From stolen art to Covid-19: interview with David Shillingford
Over the course of his career, Resilience360’s David Shillingford has used the power of data and analytics to track down stolen art and help prepare companies for pandemics.
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.
Chasing down stolen art would seem to have little to do with helping companies anticipate and mitigate the effects of a pandemic on their supply chain operations. Yet it was while working for a New York startup that helps owners recover pilfered artwork that David Shillingford first became aware of the power of data and analytics—the same tools he would later use to guide companies through the Covid-19 crisis.
From that introduction to data analytics as a loss-prevention and recovery tool, Shillingford moved on to other startups that applied similar techniques to risk management and mitigation, gradually working his way into the retail and logistics sectors. Indeed, as a senior vice president at Verisk Analytics, he was responsible for the data analytics and risk assessment firm’s entry into supply chain analytics.
Today, he serves as chairman of supply chain risk-management company Resilience360 and CEO of its parent company, Rising Tide Digital, a holding company formed by Columbia Capital to invest in and develop disruptive supply chain analytics companies. Resilience360 was originally created by transportation and logistics giant DHL in response to customers’ needs for better supply chain visibility following the 2011 Japan earthquake and tsunami. It has since become an independently operated company under the management of Rising Tide Digital.
Since the start of the Covid-19 outbreak in January, Resilience360’s risk analysts have been tracking and assessing the pandemic’s impact on global supply chains, including quarantines, company shutdowns, border closures, and other disruptions. On Feb. 27, the company started issuing daily updates on the outbreak. It has also produced 12 special reports, five webinars, and one podcast on the topic.
Shillingford recently took some time away from the crisis to talk to DC Velocity’s Susan Lacefield on the lessons we can learn from the pandemic and what to expect in the coming months.
Q: How is the Covid-19 pandemic different from other risk events global supply chains have recently faced?
A: There are two main differences. One is the geographic spread and impact of the outbreak. The speed, extent, and unpredictability are unprecedented and have resulted in simultaneous, global supply disruptions and demand shocks. The other difference is the human component of the pandemic—the loss of lives is, first and foremost, a human tragedy. Unlike most supply chain disruptions, the supply chain infrastructure is intact; it is the workforce that is unable to work and the consumer that is unable or unwilling to consume.
It is also noteworthy that the tragedy and disruption would be much worse without the dedication and bravery of frontline workers in health care and in retail stores, and those making the deliveries.
Q: Has there been anything about the recent crisis that took you by surprise or caught you off guard?
A: [We’ve been struck by the lack of preparedness among the] companies that have been contacting Resilience360 lately to understand how we can help them manage their supply chain risk. The lack of visibility to upstream supply and logistics networks, the risks they face, and the financial impact of these risks is surprising. Some companies have made efforts to risk-adjust their decision-making, but most are just about to start this journey.
Q: What are some lessons that can be learned from the pandemic from a supply chain perspective?
A: Companies need to have better visibility into their extended network and the risks that are most likely to have an impact on their ability to source, make, and deliver their products on time. The move toward digitalization needs to accelerate, and risk needs to be embedded in supply chain decision-making at the strategic and tactical level. Visibility and monitoring have become critical competencies and best practices, and will be even more so moving forward.
Q: What companies do you feel have handled the pandemic well, and what can others learn from their example?
A: At an individual company level, the ones that have responded well are those that already had a cross-functional crisis-management framework that includes supply chain risk monitoring—companies that have invested in tools that enable end-to-end network mapping and risk assessment. We also found that the industries that were hardest hit in past disruptions were the best prepared, including automotive and high-tech companies that have been impacted by various natural disasters over the last decade. The same applies across countries and regions—areas that are historically more prone to disruptions tend to be better prepared.
Q: What long-term advice would you give companies on how they can recover from the pandemic?
A: The speed and shape of each company’s recovery will depend on its size, industry, and location, but all companies need to accelerate their progress toward digitalization, and risk [management and analysis must] be a component of that [digital] transformation. Companies can no longer afford to think about risk management as a separate process; it must be embedded within their strategic and tactical decision-making.
Q: What advice would you give national governments on how they can help supply chains in the post-crisis period?
A: Private industry will always have more resources than the government, but these resources can either be hamstrung or multiplied depending upon how the government partners with industry. These types of partnerships can only be achieved with the right interface. A good example of this is the American Logistics Aid Network, which launched the Supply Chain Intelligence Center to help businesses quickly see government-imposed restrictions or waivers that impact supply chains.
Q: What industry sectors do you expect to be most changed by the pandemic and why?
A: Retail’s move to e-commerce will be accelerated, and obviously the hospitality industry will change in many ways, as trends toward eating in restaurants will reverse and [the demand for] food delivery will grow. Pharma companies will come under pressure to source from lower-risk countries and onshore more production. Companies with very lean supply chains will be under pressure to increase safety stock. Consumers will not demand the [same variety of choices they previously did], which will allow companies to reduce SKU [stock-keeping unit] proliferation and the resulting supply chain complexity.
Q: What effects do you expect to see in freight transportation for the next year? How will the pandemic affect freight rates and capacity?
A: The biggest challenge for freight transportation will be volatility. Supply and demand will come back online at different times in different parts of the world, and the likelihood of secondary outbreaks will create further supply disruptions and demand shocks. [Regions] where demand does return will see capacity challenges due to imbalances in transportation assets as well as the insolvency of many carriers over the next six to 12 months.
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."