Ron Hounsell is director of logistics services for Cadre Technologies, a Denver-based developer of fulfillment systems. He provides the company with analytical, consulting and project management services.
Kelley and Hounsell are authors of the book Warehouse Productivity, a detailed description of Simplified Gainsharing (for information visit www.distributiongroup.com and www.gainshares.com).
If ever a buzzword has caught on with the business world, it's "lean." In the past few years, executives and managers have been eager to apply the basic principles of lean—the elimination of waste and the increase in speed and flow—to all of their processes, including distribution and logistics.
What they sometimes overlook, however, is that it's people who execute all of those processes. And if they don't apply the same lean principles to managing their workforce, managers are missing a huge opportunity. Labor and benefit costs represent the single largest operating expense for any DC. By taking steps to create a lean workforce—one that uses the fewest possible associates to handle the required throughput—managers can generate significant savings for any operation.
But how do you apply lean principles to labor management? Contrary to what you might think, it's not necessarily a matter of engineering work processes to the nth degree. Rather, it's about motivating people to take charge of their own performance and use their ingenuity to find ways to eliminate wasted time and motion.
Unlike, say, factories, where machines control much of the production process, distribution centers rely heavily on what we term "blue-collar decision making." Workers are left to make tens of thousands of minor decisions on their own each day: They create pick paths, for example, and choose how many pallets to haul per trip. And they have significant influence over their own work output, typically calibrating their speed to ensure that they precisely hit (as distinct from exceeding) productivity and efficiency standards. The idea, therefore, is to give them incentives to abandon their old habits and devise ways to kick performance up a notch.
Motivating your workforce to achieve higher performance may not be easy, but it can be done. The key is to rethink your whole rewards system and make workers part of an entrepreneurial culture.
For many executives, this effort will require a radical shift in how they think about labor management. Most systems for managing an hourly workforce, lean or otherwise, do not view workers as capable of achieving major, self-directed productivity gains. What we are proposing flies in the face of that assumption. In fact, the steps laid out in this article are aimed at encouraging hourly workers to produce significant improvements by tapping their innate creativity
It's important to note that what we're advocating here is not another application of manufacturing's Lean Six Sigma concepts. Instead, we're talking about applying lean strategies to the often overlooked but important arena of labor. And these strategies are not just for DCs that already have lean initiatives in place. We believe that any DC can benefit from these practices.
It's about time
The first thing that managers have to understand is that they and their subordinates are likely to have radically different perceptions of the length of the workday. For the executives who fly from one meeting to the next while fielding a steady stream of voice-mail and e-mail messages, the hours typically pass by in a blur of activity. For the hourly workers who punch a time clock, however, the workday tends to drag on in unrelenting tedium.
Why the disparity? It's largely a matter of motivation. Time speeds by for you because you understand that the more you accomplish, the more successful (and prosperous) you'll become. Your workers, on the other hand, probably have little—if any—incentive to exert themselves. Whether they push themselves to the limits of their capacity or do just enough to get by, the rewards are the same.
The result is oftentimes unmotivated—or even disengaged—workers. A survey published in the January 2002 issue of the Gallup Organization's Gallup Management Journal demonstrated the extent of the problem: 75 percent of the workers surveyed said they knew they could be significantly more effective at work, 50 percent admitted they were doing just enough to get by, and 19 percent reported that they were actively disengaged. That's costing their employers a lot of money. Estimates from the Gallup Organization put the losses incurred by U.S. businesses at somewhere around $300 billion a year.
So how do we bring a sense of exhilaration and motivation to the hourly workforce? One way is to treat every member of our workforce as an entrepreneur. In other words, offer them the same kinds of incentives for outstanding performance that managers enjoy.
The idea of tying earnings to performance is hardly a new one. There are several established incentive programs based on that idea, including piece-rate, profit sharing, and gain-sharing plans. While all of these programs have had some degree of success, they do not appear to be "lean-inducing." The reason? Most incentive programs do not increase pay as performance increases. In other words, there's no incentive for continuous improvement; they all lack that crucial element that motivates employees to continue to seek out ways to eliminate waste and increase speed and flow.
