If your lift truck fleet is typical, you probably have too many vehicles and bigger trucks than you really need, say the experts. A fleet audit can help you find ways to trim the fat.
Peter Bradley is an award-winning career journalist with more than three decades of experience in both newspapers and national business magazines. His credentials include seven years as the transportation and supply chain editor at Purchasing Magazine and six years as the chief editor of Logistics Management.
With peak season around the corner, a supervisor puts in a call for several
lift truck rentals. The trucks arrive and are immediately put to use. After the busy season, the
supervisor leaves the company for another job. But the rented trucks stay in the fleet for weeks,
maybe months, and the rents continue to mount. No one in the operation seems aware that the
rented vehicles are not part of the regular mix of leased and owned vehicles. Supervisors authorize
payments for maintenance. And accounts payable routinely sends a check to the rental company
and never bothers to ask why the DC still has the equipment.
Sound far-fetched? Fleet management specialists say stories like that are more common than
you might think. With DC managers focused first on moving product, fleet productivity and efficiency
can easily become secondary issues.
But with the current intense pressure to reduce costs in a poor economy, now may be a good
time to take a close look at the lift truck fleet to determine if you have the right equipment in the
right place at the right price. And, indeed, fleet management specialists say they've seen renewed
interest in fleet optimization from customers.
"More so than ever," says Scot Aitcheson, vice president of sales and marketing for Yale Materials
Handling Corp. "Customers were not necessarily focused on fleet management a year or two ago.
Now, if there is a possibility to save a penny, they are looking for that."
"Capital expenditures are pretty tight right now, so businesses are going to focus on keeping
their trucks going as long as possible," adds Joe LaFergola, manager of fleet operations for
Raymond Corp. "It is important to have a sound model for understanding whether it is [more cost
effective] to keep a truck or replace it."
Details, details
Implementing a fleet management program can provide savings in any financial environment, says
Mike McKean, manager of fleet management sales and marketing for Toyota Material Handling,
U.S.A. But potential cost-savings come into much sharper focus in a slow economy. The question
is how to find those opportunities.
DC managers can start the process of analyzing their fleets on their own, particularly in small or single-site operations. For bigger operations, it's a bit trickier. But there are places they can turn for help. Most lift truck OEMs offer fleet management services in addition to their equipment lines. Independent fleet management companies also provide services that include fleet evaluations.
These companies offer a number of suggestions on how to proceed with evaluating the current fleet, implementing changes to it, and then keeping the fleet fine tuned. For example, John Russian, manager of fleet marketing for Hyster Co., says his company suggests a five-step process that begins with a survey of current operations, followed by analysis, proposing changes, implementation, and monitoring results.
The first step sounds simple enough, but taking a vehicle count can actually be somewhat complicated for companies with large fleets across multiple locations. Jason Bratton, vice president of business development for BEB Fleet Source Group, which helps clients evaluate their fleets and implement fleet management strategies, says that in order to get an accurate tally, his company literally counts the vehicles in a facility and then works with the customer's dealer to see what's on the books.
Russian says that along with determining the number of trucks in use, the equipment audit should include a detailed accounting of the vehicles' age, operating hours, make and model, and aftermarket attachments. Other questions to ask include: What equipment is owned, what is leased, what is rented? What has existing warranties? What equipment is fully depreciated?
Critical, too, is information on the number of operators and the configuration of the facility. And changes made in the layout of the facility need to be understood. Does it have more narrow aisles, for instance, or raised racks?
Russian also recommends gathering the maintenance history for each truck in the fleet. "The customer may have a total, but not get granular," he says. "We need a good understanding of what is being spent on a specific truck."
The initial survey should also include a careful look at how vehicles in the fleet are actually being used. To help gather the necessary data, several companies have developed remote monitoring systems that automatically collect, transmit, and analyze data about vehicle performance and productivity. Crown Equipment Corp., for instance, offers a wireless fleet management system that captures a variety of operational data from meters installed on the trucks. Matt Ranly, Crown's senior marketing product manager, says the system provides detailed information on how each truck is being used. "It feeds that data back to the warehouse manager so he can make good decisions about equipment."
The results of these studies sometimes contain surprises. Aitcheson of Yale tells of one customer, a manufacturer, that was using one lift truck as a lift table. You may find multiple trucks assigned to tasks where one would do, or trucks that are idle much of the time. And a careful survey may expose other facility issues. For instance, a search for the root cause of high tire expenditures might reveal flooring or dock or drain problems that require attention.
Aitcheson notes that it's important to allow several weeks for the monitoring process. He suggests conducting an evaluation over a 30- or 60-day period to get an accurate picture of fleet operations.
Analyze this
It's not enough to just collect operating data; you have to analyze it as well. That can be done a number of ways. For example, Raymond's approach to analyzing fleet utilization is to look at deadman hours per day. A "deadman" is a safety device on all modern lift trucks that must be engaged by the operator for the vehicle to operate. It might be the pedal in a lift truck or a handle on a pallet jack. "When the deadman is engaged, the vehicle is doing work," LaFergola says. "In an eight-hour shift, that can be anywhere from two to five hours."
Bratton says that his company uses the results of its fleet surveys to calculate each truck's cost per operational hour— including maintenance costs. "We need to get the information for a set period of time," Bratton says. BEB has developed analytical software to help derive the cost per hour for each piece of equipment in a customer's operations.
