Supplier Compliance and Social Responsibility - Look Deep Into Your Supply Chain

The Guardian has run a great piece in their paper titled "Vauxhall and BMW among Car Firms Linked to Child Labour Over Glittery Mica Paint".  This article shows the results of the paper's investigation into illegal mica mines in India and the use of child labor.  Not the type of headline your company wants to have. I will summarize the impact on supply chains but you should read the full article at the Guardian website.  It is a bit troubling that major companies are still claiming ignorance on issues such as this.

Of course this has huge implications for supply chains.  How do you get the materials you need from thousands of suppliers and still maintain control over the way the materials are extracted and handled. This is especially important when it relates to raw materials mined from the earth.  So often, these materials are mined in 3d world counties with no standards on safety or child labor.  The cosmetics and car industries are learning a lot right now.

If you are responsible for any type of procurement in your supply chain and you are not actively and aggressively working with all your suppliers (Walk the "tiers" all the way back to the raw material extraction) then you are putting your company's brand and reputation in grave danger.  Remember, Brand Value is only made up in trust.  Trust can disappear over night.  When the first thing a company says to the press after a story like this comes out is "We don't discuss supplier relations with the press" (like PPG initially did), you know they have been caught off guard.  Either they had no program or it was woefully inadequate and now they are scrambling to find out what the heck is going on.

Picture from The Guardian

Some thoughts on what you should be doing:

1. Prioritize Social Responsibility and Responsible Sourcing Strategies by appointing a "C" level executive as the program sponsor.
   
2. If a price for an item or for materials is "too good to be true" then it probably is and you should investigate.
   
3. Have a no tolerance policy.  No "slaps on the wrist" but rather eradicate from your portfolio any supplier who is non compliant.
   
4. Have "boots on the ground" in all countries where you have significant presence.  If you know the "sparkle in the paint" comes from mica in India and you know it is mined - you need to be there.  Someone needs to go and inspect (It always amazes me how these newspapers can find it with no problem but the key executives will say 'I had no idea.. '.

Finally, as consumers, we need to continue to ask and probe before we buy.  Before you buy that sparkling new car with the beautiful metallic paint, do a little research.  You may find out your beautiful car is a product of a 7 year old with a pick axe breathing toxic materials and being sentenced to a life of what is essentially slavery.  

Is Your 3PL Working for You The Shipper or For The Carrier

Anyone who reads my blog regularly knows I am not a fan of this carrier creation called "be a shipper of choice".  To simplify my reasons I break my reasons down into three categories:

1. The carriers themselves speak as a commodity.  They always talk about the fact that if demand is greater than supply - prices will go up.  This is the text book description of a commodity.  I have never met a carrier who, in a time of rate increases, tell you "We will take less price because you are some magical "shipper of choice.
   
2. It takes all the requirements for continuous improvement off of the carrier's shoulders and puts them on the customer.  I have never seen an industry (except for maybe the airlines) where the supplier's strategy is to essentially go to war with their customer.  This is the new trucking industry.  The icons of the industry (Don Schneider, JB Hunt - the man) would never do this. They would compete for customers by providing a higher level of efficiency and better service. Not try to put fear in the customer.
   
3. This is a race to the bottom for shippers.  Imagine if everyone followed the checklist of "Shipper of choice".  Now, all shippers are equal and who is actually the shipper of choice?  Well, what happens is the carriers ratchet up what they want out of you.  This is a perverse way to run an industry.  

To help with carrier management and to help shippers navigate this craziness some hire a 3PL.  But, what happens when the 3PL is in the tank for the carrier?  Well, we know what happens - the 3PL tells the customer they have to pay "higher rates" to ensure capacity (any third grader could have figured that out - no need to pay a 3PL).  But, of course, the 3PL makes more money off of these higher rates so on and on it goes. 

