It's Murphy's Law your equipment's going to break down just when you're in the midst of processing your biggest customer's order. But it doesn't have to be that way.
As any homeowner or car owner will tell you, equipment breakdowns have joined death and taxes on the list of life's certainties. Hoping to forestall the inevitable, smart car owners get regular oil changes and smart homeowners schedule tuneups for their furnaces or washing machines.
It's no different for America's distribution centers. Smart managers who want to keep their lift trucks lifting, conveyors conveying, and AS/RS systems storing and retrieving have progressive preventative maintenance (PM) programs in place for all of their equipment. These routine checkups can extend the life of equipment and help avert the chances of a catastrophic breakdown just when your biggest customer's order is being filled.
What many don't realize, however, is that the upkeep plan itself requires upkeep. It's important not to just set up a maintenance schedule and walk away. Managers should plan to audit the program's effectiveness on a regular basis—measuring performance against key metrics (see below) and setting goals for improvement. And it goes without saying, these should not be vague goals like "minimizing breakdowns," but specific objectives such as reducing the amount of maintenance-related overtime paid by X percent or cutting parts inventories by Y percent.
One manager who has a solid grip on how effective his company's PM program has proven to be is Bryan Eccard, director of facility services for Limited Brands, parent company of national retail chains like Victoria's Secret, Express and The Limited. Ask Eccard what Limited Brands' PM program has accomplished, and he'll give you specifics: The company's equipment breakdown time has shrunk by 15 percent, he reports, and equipment spare parts inventory is down by a quarter of a million dollars.What's more, the equipment is lasting much longer. "We have some equipment that's been around for 18 years and is still running today," he says.
Achieving this level of performance was neither easy nor quick. Managers at Limited Brands have been fine-tuning the enterprisewide progressive preventative maintenance program since 1997, when the company consolidated all seven of its Columbus, Ohio-based DCs under Limited Logistics Services. Although the company already had a PM program in place at each of the DCs, management decided to standardize the procedures in order to take things to the next level.
the metrics of maintenance
You can't audit a preventative maintenance program without a set of metrics to measure performance against. But what should you measure? Kate Vitasek and Mike McHale, partners at Supply Chain Visions in Bellevue, Wash., recommend the following:
Availability. Is the equipment available when it's supposed to be?
Efficiency. Is the equipment performing at the expected speed/throughput?
Quality/reliability. Is the equipment producing/doing the right things?
Inventory optimization. Are your inventory projections accurate? To find out, measure the percentage of inventory/parts on hand when needed.
Maintenance department productivity. Are there enough people assigned to maintenance tasks? Too few? Too many? Measure the percentage of maintenance work planned and the percentage of overtime labor required for the maintenance department
The first step was consolidating computer systems: "We had various versions of MP2 by Data Stream and we had to come up with one program that would help us develop one standardized set of procedures," says Eccard. As part of that effort, managers examined the PM practices in use at the different facilities and distilled them into a set of best practices for use across the enterprise.
Once data on all of the material handling equipment were entered into the system, Eccard and his crew wrote step-by-step instructions for maintaining each piece of equipment, including a list of parts and tools needed for each. "This process gave us a way to track the costs of materials for all of our equipment," explains Eccard. "Then we tackled the process of determining the number of FTE (full-time employee) hours required to maintain each piece of equipment. Combined, those numbers gave us the true costs of equipment and labor." Limited then established a baseline for budgeting time for maintenance as well as for labor and parts.
With this solid set of baseline information, Limited Brands is able to plan the work a month in advance. This allows the company to schedule the right number of people at the right time to keep each piece of equipment in working order.Work is carried out in order of importance—the equipment that would have the biggest impact on operations if it broke down is tended to first, and then on down the line.
Making a case
Not all preventative maintenance programs succeed as spectacularly as Limited Brands' program has, of course. Eccard believes that a big part of the success can be traced to corporate support for the program. "Our management is behind this program 110 percent," he says.
That's important, says Bruce Tompkins, principal at Tompkins Associates. "The commitment to a preventative maintenance program must come from the top because often, you're going to have to get mindsets to change," he says. "It's important to have the whole organization believe in this and understand that it's your best shot for preventing failure down the road."
For those who are forced to take their case to management in order to get funding for a PM program, the best course is to show them the numbers. "Look at your historical data to see how often equipment is down and how often you get customer complaints—figure out the cost of downtime," says Kate Vitasek, partner at the Bellevue, Wash.-based consultant Supply Chain Visions.
