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.
These days, it seems there's no tracking problem that RFID can't solve. Need to protect vintage Jimi Hendrix rock 'n roll memorabilia (think the guitar strap immOréalized at the 1969 Newport Pop Festival) from theft or counterfeiting? There's an RFID solution for that. Want to keep close tabs on critical airplane parts to shorten service calls and reduce travel delays? There's an RFID solution for that. Looking to track supplies being shipped out to troops in Iraq? There's an RFID solution for that too.
Though it may have gotten off to a bumpy start, the RFID revolution is clearly upon us. In just a few short years, RFID has grown into a multibillion dollar industry. ABI Research projects that spending on RFID software and services alone will hit $3.1 billion this year. But perhaps more astonishing than the growth itself is who's profiting from the boom. It's not always the big, well-established companies that are raking in the RFID revenues. In many cases, it's small venture-funded companies barely out of the startup phase.
In the brash young RFID technology market, it seems the old rules no longer apply. It used to be that when a company opened discussions with a potential new supplier, one of the first questions it asked was how long the vendor had been in business longevity generally being equated with reliability and fiscal soundness. Nowadays, it doesn't appear to matter. Up-and-coming players some of which were running their businesses out of a garage just a few years ago are landing big contracts with the likes of Boeing and the U.S. government.
You don't have to look far for examples of small and nimble RFID startups that have edged out their larger rivals. Last May, Dulles, Va.-based ODIN technologies beat out a roster of veteran players including IBM for a $14 million contract to outfit 69 Defense Logistics Agency facilities with RFID readers. A month earlier, in April 2006, San Jose, Calif.-based newcomer Intelleflex inked a multimillion dollar deal with Boeing to supply RFID tags for parts for its 787 Dreamliner jets when they go into production this year. Boeing, which is paying approximately $20 per tag, expects to use more than a million tags annually once production begins.
What sealed the deal in this case was Intelleflex's product the industry's first fully integrated multi-protocol EPC-compliant RFID single chip IC. In the passive operating mode, tags made with this battery-powered chip offer a read range of more than 300 feet and a full 64 kilobytes of user read/write memory. Though Boeing invited all of the major RFID players to bid on its smart label contract, the Intelleflex tag was the only one able to meet the aircraft maker's memory requirements.
"That shows the value of innovation," says ODIN's president and CEO, Patrick Sweeney, referring to the Intelleflex RFID chip. "Those guys built a better mousetrap."
For Boeing, the chip's technological advantages evidently outweighed Intelleflex's lack of experience the company received its first venture funding in 2004 and is just ramping up production of its first product. "Boeing is more innovative and venturesome than most big companies," says Bob Pavey, an investor with venture firm Morgenthaler and a recent appointee to the Intelleflex board. "Boeing recognizes more than most companies that much of the technology they will need in the future will not come from the large suppliers."
Magnet for talent
Better mousetraps aside, another factor that sometimes works to the startups' advantage is their willingness to take on the smaller contracts that large corporations might not consider worth their while. That gives them a foot in the door, not to mention a big in with the customer later on if that pilot progresses to a rollout.
"Some of the smaller integrators aren't so averse to take a $200,000 contract when an IBM might be looking for more lucrative, longer-term deals," says Michael Liard, principal analyst for the RFID practice at ABI Research. "But guess what? Those smaller guys taking those little deals have gained a host of experience around RFID deployment, and have gained a competitive advantage in the process."
That's no small consideration. In an industry where expertise is in short supply, experience with RFID deployment can translate directly into more business. Sweeney, for example, credits his company's experience with deployments for its roaring 400-percent annual growth rate. "We're having much better success than I ever thought we would," he says. "I think that's because of the lack of expertise with this technology."
At the moment, the smaller companies have what amounts to a monopoly on RFID talent and expertise, says Daniel Engels, former research director for the Massachusetts Institute of Technology's Auto-ID Center. "All of the innovative work that has come out lately has come from small companies moving into the space," says Engels, who is now an associate professor in the University of Texas's electrical engineering department. Though that's not uncommon in the tech sector, he adds, "I would say the trend is probably extra pronounced for RFID. RFID is unique in that the real expertise exists in all the small companies right now."