So, here is my checklist for how a CARRIER can be the CARRIER of choice:

1. Provide great value - service for price.  Overdue the service.
2. Understand your customer's business so you can understand why they are asking for what they are asking for. 
3. Do what you commit to do - don't over commit. 
4. Don't complain about stupid stuff.  I love it when a carrier complains that we should level load our freight volume.  Great request.  What is a person to do, tell the consumer (who is the only one in this entire chain who is actually injecting money into this supply chain) they can't buy more product on the weekends?  They have to buy as much on Monday - Thursday?  
5. Communicate, communicate, communicate.
6. Use technology to everyone's benefit. 

The Transplace checklist for shipper of choice is one example where a 3PL is no longer working for their customer.  They are working for the carrier.  

Don't Be Fooled Again..

For those who read my last post and are not sure it is true, I refer you back to the post from November 7th, 2013 titled:  "The Fear Trade Picks Up Steam... Don't Be Fooled".   Same story from the carriers and the "analysts" (who mostly are just talking their book) just years ago. 

And, since it is starting again, I think a great rendition of "Won't Get Fooled Again" is in order:

Another Summer and More Fear from FTR

It is like clockwork.  I can set my watch by the articles that will be printed by the logistics' press such as FTR.  Here is the story of the "study" (it has been the same for 5 years):

1. We thought prices would be a lot higher than they are
2. Freight is softer than we thought

BUT.....

1. Watch out, it will tighten soon
2. Give in to the demands of your carriers as they try to get you to "pre-pay" for price increases.
3. Those who do this will be rewarded...

And of course my response continues to be the same:  Prepaying for tight capacity is a waste of money.  Those who followed this course 3 to 5 years ago have paid a lot of money for a day that still has not arrived.  

Actually, you should follow the direction of the executives running these companies:  They essentially say when capacity is tight, rates go up and when capacity is loose rates go down. That is the ultimate definition of a commodity.  So,  therefore, treat it that way.  

Why Benchmarking In Its Current State for Transportation is Dangerous

I hear a lot about benchmarking in my travels and it makes me think about this idea, why it is used and what it really is.  What also fascinates me about the subject is the real forward looking business leaders never really care what their competition is doing.  The reason is they are so far ahead of the competition it just does not matter.  Could you imagine Steve Jobs worrying, wondering or working on what Sony was doing?  Would the iPod ever have been invented if Steve Jobs' goal was to be incrementally better than the Walkman?  Would the iPhone have been invented if his goal was to be incrementally better than the Motorola Flip Phone?

This is the danger of benchmarking.   When you benchmark you put a lot of attention on the current state and you tend to feel good if you are incrementally better.  But, that is not where true innovation comes from!  Real innovation and real "disruption" comes from thinking critically about the future, being imaginative and creative and thinking about things no one else has thought of.  That is where energy is best spent.

What I find about benchmarking is it is often an internal exercise to justify what someone is doing to higher management.  It is very rarely about anything else - have to prove to higher management that you are doing better than the other guy.  It is also incredibly inaccurate because there are so many external factors that effect the price of transportation beside just the zip to zip and the rate.  Here are some questions:

1. Do you compare with exact size and operating characteristics?  Sometimes I will hear of giant shippers presenting they are "better than market" based on their benchmarking through external agencies.  My question always has to do with expectations.  Of course, you are better, you are huge!  The question is, from a "should cost" analysis, are you as good as you should be?
2. What about your operating characteristics were taken into account when the benchmark was done?
3. Are you comparing prices of how freight is actually moved  or how it was bid?  I have seen this before where companies will send their bid data into the agencies that do benchmarking but that may or may not be how the freight is actually moved.  And, of course, how the freight is moved is what is most important.
4. And, my final question is this:  Why is everyone better than average?  How could that be?

There are so many people out there who are being told they are doing better than market in the benchmarking I am wondering just who is doing worse?  Someone must be... who are they?  I find benchmarking and Las Vegas have a lot in common -  everyone says they win when they go to Vegas yet somehow the casinos keep getting more cash than they know what to do with.  Someone must be losing.

My opinion is there is far too much energy spent on this topic and it actual restricts innovation instead of driving it.  Think about where you want to spend your time and think about whether this really adds much value or not around the edges.

