Guiding Digital Transformation in Logistics:
Conceptual Framework Grounded in Design Science Methodology
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.56177/12icmie2025.138Keywords:
Digital logistics, SaaS integration, Transport Management Systems, Selection process, Platform interoperabilityAbstract
Digital transformation in the logistics sector is often guided by instinctive responses to market shifts rather than structured, criteria-based planning. Objectives: This study investigates how a conceptual framework for digital transformation can support logistics companies—particularly freight forwarders—in making informed, strategic decisions when adopting Transport Management Systems (TMS). Rather than treating digital tools as isolated technological upgrades, the framework emphasizes the importance of aligning system functionalities with both the internal conditions of the organization and the broader external environment, including market, regulatory, and technological factors.
To evaluate the robustness of the framework, a practical example is presented involving the selection of a TMS through the application of the developed methodology. The findings suggest that the framework offers strong potential in helping logistics firms navigate the complexity of TMS selection, especially in contexts where internal needs and external pressures intersect. By bridging company-specific requirements with market-facing functionalities, the framework fosters better alignment between digital tools and strategic goals.
Implications: Ultimately, this research offers a structured yet adaptable approach for logistics managers seeking to guide digital transformation not through guesswork, but through informed, context-sensitive evaluation. Originality value: In doing so, it contributes a practical decision-support model for enhancing the long-term effectiveness of technology adoption in freight forwarding operations.
References
Mvubu, M., Naude, M. (2024), Digital transformation at third‑party logistics providers: Challenges and best practices, J. Transp. Supply Chain Manag., vol. 18, pp. [if available add page numbers], https://doi.org/10.4102/jtscm.v18i0.1023
Gündoğdu, F. K., Kahraman, C., Civan, H. N. (2018), A novel hesitant fuzzy EDAS method and its application to hospital selection, Journal of Intelligent & Fuzzy Systems, vol. 35, no. 6, pp. 6353–6365, https://doi.org/10.3233/JIFS-181172
Tavana, M., Soltanifar, M., Arteaga, F. J. S. (2021), Analytical Hierarchy Process: Revolution and Evolution, Annals of Operations Research, (in press), https://doi.org/10.1007/s10479-021-04432-2
Chen, Y. (2022), Safety quantitative analysis and optimization model of car‑free carrier platform, in: Hung, J. C., Chang, J. W., Pei, Y., Wu, W. C. (eds.), Innovative Computing, pp. 425–431, Springer
Akbar, S., Ullah, R., Khan, R., Asghar, I., Zubair, M., Zheng, Z. (2023), A Multi‑Criteria Decision‑Making Framework for Software Project Management Tool Selection, Proceedings, https://doi.org/10.1145/3605423.3605454
Saaty, T. L., Vargas, L. G. et al. (2006), Decision making with the analytic network process, vol. 282, Springer
Yüksel, B., Ersoz, F. (2024), Evaluation of ERP software selection criteria with fuzzy AHP approach: An application in the metal production enterprises in the aviation industry, International Journal of System Assurance Engineering and Management, vol. 15, https://doi.org/10.1007/s13198-024-02287-x
Rivas, L., Perez, M., Mendoza, L. E., Grimán, A. (2010), Selection model for Software Project Management tools in SMEs, in: 2010 2nd International Conference on Software Technology and Engineering, San Juan, PR, USA, pp. V1‑92–V1‑96, https://doi.org/10.1109/ICSTE.2010.5608904
Eastham, J., Tucker, D., Varma, S., Sutton, S. (2013), PLM Software Selection Model for Project Management Using Hierarchical Decision Modeling With Criteria From PMBOK® Knowledge Areas, Engineering Management Journal, vol. 26, pp. 511–527, https://doi.org/10.1080/10429247.2014.11432016
Yurtyapan, M., Aydemir, E. (2022), ERP software selection using intuitionistic fuzzy and interval grey number‑based MACBETH method, Grey Systems Theory and Application, vol. 12, pp. 78–100, https://doi.org/10.1108/GS-01-2021-0002
Rahiminezhad Galankashi, M., Ahmadshoar, A., Syed Hassan, S., Moghadam Arjmand, M. (2022), ERP Software Selection Criteria: A Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process (FAHP) Approach, in: 12th Annual International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Operations Management, March 2022, https://doi.org/10.46254/AN12.20220953
Cichosz, M., Wallenburg, C. M., Knemeyer, A. (2020), Digital transformation at logistics service providers: barriers, success factors and leading practices, The International Journal of Logistics Management (ahead‑of‑print), https://doi.org/10.1108/IJLM-08-2019-0229
Perotti, S., Bastidas Santacruz, R. F., Bremer, P., Beer, J. E. (2022), Logistics 4.0 in warehousing: a conceptual framework of influencing factors, benefits and barriers, Int. J. Logist. Manag., vol. 33, no. 5, pp. 193–220, https://doi.org/10.1108/IJLM-02-2022-0068
Ahmed, D., Sundaram, D. (2011), Design science research methodology: An artefact‑centric creation and evaluation approach, in: Proc. 22nd Australasian Conf. Information Systems (ACIS), 2011
Doing Business Archive (2025), Doing Business Rankings, visited 07 July 2025, https://archive.doingbusiness.org/en/rankings
Belsare, H. V. (2025), PESTLE analysis, Int. J. Adv. Res., vol. 13, https://doi.org/10.21474/IJAR01/20411
Transparency International (2025), Corruption Perceptions Index 2024, visited 07 July 2025
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Andrei TIME, Torben TAMBO

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.