Supply Chain Gears-up for Challenging Peak Season

More than four out of ten (41%) of European supply chain executives expect this year’s peak retail season to be more challenging than that of 2022, with only 18% believing it will be less difficult. That’s according to a recent survey led by Deposco of 200 supply chain leaders working for European retailers, manufacturers, wholesalers, or 3PL/4PL firms.

The relative impact of peak season is growing too, with Amazon Prime Day now considered a peak event by 62% of respondents. Among the key challenges faced during this period, more than half (52%) of respondents pinpoint the management of costs among their top priorities. Linked to this, 35% of the sample rank ‘escalating pricing’ among their top three concerns entering peak season this year, making it the top concern overall.

Will Lovatt, General Manager and Vice President Deposco Europe says: “The focus on value is no surprise in an unpredictable economy where costs for labour, materials, and services are higher. Amid these price hikes and inflation, it costs more to get work done, so supply chain executives have their eyes on expenses.”

Concerns about costs are exacerbated by the wider macro-economic picture. For 40% of respondents, inflation is the national/global issue of most concern, even when compared to factors like political instability, upcoming elections, and seaport delays.

As a result, leaders expect far-reaching inflation impacts. 52% anticipate higher costs for supplies and services, 40% expect reduced consumer demand due to the cost-of-living crisis and 26% are predicting longer lead times.

The drive towards sustainable logistics is another key challenge identified by respondents, with 33% stating that improving sustainability is among their top priorities for peak season 2023.

“All these factors are driving market complexity and uncertainty,” adds Lovatt. “In general, operators understand and accept this but they are also eager to attack it more proactively. Experiences in recent years have created a thirst for solutions that simplify these uncertainties and provide resilience in coping with current realities. We are seeing a growing demand for technology to address these challenges from demand forecasting through to the latest warehouse management system and order management system solutions.”

Key topics of the report – now available here – include:
Managing labour and costs; Inflation and the cost-of-living crisis; Sustainable logistics; Technology priorities.

Supply Chain Gears-up for Challenging Peak Season

More than four out of ten (41%) of European supply chain executives expect this year’s peak retail season to be more challenging than that of 2022, with only 18% believing it will be less difficult. That’s according to a recent survey led by Deposco of 200 supply chain leaders working for European retailers, manufacturers, wholesalers, or 3PL/4PL firms.

The relative impact of peak season is growing too, with Amazon Prime Day now considered a peak event by 62% of respondents. Among the key challenges faced during this period, more than half (52%) of respondents pinpoint the management of costs among their top priorities. Linked to this, 35% of the sample rank ‘escalating pricing’ among their top three concerns entering peak season this year, making it the top concern overall.

Will Lovatt, General Manager and Vice President Deposco Europe says: “The focus on value is no surprise in an unpredictable economy where costs for labour, materials, and services are higher. Amid these price hikes and inflation, it costs more to get work done, so supply chain executives have their eyes on expenses.”

Concerns about costs are exacerbated by the wider macro-economic picture. For 40% of respondents, inflation is the national/global issue of most concern, even when compared to factors like political instability, upcoming elections, and seaport delays.

As a result, leaders expect far-reaching inflation impacts. 52% anticipate higher costs for supplies and services, 40% expect reduced consumer demand due to the cost-of-living crisis and 26% are predicting longer lead times.

The drive towards sustainable logistics is another key challenge identified by respondents, with 33% stating that improving sustainability is among their top priorities for peak season 2023.

“All these factors are driving market complexity and uncertainty,” adds Lovatt. “In general, operators understand and accept this but they are also eager to attack it more proactively. Experiences in recent years have created a thirst for solutions that simplify these uncertainties and provide resilience in coping with current realities. We are seeing a growing demand for technology to address these challenges from demand forecasting through to the latest warehouse management system and order management system solutions.”

Key topics of the report – now available here – include:
Managing labour and costs; Inflation and the cost-of-living crisis; Sustainable logistics; Technology priorities.

Difference Between ‘Plan’ and ‘Actual’ Fleet Delivery Performance

Last mile delivery within retail and ecommerce is complex and vital to get right. It impacts customer satisfaction and experience, repeat business, brand perception and profitability, among other things. Understandably, therefore, logistics and delivery planning teams tend to spend a significant amount of time preparing their delivery routes, developing the most cost-effective, environmentally friendly plans for their delivery teams and fleets to execute. Creating an optimised route plan for deliveries is the first step to maximising fleet performance and providing a positive customer experience.

