Contributing Editor Toby Gooley is a writer and editor specializing in supply chain, logistics, and material handling, and a lecturer at MIT's Center for Transportation & Logistics. She previously was Senior Editor at DC VELOCITY and Editor of DCV's sister publication, CSCMP's Supply Chain Quarterly. Prior to joining AGiLE Business Media in 2007, she spent 20 years at Logistics Management magazine as Managing Editor and Senior Editor covering international trade and transportation. Prior to that she was an export traffic manager for 10 years. She holds a B.A. in Asian Studies from Cornell University.
Importers who have read the reports about quality problems with Chinese products have to be thinking "There but for the grace of God go I." They know that regardless of what they're buying and where they source from, there are times when suppliers just don't do what they're expected to do.
What many importers don't know is that mistakes are not always the suppliers' fault. In fact, suppliers' failure to comply with product specs, customs regulations, and cargo security requirements may have more to do with poor communication than with willful disregard.
To ensure that far-away vendors follow all the rules, say experienced importers, you must first make your expectations crystal clear. After all, nobody can meet expectations if they don't know what they are.
That's not to say that up-front communication is the only consideration; establishing standard procedures and regularly monitoring both product and process are equally important. The best way to get what you paid for is to do all of those things in a respectful and friendly manner. In other words, don't command—collaborate.
IBM listens to suppliers
When it comes to collaborating with overseas suppliers, IBM provides an example that all importers—large or small—might want to emulate. The technology giant does business in 170 countries, and shipments criss-cross the globe as they move between dozens of origin-destination country pairs.
No matter where a shipment originates or is headed, IBM requires its suppliers to meet uniformly high standards. "We expect all suppliers to abide by all of the applicable laws and regulations—import, export, or otherwise—and we state that in all of our contracts and agreements," says Alan Kohlscheen, executive program manager for import compliance strategy.
The word "uniformly" is key: Globally accepted standards and procedures are central to IBM's business philosophy, says Debbie Turnbull, executive program manager for supply chain security.
The company is eager to see common security and trade facilitation standards established across all of the countries where IBM does business, she says. That would greatly improve supply chain efficiency, effectiveness, costs, and speed, and it's a major reason why IBM is a leading advocate of the World Customs Organization's global standard for supply chain security, known as the SAFE Framework.
Among other initiatives, Big Blue has spearheaded the formation of a coalition of high-tech companies that is developing industry-specific standards that will be consistent with the SAFE Framework. One of the coalition's aims, says Turnbull, is to mitigate the compliance burden on suppliers by creating common requirements that would be adopted by many high-tech companies.
At the same time, IBM avoids painting all suppliers with the same broad brush. Even as it promotes consistency in quality and process, the company is sensitive to cultural differences and local business practices. "Our compliance organization has people in seven countries engaged in import compliance and supply chain security," Kohlscheen notes. "We're not in a control tower trying to understand everything. We're fortunate to have the diversity we do have around the globe; it adds to our effectiveness."
IBM also considers a supplier's size and available resources when imposing compliance and procedural requirements. "It really takes a two-way conversation to understand suppliers' capabilities and how you can work with them," says Kohlscheen. "If you take a heavy-handed approach, you may end up adding cost and inefficiencies in your supply chain."
That balance between centralized policy-making and flexibility is apparent in the way IBM communicates its expectations to suppliers. For example, the company has held conferences with its manufacturing and logistics suppliers to discuss supply chain security and regulatory issues. These events are true give-and-take dialogues: Not only does IBM explain its expectations, but government representatives also present their perspectives and suppliers show each other how they are meeting their big customer's requirements.
Despite such comprehensive efforts, and although it's rare, IBM's suppliers still experience quality issues from time to time. That's why testing and verification are built into its supplier management programs. The high-tech leader follows up educational outreach with transaction testing and process sampling to verify compliance with its policies. Compliance teams may check data quality and format as well as the accuracy of customs and transportation documents, even opening packages in some cases. These checks are risk-based. For instance, lanes where IBM has found anomalies in the past often are targeted for review, Kohlscheen says. And if an error should turn up? "We circle back to the suppliers and discuss it with them. In my experience, once you point that out, they are very willing to make changes."
Automation or the personal touch?
IBM achieves its compliance objectives through a combination of technology-supported process standardization and face-to-face communication. While both approaches have a role to play in ensuring that suppliers meet expectations, some companies and industries may favor one over the other.
