Category Archives: Logistics

Have Some Lessons Been Learned by Supply Professionals?

World Trade recently ran an article on “lessons learned by supply professionals” which started out by doing a great job of proclaiming the obvious — it’s been a rough year. As noted, unemployment continues to thwart efforts to tame it, customers are becoming more conservative, and in some quarters, forward thinking and strategizing seem to have been put on hold and profits are hard to make these days.

But is there a silver lining? New opportunities borne of anxiety and the desire among clients and potential clients to overturn every stone they can find to bolster their competitive edges and their bottom lines is a good start, but not a silver lining in and of itself. And executing on the lessons learned from 2008 is something companies should already be doing.

Understanding the market is good, understanding the technology requirements of the market is better, and understanding how to utilize both to provide more value to the customers is key, but should it take an extreme harsh environment to learn the lesson? And is the consensus reaction of lengthening decision times and more deliberation right when efforts need to be made to reduce costs and create value now?

And are 3PLs really getting more business opportunities? They’ve always done, and had the ability to consult on, inventory, regardless of whether or not companies care about inventory optimization outside of down markets. And there hasn’t really been any new offerings in VMI (Vendor Managed Inventory). And leading companies have always been doing supply network optimization on a somewhat regular basis. And smart companies never chase bad deals.

It sounds to me like average company hasn’t learned much, and that it definitely has not learned that the best way to weather a storm is to prepare for it before it hits. Innovation and improvement should be continuous and strategically planned, not a one-time tactical response to a down market. That’s the one lesson worth learning.

Can Electronic Postage Really Demystify International Shipping?

A recent white paper by DYMO Endica claims that “Electronic Postage Technology Demystifies International Shipping”. Needless to say this got my attention because, being aware of the dozens and dozens of issues that can arise in international shipping, postage usually doesn’t make the list.

The paper starts off with some facts that every supply manager needs to know, which include:

  • 96% of the world’s consumers live outside the US and collectively hold two thirds of the world’s purchasing power
  • currently, US-based online retailers that ship abroad acquire 5% of their revenue from foreign orders and this number is rising
  • 14.5% of retailers that ship abroad see more than 25% of total sales from foreign orders
  • rate classes that change annually, tariffs and taxes in multiple currencies, the disparate shipping rules of numerous countries, plus the rigours of complying with customs documentation and reporting are just a few of the challenges of international shipping

And then defines electronic postage systems as:

software platforms that enable the online purchase and printing of U.S. Postal Service postage, from the computer, to be used for domestic and international mailing and shipping

which is the proper definition of a country-based electronic postage solution. But how does that address the issues of tariffs, the disparate shipping rules of multiple countries, and the rigours of complying with customs documentation? All a typical electronic postage system does is insure that you apply the proper amount of postage (assuming you enter the proper dimensions of the packaged item and the proper weight and choose the proper shipping method, as the system looks up the rate from published rate tables). Now, some solutions from private industry will also produce the necessary documentation, given the necessary information, but then you are venturing into the territory of customs and trade documentation solutions. By definition, an electronic postage system does not produce customs documents. And you need to know how to answer the questions correctly (in what is typically a wizard-like interface) to get the right documentation.

In other words, if you integrate an electronic postage system with a trade and customs documentation system, you will simplify the trade process, as you will know how much you have to pay and what documents you need to include, but you will not demystify it. Many of these regulations are complex, with even more complex classifications for goods (for example, referencing HTS codes, a printer shipped with an installed cartridge is not the same as a printer shipped with an uninstalled cartridge). If you don’t understand the rules and regulations of where you are shipping, and the terminology used by the application, you will still be lost. There’s no magic demystification that occurs simply with the acquisition of such a solution.

However, if you understand the basics of international shipping, and the mandatory rules and regulations of the country you are shipping to, I do believe their claim that average shipping time can be reduced from 20 minutes to 2 if the software is in the hands of a professional in international shipping and logistics.

If you’re a small to mid-size business getting into the international direct-to-consumer shipping game, the white paper is definitely worth a read, but don’t get taken for a ride on the magic carpet. Simplification is not demystification, and you’ll have to learn a little to get a lot from this type of solution.

Is Polygamy Good for the Supply Chain?

A recent article over on CFO by Shawn Casemore, President of Casemore & Co, on why you should “mend your spend” in order to grow, offered up Casemore and Co’s four crucial steps to building a big-business attitude. Step two, which stated that the procurement department is not the place for monogamy, caught my attention because sometimes “monogamy” is needed for successful procurement.

