James Cooke is a principal analyst with Nucleus Research in Boston, covering supply chain planning software. He was previously the editor of CSCMP?s Supply Chain Quarterly and a staff writer for DC Velocity.
It's a rare retailer these days that relies solely on business transacted in brick-and-mortar stores. Many, if not most, have hopped on the multichannel bandwagon, selling merchandise through both physical and digital (e-commerce) channels. And the evolutionary journey is by no means over. Many of the leading retailers are now well down the road to what's become known as "omnichannel commerce."
What's omnichannel commerce? Definitions vary, but for purposes of this article, we'll use the term to refer to retailers' efforts to integrate their store and e-commerce selling channels to work seamlessly together. The overarching idea is to enable customers to shop by any channel they choose and even use more than one channel to execute a single transaction. For example, a customer can go to a store, see something he or she likes, and order it for home delivery or order it online and pick it up at a store. More than likely, he or she will have similar options for returns.
Multichannel vs. Omnichannel: Our definition
People tend to bandy about the terms "multichannel" and "omnichannel" as if they were interchangeable. But for purposes of this research, we've drawn a distinction between the two. We use the term "multichannel" to refer to companies selling goods through multiple channels – i.e., stores, distributors, e-commerce, and so forth. The term "omnichannel," however, refers to a special form of multichannel commerce practiced by retailers who sell goods both through stores and over the Internet. The aim of these retailers is to integrate operations so as to provide a seamless shopping experience for customers.
The emergence of omnichannel commerce is not news, of course. The trend has been under way for some time and has been well documented in both business and consumer media. What often goes unaddressed, however, is the impact on the back end of the operation—the retailer's order fulfillment and delivery activities.
To get a better understanding of where things stand from a distribution perspective, ARC Advisory Group and DC Velocity teamed up to do a study. The research, which was conducted among 177 executives at retailers that sell goods through both traditional brick-and-mortar stores and websites, sought to answer a number of key questions: Just how far down the omnichannel road have retailers gotten? How have they altered their operations to meet the new demands? And perhaps most important, how well are they meeting the omnichannel distribution challenges?
STANDING UP TO AMAZON
Conventional wisdom holds that the omnichannel revolution was sparked by traditional merchants fighting back against incursions into their market by the likes of Amazon.com. Then last year, Amazon turned up the heat when it announced it would build out a distribution network that would allow for same-day deliveries in certain parts of the United States.
The pressure felt by retailers is reflected in the responses to our survey question on why their companies engaged in omnichannel commerce. Although study participants cited a number of reasons, the majority (78 percent) said it was to increase sales, and nearly three-quarters (73 percent) said it was to boost market share. (See Exhibit 1.) Other reasons cited included increased customer loyalty and higher margins, which helps explain why leading retailers are spending billions of dollars to improve their capabilities in this area. (By way of demographics, about a third – 33 percent – of the survey respondents came from the apparel sector, 15 percent from "big box" stores, another 15 percent from department stores, and the remainder from other types of retailers. Eighty-seven percent of study participants were based in the United States.)
When asked what options they offered customers, the respondents cited a wide array of capabilities. Topping the list was "walk-in" returns – 73 percent of respondents said their company provided for the return of goods ordered online to a store. Another 69 percent said they allowed customers to order products at the store for fulfillment from the warehouse or DC. Fifty-three percent offered consumers the option to order online and pick up the merchandise at the store. Forty-three percent picked orders at the store for home delivery. Another 36 percent allowed customers to order at a store but fulfilled that request from another store. Interestingly, 14 percent allowed customers to order goods online but let them pick up the items at a location other than their stores, such as a gas station or convenience store. (See Exhibit 2.)
To succeed in omnichannel distribution, retailers will have to pick the optimum distribution path, whether it's order in-store and deliver to home, or order online and fulfill from any store or warehouse location. Each option has a different cost structure that retailers need to thoroughly grasp, particularly when it comes to the incremental value of speedy home delivery service.
What emerged from the study, however, was evidence of a wide gap in the cost accounting capabilities of DCs versus stores. While most respondents could pinpoint the costs associated with various activities at the DC, few have an equally clear picture of the corresponding costs for store fulfillment. (See Exhibit 3.) For example, 78 percent of respondents said they knew the cost of picking individual items or "eaches" by stock-keeping unit (SKU) or product class in their e-commerce distribution center. But only 38 percent could pin down the corresponding costs for the back room of a store, and only 29 percent said they understood the expenses associated with picking eaches in the front of the store. In addition, while 70 percent said they could break out their transportation costs by SKU or product class for deliveries from an e-commerce DC, only 57 percent had that same level of understanding for shipments from a store.
