America's sclerotic transportation network is already creating delays and backups during peak shipping periods. So what will happen when the rising tide of low-cost Asian imports hits our shores?
Peter Bradley is an award-winning career journalist with more than three decades of experience in both newspapers and national business magazines. His credentials include seven years as the transportation and supply chain editor at Purchasing Magazine and six years as the chief editor of Logistics Management.
As wave after wave of cheap asian goods rolls toward U.S. shores, the expression that comes to John Vickerman's mind is "Constant bearing, decreasing range"—a maritime phrase used to describe a ship heading for a collision. If the metaphor seems stark, it may nonetheless prove accurate. As Asian-made shoes, toys, T-shirts and computer components flood into the United States, fed by supercharged Pacific economies, the systems and facilities in place for receiving and processing those inbound containers are creaking under the strain. Some fear it's only a matter of time before that surging tide of imports overwhelms the U.S. transportation infrastructure.
It's not that the threat is anything new. The United States' transportation infrastructure has been under severe pressure for some time now, points out Vickerman, who is a principal of TranSystems Corp., an engineering firm that's developing facilities for ports, railroads, air carriers and government agencies around the world. Anyone whose freight was caught in the West Coast port logjam last year can attest to that.
The trouble, Vickerman says, is that the country has been slow to do anything about it. And both offshore manufacturing and shipping continue to swell, practically guaranteeing further delays in the coming months and years as more imports pour into an already overtaxed system. And it's not just a problem for the nation's ports. If U.S. imports continue to grow at current rates, Vickerman told the audience at a recent conference on transportation capacity constraints organized by MIT's Center for Transportation and Logistics, they could overwhelm not just the ports, but the extended intermodal infrastructure of highways and railroads as well.
And grow they will. Consider the results of a recent study of the global trading patterns of 170 North American companies. When asked whether more than 25 percent of their suppliers were based in another country, more than half of the respondents answered yes, says Beth Enslow, vice president of enterprise research for Aberdeen Group and author of the study. And more than two-thirds said they expected that at least one-quarter of their supplier base would be made up of foreign companies by 2008. Furthermore, the study, New Strategies for Global Trade Management, found that nearly four out of 10 respondents—39 percent—expect that in three years' time, more than half their suppliers will be based somewhere other than the United States.
Made in China
What's driving the trend can be summed up in one word: China. Though factories all over Asia continue to ramp up production, China's output has virtually exploded. Between 1985 and 2003, U.S.-China trade grew twentyfold, to $180 billion, according to a study conducted for the Transportation Research Board last year by Michael Bomba of the University of Texas. China now accounts for 70 percent of all Pacific cargo flows, Vickerman says. And if anyone still doubts that China has become a strategic manufacturing base for U.S. companies, consider that 78 percent of the respondents to Enslow's survey—and 90 percent of those with more than $50 million in revenues—were doing business in China.
It's not just China's skyrocketing output that has transportation strategists worried. It's that output coupled with the country's investment in the infrastructure needed to ship out those goods. David Fries, chairman of AMB China Ltd., reports that his company alone is developing logistics and distribution centers not just in Shanghai, where it's based, but also in Beijing and the Pearl River Delta. He says it's clear to him that Chinese manufacturers won't be content to let those newly produced goods linger on China's shores. The multi-story distribution facilities his company and others are building in the area are geared toward fast-cycle operations, not storage, he says. "Everybody is emphasizing inventory turns in their warehouse."
To move those goods out, Shanghai is investing heavily in its airport and seaport. Fries says the Shanghai airport will eventually be able to handle five million tons of cargo a year. As for the seaport, projects are under way that will bring the port's capacity to 25 million TEUs a year within five years, Vickerman says. (A TEU, short for 20-foot-equivalent unit, refers to a 20-foot maritime container.)
Shanghai is by no means alone. Up and down China's coast, ports both major and secondary are boosting capacity. The Port of Hong Kong alone has capacity equal to the top seven U.S. container ports, says Vickerman, and expansion projects will push its capacity to 31 million TEUs by 2011. Overall, he says, China's container throughput is growing at a compound annual rate of close to 30 percent. That has enormous implications for U.S. trade—the vast majority of Chinese goods entering the United States (98 percent, according to Bomba's report) arrive on container ships.
