Provide Ritz-Carlton Service to Your Customers - It is Mostly Free

I had such a great experience this weekend I had to, as always, relate it back to customer value chain fulfillment.  We decided to spend the weekend at a beautiful resort owned by the Ritz-Carlton company and it was fabulous.  So, how does this relate to order fulfillment - the business all logisticians are truly engaged in?  It is called service.

Many of you may be saying "well of course it was a great time because it cost a lot and you were in a beautiful setting".  True and I will certainly say I am not naive of the fact the Ritz gets paid for all it does.  However, I do have to wonder which came first?  Are people willing to pay higher prices because the service is so incredibly better than the competitors or do they charge more because it costs more?  My hypothesis is it is the former rather than the latter.  Lesson 1:  People are willing to pay more if your service is significantly better than the competition.  Not just a little bit better and not just sometimes but consistently and significantly better than the competition. 

Now, the good news is most of what differentiated the company from the competition was free or very low cost!  I never walked by an associate at any level of the organization without them smiling and greeting me.  If they had a work cart in the aisle they immediately moved it so I did not have to muscle around things.  The place was spotless - every employee was part of the cleaning staff because everyone picked up even the slightest thing which may not belong where it was.  The bottled water was free!  Small bottles of water free!  It likely cost them almost nothing to provide that but rather than leave a bad taste in your mouth about the overall experience by ripping you off on $5 for water they just gave it to you!

My wife needed contact lens solution and the front desk offered to drive her to CVS to get it.  They did not say "I can call you a cab".  They just offered to fix that little problem for us.  Lesson 2: Don't make your customers feel they had a bad experience over some very small petty thing.  Just fix the problem and move on.

I could go on and on about the Ritz-Carlton and its great customer service but I think you get the idea.  So, here are a few lessons for supply chain / 3PL companies:

• Most actions which drive very high customer experience ratings are not very costly.  They are the basics.  Make your customer feel human again!
• Train everyone to be a customer experience evangelist.  The driver, the customer service agent, the building and grounds people.. everyone.  One thing you will find is not only will your customers be wildly excited and promote your company but it will also have the positive effect of making your workplace a desired location for recruits.  Want to recruit top talent and retain them?  Treat them as customers and not machines. 
• Fix the little stuff and move on. How many times do you find your company arguing with a customer over some petty thing (Think free bottled water).  At a company I worked we provided surveys on the delivery experience and I reviewed those surveys.  One customer had rated us all 10's (great) and put in the comment field "please bring donuts next time".  I went ahead and had the driver deliver donuts on the next delivery.  Nike had the right approach - Just Do It.
• Finally, when you do make a mistake, own up to it with your associates and your customers.  No one is perfect and no one expects you to be perfect.  They expect you to own up to it and solve it.  

Well, another great weekend in the books and wow did I learn and in a lot of cases re-learn a lot.  Your customer experience will definitely differentiate you and now, in the Nike fashion go JUST DO IT!.

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.  

Amazon as a 3PL

Back in October I asked the question:  What is Amazon? A 3PL, Retailer, IT Company, Delivery Company?  And, I answered the question by saying:  All of the Above.  Now it is February and with the advent of Amazon registering as a NVO and with their purchase of trailers it has become clear - they are a 3PL and most likely will quickly become the best there is.

Amazon has such a unique ability to do things very quickly, apply incredible technology and put rock solid processes in place (supported by the incredible technology) that when they do this it seems like it comes out of no where.  But, of course, it does not.  I have written many times that Amazon could easily do this with their fulfillment capabilities.

In Supply Chain Quarterly, the magazine asks this question:  Amazon a 3PL? The most interesting part of this article is the "head in the sand" responses from some of the major company CEOs.  Only 6 of the CEOs considered Amazon to already be a 3PL.  Let's look at the basics of what Amazon does:

1. They have huge warehouse / order fulfillment centers
2. They take in product both from themselves but also from other retailers and e-tailers
3. They provide customized fulfillment
4. They now have trucks and do deliveries
5. They are building out a courier service for final mile. 

Looks like a duck, walks like a duck, acts like a duck - pretty sure it is a duck.  Although, as was outlined in Richard Tedlow's seminal work "Denial:  Why Business leaders Fail to Look Facts in the Face - and what to do about it" we know that history is full of companies who cannot see change even though it is staring them in the face.  Think Sears ignoring Wal-Mart and then Wal-Mart ignoring Amazon. 

Let's close this once and for all.  Amazon is a 3PL.  Amazon is a cloud computing company. Amazon is a retailer (Now including bricks and mortar).  And, most importantly, if you are in those businesses, Amazon is coming after you.

Read this book and you will see how easy it is to ignore the facts - but you do that at your own peril.

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.  

