Study: omnichannel retailers still fine-tuning fulfillment operations
As they grapple with the logistics challenges that omnichannel brings, retailers continue to tweak their operations—whether that means adopting tried-and-true technologies or experimenting with drones.
Ben Ames has spent 20 years as a journalist since starting out as a daily newspaper reporter in Pennsylvania in 1995. From 1999 forward, he has focused on business and technology reporting for a number of trade journals, beginning when he joined Design News and Modern Materials Handling magazines. Ames is author of the trail guide "Hiking Massachusetts" and is a graduate of the Columbia School of Journalism.
Omnichannel commerce is one of the most powerful trends to sweep through the retail world in recent years.
In search of more efficient ways to control the flow of inventory, companies in nearly every corner of the retail industry are experimenting with various distribution strategies, whether it's filling both e-commerce and store replenishment orders from a single DC, running separate fulfillment operations, or filling online orders directly from brick-and-mortar store shelves.
But building a fast and profitable omnichannel fulfillment system can challenge every department in a company, from supply chain management to IT, marketing, store operations, and order fulfillment.
To get a better understanding of how companies are meeting the challenges of omnichannel distribution, DC Velocity and ARC Advisory Group, a management consulting firm in Dedham, Mass., teamed up to conduct our third annual survey on retail fulfillment practices. Respondents answered about 40 questions on their approaches to meeting current challenges in omnichannel commerce and their plans for the future.
The results show that companies are moving toward omnichannel operations with a goal of gaining customers and boosting revenue. Asked to list the top three reasons their company was participating in omnichannel commerce or building up those capabilities, survey respondents appeared to be squarely focused on revenue, saying they did it to increase sales (57 percent), increase market share (56 percent), and improve customer loyalty (55 percent).
Although our survey respondents clearly shared a common goal, that's where the commonality ended. The research results also showed that they used a wide variety of strategies and methods when it came to their omnichannel distribution practices.
THE MECHANICS OF OMNICHANNEL DISTRIBUTION
When we asked how they fulfilled e-commerce orders, the respondents' answers were all over the map: 63 percent said orders were fulfilled through a traditional DC that also handles e-commerce, 47 percent used a Web-only DC, 43 percent fulfilled orders from the store, and 36 percent said e-commerce orders were filled directly from the manufacturer or supplier. Respondents were allowed to select more than one response, and as the percentages indicate, a number of those companies are using multiple methods. (See Exhibit 1.)
Likewise, asked whether they handled e-commerce fulfillment at the same facility where they conducted traditional fulfillment operations, 69 percent of survey respondents said yes, with 31 percent saying no. (See Exhibit 2.)
Some of the companies engaged in omnichannel distribution have opted to outsource the entire operation, hiring a third-party logistics service provider (3PL) to handle the fulfillment end of their e-commerce operations. Survey takers were fairly evenly divided in their responses to questions about their strategies. The results showed that 55 percent relied on their own corporate (internally managed) distribution centers, while 22 percent only used sites operated by their outsourcing partners. Another 23 percent said they are taking a combined approach.
Within the warehouse, workers are using a wide variety of tools and methods to select items needed to fill e-commerce orders. Survey respondents said order pickers in distribution centers were using the following technologies: warehouse management systems (WMS) combined with radio frequency technology (53 percent), voice-recognition systems (33 percent), pick-to-light technology (22 percent), paper-based WMS (35 percent), and goods-to-person automation (20 percent).
Their managers also use a range of tools to support omnichannel commerce initiatives. When we asked respondents what technologies they used, the top three answers were high-end warehouse management systems (91 percent), demand management software (72 percent), and basic bar-code scanning on the store floor or in the backroom (61 percent). (See Exhibit 3.)
DELIVERING THE GOODS
A crucial link in any omnichannel fulfillment operation is the final step: getting e-commerce orders into customers' hands. Here, the options range from in-store pickup to home delivery. We drilled into current practices in this area as well as respondents' plans for the future. What we found was that e-commerce delivery is an area that's very much in flux.