I would advocate you should spend a lot of time on innovation and by definition if you are innovating you cannot benchmark... your competitors will be too far behind you to even matter.

February Cass Freight Index Supports 10xLE® Predictions

The February Cass Freight Index has been released and it continues to support and is right in line with what we have been predicting here at 10x Logistics Experts.  The market is soft and continues to bounce around the bottom which is holding rates flat for the data bases procurement experts.  The market continues to predict a 2% price increase at recent investor conferences this is what the transportation companies are planning for.

There are two interesting developments which are mentioned in the press release for this data which I believe should be mentioned (and which we have discussed for months here at 10xLE®).

First, we are seeing a bit of a divergence in truck ton miles versus expenditures which, as is stated by Ms. Wilson is due to "...Most likely...the average weight of a shipment rose during the period".  One of our counter balances we have discussed to the driver shortage is the "miniaturization" of goods which includes packaging.  You can move the same freight in smaller packs and thereby reduce the need for trucks.

Second, the increase in the type of activity in the economy which is driving what appears to be a rather robust economy is not the type of activity which translates to freight and transportation.  As I have said for many months, the magical "3%" GDP number is not the same 3% number from 20 years ago.  It does not translate into a lot of freight.  Google and Facebook don't move a lot of goods (physically that is).

Finally, in the report it is discussed the GDP prediction is still for a "Low, probably less than 3%" GDP number.  I am far more in the camp of a 2% GDP number with 2.5% being on the high side.

The bottom line for transportation procurement professionals:  If you had followed the 10xLE® procurement model and held your position you would not have paid "insurance" against capacity shortfall premiums last year as it has yet to materialize.

If you did buy into the hype and pay the premiums my recommendation is you try to identify the amount and get it stripped from your rates.  We still hold, despite promises, you will not get "benefit" later in the cycle for paying premiums now.

WebRep

currentVote

noRating

noWeight

Inventory to Sales Ratio - Will March Change the Curve?

One of my favorite measurements of business activity which actually relates to transportation volume is the Inventory to Sales Ratio.  As I get ready for January's numbers to be released I remembered I did not comment on December's numbers.  And, they tended to move as I would expect:

What we saw in December was that there was barely a move down which indicated the sales season for Christmas was not very good - which I had predicted since around September.  This, as is known for those procuring transportation services, led to excess capacity and very favorable procurement activities.

The key question is what will January show us.  My guess is not much and while we may get down to the 2010 / 2011 levels we will, most likely, not see enough of a change to effect the dynamics of the transportation capacity equation.  Companies continue to favor strict inventory management and good cash flow management over just about every other aspect of the balance sheet and income statement.  In the end, companies have learned it is better to miss a few sales than to be stuck with inventory.

The real interesting number will be released in April then May when February / March numbers are released.  Right now there is a lot of excitement in the economy and whether this will translate into a lot of buying activity is yet to be seen.

Right now all the data continues to hold that the transportation network is in balance at best and probably favors the shipper community.

Why I am Not Concerned About The "Driver Shortage"

The myth that has existed in trucking for over 15 years is some year we will get into such an acute driver shortage that freight will be at a standstill and you will be lucky if a truck shows up to pick up anything you have to ship.  In fact, many trucking company executives have parlayed that story into a reason why shippers should pay higher than market prices today for freight for fear that when that day comes only those who over paid in the past will be serviced.

That was 15 years ago and the time has yet to come and if you bought into the story you have "overpaid" for 15 years and the crunch (and your perceived promised reward) has yet to come.   Of course, as always, the story has other aspects to it.  I do not doubt that the driver pool is shrinking and people do not want to drive long haul trucks.  However, the good news is the market is taking care of this problem in 4 ways:

Miniaturization:  This phenomenon is everywhere whether it be in packaging, the product itself or the actual and complete disappearance of the the physical product.  I bought a stereo for a new place I have and it consisted of a Jabra® Soulmate and my iphone.  The entire thing can fit in the palm of my hand and it gives off as much sound as a stereo that came in 3 boxes 10 years ago.  This would not be seen if you looked at GDP numbers or sales numbers of companies because from a revenue and profit standpoint, the company did as well as when they were selling massive boxes.  However, from a freight standpoint, they can fit a months sales into 3 trucks. Or, better yet, it is all sent via UPS.

