Two decades and counting, the Quest continues. More than 2,700 readers gave us their opinions on which carriers, third-party logistics companies, and warehouse operators deserve recognition for excellence in our 20^th annual Quest for Quality survey. This year, 101 companies involved in various aspects of transportation, distribution, and logistics earned top honors.

To get those results, we mailed questionnaires covering 11 separate service categories to Logistics Management readers who buy transportation or third-party services. (In the past, the Quest for Quality measured 10 service categories; this year for the first time we also polled readers on providers of warehousing services.)

The questions were somewhat different for carriers than they were for other types of service providers. For carriers in all categories, we asked readers to evaluate vendors in five key areas: on-time performance, overall value, information technology, customer service, and equipment and operations.

The attributes for other types of service providers were slightly different, reflecting their roles as asset and process managers. Most of the attributes for warehouse services providers and freight forwarders were the same as for carriers, except that we asked about overall rather than on-time performance. Third-party logistics companies were rated against different criteria: carrier selection and negotiation, order fulfillment, transportation/distribution, inventory management, and logistics information systems. The surveys also asked readers some questions about their distribution practices in relation to the service categories they rated.

The scores shown in the tables that accompany the following articles are weighted to reflect how much importance readers attached to the attributes, or criteria, used for rating the providers. Respondents were asked to rank those attributes on a five-point scale, with 5 being the highest ranking.

Because shippers assign varying degrees of importance to criteria when selecting different types of providers, the weighted value of the attributes differs for each service category. For example, the highest ranking for on-time performance—4.7—was applied to airlines, air express carriers, and freight forwarders, which often handle time-sensitive shipments. The rankings for overall value, on the other hand, didn't vary much from category to category, with a spread of 3.4 to 3.9 this year, while the importance of customer service in different transportation modes ranged between 2.8 and 3.3. Rankings for information technology varied from 1.4 to 2.1, while equipment and operations had the biggest spread, from 1.5 for airlines and air express carriers to 2.5 for rail and intermodal companies. (See Figure 1.)

Survey participants evaluate their vendors' performance against each of the specified attributes, grading them on a scale of one to three (1 = poor, 2 = average, and 3 = outstanding). Those scores are then averaged for each category and each vendor. The weighted score is the product of the average importance rating for attributes in a category multiplied by the average performance score for each service provider.

The weighted scores for each vendor are then totaled and the average weighted score for each category is calculated. Vendors are designated a "winner" when their total score meets or surpasses the average total weighted score for their category. However, vendors must receive a minimum number of reader responses to earn an award (much as a baseball batter must have a certain number of plate appearances to qualify as a league-leading hitter). The required minimum varies from category to category according to the response rate. At least 200 completed surveys were received for each of the categories, with the exception of warehousing, which received 138 responses in its first appearance on the ballot.

In addition to rating carriers' performance in general, the Quest for Quality survey asks shippers to appraise the performance of their core carriers, providers with whom they have a long-term partnership or contractual relationship. By measuring core carriers separately, we can gain insight into whether shippers believe they experience higher or lower levels of service in an established relationship. (See Figure 2.)

In the past, shippers as a rule have bestowed higher quality ratings on their core carriers than they have on non-core carriers. This year, core carriers typically scored two points higher in the satisfaction ratings than did non-core carriers. In five categories, though, the gap between core carriers' satisfaction scores and overall satisfaction scores exceeded five points. Those categories included South/South Central, Northeast/Mid-Atlantic, and Western Regional LTL Carriers; High-Value Truckload Carriers; and Household-Goods Truckload Carriers.

Interestingly, in the standard rail service category, the average score for core carriers—30.96—was only marginally higher than the overall score of 30.45. The continuing concentration among major railroads may have limited the field to such a degree that most railroads are by default core service providers.

The highest satisfaction score for core carriers was earned by High-Value Truckload Carriers, with a weighted average of 39.82. As has often been the case, the railroads recorded the lowest core satisfaction score (30.96).

All of the details, including a list of winners in each category and their scores, can be found in the series of articles authored by Associate Editor John Shanahan that begin on Page 39.

Editor's note: Full reports showing the scores for all carriers in the survey are available from Logistics Management. There are seven reports (LTL, truckload, rail/intermodal, airfreight, ocean, third-party logistics, and warehousing). The full set can be purchased for $550. Individual reports, which include a detailed description of the scoring method, may be purchased for $99 each.

For more information or to obtain an online order form, please visit our Web site (www.logisticsmgmt.com/quest).