Import-dependent retailers that impose a variety of requirements in areas like product fit, quality standards, and environmental and social responsibility are finding that automation can be an efficient and cost-effective way to work with overseas suppliers. Apparel makers, for instance, may have dozens of points of measure for a single style; if a supplier fails to measure each of them properly, the product will be defective and the importer will either have to reject it or deal with costly returns and dissatisfied customers. To be certain that suppliers understand exactly what each point of measure means and that they consistently measure it correctly, some retailers are using software to guide them through that process.
One such product is the Quality Management module of TradeStone's retail merchandising solution. With TradeStone, suppliers see a diagram that shows each measurement point for a specific product or style; when they click on each point of measure, they get a close-up view and an explanation of how to verify that measure. This method not only reduces the need for multiple, very costly fit evaluations and the incidence of returns, but it also ensures consistency in high-volume operations with large numbers of employees, says TradeStone CEO Sue Welch. The software's flexibility when it comes to language is another way to ensure suppliers understand what's expected of them: Users can easily configure screens and vocabulary to reflect their preferences.
TradeStone also monitors other types of compliance checkpoints from the design and bid stages all the way through to final delivery. At appropriate points in the product's lifecycle, the software asks suppliers to confirm and verify that they have received required certifications, performed testing (such as Underwriters Laboratories' tests for electrical items), complied with security and customs regulations, fulfilled social responsibility mandates regarding labor and the environment, and met similar buyer-imposed requirements. The process is configured in such a way that the product cannot move on to the next step until complete information has been submitted, Welch says. Furthermore, if there is any deviation from expectations, the system alerts the buyer and identifies any changes in cost, specs, and other requirements that may result."At each point, the system looks for the responsible party to confirm which actions have been done, and if a new date, cost, or classification is needed, it notifies everybody involved," she explains.
Automation is an integral part of the picture for users of the Supplier Management service offered by UPS Supply Chain Solutions, but face-to-face communication and follow-up is the program's hallmark. Supplier Management monitors vendors' compliance with purchase orders,manufacturing, distribution, documentation, and customs clearance requirements. "We act as our clients' eyes and ears all over the world," says Director of Supplier Management Tom Boike. "We take an order's 'temperature,' making personal contact and verifying that it's on time, that quantity and quality are correct, and so forth."
UPS begins the process by sitting down with the importer and small groups of its suppliers to discuss the client's expectations and what UPS's role will be. UPS receives a purchase order at the same time the supplier does; local staff assigned to that account follow the order's adherence to the client's rules using a combination of automated monitoring and personal communication with the factory and logistics service providers. The supplier and the importer also can arrange "events" such as shipment bookings and quality inspections through UPS's proprietary visibility system. If there is a problem, UPS notifies the appropriate parties and works with the supplier to come up with a solution.
Although personal contact and careful application of technology are the main drivers of a compliance program's success, many importers wisely do not rely on friendly persuasion or technology alone. IBM, Hewlett-Packard, Intel, and others write specific compliance mandates into suppliers' contracts to give them the power of law. But UPS may have built the ultimate compliance incentive into its system: "We act as the trigger for payment," Boike explains. "We don't control the money, but we control the documents that enable the supplier to get the money—and they don't get paid if they don't comply."
prevention is still the best medicine
Perhaps the best advice for importers who want to ensure that their suppliers toe the line is to do everything possible to prevent problems from happening, says Ken Koenemann, practice leader for TBM Consulting Group's Lean Value Chain Practice and an expert in offshoring. And that's essentially what the following suggestions are all about. They may seem fairly basic or even obvious in some cases, he says, but these preventive measures are often overlooked by companies that are more focused on cheap labor than on the potential consequences of their actions.
Use key metrics and a scorecard system to monitor compliance. Setting up a system for tracking metrics much as you would do in your home-based operation will allow you to assess your offshore suppliers' processes at a glance and will provide early warning when something is about to go wrong.
Communicate regularly and clearly with your offshore suppliers, and be prepared to follow up. Making periodic visits to suppliers' sites will help you find and solve problems before they affect your ability to profitably meet your own customers' requirements.
Lay out terms for agreements and partnerships in contractual form. Don't assume that your offshore manufacturer understands what you want—put your expectations and agreements in writing. Specify exactly what you want with respect to quality, cost, delivery, and services, and make sure you do it in clear, unambiguous language.
Perform due diligence on your offshore suppliers. Find out the facts about their capabilities in such areas as product design, engineering, transportation management, and supply chain technology. It's up to you to do the necessary research to ensure you're getting what you expect—and that you're doing business with a company that can fulfill those expectations.
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."