Contributing Editor Toby Gooley is a writer and editor specializing in supply chain, logistics, and material handling, and a lecturer at MIT's Center for Transportation & Logistics. She previously was Senior Editor at DC VELOCITY and Editor of DCV's sister publication, CSCMP's Supply Chain Quarterly. Prior to joining AGiLE Business Media in 2007, she spent 20 years at Logistics Management magazine as Managing Editor and Senior Editor covering international trade and transportation. Prior to that she was an export traffic manager for 10 years. She holds a B.A. in Asian Studies from Cornell University.
The retail sector has been permanently disrupted by technology, and retailers of all sizes are battling to manage technology's impact on their business models. For many of them, gaining control of e-commerce, multichannel and omnichannel fulfillment, and customers' expectations of ever-faster and customized delivery is a matter of survival.
To find out how companies are responding to these and other pressures, Auburn University annually polls supply chain executives about their overall strategies as well as their experiences and plans regarding several "hot topic" areas. As in the past, this year's study was conducted by the university's Center for Supply Chain Innovation under the leadership of professor Brian Gibson, with colleagues Rafay Ishfaq, Cliff Defee, and Elizabeth Davis-Sramek. The researchers surveyed members of the Retail Industry Leaders Association, readers of Supply Chain Quarterly's sister publication, DC Velocity, and companies that collaborate with the Center for Supply Chain Innovation. To round out the picture, the research team conducted telephone interviews with supply chain executives.
This year's "State of the Retail Supply Chain" report will be released in late February at RILA's 2018 Retail Supply Chain Conference in Phoenix. DC Velocity will cover the research findings in two parts: this article, which will focus on the topics discussed in the interviews, and a summary of the survey results in our April issue.
GETTING A GRIP ON CHANGE
The researchers conducted 20 interviews with retail supply chain executives, most of whom were chief supply chain officers or senior vice presidents of supply chain. All work for medium-sized to very large retailers; all but a handful of those companies report annual revenues exceeding $1 billion, and together, they account for nearly $1 trillion in annual sales.
When asked about their overall strategy for 2018, many executives cited better management of omnichannel commerce as a top priority. Although a small "lagging" group of retailers are still rolling out basic omnichannel capabilities, companies that can be described as "leaders"—generally, the biggest brand names—are looking at refining the omnichannel strategies and practices they already have in place, such as cutting delivery times to consumers and ensuring service consistency across all channels. Those companies, the researchers say, have come a long way since their previous survey report was published. "Last year, we were still getting a lot of companies wondering how to respond to the 'Amazon effect.' Now, retail leaders have taken control of their omnichannel operations and have a game plan they're ready to execute," Defee says.
The interviews with retail supply chain executives also zeroed in on several specific areas, including urban fulfillment, relationships with third-party logistics service providers (3PLs), sustainability, and disruptive technologies. Here is the research team's take on the issues and trends the interviewees addressed.
Managing urban fulfillment. As the array of products consumers order online continues to expand, urban fulfillment has become a major concern for an increasingly wide range of retail segments. But retailers are being cautious about the delivery services they offer. Some interviewees said they would "move as fast on [urban delivery services] as our customers demand it," Gibson says. In other words, they are investing in various delivery options only when demand is sufficient and the cost of providing those services can be justified. One surprise: Although many people assume that urban delivery only matters in a few big markets like New York City and Los Angeles, respondents said they were working to meet rapidly growing demand for same-day and next-day delivery in dozens of other urban markets across the country.
Increasingly, retailers are using urban stores as fulfillment locations to accommodate their "BOPIS"—buy online, pick up in store—services. Some are also investing in small-footprint distribution centers in urban areas that offer same-day delivery for a limited assortment of stock-keeping units (SKUs). A third option mentioned by respondents is a "dark store"—a facility that's set up like a retail store but is used for assembling e-commerce orders, which are then delivered to consumers or to pickup locations. In Gibson's view, the benefit of the latter two options compared with in-store fulfillment is that it avoids disrupting store operations and offers quick access to backup inventory if a nearby store runs out.
The cost of meeting consumers' expectations is forcing retailers to rethink how they deliver orders in cities. Some are testing the use of employees to drop off packages on their way home from work. Others are setting up their own private fleets of local-delivery vehicles. But they're most likely to use for-hire services, such as Uber, Lyft, Shipt, and Instacart, because of their flexible capacity and variable cost structure, according to Gibson.
Working with logistics service providers. As retailers contend with changing business models, their relationships with 3PLs are also changing. Their strategies appear to follow two different paths. Several executives said they are seeking fewer, more strategic partnerships with 3PLs in order to reduce complexity. This trend is leading service providers to expand their portfolios in hopes of becoming a "one-stop shop" for big retail accounts, Ishfaq says. Of course, when 3PLs expand their reach and their service portfolios, their costs go up—and so do the prices they charge their customers. That, he says, could undermine one of their core value propositions: that they can handle logistics activities more cost-effectively than their clients could on their own.