Of course, we all know this is happening in packaging and other aspects of the freight.  And, the disappearance of freight is becoming very real with iPods, Kindles and now 3D printing.

Focus on Profit v. Revenue Growth of Shippers:   I keep hearing that once the GDP gets to 3% we will have a massive shortage and I am not convinced.  If you look at the financials of the major shippers you will find they are doing very well (as are the transportation companies).  Why are they doing well? It is generally not a growth in product sales / revenue story but more of a growth in profit story. They are managing costs and increasing prices (despite the Government telling us there is no inflation).  This means you cannot equate a great quarter to increased freight.  It is not as connected as it was at one time.

Intermodal:  This, of course, is the grandaddy of them all.  The movement to intermodal continues and seems to be picking up speed.  Shippers who were afraid of it just two years ago have capitulated and even segments of supply chains (i.e. inbound) which historically shunned this mode are now buying into it.  Bottom line:  This is the major counterweight to any type of driver shortage.  This is gone beyond a nice "substitute" for truck freight and has now become the "category killer" for truck freight.  Acceptable length of hauls (LOH) are decreasing (one bid wanted intermodal rates on lanes 400 miles or greater), service is increasing and overall people are moving so much freight over to intermodal that truck is really just catching the local P&D and interplant moves.  P&D and interplant moves are nicely served by local niche players and the need for a nationwide network for a truckload carrier diminishes dramatically.

Economics 101: This is the final reason I am not worried.  If the driver shortage becomes very acute and the demand exists driver wages will increase bringing more drivers into the market.  I am a firm believer in market equilibrium and market clearing prices.  Yes, driving is a hard job.  However, as we have seen in the oil fields in North Dakota, people will do hard jobs if the pay is right.  So, bottom line is, no need to pay "extra" today because if needed, you will absolutely have to pay extra tomorrow.  And any sales person who tells you that because you paid extra now you won't have to pay extra later is either lying to you or just does not understand economics.

My conclusion:  Watch the economy, watch the market, and watch your freight but do not buy into the scare of "pay up now" to be serviced later.  It makes no economic sense and it makes no sense given the current situation of transportation companies.

Should Cost Modeling Comes to Logistics

I wrote back in January, embedded in another article about why people should do "should cost" modeling prior to negotiating rates.  This has caused me to do a lot more thinking about this topic and after doing some analysis I have come to the realization this is the best way to get to what the true cost of freight should be.

It also eliminates all the emotion, speculation and hype of the industry when you read about capacity constraints, driver shortages and other macro economic issues.  Here are the basics:

1. Break down your suppliers costs into the big driving buckets.  For transportation it is clearly fuel, driver wages and equipment.
2. Make sure you have calculated in offsets to costs.  For example, the industry is very prone to discuss how much more the acquisition cost  of equipment is with new emissions requirements and other adds.  However, they very rarely (unless you conduct deep research) discuss the vast reduction in operating costs due to better maintenance and fuel consumption.  Each element has to be accounted for. 
3. Ask what is really going on with driver wages (not what "could" happen).  Many will say the driver shortages will lead to higher driver wages however this has not really panned out.  So, find out what is really going on with the driver wages. 

This does not mean you are trying to ensure the supplier does not make a profit. What it does ensure is you fully understand the true costs driving the pricing, it ensures you understand what the reasonable profit margin is and it ensures you understand what the market is for the products you are buying. 

This process has been used by direct procurement people for years.  Also, I can assure you this is the process your transportation suppliers are using to decide how much to pay for a truck, trailer or container.  There are different components to measure but the process of "should cost" modeling is exactly the process they follow.  You should not be afraid of it nor should you be ashamed of using it. 

