Five ways to improve your refurbishment operations
Refurbishing and reselling returned goods can make some serious money for your company—if you can do it quickly and cost effectively. Here are some tips for getting it right.
Susan Lacefield has been working for supply chain publications since 1999. Before joining DC VELOCITY, she was an associate editor for Supply Chain Management Review and wrote for Logistics Management magazine. She holds a master's degree in English.
Decisions, decisions. What should you do with all the returned goods flowing back to your facility through the reverse logistics pipeline? Some companies dismantle them and recycle the parts. Others simply destroy the goods. But there's a third option: repair, refurbish, and resell them.
For some companies, that third route makes an awful lot of sense: If done right, repairs and refurbishment can be a moneymaker instead of a cost center. Trouble is, it's not always easy to do it right. The costs of refurbishment (labor, equipment, transportation, and so forth) tend to add up quickly, making it difficult for companies to recoup their investment. And it can be tough to get products back on the shelves quickly enough to avoid some loss of value.
If you're not sure whether refurbishment is right for your company—or are wondering whether there are ways to make your returns operation faster, more efficient, or more cost effective—the following five tips might point you in the right direction.
1. Make sure your product is a good candidate for refurbishment.
One of the keys to running a fast, cost-effective refurbishment operation is to be smart about which products you refurbish, says Timothy Konrad, vice president of reverse logistics for Genco, a third-party logistics service provider (3PL). He says it's not uncommon for Genco to find a new customer is paying more to refurbish an item than it's likely to recover through the item's resale.
How do you determine whether a particular product is worth refurbishing? It will probably require some number crunching, says Terry Steger, a senior executive in Accenture's Supply Chain Management practice. Basically, what you have to do is calculate what it costs to recover and refurbish a product and compare that with the current resale value of the revamped item, he says.
In the case of consumer electronics and information technology products, Konrad advises his clients to follow a simple rule of thumb: Consider refurbishment only if the product originally sold for more than $125. Konrad notes, however, that there's one exception to his rule. If you have a hot item, like a high-end MP3 player, where there's a demonstrable market for a refurbished version of the product, then by all means go ahead with refurbishment.
For items with a longer shelf life than consumer electronics, different standards apply. Jeffrey Pepperworth, president of 3PL Inmar Reverse Logistics, believes that even relatively low-value products, such as kitchen appliances or sporting equipment, can be worth refurbishing under the right conditions. The key factor is volume, he says. "If the volume is large enough, economies of scale make processing even low-value materials feasible."
Even if you've already done all the cost calculations for your product, it could be time to revisit your decision. "Sometimes, a device or product is so old that, at that point in its lifecycle, it no longer makes economic sense to refurbish it," Steger says. For products with very short shelf lives, such as wireless devices or high-end consumer electronics, the decision may have to be reviewed on a monthly basis.
2. Evaluate whether refurbishment is truly necessary.
Experts agree that only a small percentage of returned products actually require refurbishing. For example, in the consumer electronics arena, 50 to 70 percent of all returns have nothing wrong with them, says Konrad. "Products that have been returned due to buyer's remorse or because the consumer didn't understand how to use the product don't need to go to the refurbishment operation," he points out.
The sooner you can perform "triage"—that is, assess which products can be immediately resold and which actually need to be fixed—the better. By making this determination as early in the process as possible—say, at the retail return center or a regional DC—you eliminate touches, reduce transportation expenses and the potential for damage, and increase cash flow, says Pepperworth. It also allows you to get the product back on the market sooner and may help reduce (or even avoid) the need for markdowns.
3. Monitor your service provider's performance and costs.
Although some companies like to handle refurbishment themselves, many choose to outsource this activity—largely for reasons of cost. For most companies, it's more cost-effective to use a 3PL that has specialized equipment and a specially trained staff in place, says Dale Rogers, professor of supply chain management at the University of Nevada-Reno and author of a textbook on reverse logistics.
But that doesn't mean you should just hand off this task and forget about it. It's important to monitor the process to make sure that your partner is running an efficient, cost-effective operation.
For example, Steger recommends keeping an eye on parts usage. Most third parties charge the contract owner for the parts they use, so it's wise to put a mechanism in place to assure providers aren't replacing parts unnecessarily, he says.
Another way to keep costs from getting out of hand is to establish a "time required to refurbish" threshold, Pepperworth says. "If the product takes longer than X minutes to refurbish, it should move to recycle or scrap disposition," he explains. "If it is within the threshold, a company can refurbish it and increase asset recovery."
4. Choose the right location for your operation.
Where a refurbishment operation is located can have a big impact on the overall cost. While a centralized location provides economies of scale with regard to labor and facility expenses, the savings could be offset by higher transportation costs if the goods have to travel far. By the same token, using regional or local refurbishment centers usually cuts transportation costs but is likely to mean higher facility costs. For this reason, Steger recommends using a local model for heavy or large products that are costly to transport and a more centralized model for lighter products.
These days, some companies are relocating their refurbishment operations to Mexico to take advantage of lower labor costs, Rogers says. But labor costs are only part of the picture, warns Konrad. When considering whether or not to move your operation south of the border, he says, be sure to factor in the additional transportation costs as well as any political and security considerations.
Steger notes that it may be possible to employ a mixed strategy—for example, using a Mexican facility to serve Southern California and the Southwestern states and a U.S.-based facility to handle the rest of the country. That might allow you to take advantage of Mexico's low labor costs without having to bear the costs of shipping from, say, Mexico to New England.
5. Make full use of the available data.
One of the biggest mistakes companies can make when it comes to their refurbishment operations is failing to collect and mine data on returns. "The real value in refurbishment lies in tracking and analyzing data," says Gary Noone, vice president of global aftermarket services for 3PL ModusLink.
It can also make the returns operation itself more efficient, Noone says. For instance, if a company is able to identify the most common causes of failure for a particular item, it could then use the findings to improve the triage operation—say, by having employees at the processing center sort returns by type of failure. Those items could then be shipped together to the refurbishment operation, which improves efficiency downstream.
Perhaps more to the point, however, the company could share its findings on product failures with the original manufacturer's product design or engineering team. That kind of information has the potential to lead to advancements in the product's design, which would ultimately produce the biggest improvement of all: reducing the actual volume of returns.
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."