Think you're picky about vendors? Green Mountain Coffee Roasters once showed a bidder the door for suggesting it could learn Green Mountain's distribution business in just four days (the nerve!). So how did it ever find a supplier that measured up?
John Johnson joined the DC Velocity team in March 2004. A veteran business journalist, John has over a dozen years of experience covering the supply chain field, including time as chief editor of Warehousing Management. In addition, he has covered the venture capital community and previously was a sports reporter covering professional and collegiate sports in the Boston area. John served as senior editor and chief editor of DC Velocity until April 2008.
Somewhere in the Northeast, there's a systems integrator that's probably still scratching its head, wondering how that contract with Green Mountain Coffee Roasters slipped through its fingers. A year and a half ago, it was one of a half dozen or so bidders hoping to land a multimillion dollar contract with the Waterbury, Vt.-based specialty coffee retailer. Explosive growth—on the order of 15 percent annually—had prompted Green Mountain to build a new DC—one that would feature a state-of-the-art material handling system. And it had fallen to the company's director of facilities and engineering, Jason King, to choose the vendor that would design and install that system.
After getting the basic requirements, the bidder had proposed to King that it spend four days at Green Mountain studying its distribution needs, then return eight weeks later with a bid and a design plan. But once he heard that, King promptly dropped the vendor from consideration. "That process just didn't work for us," he says. "Try learning my business in four days—not to mention how my business will look five years down the road!"
Though the integrator in question undoubtedly had the best of intentions, it had seriously misread its potential client's priorities. Like many DC executives today, King was looking for more than a mere supplier. He wanted a true partner—someone who genuinely understood his needs, someone who was in it for the long haul, someone who would stand ready to offer services and support as Green Mountain's volume swelled from the 18 million pounds of coffee shipped last year to the nearly 50 million pounds it expects to move in the not-too-distant future.
Though it might be easy to write off King as overly particular, his insistence on finding the right supplier makes good sense. When a company buys a complex integrated distribution system, it's buying more than just parts—conveyors, narrow-aisle trucks, shelving and software. It's also entering into a long-term relationship with the vendor.
In fact, that desire to find a partner for the long haul led King to make another of his somewhat unorthodox demands: that the bidders allow him to review their finances. To his way of thinking, partners should be willing to open their books to one another. King, therefore, asked to look at each bidder's books to assure himself that the company was profitable and would be around for the long term. Not all vendors were willing to open their books to Green Mountain, however, and so, those bidders too were dropped from the running.
For all his rigorous requirements, there was at least one vendor willing to meet King's demands. In March 2004, Green Mountain awarded a multi-million dollar contract to Lewiston, Maine-based systems integrator Diamond Phoenix to develop an innovative distribution system for the new warehouse and DC. When fully assembled, the system would include conveyors, an automated storage and retrieval system (AS/RS), a pick-to-light system, wire-guided narrow-aisle trucks, shelving, and a comprehensive software system that provided a new approach to wave picking.
The right parts at the right price
Of course, the contract award was just the beginning. Once King had chosen Diamond Phoenix as the vendor, the details of the agreement remained to be hammered out. Here again, King made a point of avoiding the adversarial mindset in favor of building a partnership. "There are two ways you can go into negotiations with your vendor," he says. "You can [treat the supplier like an opponent and try to squeeze] as much out of them for free as you can. Or you can be up front and admit that profit is not a dirty word. That symbiotic profit balance is what we're trying to achieve. We're in business to make money, and we expect our business partners to make money."
In fact, King, who insisted on retaining the final say over which manufacturers' products would be used, took pains to work out the component pricing issues with the systems integrator right from the start. The two parties arrived at a deal whereby if an item was made by Diamond Phoenix, Green Mountain would buy it from the vendor at a fixed markup. But that still left many components that would need to be purchased from outside suppliers. So once again, the two parties worked out a sliding scale for margins, with higher allotments for items that are more difficult to integrate, such as the three aisles of AS/RS equipment installed in the DC.
"We actually brought all the bids from the other suppliers to the table and sat down as a group and went through the pluses and minuses and the actual costs for each one," says King. "Whether [the component the group chose] was the most expensive option or the one in the middle, [Diamond Phoenix] still made [its] fixed margin. We negotiated all of that up front to ensure that eight months into the project I wasn't left saying, ëGeez, they're really having their way with us.' It's important to get that negotiating piece out of the way early."
King also let his vendor know right from the start that Green Mountain didn't have piles of cash available for the project. He and his staff would have to add on to the system in phases over time as demand increased.
"We don't have all this money growing on trees, yet we knew this was going to be the biggest capital project that we've ever done," says King. "We knew when we started that we couldn't afford to do the whole project at once, and that whatever design we ended up with would get pared down.
