Category Archives: Best Practices
Did Descartes Miss the Point in Its List of Four Things You Can Do Today To Reduce Fuel Costs?
Given that Gas Prices are Too Damn High and that this situation is not about to change anytime in the near, and even not-so-near, future, a recent white paper by Descartes on “Reducing Fuel Costs”: Four Things You Need to Know and Can Act on Today caught my attention. However, while their suggestions are good, I think they kind of missed the point. Going straight to the section on What You Can Do Today, Descartes suggests that you should:
- Decrease the Total Miles/Kilometers Driven by the Fleet
Since the vast majority of fleets still drive inefficient routes to serve their customers, this is a good suggestion on the surface, but it’s easy to take this too far. For example, while the shortest route from Birmingham, Alabama to Indianapolis, Indiana might be straight through Nashville, Tennessee, driving through there at rush hour is not the best move as the trip could take an extra 3 hours and every hour the engine is running, gas is being consumed. This requires some smarts. Sometimes longer trips are more efficient. - Minimize Idling
This is a great suggestion. Not only does this burn fuel, but it harms the environment. However, when a conscientious driver is idling, it’s not when he’s making a delivery, but when he’s waiting to make a left hand turn. The right routes don’t have left turns. That’s why UPS does it’s best to eliminate them. However, this can slightly lengthen a route, which is in conflict with the last suggestion. - Change Driver Behaviour
If driver behaviour is a major cause for fuel inefficiency, then this is obviously a good thing, especially if the driver is excessively speeding (well beyond the fuel efficiency zone), (too) rapidly accelerating, and hard-braking on a regular basis. But the driver’s behaviour might not be entirely his fault — it could be a fault of your training program, which might be mentor-driven by your senior drivers who have had bad habits all of their driving career and pass them on. The first step should be to check your training programs and requirements and make sure your drivers get the right behaviour day one. - Implement regular maintenance monitoring plans.
Vehicles with properly inflated tires, well maintained engines, and good braking systems do maintain less fuel, but don’t go overboard with preventative maintenance. An overly aggressive maintenance plan will replace parts needlessly and eat up the savings you get in decreased fuel utilization pretty quickly. Monitor aggressively, but maintain sparingly.
In other words, it’s suggestions for what you can do today were good, but not great. However, the section on how technology can help was much better. In this section, it made four recommendations, and three of them were on the money.
- Route Planning and Optimization
This optimizes the routes to balance minimum driving distance and minimum run time (by adding in right turns to reduce idling and slight detours to bypass commonly congested areas) across the fleet and, as the paper notes, can result in a reduction of total route length by 5% to 30% when done properly. - Mobile & Tracking Solutions
This allows you to track your trucks and know the exact location of your drivers, the routes they have taken and, most importantly, how the fleet is performing against the plan. - Telematics
A constant measurement of engine data and driver performance can allow engine problems to be identified immediately and bad drivers to be singled out for training to improve their performance.
The last recommendation, not so much. Basically, the paper recommended a cloud-based solution for all the standard reasons, but clearly forgot that the cloud is not a fluffy magic box and not all of the promised advantages will materialize.
If you track, measure, and optimize, you will minimize fuel requirements while improving performance, but no one tip is going to save you and over-simplifying the problem can cause as many problems as it solves. The only way to truly save fuel is to reduce delivery requirements. Do you need as much? Do you need it as often? Can you get the product from a geographically more proximate supplier at a comparable cost? These are the real questions you need to ask!
If You Are Using a 3PL, Should You Focus on Outcome-Based Pricing?
Yesterday we discussed whether or not you should hedge your transportation costs, given this recent article in Canadian Transportation & Logistics (CTL) that found “global shipping lines grapple with plunging rates, overcapacity, and faltering recover”. Today we discuss another recent Canadian Transportation & Logistics article on “why it pays to focus on outcomes rather than transactions in procuring supply chain services”.
While an outcome-based focus is starting to take hold in some leading Supply Management organizations in their strategic sourcing processes, it’s often focussed on more traditional services where outcomes are easily defined and well understood by the organization. For example, procurement back-office functions where it’s all about throughput improvement (in terms of invoices processed), customer service (where it’s all about trouble-ticket resolution), and preventative maintenance (where it’s all about reducing downtime).
