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.
An old business adage has it that you can't manage what you don't measure. The flip side of that might be, you can manage what you do measure, and, if the results of our annual survey of DC and warehouse metrics are any indication, you're likely to see performance improve as a result.
Trends in metrics use and DC performance were the subject of our sixth annual survey, an online study conducted earlier this year. Jointly sponsored by DC VELOCITY and the Warehousing Education and Research Council (WERC), the study was performed by Karl Manrodt, associate professor of logistics at Georgia Southern University, and Kate Vitasek, managing partner of consultancy Supply Chain Visions.
The 783 individuals participating in the study—with 684 responses actually used—graded the 2008 performance of their DCs and warehouses against 50 key operational metrics. Manrodt and Vitasek analyzed the results by industry, type of operation (pallet picking, partial pallet picking, fullcase picking, or broken-case picking), business strategy, type of customer served, and company size. What they found was that the use of metrics in the nation's DCs is on the rise. They also concluded that the growing use of metrics is leading to higher performance levels at the best companies and, oftentimes, among those trying to catch up.
Still, the researchers did not see performance improvements across the board. In some cases, those playing catch-up have actually fallen further behind the leaders than in the past, according to the survey."The gap continues between the good and the rest," says Vitasek. "For some of the metrics, the gap is actually widening, while some are narrowing."
Overall, Vitasek says she is heartened by the results. "We are seeing steady improvement in the performance of DC and warehousing performance across a wide variety of measures. The entire profession is lifting. When the gap between the median and best-practice companies narrows, that suggests everyone is getting it. It is really wonderful to watch it happen."
Which metrics matter most?
Despite the general upward trend, not all of the news this year was good. For example, the survey found that, when compared with last year's results, performance against some of the metrics deteriorated slightly. Whether that's due to the impact of a weak economy or a change in the survey participant mix from year to year, or whether it's because managers raise the performance bar upon seeing signs of improvement is uncertain, the researchers say.
As for the metrics themselves, the survey results showed that respondents still tended to favor the same basic metrics they've been using since the survey was launched. As in the past, "order picking accuracy" and "on-time shipments" topped the list of the most popular measures. (For a list of the 10 most commonly used metrics, see Exhibit 1.)
Manrodt and Vitasek grouped the metrics into several categories: customer service, operations (both outbound and inbound), financial, capacity and quality, and employee. (The classification is indicated for each of the top 10 metrics listed in Exhibit 1.) What's telling, they say, is that managers appear to rely heavily on operational metrics ("order fill rate," for example) or numbers derived from operational performance (like "order picking accuracy"). Only one of the top 10 metrics, "on time shipments," is a customer-facing measure, they found.
The not-quite-perfect order
That's not to say companies aren't keeping a close eye on customer service, however. The fact is, the majority are indeed tracking their operation's performance against the metrics most commonly associated with the "Perfect Order" and that are used to compute the Perfect Order Index (POI).
The Perfect Order Index is a widely recognized measure that incorporates four critical customer service elements: order completeness, timeliness, condition, and documentation. In other words, to be considered perfect, an order must arrive complete, be delivered on time, arrive free of damage, and be accompanied by the correct invoice and other documentation. To calculate a company's score on the index, you simply take each of the four metrics and multiply them together. For example, a facility that ships 95 percent of its orders complete, 95 percent on time, 95 percent damage-free, and with the correct documentation 95 percent of the time would earn a score of 81.5 percent (0.95 X 0.95 X 0.95 X 0.95).
Exhibit 2 shows the median and best-in-class scores for each of the four POI measures. The researchers chose to use the median score (the exact mid point of the range—the point above which half the values are higher and half lower) rather than the average because it is less likely to be skewed by statistical outliers—very high or very low numbers. "Best in class" is defined here as responses from the top 20 percent of companies— that is, those who are performing best against each of the metrics.
It's important to note that there are other ways to calculate the Perfect Order Index besides the method described above. For example, the Grocery Manufacturers Association and the Food Marketing Institute use a seven-element formula to calculate the Perfect Order Index. (The elements are percentage of cases shipped vs. cases ordered; percentage of on-time deliveries; percentage of data synchronized SKUs; order cycle time; percentage of unsaleables (damaged product); days of supply; and service at the shelf.) As part of their study, the researchers analyzed the survey responses using the GMA/FMI criteria. The results are shown in Exhibit 3. Given the low rates of usage for some of these metrics, however, the researchers urge readers to use the results in this table with caution.
Continuous improvement?
One of the hopes of anyone conducting research over time is that trends will begin to emerge. And when the object of the study is business performance, the hope—if not the expectation—is that those trends will indicate improvement. In the case of this study, the results have largely been what the researchers had hoped—we have seen steady improvement in DC and warehousing performance across a wide variety of measures.
