Thoughts on Retailers Buying XPO Logistics and What The Right Strategy Should Be

I generally do not like to comment on something so speculative however Friday ended with a huge bang in the supply chain industry with Amazon and a major retailer apparently thinking of buying XPO logistics.  I was asked by many what I thought of this so let me give you some pre-holiday thoughts:

First, this is a very normal activity as companies go upstream and downstream in the value chain to try to capture as much as they can in that chain.  Remember your business classes:  The value chain starts essentially at the extraction of raw materials and ends with the consumer (some say it goes through post consumption disposal and return of unconsumed raw materials to Mother Earth.  I agree with that however let's leave that alone for now.).  In between extraction and consumer you have activities such as transport of raw materials, conversion of raw materials to something of value, transportation to distribution, merchandising (either on line or in store) and final mile delivery (whether completed by the consumer or completed by the seller) to the point of use (the home).

Three things you will notice in that scenario:

1. Conversion is very specific to a good.  Meaning, it is not fungible and if you wanted to capture that portion of the value chain you would have to buy a lot of companies.  You may want to vertically integrate a very high margin company but not all of it.
2. Transportation is pervasive across the value chain all the way back to the raw materials movements to the final mile.
3. Delivery Final mile (v. customer pick up) is growing rapidly and it touches the consumer.  This makes Final Mile transportation part of the merchandising and consumer touch point process - and this is why retailers want to vertically integrate. The impact of final mile on the consumer experience and consumer loyalty is huge.  

There is one other dynamic happening right now and that is the current capacity crunch.  Rather than get into an "arms race" of ever increasing rates, the retailer may decide to just buy their own capacity and this is another reason to get the "Elephant Gun" out and look for carriers to buy.  

If the retailer is thinking they want to capture the final mile and protect themselves against the capacity crunch, they could do a number of things:

1. Buy technology to facilitate the final mile but not buy the assets.  Think Target's acquisition of Grand Junction.  Or their more recent acquisition of Shipt for grocery shipping.  Even Wal-Mart's acquisition of Jet.com would be part of facilitating this process.  (The biggest issue with the Wal-Mart acquisition was one of culture - Wal-Mart eliminated Jet's long standing practicing of having drinks and happy hours in the office.  That since has been reinstated).
2. Buy transportation assets and make them "in house" assets.  This is where the discussion of buying XPO comes in.
3. Build the transportation assets yourself - i.e., Amazon's acquisition of planes and doing "power only" where Amazon owns the trailers, are examples of this.  Many retailers follow this power only model.  The benefit of this is you can swap carriers pretty quickly and you can leverage small carriers since the retailer owns the trailer.  The problem with this strategy is the "crunch" is with the power not with the trailer.
4. Develop "Vested" relationships which give the specific retailer "most favored nation" status with one or more asset providers.  While this idea is championed by Kate Vitasek at University of Tennessee (read about this concept at The Vested Way) it really was "founded" in the logistics industry by the infamous J.B. Hunt agreement with the BNSF.  This gave J.B. Hunt a preferred status with BNSF which, to this day, makes it impossible for other carriers to really compete with JBH.  For the most part, the rest of the industry fights over what JBH does not want.  If JBH wants it, they win. 
5. Work within financial risk mitigation constructs. An interesting new development is to protect capacity (does not really help with final mile) by participating in the new futures exchange developed by Craig Fuller called TransRisk.  This will definitely assist with the stabilization of rates and capacity however it is at least one year away from implementation  and, while I absolutely think it will work, it is unproven.  

There are hybrids of all of these however these are the major actions a retailer could take to capture more of the value in the value chain and mitigate capacity risk.  Number 2 above, Buy Assets, has garnished all the excitement going into Christmas weekend.  My quick thoughts:

1. No one is buying XPO and if they did the Government would stop it.  XPO, as it currently is constructed, is too big and would have too big of an impact on industry assets to allow one retailer or on-line provider to buy it.
2. They could split XPO up and buy pieces of it.  While this would probably make it easier to get through government regulators, I believe this action would be value destroying not value creating.  For example, the final mile portion of XPO was created by XPO acquiring a company called 3PD.  3PD are executives who came out of retail and therefore just "putting it back" could be possible.  Combine 3PD with the final mile technology of Optima (which is a final mile technology company XPO purchased back in 2013) and you may have a platform for a good final mile service.
   
   However, don't forget, neither XPO, 3PD or Optima own the transportation assets. They merely find, qualify and route.  The "work" is still outsourced to smaller delivery companies and therefore this would be more of an example of buy technology  (along with getting very good people) versus buying transportation assets.
   
