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.
An old business adage has it that you can't manage what you don't measure. The flip side of that might be, you can manage what you do measure, and, if the results of our annual survey of DC and warehouse metrics are any indication, you're likely to see performance improve as a result.
Trends in metrics use and DC performance were the subject of our sixth annual survey, an online study conducted earlier this year. Jointly sponsored by DC VELOCITY and the Warehousing Education and Research Council (WERC), the study was performed by Karl Manrodt, associate professor of logistics at Georgia Southern University, and Kate Vitasek, managing partner of consultancy Supply Chain Visions.
The 783 individuals participating in the study—with 684 responses actually used—graded the 2008 performance of their DCs and warehouses against 50 key operational metrics. Manrodt and Vitasek analyzed the results by industry, type of operation (pallet picking, partial pallet picking, fullcase picking, or broken-case picking), business strategy, type of customer served, and company size. What they found was that the use of metrics in the nation's DCs is on the rise. They also concluded that the growing use of metrics is leading to higher performance levels at the best companies and, oftentimes, among those trying to catch up.
Still, the researchers did not see performance improvements across the board. In some cases, those playing catch-up have actually fallen further behind the leaders than in the past, according to the survey."The gap continues between the good and the rest," says Vitasek. "For some of the metrics, the gap is actually widening, while some are narrowing."
Overall, Vitasek says she is heartened by the results. "We are seeing steady improvement in the performance of DC and warehousing performance across a wide variety of measures. The entire profession is lifting. When the gap between the median and best-practice companies narrows, that suggests everyone is getting it. It is really wonderful to watch it happen."
Which metrics matter most?
Despite the general upward trend, not all of the news this year was good. For example, the survey found that, when compared with last year's results, performance against some of the metrics deteriorated slightly. Whether that's due to the impact of a weak economy or a change in the survey participant mix from year to year, or whether it's because managers raise the performance bar upon seeing signs of improvement is uncertain, the researchers say.
As for the metrics themselves, the survey results showed that respondents still tended to favor the same basic metrics they've been using since the survey was launched. As in the past, "order picking accuracy" and "on-time shipments" topped the list of the most popular measures. (For a list of the 10 most commonly used metrics, see Exhibit 1.)
Manrodt and Vitasek grouped the metrics into several categories: customer service, operations (both outbound and inbound), financial, capacity and quality, and employee. (The classification is indicated for each of the top 10 metrics listed in Exhibit 1.) What's telling, they say, is that managers appear to rely heavily on operational metrics ("order fill rate," for example) or numbers derived from operational performance (like "order picking accuracy"). Only one of the top 10 metrics, "on time shipments," is a customer-facing measure, they found.
The not-quite-perfect order
That's not to say companies aren't keeping a close eye on customer service, however. The fact is, the majority are indeed tracking their operation's performance against the metrics most commonly associated with the "Perfect Order" and that are used to compute the Perfect Order Index (POI).
The Perfect Order Index is a widely recognized measure that incorporates four critical customer service elements: order completeness, timeliness, condition, and documentation. In other words, to be considered perfect, an order must arrive complete, be delivered on time, arrive free of damage, and be accompanied by the correct invoice and other documentation. To calculate a company's score on the index, you simply take each of the four metrics and multiply them together. For example, a facility that ships 95 percent of its orders complete, 95 percent on time, 95 percent damage-free, and with the correct documentation 95 percent of the time would earn a score of 81.5 percent (0.95 X 0.95 X 0.95 X 0.95).
Exhibit 2 shows the median and best-in-class scores for each of the four POI measures. The researchers chose to use the median score (the exact mid point of the range—the point above which half the values are higher and half lower) rather than the average because it is less likely to be skewed by statistical outliers—very high or very low numbers. "Best in class" is defined here as responses from the top 20 percent of companies— that is, those who are performing best against each of the metrics.
It's important to note that there are other ways to calculate the Perfect Order Index besides the method described above. For example, the Grocery Manufacturers Association and the Food Marketing Institute use a seven-element formula to calculate the Perfect Order Index. (The elements are percentage of cases shipped vs. cases ordered; percentage of on-time deliveries; percentage of data synchronized SKUs; order cycle time; percentage of unsaleables (damaged product); days of supply; and service at the shelf.) As part of their study, the researchers analyzed the survey responses using the GMA/FMI criteria. The results are shown in Exhibit 3. Given the low rates of usage for some of these metrics, however, the researchers urge readers to use the results in this table with caution.
Continuous improvement?
One of the hopes of anyone conducting research over time is that trends will begin to emerge. And when the object of the study is business performance, the hope—if not the expectation—is that those trends will indicate improvement. In the case of this study, the results have largely been what the researchers had hoped—we have seen steady improvement in DC and warehousing performance across a wide variety of measures.
Whether this momentum can be sustained in a dismal economic climate, only time will tell. In the meantime, the researchers invite readers' comments, suggestions, and insights into the research and their own use of measures. They can be reached via the links at the bottom of this page.
about the study
The annual benchmarking study began in 2004 as a collaborative effort between DC VELOCITY and Georgia Southern University. The initial study focused on what metrics DCs were using rather than on how they performed against whatever measures they used. That study found that while there was no single set of universally accepted metrics, most respondents were using metrics from at least one of three broad categories: time-based measures, financial measures, and service quality measures.
In 2005, the Warehousing Education and Research Council and Supply Chain Visions joined the research effort. The survey shifted to a formal benchmarking study designed to provide data not just on what metrics were most widely used in warehouses and DCs, but also on performance against those metrics—data managers could then use to benchmark their own operations. That has remained the focus of the study ever since.
As for the 2009 survey, the respondents came from varying disciplines. Half identified themselves as working in manufacturing, 16 percent in third-party logistics services, 13 percent in retail, and the remainder in life sciences, transportation, and other segments. As for the types of operations represented, 39.7 percent said their operations performed broken-case picking, 27 percent full-case picking, 20.6 percent full-pallet picking, and 11.8 percent partial pallet picking.
The survey respondents also represented companies of various sizes: 31.5 percent said annual company revenues were under $100 million, 39.4 percent came from companies with revenues of $100 million to $1 billion, and the remaining 29.1 percent worked for companies with revenues exceeding $1 billion.
A more extensive report, written by researchers Karl Manrodt and Kate Vitasek, is available through WERC.
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
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.