<p>In this thesis the Third-Party Logistics (3PL) partnership between the Japanese trading company Gadelius and the European logistics provider Mahé is investigated. This was done as a case study, mainly taking place on location at Gadelius’ headquarter in Tokyo.</p><p>The purpose has been to identify and evaluate the fulfilment of initial objectives, both with respect to agreed on terms and expectations of each party, analyze the reasons behind result and provide recommendations for the future.</p><p>In terms of what is strictly defined and agreed on in the contract the partnership is principally fulfilled, but this setup is not good in terms of how full 3PL-effects could be achieved.</p><p>The not so strictly defined parts of the contract stating that Mahé should work proactively are however not fulfilled to the same degree. This is connected to the lack of a dedicated Mahé representative being integrated into the OtD-team at Gadelius.</p><p>Because of this Gadelius’, to begin with very high, expectations on effects have become unrealistic, which has contributed to bad sentiments against Mahé and their capabilities. This has further been enhanced by Key Performance Indicators that don’t fully match the essential objectives with the partnership.</p><p>To change the situation two possible ways for the future are presented. If Gadelius’ focus is on indirect cost reductions an expanded partnership should be chosen, while a focus on direct cost reductions and a need for an easier change implementation call for a more limited partnership. For both alternatives new ways for measuring performance are suggested.</p>

In this thesis the Third-Party Logistics (3PL) partnership between the Japanese trading company Gadelius and the European logistics provider Mahé is investigated. This was done as a case study, mainly taking place on location at Gadelius’ headquarter in Tokyo. The purpose has been to identify and evaluate the fulfilment of initial objectives, both with respect to agreed on terms and expectations of each party, analyze the reasons behind result and provide recommendations for the future. In terms of what is strictly defined and agreed on in the contract the partnership is principally fulfilled, but this setup is not good in terms of how full 3PL-effects could be achieved. The not so strictly defined parts of the contract stating that Mahé should work proactively are however not fulfilled to the same degree. This is connected to the lack of a dedicated Mahé representative being integrated into the OtD-team at Gadelius. Because of this Gadelius’, to begin with very high, expectations on effects have become unrealistic, which has contributed to bad sentiments against Mahé and their capabilities. This has further been enhanced by Key Performance Indicators that don’t fully match the essential objectives with the partnership. To change the situation two possible ways for the future are presented. If Gadelius’ focus is on indirect cost reductions an expanded partnership should be chosen, while a focus on direct cost reductions and a need for an easier change implementation call for a more limited partnership. For both alternatives new ways for measuring performance are suggested.