STORE DISTRIBUTION CHALLENGES
As for how retailers are filling their online orders, the study found that stores are playing a significant – and growing – role. Thirty-five percent of retailers fill Web orders from stock in their retail stores, and another 18 percent are doing so but only at select stores. Furthermore, the study findings suggest the practice is poised to take off. Fifty-six percent of those retail respondents who are not currently filling online orders from store stocks plan to begin doing so within the next few years.
While retailers may be shifting more of their e-commerce fulfillment activities to the stores, it's not clear they have the proper groundwork in place, particularly where inventory accuracy is concerned. Today, cycle count accuracy levels at DCs that use warehouse management software in conjunction with automatic identification technology exceed 99.9 percent. Accuracy at the stores, however, appears to be falling far short of that mark. Only 30 percent of respondents reported that their store inventory accuracy level was 98 percent or higher. Another 32 percent said store inventory accuracy rates fell between 95 and 97.9 percent, while 15 percent characterized their accuracy rates as between 90 and 94.9 percent. At the low end of the spectrum, 17 percent said it was below 90 percent and, surprisingly, 6 percent did not measure inventory accuracy at the store.
The study suggested that one reason for the less-than-stellar inventory accuracy rates was the respondents' failure to make use of point-of-sale (POS) information. When asked what types of auto ID technology they used to ensure inventory accuracy at the store level, only 46 percent said they used POS data to update their inventory systems. The majority of respondents – 62 percent – relied on traditional bar-code scanning on the store floor or in the back room for inventory updating. Eight percent were using RFID for this purpose. At the other end of the scale, 20 percent were not doing anything in this regard or did not know if their company used any type of automatic identification in conjunction with inventory system updates. (That's not to say these respondents are necessarily satisfied with the status quo. Thirty-one percent of respondents did note that they believed their companies needed a real-time inventory system for the store.)
That failure to take advantage of modern tracking technologies could cause major headaches down the road. Lack of real-time visibility of store-level inventory could result in high customer dissatisfaction rates for retailers who offer shoppers the option to order online and then pick up their orders at the store. Furthermore, the study suggested retailers may not be fully aware of the risks. Sixty-seven percent of the retailers participating in the survey indicated they did not understand the impact of order fulfillment mistakes on customer retention and loyalty.
The study also examined how quickly retailers were getting merchandise ordered online and shipped from their stores into customers' hands. Six percent of respondents said they could guarantee delivery in four hours, and 21 percent said they guaranteed same-day delivery from a store location. However, most respondents – 34 percent – said a store-originated shipment would arrive the next day. Another 21 percent said they guaranteed two-day shipping, and the remainder – 17 percent – said they were unable to commit to a delivery time of less than three days.
As for how retailers are getting online orders filled at the store into customers' hands, 80 percent rely on parcel carriers for the task. Fifty-one percent are doing "drop shipping" with partners, while 43 percent use third-party logistics delivery services as partners. Of note was the fact that 31 percent engaged couriers and another 21 percent relied on a store fleet. Three percent reported that the store staff was making deliveries either with their own vehicles or by travel via subway or on foot. (Respondents were allowed to select multiple responses to this question.)
Respondents were also asked what key technologies were on their wish lists, with regard to supporting their omnichannel commerce efforts. At the top of the list was distributed order management software, cited by 48 percent of survey participants. These applications are designed to identify the best fulfillment location for a particular order. Second on the list, cited by 39 percent, were applications that calculate total landed costs (in other words, all of the expenses incurred in moving a shipment to a destination). Third on the list, cited by 38 percent, was inventory optimization software, applications that determine optimal stocking levels for all of the various locations in the supply chain. Eight percent said they already had all the technologies necessary for the job. (See Exhibit 4.)
STORE TRANFORMATION REQUIRED
All in all, our study indicates that retailers need to get a better grasp of what's involved in order fulfillment and shipping from store locations. Accurate fulfillment for online orders picked up at the store will demand either accurate store level inventory or use of inventory "slush funds." That could also necessitate long leadtimes to protect against the inability to accurately execute picking activities. At the moment, store fulfillment activities, largely under the control of store operations, lack the precision of execution found in a distribution center.