China's infrastructure investments aren't limited to airports and seaports. Frank Wade, senior vice president of international business development for AMB Property Corp., a large developer of distribution facilities in the United States, reports that the Chinese government is continuing to develop a major highway network to link ports to production centers as well as intermodal rail facilities.
Flood watch
The goods streaming out of China's factories are bound for destinations around the world, of course, but a large share of them are headed for the United States. Take those Chinese goods and add those produced in Korea, Thailand and Singapore, and you have the makings of a tidal wave of imports.
Capacity problems promise to be particularly acute at America's ports. Vickerman predicts that U.S. ports can expect their current volume to double or even triple. That's a worrisome prospect for a system that's already overtaxed.
Congestion at the largest U.S. port complex, Los Angeles and Long Beach, has already prompted exporters to develop workarounds, note Vickerman and Fries. Some are shifting their business to other West Coast ports. Others are routing ships laden with cargo from the Far East in an entirely different direction--through the Suez Canal to East Coast and Gulf Coast ports. One beneficiary of that trend is Virginia, where Maersk Line, one of the world's largest container ship lines, is building a major new terminal. Another is the Port of Houston, which has seen its volume swell with goods bound for Wal-Mart, whose supplier base is now reportedly 80 percent Chinese.
But shifting freight from port to port is not a permanent solution. In order to handle the impending influx of imports, shippers, carriers, ports and container terminals, suppliers, and government agencies will have to develop and implement collaborative technologies or risk longer and longer delays throughout the transportation system. As an example of one of these technologies, Vickerman points to the development of what's known as an Agile Port System by the Center for the Commercial Deployment of Transportation Technologies at the University of California Long Beach. That technology would link port, intermodal, and corridor freight operations. The idea, he explains, is to manage information in ways that reduce terminal dwell time, and as a result, increase capacity without major investment in real estate, equipment or labor.
But that and other efforts may be fingers in the dike. If the logjams experienced at West Coast ports in recent years are any indication of what's to come, international business may someday find itself a victim of its own success.
what's it really cost?
As cost-cutting strategies go, offshoring may not always prove to be a surefire thing. Companies that move production overseas to tap into the vast supply of cheap labor often come away disappointed with the results. Of 170 North American companies surveyed in a recent study, the top two complaints were unexpectedly high costs and long lead times. Fully 91 percent found the costs of doing business internationally to be higher than they had estimated, and a similar percentage complained that long lead times were hampering their efforts to respond to customer demands, says Beth Enslow, vice president of enterprise research for Aberdeen Group and author of the study, New Strategies for Global Trade Management.
The problem, says Enslow, is that these companies are simply not managing their lengthy supply chains efficiently. The majority of international supply chains are cobbled together with manual processes, she reports. Fully 70 percent of companies do not manage global trade cross-functionally, which hinders their efforts to respond quickly to changing regulations, shipping requirements and business conditions. "If you look at the domestic supply chain of 30 years ago," she says, "that's what the global supply chain looks like today."
Enslow holds out hope that things will improve, however. Driven by security regulations and tougher financial reporting rules, more companies are turning to technology to help them manage their global trade. Automated systems can eliminate shipment delays, reduce documentation problems and cut costs. And now that many businesses around the world are using Internet-based procedures, governments are moving toward electronic document processing, further streamlining the process.
In the meantime, one way companies can ease the pain is to fine-tune their systems for tracking product lead times. "The more confidence you have in lead times, the better decisions you will be able to make on inventory," says C. John Langley, a professor of supply chain management at Georgia Institute of Technology.
Langley urges companies to maintain good warning systems—systems that can provide alerts anytime something threatens to disrupt the flow of goods. That has two benefits, he says. If forewarned of possible shipping delays, a company can take steps to build up safety stocks, averting a customer service crisis. If, on the other hand, it receives solid assurances that all's well in the supply chain, it can use that information to strategic advantage too. "If you know with confidence your lead times are four to six weeks and not 10 to 12 weeks," says Langley, "you can turn that [knowledge] into a lot of cash."
When it comes to logistics technology, the pace of innovation has never been faster. In recent years, the market has been inundated by waves of cool new tech tools, all promising to help users enhance their operations and cope with today’s myriad supply chain challenges.
But that ever-expanding array of offerings can make it difficult to separate the wheat from the chaff—technology that’s the real deal versus technology that’s just “vaporware,” meaning products that don’t live up to their hype and may even still be in the conceptual stage.
