time and space. The total number of doors will then determine the perimeter requirements, while the width will largely be determined by the space to perform the processes within the facility.

Overall, the design must be to minimize the work done in the supply chain and in particular the cross-dock, where work in this case is defined by the total distance the load or item is moved, and the mass of the item [4,3,1].

Excellent work on designing and shape of the facility was done to define the optimum shape given a specific number of doors[5]. Cross-dock facilities are generally designed in an "I" configuration, which is an elongated rectangle. The goal in using this shape is to maximize the number of inbound and outbound doors that can be added to the facility while keeping the floor area inside the facility to a minimum. Bartholdi and Gue (2004) demonstrated that this shape is ideal for facilities with 150 doors or less. For facilities with 150–200 doors, a "T" shape is more cost effective. Finally, for facilities with 200 or more doors, the cost-minimizing shape is an "X”.

Management of and Improvements in a cross-dock [2,1].

The operation of a cross-dock is very similar to a continuous manufacturing process. There is no buffer of stock to decouple the inbound and outbound processes, and the operation takes place in a restricted area. While the ideal would be to have everything to be level loaded, which is where every stage of the process is operating at full capacity, the reality is the different loads delivered, the types of packages and work to be done for each load will make full capacity impossible. The most appropriate method for managing the cross-dock is to apply the principles of Theory of Constraints (TOC) and Lean Six Sigma practices, both of which seek to continuously improve the use of the resources, driving towards full utilization of the capacity of various stages to make the overall process the most efficient.

1. Vogt, John J. 2010. “The successful cross-dock based supply chain”. Journal of Business Logistics, Vol. 31, No. 1. Pp99-119. 2. Vogt, John J. & Pienaar, W. J., April 2007. ”The cross-dock: a new viewpoint on the definition and the design of the facility”. Southern African Business Review Volume 11 Number 1 ISSN 1561 896 X 3. Vogt, John J. & Pienaar, W. J., 2011. “Operational criteria for a successful cross-dock based supply chain”. Corporate ownership and control, vol 8, issue 4, pp 193-200. 4. Vogt, John J. & Pienaar, W. J., 2010. “Implementation of cross-docks”. Corporate ownership and control, Volume 8, issue 1. 5. Bartholdi, John J.; Gue, Kevin R. (May 2004). "The Best Shape for a Crossdock". Transportation Science. 38 (2): 235–244. doi:10.1287/trsc.1030.0077.

Johnjvogt (talk) 22:03, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It may be a few days or even the weekend but I'll look at this. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 🎄 22:38, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've converted John's suggested article to use Wikipedia's markup and put it up at Draft:Cross-docking. Because it is in draftspace, there is no problem with WP:COI for Johnjvogt to edit that text. The main neutrality issue that I see with this text, apart from the desirability of broadening reflist a bit, is that assertions about best practices need either to be supported by a consensus of experts or to be attributed as someone's opinion. There's a minor issue: the 6th source listed above is not cited; what claim does the source support? Generally, though, this looks like good material to work with and I think all the sources can be used. — Charles Stewart (talk) 13:26, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is very helpful, thank you. The reference #6 gives the success factors, and is not a formal reference. I am happy to drop this. Johnjvogt (talk) 13:40, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is time to publish this article, which has been expanded and commented on? David and Charles, pls assist me?!Johnjvogt (talk) 02:17, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment of 22 December 2020[edit]

Improved article

I have done a number of updates to the "Improved Article" as below from the valuable comments. It is intriguing to see some of the issues I missed in the first draft, so these have improved the article. If there are no major issues outstanding, how do we move this into the article so we are improving Wikipedia, or finally improve it so it can be moved???

Johnjvogt (talk) 15:46, 22 December 2020 (UTC) (This comment was moved from the top of the talk page to a new section at the bottom on 18 January 2021. It probably was meant to be one of the sections above. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 13:39, 18 January 2021 (UTC))[reply]

Informal request for comment - replace article?[edit]

A domain expert with a conflict of interest has proposed a rewrite, see the sections above.

