Even the best-designed distribution systems may harbor traps that rob them of their highest performance potential. Here's how to find—and avoid—those velocity traps.
William T. Walker, CFPIM (Certified Fellow in Production and Inventory Management), CIRM (Certified in Integrated Resource Management), is a director of supply chain management for Siemens Building Technologies. He is also author of the book Supply Chain Architecture: A Blueprint for Networking the Flow of Material, Information, and Cash, CRC Press, ?2005.
For one DC, the trap turned out to be its own order approval process. An order for urgently needed replenishments from Taiwan was delayed a full six days because the only person authorized to sign off on the purchase was out of the country. For another DC, the trap turned out to be the company's accounting department. A $3,300 order never reached the DC because of miscommunication with the people in credit. For yet another, the trap lay in a procedural oversight that snarled an incoming shipment from Malaysia. After a series of delays, the shipment finally arrived at the DC only to be held up again while workers frantically searched for a hidden packing slip.
In all three cases, the DCs were ensnared by what we call "velocity traps"—mishaps that disrupt the smooth flow of material, information and cash that's so essential to a well-performing supply chain. Unfortunately, these are hardly isolated cases. Velocity traps are everywhere. Even a well-designed distribution system has velocity traps that can rob a DC of its highest performance potential.
What makes the DC particularly vulnerable to these traps is its position in the larger supply chain network. In its daily transactions, the DC acts as both buyer and seller, simultaneously buying from its upstream suppliers and selling to its downstream customers.
On the surface, the transactions look simple enough: You fill the order, deliver the merchandise and transfer the cash, completing what's known as the order-to-delivery-to-cash (ODC) cycle. (Or if the DC is ordering replenishments, you place the order, accept the delivery and transfer the cash.) Add up the time it takes to complete each step, and you have a measure of DC velocity. It's just that basic.
But the execution, as every DC manager knows, can get complicated. Potential pitfalls lurk in every one of those transactions. The customer's order never reaches the DC. The DC ships the merchandise only to have it rejected at the customer's dock. Payments are misdirected. Orders are put on indefinite credit hold. There are a million ways to lose velocity. It may not be possible to avoid every trap. But the more you know about problems that can interfere with the flow of material, information and cash, the better you can prepare. What follows is a look at some common velocity traps:
Material whirl
The sooner you deliver a shipment, the sooner you get paid. Seems simple enough, but a lot can happen between the time you receive an order and the time your customer takes delivery of the goods. Here are some common traps to watch for:
Rejected shipments. The DC ships an order out, only to find it's back a few days later. A phone call reveals that the shipment was rejected at the receiving dock because of inaccurate counts or damaged cartons. Get the order right the first time and see that merchandise is packed to withstand the rigors of transportation.
A "no-show" carrier. The shipment's ready to go, but it ends up sitting on the dock for days before someone arrives to pick it up. Often, it turns out that the customer has chosen a carrier that doesn't normally serve your DC, causing delays while its dispatcher rearranges routes to accommodate the pickup. Your customers aren't obligated to choose a carrier from your DC's preferred carrier list, of course. But make sure they understand that using an unfamiliar company can cause delays of up to two days.
Out of stocks. An order comes in and the DC goes to fill it, only to find itself short of one of the SKUs. But because the customer has specified that the DC ship only complete orders, the entire shipment is held up. Or a customer that normally orders five cartons suddenly orders 50 with no advance notice, causing delays of a week or more while the DC awaits replenishments. To avoid delays, encourage customers to accept partial orders and to provide advance notice of unusually large orders.
Congested docks and clogged aisles. DCs that process incoming freight, outbound shipments and returns in the same dock space risk blocking the paths of the forklifts trying to load shipments. Similarly, operations that use a lot of floor space for accumulating coordinated shipments risk running short of space needed for cross-docking operations. Keep aisles and paths clear.
Most of the traps described so far mainly affect outbound shipments, causing delays in a DC's efforts to get shipments out the door. There are others that affect mainly inbound shipments. Here are some common "inbound" traps:
Unrealistic delivery expectations. The longer the supply chain, the higher the risk of delay—your inbound shipment could miss the departure date for an ocean sailing, be bumped to the next flight, or get held up in customs. And contrary to popular belief, an airfreight shipment from Southeast Asia to the East Coast doesn't arrive overnight; it typically takes eight calendar days door to door. Let everyone in your organization know what's realistic to expect.
