Maybe DC managers should take some cues from baseball. As baseball fans are well aware, some of the most successful pro teams have made big changes in the way they evaluate players in the past few years. Gone are some of the old standbys like batting average, runs batted in or earned run average. In their place are newer stats like onbase percentage and slugging percentage that better predict how much a player will contribute to the desired outcome—a win.
There could be a lesson in that for the DC world. Asked what measures they use to evaluate their operations' performance, managers in DCs across the country reel off their own old standbys—inventory count accuracy, cost per unit shipped or processed, or on-time delivery. Problem is, the measures they're using are oftentimes not aligned with their overall business strategies. Their metrics may tell them many things, but not what's really important: how far they've come toward achieving their corporate goals and how far they have to go.
To find out more about how metrics are used in today's supply chain operations, DC VELOCITY and a research team from Georgia Southern University and the University of Tennessee launched a two-part study earlier this year. By the time the survey cutoff date rolled around, more than 700 of DC VELOCITY's readers had responded to a pair of online questionnaires. (Download the full report of the findings.) When the tabulations were complete, it was clear that plenty of DCs are measuring their operations' performance. What wasn't so clear was whether they're doing it right.
No standards
When it comes to the metrics companies are using today, are there "baseline" metrics that everybody applies? Most emphatically not. There's no single set of metrics in widespread use; in fact, there's no single universally accepted logistics measure—no supply chain equivalent of baseball's slugging percentage or on-base percentage. Indeed, there's nothing even close. Asked to indicate which metrics they used (from a list of 80), the respondents' answers ranged all over the map.When all the results were tallied, not a single metric—even basic measures like on-time deliveries or cost per unit shipped—scored in the 90-percent range.
Though they could not identify a single universally accepted measure, researchers were able to identify basic groups of metrics that seem to be in fairly widespread use. Regardless of industry or type of business, most respondents used metrics from at least one of the following three broad categories: time-based measures, financial measures and service quality measures.
Within each of those categories, however, usage scores for the individual metrics varied widely. Among the time-based measures, for example, on-time delivery topped the list, mentioned by more than two-thirds (68 percent) of the respondents. Next on the list was orders shipped on time (63 percent), followed by finishedgoods inventory turns (57 percent) and number of overtime hours logged (55 percent). At the bottom of the list was dwell time (12 percent). It seems safe to say that nobody cares much about dwell time as long as an order departs and arrives on time.
As for financial metrics, cost per unit shipped or processed topped the list (63 percent), followed by total cost per order shipped (55 percent). Moving further down the list, fewer than half the respondents said they measured transportation as a percentage of revenue (47 percent), return on investment (43 percent) and cost per order (42 percent).
To measure service quality, companies typically resort to traditional inventory-based measures. The most commonly used metric was inventory count accuracy (71 percent), followed by overall customer satisfaction (54 percent). Other service metrics in relatively widespread use focused on order fulfillment; these included order picking accuracy (51 percent), picking errors (50 percent) and order fill rate (49 percent).
What measure to take?
Given that there are no clear industry standards where metrics are concerned, how do companies decide what to measure? Logic would dictate that they're choosing measures that best indicate how they're performing against the company's strategic goals. But surprisingly, that's not the case.
Respondents to the first part of the study were asked to identify not only the metrics they used but also their companies' overall strategy (in broad terms). Though you might assume that the companies whose focus was on, say, cost containment would focus on financial metrics, that wasn't the case. The researchers were unable to establish any real correlation between the metrics companies said they used and their corporate objectives (broadly categorized for survey purposes as cutting costs, maximizing asset utilization, increasing customer satisfaction or maximizing profitability).
Researchers did find a stronger link between the metrics used and a company's "location" within the supply chain—that is, whether its primary customers were end consumers, manufacturers, distributors/wholesalers, or retailers. That's not to say that all companies serving, say, retailers used the same set of clearly defined measures. Yet researchers were able to identify some statistically significant differences from group to group. (See Exhibit 1.)
Take units processed per labor hour, for example. Companies whose primary customers are retailers rarely track these numbers. But those that provide service to manufacturers and distributors/wholesalers live and die by this measure. Perhaps manufacturers are accustomed to thinking in terms of labor costs and timemotion studies. Or perhaps these are critical measures given the labor intensity and repetitive nature of their industries. Whatever the reason, most of them can quote this number down to the fraction of a unit.
Beyond measure
Given the apparently scattershot approach to metrics in the nation's DCs, it appears there's an opening here for companies seeking a competitive edge. It seems safe to say that a company that adopts metrics aimed at satisfying customers and supporting corporate strategy —not to mention increasing operational efficiency or cutting costs—could reap rich marketplace rewards.