He has asked if this rewrite is ready. "Two heads are better than one" and our "collective intelligence" is better than just two or three of us. I'm asking the editors at Wikipedia:WikiProject Business, Wikipedia:WikiProject Transport, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Systems to give this a once-over. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 13:44, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks David, I fully agree with yoy restoring the article, here, last month. It would be best for @Johnjvogt: to take it one step at the time, start with one section and leave the intro as it is. -- Mdd (talk) 16:21, 18 January 2021 (UTC) , (Wikipedia:WikiProject Systems)[reply]

I think a section-at-a-time approach is a good suggestion. I'm concerned that Johnjvogt has referenced the new material with sources he's authored. ~Kvng (talk) 14:42, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

While I understand the concept of a section replacement, this will result in a discordant article. The existing refers to unloading semis, but this is incorrect; the practice is for any mode. It also leaves a feeling of a large focus on Walmart. This article is not doing Wikipedia credit, as it has errors or restrictive views.

I am quite happy to publish the improved article without any references to my articles except the definition one if this conflict of an expert quoting their own articles (peer reviewed not just trade publications) inhibits an improvement for Wikipedia. Pls let me know as I have expended effort to provide improvement?

Johnjvogt (talk) 22:00, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnjvogt: I, for one, am not worried about a temporarily discordant article. I don't think anyone is saying that your refs cannot be included. What we're saying is that there's a WP:COI in your doing so and so additional review is required and that's why we're asking you to introduce the changes incrementally instead of all at once. ~Kvng (talk) 16:05, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Kvng.

Ok, I will start to replace sections, adding a new one roughly each week

Johnjvogt (talk) 23:28, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I have reverted your replacement of the lead. You've changed the topic from a focus on the practice to facilities - I don't see justification for this and I don't see it as a clear improvement. I found the first paragraph of the old lead easy to understand. I found the first paragraph of the new lead difficult to get through. When I suggested a section-by-section approach I had hoped you were going to read the existing material and make improvements to it. Instead, you want to do a wholesale replacement. Rewrite is necessary in some cases but if the article is in a reasonable and balanced starting place, correcting and copyediting the existing text is the better way to go, especially when we're negotiating a WP:COI. ~Kvng (talk) 16:37, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That is disappointing. The full article I proposed to insert is part of this talk process, and is what multiple authors have evolved to cover the topic comprehensively and correctly. I spent 2 months improving it with the comments and covering all their concerns. I can see why you are confused, as the part replacement is confusing and I would prefer to load the full article, which everyone has commented on, in one pass so confusion does not reign.

The existing article is riddled with errors. It may be easy to understand, but it is not correct. For example, the first line contains "incoming semi-trailer truck or railroad car and loading these materials directly into outbound trucks, trailers, or rail cars, with little or no storage in between". That is not the true definition that is accepted in research today. It is any mode to any mode, with no storage; this includes aircraft and vessels of all types and descriptions. I can tear this article apart, but having taken the time to write a definitive article, get multiple parties to comment and add to the article, please review the proposed article and let me know if you want it to replace the existing article to improve Wiki??

204.15.206.230 (talk) 18:04, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Johnjvogt (talk) 18:07, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnjvogt: Readers should not have to read the body to understand the lead. You acknowledge that your new lead was confusing in spots. Can you focus on those issues? ~Kvng (talk) 14:24, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnjvogt: thank you for making improvements to your rewrite. On the whole, I still find it inferior to the existing article. We are looking for edits that make net improvements to articles. Although the rewrite does make improvements in some areas, it also makes things significantly worse in others. I have reverted the replacement again. I suggest we make incremental improvements to the existing article using content from your rewrite. I will attempt to get started on this. ~Kvng (talk) 12:38, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Enhanced article on Cross-Docks[edit]

Cross-Dock Wiki Updates

The cross-dock probably evolved in two industries concurrently. It originated in the railroad system, where goods were moved across the platform from one rail car to another, or in the shipping industry, where the vessel was discharged or loaded across the dock and into a rail car. Irrespective of its origin, the intent in both industries was to move goods efficiently from one mode or medium of transport to the same or another mode of transport without storage [2].

From its origin in maritime and land transport, the term cross docking describes the process of transferring goods, without storage, from one mode of transport to another mode of transport. Different terms have evolved from these different origins, such as Flow Through and even Transloading. These are in effect subsets of the cross docking process, and represent the same characteristics of a cross-dock (the facility) where goods are removed from one mode and transferred to another, or same mode to provide overall logistics chain effectiveness.