According to Shawn:

Human nature has demonstrated that the longer we remain in a stable relationship, the less effort we place into maintaining or improving the relationship. In a supplier-to-customer relationship, this tendency is often substantiated through escalating prices and diminishing customer service over time.

As an example, he gives the anecdote of when he worked with an organization that used a sole transportation source for all of its inbound and outbound freight needs — remnants of its early days when it was a small business. The prices offered by the carrier had been steadily climbing, and freight damage was quite prevalent. Despite those problems, the company president was hesitant to change. But when they moved the business away from the incumbent and divided it between two alternative carriers, service levels improved and the firm reduced overall transportation costs by nearly 10% per year.

And this is a common story among consultant firms that specialize in transportation / logistics / 3PL cost reduction. Competition is good for the corporate coffers. And in this situation, a secondary source of supply can mitigate risks and increase competition.

But this isn’t always the case. If you need a specialized widget, or microprocessor, and you split the award, you drive up costs as setup costs, which often involve new equipment purchases, for production of a new, customized, product are high — and you’re paying them twice and information protection and losses due to IP theft — as there are two routes IP thieves can take to steal your IP and produce black-market copy-cat products — are higher.

In other words, competition is great when you have a tactical category where there are lots of low-risk, high quality suppliers to compete for your business, but if you have a strategic category where there are few high-quality suppliers and set-up costs are high, sole-source (with production distributed at geographically dispersed plants) might be the way to go.

Your thoughts?

Patent Pirates Are Still Plundering

According to this recent article over on CNN Money, “patent trolls” (Sep 21, 2011) have cost investors Half A Trillion Dollars over the last 20 years. Half A Trillion Dollars! That’s an awful lot of innovation down the drain!

At this point, I’m wondering which pirates are worse? The pirates off the coast of Somalia, who have escalated their attacks and brought ocean piracy to an all time high this year, with 142 attacks in the first quarter alone (and 346 attacks as of September 27). Now, it’s true that the attacks are sometimes violent and that 15 people have been killed this year, but for the most part, the Somali pirates are more focussed on taking hostages in return for ransoms, and release the hostages when they get the ransom. And while the ransoms are getting higher, with the average ransom reaching 5.4 Million in 2010, total payments in 2010 were only 238 Million. Yes, this is a big number, and 20 times 238 Million is a bigger number at 4.76 Billion, but that’s only 1% of losses that can be attributed to patent pirates. One percent!

And the “contributions” that the patent trolls supposedly make to innovation are essentially nonexistent. They’ve funnelled less than 10 Billion to R&D, or less than 1/50th of what they’ve cost investors and innovators. All they do is create a disincentive to innovate. And in SI’s view, they should be made to walk the plank.

Your Transportation Costs Are About To Go Way Up!

Mary C. Holcomb of The University of Tennessee and Karl B. Manrodt of Georgia Southern University, in partnership with Con-way Inc., Ernst & Young, and Logistics Mangaement, just released their Annual Study of Logistics and Transporation (The Masters of Logistics Report), and the findings, summarized in this recent article on Study of Logistics and Transportation Trends: Navigating transportation’s Bermuda Triangle that had some scary findings. Namely that, in the average supply chain, there is:

  • a lack of planning for the impact of rising fuel prices,
  • a rigid network that is incapable of flexing when uncertainty occurs, and
  • a myopic internal focus that limits the enterprises’ ability to achive the desired performance results.

Furthermore, the most mature actions being undertaken by study respondents are

  • use of core carriers
    which doesn’t deal with the fact that they will tack on fuel surcharges when prices get high enough
  • use of dedicated transportation
    which generally only helps with core routes
  • carrier tracking
    which keeps on top of rates but does nothing to mitigate or control rates
  • load planning
    which increases fill rate and minimizes shipments, but doesn’t necessarily optimize the network
  • shipment consolidation
    which helps, but only if done in conjuction with S&OP planning because, otherwise, there’s a chance that this could increase the probability of costly stock-outs

And none of these are optimal. As the authors indicate, logistics managers need to be looking at route planning in conjuction with network optimization and redesign with respect to overall supply chain needs. This is the only way to adequately mitigate the risk of (rapidly) rising freight prices in the years to come. And any company that keeps doing the same-old, same-old, which is the majority of companies by the looks of things, is in for a rapid rate increase as soon as the (global) economy bounces back.