To succeed in omnichannel distribution, retailers will have to adopt many established distribution practices in their store operations. Retailers will not fare well if they rely on buffer inventory in their stores and long leadtimes for customer delivery. A transformation in store operations will be necessary to ensure the retailers' ability to profitably compete in an environment where consumers are becoming ever more demanding.
Editor's note: Steve Banker is an analyst with the ARC Advisory Group who oversaw this research. A more detailed summation of the survey findings along with recommendations for action is available from ARC for a fee.
As U.S. small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) face an uncertain business landscape in 2025, a substantial majority (67%) expect positive growth in the new year compared to 2024, according to a survey from DHL.
However, the survey also showed that businesses could face a rocky road to reach that goal, as they navigate a complex environment of regulatory/policy shifts and global market volatility. Both those issues were cited as top challenges by 36% of respondents, followed by staffing/talent retention (11%) and digital threats and cyber attacks (2%).
Against that backdrop, SMEs said that the biggest opportunity for growth in 2025 lies in expanding into new markets (40%), followed by economic improvements (31%) and implementing new technologies (14%).
As the U.S. prepares for a broad shift in political leadership in Washington after a contentious election, the SMEs in DHL’s survey were likely split evenly on their opinion about the impact of regulatory and policy changes. A plurality of 40% were on the fence (uncertain, still evaluating), followed by 24% who believe regulatory changes could negatively impact growth, 20% who see these changes as having a positive impact, and 16% predicting no impact on growth at all.
That uncertainty also triggered a split when respondents were asked how they planned to adjust their strategy in 2025 in response to changes in the policy or regulatory landscape. The largest portion (38%) of SMEs said they remained uncertain or still evaluating, followed by 30% who will make minor adjustments, 19% will maintain their current approach, and 13% who were willing to significantly adjust their approach.
The overall national industrial real estate vacancy rate edged higher in the fourth quarter, although it still remains well below pre-pandemic levels, according to an analysis by Cushman & Wakefield.
Vacancy rates shrunk during the pandemic to historically low levels as e-commerce sales—and demand for warehouse space—boomed in response to massive numbers of people working and living from home. That frantic pace is now cooling off but real estate demand remains elevated from a long-term perspective.
“We've witnessed an uptick among firms looking to lease larger buildings to support their omnichannel fulfillment strategies and maintain inventory for their e-commerce, wholesale, and retail stock. This trend is not just about space, but about efficiency and customer satisfaction,” Jason Tolliver, President, Logistics & Industrial Services, said in a release. “Meanwhile, we're also seeing a flurry of activity to support forward-deployed stock models, a strategy that keeps products closer to the market they serve and where customers order them, promising quicker deliveries and happier customers.“
The latest figures show that industrial vacancy is likely nearing its peak for this cooling cycle in the coming quarters, Cushman & Wakefield analysts said.
Compared to the third quarter, the vacancy rate climbed 20 basis points to 6.7%, but that level was still 30 basis points below the 10-year, pre-pandemic average. Likewise, overall net absorption in the fourth quarter—a term for the amount of newly developed property leased by clients—measured 36.8 million square feet, up from the 33.3 million square feet recorded in the third quarter, but down 20% on a year-over-year basis.
In step with those statistics, real estate developers slowed their plans to erect more buildings. New construction deliveries continued to decelerate for the second straight quarter. Just 85.3 million square feet of new industrial product was completed in the fourth quarter, down 8% quarter-over-quarter and 48% versus one year ago.
Likewise, only four geographic markets saw more than 20 million square feet of completions year-to-date, compared to 10 markets in 2023. Meanwhile, as construction starts remained tempered overall, the under-development pipeline has continued to thin out, dropping by 36% annually to its lowest level (290.5 million square feet) since the third quarter of 2018.
Despite the dip in demand last quarter, the market for industrial space remains relatively healthy, Cushman & Wakefield said.
“After a year of hesitancy, logistics is entering a new, sustained growth phase,” Tolliver said. “Corporate capital is being deployed to optimize supply chains, diversify networks, and minimize potential risks. What's particularly encouraging is the proactive approach of retailers, wholesalers, and 3PLs, who are not just reacting to the market, but shaping it. 2025 will be a year characterized by this bias for action.”