But it won't just happen automatically. Becoming a "power user" where metrics are concerned means getting familiar with the corporate strategy. It means adopting and using metrics that align with that objective. And above all, it means finding out what customers regard as key metrics. (Many times, customers will provide scorecards to identify what they see as critical measures.)
All that requires time and effort, to be sure. But it could put you on track for a winning season.
Exhibit 1
Who's using what metrics?
Respondent's Primary Customer
Commonly Used Metrics
Less Commonly Used Metrics
Manufacturers
Customer satisfaction
Cost to serve
Units processed per labor hour
Source: Georgia Southern University, University of Tennessee and DC Velocity
Editor's note: This study represents the first step in what's expected to become a continuing investigation. Possible topics for future studies include developing a more in-depth understanding of benchmarking levels, defining specific metrics and perhaps developing recommendations for the best metrics for different types of companies to use.
Worldwide air cargo rates rose to a 2024 high in November of $2.76 per kilo, despite a slight (-2%) drop in flown tonnages compared with October, according to analysis by WorldACD Market data.
The healthy rate comes as demand and pricing both remain significantly above their already elevated levels last November, the Dutch firm said.
The new figures reflect worldwide air cargo markets that remain relatively strong, including shipments originating in the Asia Pacific, but where good advance planning by air cargo stakeholders looks set to avert a major peak season capacity crunch and very steep rate rises in the final weeks of the year, WorldACD said.
Despite that effective planning, average worldwide rates in November rose by 6% month on month (MoM), based on a full-market average of spot rates and contract rates, taking them to their highest level since January 2023 and 11% higher, year on year (YoY). The biggest MoM increases came from Europe (+10%) and Central & South America (+9%) origins, based on the more than 450,000 weekly transactions covered by WorldACD’s data.
But overall global tonnages in November were down -2%, MoM, with the biggest percentage decline coming from Middle East & South Asia (-11%) origins, which have been highly elevated for most of this year. But the -4%, MoM, decrease from Europe origins was responsible for a similar drop in tonnage terms – reflecting reduced passenger belly capacity since the start of aviation’s winter season from 27 October, including cuts in passenger services by European carriers to and from China.
Each of those points could have a stark impact on business operations, the firm said. First, supply chain restrictions will continue to drive up costs, following examples like European tariffs on Chinese autos and the U.S. plan to prevent Chinese software and hardware from entering cars in America.
Second, reputational risk will peak due to increased corporate transparency and due diligence laws, such as Germany’s Supply Chain Due Diligence Act that addresses hotpoint issues like modern slavery, forced labor, human trafficking, and environmental damage. In an age when polarized public opinion is combined with ever-present social media, doing business with a supplier whom a lot of your customers view negatively will be hard to navigate.
And third, advances in data, technology, and supplier risk assessments will enable executives to measure the impact of disruptions more effectively. Those calculations can help organizations determine whether their risk mitigation strategies represent value for money when compared to the potential revenues losses in the event of a supply chain disruption.
“Looking past the holidays, retailers will need to prepare for the typical challenges posed by seasonal slowdown in consumer demand. This year, however, there will be much less of a lull, as U.S. companies are accelerating some purchases that could potentially be impacted by a new wave of tariffs on U.S. imports,” Andrei Quinn-Barabanov, Senior Director – Supplier Risk Management Solutions at Moody’s, said in a release. “Tariffs, sanctions and other supply chain restrictions will likely be top of the 2025 agenda for procurement executives.”
As holiday shoppers blitz through the final weeks of the winter peak shopping season, a survey from the postal and shipping solutions provider Stamps.com shows that 40% of U.S. consumers are unaware of holiday shipping deadlines, leaving them at risk of running into last-minute scrambles, higher shipping costs, and packages arriving late.
The survey also found a generational difference in holiday shipping deadline awareness, with 53% of Baby Boomers unaware of these cut-off dates, compared to just 32% of Millennials. Millennials are also more likely to prioritize guaranteed delivery, with 68% citing it as a key factor when choosing a shipping option this holiday season.
Of those surveyed, 66% have experienced holiday shipping delays, with Gen Z reporting the highest rate of delays at 73%, compared to 49% of Baby Boomers. That statistical spread highlights a conclusion that younger generations are less tolerant of delays and prioritize fast and efficient shipping, researchers said. The data came from a study of 1,000 U.S. consumers conducted in October 2024 to understand their shopping habits and preferences.
As they cope with that tight shipping window, a huge 83% of surveyed consumers are willing to pay extra for faster shipping to avoid the prospect of a late-arriving gift. This trend is especially strong among Gen Z, with 56% willing to pay up, compared to just 27% of Baby Boomers.