   The big question this would leave is what happens to the rest of XPO?  Is it just a carcass laying out there to be pecked at by private equity investors? Does Brad Jacobs still run it?  Are the pieces as valuable as the whole?  I think not.  I think the value of each piece of XPO diminishes significantly as other pieces get sold off. This is why I believe splitting XPO up would be value destroying not value creating (unless, of course, the buyer of a piece is willing to either pay a huge premium for the portion they buy or be willing to immediately divest of certain portions of the "carcass")

I think the logical action for retailers is to concentrate heavily on #1 (Buy Technology) along with #4

 (Develop Vested Relationships).  I would also heavily participate in #5 (Work within financial risk mitigation constructs) once it becomes available. 

Interestingly, and somewhat off the radar, this is what Target appears to be doing (after hiring Preston Mosier and Arthur Valdez from Amazon).  Perhaps everyone, including Amazon, should be focused more on what is happening in Minnesota.

Have a very happy holiday season!

Amazon Final Mile - It is All About The Brand

I keep being asked why in the world would Amazon start their own home delivery / final mile service (See Amazon Logistics)?  Everyone questions this as a stretch and even Fed-Ex could not help themselves when they stated Amazon (they did not specifically say Amazon but we all knew who they meant)  does not understand what it takes to have a dense delivery network like Fed-Ex or UPS. 

UPS chose to be in denial by having the CEO say:

"We don't believe that Amazon's strategy is to do it themselves and the reason we believe that is we have this huge infrastructure, we're investing in technology, we have a great mutual relationship with them," 

I think most of the analysis, and the response from Fed-Ex and UPS miss three critical points:

1. Branding
2. Capacity
3. Drop Ship
   

Branding:  When a final mile company delivers to the consumer's home the consumer sees it as an extension of the company the item is purchased from, the product and the purchase experience.   The consumer does not see "Fed-Ex", "UPS", "JB Hunt Final Mile" or "XPO" and certainly they do not separate the delivery from the entire purchase experience.  If the product is late, damaged, delivered in a truck that looks like a get away vehicle from a crime, is handed to you by a person who is a felon, etc. etc. the consumer will be very disappointed and will always relate this experience to the store (whether on line or physical).  If Amazon is to protect their brand they need to own more and more of the fulfillment chain  This allows them to do that. 

Capacity:  UPS and Fed-Ex have disappointed at the crunch seasons more than once and I believe Amazon is just sick of it.  At some point you have to take destiny into your own hands and take control of it.  Part of this is what stage the companies are at in their development.  UPS and Fed-Ex are in the "protection of business" stage and Amazon is still in the "Grow.. grow.. grow " phase.  What does this mean?  It means UPS and Fed-Ex are big companies who only invest when they know 100% it is a "sure thing". 

Amazon, on the other hand, is investing like mad.  Therefore, UPS and Fed-Ex cannot keep up with the explosive growth and maintain all their other businesses.  This shows itself in a lack of capacity at crunch times and so Amazon, as they always do, have taken their destiny into their own hands. 

Drop Ship: In Amazon's statements what is also clear is they want to control the drop ship experience from vendor's warehouses.  In this case the consumer orders from Amazon, the order is passed to a vendor, the vendor maintains the inventory and warehouses it but a Amazon truck picks it up and delivers to the customer.  Think about this as the touch points the customer is directly involved in are:

• Order experience
• Delivery experience
• Payment experience

In the case I outlined above, Amazon owns all three and the burden of back room logistics (versus front room logistics - I feel like I should trademark those two terms) is kept by the vendor.  This is brilliant and well outlined in this short article in Industrial Distribution Magazine.  

As logisticians and supply chain people we always look to the operational aspects of a strategic move.  In this case, it goes far beyond logistics operations.  

Read all my postings about Amazon as I have tracked this development for years:  Amazon Coverage on 10xLogistics

Why Do Supply Chain Transformations Fail - The Case for Change Management

I have been thinking and reading a lot lately about supply chain transformations.  I have also been involved in many of them throughout my career including the integration of a $5bl supply chain with a $10bl supply chain in the durable goods area and the complete redesign of a major automotive service parts supply chain.

What makes a transformation action great and what can cause them to fail?  Obviously, you have to get the "supply chain technicals" correct.  If you are redesigning the network, redesigning the fulfillment methods or moving to modern leading edge technology you will need to get the technicals right.  However, my thesis is this is less than 1/2 of the success criteria.  Once you have this right, the biggest challenge is change management.  You will need to lead an entire company and team into the new environment and if this is not done well, all the technical genius in the world will not make your supply chain transformation work.

I am going to address this in a series of posts and this first post is going to cover the definition of change management.  Daryl Connor in his book "Managing At The Speed of Change" defined it this way:

"Change management is a set of principles, techniques, and prescriptions applied to the human aspects of executing major change initiatives in organizational settings."