But back-office, customer service, and system up-time are not the only things that can be measured as outcomes. So can 3PL. As per the CTL on global shipping challenges, only 56% of containers delivered on time globally. Fifty-six percent! For those of you going for the perfect order, that’s 44% of your orders that rely on globally sourced products that won’t be perfect as of day one! (That’s why Maersk launched its Daily Maersk service in late October of 2011 which, with daily cut-off and built-in safety margins, allows it to guarantee virtually total reliability between select ports in Asia and Europe.)
Of course, this will require a shift in mindset in both buyers and 3PLs, but if both parties are willing to share greater risks, both parties could reap greater rewards. Current trends seem to indicate that. For example, by focussing on outcomes, Microsoft saved $30 Million by outsourcing its procure-to-pay operation to Accenture One, which doubled profit by focussing on value add activities. And Proctor & Gamble saved $1 Million in the first year of outsourcing $70 Million of facility management to Jones Lang LaSalle.
When the 3PL focusses on process and productivity improvement, and not price reduction, the efficiencies that fall out will most likely lead to cost reductions in the long term. For example, just getting the on-time delivery rate to 94% from 56% will likely decrease expediting costs 86%. And reducing “empty miles” will reduce costs (and likely speed up delivery time-frames as well, shortening lead times).
Some Takeaways from the E2Open sponsored SCM World Collaborative Execution Study
SCM World recently released a study on “Collaborative Execution” (defined as two or more parties working together to improve supply chain performance by continuously solving real problems with better information), focussed on Speed, Innovation and Profitability, overseen by Kevin O’Marah, and sponsored by E2Open that had some rather interesting, and in a few cases, surprising results. First off:
For suppliers, collaboration is primarily a means by which their customers share demand information, with 73% strongly agreeing this is a key aspect of collaboration.
For buyers, an overwhelming 83% believe collaboration revolves around the supplier sharing availability information (e.g. capacity, lead times, etc.).
In other words, both sides agree that collaboration centres on information sharing and, furthermore, the study also found that,
both sides need visibility and want a dedicated problem solver.
This means that the primary barrier to collaboration between most supply chain partners is the fact that companies struggle to share information effectively, with 54% seeing lack of data visibility across trading partners as a perennial problem. Furthermore, the next biggest barrier was speed of issue resolution, with almost 50% agreeing that this was a barrier to effective collaboration. (In addition, 92% agree that quick problem resolution is part of good collaboration.)
But the most surprising result of the survey was that trust, governance, and benefit sharing were not the biggest barriers to collaboration, as commonly suggested, but the ability to connect trading partner information flow, insure quality of information, and synchronize that information for quick problem solving. (For example, almost one half of respondents felt granularity of data was a problem, speaking to the quality issue, and almost one half of respondents saw timeliness of information as a problem.) This says that, for the most part, it is not lack of desire, trust, or willingness to collaborate that is the problem, but a lack of technology to enable collaboration. (And this is a shame, considering that such technology has existed in more than adequate form for at least five years now for even the largest of multi-nationals with the most complex supply networks. It may take some effort to get used to some of the technology, which is only now maturing on the usability front in some cases, but how much of a barrier is it really to spend a few days learning a technology that is going to cut your issue resolution time in half and decrease your risk substantially?)
Given that:
- collaborative relationships were more cost effective,
55% of respondents agree - good collaboration minimizes risk, and
75% of respondents agree - learning is faster in a collaborative environment
70% of respondents conclude that the rate of leaning increases by at least one-and-a-half times
Acquiring the technology that your organization needs to take collaboration with your trading partners to the next level should be a no-brainer. (Especially since the last finding means that any operational metric targeted such as inventory days, total landed cost, cash to cash cycle time can be expected to improve one and a half times as quickly as would be the case without collaborative execution. Thus, any appropriate technology acquisition is going to give you a very quick ROI.)
The only other point of interest was the not-so-surprising result that management by exception it seems is still not part of a “truly collaborative” trading partner relationship for a substantial number of companies. This would indicate that collaboration, even among market leaders, is still not very mature. In a mature relationship, each party trusts the other to do what they do best and only gets involved when a deviation is detected or an idea is devised to improve the process or product. But still, it’s nice to know that both buyers and sellers do not see trust as a barrier to collaborating for mutual gain.
