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.
A move by federal regulators to reinforce requirements for broker transparency in freight transactions is stirring debate among transportation groups, after the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) published a “notice of proposed rulemaking” this week.
According to FMCSA, its draft rule would strive to make broker transparency more common, requiring greater sharing of the material information necessary for transportation industry parties to make informed business decisions and to support the efficient resolution of disputes.
The proposed rule titled “Transparency in Property Broker Transactions” would address what FMCSA calls the lack of access to information among shippers and motor carriers that can impact the fairness and efficiency of the transportation system, and would reframe broker transparency as a regulatory duty imposed on brokers, with the goal of deterring non-compliance. Specifically, the move would require brokers to keep electronic records, and require brokers to provide transaction records to motor carriers and shippers upon request and within 48 hours of that request.
Under federal regulatory processes, public comments on the move are due by January 21, 2025. However, transportation groups are not waiting on the sidelines to voice their opinions.
According to the Transportation Intermediaries Association (TIA), an industry group representing the third-party logistics (3PL) industry, the potential rule is “misguided overreach” that fails to address the more pressing issue of freight fraud. In TIA’s view, broker transparency regulation is “obsolete and un-American,” and has no place in today’s “highly transparent” marketplace. “This proposal represents a misguided focus on outdated and unnecessary regulations rather than tackling issues that genuinely threaten the safety and efficiency of our nation’s supply chains,” TIA said.
But trucker trade group the Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association (OOIDA) welcomed the proposed rule, which it said would ensure that brokers finally play by the rules. “We appreciate that FMCSA incorporated input from our petition, including a requirement to make records available electronically and emphasizing that brokers have a duty to comply with regulations. As FMCSA noted, broker transparency is necessary for a fair, efficient transportation system, and is especially important to help carriers defend themselves against alleged claims on a shipment,” OOIDA President Todd Spencer said in a statement.
Additional pushback came from the Small Business in Transportation Coalition (SBTC), a network of transportation professionals in small business, which said the potential rule didn’t go far enough. “This is too little too late and is disappointing. It preserves the status quo, which caters to Big Broker & TIA. There is no question now that FMCSA has been captured by Big Broker. Truckers and carriers must now come out in droves and file comments in full force against this starting tomorrow,” SBTC executive director James Lamb said in a LinkedIn post.
The “series B” funding round was financed by an unnamed “strategic customer” as well as Teradyne Robotics Ventures, Toyota Ventures, Ranpak, Third Kind Venture Capital, One Madison Group, Hyperplane, Catapult Ventures, and others.
The fresh backing comes as Massachusetts-based Pickle reported a spate of third quarter orders, saying that six customers placed orders for over 30 production robots to deploy in the first half of 2025. The new orders include pilot conversions, existing customer expansions, and new customer adoption.
“Pickle is hitting its strides delivering innovation, development, commercial traction, and customer satisfaction. The company is building groundbreaking technology while executing on essential recurring parts of a successful business like field service and manufacturing management,” Omar Asali, Pickle board member and CEO of investor Ranpak, said in a release.
According to Pickle, its truck-unloading robot applies “Physical AI” technology to one of the most labor-intensive, physically demanding, and highest turnover work areas in logistics operations. The platform combines a powerful vision system with generative AI foundation models trained on millions of data points from real logistics and warehouse operations that enable Pickle’s robotic hardware platform to perform physical work at human-scale or better, the company says.
Bloomington, Indiana-based FTR said its Trucking Conditions Index declined in September to -2.47 from -1.39 in August as weakness in the principal freight dynamics – freight rates, utilization, and volume – offset lower fuel costs and slightly less unfavorable financing costs.
Those negative numbers are nothing new—the TCI has been positive only twice – in May and June of this year – since April 2022, but the group’s current forecast still envisions consistently positive readings through at least a two-year forecast horizon.
