David Maloney has been a journalist for more than 35 years and is currently the group editorial director for DC Velocity and Supply Chain Quarterly magazines. In this role, he is responsible for the editorial content of both brands of Agile Business Media. Dave joined DC Velocity in April of 2004. Prior to that, he was a senior editor for Modern Materials Handling magazine. Dave also has extensive experience as a broadcast journalist. Before writing for supply chain publications, he was a journalist, television producer and director in Pittsburgh. Dave combines a background of reporting on logistics with his video production experience to bring new opportunities to DC Velocity readers, including web videos highlighting top distribution and logistics facilities, webcasts and other cross-media projects. He continues to live and work in the Pittsburgh area.
Maybe you're just not able to get orders out the door as fast as you used to. Or your operating costs have been creeping up and you're running into delivery delays. Or you've noticed workers resorting to manual processes or work-arounds for tasks that were supposed to be fully automated.
All of these can be signs that something's amiss with the software that drives your distribution and transportation operations. Over time, even the best designed system can become a drag on performance if it's not kept up to date and modified as the user's needs change.
Although the advantages of regular software tune-ups might seem obvious, companies sometimes shy away from the idea because they're afraid the fixes will be expensive. But that's a misconception, software specialists say. Bringing an underperforming system back up to speed doesn't always require a major upgrade or a costly replacement. In many instances, all that's needed is a tune-up. "There is low-hanging fruit that does not require a full upgrade," says Jeff Mueller, vice president of Sedlak Management Consultants, which conducts software evaluations for distribution and supply chain operations.
In some cases, the fix turns out to be as simple as a few minor tweaks to the system. In others, it's as easy as adding one or more modules to the core system (say, a module for labor management, inventory optimization, slotting, or electronic data interchange). The user may not even have to buy the module (or modules) it needs. Software vendors say it's not uncommon to find that a client already owns the required programs but has never gotten around to implementing them.
"Our customers, for instance, use only about 30 percent of a software system's capabilities," says Mike Dunn, group vice president of sales for Fortna, another consulting and design firm. What often happens, he says, is that clients opt for a phased-in approach when they go to install new software. That is, rather than implement all of the modules at once, they decide to tackle the project in stages in order to minimize disruption. Trouble is, they never move on to the second and third phases. The modules end up gathering dust until a problem arises.
Trigger points
So how do you know when your software needs a tune-up? In many cases, the signs are obvious. For instance, with enterprise-level software, a big tip-off is rising operational costs (or costs that are out of line with expected norms). But performance problems aren't the only indicator that a software checkup is in order. You'll also want to re-evaluate the system if your company has recently made major structural changes to its operations —such as acquiring competitors, opening new distribution centers, or consolidating operations.
In the distribution end of the operation, indicators that your software might require some attention include lengthy order turnaround times, excessive touch points within a distribution center, and spiraling costs. Other warning signs are excessive travel times within a facility, difficulty locating products, and a disproportionate amount of paper-based processing. (See sidebar for a list of signs that your warehouse management system (WMS) might need a tune-up.)
When it comes to transportation operations, red flags include operational delays, a high percentage of empty backhauls, rising costs, and less-than-optimal vehicle cubing. These types of problems typically arise when a company changes its business strategy without making appropriate adjustments to its TMS —for instance, a supplier whose focus has shifted to online sales but continues to use software designed for LTL —rather than parcel —shippers. For that reason, the experts advise users to re-evaluate their software whenever the company introduces a process change that affects transportation.
Where to go for help
Let's say you've examined your software and found it wanting. Where can you turn for help? A good place to start is with the company that either supplied or implemented the software in the first place. These types of specialists have the experience to conduct an evaluation of the client's software usage and recommend improvements.
Some software vendors include evaluation and update services as part of their ongoing maintenance contracts. One such supplier is itelligence Inc., which provides implementation and support services to users of SAP solutions. "We take an active part with our SAP maintenance customers to keep them up to date and informed of what is new with the software. We do it proactively," says Stefan Hoffmann, the company's industry solution manager.
Another option is to bring in an outside specialist. Typically, these companies come in and review the client's operations and then develop a list of 10 to 20 recommendations for boosting the system's effectiveness. The client can then start with the easiest fixes and move on to the others as time and budgets permit.
"It helps to have some level of evaluation from the outside," notes Sedlak's Mueller. "It brings another perspective, outside thoughts, and ideas."
Regardless of who provides the support, Dunn of Fortna cautions software users not to let too much time elapse between checkups. "Tune-ups are critical for getting optimization out of the software, and they are not done nearly often enough," he says.
As for the optimal service interval, Dunn recommends annual software assessments. If a company waits too long to make necessary changes or has major needs that aren't being addressed, the situation may eventually reach a point where a tune-up is not enough, he explains. The company might have no choice but to invest in an upgrade or install a new system altogether.
Software only goes so far
As effective as software modifications can be, sometimes they're simply not enough to provide the desired result. In these cases, adjustments to the material handling systems or other processes may be needed to gain additional functionality.
"Software may get us 80 percent of where we want to be, but it might take changing the processes to get the rest," says Mueller. "But it always starts with evaluating where you want those processes to be and then making the software work for that."
Of course, this assumes the software has the capacity to accommodate changes in the first place. That's where the initial software selection comes in. To ensure their long-term needs are met, the experts advise users to pick systems that are flexible and will allow them to add functionality as their business grows.
"More and more, deciding on a software system can be a 10- to 15-year decision. It helps to choose software that can provide new functionality as it is introduced to the market," says Hoffmann.
Your WMS may need a tune-up if ...
... your business has changed and the new flow of goods calls for new processing methods.
... you're not familiar with many of the WMS's features.
... you suspect additional modules or bolt-on applications would provide further optimization opportunities, but you're not sure.
... you feel your order fulfillment operations require too much travel time or too many product touches.
... your operators rely heavily on spreadsheets or perform several system look-ups prior to completing a transaction.
... you're still picking orders in sequence even though you believe batching orders by type or characteristics would maximize throughput.
... your warehouse layout/flow hasn't changed in the last 10 years even though your business has undergone major changes—like a shift to e-commerce or the addition of a wholesale channel.
... your workers resort to a lot of manual processes or work-arounds for operations that should be systemically driven.
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."