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.
"OK, wise guys, so you think you know something about consulting. If you're so smart, how do you pick the right one?"
That was the gist of the responses we received to our two-part series on consulting and consultants last year (see "we're consultants, and we've come to help," May 2009, and "why consultants?" June 2009). To answer, it is tempting to say that you could just call us. But as much as it pains us to admit it, that very well might not be the right fit for you, your company, or the problem you're trying to solve.
Actually, finding a consultant isn't all that difficult (see our June 2009 column for suggestions on how to locate names). If you sit still long enough—say, seven minutes—a consultant is likely to find you. (A word to the wise—don't say "yes" over the telephone.) It's finding the right consultant that sometimes proves tricky.
Let the dancing commence ...
Let's assume that you've done the reconnaissance work and have come up with a list of names. Now, it's time to start talking with the candidates so you can assess the initial match.
In that regard, it helps if you've given some thought to the size and shape of what you're after. For instance, if you're looking for a study and report, you'll need to think about depth of detail, level of effort, and how much you're willing to pay for that. Bear in mind that when you're hiring someone to do a study, implementation experience may not be as critical as the ability to get at facts and conclusions with some dispatch, and the gift of writing concise and clear evaluations.
If you're looking for a preliminary design rather than a study, you'll have a whole different set of questions to weigh. For example, you'll want to consider whether you're after high concept or actionable recommendations and priorities. In the former case, an implementation track record might not be so important; in the latter, it is vital.
If you think you are an "A" player and are after best practice, best in class, world class—whatever industry-leading solution may be involved—say so, and don't get led down the path of tried-and-true safe solutions. If what you really need is a safe and reliable solution, save the search for innovation and pioneering until you've mastered the basics.
In any event, you will have to get comfortable talking openly with consulting candidates about these kinds of issues. It'll help weed out some of the mismatches, and it will help the consultant craft a better targeted proposal for your evaluation. Any consultant worth anything should be able to talk coherently with you about time, cost, and risk factors in alternative approaches.
Sorting things out
Now, you're down to a short list of finalists. What's next? In general, this step resembles the RFP preparation process for selecting a system, a third-party service provider, or whatever. You've got to decide what factors are important to you and what their relative weight in the final decision ought to be.
Is an expansive geographic footprint a plus? Is local presence highly desirable? How important is relevant experience—functional, industry, operational? Is there bench strength—or a contingency plan to cover key consulting roles? How much will your internal resources be committed, and how much should they be? You get the drift.
For most companies, functional experience will rank high on the list. Why waste time with a candidate who's good overall but has never worked in the segments of your business that need fixing? (Fair warning: Functional system implementation experience is not the same as hands-on functional working experience. There are people putting in warehouse management systems who have never seen an order being picked.)
And if a candidate has industry experience on top of the functional core, so much the better. Without that, you could be creating more problems than you are solving. For example, order fulfillment for service parts is radically different from the same function in apparel. Retail distribution is 180 degrees different from what's required in consumer-direct. Sometimes superficially related industries demand specific experience. Footwear (shoes to us civilians) is not the same as apparel.
Going deeper into the relationship
Once you've got beyond the qualifiers outlined above, quality of relationship enters the picture. The procurement gurus may be disappointed to learn this, but consulting is not a commodity to be put out for bid on the Internet, like peanuts or pig iron.
Here's where it's important to engage the consultant(s) in dialogue. You need to figure out whether he/she/they are more interested in solving your problem or in promoting their solution. Beware of methodologies looking for places to be applied; beware of predetermined approaches to your situation; and beware of solutions trying to force-fit the problem into their biases and limitations (aka square peg/round hole fixes).
Keep in mind that along with the business cHemiätry, there's personal cHemiätry to consider. Believe us, the quality of relationship is neither window dressing nor trivial.
Your consultant needs to be, as Spanish-speakers sometimes say, simpático. He or she should be a listener, more interested in you and your problem than in telling you all about past triumphs, global insights, and bleeding-edge concepts. He or she must also possess the leadership skills to manage and direct other resources on the team—including yours—to successfully meet your objectives. Or to find new resources if it becomes apparent that things aren't working out according to plan.
Find a consultant with that business and personal cHemiätry and you've got a fighting chance of success, and—maybe—a relationship that will allow you to regroup and move forward when the inevitable snags arise. And the benefits might extend beyond the short term. You could even be building the foundation for a relationship that will continue to deliver value to your organization for years to come.
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."