“As the holiday season approaches, it’s crucial for consumers to be prepared and aware of shipping deadlines to ensure their gifts arrive on time,” Nick Spitzman, General Manager of Stamps.com, said in a release. ”Our survey highlights the significant portion of consumers who are unaware of these deadlines, particularly older generations. It’s essential for retailers and shipping carriers to provide clear and timely information about shipping deadlines to help consumers avoid last-minute stress and disappointment.”
For best results, Stamps.com advises consumers to begin holiday shopping early and familiarize themselves with shipping deadlines across carriers. That is especially true with Thanksgiving falling later this year, meaning the holiday season is shorter and planning ahead is even more essential.
According to Stamps.com, key shipping deadlines include:
December 13, 2024: Last day for FedEx Ground Economy
December 18, 2024: Last day for USPS Ground Advantage and First-Class Mail
December 19, 2024: Last day for UPS 3 Day Select and USPS Priority Mail
December 20, 2024: Last day for UPS 2nd Day Air
December 21, 2024: Last day for USPS Priority Mail Express
Measured over the entire year of 2024, retailers estimate that 16.9% of their annual sales will be returned. But that total figure includes a spike of returns during the holidays; a separate NRF study found that for the 2024 winter holidays, retailers expect their return rate to be 17% higher, on average, than their annual return rate.
Despite the cost of handling that massive reverse logistics task, retailers grin and bear it because product returns are so tightly integrated with brand loyalty, offering companies an additional touchpoint to provide a positive interaction with their customers, NRF Vice President of Industry and Consumer Insights Katherine Cullen said in a release. According to NRF’s research, 76% of consumers consider free returns a key factor in deciding where to shop, and 67% say a negative return experience would discourage them from shopping with a retailer again. And 84% of consumers report being more likely to shop with a retailer that offers no box/no label returns and immediate refunds.
So in response to consumer demand, retailers continue to enhance the return experience for customers. More than two-thirds of retailers surveyed (68%) say they are prioritizing upgrading their returns capabilities within the next six months. In addition, improving the returns experience and reducing the return rate are viewed as two of the most important elements for businesses in achieving their 2025 goals.
However, retailers also must balance meeting consumer demand for seamless returns against rising costs. Fraudulent and abusive returns practices create both logistical and financial challenges for retailers. A majority (93%) of retailers said retail fraud and other exploitive behavior is a significant issue for their business. In terms of abuse, bracketing – purchasing multiple items with the intent to return some – has seen growth among younger consumers, with 51% of Gen Z consumers indicating they engage in this practice.
“Return policies are no longer just a post-purchase consideration – they’re shaping how younger generations shop from the start,” David Sobie, co-founder and CEO of Happy Returns, said in a release. “With behaviors like bracketing and rising return rates putting strain on traditional systems, retailers need to rethink reverse logistics. Solutions like no box/no label returns with item verification enable immediate refunds, meeting customer expectations for convenience while increasing accuracy, reducing fraud and helping to protect profitability in a competitive market.”
The research came from two complementary surveys conducted this fall, allowing NRF and Happy Returns to compare perspectives from both sides. They included one that gathered responses from 2,007 consumers who had returned at least one online purchase within the past year, and another from 249 e-commerce and finance professionals from large U.S. retailers.
The “series A” round was led by Andreessen Horowitz (a16z), with participation from Y Combinator and strategic industry investors, including RyderVentures. It follows an earlier, previously undisclosed, pre-seed round raised 1.5 years ago, that was backed by Array Ventures and other angel investors.
“Our mission is to redefine the economics of the freight industry by harnessing the power of agentic AI,ˮ Pablo Palafox, HappyRobotʼs co-founder and CEO, said in a release. “This funding will enable us to accelerate product development, expand and support our customer base, and ultimately transform how logistics businesses operate.ˮ
According to the firm, its conversational AI platform uses agentic AI—a term for systems that can autonomously make decisions and take actions to achieve specific goals—to simplify logistics operations. HappyRobot says its tech can automate tasks like inbound and outbound calls, carrier negotiations, and data capture, thus enabling brokers to enhance efficiency and capacity, improve margins, and free up human agents to focus on higher-value activities.
“Today, the logistics industry underpinning our global economy is stretched,” Anish Acharya, general partner at a16z, said. “As a key part of the ecosystem, even small to midsize freight brokers can make and receive hundreds, if not thousands, of calls per day – and hiring for this job is increasingly difficult. By providing customers with autonomous decision making, HappyRobotʼs agentic AI platform helps these brokers operate more reliably and efficiently.ˮ