“Aside from a near-term boost mostly related to falling diesel prices, we have not changed our Trucking Conditions Index forecast significantly in the wake of the election,” Avery Vise, FTR’s vice president of trucking, said in a release. “The outlook continues to be more favorable for carriers than what they have experienced for well over two years. Our analysis indicates gradual but steadily rising capacity utilization leading to stronger freight rates in 2025.”
But FTR said its forecast remains unchanged. “Just like everyone else, we’ll be watching closely to see exactly what trade and other economic policies are implemented and over what time frame. Some freight disruptions are likely due to tariffs and other factors, but it is not yet clear that those actions will do more than shift the timing of activity,” Vise said.
The TCI tracks the changes representing five major conditions in the U.S. truck market: freight volumes, freight rates, fleet capacity, fuel prices, and financing costs. Combined into a single index indicating the industry’s overall health, a positive score represents good, optimistic conditions while a negative score shows the inverse.
Specifically, the new global average robot density has reached a record 162 units per 10,000 employees in 2023, which is more than double the mark of 74 units measured seven years ago.
Broken into geographical regions, the European Union has a robot density of 219 units per 10,000 employees, an increase of 5.2%, with Germany, Sweden, Denmark and Slovenia in the global top ten. Next, North America’s robot density is 197 units per 10,000 employees – up 4.2%. And Asia has a robot density of 182 units per 10,000 persons employed in manufacturing - an increase of 7.6%. The economies of Korea, Singapore, mainland China and Japan are among the top ten most automated countries.
Broken into individual countries, the U.S. ranked in 10th place in 2023, with a robot density of 295 units. Higher up on the list, the top five are:
The Republic of Korea, with 1,012 robot units, showing a 5% increase on average each year since 2018 thanks to its strong electronics and automotive industries.
Singapore had 770 robot units, in part because it is a small country with a very low number of employees in the manufacturing industry, so it can reach a high robot density with a relatively small operational stock.
China took third place in 2023, surpassing Germany and Japan with a mark of 470 robot units as the nation has managed to double its robot density within four years.
Germany ranks fourth with 429 robot units for a 5% CAGR since 2018.
Japan is in fifth place with 419 robot units, showing growth of 7% on average each year from 2018 to 2023.
Progress in generative AI (GenAI) is poised to impact business procurement processes through advancements in three areas—agentic reasoning, multimodality, and AI agents—according to Gartner Inc.
Those functions will redefine how procurement operates and significantly impact the agendas of chief procurement officers (CPOs). And 72% of procurement leaders are already prioritizing the integration of GenAI into their strategies, thus highlighting the recognition of its potential to drive significant improvements in efficiency and effectiveness, Gartner found in a survey conducted in July, 2024, with 258 global respondents.
Gartner defined the new functions as follows:
Agentic reasoning in GenAI allows for advanced decision-making processes that mimic human-like cognition. This capability will enable procurement functions to leverage GenAI to analyze complex scenarios and make informed decisions with greater accuracy and speed.
Multimodality refers to the ability of GenAI to process and integrate multiple forms of data, such as text, images, and audio. This will make GenAI more intuitively consumable to users and enhance procurement's ability to gather and analyze diverse information sources, leading to more comprehensive insights and better-informed strategies.
AI agents are autonomous systems that can perform tasks and make decisions on behalf of human operators. In procurement, these agents will automate procurement tasks and activities, freeing up human resources to focus on strategic initiatives, complex problem-solving and edge cases.
As CPOs look to maximize the value of GenAI in procurement, the study recommended three starting points: double down on data governance, develop and incorporate privacy standards into contracts, and increase procurement thresholds.
“These advancements will usher procurement into an era where the distance between ideas, insights, and actions will shorten rapidly,” Ryan Polk, senior director analyst in Gartner’s Supply Chain practice, said in a release. "Procurement leaders who build their foundation now through a focus on data quality, privacy and risk management have the potential to reap new levels of productivity and strategic value from the technology."