AHP법을 활용한 창고형 매장의 통합 Depot 위치선정에 관한 연구

Study on location selection of integrated depot of warehouse stores utilizing AHP method

Abstract

대형마트보다 저렴하고 편의성도 높은 창고형 매장에 대한 물류 중요성이 증대되고 있다. 하지만 창고형 매장의 통합 Depot 위치선정에 관한 연구는 부족한 실정이다. 이러한 측면에서 본 연구에서는 통합 Depot 위치선정을 위한 요인도출 및 가중치 산출, 대상지의 위치 우선순위 산정을 다기준 의사결정 방법인 AHP(Analytic Hierarchy Process)방법을 도입하여 계산하는 것을 연구의 목적으로 한다. 분석결과, 선정 요인별 중요도에서는 수배송 비용절감(0.198)이 가장 높게 나왔으며, 수배송 거리절감(0.168), 수배송 시간절감(0.149) 순으로 도출 되었다. 본 연구 결과는 Depot를 통합 운영 시 비용 절감과 효율성 증가를 수치화하여 실제 실무자들에게 보다 현실적인 기초자료를 제시할 수 있을 것으로 판단된다. 향후연구에서는 분석에 사용되는 요인의 추가작업을 통하여 분석모형을 정교화 할 필요가 있다.

The importance of logistics of warehouse stores has increased as their prices are cheaper and more convenient than those of large supermarkets. However, few studies on integrated depot location selection of warehouse stores have been conducted. In this regard, this study aims to derive factors for integrated depot location selection and calculate weights and select the location priority of target candidates by introducing an analytic hierarchy process (AHP). The analysis results exhibited that the most important selection factor was the cost reduction in transportation and delivery (0.198) followed by distance reduction in transportation and delivery (0.168), and time reduction in transportation. This study quantified the reduction in cost and increase in efficiency if depots were integrated and operated thereby presenting more realistic foundational data to hands-on workers. For the future study, the analysis model will be needed to be advanced through additional investigation on the factors in the analysis.

Fig. 1. Evaluation structure

Fig. 2. Weights by Factors

Fig. 3. Depot Center Rental Price Factor

Fig. 4. Depot Center location preference factor

Fig. 5. Accessibility factors for goods receipt

Fig. 6. Convenience factor

Fig. 7 Cost of Goods Receipt Transportation Cost

Fig. 8. Shipping Cost Reduction Factors

Fig. 9 Shipping distance reduction factor

Fig. 10. Reduction Factors for Delivery Time

Fig. 11. Alternative Assessment Results

Table 1. Company C's sales and net profits

Table 2. Descriptions of Evaluation Factors

Table 3. Detailed Descriptions of factors

Table 4. Respondents’ profile