Art van Bodegraven was, among other roles, chief design officer for the DES Leadership Academy. He passed away on June 18, 2017. He will be greatly missed.
If you've ever uttered the words "I can't think about long-term planning today; I'm too busy doing my job!" you're not alone. For supply chain managers wrestling with soaring costs and escalating customer demands, it's all too easy to get wrapped up in the day-to-day battles and forget about the strategic part of the equation. But, if we're to believe the pundits, supply chain management is supposed to be strategic—a differentiator that can set us apart from our competitors in the marketplace.
Is that just a lot of hot air? Not at all. Well, not completely, anyway. The fact is, you do need a strategy. Operating without one is like going to sea without navigation tools: You may end up where you want to go, but it's far more likely you'll end up somewhere altogether different.
But, there's a huge caveat. Those SCM visions, strategies, transformations—whatever the high-flown label may be—cannot stand on their own. They'll prove to be of limited use and less value unless they're aligned with the corporate strategy.
Getting started
Which comes first, the corporate strategy or the supply chain strategy? The easy, and generally correct, answer is the corporate strategy. Yet the president of a large specialty distributor recently told us that he's taking the opposite tack. The reason: He can't begin to get specific about the details of corporate strategy (and its execution) until he's confident that he has the supply chain infrastructure in place that will allow that chain to perform, grow and adapt as the business evolves.
That distributor's experience notwithstanding, the corporate strategy typically provides the jumping off point for supply chain strategizing. That is, corporate objectives for marketplace position, customer relationships and service levels, and cost performance will provide the foundation for the supply chain strategy. And those objectives will vary from industry to industry. A company that, say, manufactures and distributes complex customized products will require a very different type of supply chain from one that specializes in low-value, high-density products.
Recognizing fundamental differences in core business is just the beginning, however. The supply chain strategy will also be largely determined by the company's position in the supply chain. A retailer's comprehensive strategy is not going to look anything like a supplier's. A manufacturer's won't look anything like a distributor's or a third-party logistics service provider's.
Another major, but less widely acknowledged, consideration is how much power the company wields within that supply chain. Irrespective of its type of business or position in the supply chain, the company that is the dominant force in that chain is the one that will be able to design a comprehensive solution—nearer to the ideal of "end to end"—and help its trading partners fit into its grand plan. That dominant force can be a retailer, and often is these days. It can also be a manufacturer, as it often was 10 years ago.
The weaker or more incidental player cannot hope to drive the end-to-end strategic design—and shouldn't even try. The reality is, the party that holds the power makes the rules. Nonetheless, every supply chain professional has a responsibility to develop a supply chain strategy that's right for his or her company (just as the corporation's management has a responsibility to develop a winning business strategy).
Keep an eye on the goal
That said, it's important to acknowledge that when it comes to strategy, companies will take different philosophical approaches to the details. And a supply chain executive who ignored those details in favor of pursuing some abstract vision of the ideal supply chain would be a fool. If the company aims to be the lowestcost provider in the market, a manager who insists on operating a high-cost, high-service supply chain will find himself or herself in constant conflict with top management. Similarly, if the company has chosen to compete based on customer service, a supply chain group that slashes costs at every opportunity will quickly become the company's own worst enemy.
And there are additional considerations. For example, what if the corporation is committed to growth through acquisition? In that case, it will need a supply chain strategy that's geared toward integrating products and customers—and maybe even facilities—into the network with minimal disruption and expense.
What if the objective is to become a national, rather than a regional, player? In that case, the people responsible for developing the supply chain strategy must contemplate how the organization might redeploy or add facilities, how it would reconfigure facility missions, and what the transportation consequences might be.
Ready for anything
It almost goes without saying, a good supply chain strategy is also a flexible strategy. You need to be prepared for the unexpected—whether good or bad.
Truth is, planning strategies for success is relatively easy. We're good at anticipating how to handle growth—even the explosive kind.
But, bad stuff happens too. The supply chain organization needs to be ready to support strategies for shrinking operations and should have contingency plans in place in the event of disaster.
For example, a corporate strategy might shift, with a decision to "fire" its "C" customers and concentrate on doing business with a select top level. In an extreme case, senior management might elect to forego high-demand, low-margin business with a big box retailer in order to concentrate on more profitable business—a decision that would have staggering consequences for the supply chain.
Then, there are always the worst-case scenarios. The big box might fire you before you can fire it. Or your competitor might beat you to market with an enhanced product and capture 20 percent of your business overnight. Your strategic plans—again, both corporate and supply chain— must take these possibilities into account.
See, strategy's not as easy as it might appear from a distance, nor as fun. But, having a living, growing, evolving supply chain strategy—that adapts to and with the corporate strategy—is elemental to long-term success.
Congestion on U.S. highways is costing the trucking industry big, according to research from the American Transportation Research Institute (ATRI), released today.