Unfamiliar foreign trade practices. Missteps by first-time importers can lead to lengthy delays. Consider the case of a DC that ordered product manufactured in Malaysia under Incoterms, Delivered Duty Paid. Under DDP, the seller hired the forwarder/carrier to deliver the goods, so the buyer didn't bother to check to see which forwarder the seller had chosen. As it turned out, the seller selected a forwarder that did not hold the DC's power of attorney to clear the goods through U.S. Customs, which meant the goods had to be handed over to a different broker for customs clearance and delivery. Because the delivery wasn't scheduled with the broker, the goods were stowed in a corner until someone realized the shipment was overdue. Keep a close watch on international shipments and get outside assistance, if necessary.
Data woes
While everybody accepts that moving material from point A to point B takes time, most assume that information flow is instantaneous. But that's not always true. For all our lightning fast digital transmission capabilities, plenty of people still communicate via phone, fax and even mail and then spend hours or days waiting for callbacks. Here are some other traps to watch for:
Hierarchical approval processes. The typical corporation builds multiple layers of approval into its purchasing process, sometimes even requiring signoff at the highest levels. While that may reduce its exposure to fraud, it also can lead to serious delays. Take the case of an Indianapolis DC that was caught by surprise when demand took off for an item manufactured in Taiwan. With orders pouring in and supplies dwindling, the DC's purchasing agent tried to place an urgent order with the supplier, only to discover that the dollar value exceeded her authorization limit. Her boss, the purchasing manager, was away on business in Frankfurt but had left a number for emergencies. At 2: 30 p.m. Thursday, she called to ask him to send an authorizing fax directly to the factory in Taipei, catching him as he was finishing dinner at 9: 30 p.m. The boss finally got to a fax machine at noon Friday—which was 6: 00 p.m. Friday in Taipei, where the factory was closing for a long holiday. To avoid this trap, designate a backup person to authorize purchases in emergencies.
Bad inventory data. You've invested in bar codes to eliminate data entry errors and in RFID tags to ensure inventory locations don't go undetected. But you still run into situations in which the computer says that Item A is in the DC, but it simply can't be found. Don't assume your inventory data is 100-percent accurate. It's unlikely to be perfect unless you've put cycle counting or similar processes in place to ensure it.
Missing information and document discrepancies. There's no room for error when it comes to global trade documents, where the smallest omission or discrepancy can lead to lengthy delays and failure to be paid. The information on the advance shipping notice or container contents list (both of which must be submitted well before the sailing or wheels-up) must reflect exactly what arrives at the destination port or airport. Data on other documents—purchase orders, bills of lading, letters of credit, and so forth—must match up as well. Companies that participate in the Customs-Trade Partnership Against Terrorism (C-TPAT) have the added responsibility of complying with that program's information requirements or risk being bounced from Customs'"EZ-Pass"lanes. Prepare your documents carefully.
Follow the money
However irksome they may be, problems that halt the flow of materials or data generally surface quickly. The customs broker calls with the bad news. The warehousing software notifies the supervisor that an item is out of stock. Whatever the problem, the DC manager can start taking steps to resolve it.
That's not necessarily true of the velocity traps that can disrupt the flow of cash. Days, weeks or months may go by before the shipper or receiver hears about the problem, which only lengthens the delay. Here are some common cash flow-related traps:
Failure to communicate. Lack of communication between the credit department and the DC can result in serious delays. Take the case of a retail store that hit a stone wall in its attempts to order replenishments from its DC. The retail store placed a new order for $3,300 from the DC at a time when it was already using $28,775 of its $30,000 credit line. But the order never reached the DC's order management system. Instead, the company's credit department put it on indefinite credit hold until the retailer reduced its balance. In a desperate bid to free up some credit, the retail store returned some slow-moving product, paying a hefty restocking charge in the process (a move that benefited neither party). A quick phone call could have resolved the matter and prevented the delays.
Lax returns management. For some types of merchandise, return rates run as high as 35 percent, which could mean a lot of stuff for the DC to manage, sort, store and move. Not only do those returns tie up cash, but they also impose a burden on the DC to keep its returns records up to date so it can properly credit customers' accounts.