2012 Was A Good Year for Shippers Who Used Analysis Over Emotion

Despite all the noise about how CSA, regulations and a surging economy would create a massive deficit in capacity, what we saw in 2012 was a very shipper friendly environment for those shippers who did not let their emotions runaway with them.  If you stood fast, watched the data and understood the market you were able to reap some pretty good rewards in 2012.  The ATA truck tonnage report even showed a reduction year over year in December.

Bob Costello, economist for the ATA was even quoted as saying in 2013 the outlook is for a sluggish truckload environment.  My personal believe is the rules of good transportation management and procurement management don't change much.  Some highlights are:

• Always conduct should costing before talking rates.  Understand the costs of every component (Equipment, driver wages, fuel etc.) and the best in class purchasers will know those costs as well as the person across the table. 
• Don't let emotions and the industry hype sway you.  Stay focused with the data.
• Understand your personal procurement situation.  Even if the market is "on fire" if you have counter freight to the prevailing freight flows you are in the driver's seat. 

I had one person tell me a long time ago that transparency and accuracy will always prevail in costing and I believe them to be right. 

Buyer Beware... of Anchoring!

Sitting tonight watching the news and the topic was the "after Christmas sales".  The story, of course, made me think of transportation but let me digress and tell you what I saw.

The reporter interviewed a young lady at a Chicago mall who was just thrilled with her new purchase.  I paraphrase and here is how the conversation went:

Girl: "I went into a store and the boots were 'regular $900'. I got 50% off, then I got xx% for something I did, then another xx% for opening a credit card... " (you get the idea) "I got a $900 pair of boots for $125!"

Reporter:  "Wow, you did great.  You must be real happy"

Girl: {giggling}: "Yes, I am a very happy girl"

Of course, somewhere there is a merchandiser who popped the champagne bottle and wasn't just giggling but was laughing out loud.  They had anchored the girl and anchored her good.

What never crossed the girl's mind, nor the reporter's mind apparently, is the fact that the boots may have only been worth $5.00.  How do they know?  Why was $125 a "deal?  The answer is simply that they have no idea whether it was a deal or not except in the relative terms to the "retail" price of $900.  The retailer and their all powerful merchandisers had anchored the discussion.  The consumer, the girl in this case, was set up by the merchandiser because they were able to get her to reference her thoughts around the $900.  Anything less than that was a "deal" and certainly $125 was a "steal".

It never occurred to her that the boots were probably made in a factory in Vietnam and cost the company selling them about $5.00 to make.

How does this relate to transportation you ask?  I say: beware of industry "anchoring".   It is that time of year now when the transportation industry executives and the so called "independent" analysts will come out with predictions on what will happen with rates for next year.  They will say "be ready for capacity crunches" and "be ready for at least 5% increases" and they are doing nothing more than, as an industry, anchoring, as a group,  the entire transportation buying community.  By establishing these expectations as "the truth" and giving buyers reasonable cover with what appears to be scholarly articles to reference, the industry establishes "greater than 5%" as the anchor.  Anything less than that appears to be a "deal" and occurs due to the great procurement skill of a buyer somewhere.

I can see the conversations in board rooms now:

Executive: "Mrs. Logistician,  how did you do this year"?

Mrs. Logistician: "Great!  The industry was going to go up over 5% and we were able to hold the increases at our company to 3%"

Executive: " That is great Mrs. Logistician.  You beat the market!  Fantastic!

Mrs. Logistician gets a great bonus and off she goes to Maui for vacation..

Or.. the conversation could end with the Executive asking this:

Executive: "Mrs. Logistician.  How do you know 5% is the right expectation?  The macro economic conditions don't seem to warrant it and with the changes in freight, the lower freight demand, and the fact that we are a very large shipper lead me to believe that you should have actually experienced a rate decrease this year. Shouldn't you have?"

Mrs. Logistician: Gulp!  She wonders if she will ever get to go to Maui!

What the executive did not do is she did not fall for the industry anchoring.  The executive built her expectations from the ground up.  She ignored the arbitrary industry expectation of 5% and started at 0 and then applied good macro and micro economic analysis to build her own expectation.  And, her own was far lower than where the industry tried to anchor her.