Retailers Compete on Supply Chain - Part Deux

I have talked for years in speeches and in advising companies that the supply chain will become the competitive advantage for those trying to move products to market.  Especially if you are a retailer, you compete on supply chain in a major way.  In a blog post recently, titled Execution IS a Strategy I also talked about how great execution, more and more, differentiates the different retailers.  The same product is on the shelf and it is just a matter of who executes better. 

Adrian, over at Logisticsviewpoints highlighted the new service from Sears called "Fulfilled by Sears" (Posting titled: In Logistics, Somebody has to Own The Assets) which is an interesting development following my theory above.  Essentially, Sears is leveraging their fantastic Sears Logistics Services to become a world class 3PL in fulfillment services.  This follows the same developments at both Amazon and Wal-Mart. 

The question is why would a retailer dedicate talent, capital and executive time to opening up their logistics networks to anyone who wants to sell?  Wouldn't this be considered a distraction (especially since Sears at least is in the middle of a fight for pure survival)? The answer is twofold:

First, the simple economics are that each of these companies have to make huge infrastructure investments to keep their own business alive.  If they can leverage this infrastructure cover the variable cost of adding new clients and also contribute some to covering the fixed cost then they will be helped financially.  This is the same reason 3PLs have multi-client facilities - leverage the fixed costs.  Essentially, anyone selling through these networks is actually helping these retailers cover the cost of their huge logistics networks.

Second, they are basically saying they are the best 3PL in the nation and you should use them for that purpose.  They are competing  on logistics and supply chain strategy.  Once they get you into the fulfillment services they can sell you more and more logistics and supply chain  services. 

The group which should be very interested in this development are the true 3PL organizations.  For the vast majority of these networks, the "big 3" use their own labor and their own buildings along with, for the most part, their own software.  This is a play right out of "Porter's Five Forces" where a customer goes upstream and takes business from their suppliers. The buyer clearly is holding the power and the suppliers (i.e. 3PLs ) should be concerned with what Porter calls "Buyers threat of backward integration".    More on this interesting development later.

Turning Over Procurement of Carriers to a 3PL?

I have met many companies recently who not only have outsourced their operations to a 3PL but they have also turned over the procurement and carrier relations functions as well.  I think this is a bad idea.

I believe this for at least three reasons.  First, and the most obvious, is you have turned over the entire budget to a company which, most likely, has conflicting interests to your own.  At some level, the 3PL is interested in making money for their company and many times actions which accomplish this do not also help the client company.  Can you develop complex gainshare algorithms which limit this problem?  Yes, but it is very unlikely you will get them to work.

Second, you limit your ability to exit the 3PL relationship if needed.  Everyone goes into 3PL relationships thinking they will never end and this makes sense.  You do not get married and immediately plan on getting a divorce.  However, in business, ensuring you have an exit strategy is a good and prudent thing to do.  When you turn over the procurement portion to the 3PL you have complicated any exit if needed.

Finally, you will lose critical intellectual capital.  When dealing with a 3PL it is important the shipper maintain the intellectual capital needed to fully understand the areas of warehousing and transportation management.

For all these reasons I would highly recommend shippers retain the procurement function.  Just seems to make sense to me.

Should a 3PL Understand the "end" Customer

This is a key question I think all 3PLs should ask themselves.  Their customer (the person who pays the bill) may be a big manufacturer or retailer.  This manufacturer or retailer may have a set of needs they articulate to the 3PL but the real need they have is to add value, through their supply chain, to the customer of their customer - usually the consumer.   If a 3PL can add value to that supply chain, in the eyes of the consumer (The person who pays the ultimate bill) then I am sure the customer (the manufacturer or retailer) will be happy with the 3PL.  Given this statement, why do so few 3PLs really know the consumer's needs, wants and desires?

If you are a 3PL you can do two things:  1) You can require a detailed statement of work, hundreds of pages including convoluted metrics and then you execute against this document.  Does the consumer (again, your customer's customer) see value in what you are doing?  Does that value accrue to the manufacturer or retailer and add real value?  In this situation, the one most 3PLs play in, the 3PL does not care.  They are executing "to the contract".

In the second and preferred situation the 3PL really takes it upon themselves to fully understand the needs of the consumer.  From this they formulate a plan in conjunction with the manufacturer or retailer which outlines what services are needed to add value and have that value accrue back to the manufacturer or retailer.  This is the preferred method.  This is the method some sub-assembly providers give to auto companies;  they help shape the business and not just do what they are told.

The analogy to this situation is what your mother most likely told you when you were young:  If so and so told you to jump off a bridge would you?  Unfortunately, a lot of 3Pls will jump off the bridge if they are told to.

I submit 3PLs need to spend time doing market research and living with the consumer of the products of the companies they are servicing.  Once they do that they will truly not what is needed and not just wanted.