Cover Image

Not for Sale



View/Hide Left Panel
Click for next page ( 42


The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement



Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.

OCR for page 41
41 small manufacturer's interests will be different than those of had never sought publicly provided measures perhaps helps a multinational manufacturer who relies upon tightly strung to explain the low response rate. global supply chains. Likewise, the real-time high-value- The responses, however, did provide consistency in several package focus of UPS is quite different from that of an upper informative areas. Primarily, the results appeared to indi- Midwest grain shipper barging corn to New Orleans. Their cate that, although the majority of respondents had never scale of timeliness, cost, waste, and reliability are significantly expressed a desire for government-produced freight system different. performance measures, the private sector would--if such The CSCMP membership was surveyed because it repre- measures were produced--clearly prefer measures related sents a cross section of the private-sector logistics industry. to timeliness, reliability, and costs of shipping freight. This Among its largest groups listed in approximate order by cat- apparent trend will be further explained. egory are: 1,985 logistics and management planning firms; 1,938 manufacturers; 1,061 third-party logistics providers; Responses to Individual Measures 630 food and beverage providers; 420 consulting firms; 411 transportation management firms; 400 educators; 398 ware- Two-thirds of the respondents rated as "very" or "moder- house operators; 307 pharmaceutical and toiletry producers; ately" high their interest in the CSCMP's measure of the cost 222 auto and transportation equipment producers; and 206 of logistics as a percentage of gross national product (GNP), department store or general merchandise firms. These, of as seen in Figure 5.1. This report tracks a variety of logistics course, are only the largest categories; more than 2,324 mem- cost indicators and compiles them into an annual report that bers list themselves as "Other" firms. The remaining m embers uses GDP as a denominator. Twenty-seven percent rated it as listed themselves among nearly 40 smaller categories. "somewhat" useful and only 5 percent said it was not useful at For the survey, not all members were solicited. The intent all. The relatively high interest in the cost metric by the private was to get the opinions of private-sector logistics prac sector was not shared by the public-sector respondents, who titioners as to which performance measures would be of rated it among the least important measures. Another dif- greatest import to them. Nonpractitioners, such as academics, ference noted was that the private-sector respondents' role other trade associations and consultants, were deleted from in national and international supply chains caused them to the survey list. The remaining 4,000 included groups such be more consistently interested in national and international as r etailers, manufacturers, third-party logistics firms, ware- measures, as opposed to local or regional ones, which were house operators, and otherrespondents, groups who whoarerated it among involved the least important in day- preferredmeasures. Another by the state difference agency noted was that the respondents. to-day movement of freight. private-sector respondents' role in national andAs international supply seen in Figure chains 5.2, caused them a significant to be more majority of respondents consistently interested The response rate was not high. Out of 4,000 firms in national and international listed as "very" important potential measures ofwhich measures, as opposed to local or regional ones, changes in were preferred by the state e-mailed, only 73 responses were received. Clearly, such agency respondents. logistics costs. The CSCMP survey breaks down logistics costs a low rate does not provide Asa seen in Figure 5-2, statistically a significant valid number of majority into of respondents listed as overhead, labor, inventory, "very" important potential fuel, and othermeasures major catego- responses, but it does provideof changes in logistics a useful costs. sample. convenience The CSCMP survey breaks asked ries. When down logistics costs into labor, if such categories wereinventory, important, the clear The comment from two-thirds overhead, fuel, of the and other major respondents thatcategories. they When asked majority if such categories answered were important, in the affirmative. Theythealso clearrated highly majority answered in the affirmative. They also rated highly the usefulness of the cost-related performance measures at national, local, and regional levels. Figure 5.1. Respondents' rating of measurement of cost Figure 5.1. Respondents' rating of measurement of cost of logistics. of logistics.

