If You Expect Your 3PL to Invest, You Have to Commit

I have been doing a lot of thinking lately on the state of the 3PL industry.  I have not worked in the industry for a number of years but I have been a consumer of it and I have stayed very close to those in the industry.  What always amazes me is the turnover in 3PLs.  They are used, bid out, then discarded at a moment's notice.  I also hear over and over again from customers of 3PLs that the 3PLs they use do not invest in technology and people as much as they should. This caused me to ask why?

This feedback has been around for ages on 3PLs and I always wondered why it has not been addressed.  In fact, I would say the industry has really run away from what was true 3PL work and the brokerage industry has co-opted the term 3PL for itself.  3PLs today are mostly just brokerage houses.

So, why all this talk of "partnerships" yet bidding still happens at a torrid pace to reduce costs. A consumer of 3PL services should ask themselves the following questions when looking for cost reduction:

1. How will value truly be created?  Remember, taking money out of one pocket and putting it in another does not add value to the extended supply chain.  This activity will just merely reallocate the value which is already there.
   
2. Is the value truly sustainable?  For example, building cost reduction from paying below market wages is simply not sustainable.  Something will give.  Yet, I hear consumers of services say things such as " I don't care how they do it, just do it".
   
3. Are the governance structures supporting the relationship aligned with the overall goals of the program?  Too many times I hear the terms "partnership" and "vested relationships" yet when you look deeply at the contracts and the governance structure, it becomes clear the relationship does not support overall value creation.  

I am sure most reading this will say "not me..." but reality is that this covers 99% of the relationships which exist out in the industry.  How do we know?  Just look at portfolio turnover of the 3PL and look at duration of contracts.  Both suggest that what I am stating above is true.  

So, what can a consumer of 3PL services (warehousing, transportation brokerage etc.) do to ensure the 3PL you are working with is going to be a true value added partner?  Here are a few ideas:

1. Make contracts long enough for the 3PL to recover investments.  We ask the 3PL to invest in huge amounts of capital (technology, buildings, automation) yet we write the contract for 3 years. Imagine how expensive this is if the 3PL has to recover this investment in 3 years!
   
2. Build a payment structure that allows the 3PL to gain from applying innovation.  If the payments are fixed, why would the 3PL invest in innovation?  They need to benefit from this and there are payment structures which allow that to happen.
   
3. Build a management governance structure which ensures the 3PL can survive.  For example, in fast growing wage environments, do you really want the 3PL to keep wages low and thus attract the not so best employees?  That is what they will be forced to do if you do not have a structure which allows for real business decisions such as raising wages and everyone sharing in that cost.  

The bottom line is apply all the same values and principles you have in running your company to the 3PL.  I think you will find the 3PL will invest, will apply innovation and will, in the long run, add huge value.  If you bid every few years you are not partnering and not adding value, you are just shifting money from pocket to pocket.  

What Exactly is Amazon... 3PL? Retailer? IT Company? Delivery Company? - Answer: All of the Above

I have written about the growth of Amazon as a 3PL / Logistics company for a long time and yet even I, after following them very closely, did not fully understand their reach into all facets of the value chain until this week.  This week I had the privileged of attending the Council of Supply Chain Management Professionals' (CSCMP) Annual Global Conference where I heard Dave Clark, SVP of Global Operations and Customer Service at Amazon speak about their plans.

Amazon Prime, Amazon Flex etc etc. were all discussed at this conference and I found it fascinating. A couple of key points:

1. They take care of back office technology to support the front end.  Too many times companies will roll out slick apps or websites but do nothing different in the back room.  This leads to sexy presentations but bad customer experiences.
   
2. Innovation is a way of life at Amazon.  Amazing amount of innovation and amazing how much of it bubbles up from the working level.  This, of course, does not happen by accident and the culture along with the infrastructure to support this environment has been nurtured over a long period of time.
   
3. The concept of one way and two way doors in innovation was critical.  A two way door is where an innovation can easily be backed out of if it does not work. In this case, the innovation is moved along quickly, tried and adjusted if needed.
   
   The one way door is an innovation where the ability to come back is severely limited (Think Hernan Cortes burning of the boats).  This means there must be very careful thought, due diligence and research before going forward. 

   

   Hernan Cortes burns the boats

   This structure allows for a lot faster innovation on a lot more products and services?  He did not say this but I would think for every 1 "one way door" innovation there are at least 10 "two way door" innovations.  Why make those 10 go through the grind necessary for the one way door innovation?
   
4. Speed is clearly their goal.  They measure order to delivery time from the time the customer hits "buy" to the time the product is out the door.
   
5. When asked how they balance service and cost his answer was clear:  They don't.  They provide the service then figure out the cost.  When asked about profitability he responds that Amazon is very profitable... they just choose to reinvest all the money back into the company. 

If you are in any of the industries I mentioned above, don't think Amazon is not coming for your business ... they are.  

See all my writings on Amazon here. 

Applying My One Big Thing in 3PL Management to The "Capacity Crisis"

Yesterday I blogged about the "One Big thing" for managing your 3PLs.  This was essentially ensuring the incentives and goals of the 3PL perfectly align with you as the shipper.  I talked about how no one can really serve two masters and each will always act in their own best interest.  It is for this reason those interests have to be perfectly aligned.

Today I want to explain this through an example which highlights the risks of letting your 3PL buy the transportation and then charge a "mark up" over the rate to you (with no transparency this is a disaster with some transparency it is just not good).  We can see this in the "Capacity Crisis" issue. 