However, a great plan only matters when it is executed – and that’s the challenge for many fleet operators. Sure, tracking drivers with GPS helps, but the problem is not that simple as there are several areas where deviations from the plan occur. For instance, some deviations are voluntary (e.g. a driver decides to change the delivery sequence) and others are involuntary (e.g. there is a road closure not captured in the digital map data). In many cases, deviation from the plan starts well before a driver even gets on the road. Therefore, to get better control of fleet performance, retailers need to track “plan” versus “actual” performance. Chris Jones, EVP, Descartes explains.

Defining “Plan” Vs. “Actual” Performance

There are three key points to understand when it comes to plan versus actual performance, and how retail fleet operators can use that information to maximise fleet performance and customer experience.
1. Start with an Optimised Route Plan
Many fleet operators make use of route planning solutions to support with retail and ecommerce deliveries. Today’s advanced route optimisation solutions are very adept at considering all the business constraints and evaluating the tradeoffs between having specific orders on particular routes, and the sequence that they are delivered in. They look holistically to find the best combination of routes and sequences that will meet customer delivery requirements for the lowest delivered costs.
While not perfect, if the route planning solution is configured correctly, it will consistently outperform the human mind to find the most cost-efficient route plan. For this discussion, let’s consider that the plan initially generated by the system is the starting measuring point and has the best potential results.

2. Evaluate the Impact of Changes Made by Planners
Once a plan is initially created it is typically reviewed by a planner to ensure there are not any inconsistencies that could impact delivery performance, and account for any conditions that were not considered in the system configuration, or not possible to model. This step is the first place where deviation from the initial optimised plan can occur. For legitimate and arbitrary reasons, planners make changes to optimised routes. For instance, the planner knows that the solution doesn’t fully capture a constraint and the number of deliveries that a specific truck can execute.
Equally, a planner may have preconceived notions about what a route should “look like” and make changes to have it appear in a certain way on the digital map. In either case, the optimised plan has been adjusted and the results fall into two categories: more optimised and better performance or less optimised and lower performance. These changes need to be captured and compared to the initially optimised plan.

3. Track Execution and Capture Deviations that Impact It
Once the planner is finished making their adjustments, the plan is published to the driver. Let’s assume that all the deliveries are on the truck and the driver starts executing the route, which is tracked by GPS. Here again, the driver can deviate from the route plan for legitimate and arbitrary reasons.
The driver knows that a certain customer will take orders earlier than indicated in the route plan and changes the delivery sequence to be more efficient, or the driver likes to stop at a specific location because the facilities are better or the food and beverage options more appealing. Then there are events that are out of the driver’s control, which can change the route plan. For example, a customer cancels a delivery or an accident closes a road. All the driver changes and external events need to be captured to get a complete picture of the deviations during route execution.

The Complete Plan Versus Actual Picture

Capturing these points gives fleet managers a comprehensive view of plan through actual execution, and better control of performance outcomes. Managers will know the plan’s starting point in terms of cost and customer service, how the planner’s changes impacted cost and service, and the same for the driver’s changes and external events – all important factors to consider with rising costs for home delivery and fleet operations.

Placed side-by-side, the manager can see (1) if the plan was not as optimal or feasible as possible, (2) the degree to which planners are changing the original plan and why and the degree drivers are deviating and why. With this information, managers can take corrective action to (1) improve the quality of the initial optimised plan through configuration changes, (2) identify which planners are over-editing the plan and negatively impacting costs and customer service, and (3) better manage driver adherence to plan and understand the degree that external events are impacting delivery performance.