But it was important that our vendor understood that and be willing to work with us over the long haul on additional phases of the project."
A question of resources
Though Green Mountain and Diamond Phoenix obviously considered the usual factors when choosing what material handling systems to install—return on investment, budget limitations ("We just didn't have tons of money to spend on running 30 miles of conveyor like you see in some DCs," says King), and the risks involved—they were also careful to make sure Green Mountain didn't get in over its head. "You can install the best system in the world," says King, "but if we don't have the resources to run and maintain it, then it's not a good system. We took a lot of time to assess where we were and to match the technologies available to the resources we had as a company."
know thyself
As tempting as it might be to leave the details to the experts, that's exactly what you shouldn't do when choosing a new material handling or warehouse management system. That decision should be based on the ins and outs of your particular operation, preferably with input from the people who actually work with the system.
Nonetheless, companies go into projects like this every day without a clear picture of their needs. "There are many situations where people don't have a strong enough understanding of how their DC works," says Bob Babel, vice president of engineering at Forte, a consulting/systems integration firm specializing in DC layout, design and equipment integration. If you don't have a real good sense of your requirements, he says, you risk spending money on features you'll never use and ending up with a fundamental mismatch between your new system and your actual requirements.
The management team at Delta Faucet can attest to that. Delta recently installed a new WMS as part of a distribution center upgrade. But in its zeal to get the new system up and running, it neglected to conduct a rigorous analysis of the flow of material from receipt to shipping. Delta had recently begun producing most of its faucets and plumbing supplies to order. The result was an unusually complex receiving operation—one in which Delta virtually receives product at the same rate it ships it out. But the team that chose the WMS failed to take that into account. Once the system was installed, Delta was forced to make substantial adjustments in order to make it run at peak efficiency.
It appears the company won't make that mistake again, however. "The next time," admits Rob Skavroneck, Delta's director of operations, "it would be advisable to get a better understanding of the nuances of our business."
The Port of Oakland has been awarded $50 million from the U.S. Department of Transportation’s Maritime Administration (MARAD) to modernize wharves and terminal infrastructure at its Outer Harbor facility, the port said today.
Those upgrades would enable the Outer Harbor to accommodate Ultra Large Container Vessels (ULCVs), which are now a regular part of the shipping fleet calling on West Coast ports. Each of these ships has a handling capacity of up to 24,000 TEUs (20-foot containers) but are currently restricted at portions of Oakland’s Outer Harbor by aging wharves which were originally designed for smaller ships.
According to the port, those changes will let it handle newer, larger vessels, which are more efficient, cost effective, and environmentally cleaner to operate than older ships. Specific investments for the project will include: wharf strengthening, structural repairs, replacing container crane rails, adding support piles, strengthening support beams, and replacing electrical bus bar system to accommodate larger ship-to-shore cranes.
Commercial fleet operators are steadily increasing their use of GPS fleet tracking, in-cab video solutions, and predictive analytics, driven by rising costs, evolving regulations, and competitive pressures, according to an industry report from Verizon Connect.
Those conclusions come from the company’s fifth annual “Fleet Technology Trends Report,” conducted in partnership with Bobit Business Media, and based on responses from 543 fleet management professionals.
The study showed that for five consecutive years, at least four out of five respondents have reported using at least one form of fleet technology, said Atlanta-based Verizon Connect, which provides fleet and mobile workforce management software platforms, embedded OEM hardware, and a connected vehicle device called Hum by Verizon.
The most commonly used of those technologies is GPS fleet tracking, with 69% of fleets across industries reporting its use, the survey showed. Of those users, 72% find it extremely or very beneficial, citing improved efficiency (62%) and a reduction in harsh driving/speeding events (49%).
Respondents also reported a focus on safety, with 57% of respondents citing improved driver safety as a key benefit of GPS fleet tracking. And 68% of users said in-cab video solutions are extremely or very beneficial. Together, those technologies help reduce distracted driving incidents, improve coaching sessions, and help reduce accident and insurance costs, Verizon Connect said.
Looking at the future, fleet management software is evolving to meet emerging challenges, including sustainability and electrification, the company said. "The findings from this year's Fleet Technology Trends Report highlight a strong commitment across industries to embracing fleet technology, with GPS tracking and in-cab video solutions consistently delivering measurable results,” Peter Mitchell, General Manager, Verizon Connect, said in a release. “As fleets face rising costs and increased regulatory pressures, these technologies are proving to be indispensable in helping organizations optimize their operations, reduce expenses, and navigate the path toward a more sustainable future.”