The 3Pl / brokerage company has an incentive to report to you the capacity crisis is bad and getting worse.  In fact, they can even blame their own poor performance in tender discipline, carrier management and routing guide compliance to this nebulous issue called the "coming capacity crisis".  They can point to a few reports and tell you if you only would pay more you would be a preferred customer of the underlying transportation companies. 

They convince you and you pony up.  All the while this is going on they are negotiating with the carriers and their story is something completely different.  Why?  Because your goals are not aligned!  The 3PL in this situation has a goal to expand the spread between what they pay for the transportation and what they resell it to you for.  While it appears they are giving "advice" to you what they are actually doing is working to improve this spread.  What are you to do about this as a shipper. A few things:

1. As I have said before, I highly recommend you do not get into this situation in the first place; keep procurement in house and let the 3PL execute.
2. If you have already outsourced procurement, work hard to insource it!
3. If those two do not work then become extremely smart in what is happening in the transportation market.  The 3PL cannot be your trusted advisor because they have another set of incentives.  You need to build that expertise in house.  For example, when they talk about "capacity shortfall" ask them:
• In what lanes is this shortfall prevalent?  Do I ship in those lanes
• What about mode conversion?
• What  are you doing to reduce my fuel costs and make my fuel costs more aligned to what you are actually paying for fuel?
• What is your carrier base?  Have you looked at regional carriers?
• What are you doing to leverage your spend to keep my rates down?  (if you are hiring this expertise you expect they will not just perform at market but below market - remember, market price is what you get without even trying)

In the end you can see this type of relationship actually causes more work rather than saves work.  You will not only pay for the outsourcing but you will also have to employ a "shadow" organization just to ensure you are getting a competitive deal. 

Again, unless you do not believe in the basic tenants of capitalism you have to see where this relationship is fraught with misalignment and conflict.  In this case, the 3PL will use a market event (or non event) not to better your business but to better theirs at the expense of yours.

When Selecting a 3PL Ensure Your Goals and Incentives are Aligned

As I travel and speak to industry leaders I am always asked about strategies for shippers to manage their 3PL relationships.  There are many theories from transactional "beat them down" relationships (which I do not advocate) to the "Vested Outsourcing" espoused by Kate Vitasek (Which I believe is a great framework for how to manage any third party relationship).  And, of course, there is everything in between. 

While a great strategy to manage these relationships is a subject too complex for a blog posting, and usually too complex for my short discussion, I do get asked "what is the one thing" they can do.  Well, here it is:

The One Thing: - Align Goals and Incentives

Let me start with my philosophy on human behavior and one which is built into the DNA of a capitalist society. People will always act in their own self interest.  Think about this as you develop your relationships and let me use an example totally outside of our industry -  Financial advising.  There are two broad categories of financial advisers:  Those who work for a fee for which you pay and those who get commissions, 12b-1 fees, rewards etc. from the products they are selling.  The latter looks like a good deal because you do not pay the up front fee.  But is it a good deal?

When we apply my general philosophy of people will always act in their self interest  to this case the answer becomes clear.  The financial planner who is considered "free" has an incentive to sell to you the product which will make them the most amount of money - and they will.  Two products, one of which if sold gives her and her family a free trip to Hawaii v. another which gives her just a few bucks commission are the selection.  Which do you think she will sell to you?  If you picked Hawaii, you are right.  

Now, the former advisor, the one who you pay a fee for has a fiduciary responsibility to work in your best interest. In fact, because you are their sole source of income, they have no incentive to provide anything to you that is not in your best interest.  The only way their income continues is if you are happy and that only comes if they work in your best interest.  In this case the goals and incentives are aligned.

Let's apply my philosophy (again, it is people will always act in their self interest) to the world of the 3PL and specifically to the outsource model of transportation management.  I see many models where both the operations and the procurement of transportation have been outsourced.  The key question here is whether the goals and incentives are aligned when you are in a relationship where the 3PL essentially acts as a broker for you. 

Imagine that the "broker" 3PL relationship comes across a way to lower your overall transportation costs knowing however that it will eat into their margin on the spread they make between what they are selling transportation to you for and what they are buying it for.  In this situation they have a choice to make:  Will they act in your best interest  or will they act in their own self interest?  Both my guiding principle philosophy and my experience is that the answer is clear: The 3PL, when confronted with a conflict between their self interest and the client's, will almost always choose their self interest first. This is especially true if they have shareholders (whether public or private) to report to.  Why would they do anything different.

However, if their goals and incentives are aligned - such as the my recommended solution which is the shipper should always retain the procurement process in house and NEVER outsource this part of it - then the 3PL will never be put in this conflict situation.  You pay them for a service and they execute that service.  

The critical point here is the 3PL should not make money on both sides of the transaction.  As soon as that is the case, they will be in conflict. The only way the 3PL should be able to make money is by acting in the client's best interest.  In other words, they have a sole and singular fiduciary responsibility and that is to you the shipper. 

This is "The one thing".  If you are a shipper who has outsourced your procurement to a 3PL you should think again and ask yourselves what is driving the 3PL thought process (By the way this also applies to "dedicated" fleets who make money leasing equipment to you - are they working in your best interest or in the best interest of the profitability of their leasing operation).

I am not one to quote the Bible much in public but, if you do not believe me about this then listen to what Matthew has to say:

"No one can serve two masters. Either you will hate the one and love the other, or you will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and money."

In my case change the last sentence to: You cannot serve both sides of the transaction.