Maybe DC managers should take some cues from baseball. As baseball fans are well aware, some of the most successful pro teams have made big changes in the way they evaluate players in the past few years. Gone are some of the old standbys like batting average, runs batted in or earned run average. In their place are newer stats like onbase percentage and slugging percentage that better predict how much a player will contribute to the desired outcome—a win.
There could be a lesson in that for the DC world. Asked what measures they use to evaluate their operations' performance, managers in DCs across the country reel off their own old standbys—inventory count accuracy, cost per unit shipped or processed, or on-time delivery. Problem is, the measures they're using are oftentimes not aligned with their overall business strategies. Their metrics may tell them many things, but not what's really important: how far they've come toward achieving their corporate goals and how far they have to go.
To find out more about how metrics are used in today's supply chain operations, DC VELOCITY and a research team from Georgia Southern University and the University of Tennessee launched a two-part study earlier this year. By the time the survey cutoff date rolled around, more than 700 of DC VELOCITY's readers had responded to a pair of online questionnaires. (Download the full report of the findings.) When the tabulations were complete, it was clear that plenty of DCs are measuring their operations' performance. What wasn't so clear was whether they're doing it right.
No standards
When it comes to the metrics companies are using today, are there "baseline" metrics that everybody applies? Most emphatically not. There's no single set of metrics in widespread use; in fact, there's no single universally accepted logistics measure—no supply chain equivalent of baseball's slugging percentage or on-base percentage. Indeed, there's nothing even close. Asked to indicate which metrics they used (from a list of 80), the respondents' answers ranged all over the map.When all the results were tallied, not a single metric—even basic measures like on-time deliveries or cost per unit shipped—scored in the 90-percent range.
Though they could not identify a single universally accepted measure, researchers were able to identify basic groups of metrics that seem to be in fairly widespread use. Regardless of industry or type of business, most respondents used metrics from at least one of the following three broad categories: time-based measures, financial measures and service quality measures.
Within each of those categories, however, usage scores for the individual metrics varied widely. Among the time-based measures, for example, on-time delivery topped the list, mentioned by more than two-thirds (68 percent) of the respondents. Next on the list was orders shipped on time (63 percent), followed by finishedgoods inventory turns (57 percent) and number of overtime hours logged (55 percent). At the bottom of the list was dwell time (12 percent). It seems safe to say that nobody cares much about dwell time as long as an order departs and arrives on time.
As for financial metrics, cost per unit shipped or processed topped the list (63 percent), followed by total cost per order shipped (55 percent). Moving further down the list, fewer than half the respondents said they measured transportation as a percentage of revenue (47 percent), return on investment (43 percent) and cost per order (42 percent).
To measure service quality, companies typically resort to traditional inventory-based measures. The most commonly used metric was inventory count accuracy (71 percent), followed by overall customer satisfaction (54 percent). Other service metrics in relatively widespread use focused on order fulfillment; these included order picking accuracy (51 percent), picking errors (50 percent) and order fill rate (49 percent).
What measure to take?
Given that there are no clear industry standards where metrics are concerned, how do companies decide what to measure? Logic would dictate that they're choosing measures that best indicate how they're performing against the company's strategic goals. But surprisingly, that's not the case.
Respondents to the first part of the study were asked to identify not only the metrics they used but also their companies' overall strategy (in broad terms). Though you might assume that the companies whose focus was on, say, cost containment would focus on financial metrics, that wasn't the case. The researchers were unable to establish any real correlation between the metrics companies said they used and their corporate objectives (broadly categorized for survey purposes as cutting costs, maximizing asset utilization, increasing customer satisfaction or maximizing profitability).
Researchers did find a stronger link between the metrics used and a company's "location" within the supply chain—that is, whether its primary customers were end consumers, manufacturers, distributors/wholesalers, or retailers. That's not to say that all companies serving, say, retailers used the same set of clearly defined measures. Yet researchers were able to identify some statistically significant differences from group to group. (See Exhibit 1.)
Take units processed per labor hour, for example. Companies whose primary customers are retailers rarely track these numbers. But those that provide service to manufacturers and distributors/wholesalers live and die by this measure. Perhaps manufacturers are accustomed to thinking in terms of labor costs and timemotion studies. Or perhaps these are critical measures given the labor intensity and repetitive nature of their industries. Whatever the reason, most of them can quote this number down to the fraction of a unit.
Beyond measure
Given the apparently scattershot approach to metrics in the nation's DCs, it appears there's an opening here for companies seeking a competitive edge. It seems safe to say that a company that adopts metrics aimed at satisfying customers and supporting corporate strategy —not to mention increasing operational efficiency or cutting costs—could reap rich marketplace rewards.
But it won't just happen automatically. Becoming a "power user" where metrics are concerned means getting familiar with the corporate strategy. It means adopting and using metrics that align with that objective. And above all, it means finding out what customers regard as key metrics. (Many times, customers will provide scorecards to identify what they see as critical measures.)
All that requires time and effort, to be sure. But it could put you on track for a winning season.
Exhibit 1
Who's using what metrics?
Respondent's Primary Customer
Commonly Used Metrics
Less Commonly Used Metrics
Manufacturers
Customer satisfaction
Cost to serve
Units processed per labor hour
Source: Georgia Southern University, University of Tennessee and DC Velocity
Editor's note: This study represents the first step in what's expected to become a continuing investigation. Possible topics for future studies include developing a more in-depth understanding of benchmarking levels, defining specific metrics and perhaps developing recommendations for the best metrics for different types of companies to use.
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."