Technology Can Refine and Optimise the Review Process

Technology is advancing efficiency across the retail sector continually. It can make the home delivery plan versus actual review process easier, eliminate some of the causes of deviation to plans that have a negative impact on performance; but it can also take into account deviation that had a positive impact. This is how technology supports.
• Data analytics integrated with the planning and execution solution can accelerate the plan versus actual performance analysis. One of the biggest challenges is collecting, organising, and correlating the tremendous amount of data that route planning and GPS-based execution solutions generate.
The advent of powerful, but intuitive and low-cost analytics platforms such as Microsoft PowerBI™ that has standardised integration to route planning and execution solutions streamlines the data management process and gives deep insights into plan versus actual performance.
• How machine learning helps capture plan versus actual performance. Tracking fleet plan versus actual delivery performance is an excellent application for machine learning because of all the data that is created in the route planning through execution process.
Machine learning can more accurately identify actual stop location, drive, service and stop times, and other patterns such as changes in stop sequence. These recommendations can be applied to the optimised planning solution to create more accurate and productive route plans.
Machine learning can also identify which planners and drivers are outliers to capture best practices or coach poorer performers.
• Robotic process automation can eliminate some of the causes of plan versus actual deviation. Unfortunately, planner performance can vary widely resulting in significant deviations to the initial optimised plan and poorer plan performance.

By capturing and automating the planning practices of the best planners using robotic process automation, fleet operators can eliminate many of the post-optimisation tweaking that occurs during the planning review phase. Consequently, there will be fewer changes, more predictable planning outcomes across the organisation, shorter planning reviews, and greater planner productivity.

Plan versus actual delivery performance analysis is an important process for pinpointing and improving the practices and actions that planners and drivers take that negatively impact home delivery performance for retailers. Using this three-point approach described allows managers within retail and ecommerce organisations to capture the changes that impact home delivery performance. When combined with technological advances such as data analytics, machine learning, and robotic process automation, fleet operations can implement powerful plan versus actual performance processes that drive delivery fleet performance and improvements to the bottom line.

Difference Between ‘Plan’ and ‘Actual’ Fleet Delivery Performance

Last mile delivery within retail and ecommerce is complex and vital to get right. It impacts customer satisfaction and experience, repeat business, brand perception and profitability, among other things. Understandably, therefore, logistics and delivery planning teams tend to spend a significant amount of time preparing their delivery routes, developing the most cost-effective, environmentally friendly plans for their delivery teams and fleets to execute. Creating an optimised route plan for deliveries is the first step to maximising fleet performance and providing a positive customer experience.

However, a great plan only matters when it is executed – and that’s the challenge for many fleet operators. Sure, tracking drivers with GPS helps, but the problem is not that simple as there are several areas where deviations from the plan occur. For instance, some deviations are voluntary (e.g. a driver decides to change the delivery sequence) and others are involuntary (e.g. there is a road closure not captured in the digital map data). In many cases, deviation from the plan starts well before a driver even gets on the road. Therefore, to get better control of fleet performance, retailers need to track “plan” versus “actual” performance. Chris Jones, EVP, Descartes explains.

Defining “Plan” Vs. “Actual” Performance

There are three key points to understand when it comes to plan versus actual performance, and how retail fleet operators can use that information to maximise fleet performance and customer experience.
1. Start with an Optimised Route Plan
Many fleet operators make use of route planning solutions to support with retail and ecommerce deliveries. Today’s advanced route optimisation solutions are very adept at considering all the business constraints and evaluating the tradeoffs between having specific orders on particular routes, and the sequence that they are delivered in. They look holistically to find the best combination of routes and sequences that will meet customer delivery requirements for the lowest delivered costs.
While not perfect, if the route planning solution is configured correctly, it will consistently outperform the human mind to find the most cost-efficient route plan. For this discussion, let’s consider that the plan initially generated by the system is the starting measuring point and has the best potential results.

2. Evaluate the Impact of Changes Made by Planners
Once a plan is initially created it is typically reviewed by a planner to ensure there are not any inconsistencies that could impact delivery performance, and account for any conditions that were not considered in the system configuration, or not possible to model. This step is the first place where deviation from the initial optimised plan can occur. For legitimate and arbitrary reasons, planners make changes to optimised routes. For instance, the planner knows that the solution doesn’t fully capture a constraint and the number of deliveries that a specific truck can execute.
Equally, a planner may have preconceived notions about what a route should “look like” and make changes to have it appear in a certain way on the digital map. In either case, the optimised plan has been adjusted and the results fall into two categories: more optimised and better performance or less optimised and lower performance. These changes need to be captured and compared to the initially optimised plan.

