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.
We've all heard about the pressure Wal-Mart and other retailers are putting on distribution centers when it comes to RFID capabilities. However, that's not the only request savvy retailers are dumping on DC managers.
DC executives have come to dread retailers' requests to perform a myriad of value-added services, many of which take hours of extra labor to complete. Tasks like ticketing items, packaging, assembling displays, providing special labeling, and putting apparel onto hangers for customers commonly occur at the DC level nowadays. It's clearly a no-win situation for DC managers who have made great strides in minimizing labor expenses for picking operations, but must now increase labor to deal with requests for often complicated and laborious hands-on value-added services.
"We're definitely seeing a trend toward more value-added services occurring in the DC," says Patti Satterfield, business development manager for Q4 Logistics, a systems integrator based in Santa Ana, Calif. "Many retailers don't have as much backroom space these days, so as items come off the truck they are literally flowed onto the floor as quickly as possible.
"For retailers, it's a resources issue as well as a space issue. They don't want people in the backroom putting items on hangers, so they are pushing that back to the DC. Value-added services are becoming part of day-to-day pick/pack operations, and many DCs have had to create extra steps to accommodate that, like adding a value-add services function to their WMS software."
The folks at Columbia Sportswear are an exception. Columbia's distribution center in Portland, Ore., performs value-added services on almost 20 percent of the products that move through its DC, but that percentage is much lower than it was three years ago.
"When you look at it on a productivity basis for units per hour, value-added services is the least productive area in our building by far," says Dave Carlson, who heads up Columbia Sportswear's distribution activities. "There's not too much we can do about it.We can automate getting the goods there [to the value-added services area] and taking the goods away, but what happens during the value-added process is very manual … it's customized and it changes with each pick and each order."
It's not unheard of, for example, for some of Columbia Sportswear's European customers to request that product be steamed and delivered on hangers. Columbia outsources that request, which delays the shipment to the customer and increases Columbia's lead time for getting product to the customer.
Just say no
Carlson reports that Columbia is making some progress in having value-added services take place at the manufacturer's factory. That's crucial in a distribution center where nearly 70 percent of products are less-than-case quantities, meaning those SKUs must be picked and packed manually before they leave the DC.
"It's taken a number of years," says Carlson, "but factories are getting more and more used to having these value-added requests pushed back to them. We've been able to move some of it upstream. That's the whole idea of the supply chain—trying to get everything done on the first touch."
Columbia Sportswear often refuses to perform certain value-added tasks that will consume too much labor and result in far too low payback. The firm also takes a consultative approach with its customers, letting them know when a value-added service request just doesn't make economic sense—for either Columbia Sportswear or the customer.
In one case, a retail customer requested a customized shipping label containing special shipping information.
Columbia's policy is to print a standard shipping form and content label from its warehouse management system for outbound freight. Carlson pointed out to the customer that the information it asked for in its special request was already included on the two labels Columbia produces. Suffice it to say, the customer backed off from the request.
The simple truth is when you are shipping 2,500 cartons an hour and filling five to seven trailer loads per hour during peak season, there isn't a lot of time for value-added services that don't provide a real benefit.
"We have a process to approve a customer for valueadded services," says Carlson. "In the end it's a commercial decision. We tell the customer we can do anything but it's not free. The customer needs to gauge how important it is to its business. Sometimes retailers are surprised that their requests don't add any value."
So before you spend all kinds of time and energy (and money) reconfiguring pick/pack operations to accommodate value-added requests, first make sure it's worthwhile for both sides.
picking options
Logistics professionals struggle every day to make picking operations more efficient. Why the attention to picking? Because up to 60 percent of all DC labor costs are related to picking and packing, and both of those activities are directly linked to customer satisfaction. At a User Conference held by Manhattan Associates last month, a panel on picking operations summarized the pros and cons of the various picking options as shown below:
Paper Picking
Benefits
Simple and common in distribution centers
Low support structure and hardware requirements
Pick list can be used as packing list
Ideal for smaller facilities with low orders per day
Generally used for picking one order at a time
Challenges
Distribution of paper to picker (lack of controls)
No real-time updating of transactions (pick verification)
Manual update to pick list for shortages (data entry)
Hard to reprioritize orders
Printing optimal pick path is difficult if used as packing slip
Voice Picking
Benefits
Frees hands for picking by use of a headset
Real-time updating of transactions
Provides pick verification (correct location and quantity)
Provides easy method for productivity tracking
Can provide extra information (special handling) to picker
Proper application can lead to higher productivity vs. RF
Challenges
Processes requiring large amount of license plate scanning can become tedious (scanning vs. verbal)
Additional step of creating packing slip
Radio Frequency (RF) Picking
Benefits
Real-time updating of transactions
Provides pick verification (correct location and quantity)
Allows for greater material handling complexity to assign tasks, license plates, split orders, cartonization, etc.
Provides easy method for productivity tracking
Can provide extra information (special handling) to picker
Challenges
All pickers require an RF terminal (initial cost/maintenance)
Another piece of hardware a picker must carry
Can lead to a decrease in productivity – requires training
Additional step of creating packing slip
Pick to Light
Benefits
High pick productivity with good accuracy
Real-time updating of transactions
Provides pick verification (correct location and quantity)
Provides easy method for productivity tracking
Challenges
Initial capital costs high, depending on number of SKUs
Typically used for high-volume broken case picking
May require additional controls & order management system
Operations requiring licenses plates will require a scanner for each picker
A move by federal regulators to reinforce requirements for broker transparency in freight transactions is stirring debate among transportation groups, after the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) published a “notice of proposed rulemaking” this week.