OCR for page 41
were preferred by the state agency respondents. As seen in Figure 5-2, a significant majority of respondents listed as "very" important potential measures 42 of changes in logistics costs. The CSCMP survey breaks down logistics costs into labor, inventory, overhead, fuel, and other major categories. When asked if such categories were important, the clear majority performance the usefulness of the cost-related answered in themeasures affirmative. atThey alsoSlightly rated highly less the usefulness interest of the cost-related was stated for measures that reported performance national, local, and regional levels. measures at national, local, and regional levels. upon environmental issues, such as air pollution, energy In regard to truck travel speeds on major corridors, Fig- use, or greenhouse gas emssions (GHE) related to freight, as ure 5.3, a plurality of respondents rated the potential of such shown in Figure 5.4. There was a slightly smaller majority a measure as "very" important to them and gave near equal who rated such measures "very" or "moderately" important weight to such measures at the local, regional, and national to them. As will be seen later, these measures appeared to be levels. Fewer than 14 percent indicated the measure would of more interest to the public-sector respondents than to be of no value to them. Open-ended comments also revealed those from the private sector. The public-sector respondents considerable interest in operating-speed data to be available face many environmental compliance requirements that cre- daily, as opposed to monthly or annually. ate a strong interest in such data. Travel-time reliability was another highly rated measure. By a fairly wide margin, the respondents reported that they When responding to performance measures regarding con- had never desired freight performance measures that would be gestion, slightly higher preference was shown for state and produced by the public sector. Sixty-three percent of respon- local measures. Local granularity was desired. One trade asso- dents (Figure 5.5) said they had never desired such measures, ciation reported that 20 percent of its members reported that and approximately 36 percent indicated that they had. Also, they had lost or risked losing a customer during the past five the respondents reported little certainty as to how they would years because of a freight bottleneck. use such measures if provided. As can be seen in Figure 5.6, the Figure 5.1. Respondents' rating of measurement of cost of logistics. In regard to truck travel speeds on major corridors, Figure 5.3, a plurality of respondents rated the potential of such a measure as "very" important to them and gave near equal weight to such measures at the local, regional, and national levels. Fewer than 14 percent indicated the measure would be of no value to them. Open-ended comments also revealed considerable interest in operating-speed data to be available daily, as opposed to monthly or annually. Travel-time reliability was another highly rated measure. When responding to performance measures regarding congestion, slightly higher preference was shown for state and local measures. Local granularity was desired. One trade association reported that 20 percent of its members reported that they had lost Figure or risked 5.2. losing a rating Respondents' customer during the past of measurement offive years in changes because of a logistics freight bottleneck. costs. Figure 5.2. Respondents' rating of measurement of changes in logistics costs. 3 Figure 5.3. Respondents' rating of measurement Figure 5.3. Respondents' rating of measurement of travel time. of travel time. Slightly less interest was stated for measures that reported upon environmental issues, such as air pollution, energy use or GHE related to freight, as shown in Figure 5.4. There was a slightly smaller majority who rated such measures "very" or "moderately" important to them. As will be seen later, these measures appeared to be of more interest to the public-sector respondents than to those from the private sector. The public-sector respondents face many environmental compliance requirements that create a

OCR for page 41
43 Figure 5.4. Rating of environmental measures. By a fairly wide margin, the respondents reported that they had never desired freight performance measures that would be produced by the public sector. Sixty-three percent of respondents (Figure 5.5) said they had never desired such measures, and approximately 36 percent indicated that they had. Also, Figure Figure the 5.4.5.4. respondents Rating Rating of environmental of environmental reported little measures. certainty measures. as to how they would use such measures if provided. As can be seen in Figure 5.6, the majority of respondents did not report a specific use for such measures, beyond By a fairly wide margin, the respondents reported that they had never desired freight performance approximately 30 respondents who said they would use such data for budgeting and planning purposes. measures that would be produced by the public sector. Sixty-three percent of respondents (Figure 5.5) said they had never desired such measures, and approximately 36 percent indicated that they had. Also, the respondents reported little certainty as to how they would use such measures if provided. As can be seen in Figure 5.6, the majority of respondents did not report a specific use for such measures, beyond approximately 30 respondents who said they would use such data for budgeting and planning purposes. Figure 5.5. Respondents seeking Figure 1.5. Respondents seeking measures. measures. Figure 1.5. Respondents seeking measures. 5 5 Figure 5.6. Uses for measures.