Failure to update records. There's no substitute for a regular audit of records. Take the case of a hardware DC whose supplier suddenly halted deliveries. The supplier, a highly profitable regional hardware company, had recently bought out a competitor, becoming a national hardware company overnight. In the ensuing reorganization, the supplier consolidated the accounts receivable functions and moved them to a new location. The DC somehow missed the notice advising it of the supplier's new bill-to address, and its managers were shocked to learn that the supplier had stopped delivering hardware because the DC owed more than 120 days' worth of outstanding payments. This trap could have been easily avoided by conducting a regular audit of all bill-to addresses.
It doesn't take a hurricane, fire or earthquake to snarl a supply chain. The smallest miscue or oversight can disrupt the flow of material, information and cash, causing velocity to plummet. Review your operation to determine where it might be vulnerable. Then eliminate the traps and watch your DC's velocity soar.
Most of the apparel sold in North America is manufactured in Asia, meaning the finished goods travel long distances to reach end markets, with all the associated greenhouse gas emissions. On top of that, apparel manufacturing itself requires a significant amount of energy, water, and raw materials like cotton. Overall, the production of apparel is responsible for about 2% of the world’s total greenhouse gas emissions, according to a report titled
Taking Stock of Progress Against the Roadmap to Net Zeroby the Apparel Impact Institute. Founded in 2017, the Apparel Impact Institute is an organization dedicated to identifying, funding, and then scaling solutions aimed at reducing the carbon emissions and other environmental impacts of the apparel and textile industries.
The author of this annual study is researcher and consultant Michael Sadowski. He wrote the first report in 2021 as well as the latest edition, which was released earlier this year. Sadowski, who is also executive director of the environmental nonprofit
The Circulate Initiative, recently joined DC Velocity Group Editorial Director David Maloney on an episode of the “Logistics Matters” podcast to discuss the key findings of the research, what companies are doing to reduce emissions, and the progress they’ve made since the first report was issued.
A: While companies in the apparel industry can set their own sustainability targets, we realized there was a need to give them a blueprint for actually reducing emissions. And so, we produced the first report back in 2021, where we laid out the emissions from the sector, based on the best estimates [we could make using] data from various sources. It gives companies and the sector a blueprint for what we collectively need to do to drive toward the ambitious reduction [target] of staying within a 1.5 degrees Celsius pathway. That was the first report, and then we committed to refresh the analysis on an annual basis. The second report was published last year, and the third report came out in May of this year.
Q: What were some of the key findings of your research?
A: We found that about half of the emissions in the sector come from Tier Two, which is essentially textile production. That includes the knitting, weaving, dyeing, and finishing of fabric, which together account for over half of the total emissions. That was a really important finding, and it allows us to focus our attention on the interventions that can drive those emissions down.
Raw material production accounts for another quarter of emissions. That includes cotton farming, extracting gas and oil from the ground to make synthetics, and things like that. So we now have a really keen understanding of the source of our industry’s emissions.
Q: Your report mentions that the apparel industry is responsible for about 2% of global emissions. Is that an accurate statistic?
A: That’s our best estimate of the total emissions [generated by] the apparel sector. Some other reports on the industry have apparel at up to 8% of global emissions. And there is a commonly misquoted number in the media that it’s 10%. From my perspective, I think the best estimate is somewhere under 2%.
We know that globally, humankind needs to reduce emissions by roughly half by 2030 and reach net zero by 2050 to hit international goals. [Reaching that target will require the involvement of] every facet of the global economy and every aspect of the apparel sector—transportation, material production, manufacturing, cotton farming. Through our work and that of others, I think the apparel sector understands what has to happen. We have highlighted examples of how companies are taking action to reduce emissions in the roadmap reports.
Q: What are some of those actions the industry can take to reduce emissions?
A: I think one of the positive developments since we wrote the first report is that we’re seeing companies really focus on the most impactful areas. We see companies diving deep on thermal energy, for example. With respect to Tier Two, we [focus] a lot of attention on things like ocean freight versus air. There’s a rule of thumb I’ve heard that indicates air freight is about 10 times the cost [of ocean] and also produces 10 times more greenhouse gas emissions.
There is money available to invest in sustainability efforts. It’s really exciting to see the funding that’s coming through for AI [artificial intelligence] and to see that individual companies, such as H&M and Lululemon, are investing in real solutions in their supply chains. I think a lot of concrete actions are being taken.
And yet we know that reducing emissions by half on an absolute basis by 2030 is a monumental undertaking. So I don’t want to be overly optimistic, because I think we have a lot of work to do. But I do think we’ve got some amazing progress happening.
