Peter Bradley is an award-winning career journalist with more than three decades of experience in both newspapers and national business magazines. His credentials include seven years as the transportation and supply chain editor at Purchasing Magazine and six years as the chief editor of Logistics Management.
Though not yet two years old, the Warehousing Education and Research Council's (WERC) facility certification program has already built a track record of providing benefits to the companies that take part. Participants say those benefits can come in at least two forms: improvement in operations in preparation for certification, and validation of existing capabilities and efficiencies by the certification itself.
The program was launched in late 2010 to fill what WERC's leadership saw as a void in the industry. Kate Vitasek, co-founder of the consultancy Supply Chain Visions and one of architects of the program, says the idea was to create a standard against which warehouse managers could measure their facilities' performance. "We've been doing benchmarking for several years, and I've been in over 300 warehouses," she says. "It is always sad to see companies that think they are much better than they are." She adds that she has literally seen warehouses that use sticky notes for labeling racks and write numbers on boxes for cycle counts.
The program, which is open to third-party logistics service providers (3PLs) as well as "first-party" private warehouses, also provides a means of independent verification of a facility's capabilities. Vitasek sees that as a major benefit for shippers who use contract warehouse services. Certification will assure those customers that a 3PL meets minimum standards, she explains, adding that she hopes that someday, third parties will be required to be certified before they're even allowed to submit an RFP.
Getting certified
To earn certification in the voluntary program, a facility must undergo an inspection and assessment of its processes by an independent auditor. The auditor grades the operation against the standards outlined in WERC's Warehousing Fulfillment Process Benchmark and Best Practices Guide. The assessment covers eight standard warehousing processes: receiving and inspection, material handling, slotting, storage and inventory control, warehouse management systems, shipping documentation, picking and packing, and consolidation and shipping. The auditor assigns scores to each activity based on a five-point scale—poor practice, inadequate practice, common practice, good practice, and best practice.
Steve Murray of Supply Chain Visions designed the program under the guidance of Vitasek and Michael Mikitka, WERC's chief executive officer. Murray now conducts the audits for WERC and has completed more than 20, including assessments of facilities run by major companies like Colgate and Starbucks. (To avoid the appearance of conflict, Supply Chain Visions is contractually barred from providing consulting services to a company it has audited for the program unless the two had a pre-existing business relationship.)
For companies considering going through the process, which does carry a fee, WERC provides an audit preparation guide. That guide, Murray says, includes a step-by-step explanation of what the auditor will look for.
The process itself involves a questionnaire, an initial telephone conversation with Murray about the procedure, and a full-day site visit. "We go through a kick-off meeting, then go out and walk the facility," he says. "We follow the flow of product from receiving to shipping, then we talk about the WMS and other tools used to run the warehouse." The evaluation covers 114 individual process elements categorized within the eight process areas.
After the audit, Murray prepares a spreadsheet tool and a report that normally runs 20 to 30 pages, which WERC sends to the facility. Finally, Murray and facility management hold a conference call to review the document. "I go through it to the level of detail they want," he says.
Earning the certification requires achieving a minimum score on each of the 114 elements. "You fail one, and you are not certified," Murray says.
Big benefits
As for what prompts companies to go through the certification process, Murray says it's a couple of things. "We believe it's in everyone's best interest to meet a minimum level of best practices," he says. While companies could perform self audits using the WERC guide, both third parties and first-party warehouse operators see value in the certification, he asserts.
"If you're a 3PL, theoretically you're in a better position to market your services if you can declare you are certified," Murray says. In a few cases, he adds, third parties have gone through the process at the insistence of their customers.
For first-party warehouses, it's usually about the process, Murray says. "Often we find that internally they know have problems and want someone to help them understand where the problems are and where they could improve. Or the managers of supply chain or distribution feel they're not getting enough respect from senior management. I've seen cases where a facility may be lobbying for capital, technology, or manpower. Going through the process will show weaknesses and support the request. Another potential motivation: If a facility manager can prove through the certification process that a facility has adopted best practices, it could dissuade management from considering outsourcing."
A fan of the program
Those who've been through the program can attest to the benefits. One such company is Hunter Fan, a Memphis, Tenn.-based manufacturer of ceiling fans. As Michael Ritter, the company's senior vice president of operations, explains, the manufacturer decided to seek certification last year in order to demonstrate to senior management and investors that its Byhalia, Miss., DC was among the best in the business.
Ritter credits David Phillips, general manager of warehousing and distribution, for leading the 936,000-square-foot DC through the certification process, a distinction it earned in November. Ritter says that when Phillips took over management of the DC last year, he began to roll out lean management tools to the facility's 85 employees, including the management group, supervisors, and the shop floor, with the aim of developing best-in-class processes as outlined in the WERC program. Other members of the DC's leadership team included Leone DeGaetano, director of transportation; Mike Bradford, operations manager; and Jim Bond, rework/returns and receiving manager.
Earning the certification, Ritter says, validated for him and other senior managers that the DC was operating as well as if not better than others. "It told me the facility is managed better than average and that we had a professional environment focusing on the right things and performing very well." For employees, he adds, it provided reinforcement that the work asked of them has been worthwhile.
Quest for validation
For OHL, a major third-party service provider, the decision to go through the certification process was part of a broader effort to standardize operations across its facilities as well as ensure it was staying abreast of industry trends. As Randall Coleman, OHL's senior vice president for the South region, explains, "We had embarked on a program about a year ago trying to drive consistency across all our operations, so what the customer is seeing is the same in each DC. At the same time, we wanted to challenge ourselves to show we were moving in the right direction in regard to best practices."
Coleman says OHL used the WERC best practices guide as a roadmap to improve service levels. To date, the Brenéwood, Tenn.-based company has completed certification of three facilities.
Looking at best practices, he says, helps alert companies to how those practices evolve. "There's always a tendency to allow yourself to be constrained by what's going on within the four walls," he says. "You don't look outside. But what was acceptable performance two to five years ago is now run of the mill or subpar. So participating in the certification program was a good way to benchmark against the best in class."
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."