One way to cut through the confusion is to check out the entries for the “3 V’s of Supply Chain Innovation Awards,” an annual competition held by the Council of Supply Chain Management Professionals (CSCMP). This competition, which is hosted by DC Velocity’s sister publication, Supply Chain Xchange, and supply chain visionary and 3 V’s framework creator Art Mesher, recognizes companies that have parlayed the 3 V’s—“embracing variability, harnessing visibility, and competing with velocity”—into business success and advanced the practice of supply chain management. Awards are presented in two categories: the “Business Innovation Award,” which recognizes more established businesses, and the “Best Overall Innovative Startup/Early Stage Award,” which recognizes newer companies.
The judging for this year’s competition—the second annual contest—took place at CSCMP’s EDGE Supply Chain Conference & Exhibition in September, where the three finalists for each award presented their innovations via a fast-paced “elevator pitch.” (To watch a video of the presentations, visit the Supply Chain Xchange website.)
What follows is a brief look at the six companies that made the competition’s final round and the latest updates on their achievements:
Arkestro: This San Francisco-based firm offers a predictive procurement orchestration solution that uses machine learning (ML) and behavioral science to revolutionize sourcing, eliminating the need for outdated manual tools like pivot tables and for labor-intensive negotiations. Instead, procurement teams can process quotes and secure optimal supplier agreements at a speed and accuracy that would be impossible to achieve manually, the firm says.
The company recently joined the Amazon Web Services (AWS) Partner Network (APN), which it says will help it reach its goal of elevating procurement from a cost center to a strategic growth engine.
AutoScheduler.AI: This Austin, Texas-based company offers a predictive warehouse optimization platform that integrates with a user’s existing warehouse management system (WMS) and “accelerates” its ability to resolve problems like dock schedule conflicts, inefficient workforce allocation, poor on-time/in-full (OTIF) performance, and excessive intra-campus moves.
“We’re here to make the warehouse sexy,” the firm says on its website. “With our deep background in building machine learning solutions, everything delivered by the AutoScheduler team is designed to provide value by learning your challenges, environment, and best practices.” Privately funded up until this summer, the company recently secured venture capital funding that it will use to accelerate its growth and enhance its technologies.
Davinci Micro Fulfillment: Located in Bound Brook, New Jersey, Davinci operates a “microfulfillment as a service” platform that helps users expedite inventory turnover while reducing operating expenses by leveraging what it calls the “4 Ps of global distribution”—product, placement, price, and promotion. The firm operates a network of microfulfillment centers across the U.S., offering services that include front-end merchandising and network optimization.
Within the past year, the company raised seed funding to help enhance its technology capabilities.
Flying Ship: Headquartered in Leesburg, Virginia, Flying Ship has designed an unmanned, low-flying “ground-effect maritime craft” that moves freight over the ocean in coastal regions. Although the Flying Ship looks like a small aircraft or large drone, it is classified as a maritime vessel because it does not leave the air cushion over the waves, similar to a hovercraft.
The first-generation models are 30 feet long, electrically powered, and semi-autonomous. They can dock at existing marinas, beaches, and boat ramps to deliver goods, providing service that the company describes as faster than boats and cheaper than air. The firm says the next-generation models will be fully autonomous.
Flying Ship, which was honored with the Best Overall Startup Award in this year’s 3 V’s competition, is currently preparing to fly demo missions with the Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL).
Perfect Planner: Based in Alpharetta, Georgia, Perfect Planner operates a cloud-based platform that’s designed to streamline the material planning and replenishment process. The technology collects, organizes, and analyzes data from a business’s material requirements planning (MRP) system to create daily “to-do lists” for material planners/buyers, with the “to-dos” ranked in order of criticality. The solution also uses advanced analytics to “understand” and address inventory shortages and surpluses.
Perfect Planner was honored with the Business Innovation Award in this year’s 3 V’s competition.
ProvisionAi: Located in Franklin, Tennessee, ProvisionAi has developed load optimization software that helps consumer packaged goods (CPG) companies move their freight with fewer trucks, thereby cutting their transportation costs. The firm says its flagship offering is an automatic order optimization (AutoO2) system that bolts onto a company’s existing enterprise resource planning (ERP) or WMS platform and guides larger orders through execution, ensuring that what is planned is actually loaded on the truck. The firm’s CEO and founder, Tom Moore, was recognized as a 2024 Rainmaker by this magazine.
