Survey: Forklift fleet management programs still a work in progress
Our exclusive survey shows that lift truck fleet managers are making a stab at gathering performance data on their vehicles. But they're not always making good use of the info they collect.
James Cooke is a principal analyst with Nucleus Research in Boston, covering supply chain planning software. He was previously the editor of CSCMP?s Supply Chain Quarterly and a staff writer for DC Velocity.
This fall, hardware distributor Emery-Waterhouse plans to abandon paper-record keeping on the forklifts at its Portland, Maine, warehouse in favor of outfitting the trucks with electronic data recorders. The reason? The distributor wants to take a more scientific approach to vehicle replacement in its fleet of 20 or so electric forklifts. "The data recorders will give us statistics on usage and engine performance," says Mark Maloney, Emery-Waterhouse's director of operations. "The software will tell us when the cost per usage is rising and you should replace the truck."
While the benefits of a data-driven approach might seem obvious, it turns out that Emery-Waterhouse is more the exception than the rule when it comes to the way it manages its fleet. A recent DC Velocity reader survey found that only a quarter of the respondents have adopted a formal fleet management program. Formal fleet management programs typically track key data, such as hours of use and repair records, for each vehicle in a fleet. This information allows managers to optimize truck usage and to determine the economic tipping point at which it becomes more cost effective to buy a new truck than repair the old one.
The respondents' go-slow approach runs counter to the advice of lift-truck dealers and independent third parties, both of which advocate the use of fleet management programs. With a formal fleet management program, they contend, users have immediate access to detailed data on all of the vehicles they oversee. Not only can that information help streamline daily operations, they say, but it's also useful for strategic decision-making. For example, data on a vehicle's operating history could prove invaluable to a manager who's trying to determine whether a vehicle has reached the end of its useful life.
All over the map
The spotty use of fleet management programs in North American DCs was just one of the key findings of DC Velocity's lift truck survey, which was conducted earlier this summer. In all, 362 readers representing a broad cross section of industries completed the online questionnaire, which looked at how companies manage the lift trucks in their warehouses and DCs. The largest share of respondents—41 percent—worked in wholesale or industrial distribution, followed by 17 percent from consumer goods manufacturing and 14 percent from the retail sector.
The fleets run by the survey respondents range from the very small—10 or fewer trucks—to the very large (more than 100 vehicles). However, most fell somewhere in between. The majority (57 percent) of the respondents operate fleets with fewer than 25 units, and another 31 percent oversee fleets of between 26 and 100 trucks. Only 12 percent had a fleet of more than 100 trucks.
As for the type of trucks these operations use, electric vehicles topped the list. A full 88 percent of the respondents said their fleet included electric models. Other vehicles mentioned included internal combustion units (used by 26 percent of the respondents) and liquid petroleum-powered vehicles (25 percent). In a sign of the times, 2 percent reported using trucks powered by fuel cells.
Roughly three-fifths of the survey respondents (59 percent) own the trucks they operate, while another 11 percent lease or rent their vehicles. Thirty percent reported using some combination of buying and leasing.
When it comes to maintaining and repairing their trucks, most of the survey respondents have chosen the outsourcing route. Nearly half the respondents (44 percent) have their vehicles serviced by dealers, while 27 percent use third parties. Another 27 percent reported that they used some combination of dealers, in-house operations, and third parties. Only 9 percent—typically those with the largest fleets—said they handled all of their maintenance and repairs in house.
Tracking the trucks
While their approaches to data collection may vary, the majority of respondents do keep some kind of records on the vehicles they use. Eighty-one percent track repair costs for each truck, 80 percent keep tabs on the hours each vehicle is used, and 78 percent maintain logs on the repairs made to each vehicle. In addition, 64 percent keep records on routine maintenance work, like tire and battery replacements. Only 25 percent track equipment utilization by specific drivers. (See Exhibit 1.)
Notably, while four out of five respondents keep some type of records, they don't necessarily pull out these records when they go to make vehicle replacement decisions. Just 59 percent of the survey respondents said that they used the data they collected to determine when to replace a truck.
As for how respondents go about collecting vehicle performance data, methods range from the strictly manual to the highly automated. Predictably, the research found a strong correlation between fleet size and the use of electronic recorders, with the large fleets far more likely to use automated systems than their smaller counterparts (see Exhibit 2). For instance, while two-thirds of operations with 100 or more vehicles had formal fleet management programs in place, only 13 percent of operations with 10 or fewer trucks had adopted such programs.
That's not surprising, says Chris Roy, a national accounts manager at Kenco Material Handling Solutions LLC, a Toyota forklift dealer that also offers a fleet management program. Companies that only operate a few forklifts don't see a need for a formal program because they tend to keep track of their equipment themselves, he says.
For operations with hundreds of trucks to track, however, an automated data collection system can take a lot of the pain out of the process. Better yet, these systems contain report-generation and data crunching capabilities that make analysis a breeze, users say. "Our fleet management program keeps all the data in a format that we can manipulate to gather specific data upon request," wrote one respondent, a vice president of distribution for a retail industry company. "It identifies trucks with high repair costs," said another reader, a warehouse manager in the wholesale distribution sector with a fleet of 100-plus units.
Fleet management experts say the survey findings jibe with their experience. "Owners of large fleets are more apt to have a formal data collection process and outsource maintenance to achieve that objective," says Greg Martin, president of Anaheim, Calif.-based Challenger Enterprises, a third-party provider of fleet management services. He adds that large companies use this service to ensure compliance with Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) rules that require them to maintain a work-order history for each lift truck.
Matt Logan, director of marketing and product management at Crown Equipment, agrees with Martin that businesses with larger fleets are more apt to invest in fleet optimization tools. "To realize a return, you have to be in a position to make an investment," he says, "and we've been in a period when expenditures for new projects have been significantly limited—if not eliminated. When customers have made this investment, they've told us that our system has increased the profitability of their operation and provided a return on investment."
[Exhibit 1] What fleet managers monitor
Metric
% of users
Repair costs for individual trucks
81
Hours of equipment utilization (by individual truck)
80
Equipment repairs for individual trucks
78
Standard maintenance
64
Equipment utilization by driver
25
Fuel or power usage for individual trucks
12
When it comes to the type of records fleet managers keep, repair costs topped the list.
[Exhibit 2] Who's using fleet management programs?
Size of fleet
Has program
Does not have program
One to 10 trucks
13%
13%
11 to 25 trucks
22%
78%
26 to 50 trucks
23%
77%
51 to 100 trucks
46%
54%
More than 100 trucks
67%
33%
Operators of large forklift fleets are more likely to have formal fleet management programs in place than their smaller counterparts.
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."