For me, the key words for this are the "human aspects" of change.  While we tend to be deep into the technology, more and more supply chain managers are forgetting the human aspects of change. When you try to transform a supply chain (or dare I use the term "disrupt") every person around you is thinking:

1. Why do we have to change?  Everything is working fine now and I like what "is".  Why the change?
2. What is my new role in the new environment?  What skills will I need in this new world?
3. Do we have the fortitude to "stick with it" or is this just another "flavor of the day"?
4. Will this really make us industry leading?
5. Is the rest of the enterprise supporting this change?

There are many methods which you can use to answer these fundamental questions (ADKAR, Kotter etc.) and it almost does not matter which method you use as long as you are honest with yourself and understand the questions above are being asked (whether spoken or unspoken).  I once saw a model for change which displayed the following equation:

E=T*A

Where E=Effectiveness (of the change), T=Technical Aspects and A = Acceptance.  The easiest way to understand this is if A = 0 and T = 100 (Meaning your change is perfectly designed and perfectly implemented however the human acceptance is non existent) the effectiveness of the change will equal 0.  Completely ineffective!

So, given this is there no wonder why most transformations are less than fully effective?  If you are a technical supply chain manager and you are thrilled you got the "technicals" right but you totally forgot about the "A" then your project will fail.  It is that simple. 

Here are some great resources to help with your change management portion of anything whether it be a small project, a larger program or a complete transformation:

The Kotter Change Model

ADKAR

HBR Change Management Resources

Interesting Supply Chain Events from Week of August 21, 2017

The week is over and some very interesting reads and developments.  Let me get right to them:

1. The war between Amazon and Walmart heats up with the use of Google Home:  In Kevin O'Marah's great piece in Forbes (Google/Walmart: The Brutal Future of Retail Supply Chains)   he discusses the impact of voice assisted purchasing.  While some thought Amazon had this locked up, Walmart joins forces with Google and given Google's penetration into the virtual personal assistance market this may give Walmart an edge over Amazon.  Other implications of this:
   
• Data flows directly from consumer to the manufacturer and could be the device that moves power back to the manufacturer and away from the retailer. 
• Price discovery by the consumer will be faster and will result in a brutal retail environment. 
• As Kevin states, if you are on a calendar based S&OP process, you may be too slow to adjust for what will be a rapidly changing consumer.
  
  This war shows retailing is really a war over efficient supply chains.
    
2. Lean is almost always in the news however when I see my good friend Robert Martichenko launching a new lean blog I jump up and notice.  It is called "Lessons in Lean: Lessons in Leadership" and I will not repeat everything he is writing here.  Suffice to say, everything Robert reads is worth reading, this blog is no exception and I encourage you to read it directly. Specifically, the post titled: Is Reflection a Lost Art was very impactful for me and I have taken actions in my own personal journey reflecting some of Robert's thoughts.  It is a must read.
   
3. More data supporting my previous post about leadership and being on the floor to lead and understand what is truly happening.  In "What CEO's can Learn From Their Frontline Workers", Mark Dohnalek does a nice job outlining why being on the floor and listening is an important trait of CEOS and all leaders.  It still is amazing to me how many CEOs spend more time in meetings than out in their facilities.
   
4. CASS reported continued upward pressure on rates for a YoY basis and a MoM basis although the pace is slowing.  I will write more about this however I will say we are still far below 2012 - 2015 and I personally think we are starting to get to a precarious position.  A lot of investments and purchases are being made in anticipation of macro economic activity by the Feds (i.e., tax cuts which they call tax reform).  If this does not happen (which I give about a 50/50 chance) we will find people have gone far in front of their skis.  CCJ reports tonnage leveling out and conditions deteriorating.
   
   
   

   

   CCJ Report on July Truck Tonnage

   Looking at the Net Income and EPS of the large publicly held carriers and you see that it has, so far, been a "ho hum" year as their income is struggling to keep up with expenses.  Landstar, once again is the outlier and doing a fantastic job.  (See transcript from conference call here: Landstar (LSTR) Q2 Conference Call.
   
5. The race for fast delivery of big box products is heating up with rumors of Overstock wanting to take advantage of XPO's incredible final mile delivery network.  While Overstock declined any agreement has been reached, I am just not sure how you execute fast delivery of things such as appliances and furniture without engaging XPO.  Bradley Jacobs, XPO CEO plans on being within 120 miles of 90% of the US population by the end of 2018.  Tough to find another competitor who can do that.
   
6. The Inventory to Sales Ratio in the economy was updated last week and while we had been enjoying some good news, you can see it has turned and started to rise again.  This could be due to the holiday inventory stock up, which is being reported as being very robust and then again, it may not be.  More to come on this.  

   

   Inventory to Sales Raio - Updated August 15, 2017

Well, that ends a pretty exciting week and hope it was profitable and engaging for all.