The group found that traffic congestion on U.S. highways added $108.8 billion in costs to the trucking industry in 2022, a record high. The information comes from ATRI’s Cost of Congestion study, which is part of the organization’s ongoing highway performance measurement research.
Total hours of congestion fell slightly compared to 2021 due to softening freight market conditions, but the cost of operating a truck increased at a much higher rate, according to the research. As a result, the overall cost of congestion increased by 15% year-over-year—a level equivalent to more than 430,000 commercial truck drivers sitting idle for one work year and an average cost of $7,588 for every registered combination truck.
The analysis also identified metropolitan delays and related impacts, showing that the top 10 most-congested states each experienced added costs of more than $8 billion. That list was led by Texas, at $9.17 billion in added costs; California, at $8.77 billion; and Florida, $8.44 billion. Rounding out the top 10 list were New York, Georgia, New Jersey, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Louisiana, and Tennessee. Combined, the top 10 states account for more than half of the trucking industry’s congestion costs nationwide—52%, according to the research.
The metro areas with the highest congestion costs include New York City, $6.68 billion; Miami, $3.2 billion; and Chicago, $3.14 billion.
ATRI’s analysis also found that the trucking industry wasted more than 6.4 billion gallons of diesel fuel in 2022 due to congestion, resulting in additional fuel costs of $32.1 billion.
ATRI used a combination of data sources, including its truck GPS database and Operational Costs study benchmarks, to calculate the impacts of trucking delays on major U.S. roadways.
There’s a photo from 1971 that John Kent, professor of supply chain management at the University of Arkansas, likes to show. It’s of a shaggy-haired 18-year-old named Glenn Cowan grinning at three-time world table tennis champion Zhuang Zedong, while holding a silk tapestry Zhuang had just given him. Cowan was a member of the U.S. table tennis team who participated in the 1971 World Table Tennis Championships in Nagoya, Japan. Story has it that one morning, he overslept and missed his bus to the tournament and had to hitch a ride with the Chinese national team and met and connected with Zhuang.
Cowan and Zhuang’s interaction led to an invitation for the U.S. team to visit China. At the time, the two countries were just beginning to emerge from a 20-year period of decidedly frosty relations, strict travel bans, and trade restrictions. The highly publicized trip signaled a willingness on both sides to renew relations and launched the term “pingpong diplomacy.”
Kent, who is a senior fellow at the George H. W. Bush Foundation for U.S.-China Relations, believes the photograph is a good reminder that some 50-odd years ago, the economies of the United States and China were not as tightly interwoven as they are today. At the time, the Nixon administration was looking to form closer political and economic ties between the two countries in hopes of reducing chances of future conflict (and to weaken alliances among Communist countries).
The signals coming out of Washington and Beijing are now, of course, much different than they were in the early 1970s. Instead of advocating for better relations, political rhetoric focuses on the need for the U.S. to “decouple” from China. Both Republicans and Democrats have warned that the U.S. economy is too dependent on goods manufactured in China. They see this dependency as a threat to economic strength, American jobs, supply chain resiliency, and national security.
Supply chain professionals, however, know that extricating ourselves from our reliance on Chinese manufacturing is easier said than done. Many pundits push for a “China + 1” strategy, where companies diversify their manufacturing and sourcing options beyond China. But in reality, that “plus one” is often a Chinese company operating in a different country or a non-Chinese manufacturer that is still heavily dependent on material or subcomponents made in China.
This is the problem when supply chain decisions are made on a global scale without input from supply chain professionals. In an article in the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, Kent argues that, “The discussions on supply chains mainly take place between government officials who typically bring many other competing issues and agendas to the table. Corporate entities—the individuals and companies directly impacted by supply chains—tend to be under-represented in the conversation.”
Kent is a proponent of what he calls “supply chain diplomacy,” where experts from academia and industry from the U.S. and China work collaboratively to create better, more efficient global supply chains. Take, for example, the “Peace Beans” project that Kent is involved with. This project, jointly formed by Zhejiang University and the Bush China Foundation, proposes balancing supply chains by exporting soybeans from Arkansas to tofu producers in China’s Yunnan province, and, in return, importing coffee beans grown in Yunnan to coffee roasters in Arkansas. Kent believes the operation could even use the same transportation equipment.
The benefits of working collaboratively—instead of continuing to build friction in the supply chain through tariffs and adversarial relationships—are numerous, according to Kent and his colleagues. They believe it would be much better if the two major world economies worked together on issues like global inflation, climate change, and artificial intelligence.
And such relations could play a significant role in strengthening world peace, particularly in light of ongoing tensions over Taiwan. Because, as Kent writes, “The 19th-century idea that ‘When goods don’t cross borders, soldiers will’ is as true today as ever. Perhaps more so.”