In order to drive lean behavior, a pay-for-performance plan must be structured so that productivity increases always result in higher pay (see Exhibit 1). Incentive bonuses should not be paid out as an annual lump sum; instead, they should be structured as temporary hourly raises where performance in one week or month results in a commensurate hourly pay increase in the next week or month. By re-setting a worker's pay each period based on his or her performance in the last period, you encourage associates to sustain and further improve their performance.
There are a couple of other things to keep in mind as well. For example, when setting up a pay-for-performance program, design incentives for the individual worker, not for groups or teams. If that's not possible and you have to work with teams, at least make sure the teams are small.
By motivating associates to be more productive, you're also encouraging them to work "lean." When associates are as passionate about productivity improvements as their managers are, they'll come up with many ways to eliminate waste in their daily routines. Furthermore, the productivity gains will automatically result in faster distribution center throughput. As workers become more productive over time, it will take a significantly smaller workforce to handle the existing volume. The downsizing can be readily accomplished through normal attrition.
The free-money police
Working out the details of a pay-for-performance plan may not be the hard part, however. The toughest challenge often lies in getting everybody on board—particularly the company accountants. If there's one thing accountants live in fear of, it's the prospect of handing out free money. As the "free-money police" see it, everyone in the organization is constantly angling to get money for nothing, and it's their job to prevent it. As a result, they're predisposed to view pay-for-performance plans with suspicion and do their best to kill them.
To get the finance and accounting people on board, engage them in the plan from the outset. Enlist the help of your accountants, comptroller, and CFO in working out the details.
Although some may find it hard to believe, we have found that it is possible to devise a plan that will satisfy even the strictest of the free-money police. They usually buy into our favorite payout formula, which calls for a two-thirds/onethird split (where two-thirds of the money saved through increased productivity goes to the company and one-third goes to the associate). This formula usually appeases the accountants, while still providing enough of a carrot to motivate your workforce.
We also suggest having someone from accounting (or someone designated by accounting) tabulate all the results and approve the monthly payouts. The bottom line is to make sure you keep the financial people involved throughout the design and implementation process so that they will be comfortable with the plan.
For the same reasons, we recommend that you keep your human resources people involved. Incentive programs typically fall under the HR department's purview, and these specialists may be able to offer solid advice. But more importantly, their endorsement (which you'll secure by enlisting their help in designing the plan) will facilitate the corporation's acceptance of the new program.
Anoint and appoint
Although companies rarely have much trouble reaching a consensus on how to make their processes lean, it's often a different story when it comes to people management and incentive plans. In a typical organization, you're likely to find a wide assortment of disparate—and often strongly held—opinions on the subject. Each and every one of us believes we possess unmatched insight into what motivates other human beings. We simply ask ourselves "What would motivate me?" and then project the answer onto the entire group.
That can be dangerous for a couple of reasons. Not only might it prevent the group from reaching agreement on the plan, but it also tends to invite tinkering. As soon as they see the final product, people often start dissecting the plan and obsessing over the details: Would it motivate us? If not, it's in error and we'd better take care of the problem. This helps explain why many incentive plans die the death of a thousand cuts.
How can you keep that from happening? We recommend the "anoint and appoint" approach—that is, having the CEO anoint the plan and then appoint a high-ranking plan administrator to oversee it. The administrator's job is to ensure that all incentives are applied fairly and equitably, and to prevent unauthorized changes. He or she can do this by decreeing to all business units that any and all changes need to be approved by the plan administrator's office.
Also, to assure companywide adherence, the plan administrator should conduct semi-annual or annual audits. This typically means drawing up a checklist of audit points, then visiting each facility to conduct informal interviews with managers, supervisors, and hourly participants. Deviations can be corrected on site.
A shift in thinking
Clearly, none of this can be accomplished without a shift in managerial thinking. Rather than merely examining a facility's processes for ways to streamline performance, managers must ask themselves how they can motivate workers to abandon old habits, come up with process improvements, put those ideas into practice, and build upon their successes.
There are millions to be made from a company's existing assets, millions of dollars embedded within daily operations. The secret to unlocking those funds is to make your employees as passionate about profits as you are. When you do, they will transform themselves into a lean workforce. They will "lean" themselves by refining and improving upon the thousands of decisions they make each day. And this is our favorite lean process of all.
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."