Q: You mentioned several companies that are starting to address their emissions. Is that a result of their being more aware of the emissions they generate? Have you seen progress made since the first report came out in 2021?
A: Yes. When we published the first roadmap back in 2021, our statistics showed that only about 12 companies had met the criteria [for setting] science-based targets. In 2024, the number of apparel, textile, and footwear companies that have set targets or have commitments to set targets is close to 500. It’s an enormous increase. I think they see the urgency more than other sectors do.
We have companies that have been working at sustainability for quite a long time. I think the apparel sector has developed a keen understanding of the impacts of climate change. You can see the impacts of flooding, drought, heat, and other things happening in places like Bangladesh and Pakistan and India. If you’re a brand or a manufacturer and you have operations and supply chains in these places, I think you understand what the future will look like if we don’t significantly reduce emissions.
Q: There are different categories of emission levels, depending on the role within the supply chain. Scope 1 are “direct” emissions under the reporting company’s control. For apparel, this might be the production of raw materials or the manufacturing of the finished product. Scope 2 covers “indirect” emissions from purchased energy, such as electricity used in these processes. Scope 3 emissions are harder to track, as they include emissions from supply chain partners both upstream and downstream.
Now companies are finding there are legislative efforts around the world that could soon require them to track and report on all these emissions, including emissions produced by their partners’ supply chains. Does this mean that companies now need to be more aware of not only what greenhouse gas emissions they produce, but also what their partners produce?
A: That’s right. Just to put this into context, if you’re a brand like an Adidas or a Gap, you still have to consider the Scope 3 emissions. In particular, there are the so-called “purchased goods and services,” which refers to all of the embedded emissions in your products, from farming cotton to knitting yarn to making fabric. Those “purchased goods and services” generally account for well above 80% of the total emissions associated with a product. It’s by far the most significant portion of your emissions.
Leading companies have begun measuring and taking action on Scope 3 emissions because of regulatory developments in Europe and, to some extent now, in California. I do think this is just a further tailwind for the work that the industry is doing.
I also think it will definitely ratchet up the quality requirements of Scope 3 data, which is not yet where we’d all like it to be. Companies are working to improve that data, but I think the regulatory push will make the quality side increasingly important.
Q: Overall, do you think the work being done by the Apparel Impact Institute will help reduce greenhouse gas emissions within the industry?
A: When we started this back in 2020, we were at a place where companies were setting targets and knew their intended destination, but what they needed was a blueprint for how to get there. And so, the roadmap [provided] this blueprint and identified six key things that the sector needed to do—from using more sustainable materials to deploying renewable electricity in the supply chain.
Decarbonizing any sector, whether it’s transportation, chemicals, or automotive, requires investment. The Apparel Impact Institute is bringing collective investment, which is so critical. I’m really optimistic about what they’re doing. They have taken a data-driven, evidence-based approach, so they know where the emissions are and they know what the needed interventions are. And they’ve got the industry behind them in doing that.
The global air cargo market’s hot summer of double-digit demand growth continued in August with average spot rates showing their largest year-on-year jump with a 24% increase, according to the latest weekly analysis by Xeneta.
Xeneta cited two reasons to explain the increase. First, Global average air cargo spot rates reached $2.68 per kg in August due to continuing supply and demand imbalance. That came as August's global cargo supply grew at its slowest ratio in 2024 to-date at 2% year-on-year, while global cargo demand continued its double-digit growth, rising +11%.
The second reason for higher rates was an ocean-to-air shift in freight volumes due to Red Sea disruptions and e-commerce demand.
Those factors could soon be amplified as e-commerce shows continued strong growth approaching the hotly anticipated winter peak season. E-commerce and low-value goods exports from China in the first seven months of 2024 increased 30% year-on-year, including shipments to Europe and the US rising 38% and 30% growth respectively, Xeneta said.
“Typically, air cargo market performance in August tends to follow the July trend. But another month of double-digit demand growth and the strongest rate growths of the year means there was definitely no summer slack season in 2024,” Niall van de Wouw, Xeneta’s chief airfreight officer, said in a release.
“Rates we saw bottoming out in late July started picking up again in mid-August. This is too short a period to call a season. This has been a busy summer, and now we’re at the threshold of Q4, it will be interesting to see what will happen and if all the anticipation of a red-hot peak season materializes,” van de Wouw said.