Whether this momentum can be sustained in a dismal economic climate, only time will tell. In the meantime, the researchers invite readers' comments, suggestions, and insights into the research and their own use of measures. They can be reached via the links at the bottom of this page.
about the study
The annual benchmarking study began in 2004 as a collaborative effort between DC VELOCITY and Georgia Southern University. The initial study focused on what metrics DCs were using rather than on how they performed against whatever measures they used. That study found that while there was no single set of universally accepted metrics, most respondents were using metrics from at least one of three broad categories: time-based measures, financial measures, and service quality measures.
In 2005, the Warehousing Education and Research Council and Supply Chain Visions joined the research effort. The survey shifted to a formal benchmarking study designed to provide data not just on what metrics were most widely used in warehouses and DCs, but also on performance against those metrics—data managers could then use to benchmark their own operations. That has remained the focus of the study ever since.
As for the 2009 survey, the respondents came from varying disciplines. Half identified themselves as working in manufacturing, 16 percent in third-party logistics services, 13 percent in retail, and the remainder in life sciences, transportation, and other segments. As for the types of operations represented, 39.7 percent said their operations performed broken-case picking, 27 percent full-case picking, 20.6 percent full-pallet picking, and 11.8 percent partial pallet picking.
The survey respondents also represented companies of various sizes: 31.5 percent said annual company revenues were under $100 million, 39.4 percent came from companies with revenues of $100 million to $1 billion, and the remaining 29.1 percent worked for companies with revenues exceeding $1 billion.
A more extensive report, written by researchers Karl Manrodt and Kate Vitasek, is available through WERC.
A move by federal regulators to reinforce requirements for broker transparency in freight transactions is stirring debate among transportation groups, after the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) published a “notice of proposed rulemaking” this week.
According to FMCSA, its draft rule would strive to make broker transparency more common, requiring greater sharing of the material information necessary for transportation industry parties to make informed business decisions and to support the efficient resolution of disputes.
The proposed rule titled “Transparency in Property Broker Transactions” would address what FMCSA calls the lack of access to information among shippers and motor carriers that can impact the fairness and efficiency of the transportation system, and would reframe broker transparency as a regulatory duty imposed on brokers, with the goal of deterring non-compliance. Specifically, the move would require brokers to keep electronic records, and require brokers to provide transaction records to motor carriers and shippers upon request and within 48 hours of that request.
Under federal regulatory processes, public comments on the move are due by January 21, 2025. However, transportation groups are not waiting on the sidelines to voice their opinions.
According to the Transportation Intermediaries Association (TIA), an industry group representing the third-party logistics (3PL) industry, the potential rule is “misguided overreach” that fails to address the more pressing issue of freight fraud. In TIA’s view, broker transparency regulation is “obsolete and un-American,” and has no place in today’s “highly transparent” marketplace. “This proposal represents a misguided focus on outdated and unnecessary regulations rather than tackling issues that genuinely threaten the safety and efficiency of our nation’s supply chains,” TIA said.
But trucker trade group the Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association (OOIDA) welcomed the proposed rule, which it said would ensure that brokers finally play by the rules. “We appreciate that FMCSA incorporated input from our petition, including a requirement to make records available electronically and emphasizing that brokers have a duty to comply with regulations. As FMCSA noted, broker transparency is necessary for a fair, efficient transportation system, and is especially important to help carriers defend themselves against alleged claims on a shipment,” OOIDA President Todd Spencer said in a statement.
Additional pushback came from the Small Business in Transportation Coalition (SBTC), a network of transportation professionals in small business, which said the potential rule didn’t go far enough. “This is too little too late and is disappointing. It preserves the status quo, which caters to Big Broker & TIA. There is no question now that FMCSA has been captured by Big Broker. Truckers and carriers must now come out in droves and file comments in full force against this starting tomorrow,” SBTC executive director James Lamb said in a LinkedIn post.
Bloomington, Indiana-based FTR said its Trucking Conditions Index declined in September to -2.47 from -1.39 in August as weakness in the principal freight dynamics – freight rates, utilization, and volume – offset lower fuel costs and slightly less unfavorable financing costs.
Those negative numbers are nothing new—the TCI has been positive only twice – in May and June of this year – since April 2022, but the group’s current forecast still envisions consistently positive readings through at least a two-year forecast horizon.
“Aside from a near-term boost mostly related to falling diesel prices, we have not changed our Trucking Conditions Index forecast significantly in the wake of the election,” Avery Vise, FTR’s vice president of trucking, said in a release. “The outlook continues to be more favorable for carriers than what they have experienced for well over two years. Our analysis indicates gradual but steadily rising capacity utilization leading to stronger freight rates in 2025.”