Procurement Game Plan: A Review Part III.2
Charles Dominick of Next Level Purchasing and Soheila R. Lunney of Lunney Advisory Group recently released The Procurement Game Plan: Winning Strategies and Techniques for Supply Management Professionals. So far, in our review, we’ve covered the Purchasing Professional’s 10 Commandments, organizational role, Supply Management strategy, talent, social responsibility, strategic sourcing, supplier qualification, negotiation, and supplier relationship management. This post, which continues our review of Part III, dives into procurement performance — measurement and methodology.
If you do not have a solid way of measuring procurement performance, you do not know how well you are doing or, more importantly, how you can improve. If you don’t measure performance, you can be guaranteed that performance, inside and outside your organization, will not be what you expect, and possibly not even to the minimum levels that you contracted for! You’ll have no way of knowing if your supplier understands your expectations, cares, or if your buyers are keeping up their end of the bargain (and buying on contract).
As a result you should keep a scorecard that addresses, at a minimum, the six classifications of procurement impact identified by the authors:
- True Expense Reduction / Cost Savings
When you obtain a true cost reduction and hold volume requirements steady, this is a huge win that is easily understood by all. - Price Reductions that Offset Volume Increases
If volume requirements increase 20%, chances are total spend is going to go up, but if you negotiated good price reductions, the organization is still saving on a unit basis and the organization must get credit for this. - Expense Reductions through Negotiation
If the organization did not buy a product or service under contract in the past, but started buying such product or service under contract, then any cost reduction against average historical unit pricing is a savings. If the organization did not previously buy the product or service, then any cost reduction against a market average is a saving (as that is what the organization would be likely to pay, at a minimum, without Procurement’s involvement). - Volatile Commodity Price Reductions Against Market(-Based) Pricing
There are some commodities, such as crude oil (where the price is essentially set by Wall Street, as we explained in a recent post here on SI), where it is virtually impossible for an average Procurement Pro to reduce cost. Markets drive the prices, and there’s little a Procurement Pro can do. But if the average year-over-year increase is 25%, and the Procurement Pro manages to keep the year-over-year increase to 20%, that’s a win. - Savings that could be obtained with Procurement Involvement
If Procurement saved 1 Million on 10 Million of spend, that might not be much to an organization that spends 50 Million, but if Procurement was instead allowed to manage 80% of the organization’s spend instead of 20%, then, instead of reducing top-line costs by 2%, it could reduce top-line costs by 8%, and that is a significant contribution that will carry straight to the bottom line [(c) Robert Rudzki]! And if Procurement identifies any areas where it can exceed the average organizational savings percentage, they should be clearly communicated. - Price Increases Incurred
If Procurement only reports the good, and hides the bad (which will happen from time to time as that Black Swan, who makes Hannibal look like a juvie in comparison, is one nasty little bugger), then it is risking having its reputation ruined when someone in the finance office, bitter about the recognition Procurement is receiving, digs where you don’t want him too. Report the bad. If Procurement is doing its job well, this number is going to be dwarfed by the other numbers and the total-savings-across-the-board calculation is still going to make Procurement look like a star.
The chapter does a great job of identifying, and explaining, the appropriate cost savings formulae you will need to report the above; explaining what a financial performance analysis is; and explaining some key financial terms (such as EPS, EBITDA, and ROI); but the only other section I wish to point out is the section on measuring total team performance that outlines some common mistakes that should be avoided in your reporting:
- Cost Savings as the Lone Metric
The first reaction of a skeptic will be what are you trying to hide? As every organization contains a number of skeptics, don’t do this. - Not Using Net Cost Savings as Metric
It’s not how much you negotiate, but how much you capture. That’s why SRM/SPM and spend monitoring (as described in the 100%-free no-registration-required eBook on Spend Visibility: An Implementation Guide) is so vital! - Not Taking Markets into Account When Setting Goals
If raw material costs for steel went up 30% and your product is 60% steel, then your raw product costs have shot up 18% and a 10% year-over-year cost reduction ain’t gonna happen. Don’t expect it!
Remember, it’s all about cost savings credibility. If you have it, your Supply Management organization will get the respect it deserves!