Hyster-Yale Materials Handling today announced its plans to fulfill the domestic manufacturing requirements of the Build America, Buy America (BABA) Act for certain portions of its lineup of forklift trucks and container handling equipment.
That means the Greenville, North Carolina-based company now plans to expand its existing American manufacturing with a targeted set of high-capacity models, including electric options, that align with the needs of infrastructure projects subject to BABA requirements. The company’s plans include determining the optimal production location in the United States, strategically expanding sourcing agreements to meet local material requirements, and further developing electric power options for high-capacity equipment.
As a part of the 2021 Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, the BABA Act aims to increase the use of American-made materials in federally funded infrastructure projects across the U.S., Hyster-Yale says. It was enacted as part of a broader effort to boost domestic manufacturing and economic growth, and mandates that federal dollars allocated to infrastructure – such as roads, bridges, ports and public transit systems – must prioritize materials produced in the USA, including critical items like steel, iron and various construction materials.
Hyster-Yale’s footprint in the U.S. is spread across 10 locations, including three manufacturing facilities.
“Our leadership is fully invested in meeting the needs of businesses that require BABA-compliant material handling solutions,” Tony Salgado, Hyster-Yale’s chief operating officer, said in a release. “We are working to partner with our key domestic suppliers, as well as identifying how best to leverage our own American manufacturing footprint to deliver a competitive solution for our customers and stakeholders. But beyond mere compliance, and in line with the many areas of our business where we are evolving to better support our customers, our commitment remains steadfast. We are dedicated to delivering industry-leading standards in design, durability and performance — qualities that have become synonymous with our brands worldwide and that our customers have come to rely on and expect.”
In a separate move, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) also gave its approval for the state to advance its Heavy-Duty Omnibus Rule, which is crafted to significantly reduce smog-forming nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions from new heavy-duty, diesel-powered trucks.
Both rules are intended to deliver health benefits to California citizens affected by vehicle pollution, according to the environmental group Earthjustice. If the state gets federal approval for the final steps to become law, the rules mean that cars on the road in California will largely be zero-emissions a generation from now in the 2050s, accounting for the average vehicle lifespan of vehicles with internal combustion engine (ICE) power sold before that 2035 date.
“This might read like checking a bureaucratic box, but EPA’s approval is a critical step forward in protecting our lungs from pollution and our wallets from the expenses of combustion fuels,” Paul Cort, director of Earthjustice’s Right To Zero campaign, said in a release. “The gradual shift in car sales to zero-emissions models will cut smog and household costs while growing California’s clean energy workforce. Cutting truck pollution will help clear our skies of smog. EPA should now approve the remaining authorization requests from California to allow the state to clean its air and protect its residents.”
However, the truck drivers' industry group Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association (OOIDA) pushed back against the federal decision allowing the Omnibus Low-NOx rule to advance. "The Omnibus Low-NOx waiver for California calls into question the policymaking process under the Biden administration's EPA. Purposefully injecting uncertainty into a $588 billion American industry is bad for our economy and makes no meaningful progress towards purported environmental goals," (OOIDA) President Todd Spencer said in a release. "EPA's credibility outside of radical environmental circles would have been better served by working with regulated industries rather than ramming through last-minute special interest favors. We look forward to working with the Trump administration's EPA in good faith towards achievable environmental outcomes.”
Editor's note:This article was revised on December 18 to add reaction from OOIDA.
A Canadian startup that provides AI-powered logistics solutions has gained $5.5 million in seed funding to support its concept of creating a digital platform for global trade, according to Toronto-based Starboard.
The round was led by Eclipse, with participation from previous backers Garuda Ventures and Everywhere Ventures. The firm says it will use its new backing to expand its engineering team in Toronto and accelerate its AI-driven product development to simplify supply chain complexities.
According to Starboard, the logistics industry is under immense pressure to adapt to the growing complexity of global trade, which has hit recent hurdles such as the strike at U.S. east and gulf coast ports. That situation calls for innovative solutions to streamline operations and reduce costs for operators.
As a potential solution, Starboard offers its flagship product, which it defines as an AI-based transportation management system (TMS) and rate management system that helps mid-sized freight forwarders operate more efficiently and win more business. More broadly, Starboard says it is building the virtual infrastructure for global trade, allowing freight companies to leverage AI and machine learning to optimize operations such as processing shipments in real time, reconciling invoices, and following up on payments.
"This investment is a pivotal step in our mission to unlock the power of AI for our customers," said Sumeet Trehan, Co-Founder and CEO of Starboard. "Global trade has long been plagued by inefficiencies that drive up costs and reduce competitiveness. Our platform is designed to empower SMB freight forwarders—the backbone of more than $20 trillion in global trade and $1 trillion in logistics spend—with the tools they need to thrive in this complex ecosystem."