Editor's Note: No two successful performance management programs are the same, but all successful performance management programs share common principles. To shed some light on what separates a good company from a great company with regard to performance management, DC VELOCITY will publish a column on one of the 12 Commandments of Successful Performance Management each month. This month we drill into the fourth commandment: Beware.
The Fifth Commandment Beware: Know the point of your metrics and be careful not to get sidetracked
The scenario is all too familiar: Tired of fielding complaints from customers about poor service, senior management decides to crack down on the DC staff. It gathers the supervisors, planners and expeditors together to announce that it expects everyone to pull together to improve delivery reliability. As an incentive, it's establishing a bonus program; workers will be rewarded based on their performance against a standard metric, say, the DC's fill rate.
The
12 Commandments of
Performance Management
1Focus:
Know
your goals 2Balance:
Use a balanced approach 3Involve:
Get employees engaged 4Apply:
Be metrics "users", not just "collectors" or "posters" 5Beware: Know the point of your metrics 6 Anticipate: Use metrics
as your headlights 7 Integrate: Layer your
metrics like an onion 8 Listen: Pay attention
to what your customer is saying 9 Benchmark! 10 Be flexible: There's
no such thing as the holy grail of metrics 11 Lead: Practice what
you preach 12 Be Patient: Crawl
before you walk (or run!)
In the following days, managers draft "expedite" lists and workers spend hours chasing orders that are due to ship in hopes of achieving world-class performance. What they don't realize, however, is that the company will never achieve world-class performance by focusing on an isolated metric—be it fill rate, inventory turns or order cycle time.Worldclass performance is a result of world-class process—devising a system for perfectly executing not a task like getting a box to the dock, but a comprehensive multi-step process, like order fulfillment.
Focusing exclusively on one small task is like painstakingly caulking a window frame while the ceiling collapses around you. Nonetheless, companies fall into this trap all the time.What follows are a few true-life examples (with identifying details changed) of how companies have gotten sidetracked from their main mission by a metric (in this case, fill rate):
Company A receives an order for a printer cartridge on Monday but holds off sending the order to the DC because that particular cartridge is out of stock. When the cartridges are finally restocked on Thursday, the order is forwarded to the DC for fulfillment on Friday. By now, the impatient customer has had to wait five extra days for the cartridge. Nonetheless, Company A, which measures fill rates by how quickly the order is filled once it hits the DC (not from the time the order was received), proudly reports a 100-percent fill rate.
Company B receives an order for a truck engine on Monday. Though its normal cycle time is two days from order to shipment, the company quotes the customer a five-day cycle time because it's experiencing unusually high demand.When it ships the engine out on Friday, Company B reports that it has achieved a 100-percent fill rate because it shipped the product when it said it would (but not when the customer needed it).
Company C, a videogame manufacturer whose plant runs 24 hours a day, ships games to DCs nationwide. The cutoff for trucks leaving the plant is usually 9 p.m. During the peak demand period, production falls behind and an order misses the truck. However, the plant continues assembling the order and finally sends the carton to the shipping department at 10 p.m. Shipping clerks fill out the manifests and send the carton to the dock—where it sits until the next evening. Though the carton languishes on the dock for nearly 24 hours, Company C's computer system shows the order as "shipped" and reports a 100-percent fill rate.
Company D boasted of stellar fill rates (98.5 percent) for books shipped from its DC to retailers.Nonetheless, customers were constantly on the phone complaining about lousy service. An investigation revealed that though the books left the DC on time, they rarely arrived at the customer's receiving dock during the scheduled delivery window. When they failed to show up, the retailer was forced to reschedule the delivery, which meant delays of up to three days.
Company E's delivery performance had slumped, with fill rates dipping into the low 70th percentile. Management stepped in to offer bonuses if workers could raise that to 99 percent. In short order, they were hitting the target regularly. What no one noticed was that a spike in expedited shipments had cost the company over $1 million.
Are your orders perfect?
It's safe to say that claims that a company regularly achieves a 100-percent fill rate or ships products "on time" is no guarantee that the customer will receive the goods on time. Nor does it mean the customer will get the products it ordered in the quantity ordered or that the box will arrive undamaged and with a correct invoice. It simply tells you that the company has found a way to hit one particular target consistently.
To measure what's truly important to the customer, you must turn to the Perfect Order. Though slight variations exist, the Perfect Order is usually defined as an order that's delivered on time, complete, damage free and accompanied by the correct invoice.
And it's not even that complicated to calculate: You simply multiply scores for the various component measures. For example, if a company reports that it has a 95.0-percent performance record for on time deliveries, fill rates, correct invoices and damage free shipments, the resulting Perfect Order index would be 81.4 percent (95% x 95% x 95% x 95%). Had each of the scores been 90 percent, the Perfect Order index would drop significantly—to 65.6 percent.
The lesson is simple. Manage your business with process metrics, and evaluate your business using results metrics. Used properly, process metrics drive the desired results.
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."