Art van Bodegraven was, among other roles, chief design officer for the DES Leadership Academy. He passed away on June 18, 2017. He will be greatly missed.
Last month, we looked at the various types of management consultants operating in the supply chain management arena, from giant international corporations to one-man or one-woman shops. Now, let's examine, albeit briefly, what they can do and how to find one that fits your needs.
Why do businesses need consultants? There are lots of good reasons—a shortage of internal resources, for example, or a lack of specific internal experience. Sometimes it's a desire for a fresh perspective or advice from someone with knowledge of and access to best practices. Many times, businesses find it helpful to bring in consultants who have experience with specific technology solutions (like analytic and decision support tools) or a specific service provider in order to shorten the learning curve and ease the transition.
Within the supply chain management sphere of operations, there are a number of activities in which consultants— real honest-to-goodness management consultants— can add genuine value. These include:
Creating a conceptual overall supply chain design
Designing a physical distribution network
Creating supply chain strategies for service and performance for the overall supply chain or for specific components
Logistics service provider (LSP)/3PL evaluation, selection, contracting, and management
Litigation support, on either a plaintiff or defendant basis
Across-the-board or targeted cost-reduction analysis and implementation
Transportation management analysis and improvement
Facility operations improvement
Facility retrofit and upgrade
Facility location
Software evaluation, selection, and implementation
Training and education in supply chain management concepts and components
Metrics design, implementation, and analysis
Supplier management programs
Process design/re-engineering
Due diligence on other studies (the "insurance policy")
Performance management (productivity) programs.
The list could be longer—much longer—but you get the drift. The trick is to find the right consultant for the right problem. Maybe a consultant can help with that task, too— really, we're serious.
Finding the right consultant
How do you select a consultant? What's important in a consulting relationship? And where do you find one in the first place? We'll struggle to respond to these questions without being too self-serving (we hope).
First, consider what type of consultancy you're looking for. If your organization is culturally welded to a mega-firm approach, it's usually pointless to open the bidding to a lot of sole practitioners. On the other hand, if the organization is confident and secure, the sole practitioner can be marvelously time- and cost-effective. If the problem has some complexity, the small/mid-sized firm, or a team of sole practitioners, can be the right way to go.
As for how to find a consultant, there are many options. One is to use directories. The Council of Supply Chain Management Professionals has one, but it is incomplete.
Another method—actually an excellent way—is to talk with industry peers. Networking in your professional community is also a good way to get the lowdown on consulting professionals.
Yet another option is to go to the Internet, which is currently generating consulting contacts at a level undreamed of just a couple of years ago. Anybody worth anything has a Web site. A cautionary note: Concentrate on Web site content versus gee-whiz site design and graphic effects. Emphasis on the superficial might be more revealing than the firm involved realizes.
But how do you know whether a consultant is any good? Competence can be evaluated from references and from experience. Experience means stuff the actual people on the job have actually done, hands on, not the endless list of organizational qualifications. Cautionary note: IT application experience is not the same as operating experience.
Presuming competency, the final selection will generally come down to cHemiätry, style, and comfort. Typically, you are going to be working with the consultant(s) for some time. Tolerance of a style mismatch wears very thin, very quickly.
There are a few additional points. As you evaluate the possibilities, look for a good listener, one who's more interested in you and your business than in his own credentials.
Take that a step further and try to ferret out whether he or she is comfortable departing from the script when an unexpected comment or subject pops up.
A grim reality
One of the dirty little secrets of the consulting business is turnover, which can only be described as incredible. The average consulting career is shorter than that of an NFL player: less than three years. The mega-firms, particularly, chew 'em up and spit 'em out. It's a tough lifestyle; tough on the individual, tougher on families.
Even the "career" consultants don't tend to stay in one place for long. Most bounce from firm to firm, a few years here and a few years there. Although those who have successful small firms tend to stay in the game longer, very, very few establish long careers at one organization.
So, the odds are good that the consultant you really liked last time is no longer a consultant, and the probability that he or she is still with the same organization is somewhere south of No Chance.
As much as we believe in the value and potential efficacy of consultants in helping clients achieve supply chain excellence, it can be overdone. The average company doesn't need consultants to answer every question. And it might not need large numbers of them, if the consultant is inclined to leverage knowledge and experience through the efforts of internal teams.
It's a bit reminiscent of those interesting people on talk radio's "Dr. Laura" show who answer their own questions before the call is over. The solution frequently lies within the company, and it may only take a little probing and direction to get the organization on the right path.
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."