The leaves are turning, and the kids are back in school. Now's a great time to re-evaluate your performance measurement program. Here's some advice for kicking it up a notch.
It's that time of year again. The leaves are turning, and the kids are back in school. But why should they have all the fun? It only seems fair that logistics professionals should also have the opportunity to brush up their skills or learn new ones.
For example, now's a great time to take another look at your performance measurement program. If your operation is typical, there's a good chance your metrics protocol could use a little tweaking. In most cases, all that's required is a quick review of the four fundamental subjects: math, English, history, and science. What follows is a look at how revisiting each of these areas can help you improve your performance measurement program.
Math
When it comes to math and performance measurement programs, a common mistake is to confuse numbers with metrics. They may look alike, but they're not one and the same. A metric should provide meaningful information that is actionable; it is not just a simple number, like a count of how many packages were sent on a particular day. For the number to be meaningful, you have to place it within a larger context—i.e., by performing some calculations. Do that, and you have a metric.
Let's say you want to find out how well your shipping department is performing. You make some inquiries and learn that DC sent out 100 error-free shipments yesterday. But that tells you absolutely nothing about the quality of your performance. What you really need to know is what percentage of your total shipments were error-free. If it was 100 out of 100 (or 101), you're doing well. But if it was 100 out of 200, you have a serious performance problem. The point is, knowing the total package count for a given day doesn't help you much. But knowing the percentage of error-free shipments on that same day tells you a lot. It's a meaningful metric—one that offers information you can use.
You can use the same approach to zero in on the source of a problem. For instance, if you're trying to determine what's causing your shipping errors, you might decide to calculate the percentage of packages sent with bad labels. Again, that's information you can use. If you find it's 80 percent, you know labeling is something you'll have to address right away. But if it's just 1 or 2 percent, you know you'll have to look elsewhere for the source of the problem.
English
What does English have to do with metrics? A good deal, it turns out. A good metric must be clearly defined, free of ambiguities and leaving no room for interpretation. If a metric doesn't mean exactly the same thing to every party in the supply chain, you're inviting all kinds of miscommunication.
Take "on time shipments," for example. "On time" means many different things to different people. The guy in shipping might interpret it as meaning the shipment left the DC on schedule. The truck driver might see it as delivery on the agreed-upon day. But to the customer, "on time" might mean the shipment was delivered not just on the appointed day but within a 15-minute to 1-hour window of a specific time. Those differences might sound trivial, but they could lead to all kinds of misunderstandings. For example, consider the customer service implications if the supplier thinks it's meeting expectations by delivering the order on the right day, but the customer is counting on having its order arrive between noon and 2 p.m.
It's the same with the "percentage shipped error-free" measure. What exactly does "error-free" mean? What elements of a shipment need to be correct for it to be considered free of errors? There are a lot of elements to consider here: shipping documentation, content, quantity, packaging requirements, labeling requirements, and on-time delivery, to name a few. A well drafted metric should make it clear exactly what's involved and how it should be measured.
History
At first glance, it might seem that history has little to do with metrics programs. But actually there's a connection. After all, even the best metric doesn't mean very much in isolation. To get a full understanding of your performance against a metric, you need a sense of its history to see where it's trending.
For example, say you've just found out your operation's error-free shipment rate yesterday was only 50 percent. While we can agree that this is a clear indicator that something's gone awry, our understanding could be so much richer if we understood its history. Is the 50 percent performance an aberration, something that has only occurred once on one particular day? Or is it a long-term trend? The answer will undoubtedly shape your response.
And if you still need convincing, consider this: If your goal is to improve performance against a specific metric, you'll have no way of knowing whether you're on track to hit that target unless you're monitoring performance over time.
Science
Once you have a clear understanding of how a measure is calculated, what it means, and how your operation has been performing against it over time, what do you do with that information? Like any good scientist, you must test your data and delve more deeply into the findings. For example, if you're trying to reduce shipping errors, you need to determine the source of the problem. Is it documentation, content, quantity, timeliness, labeling, or packaging? A root cause analysis will help you figure out where to focus your attention.
For example, you might find that 50 percent of your problems come from shipping the wrong item, while 30 percent come from shipping the wrong quantity. The remaining 20 percent might be split more or less evenly among the other components, documentation, timeliness, and labeling and packaging. That tells you the underlying problem isn't shipping; it's order fulfillment at the warehouse.
Solve that problem and you eliminate the majority of the shipment errors. It's important to have the curiosity of a scientist and the willingness to test data down to the root cause in order to drive improvement from the metrics.
Now that you've brushed up on the basics of math, English, history, and science, it's time to re-evaluate your metrics program. Chances are, you'll discover one or more opportunities to give your program a quick jolt and reinvigorate the performance of your operation.
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."