Art van Bodegraven was, among other roles, chief design officer for the DES Leadership Academy. He passed away on June 18, 2017. He will be greatly missed.
If you move the couch at home and change your mind, that's one thing.
But change your mind about the site you chose for your newly built distribution center, and well, you'll probably have plenty of time to spend on the couch after that.
There are a couple of levels of detail—and criticality—to the subject of locating a new DC. It's one thing to be concerned about which side of the tracks to build a new facility. That's as close to a slam-dunk as things get these days. If you've been charged with deploying facilities in a complex supply chain—or even a global operation—that's a different story. And even when the network appears settled, in today's dynamic business environment, it may not be settled for long.
A number of situations can plunge you into a distribution network design/redesign—an acquisition (or being acquired), a line of business added or dropped, expansion into new geographical markets, a shortage of space, a change in strategy toward centralization (or decentralization), or radical sourcing changes, to name but a few.
If none of those sounds like a reasonable prospect, read no further—you're not in the game. If any of them seems likely, press on.
There are really two components to the question. One is obvious, "where." The other, and first, question is "why." Distribution network structure is fundamental to the ultimate strategic commitment to customer service levels. The strategic view of the network provides the basis for distribution locations, facility missions and inventory deployment.
The devil enters the room
Of course, once the magic word "network" has been invoked, there's a tendency to get overheated about the subject of network modeling. Truth is, once you get beyond a couple of locations, modeling can be enormously helpful for number crunching and quick assessments of alternatives. But be warned: There's an unfortunate tendency at this point for geeks and executives alike to get all caught up in the esoterica of modeling. This is unfortunate, because there's so much more to the question that modeling packages aren't equipped to address. In fact, the modeling tool only begins to answer the critical questions in the overall assessment; other tools and analyses are needed to get at things like strategic approaches to markets or channels, facility size and cost issues, the potential to outsource at least some operations, and questions of whether to automate and to what degree. Modeling does not necessarily provide solid, realistic total cost analysis, implementation planning, or business case development.
In addition, while a number of modeling tools are available for network and facility design, the choice of which to use is far less important than how it's used. The model is merely a tool, ultimately sensitive to the quality of questions posed to it, the reliability of data employed in the solution, and the business context of the exercise. The real keys to successful network modeling lie in asking the right questions, using the right data and aggregating them to the right level, and having enough data and auxiliary tools to evaluate the complete solution.
It's also important to keep in mind that there is often a big difference between an optimal solution and a practical one—and models can't make that distinction. They'll change a solution for a one-dollar cost advantage. Further, it's often true that a majority of savings or benefits come from a sub-set of the modeled solution—and models don't know how to fragment their solutions to find the "bang for the buck" payback. In short, they can't edit or interpret their work, which places a powerful burden on the user.
In addition, models are often tough to build, difficult to verify, and consume data as if an information famine were imminent. Some newer products are somewhat more user- and data-friendly, but modeling is not an exercise for the faint of heart or the resource-constrained. That said, modeling tools are indispensable in solving complex network/facility location questions. Just remember they're only tools, not oracles. They can't answer questions that you can't ask; they can't solve problems that you can't define, and they can't think outside the box.
Selecting the right site for a facility adds another major set of considerations to DC network design. Those include such things as tradeoffs between inventory and transportation. The Von Thunen theory suggests that high-value items, such as gemstones, can be shipped relatively economically from almost anywhere in the world. The inverse is that low-value commodities, such as salt, need to be shipped from quite near the point of consumption. Another element is the potential for postponement, in which it might turn out that the best location for finished-product shipment is not the best location for postponement execution.
House hunting
Once the strategic elements are in place, the process of specific site selection begins. But be sure to have requirements defined before launching the search. Making them up based on what you're seeing is self-delusion of a dangerous kind. As Lewis Carroll reminds us, "If you don't know where you're going, any road will get you there."
The site selection process begins with a Requirements Definition, which prioritizes the factors that are important in a new facility or construction site. Examples include access to specific transportation modes (such as rail sidings or water transport), the labor environment, tax issues, and the ability to expand. Don't forget some other important factors, such as community attitudes—little in business life is more fearsome than the NIMBY lobby. And financing alternatives can radically affect build-or-buy decisions.
Site/facility selection is one activity in which taking all the outside advice you can get is probably a good thing. You can save time and leverage the experience of many advisors—and you can preserve anonymity, a very good thing in a run-up to negotiations. Some sources of help include real estate brokers or developers' consulting divisions, warehouse sales representatives, carrier representatives (especially rail), chambers of commerce, state and local development agencies, and consultants.
When you're ready to make the final pick, be sure to check multiple sources for information and opinions. Aggressively look for indicators of potential trouble, such as floods, seismic activity, soil problems, and access difficulties.
In short, be organized, be creative, and document, document, document.
RJW Logistics Group, a logistics solutions provider (LSP) for consumer packaged goods (CPG) brands, has received a “strategic investment” from Boston-based private equity firm Berkshire partners, and now plans to drive future innovations and expand its geographic reach, the Woodridge, Illinois-based company said Tuesday.
Terms of the deal were not disclosed, but the company said that CEO Kevin Williamson and other members of RJW management will continue to be “significant investors” in the company, while private equity firm Mason Wells, which invested in RJW in 2019, will maintain a minority investment position.