The three companies say the deal will allow clients to both define ideal set-ups for new warehouses and to continuously enhance existing facilities with Mega, an Nvidia Omniverse blueprint for large-scale industrial digital twins. The strategy includes a digital twin powered by physical AI – AI models that embody principles and qualities of the physical world – to improve the performance of intelligent warehouses that operate with automated forklifts, smart cameras and automation and robotics solutions.
The partners’ approach will take advantage of digital twins to plan warehouses and train robots, they said. “Future warehouses will function like massive autonomous robots, orchestrating fleets of robots within them,” Jensen Huang, founder and CEO of Nvidia, said in a release. “By integrating Omniverse and Mega into their solutions, Kion and Accenture can dramatically accelerate the development of industrial AI and autonomy for the world’s distribution and logistics ecosystem.”
Kion said it will use Nvidia’s technology to provide digital twins of warehouses that allows facility operators to design the most efficient and safe warehouse configuration without interrupting operations for testing. That includes optimizing the number of robots, workers, and automation equipment. The digital twin provides a testing ground for all aspects of warehouse operations, including facility layouts, the behavior of robot fleets, and the optimal number of workers and intelligent vehicles, the company said.
In that approach, the digital twin doesn’t stop at simulating and testing configurations, but it also trains the warehouse robots to handle changing conditions such as demand, inventory fluctuation, and layout changes. Integrated with Kion’s warehouse management software (WMS), the digital twin assigns tasks like moving goods from buffer zones to storage locations to virtual robots. And powered by advanced AI, the virtual robots plan, execute, and refine these tasks in a continuous loop, simulating and ultimately optimizing real-world operations with infinite scenarios, Kion said.
Following the deal, Palm Harbor, Florida-based FreightCenter’s customers will gain access to BlueGrace’s unified transportation management system, BlueShip TMS, enabling freight management across various shipping modes. They can also use BlueGrace’s truckload and less-than-truckload (LTL) services and its EVOS load optimization tools, stemming from another acquisition BlueGrace did in 2024.
According to Tampa, Florida-based BlueGrace, the acquisition aligns with its mission to deliver simplified logistics solutions for all size businesses.
Terms of the deal were not disclosed, but the firms said that FreightCenter will continue to operate as an independent business under its current brand, in order to ensure continuity for its customers and partners.
BlueGrace is held by the private equity firm Warburg Pincus. It operates from nine offices located in transportation hubs across the U.S. and Mexico, serving over 10,000 customers annually through its BlueShip technology platform that offers connectivity with more than 250,000 carrier suppliers.
Under terms of the deal, Sick and Endress+Hauser will each hold 50% of a joint venture called "Endress+Hauser SICK GmbH+Co. KG," which will strengthen the development and production of analyzer and gas flow meter technologies. According to Sick, its gas flow meters make it possible to switch to low-emission and non-fossil energy sources, for example, and the process analyzers allow reliable monitoring of emissions.
As part of the partnership, the product solutions manufactured together will now be marketed by Endress+Hauser, allowing customers to use a broader product portfolio distributed from a single source via that company’s global sales centers.
Under terms of the contract between the two companies—which was signed in the summer of 2024— around 800 Sick employees located in 42 countries will transfer to Endress+Hauser, including workers in the global sales and service units of Sick’s “Cleaner Industries” division.
“This partnership is a perfect match,” Peter Selders, CEO of the Endress+Hauser Group, said in a release. “It creates new opportunities for growth and development, particularly in the sustainable transformation of the process industry. By joining forces, we offer added value to our customers. Our combined efforts will make us faster and ultimately more successful than if we acted alone. In this case, one and one equals more than two.”
According to Sick, the move means that its current customers will continue to find familiar Sick contacts available at Endress+Hauser for consulting, sales, and service of process automation solutions. The company says this approach allows it to focus on its core business of factory and logistics automation to meet global demand for automation and digitalization.
Sick says its core business has always been in factory and logistics automation, which accounts for more than 80% of sales, and this area remains unaffected by the new joint venture. In Sick’s view, automation is crucial for industrial companies to secure their productivity despite limited resources. And Sick’s sensor solutions are a critical part of industrial automation, which increases productivity through artificial intelligence and the digital networking of production and supply chains.