According to FMCSA, its draft rule would strive to make broker transparency more common, requiring greater sharing of the material information necessary for transportation industry parties to make informed business decisions and to support the efficient resolution of disputes.
The proposed rule titled “Transparency in Property Broker Transactions” would address what FMCSA calls the lack of access to information among shippers and motor carriers that can impact the fairness and efficiency of the transportation system, and would reframe broker transparency as a regulatory duty imposed on brokers, with the goal of deterring non-compliance. Specifically, the move would require brokers to keep electronic records, and require brokers to provide transaction records to motor carriers and shippers upon request and within 48 hours of that request.
Under federal regulatory processes, public comments on the move are due by January 21, 2025. However, transportation groups are not waiting on the sidelines to voice their opinions.
According to the Transportation Intermediaries Association (TIA), an industry group representing the third-party logistics (3PL) industry, the potential rule is “misguided overreach” that fails to address the more pressing issue of freight fraud. In TIA’s view, broker transparency regulation is “obsolete and un-American,” and has no place in today’s “highly transparent” marketplace. “This proposal represents a misguided focus on outdated and unnecessary regulations rather than tackling issues that genuinely threaten the safety and efficiency of our nation’s supply chains,” TIA said.
But trucker trade group the Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association (OOIDA) welcomed the proposed rule, which it said would ensure that brokers finally play by the rules. “We appreciate that FMCSA incorporated input from our petition, including a requirement to make records available electronically and emphasizing that brokers have a duty to comply with regulations. As FMCSA noted, broker transparency is necessary for a fair, efficient transportation system, and is especially important to help carriers defend themselves against alleged claims on a shipment,” OOIDA President Todd Spencer said in a statement.
Additional pushback came from the Small Business in Transportation Coalition (SBTC), a network of transportation professionals in small business, which said the potential rule didn’t go far enough. “This is too little too late and is disappointing. It preserves the status quo, which caters to Big Broker & TIA. There is no question now that FMCSA has been captured by Big Broker. Truckers and carriers must now come out in droves and file comments in full force against this starting tomorrow,” SBTC executive director James Lamb said in a LinkedIn post.
The “series B” funding round was financed by an unnamed “strategic customer” as well as Teradyne Robotics Ventures, Toyota Ventures, Ranpak, Third Kind Venture Capital, One Madison Group, Hyperplane, Catapult Ventures, and others.
The fresh backing comes as Massachusetts-based Pickle reported a spate of third quarter orders, saying that six customers placed orders for over 30 production robots to deploy in the first half of 2025. The new orders include pilot conversions, existing customer expansions, and new customer adoption.
“Pickle is hitting its strides delivering innovation, development, commercial traction, and customer satisfaction. The company is building groundbreaking technology while executing on essential recurring parts of a successful business like field service and manufacturing management,” Omar Asali, Pickle board member and CEO of investor Ranpak, said in a release.
According to Pickle, its truck-unloading robot applies “Physical AI” technology to one of the most labor-intensive, physically demanding, and highest turnover work areas in logistics operations. The platform combines a powerful vision system with generative AI foundation models trained on millions of data points from real logistics and warehouse operations that enable Pickle’s robotic hardware platform to perform physical work at human-scale or better, the company says.
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.
Progress in generative AI (GenAI) is poised to impact business procurement processes through advancements in three areas—agentic reasoning, multimodality, and AI agents—according to Gartner Inc.
Those functions will redefine how procurement operates and significantly impact the agendas of chief procurement officers (CPOs). And 72% of procurement leaders are already prioritizing the integration of GenAI into their strategies, thus highlighting the recognition of its potential to drive significant improvements in efficiency and effectiveness, Gartner found in a survey conducted in July, 2024, with 258 global respondents.
Gartner defined the new functions as follows:
Agentic reasoning in GenAI allows for advanced decision-making processes that mimic human-like cognition. This capability will enable procurement functions to leverage GenAI to analyze complex scenarios and make informed decisions with greater accuracy and speed.
Multimodality refers to the ability of GenAI to process and integrate multiple forms of data, such as text, images, and audio. This will make GenAI more intuitively consumable to users and enhance procurement's ability to gather and analyze diverse information sources, leading to more comprehensive insights and better-informed strategies.
AI agents are autonomous systems that can perform tasks and make decisions on behalf of human operators. In procurement, these agents will automate procurement tasks and activities, freeing up human resources to focus on strategic initiatives, complex problem-solving and edge cases.
As CPOs look to maximize the value of GenAI in procurement, the study recommended three starting points: double down on data governance, develop and incorporate privacy standards into contracts, and increase procurement thresholds.
“These advancements will usher procurement into an era where the distance between ideas, insights, and actions will shorten rapidly,” Ryan Polk, senior director analyst in Gartner’s Supply Chain practice, said in a release. "Procurement leaders who build their foundation now through a focus on data quality, privacy and risk management have the potential to reap new levels of productivity and strategic value from the technology."