3. Track Execution and Capture Deviations that Impact It
Once the planner is finished making their adjustments, the plan is published to the driver. Let’s assume that all the deliveries are on the truck and the driver starts executing the route, which is tracked by GPS. Here again, the driver can deviate from the route plan for legitimate and arbitrary reasons.
The driver knows that a certain customer will take orders earlier than indicated in the route plan and changes the delivery sequence to be more efficient, or the driver likes to stop at a specific location because the facilities are better or the food and beverage options more appealing. Then there are events that are out of the driver’s control, which can change the route plan. For example, a customer cancels a delivery or an accident closes a road. All the driver changes and external events need to be captured to get a complete picture of the deviations during route execution.

The Complete Plan Versus Actual Picture

Capturing these points gives fleet managers a comprehensive view of plan through actual execution, and better control of performance outcomes. Managers will know the plan’s starting point in terms of cost and customer service, how the planner’s changes impacted cost and service, and the same for the driver’s changes and external events – all important factors to consider with rising costs for home delivery and fleet operations.

Placed side-by-side, the manager can see (1) if the plan was not as optimal or feasible as possible, (2) the degree to which planners are changing the original plan and why and the degree drivers are deviating and why. With this information, managers can take corrective action to (1) improve the quality of the initial optimised plan through configuration changes, (2) identify which planners are over-editing the plan and negatively impacting costs and customer service, and (3) better manage driver adherence to plan and understand the degree that external events are impacting delivery performance.

Technology Can Refine and Optimise the Review Process

Technology is advancing efficiency across the retail sector continually. It can make the home delivery plan versus actual review process easier, eliminate some of the causes of deviation to plans that have a negative impact on performance; but it can also take into account deviation that had a positive impact. This is how technology supports.
• Data analytics integrated with the planning and execution solution can accelerate the plan versus actual performance analysis. One of the biggest challenges is collecting, organising, and correlating the tremendous amount of data that route planning and GPS-based execution solutions generate.
The advent of powerful, but intuitive and low-cost analytics platforms such as Microsoft PowerBI™ that has standardised integration to route planning and execution solutions streamlines the data management process and gives deep insights into plan versus actual performance.
• How machine learning helps capture plan versus actual performance. Tracking fleet plan versus actual delivery performance is an excellent application for machine learning because of all the data that is created in the route planning through execution process.
Machine learning can more accurately identify actual stop location, drive, service and stop times, and other patterns such as changes in stop sequence. These recommendations can be applied to the optimised planning solution to create more accurate and productive route plans.
Machine learning can also identify which planners and drivers are outliers to capture best practices or coach poorer performers.
• Robotic process automation can eliminate some of the causes of plan versus actual deviation. Unfortunately, planner performance can vary widely resulting in significant deviations to the initial optimised plan and poorer plan performance.

By capturing and automating the planning practices of the best planners using robotic process automation, fleet operators can eliminate many of the post-optimisation tweaking that occurs during the planning review phase. Consequently, there will be fewer changes, more predictable planning outcomes across the organisation, shorter planning reviews, and greater planner productivity.

Plan versus actual delivery performance analysis is an important process for pinpointing and improving the practices and actions that planners and drivers take that negatively impact home delivery performance for retailers. Using this three-point approach described allows managers within retail and ecommerce organisations to capture the changes that impact home delivery performance. When combined with technological advances such as data analytics, machine learning, and robotic process automation, fleet operations can implement powerful plan versus actual performance processes that drive delivery fleet performance and improvements to the bottom line.

Top 100 UK Supply Chains Emit 3 billion tonnes of CO2

The supply chains of FTSE 100 companies emitted 3 billion tons of CO2 last year, shows research by supply chain experts INVERTO, a subsidiary of Boston Consulting Group.

These latest figures show just how far the UK’s biggest businesses still have to go in achieving Net Zero in their supply chains (i.e. the raw materials, goods and services that FTSE 100 companies use).

The Top 5 emitters alone accounted for 86% of the FTSE 100 total (2.56bn tonnes of CO2), while the Top 10 accounted for 93% (2.79bn tonnes of CO2). The Top 10 was dominated by oil & gas, mining and engineering firms. Supply chain emissions – also known as Scope 3 emissions – include all indirect emissions occurring in the upstream and downstream activities of an organisation, e.g. from the goods and services it purchases.