That's one reason why other executives are considering a different approach: taking some warehousing and distribution activities back from 3PLs. "If a market was mature and the service demand was stable and predictable, then some would talk about doing it in-house," Ishfaq says, adding that these were all "really big players with thousands of stores who see the scale in a particular brand or product category." In addition, concerns about transportation capacity are prompting some to consider private delivery fleets or dedicated contract carriage. Still, interviewees said they would continue working with 3PLs when expansion to a new market/location or the rollout of new services was involved.
As customers put pressure on retailers to improve their service, the retailers, in turn, expect 3PLs to "up their game," Ishfaq says. But those expectations seem to be changing faster than the 3PLs can keep up with. "That has put pressure on them from both a cost and a performance-guarantee standpoint. It's a pressure cooker right now," he says. "We could see failures or tougher going."
Achieving supply chain sustainability. How much priority retailers give to sustainability, which includes environmental, health and safety compliance, and labor considerations, varies widely. Large companies that have published sustainability reports, made someone responsible for sustainability, or integrated it into their corporate culture considered it to be very important, but for others, sustainability is not a strategic priority, Davis-Sramek says. Those companies' efforts often focused on things like energy and fuel efficiency, where they can see a direct connection to cost savings. Several executives said it's critical that their sourcing organizations ensure that goods are in compliance with relevant regulations, make sure products are environmentally safe, and address problems like forced labor, but that focus didn't necessarily carry over into supply chain activities.
The interviewees have not widely considered an issue that could have a major impact on their supply chain costs in the future: the conflict between sustainability goals and consumers' escalating demands for fast, convenient service. "We asked them, if you ship one item to one customer in one box, what does that do to your ability to meet sustainability goals?" Davis-Sramek recalls. "The pretty universal response was, 'We've placed so much emphasis on fulfillment and meeting customer requests that we haven't really made that connection yet.'"
Davis-Sramek expects that at some point, retailers will come under external pressure to resolve the tension between e-commerce and sustainability. That pressure may come from nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), perhaps through a study on the impact of home delivery on the environment. Or it could come in the form of regulation, such as a carbon tax or European-style regulations on packaging waste. Nobody knows how far in the future that will happen, but Davis-Sramek expects retailers will step up when it does. "I think they'll apply the same kind of innovative thinking they used to develop omnichannel commerce," she says.
Leveraging disruptive technology. Disruptive technology is still more concept than reality for most retailers. "There's no single cutting-edge technology that everybody's focused on," says Defee. "They know it's coming, but nobody sees one they're really banking on right now." Technologies that were mentioned most frequently included artificial intelligence and machine learning, which were seen as potentially having a beneficial impact on such areas as demand forecasting, understanding customers' preferences, and identifying trends that will impact inventory plans.
Most, though, are just beginning to investigate those and other technologies, such as robotics, blockchain, and the Internet of Things. "There's a lot of interest and there's monitoring, but not a lot of money invested," Gibson says. "There's still a healthy amount of skepticism about how these technologies will play in the supply chain area." Return on investment (ROI) is another top concern; one interviewee, Defee says, called articulating an ROI to justify investment "the No. 1 challenge of disruptive technology."
Not surprisingly, then, when it comes to new technology, retailers are focusing on proven winners, such as analytics and warehouse automation. E-commerce fulfillment is driving investment in those and other technologies, but retailers are also using them to improve store operations, Gibson notes. For example, some are buying automated picking and sequencing technology for their stores because the automated systems do a much better job of picking aisle-specific pallets or cartons than a human can, thus allowing for faster on-shelf replenishment.
COMMON PRINCIPLES
During the course of the researchers' interviews, several common principles came to the fore. One was that retailers should ensure consistent service and product availability regardless of how they are interacting with customers. Another was that they must become true omnichannel organizations, leveraging inventory, technology, and distribution networks to get to a single pool of stock. Omnichannel success also requires the capacity to deliver orders wherever and whenever the customer wants them. "We're going to hit that tipping point where a retailer's capacity to make last-mile deliveries will either be game-changing or it will bog [the operation] down and get very expensive," Gibson says.
Finally, the researchers say, retailers are starting to understand that being involved in omnichannel does not mean they are obligated to be "all things to all people." Instead, many are taking advantage of advances in supply chain analytics to judge whether their scope of offerings and cost to serve specific channels and customers are justifiable. How they respond to the data will be driven by external competition and/or internal strategies, Gibson points out. Something may be costly from a supply chain standpoint, he says, but in an omnichannel world, retailers ultimately must make decisions based on overall strategic benefit.
Editor's note: An earlier version of this article originally said that the Retail Industry Leaders Association conducts the poll. While RILA members (among others) are polled, the survey itself is conducted by Auburn University's Center for Supply Chain 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."