Hyster concentrates on usage patterns. "We look at the inventory summary, the department summary and we get to the granular level," says Russian. "Are trucks used in shipping or receiving? Are they used in freezer applications? Are they used in production? We look for redeployment or retirement opportunities. We look for short-term rentals being used for longterm use, which is not advantageous."
That may sound like a lot of work, but the payoff can be big. Bratton reports that in his experience, fleet utilization analyses almost invariably reveal savings opportunities. "In almost every case, we find there is too much equipment," he says. And often, the trucks in the fleet are bigger than they need to be. That happens as DC operations change over time, he explains. "DCs often buy a forklift that's just like the old forklift, but the job has changed."
What's it all mean?
With detailed information on the existing fleet in hand, the next step is to determine what the fleet should look like and how to get there. Part of that process is deciding what equipment needs to be replaced and establishing a schedule for that. Bratton advises fleet managers to determine a metric for cost per operating hour specific to their own operation to help guide future equipment replacement decisions. The goal, he says, is to develop a plan to ensure that the fleet is operating at the lowest possible cost with the highest possible equipment utilization.
As for what the optimal cost might be, Bratton says there is no "magic cost per hour." The nature of an operation, the condition of the facility, and other factors create great variability.
LaFergola agrees that the type of operation has a big effect on the cost per deadman hour. "Grocery operations will be higher than pharmaceuticals," he says. "Pharma operations are clean, they have an immaculate product, and the product is light. Grocery products are heavy, the warehouses are not as clean and the floors are not as smooth, and throughput is running full bore, so the cost per hour is going to be higher."
The end result of the analysis should be a comprehensive plan that includes details on retiring and replacing lift trucks in the fleet. In some cases, Russian adds, the plan might also call for redeploying trucks. "The best use may not be in that given facility," he explains.
Put it to work
Once a plan has been drawn up, the all-important implementation stage follows. "The customer can begin right sizing the fleet based on the operation and any finance options that may be available," says Russian. For example, one fleet manager may choose to outsource maintenance at a fixed monthly cost, while another may opt to have maintenance billed on an hourly usage basis, and a third may elect to handle maintenance in house. Each of those has cost implications that must be clear at the outset. And the decision must fit with the DC management's comfort level.
A thorough fleet evaluation, development of a plan for change, and implementing that plan can take several months. And the plan could have some upfront costs of its own for such things as fleet management software or electronics to keep detailed records on truck use.
Implementation steps may also be limited by financial factors, such as time remaining on the leased vehicles' contracts or depreciation remaining on owned vehicles. And it requires a commitment by management at all levels. "The key piece to that is the customer actively responding to recommendations," says Aitcheson. "That can be very difficult." Often, he says, managers have grown accustomed to having more backup equipment available than is strictly necessary. So implementing a successful program may require a shift in attitudes as well—likely driven by executive management insistence.
Still, the rewards can be substantial. Aitcheson estimates that customers on average save about 15 percent on overall fleet costs within the first year. And that should be just the beginning.
All of the fleet management specialists interviewed for this article stress that fleet managers have to build into their operations a way to perpetually evaluate and improve their fleets. "You can get the fleet right sized, then it can get fat over time," says McKean. "What are you going to do to retain, retire, and redeploy equipment on a consistent basis?"
The ongoing monitoring should include regular tracking of truck utilization, maintenance costs, and operational issues such as lift truck accidents and their causes. "It is important to have the tools to segment where the money is going—tire expenses, rack damages, and so on—to make intelligent decisions," Russian says.
Aitcheson adds that nowadays, fleet managers can obtain reports that break down spending by facility, by vehicle, even by specific components. Managers can also get reports that compare facilities or that break out top component issues or damage issues, he says. "That's where fleet management really takes off."
Ongoing improvements are the key to long-term gains, Aitcheson says. And long-term gains are what smart managers should be aiming for. "Everyone is tightening their belt this year," he says. "But you want benefits for the next three, five, seven years."
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 they pass the remaining requirements 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."
Global trade will see a moderate rebound in 2025, likely growing by 3.6% in volume terms, helped by companies restocking and households renewing purchases of durable goods while reducing spending on services, according to a forecast from trade credit insurer Allianz Trade.
The end of the year for 2024 will also likely be supported by companies rushing to ship goods in anticipation of the higher tariffs likely to be imposed by the coming Trump administration, and other potential disruptions in the coming quarters, the report said.
However, that tailwind for global trade will likely shift to a headwind once the effects of a renewed but contained trade war are felt from the second half of 2025 and in full in 2026. As a result, Allianz Trade has throttled back its predictions, saying that global trade in volume will grow by 2.8% in 2025 (reduced by 0.2 percentage points vs. its previous forecast) and 2.3% in 2026 (reduced by 0.5 percentage points).
The same logic applies to Allianz Trade’s forecast for export prices in U.S. dollars, which the firm has now revised downward to predict growth reaching 2.3% in 2025 (reduced by 1.7 percentage points) and 4.1% in 2026 (reduced by 0.8 percentage points).
In the meantime, the rush to frontload imports into the U.S. is giving freight carriers an early Christmas present. According to Allianz Trade, data released last week showed Chinese exports rising by a robust 6.7% y/y in November. And imports of some consumer goods that have been threatened with a likely 25% tariff under the new Trump administration have outperformed even more, growing by nearly 20% y/y on average between July and September.