Global forklift sales have slumped in 2024, falling short of initial forecasts as a result of the struggling economy in Europe and the slow release of project funding in the U.S., a report from market analyst firm Interact Analysis says.
In response, the London-based firm has reduced its shipment forecast for the year to rise just 0.3%, although it still predicts consistent growth of around 4-5% out to 2034.
The “bleak” figures come as the European economy has stagnated during the second half of 2024, with two of the leading industry sectors for forklifts - automotive and logistics – struggling. In addition, order backlogs from the pandemic have now been absorbed, so order volumes for the global forklift market will be slightly lower than shipment volumes over the next few years, Interact Analysis said.
On a more positive note, 3 million forklifts are forecast to be shipped per year by 2031 as enterprises are forced to reduce their dependence on manual labor. Interact Analysis has observed that major forklift OEMs are continuing with their long-term expansion plans, while other manufacturers that are affected by demand fluctuations are much more cautious with spending on automation projects.
At the same time, the forklift market is seeing a fundamental shift in power sources, with demand for Li-ion battery-powered forklifts showing a growth rate of over 10% while internal combustion engine (ICE) demand shrank by 1% and lead-acid battery-powered forklift fell 7%.
And according to Interact Analysis, those trends will continue, with the report predicting that ICE annual market demand will shrink over 20% from 670,000 units in 2024 to a projected 500,000 units by 2034. And by 2034, Interact Analysis predicts 81% of fully electric forklifts will be powered by li-ion batteries.
The reasons driving that shift include a move in Europe to cleaner alternatives to comply with environmental policies, and a swing in the primary customer base for forklifts from manufacturing to logistics and warehousing, due to the rise of e-commerce. Electric forklift demand is also growing in emerging markets, but for different reasons—labor costs are creating a growing need for automation in factories, especially in China, India, and Eastern Europe. And since lithium-ion battery production is primarily based in Asia, the average cost of equipping forklifts with li-ion batteries is much lower than the rest of the world.
Companies in every sector are converting assets from fossil fuel to electric power in their push to reach net-zero energy targets and to reduce costs along the way, but to truly accelerate those efforts, they also need to improve electric energy efficiency, according to a study from technology consulting firm ABI Research.
In fact, boosting that efficiency could contribute fully 25% of the emissions reductions needed to reach net zero. And the pursuit of that goal will drive aggregated global investments in energy efficiency technologies to grow from $106 Billion in 2024 to $153 Billion in 2030, ABI said today in a report titled “The Role of Energy Efficiency in Reaching Net Zero Targets for Enterprises and Industries.”
ABI’s report divided the range of energy-efficiency-enhancing technologies and equipment into three industrial categories:
Commercial Buildings – Network Lighting Control (NLC) and occupancy sensing for automated lighting and heating; Artificial Intelligence (AI)-based energy management; heat-pumps and energy-efficient HVAC equipment; insulation technologies
Manufacturing Plants – Energy digital twins, factory automation, manufacturing process design and optimization software (PLM, MES, simulation); Electric Arc Furnaces (EAFs); energy efficient electric motors (compressors, fans, pumps)
“Both the International Energy Agency (IEA) and the United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP) continue to insist on the importance of energy efficiency,” Dominique Bonte, VP of End Markets and Verticals at ABI Research, said in a release. “At COP 29 in Dubai, it was agreed to commit to collectively double the global average annual rate of energy efficiency improvements from around 2% to over 4% every year until 2030, following recommendations from the IEA. This complements the EU’s Energy Efficiency First (EE1) Framework and the U.S. 2022 Inflation Reduction Act in which US$86 billion was earmarked for energy efficiency actions.”
Many AI deployments are getting stuck in the planning stages due to a lack of AI skills, governance issues, and insufficient resources, leading 61% of global businesses to scale back their AI investments, according to a study from the analytics and AI provider Qlik.
Philadelphia-based Qlik found a disconnect in the market where 88% of senior decision makers say they feel AI is absolutely essential or very important to achieving success. Despite that support, multiple factors are slowing down or totally blocking those AI projects: a lack of skills to develop AI [23%] or to roll out AI once it’s developed [22%], data governance challenges [23%], budget constraints [21%], and a lack of trusted data for AI to work with [21%].