The critical lesson here for both the girl buying the boots and the transportation procurement professional is do not fall for anchoring.  Do not allow the industry to set the expectation.  Ignore these predictions and build, from the ground up, what the status and situation is for your own company, your own freight with its own characteristics  what your current pricing situation is etc. etc.  From that you should be able to develop what a very good expectation is for this year, for your situation and many of you will find it is dramatically below what where the industry will try to anchor you.

Holiday Sales Disappoint - Leading to Inventory Issues?

First, Merry Christmas and my wishes for a very happy holiday season.  Regardless of what you celebrate at this time of the year the messages all are the same: Happiness to all of you and your families!

Unfortunately, it was not a happy retailing holiday season.  As ABC and others are reporting, holiday sales have disappointed and have actually had the lowest year over year increase since 2008.  That is a haunting statistic yet not one my readers would be surprised about.  The impact on transportation can be summed up in two words: Excess Inventory.

Normally, after the holiday season the transportation industry prays for an "inventory restocking" cycle. However given the dismal sales, and the fact inventories were already elevated (as measured by the inventory to sales ratio), my estimation is the restocking cycle will not even be noticeable.   Transportation rates will remain somewhat depressed and my predictions of the transportation industry continue to hold:  

1. Rates are somewhat elevated (relative to the true capacity and demand picture) and the buyer who holds their ground should be able to negotiate good contracted rates.
2. The buyer needs not "fear" the capacity issue (which has been discussed since about 1980) until deep into 2013 at the earliest. 
3. Great rates favor those who do their homework, understand these macro trends, and are prepared to discuss them at "the table".

Going into last year, FTR predicted a potential for a 10% increase in rates which was very far off the mark.  I saw some "panic buying" (i.e, shippers accepting large increases using this prediction as justification). Going into this year we continue to hear "this is the year of the capacity crunch" and while shipping conditions are "benign", "shippers can expect to see increases in 2013" (again, have heard that since 1980).  However, the macro economic data, along with the data around the digitization and miniaturization of products, leads me to believe demand is being pulled faster than capacity and shipping conditions will favor the shipper for the vast majority of 2013.

Update 12/26/2012 10:15AM: More reports of slow holiday sales: "This Was Definitely Not A Merry Christmas for Retail" - Business Insider

September CASS Freight Index - Year over Year Decline

I will take a day to digest these numbers however the CASS Index is out for September and the results are mixed.  Increase month over month is attributed to a bump in activity to avoid a potential longshoreman's strike and even with that the Year over Year numbers for shipments has declined.

Another tidbit in the report is the feeling that inventory levels are elevated and the retailers are sitting on a lot of product which supports my assertion in my last post Macroeconomic Monday® that the sales to inventory levels will go down and will continue to show advantage to the shipper for freight rates and bidding.  (Of course, in reality, it advantages no one as lower sales to inventory means sales are down and the shipper's business is less healthy - I use these terms only in relation to the carrier - shipper relationship).

More to follow after I look at this in more depth.

Source: CASS FREIGHT SYSTEMS

Bid More Frequently, Not Less

I am not sure how I totally missed this great article in DC Velocity entitled "Go Short" however I am glad I ran into it now.  I think it is spot on and a great contrarian view from today's prevailing wisdom which is you need to be a "partner" in times of tight capacity.  Partner generally is a euphemism for a trucking sales person asking you to give them above market rates to secure some nebulous and not guaranteed insurance policy for capacity in the future.

As this article rightfully points out, this guarantee is anything but that and generally will not stand even after you paid that insurance policy cost.  The article states:

"At the heart of the study's findings is a fact that most who ship and haul for a living already know: that no truckload contract, regardless of duration, can force a shipper to honor a volume commitment, or a carrier to honor a capacity commitment. Because trucking is considered "derived demand"—meaning supply doesn't react unless demands are put on it—a carrier can easily change capacity, and the rate it charges, if it doesn't secure enough high-yield freight on a lane and finds better opportunities elsewhere. In many cases, it will stop accepting freight on a lane altogether."

