Shippers often complain that their 3PLs aren't bringing enough new and creative ideas to the table. But are they themselves the main obstacle to innovation?
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.
Do you feel your third-party logistics service provider isn't innovative enough? That it's failing to come to you with new—or at least, new to you—ideas for cutting costs or streamlining your operations?
If so, you're not alone. A 2012 survey by the Tompkins Supply Chain Consortium, Outsourced Distribution: Emerging Trends and Performance Satisfaction, found that 37 percent of respondents were dissatisfied or very dissatisfied with their logistics service providers' ability to come up with innovative solutions. A second study, The 2013 Third-Party Logistics Study, conducted by Penn State University, Capgemini Consulting, and others, showed that only 53 percent of shippers believe their third-party logistics service providers (3PLs) are even ready to innovate (meanwhile, 89 percent of 3PLs insist that they are).
What are shippers looking for with regard to innovation? It varies all over the map, says John Langley, a professor at Penn State University and lead author of The 2013 Third-Party Logistics Study. While some are looking for a "disruptive" or game-changing innovation—such as using social media to track order status in real time—most are simply looking for ideas that are "innovative to them," he explains. Examples of "new to them" practices might include using RFID chips to track assets, replacing spreadsheets with a transportation management system, and introducing back hauls.
While it's easy to blame your 3PL for failing to come up with new ideas, it might not be the provider's fault. You might be partly responsible as well. Many times, shippers unintentionally sabotage their 3PL partners' best efforts to innovate and discourage them from proposing new ideas. How do you know if you might be one of those shippers? Here are five questions to ask yourself:
1. Are you constantly bidding and rebidding the business? Some shippers are so intent on reducing rates and finding the lowest-cost provider that they're constantly putting their business out to bid.
"Shippers and 3PLs remain, for the most part, entrenched in the ... low-cost-at-all-times approach to doing business. This is not conducive to innovation," says Kate Vitasek, founder of the consulting company Supply Chain Visions.
Langley agrees, noting that constant rebidding emphasizes short-term performance at the expense of long-term innovation. "A 3PL doesn't have any chance to settle in and provide good service if it's spending all its time trying to regain the business," he explains. In his view, a contract should run three to five years in duration in order to give a provider enough time to study your business, understand it, and come up with some suggestions for improvement.
2. Are you preventing your 3PL from getting the big picture? It's hard for a logistics service provider to come up with innovative ideas when it has a very limited view of your operation—say, if it only deals with a buyer or supplier relationship manager or interacts with just one department. "If we are stuck within the confines of a traditional transportation unit, we are unable to take a holistic approach that ties in purchasing, distribution, and sourcing," says Brian Catron, director of product management for third-party service specialist APL Logistics.
To avoid this, Vitasek urges shippers to bring representatives from all parts of their supply chain—such as purchasing, sourcing, distribution, and manufacturing—into discussions with the third party. "You need to think of it as being like a joint venture," she says. "When you are a joint venture, you have a board of directors guiding the operation instead of a single account manager or supplier relationship person."
3. Do you talk only about daily operations with your 3PL? While lots of shippers are good at communicating with their logistics service provider about day-to-day operational matters, few are eager to share the details of their overall strategy with an outside company, says Tim Pyne, vice president at Tompkins Associates and co-author of the Outsourced Distribution report. But withholding that kind of information can be counterproductive. In order to be innovative, a 3PL must be familiar with your overall strategy, says Langley. He urges shippers to share key elements of their strategic plan with their providers.
These discussions should include where the company is going and what changes it is planning to make, says Pyne. For example, is the company moving into e-commerce? Does it plan to start serving a new market? Has it gained any new customers? Does it intend to open a new distribution center or close an existing one?
4. Are you paying your 3PL for activities instead of outcomes? Often, the biggest obstacle to innovation is the standard pricing model used by most 3PLs and shippers, says Vitasek. That's because under the standard model, 3PLs are compensated for transactions or activities, like number of lines picked or orders shipped, instead for overall desired outcomes—such as a reduction in transportation or inventory costs or an increase in on-time complete orders.
The flaw in the transactional model is that logistics service providers have no incentive to boost overall productivity because that would likely mean reducing the very activities or transactions they are paid for. In these cases, suggesting process improvements would almost certainly cost the provider some business. "There's not going to be any innovation if there's no return on investment," Vitasek says.
As an example, Vitasek recalls asking a 3PL what its inventory turns were for a particular client. According to Vitasek, the general manager responded, "Why do I care? We don't own the inventory. We just store it and ship it. In fact, we like inventory—the more inventory, the more money we make."
Vitasek says that transportation in particular is still "stuck in the Dark Ages," with shippers asking providers to bid on getting products from Point A to Point B. "Instead, they should be asking their logistics service providers how they can reduce their transportation costs by 30 percent," she says.
5. Are you unwilling to pay for innovation? "Innovation is not a costless exercise," says Langley. Whether you're implementing new equipment and technology or redesigning a process, there's going to be some expense involved. "At the end of day, someone has got to pay for it," Langley says. "But relatively few customers want to pay for an extra line item."
Of course, the same holds true of LSPs—few, if any, will want to take on the full cost burden themselves. Which is why a shipper that's reluctant to invest its own capital or resources in any improvements probably won't be seeing many new ideas from its provider. "There's no question about it, it limits our ability to pursue innovation," says Catron of APL Logistics.
WHAT YOUR PROVIDER CAN DO
Of course, the fault does not all lie with the shipper, when it comes to lack of innovation. There are many things that providers can do to ensure they're not missing out on opportunities for improvements.
These can be as simple as training personnel to maintain a "process improvement" mindset or making it clear to all of their site managers that they're expected to be innovative, Pyne says. One way to get managers to focus on continuous improvement is by implementing a Six Sigma or Lean program, he notes. A formal program that pushes managers not to be satisfied with the status quo goes a long way toward encouraging innovation.
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."