The responses to our first question—"How do you handle 'last mile' deliveries?"—contained few surprises. The most popular answers were courier delivery services such as FedEx and UPS (84 percent), drop shipping directly from partners' DCs (61 percent), a 3PL delivery partner (50 percent), and store fleet (40 percent). (See Exhibit 4.)
It was a different story altogether when it came to respondents' plans for the future. When we asked which shipping methods they "Do not use, but plan to use," their responses pointed in some interesting directions. For instance, they showed particular interest in crowdsourced delivery services such as Deliv or Instacart (0 percent use them today, 28 percent plan to use them); store staff delivery via car, bike, or foot (21 percent use them today, 13 percent plan to use them); and even drones (0 percent use them today, 2 percent plan to use them).
MEANWHILE, BACK AT THE STORE ...
Of course, one of the more distinctive aspects of omnichannel commerce is that many purchases are never processed or shipped from warehouses at all, but are handled directly through retail stores.
To better understand how retail outlets fit into the picture, we asked survey respondents which fulfillment-related activities they carried out at their store locations. Sixty-eight percent of the respondents who fill at least some orders from stores said e-commerce orders were both picked and shipped from the store, while 64 percent said the orders were picked at the store and then held for customer pickup. A smaller percentage—47 percent—said they shipped e-commerce orders from a DC to the store for customer pickup.
That raised another issue: whether the retailers' employees picked the items from the stockroom or the showroom. The responses were pretty evenly divided, with 71 percent saying they picked orders from the back of the store and 64 percent from the front.
Finally, we dug even deeper, asking what methods stores used to communicate order information to the workers who picked those orders. The answers showed that stores lag well behind warehouses and DCs when it comes to the adoption of fulfillment technology, since the most popular reply was the paper-based method, with 56 percent. Trailing far behind were radio-frequency (RF) gun with textual display (26 percent), RF gun with graphical display (also 26 percent), and some other mobile device (15 percent).
THE ECONOMICS OF OMNICHANNEL
Despite the rapid growth of omnichannel commerce, our survey also revealed that e-commerce revenue has a long way to go before it eclipses brick-and-mortar sales income.
We asked survey respondents what percentage of their direct retail revenue—revenue from items sold to consumers through their own sales platforms, as opposed to being moderated by a retail partner—currently came from each channel. The average for brick and mortar was 63 percent, far above online and mobile (24 percent), and call center and catalog (15 percent). (See Exhibit 5.)
Despite the modest revenue generated through online, mobile, call center, and catalog sales, a solid majority of respondents had sales operations up and running in every channel. When asked to list all the channels in which they currently receive direct retail orders, respondents cited online (84 percent), brick and mortar (76 percent), call center and catalog (57 percent), and mobile (46 percent).
Taken together, the survey results indicate that omnichannel retailing is here to stay, but that fulfillment practices remain in flux. In particular, our study points to changes ahead in the area of parcel delivery. Stay tuned for next year's survey, when we track the further progress of these trends that are revolutionizing the industry.
About the study
This year's omnichannel study was conducted by ARC Advisory Group in conjunction with DC Velocity. ARC analyst Chris Cunnane oversaw the research and compiled the results. The 2015 study builds on research done last year in this area, which found that significant opportunity gaps exist among companies from a technology deployment standpoint.
This year's study explored the details of DC operations to support omnichannel initiatives, as well as how companies are handling the last-mile dilemma. The findings reported here are based on 120 responses.
As for the demographic breakdown, the majority of respondents (57 percent) sold goods through a combination of direct and indirect sales channels. Another 31 percent sold through direct retail only, and the remaining 12 percent through indirect sales channels only.
A report containing a more detailed examination of the omnichannel survey results is available from ARC for a fee. For information, visit www.arcweb.com/research.
Editor's Note: This story has been updated to correct some of the numbers in the survey results. The changes do not affect the conclusions drawn in the article.
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."