Concept and Understanding Cross-docks are facilities which function without storage in supply chains [1]. The function of the supply chain with a cross-dock is to offer a point of identification of the goods and a point of sorting of the goods to make the overall supply chain efficient. The facility will receive goods from suppliers, sort and then move the goods from the cross-dock to the downstream customers as soon as an economical load is achieved. The principle holds for both port facilities and land-locked facilities and for all the potential transport types, whether for inbound or outbound movement [1,2, 3].

The cross-dock probably evolved in two industries concurrently. It originated in the railroad system, where goods were moved across the platform from one rail car to another, or in the shipping industry, where the vessel was discharged or loaded across the dock and into a rail car. Irrespective of its origin, the intent in both industries was to move goods efficiently from one mode or medium of transport to the same or another mode of transport without storage [2].

Because cross-docks offer no storage, supply chains using cross-docking are different from the supply chains using warehouses. The storage capability in a warehouse decouples the inbound movement and the outbound movements. A cross-dock operates with inbound and outbound movements linked and only slightly delayed due to staging, and therefore cannot be optimized independently from the upstream and downstream processes[1]. The classic problem and cause of failure of cross-docks is where these two processes are not synchronized and the trucks with inbound deliveries are delayed for unloading, or they are unloaded faster than the downstream deliveries occur, and the cross-dock starts to clog with goods for staging and the efficiency drops, further exacerbating the problems.

Definition [1] The cross-dock is a facility in a supply chain, which receives goods from suppliers and sorts these goods into alternative groupings based on the downstream delivery point. No reserve storage of the goods occurs, and staging occurs only for the short periods required to assemble a consolidated, economical load for immediate onward carriage via the same mode as the receipt, or a different mode.

Cross-docks exist in many different types of supply chains, including those sending parts and assemblies to manufacturing plants, those managing finished vehicle distribution using rail based cross-docks, those involved in retail distribution, and many others. Cross-docks can add value to supply chains where the potential exists to improve transport efficiency, reduce inventory, or speed movement of products. However, enabling a value added cross-dock operation first requires a clear understanding of the three types of cross-docks and the factors necessary to identify each type successfully[1].

Types of Cross-Dock[1]. All cross-docks operate without storage and are aimed at making the supply chain efficient and effective. There are three factors which differentiate the types of cross-dock: Where in the supply chain the identification of specific items for a specific customer is done; Where the primary identification and sort for the items to be delivered to a customer is done; and Whether the supplier is providing only one or multiple products which have to be consolidated.

While these three factors could result in multiple different types of cross-docks, practically only three are valid. The three types of cross-dock can be named as follows, and are differentiated primarily by the initial point of identification of the item to be shipped: • Cross-Dock-Managed-Load (CML) • Joint-Managed-Load (JML) • Supplier-Managed-Load (SML)

The CML is the least efficient as the time and space required for the identification increases the size for the labelling, and adds a time delay. The JML is where the identification is done by the supplier, but the supplier sends then in a random order so a sort to match each item to an order (to ensure order integrity) is done in the cross-dock. This requires space and time, albeit less than the CML. In the SML process the items are identified when prepared for shipping, or at the end of manufacturing, and offers the greatest potential for efficiency as it minimizes the space and time in the cross-dock.

Work Done in the types of cross-dock versus the distribution center (DC) or warehouse [1, 2, 3]. A comparison of the activities or work done in a distribution center and the 3 types of cross-dock

This table shows how the SML is by far the most efficient means of moving goods to an end customer with the least amount of work done, and with no storage. The DC or warehouse performs a different function as it decouples the inbound and outbound deliveries by means of its storage.

Success factors for cross-docks [4,1]. The choice of whether a cross-dock will improve the overall efficiency of a supply chain is dependent on nine main factors, which are: • Appropriate products • Reliable, efficient suppliers • Expert and reliable supply chain service providers • Process improvement and problem-solving capability • Uniquely skilled management and staff • Well-chosen computer systems • Work balancing and minimization • Efficient physical facility design and layout • Understanding how cross-dock based supply chains work.

It becomes evident that cross-docks need to be carefully evaluated by experts before implementation and the above factors allow for a rational and sensible evaluation.

