After seismic corporate shakeups, two food and beverage industry giants re-evaluated their transportation strategies ... and came to completely different conclusions.
Susan Lacefield has been working for supply chain publications since 1999. Before joining DC VELOCITY, she was an associate editor for Supply Chain Management Review and wrote for Logistics Management magazine. She holds a master's degree in English.
In August 2004, consumer products giant Procter & Gamble spun off the Sunny Delight beverage brand, selling it to Boston-based private equity firm J.W. Childs Associates. As part of the transition service agreement, Sunny Delight would have to wean itself completely off Procter & Gamble's systems, including its transportation system, within a year. "All at once, we were a business with $550 million in sales and no systems," says Jim Glendon, Sunny Delight's supply chain director.
One of the immediate decisions the company faced was whether to manage transportation internally or look for outside help. It quickly decided on the latter.
That same year, another private equity firm, CDM Group, acquired Aurora Foods, owner of several iconic yet, at the time, struggling brands. The move cleared the way for CDM to bring products like Duncan Hines baking mixes and Mrs. Butterworth's syrup under the umbrella of Pinnacle Foods, a $1.5 billion grocery manufacturer and distributor that has made a business of revitalizing timehonored brands.
Like Sunny Delight, Pinnacle had to make some quick decisions on how it would manage transportation. But unlike the beverage maker, Pinnacle chose to end its relationship with a third-party logistics service provider (3PL) and bring the task back in house.
Sunny's disposition
The details may vary, but stories like Sunny Delight's and Pinnacle's have become commonplace in recent years, thanks to a wave of mergers, acquisitions, divestitures, and spin-offs in the food and beverage industry. Figures from the Food Institute show that a total of 413 mergers and acquisitions were completed in 2007, with an additional 60 in process. That came on top of the 392 deals that had been completed the previous year.
Many companies would see this type of shakeup as a natural opportunity to reassess their operations, taking a fresh look at everything from marketing strategies to distribution networks. In Sunny Delight's case, however, it was more than an opportunity; it was a necessity. It had both a mandate and a deadline to restructure its transportation operations.
As Sunny Delight began working out how it would manage transportation, it quickly rejected the idea of going it alone. Its core competency was making and marketing beverages, not transportation and logistics. "We could have hired a staff, developed our own expertise, negotiated with carriers, and put in our own TMS [transportation management system] et cetera, but we would never have had the scale, the knowledge of the industry, the expertise, the systems that a 3PL brings to the party," says Glendon.
The same factors that informed Sunny Delight's decision to outsource also influenced its selection process. "Our selection was based certainly on price but also on the systems capabilities, the scale, and the expertise of the provider," says Glendon. Lacking systems of its own, Sunny Delight was especially keen to partner with someone who could provide instant access to sophisticated technology, he adds. "With everything else that we had to put in place—our WMS, our core accounting systems, all our plant systems, order shipping, billing, on down the line—if there was anything that made sense to outsource, that's what we wanted."
After evaluating five bids, Sunny Delight chose Transplace, a Frisco, Texas-based third-party logistics and technology company. Among other advantages, Transplace had done business with Procter & Gamble in the past and was familiar with the systems Sunny Delight had used when it was part of the P&G fold. That shared background promised to make the transition to a new transportation structure easier.
As Sunny Delight had hoped, the transition went smoothly. With assistance from the 3PL, the beverage company was able to get off Procter & Gamble's systems and onto its own by the mandated deadline.
Today, the two enjoy an almost seamless collaboration. "[Transplace] acts as if they are part of the business in terms of the sense of urgency and the sense of ownership that they feel toward the business. And that extends all the way from looking toward how can they improve results to their transportation coordinators answering the phone as Sunny Delight," says Glendon.
As an example of the partnership's depth, Glendon points to the quarterly review meetings with Sunny Delight's top carriers. "It's a joint meeting with Transplace and Sunny Delight," he reports. "So even though Transplace is paying the carriers every week, we want to make it clear to [the carriers] that this is a partnership, and they are speaking on our behalf."
Hitching up without a hitch
But the story doesn't end there. Three years after the divestiture, Sunny Delight was ready to do some acquiring of its own. In October 2007, the company bought Fruit2O flavored water and Veryfine juice from Kraft.
Just as Transplace had helped ease Sunny Delight's separation from Procter & Gamble, it also helped its customer integrate the two new brands into its operations. Among other advantages, the 3PL's contacts and expertise proved helpful in arranging for the dry van service that would be needed to transport the Fruit2O and Veryfine products.
Working with dry van haulers was a first for Sunny Delight, which ships its own products via refrigerated trucks. "It was a whole different set of transportation needs," says Glendon. "We were looking at different carriers, and we needed to quickly get bids under way and carriers established." Speed was of the essence here because Sunny Delight had just 120 days after the deal was signed to integrate the two new brands into its system. But Glendon reports that, with Transplace's help, Sunny Delight was able to meet the project's deadline.