The report cites data showing that there are approximately 1.7 million workers missing from the post-pandemic workforce and that 38% of small firms are unable to fill open positions. At the same time, the “skills gap” in the workforce is accelerating as automation and AI create significant shifts in how work is performed.
That information comes from the “2024 Labor Day Report” released by Littler’s Workplace Policy Institute (WPI), the firm’s government relations and public policy arm.
“We continue to see a labor shortage and an urgent need to upskill the current workforce to adapt to the new world of work,” said Michael Lotito, Littler shareholder and co-chair of WPI. “As corporate executives and business leaders look to the future, they are focused on realizing the many benefits of AI to streamline operations and guide strategic decision-making, while cultivating a talent pipeline that can support this growth.”
But while the need is clear, solutions may be complicated by public policy changes such as the upcoming U.S. general election and the proliferation of employment-related legislation at the state and local levels amid Congressional gridlock.
“We are heading into a contentious election that has already proven to be unpredictable and is poised to create even more uncertainty for employers, no matter the outcome,” Shannon Meade, WPI’s executive director, said in a release. “At the same time, the growing patchwork of state and local requirements across the U.S. is exacerbating compliance challenges for companies. That, coupled with looming changes following several Supreme Court decisions that have the potential to upend rulemaking, gives C-suite executives much to contend with in planning their workforce-related strategies.”
Stax Engineering, the venture-backed startup that provides smokestack emissions reduction services for maritime ships, will service all vessels from Toyota Motor North America Inc. visiting the Toyota Berth at the Port of Long Beach, according to a new five-year deal announced today.
Beginning in 2025 to coincide with new California Air Resources Board (CARB) standards, STAX will become the first and only emissions control provider to service roll-on/roll-off (ro-ros) vessels in the state of California, the company said.
Stax has rapidly grown since its launch in the first quarter of this year, supported in part by a $40 million funding round from investors, announced in July. It now holds exclusive service agreements at California ports including Los Angeles, Long Beach, Hueneme, Benicia, Richmond, and Oakland. The firm has also partnered with individual companies like NYK Line, Hyundai GLOVIS, Equilon Enterprises LLC d/b/a Shell Oil Products US (Shell), and now Toyota.
Stax says it offers an alternative to shore power with land- and barge-based, mobile emissions capture and control technology for shipping terminal and fleet operators without the need for retrofits.
In the case of this latest deal, the Toyota Long Beach Vehicle Distribution Center imports about 200,000 vehicles each year on ro-ro vessels. Stax will keep those ships green with its flexible exhaust capture system, which attaches to all vessel classes without modification to remove 99% of emitted particulate matter (PM) and 95% of emitted oxides of nitrogen (NOx). Over the lifetime of this new agreement with Toyota, Stax estimated the service will account for approximately 3,700 hours and more than 47 tons of emissions controlled.
“We set out to provide an emissions capture and control solution that was reliable, easily accessible, and cost-effective. As we begin to service Toyota, we’re confident that we can meet the needs of the full breadth of the maritime industry, furthering our impact on the local air quality, public health, and environment,” Mike Walker, CEO of Stax, said in a release. “Continuing to establish strong partnerships will help build momentum for and trust in our technology as we expand beyond the state of California.”
That result showed that driver wages across the industry continue to increase post-pandemic, despite a challenging freight market for motor carriers. The data comes from ATA’s “Driver Compensation Study,” which asked 120 fleets, more than 150,000 employee drivers, and 14,000 independent contractors about their wage and benefit information.
Drilling into specific categories, linehaul less-than-truckload (LTL) drivers earned a median annual amount of $94,525 in 2023, while local LTL drivers earned a median of $80,680. The median annual compensation for drivers at private carriers has risen 12% since 2021, reaching $95,114 in 2023. And leased-on independent contractors for truckload carriers were paid an annual median amount of $186,016 in 2023.
The results also showed how the demographics of the industry are changing, as carriers offered smaller referral and fewer sign-on bonuses for new drivers in 2023 compared to 2021 but more frequently offered tenure bonuses to their current drivers and with a greater median value.
"While our last study, conducted in 2021, illustrated how drivers benefitted from the strongest freight environment in a generation, this latest report shows professional drivers' earnings are still rising—even in a weaker freight economy," ATA Chief Economist Bob Costello said in a release. "By offering greater tenure bonuses to their current driver force, many fleets appear to be shifting their workforce priorities from recruitment to retention."