Type of sortation in the cross-dock[1]. The cross-dock is a sortation process within its direct operation. The sortation can be done by means of manual processes or these can be automated, or there can be a combination of these. While correctly designed automation is more efficient than manual sortation, it is designed for a maximum level of throughput, which is difficult to increase. It is capital intensive and, once chosen as to the type and method of sortation, cannot accept products which are not compatible. For example, one type of sortation is the pop-up sorter, and this cannot be set for very light and for very heavy products- the weight and size have to be within specific ranges. Whereas manual sortation does allow for relatively easy scaling, but requires more people, and more space for them to work. A simple comparison is shown below to show the choice of sortation and its implications.

Physical facility layout – size and shape[4,3,1] A large number of issues decide on the ideal shape and size of the facility, and these are interrelated. The number of outbound doors will be decided by the downstream locations to be serviced, and the volume each location receives will determine the staging space within the facility. The inbound doors will be designed to match the throughput of the facility to service these downstream locations. The type of process – SML, JML or CML – will be chosen by the agreements with the suppliers and the technology utilized. The choice will influence the shape and size as the time and space within the cross-dock is the least if the SML process is utilized, while the CML will require the most time and space. The total number of doors will then determine the perimeter requirements, while the width will largely be determined by the space to perform the processes within the facility.

Overall, the design must be to minimize the work done in the supply chain and in particular the cross-dock, where work in this case is defined by the total distance the load or item is moved, and the mass of the item [4,3,1].

Excellent work on designing and shape of the facility was done to define the optimum shape given a specific number of doors[5]. Cross-dock facilities are generally designed in an "I" configuration, which is an elongated rectangle. The goal in using this shape is to maximize the number of inbound and outbound doors that can be added to the facility while keeping the floor area inside the facility to a minimum. Bartholdi and Gue (2004) demonstrated that this shape is ideal for facilities with 150 doors or less. For facilities with 150–200 doors, a "T" shape is more cost effective. Finally, for facilities with 200 or more doors, the cost-minimizing shape is an "X”.

Management of and Improvements in a cross-dock [2,1]. The operation of a cross-dock is very similar to a continuous manufacturing process. There is no buffer of stock to decouple the inbound and outbound processes, and the operation takes place in a restricted area. While the ideal would be to have everything to be level loaded, which is where every stage of the process is operating at full capacity, the reality is the different loads delivered, the types of packages and work to be done for each load will make full capacity impossible. The most appropriate method for managing the cross-dock is to apply the principles of Theory of Constraints (TOC) and Lean Six Sigma practices, both of which seek to continuously improve the use of the resources, driving towards full utilization of the capacity of various stages to make the overall process the most efficient.

1. Vogt, John J. 2010. “The successful cross-dock based supply chain”. Journal of Business Logistics, Vol. 31, No. 1. Pp99-119. 2. Vogt, John J. & Pienaar, W. J., April 2007. ”The cross-dock: a new viewpoint on the definition and the design of the facility”. Southern African Business Review Volume 11 Number 1 ISSN 1561 896 X 3. Vogt, John J. & Pienaar, W. J., 2011. “Operational criteria for a successful cross-dock based supply chain”. Corporate ownership and control, vol 8, issue 4, pp 193-200. 4. Vogt, John J. & Pienaar, W. J., 2010. “Implementation of cross-docks”. Corporate ownership and control, Volume 8, issue 1. 5. Bartholdi, John J.; Gue, Kevin R. (May 2004). "The Best Shape for a Crossdock". Transportation Science. 38 (2): 235–244. doi:10.1287/trsc.1030.0077.

Johnjvogt (talk) 18:09, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have taken the time to reorder and rewrite a few things to make this more entertaining and to give the concept of Cross-docking in the first introductory paragraph. Please review and comment, and then i will upload so this is a factual, correct article. Here is what i propose to upload

Cross-Dock and Cross Docking

Contents

Cross Docking 
Concept and Understanding
Definition 
Types of Cross-Docks
Work done in the cross-dock
Types of Sortation in the Cross-Dock
Physical facility layout – size and shape
Management of and Improvements in a cross-dock

Cross Docking The term cross docking describes the process of transferring goods, without storage, from one mode of transport to another mode of transport. Different terms have evolved from these different origins, such as Flow Through and even Transloading. These are in effect subsets of the cross docking process and represent the same characteristics of a cross-dock (the facility) where goods are removed from one mode and transferred to another, or same mode to provide overall logistics chain effectiveness.