RJW is an asset-based transportation, logistics, and warehousing provider, operating more than 7.3 million square feet of consolidation warehouse space in the transportation hubs of Chicago and Dallas and employing 1,900 people. RJW says it partners with over 850 CPG brands and delivers to more than 180 retailers nationwide. According to the company, its retail logistics solutions save cost, improve visibility, and achieve industry-leading On-Time, In-Full (OTIF) performance. Those improvements drive increased in-stock rates and sales, benefiting both CPG brands and their retailer partners, the firm says.
"After several years of mitigating inflation, disruption, supply shocks, conflicts, and uncertainty, we are currently in a relative period of calm," John Paitek, vice president, GEP, said in a release. "But it is very much the calm before the coming storm. This report provides procurement and supply chain leaders with a prescriptive guide to weathering the gale force headwinds of protectionism, tariffs, trade wars, regulatory pressures, uncertainty, and the AI revolution that we will face in 2025."
A report from the company released today offers predictions and strategies for the upcoming year, organized into six major predictions in GEP’s “Outlook 2025: Procurement & Supply Chain” report.
Advanced AI agents will play a key role in demand forecasting, risk monitoring, and supply chain optimization, shifting procurement's mandate from tactical to strategic. Companies should invest in the technology now to to streamline processes and enhance decision-making.
Expanded value metrics will drive decisions, as success will be measured by resilience, sustainability, and compliance… not just cost efficiency. Companies should communicate value beyond cost savings to stakeholders, and develop new KPIs.
Increasing regulatory demands will necessitate heightened supply chain transparency and accountability. So companies should strengthen supplier audits, adopt ESG tracking tools, and integrate compliance into strategic procurement decisions.
Widening tariffs and trade restrictions will force companies to reassess total cost of ownership (TCO) metrics to include geopolitical and environmental risks, as nearshoring and friendshoring attempt to balance resilience with cost.
Rising energy costs and regulatory demands will accelerate the shift to sustainable operations, pushing companies to invest in renewable energy and redesign supply chains to align with ESG commitments.
New tariffs could drive prices higher, just as inflation has come under control and interest rates are returning to near-zero levels. That means companies must continue to secure cost savings as their primary responsibility.
Freight transportation sector analysts with US Bank say they expect change on the horizon in that market for 2025, due to possible tariffs imposed by a new White House administration, the return of East and Gulf coast port strikes, and expanding freight fraud.
“All three of these merit scrutiny, and that is our promise as we roll into the new year,” the company said in a statement today.
First, US Bank said a new administration will occupy the White House and will control the House and Senate for the first time since 2016. With an announced mandate on tariffs, taxes and trade from his electoral victory, President-Elect Trump’s anticipated actions are almost certain to impact the supply chain, the bank said.
Second, a strike by longshoreman at East Coast and Gulf ports was suspended in October, but the can was only kicked until mid-January. Shipper alarm bells are already ringing, and with peak season in full swing, the West coast ports are roaring, having absorbed containers bound for the East. However, that status may not be sustainable in the event of a prolonged strike in January, US Bank said.
And third, analyst are tracking the proliferation of freight fraud, and its reverberations across the supply chain. No longer the realm of petty criminals, freight fraudsters have become increasingly sophisticated, and the financial toll of their activities in the loss of goods, and data, is expected to be in the billions, the bank estimates.
Specifically, 48% of respondents identified rising tariffs and trade barriers as their top concern, followed by supply chain disruptions at 45% and geopolitical instability at 41%. Moreover, tariffs and trade barriers ranked as the priority issue regardless of company size, as respondents at companies with less than 250 employees, 251-500, 501-1,000, 1,001-50,000 and 50,000+ employees all cited it as the most significant issue they are currently facing.
“Evolving tariffs and trade policies are one of a number of complex issues requiring organizations to build more resilience into their supply chains through compliance, technology and strategic planning,” Jackson Wood, Director, Industry Strategy at Descartes, said in a release. “With the potential for the incoming U.S. administration to impose new and additional tariffs on a wide variety of goods and countries of origin, U.S. importers may need to significantly re-engineer their sourcing strategies to mitigate potentially higher costs.”
A measure of business conditions for shippers improved in September due to lower fuel costs, looser trucking capacity, and lower freight rates, but the freight transportation forecasting firm FTR still expects readings to be weaker and closer to neutral through its two-year forecast period.
Bloomington, Indiana-based FTR is maintaining its stance that trucking conditions will improve, even though its Shippers Conditions Index (SCI) improved in September to 4.6 from a 2.9 reading in August, reaching its strongest level of the year.
“The fact that September’s index is the strongest since last December is not a sign that shippers’ market conditions are steadily improving,” Avery Vise, FTR’s vice president of trucking, said in a release.
“September and May were modest outliers this year in a market that is at least becoming more balanced. We expect that trend to continue and for SCI readings to be mostly negative to neutral in 2025 and 2026. However, markets in transition tend to be volatile, so further outliers are likely and possibly in both directions. The supply chain implications of tariffs are a wild card for 2025 especially,” he said.
The SCI tracks the changes representing four major conditions in the U.S. full-load freight market: freight demand, freight rates, fleet capacity, and fuel price. Combined into a single index, a positive score represents good, optimistic conditions, while a negative score represents bad, pessimistic conditions.