At the same time it was lining up carriers, Sunny Delight was also working to come up with an overall distribution plan—figuring out what products to store where, what transportation lanes to use, and how much volume to ship. Before the acquisition, the Kraft brands' products were being shipped from two Kraft plants and 12 mixing centers. After Feb. 24, 2008, the beverages would be shipped from five Sunny Delight plants.
Once again, Transplace stepped in to help Sunny Delight work out the details. "They had an equal seat at the table in terms of understanding the scope, the requirement, and the timing," says Glendon. Not only did Transplace participate in all of the planning meetings and discussions, but it also dispatched a delegation to visit the Littleton, Mass., plant that Sunny Delight acquired as part of the deal. Before the handoff, Transplace managers went over all the details with the facility's management to make sure that they were familiar with the plant's standard operating procedures and had full information for carriers, including the location of the drop lot and guard house.
The support Transplace provided helped ensure that Sunny Delight was able to integrate the new brands into its operations "without a hitch," says Glendon. In fact, the project went so smoothly that when Sunny Delight recently made another acquisition, it set an even more ambitious timeline. In early October, it signed a licensing agreement with Kraft to produce and market the Crystal Light ready-to-drink bottled beverages (Kraft will continue to make and sell the powdered versions of Crystal Light). This time, Sunny Delight expects to fully integrate the new brand in 60 days. Glendon is confident that the company will easily make that goal.
Out of control
Whereas Sunny Delight opted for the 3PL route after its reorganization, Pinnacle Foods chose another path entirely. Not long after its acquisition of Aurora Foods in 2004, it decided to discontinue its relationship with the 3PL that had been managing its transportation and bring that responsibility back in house.
The reasons for Pinnacle's decision were simple enough: poor performance. When Gregg Bostick was brought in as vice president of transportation in 2005, he found an operation hamstrung by high costs and inconsistent deliveries. "Freight cost and linehaul were out of control," says Bostick. "They had no KPIs [key performance indicators] in place, no metrics. They were not even measuring on-time delivery. What we needed was to inject some discipline into the process."
The problem was not a lack of tools. Pinnacle and its 3PL had already contracted with LeanLogistics to use its on-demand TMS, but the 3PL hadn't implemented the system. As a result, the company couldn't get a handle on how it was performing. "I asked them what the weighted average cost per lane was," Bostick says, "and it was like I asked them to grab a star out of the sky."
To be fair, the fault didn't rest entirely on the 3PL's shoulders, Bostick admits. "They were set up for failure," he says. At the time, Pinnacle Foods was so focused on turning its brands around that it instructed the 3PL to make sure that customers received their orders no matter what it took, he explains. Under the circumstances, it was probably no surprise that the 3PL lost sight of cost containment along the way.
When Bostick came on board, he decided to give the 3PL a chance to redeem itself. He detailed to the company exactly how it was failing and insisted that it put clear KPIs in place and start using the TMS. But the company really didn't have anyone who could use the LeanLogistics system, and costs continued to spiral out of control. "By the time we had the 'Last Supper,' so to speak, they knew it was coming," Bostick says.
Righting the ship
After deciding to sever ties with its 3PL, Pinnacle then had to figure out how to regain control of its processes. Rather than seek another 3PL, Bostick decided the company would be better off bringing transportation management back in house. Some Pinnacle executives expressed concern about the cost, but Bostick assured them that he would be able to save the company $5 million to $10 million.
The first step was to build the right team. Bostick accomplished this by hiring several former colleagues and redefining some existing employees' jobs. For example, after he discovered that his director of operations was also being asked to manage relationships with more than 90 carriers, Bostick hired a new director of operations to free up the previous director to do what he did best—handle carrier relations.
Next, Bostick developed a standard process for procuring transportation services and negotiated volume rates with carriers. "In the first six months, we saved $1 million in rates, but we didn't do that by beating up on carriers," he says. "We simply went to our carriers and said 'We will commit to these lanes and loads if you commit to these rates.'" Bostick also standardized fuel surcharge tables for all carriers—a step that he says saved the company an additional couple of million dollars.
Other key steps included implementing routing guides for the day-to-day allocation of shipments to carriers, implementing KPIs like cost per case and cost per mile, and negotiating discounts with carriers for prompt payment. The company also modeled its network to look for ways to save money. After the modeling exercise revealed that it could obtain lower rates by assigning carriers to desired routes and shipping direct from Pinnacle plants to customers' DCs, the company followed through on the recommendations.
Bostick admits that none of his tactics was anything out of the ordinary. "I'm convinced that a good 3PL could have come in and done the same things," he says. But by bringing transportation back in house, Bostick was able to gain control quickly and create accountability for transportation.
As for the payoff, it turned out that Bostick over-delivered on the promise he had made to Pinnacle's management team. Instead of saving the company $5 million or $10 million, he saved a whopping $25 million.
Happy endings
The takeaway from these two stories is that when a major shakeup occurs—whether it be an acquisition or a divestiture—it's important that the company pause and reassess its priorities. For Sunny Delight, it was selling and marketing its beverages, not becoming a transportation expert. For Pinnacle Foods, it was regaining control of its processes. Once they had made these determinations, both companies were able to see a clear way forward ... down their very different paths.
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.