Part of the explanation lies in the simple fact that the smaller companies are the ones with the jobs. From the large corporations' point of view, the RFID market is still too small to justify devoting a lot of bodies to it.
And even when large corporations like Texas Instruments do venture into RFID development, there's no guarantee that they'll be able to sustain the momentum once the development process concludes. "When TI was developing its SpeedPass solution, their head count was up," says Engels. "But most of their technical people left after that, during the period when they were not innovating, and went to companies like Matrics [which has since been acquired by Symbol] and other smaller companies that were doing more innovative RFID work."
Brain drain
It's not just technical people who have fled to the smaller companies. Top executives have joined the exodus as well. Take Rich Bravman, the former CEO of Symbol Technologies, who defected to Intelleflex in September 2005. Bravman, who is now CEO of Intelleflex, was Symbol's fifth employee when he joined the firm as a software developer back in 1978, shortly before the company landed a $5 million contract with the Defense Department.
For Bravman, the opportunity to try to repeat that success at Intelleflex proved irresistible. "It was a very comparable situation," he says of his early days at Symbol. "We were a new company at the time and the hand-held laser scanner was a brand new concept and a new technology. The competition included mega companies like NCR and IBM, but we emerged the winners based on having a technology that nobody had figured out how to do. By the time I left, we were a $3.5 billion company. I very much hope we have the same success trajectory here."
Symbol isn't the only company whose management ranks have suffered casualties. In June 2005, RFID hardware specialist Sirit hired Norbert Dawalibi away from Psion Teklogix, where he had been president and CEO, to be its new CEO. In October, Sirit recruited former Texas Instruments RFID guru Tony Sabetti to be vice president of RF solutions.
ODIN, too, has succeeded in luring some top talent away from the competition. Diana Hage, who headed up IBM's RFID and wireless division, defected to ODIN this fall after the company beat out IBM for the government business. "That's been a spectacular hire," says Sweeney. "It has given us a lot more insight into how the bigger companies are addressing the market."
Deal or no deal?
Now that they've been lapped by the competition, can the larger companies ever expect to catch up? Some say the only way for the big guys to make up the lost ground is to acquire those smaller firms that have been landing the fat contracts. Sweeney says he receives buyout overtures frequently.
The market has already seen some mergers and buyouts like Sirit's purchase of TradeWind Technologies and SAMSys last year, and Symbol's acquisition of Matrics in 2004 (before Symbol itself was bought by Motorola last September). But Sweeney thinks the real action will begin when the market matures, most likely in 2008.
"I think one thing you'll see is a company like Texas Instruments asking 'How is this [startup] company beating us on these deals?'" says Sweeney. "Their mentality will be, 'We'd better buy them before they beat us again.'"
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."
Global trade will see a moderate rebound in 2025, likely growing by 3.6% in volume terms, helped by companies restocking and households renewing purchases of durable goods while reducing spending on services, according to a forecast from trade credit insurer Allianz Trade.
The end of the year for 2024 will also likely be supported by companies rushing to ship goods in anticipation of the higher tariffs likely to be imposed by the coming Trump administration, and other potential disruptions in the coming quarters, the report said.
However, that tailwind for global trade will likely shift to a headwind once the effects of a renewed but contained trade war are felt from the second half of 2025 and in full in 2026. As a result, Allianz Trade has throttled back its predictions, saying that global trade in volume will grow by 2.8% in 2025 (reduced by 0.2 percentage points vs. its previous forecast) and 2.3% in 2026 (reduced by 0.5 percentage points).
The same logic applies to Allianz Trade’s forecast for export prices in U.S. dollars, which the firm has now revised downward to predict growth reaching 2.3% in 2025 (reduced by 1.7 percentage points) and 4.1% in 2026 (reduced by 0.8 percentage points).
In the meantime, the rush to frontload imports into the U.S. is giving freight carriers an early Christmas present. According to Allianz Trade, data released last week showed Chinese exports rising by a robust 6.7% y/y in November. And imports of some consumer goods that have been threatened with a likely 25% tariff under the new Trump administration have outperformed even more, growing by nearly 20% y/y on average between July and September.