Intermec study shows distribution centers lose nearly 3,000 hours a year on unproductive workflows

Despite clear inefficiencies, many are reluctant to make change until the damage is done
By Josh Bond, Contributing Editor
November 30, 2012 - LM Editorial

Research tends to either confirm hypotheses or reveal surprises. In the case of a recent study conducted by Vanson Bourne on behalf of Intermec, it was a little of both.

The survey base of 250 supply chain, warehouse and distribution managers reported that within the last six months alone 79% of them have been tasked with finding an average 19% cost savings from existing operations, which was no surprise. But despite this mounting pressure, 30% of respondents said they had not conducted a review of workflow processes in the past year. For some, it had been more than three years.

“That was definitely surprising,” said Bruce Stubbs, Intermec industry marketing director for distribution center operations. “These organizations are certainly more reactive than proactive.”

A look at the motivations for workflow process reviews further reinforces that point. Managers who have not held a review in the past year say that only compliance (28%) or poor performance (27%) would prompt them to do so today. The latter point is in stark contrast to those companies that have recently conducted a review and implemented process improvements as a result, who say they are mostly motivated by compliance issues (26%) and continuous improvement programs (22%). Only 9% of these proactive companies rate poor performance as a driver for their action.

Most shocking of all in a world in which every customer’s business is hard won – and even harder kept – are the 16% who say they will not review workflow processes until after a customer complaint has been received.

“When these managers are inside the four walls all day, it can be hard to see where the inefficiencies lie,” said Stubbs. “Unless something is clearly broken, it won’t necessarily come up on their radar.”
Still, many respondents were able to identify those areas most in need of a workflow process review. Packing and loading (20%), followed closely by picking and inventory control (both 18%), were the most inefficient workflows. Similarly, those who had recently conducted a review identified inventory control (53%) and picking (47%) as the two areas where cost savings could most easily be achieved.

According to the survey results, over an eight hour shift each worker loses an average of 15 minutes of productivity in an inefficient process. For a warehouse with 50 workers, this adds up to nearly 3,000 hours a year.

When asked how to improve performance across the warehouse and distribution center, the overwhelming majority of managers (89%) said they believed investment in new technology would ensure greater worker productivity. There is also increased awareness of the value of even very small improvements. Nearly two-thirds (60%) agree that “Large time and cost savings opportunities can be found in gaining back mere seconds in operations workflows.” Stubbs pointed to employee travel and hardware limitations, such as a worker in receiving who must walk back and forth to a printer for each label. In such a case, mobile printers could have an immediate and significant impact.

Other improvements might require no outlay at all. Many suppliers will gladly tour a facility with the customer to assist with process reviews, and many improvements might be supported by the existing system. Having made an investment into software or hardware, said Stubbs, the customer can maximize that investment by developing a strong relationship with the supplier. Whether by exploring task interleaving or deploying mobile printers, the study shows most customers have room to improve.

“Anyone doing anything paper-based are the companies with the lowest-hanging fruit,” said Stubbs, who also emphasized the importance of executive backing for efficiency initiatives. “With that support, managers and workers will get creative.”



About the Author

Josh Bond
Contributing Editor

Josh Bond is a contributing editor to Modern. In addition to working on Modern’s annual Casebook and being a member of the Show Daily team, Josh covers lift trucks for the magazine.


Subscribe to Logistics Management magazine

Subscribe today. It's FREE!
Get timely insider information that you can use to better manage your
entire logistics operation.
Start your FREE subscription today!

Recent Entries

The PMI, the ISM’s index to measure growth, increased 1.8 percent to 57.1 in July. This is 1.8 percent higher than the 12-month average of 55.3. The PMI has grown in 18 of the last 20 months, with economic activity in the manufacturing sector expanding for the last 14 months as the overall economy was up for the 62nd consecutive month.

YRC Worldwide, whose regional and long-haul units provide the second-largest LTL capacity in the trucking industry, narrowed its second-quarter loss to $4.9 million on $1.32 billion revenue, compared with $15.1 million loss on $1.24 billion revenue in the year-ago quarter.

With NFL training camps in full swing, it stands to reason that Congress must be replete with football fans, given how it basically has elected to punt on federal transportation funding yet again, with the Senate yesterday signing off on a ten-month bill to keep federal surface transportation funding intact through May 2015 through a nearly $11 billion stopgap measure.

Carload volumes were up 4.3 percent at 306,988, and intermodal volume for the week ending July 26 was up 3.3 percent at 264,809

About the Author

Jeff Berman, News Editor
Jeff Berman is Group News Editor for Logistics Management, Modern Materials Handling, and Supply Chain Management Review. Jeff works and lives in Cape Elizabeth, Maine, where he covers all aspects of the supply chain, logistics, freight transportation, and materials handling sectors on a daily basis. Contact Jeff Berman.

Comments

Post a comment
Commenting is not available in this channel entry.


© Copyright 2013 Peerless Media LLC, a division of EH Publishing, Inc • 111 Speen Street, Ste 200, Framingham, MA 01701 USA