As prices in the market change and as your rates become "stale" the carrier can just stop accepting tenders. They will say to you their "network has changed" and they can no longer support this lane.  It happens all the time and it happens with the best and most ethical carriers.  I am not accusing them of malpractice but rather I am just accepting what is and this article articulates it well.

This article advocates going shorter on your bid cycle, perhaps one year, and ensuring rates and lanes do not "get stale".  Interestingly enough, despite all the discussion from the carrier base about "long term partnerships" this appears to be in their best interest as well.

It is important to outline another extreme which is highlighted in the article.  Grough Grubbs, SVP of Distribution and Logistics for Stage Stores says:

"Our rating is dynamic based on competitive bidding, rather than an annual volume bid. This removes the dilemma of 'stale' bids," said Gough Grubbs, Stage's senior vice president, distribution/logistics. "As more competitive bids come in for certain lanes, incumbent carriers are given the opportunity to revise their rates in our system if they choose to. If not, they drop down in the pecking order for future loads."

This certainly looks and feels like every day is a new day and the bid cycle essentially never stops.  While this ensures market prices every day you would need to identify the trade off of this strategy with the benefits of some sort of stability.  That trade off equation would be different for each company and you would have to look at it in the context of your own competitive environment.  

One of the concerns I have written about many times is the fear the coordinated industry effort to "scare" shippers by talking about capacity shortfalls and rising prices (a week does not go by where a CEO of a trucking company feels a need to "remind" us that lowering capacity will result in higher prices) would result in the industry actually reinforcing to shippers that this is a commodity business.  Again, I do not believe it is a commodity however if all you talk about is the commodity behavior of the pricing scheme then you are essentially educating your customers to treat you as a commodity.

This article, and certainly Mr. Grubbs has taken it to the fullest measure.

 

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.

Thoughts on Economic Distortion

In transportation I have heard shippers say they do not want to negotiate too "hard" with carriers because they want to treat them as "partners".  I have always wondered what that meant.  What does "negotiating hard" mean and what does being a "partner" mean are key questions for both the buyer and seller of transportation services?

I submit they mean the same thing and tend to be emotional statements.  What I prefer is to work with transportation providers as an extended supply chain.  After all, unless one side is trying to get unfair or undo leverage on the other side we should be working together as a single entity for the common good of the ultimate customer.

What this means is there cannot be economic distortion in the discussions.  Economic distortion exists when one side has information pertinent to the discussion the other side does not have - some call this information asymmetry.  When economic distortion exists there is bound to be an outcome which is weighted to one side or the other in terms of value.  When that occurs the sub-optimum solution is obtained and it will ultimately lead to mistrust and a dissolution of the relationship.

I go from the premise that eventually all information will become known and will be available to both sides.  As soon as one side realizes they were disadvantaged by the other side not disclosing pertinent information the disadvantaged side tries to fight back and so begins the war of distrust and trying to "one up" the other side.

So my warning to the buyers is do not think you are somehow out maneuvering the transportation provider.  Ultimately, the real situation will be discovered and when it is you will be hit back and hard.  You may get a short term gain but at a long term price. To the suppliers / logistics providers: If you are thinking you have a long term sustainable business model by taking advantage of your customers by not disclosing proper information (costs, operational efficiencies etc) you are kidding yourself.  Sooner or later what you thought was secret will become known and when the customer realizes they have had the wool pulled over their eyes, they will dump you.

In the end, American business could save a lot of time, money and extraneous resources if this little dance did not need to be played out every time an arrangement needed to be made between buyer and seller.

This may not be a 10X idea but it certainly is a 10X program if properly implemented.  If a company and its suppliers really took this to heart I believe both sides would see dramatic improvement in productivity and efficiency thus driving the 10X change that we seek.  Lots of people talk about this, few if any actually do it.

Assume all relevant information will become available and save a lot of time by trying to take advantage of short term economic distortions.