Businesses engaged in international trade face three major supply chain hurdles as they head into 2025: the disruptions caused by Chinese New Year (CNY), the looming threat of potential tariffs on foreign-made products that could be imposed by the incoming Trump Administration, and the unresolved contract negotiations between the International Longshoremen’s Association (ILA) and the U.S. Maritime Alliance (USMX), according to an analysis from trucking and logistics provider Averitt.
Each of those factors could lead to significant shipping delays, production slowdowns, and increased costs, Averitt said.
First, Chinese New Year 2025 begins on January 29, prompting factories across China and other regions to shut down for weeks, typically causing production to halt and freight demand to skyrocket. The ripple effects can range from increased shipping costs to extended lead times, disrupting even the most well-planned operations. To prepare for that event, shippers should place orders early, build inventory buffers, secure freight space in advance, diversify shipping modes, and communicate with logistics providers, Averitt said.
Second, new or increased tariffs on foreign-made goods could drive up the cost of imports, disrupt established supply chains, and create uncertainty in the marketplace. In turn, shippers may face freight rate volatility and capacity constraints as businesses rush to stockpile inventory ahead of tariff deadlines. To navigate these challenges, shippers should prepare advance shipments and inventory stockpiling, diversity sourcing, negotiate supplier agreements, explore domestic production, and leverage financial strategies.
Third, unresolved contract negotiations between the ILA and the USMX will come to a head by January 15, when the current contract expires. Labor action or strikes could cause severe disruptions at East and Gulf Coast ports, triggering widespread delays and bottlenecks across the supply chain. To prepare for the worst, shippers should adopt a similar strategy to the other potential January threats: collaborate early, secure freight, diversify supply chains, and monitor policy changes.
According to Averitt, companies can cushion the impact of all three challenges by deploying a seamless, end-to-end solution covering the entire path from customs clearance to final-mile delivery. That strategy can help businesses to store inventory closer to their customers, mitigate delays, and reduce costs associated with supply chain disruptions. And combined with proactive communication and real-time visibility tools, the approach allows companies to maintain control and keep their supply chains resilient in the face of global uncertainties, Averitt said.
Bloomington, Indiana-based FTR said its Trucking Conditions Index declined in September to -2.47 from -1.39 in August as weakness in the principal freight dynamics – freight rates, utilization, and volume – offset lower fuel costs and slightly less unfavorable financing costs.
Those negative numbers are nothing new—the TCI has been positive only twice – in May and June of this year – since April 2022, but the group’s current forecast still envisions consistently positive readings through at least a two-year forecast horizon.
“Aside from a near-term boost mostly related to falling diesel prices, we have not changed our Trucking Conditions Index forecast significantly in the wake of the election,” Avery Vise, FTR’s vice president of trucking, said in a release. “The outlook continues to be more favorable for carriers than what they have experienced for well over two years. Our analysis indicates gradual but steadily rising capacity utilization leading to stronger freight rates in 2025.”
But FTR said its forecast remains unchanged. “Just like everyone else, we’ll be watching closely to see exactly what trade and other economic policies are implemented and over what time frame. Some freight disruptions are likely due to tariffs and other factors, but it is not yet clear that those actions will do more than shift the timing of activity,” Vise said.
The TCI tracks the changes representing five major conditions in the U.S. truck market: freight volumes, freight rates, fleet capacity, fuel prices, and financing costs. Combined into a single index indicating the industry’s overall health, a positive score represents good, optimistic conditions while a negative score shows the inverse.
Specifically, the new global average robot density has reached a record 162 units per 10,000 employees in 2023, which is more than double the mark of 74 units measured seven years ago.
Broken into geographical regions, the European Union has a robot density of 219 units per 10,000 employees, an increase of 5.2%, with Germany, Sweden, Denmark and Slovenia in the global top ten. Next, North America’s robot density is 197 units per 10,000 employees – up 4.2%. And Asia has a robot density of 182 units per 10,000 persons employed in manufacturing - an increase of 7.6%. The economies of Korea, Singapore, mainland China and Japan are among the top ten most automated countries.
Broken into individual countries, the U.S. ranked in 10th place in 2023, with a robot density of 295 units. Higher up on the list, the top five are:
The Republic of Korea, with 1,012 robot units, showing a 5% increase on average each year since 2018 thanks to its strong electronics and automotive industries.
Singapore had 770 robot units, in part because it is a small country with a very low number of employees in the manufacturing industry, so it can reach a high robot density with a relatively small operational stock.
China took third place in 2023, surpassing Germany and Japan with a mark of 470 robot units as the nation has managed to double its robot density within four years.
Germany ranks fourth with 429 robot units for a 5% CAGR since 2018.
Japan is in fifth place with 419 robot units, showing growth of 7% on average each year from 2018 to 2023.