Many supply chain managers think their forecasting problems would be solved if they could only get good point-of-sale (POS) data. But it's not that simple.
The plight of today's supply chain manager could be fairly compared to that of Tantalus from Greek mythology. Trapped in the underworld and parked by a pool overhung with boughs laden with luscious fruit, Tantalus was doomed to spend eternity tortured by hunger and thirst in the midst of plenty. Each time he tried to drink, the pool drained away; each time he reached for a pomegranate or fig, the boughs receded. So it is for the average supply chain or distribution center manager yearning not for a sip of water or a pear, but for accurate data on the actual demand for the goods in his warehouse.
In theory, gathering demand data should be a matter of feeding all sales, tracking and inventory information gathered throughout the supply chain into a great ravening machine that links every party in the supply chain to every other party. But right now, there's a piece missing—the point of sale (POS) information gathered in retail outlets is almost never fed into that machine.
Why not? The main problem is that POS information is some of the least accurate you're likely to come across in the supply chain, answers Mark Johnson, vice president of marketing at G-Log, a vendor of supply chain management software in Shelton, Conn. "It's very nervous data, which is not very good for supply chain operations," he says. "The raw POS data still requires a lot of manual intervention before it can be digested into the supply chain."
Johnson gives this example: If a customer gets to the checkout counter and notices a defect in an item, often the clerk will swipe only the replacement item's bar code, although both items have come off the shelf. Multiply that over thousands of retail outlets over 90 days, and the result is a heavily distorted picture of stock on hand.
The other problem is that even perfect POS data will never be an absolute predictor of future demand. "Customers are notoriously fickle and their past demand patterns are less valuable in an era of rapid change in products, distribution and sales strategies," says John Fontanella, vice president of research at AMR Research in Boston, in a report titled The Demand Driven Supply Network: Striving for Supply Chain Transparency. For that reason, the data gathered as bar-coded items are swiped through the cashier's station will never be more than a part of the picture.
As good as it gets
Yet the fallibility of POS data hasn't discouraged Al Giunchi, director of distribution logistics at pet products manufacturer Hartz Mountain Group in Secaucus, N.J. For 10 years now, he's been extracting sales information from his company's main customer—Wal-Mart—and feeding it back into his own supply chain.
Every day, through the Internet, Hartz receives POS information on its products from thousands of Wal-Mart stores around the country and the 36 distribution centers that serve them. Through that mechanism,Hartz Mountain learns which products are selling, how much inventory is on hand in the individual stores, and what's available to top up the stock from nearby DCs. "We see inventory levels in stores and in the 36 DCs. We see what product needs replenishing and where that product is—on the East Coast or the West Coast.And it's in real time.You're looking at the product come off the shelf and out the store instead of out the DC," says Giunchi.
The Wal-Mart POS information isn't monitored directly by the logistics division. It's in the hands of a customer service team consisting of three people in Secaucus, and three in Bentonville, Ark., where Wal-Mart is headquartered. They, in turn, feed information about fluctuations in inventory levels and demand to the logistics group. When Giunchi wants to look at the data, he goes through a password-protected part of the World Wide Web (a step up from the early days when he used an EDI system).
Wal-Mart's sales forecasts tend to be almost uncannily accurate, says Giunchi. "Their computer system is second only to the government's. They know that a Wal-Mart in the Northeast is not going to need the same items as one in Arkansas. When 9/11 hit, they knew they'd sell more guns in Bentonville, Ark., than in Secaucus, N.J. Plus all of a sudden, there was a spike in gas can sales because people were hoarding gas.Wal-Mart knew all that. All that information started flowing through the system very quickly."
Responding to Wal-Mart's rapidly changing forecasts and constantly monitoring in-store inventory requires a lot of hard work, Giunchi says. "It takes a lot of maintenance, because there might be discontinued items or special promotions or delays for items coming in from, say, Asia or Brazil," he says. Returns, alone, occupy two members of the six-person team monitoring POS information. "The data does need scrutinizing and that's why you need six people looking at screens every day."
Aside from dirty data and shipment delays, the sheer size and nature of the consumer market means POS information is never going to allow anyone to stay exactly abreast of demand. "The problem is the vast number of variables in the system," says Giunchi. "You may think that a particular dog chew is going to knock people's socks off, but it doesn't. Or one product will unexpectedly take off and Wal-Mart will say 'I ordered 5,000 originally, but now I need 45,000 on the same day I wanted the 5,000'—and then the panic starts to set in. Or they order something in September and need it in time for Christmas," Giunchi continues. "So POS information helps maintain the flow to the stores of items that are already there. But it still doesn't help you if you're trying to push an item and you don't know if the customer is going to want it or not. There's no software in the world that's going to smooth that out."
All the same, Giunchi would welcome the opportunity to work with POS information from other major customers, instead of relying on vendor-managed inventory techniques, as Hartz Mountain does with Kmart,Walgreens and Winn-Dixie. Though popular, vendor-managed inventory programs, in which the products' supplier decides how much stock to put in the customer's distribution centers, don't get into the same detail as POS data. "VMI stops at the warehouse," says Giunchi.
Not imPOSsible
Given the number of kinks that have yet to be worked out, it's no surprise that G-Log's Johnson says few companies are currently using POS data well. The ones that have mastered it include computer company Dell Inc. and Tesco, the British supermarket chain. Dell's selling structure, where customers order direct, typing their own information into a Web site, means its POS data are clean. Matters get a bit trickier when it comes to supermarket retail, where there are hundreds of thousands of SKUs to keep track of and more opportunities for mistakes. And it will be tougher yet to attain that level of sophistication in the retail sector.
Johnson says it's clear that feeding POS data into sales and manufacturing decisions works, because it's happening in industries like computer supply. But, in consumer retail, you're talking about adding an extra couple of zeros to the number of transactions, he says. "When you add dirty data, the complexity just takes off," Johnson says. "Transferring that into clean data and then translating it into orders that are digestible in the supply chain is a challenge, but it's not impossible. Absolutely not."
Despite the difficulties, there's still a lot to be said for feeding POS data into the system, Johnson adds. "The better the data you have, spanning the entire supply chain from factory to point of sale, the better you're able to reduce inventory and exposure to damage."
For Giunchi, the benefits of using POS information far outweigh the tribulations. "It gives us more intelligence. Whether we're able to perform with that intelligence is the key, and that's when we come into the real world," he says. "Planning and forecasting is so difficult. The weatherman doesn't get fired if he gets the weather wrong—it's Mother Nature's fault. But we don't have Mother Nature to blame in the world of business."
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."