Yet even full management support is no guarantee of success. Far too many companies end up disappointed by the mediocre results they get. This happens for a variety of reasons. Some companies lose sight of their goals; others get overwhelmed by the size of the task.What follows are some tips for avoiding some common pitfalls:
Set priorities. It's important to prioritize where a PM program can have the greatest impact. "Too often, companies make the mistake of going out and trying to do it all at once," says Tompkins. "You have to start with the equipment that has the biggest impact on your operations."
Develop a schedule. Consider how often you need to conduct maintenance, who will need to conduct it, and exactly what needs to be done to each piece of equipment. You can make up the schedule manually, but software like that used by Limited Brands can make the job much easier.
As for when to schedule maintenance, look for the slowest shift or off-shift, if there is one. Some companies perform maintenance in small doses on a daily basis; others shut the whole facility down at specified intervals to do a complete overhaul. "The beauty of planning," says Vitasek, "is that you can schedule maintenance to avoid busy times. The interruption of a breakdown is much worse."
Keep up with the paperwork. "You have to track what you're doing and make sure you don't let maintenance slide," says Dick Bonsall, manager at Sedlak Management Consultants in Richfield, Ohio.
Set goals for continuous improvement. "Your plan needs to be subjected to an audit, either by a third party or by a good internal group," says Vitasek."People can easily get into the habit of treating maintenance as an afterthought without goals for improvement." Says Eccard: "You need to measure your system; otherwise it's not worth the effort. We set new goals each year to ensure continuous improvement."
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.
Like seaports everywhere, California’s Port of Oakland has long been planning for the impacts of rising sea levels caused by climate change. After all, as King Canute of medieval legend proved, no one has the power to hold back the tides.
But in Oakland’s case, port leaders have been looking beyond the hard-edged urban breakwater structures normally used for calming waves and rising waters. Instead, for the past five years, the port has been testing an artificial “island” that it describes as a prototype for an “ecologically productive” floating breakwater.
Known as the Buoyant Ecologies Float Lab—or “Float Lab” for short—the island measures 10 by 15 feet and consists of a fiber-reinforced polymer structure. Float Lab arrived in Oakland in August 2019 and was installed in the port’s shallow water habitat adjacent to Middle Harbor Shoreline Park.
Float Lab has now been moved from the Port of Oakland to the San Francisco Bay, where it will be anchored near Treasure Island, which is appropriately enough an artificial island itself. There, it will continue to host research efforts as ports keep a watchful eye on the changing climate.
ONE commissioned its Alternative Marine Power (AMP) container at Ningbo Zhoushan Port Group (NZPG)’s terminal in China on December 4.
ONE has deployed similar devices for nearly a decade on the U.S. West Coast, but the trial marked the first time a vessel at a Chinese port used shore power through Lift-on/Lift-off operations of an AMP container, a proven approach to boosting cold ironing and reducing emissions while in port, ONE said.
“One approach to reduce carbon footprint is through shore power usage,” ONE Global Chief Officer, Hiroki Tsujii, said in a release. “Today we will introduce the utilization of a containerized AMP unit to support further reduction. The use of an AMP unit is a familiar and effective approach within this industry. To be successful, close cooperation among various concerned parties is necessary. We believe this will contribute to carbon footprint reduction in a practical and expedited way, and we hope it is a good symbol of collaboration among relevant parties.”
ONE provides container shipping services to over 120 countries through its fleet of over 240 vessels with a capacity exceeding 1.9 million TEUs. The company says it is committed to exploring innovative solutions to reduce its environmental impact, support the adoption of sustainable port operations, and contribute to a greener future for all.
As the workhorse of the warehouse, the forklift typically gets all the tough jobs and none of the limelight. That finally changed recently, when a 46-year-old truck made headlines by winning the “Oldest Toyota Forklift Contest.”
The contest was organized by Intella Parts LLC, a Holland, Michigan-based supplier of aftermarket forklift parts for Toyota as well as other brands like Yale, Taylor, CAT, and Hyster lift trucks. This year’s winner was a 1978-vintage Toyota 42-3FGC20, a gas-powered forklift built in Toyota’s factory in Takahama-shi, Aichi, Japan. Alexander Toolsie of Burlington, Ontario, submitted the winning entry and was awarded a $100 gift certificate for Toyota forklift parts at Intella and a $100 Visa gift card.
The competition follows a similar contest held last year, when Intella launched a search for the oldest running Hyster forklift. The winner was a 1945 Hyster model that’s still in use at Public Steel in Amarillo, Texas.
According to Intella, the contests have been so popular that it plans to expand the competition to additional forklift brands next year.