But FTR said its forecast remains unchanged. “Just like everyone else, we’ll be watching closely to see exactly what trade and other economic policies are implemented and over what time frame. Some freight disruptions are likely due to tariffs and other factors, but it is not yet clear that those actions will do more than shift the timing of activity,” Vise said.
The TCI tracks the changes representing five major conditions in the U.S. truck market: freight volumes, freight rates, fleet capacity, fuel prices, and financing costs. Combined into a single index indicating the industry’s overall health, a positive score represents good, optimistic conditions while a negative score shows the inverse.
Specifically, the new global average robot density has reached a record 162 units per 10,000 employees in 2023, which is more than double the mark of 74 units measured seven years ago.
Broken into geographical regions, the European Union has a robot density of 219 units per 10,000 employees, an increase of 5.2%, with Germany, Sweden, Denmark and Slovenia in the global top ten. Next, North America’s robot density is 197 units per 10,000 employees – up 4.2%. And Asia has a robot density of 182 units per 10,000 persons employed in manufacturing - an increase of 7.6%. The economies of Korea, Singapore, mainland China and Japan are among the top ten most automated countries.
Broken into individual countries, the U.S. ranked in 10th place in 2023, with a robot density of 295 units. Higher up on the list, the top five are:
The Republic of Korea, with 1,012 robot units, showing a 5% increase on average each year since 2018 thanks to its strong electronics and automotive industries.
Singapore had 770 robot units, in part because it is a small country with a very low number of employees in the manufacturing industry, so it can reach a high robot density with a relatively small operational stock.
China took third place in 2023, surpassing Germany and Japan with a mark of 470 robot units as the nation has managed to double its robot density within four years.
Germany ranks fourth with 429 robot units for a 5% CAGR since 2018.
Japan is in fifth place with 419 robot units, showing growth of 7% on average each year from 2018 to 2023.
Progress in generative AI (GenAI) is poised to impact business procurement processes through advancements in three areas—agentic reasoning, multimodality, and AI agents—according to Gartner Inc.
Those functions will redefine how procurement operates and significantly impact the agendas of chief procurement officers (CPOs). And 72% of procurement leaders are already prioritizing the integration of GenAI into their strategies, thus highlighting the recognition of its potential to drive significant improvements in efficiency and effectiveness, Gartner found in a survey conducted in July, 2024, with 258 global respondents.
Gartner defined the new functions as follows:
Agentic reasoning in GenAI allows for advanced decision-making processes that mimic human-like cognition. This capability will enable procurement functions to leverage GenAI to analyze complex scenarios and make informed decisions with greater accuracy and speed.
Multimodality refers to the ability of GenAI to process and integrate multiple forms of data, such as text, images, and audio. This will make GenAI more intuitively consumable to users and enhance procurement's ability to gather and analyze diverse information sources, leading to more comprehensive insights and better-informed strategies.
AI agents are autonomous systems that can perform tasks and make decisions on behalf of human operators. In procurement, these agents will automate procurement tasks and activities, freeing up human resources to focus on strategic initiatives, complex problem-solving and edge cases.
As CPOs look to maximize the value of GenAI in procurement, the study recommended three starting points: double down on data governance, develop and incorporate privacy standards into contracts, and increase procurement thresholds.
“These advancements will usher procurement into an era where the distance between ideas, insights, and actions will shorten rapidly,” Ryan Polk, senior director analyst in Gartner’s Supply Chain practice, said in a release. "Procurement leaders who build their foundation now through a focus on data quality, privacy and risk management have the potential to reap new levels of productivity and strategic value from the technology."
Businesses are cautiously optimistic as peak holiday shipping season draws near, with many anticipating year-over-year sales increases as they continue to battle challenging supply chain conditions.
That’s according to the DHL 2024 Peak Season Shipping Survey, released today by express shipping service provider DHL Express U.S. The company surveyed small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) to gauge their holiday business outlook compared to last year and found that a mix of optimism and “strategic caution” prevail ahead of this year’s peak.
Nearly half (48%) of the SMEs surveyed said they expect higher holiday sales compared to 2023, while 44% said they expect sales to remain on par with last year, and just 8% said they foresee a decline. Respondents said the main challenges to hitting those goals are supply chain problems (35%), inflation and fluctuating consumer demand (34%), staffing (16%), and inventory challenges (14%).
But respondents said they have strategies in place to tackle those issues. Many said they began preparing for holiday season earlier this year—with 45% saying they started planning in Q2 or earlier, up from 39% last year. Other strategies include expanding into international markets (35%) and leveraging holiday discounts (32%).
Sixty percent of respondents said they will prioritize personalized customer service as a way to enhance customer interactions and loyalty this year. Still others said they will invest in enhanced web and mobile experiences (23%) and eco-friendly practices (13%) to draw customers this holiday season.