The numbers come from a survey of 4,200 C-Suite executives and AI decision makers, revealing what is hindering AI progress globally and how to overcome these barriers.
Respondents also said that many stakeholders lack trust in AI technology generally, which holds those projects back. Over a third [37%] of AI decision makers say their senior managers lack trust in AI, 42% feel less senior employees don’t trust the technology., and a fifth [21%] believe their customers don’t trust AI either.
“Business leaders know the value of AI, but they face a multitude of barriers that prevent them from moving from proof of concept to value creating deployment of the technology,” James Fisher, Chief Strategy Officer at Qlik, said in a release. “The first step to creating an AI strategy is to identify a clear use case, with defined goals and measures of success, and use this to identify the skills, resources and data needed to support it at scale. In doing so you start to build trust and win management buy-in to help you succeed.”
Many chief supply chain officers (CSCOs) are focused on reorganizing their supply chains in today’s business climate—but as they do so, they should be careful to avoid common pitfalls that can derail their efforts.
That’s according to recent research from Gartner that identifies critical organizational design mistakes that will prevent supply chain leaders from delivering on business goals.
“Supply chain reorganization is high up on CSCOs’ agendas, yet many are unclear about how organization design outcomes link to business goals,” according to Alan O'Keeffe, senior director analyst in Gartner’s Supply Chain practice.
The research revealed that the most successful projects radically redesign supply chain structure based on distinct organizational needs “while prioritizing balance, strength, and speed as key business objectives.”
“Our findings reveal that the leaders who achieved success took a more radical approach to redesigning their supply chain organizations, resulting in the ability to deliver on new and transformational operating models,” O’Keefe said in a statement announcing the findings.
The research was based on a series of interviews with supply chain leaders as well as data gathered from Gartner clients. It revealed that successful organizations assigned responsibilities to reporting lines in radically diverse ways, and that they focused on the unique characteristics of their business to design supply chain organizations that were tailored to meet their needs.
“The commonality between successful organizations is that their leaders intentionally prioritized the organizational goals of balance, strength and speed into their design process,” said O’Keeffe. “In doing so, they sidestepped the most common pitfalls in supply chain reorganization design.”
The three most common errors, according to Gartner, are:
Mistake 1: The “either/or” approach
Unbalanced organizational structures result in delays, gaps in performance, and confusion about responsibility. This often stems from a binary choice between centralized and decentralized models. Such an approach limits design possibilities and can lead to organizational power struggles, with teams feeling overwhelmed and misaligned.
Successful CSCOs recognize balance as a critical outcome. They employ both integration (combining activities under one team structure) and differentiation (empowering multiple units to conduct activities in unique ways). This granular approach ensures that decisions, expertise, and resources are allocated optimally to serve diverse customer needs while maintaining internally coherent operating models.
Mistake 2: Debilitating headcount reduction
Reducing headcount as a primary goal of reorganization can undermine long-term organizational capability. This approach often leads to a focus on short-term cost savings at the expense of losing critical talent and expertise, which are essential for driving future success.
Instead, CSCOs should focus on understanding what capabilities will make the organization strong in the short, medium, and long term. They should also prioritize the development and leveraging of people capabilities, social networks, and autonomy. This approach not only enhances organizational effectiveness but also ensures that the organization is ready to meet future challenges.
Mistake 3: The copy/paste approach
Copying organizational designs from other companies without considering enterprise-specific variations can slow decision-making and hinder organizational effectiveness. Each organization has unique characteristics that must be factored into its design.
CSCOs who successfully redesign their organizations make speed an explicit outcome by assigning and clarifying authority and expertise to remove elements that slow decision-making speed. This involves:
Designing structures that enable rapid response to customer needs;
Streamlining internal decision-making processes;
And differentiating between operational execution and transformation efforts.
The research for the report was based in part on qualitative interviews conducted between February and June 2024 with supply chain leaders from organizations that had undergone organizational redesign, according to Gartner. Insights were drawn from those who had successfully completed a radical reorganization, defined as a shift that enabled organizations to deliver on new activities and operating models that better met the needs of the business. The researchers also drew on more than 1,200 inquiries with clients conducted between July 2022 and June 2024 for the report.