Sushank Agarwal, Managing Director at INVERTO, argues that though much work remains, progress is being made towards Net Zero emissions in FTSE 100 supply chains. “Even though there’s still a long way to go, we’re in a much better place than we were on supply chain decarbonisation just a couple of years ago. There’s now a lot of awareness and strong senior sponsorship, but many are still in the process of turning that into concrete action.

“Those businesses that have started their journey are mainly focusing on reducing their Scope 3 emissions through embedding sustainability measures into their sourcing processes and working directly with key suppliers to reduce emissions throughout the value chain. The bulk of supply chain emissions reductions are relatively achievable in the medium term, with only a minority requiring further technological advancement or very large-scale investment. That’s what businesses should be focusing on today – the low-hanging fruit in their supply chains.”

Still too few FTSE 100 companies setting Net Zero targets

There is concern that not enough FTSE 100 companies have made explicit commitments for when they will achieve Net Zero. INVERTO’s research shows that so far, only 53 FTSE 100 companies have set a clear target date for fully decarbonising their supply chains. With an average target date of 2043 (see table below), INVERTO says that more FTSE 100 companies should be setting challenging targets for faster supply chain decarbonisation.

Agarwal says there is also a lack of FTSE 100 companies setting interim targets on their roadmap to Net Zero. This tactic means companies are more likely to commit resources to decarbonisation today, rather than hoping to catch up in 10 or 20 years’ time. “All companies should have a clear deadline for achieving Net Zero and milestones in place to get there. If they are targeting 2050 for complete decarbonisation of their supply chains, they should make clear where they will reach by 2030 and 2040 too. While some sectors will of course take much longer to get there, their progress will undoubtedly quicken over time.”

Far more reporting needed from the UK’s biggest listed companies

INVERTO says there is also a lack of regular and precise reporting on progress in reducing supply chain emissions by FTSE 100 companies. Overall, 57 FTSE 100 companies report their progress to shareholders, although the quality of the reporting varies significantly. While 57 companies have reporting in place, only 44 are reporting by using a clear metric – most often a percentage change on the year before. This is a sign that improvement is necessary, says Agarwal.

Highest-emitting sectors account for lion’s share of overall supply chain emissions

Despite the FTSE 100 as a whole emitting some 3 billion tonnes of CO2, just two sectors accounted for five sixths of the total: oil & gas with 49.6% and mining with 34.3%. Between them both, oil & gas and mining amount to just eight FTSE 100 companies.

Agarwal concludes: “All companies have a responsibility to bring down their supply chain emissions, but some more so than others. It’s expected that oil & gas and mining account for the lion’s share of emissions, so these sectors have the most to contribute to decarbonisation. Their efforts will automatically have a huge effect on other companies Scope 3 emissions as well.”

Top 100 UK Supply Chains Emit 3 billion tonnes of CO2

The supply chains of FTSE 100 companies emitted 3 billion tons of CO2 last year, shows research by supply chain experts INVERTO, a subsidiary of Boston Consulting Group.

These latest figures show just how far the UK’s biggest businesses still have to go in achieving Net Zero in their supply chains (i.e. the raw materials, goods and services that FTSE 100 companies use).

The Top 5 emitters alone accounted for 86% of the FTSE 100 total (2.56bn tonnes of CO2), while the Top 10 accounted for 93% (2.79bn tonnes of CO2). The Top 10 was dominated by oil & gas, mining and engineering firms. Supply chain emissions – also known as Scope 3 emissions – include all indirect emissions occurring in the upstream and downstream activities of an organisation, e.g. from the goods and services it purchases.

Sushank Agarwal, Managing Director at INVERTO, argues that though much work remains, progress is being made towards Net Zero emissions in FTSE 100 supply chains. “Even though there’s still a long way to go, we’re in a much better place than we were on supply chain decarbonisation just a couple of years ago. There’s now a lot of awareness and strong senior sponsorship, but many are still in the process of turning that into concrete action.

“Those businesses that have started their journey are mainly focusing on reducing their Scope 3 emissions through embedding sustainability measures into their sourcing processes and working directly with key suppliers to reduce emissions throughout the value chain. The bulk of supply chain emissions reductions are relatively achievable in the medium term, with only a minority requiring further technological advancement or very large-scale investment. That’s what businesses should be focusing on today – the low-hanging fruit in their supply chains.”

Still too few FTSE 100 companies setting Net Zero targets

There is concern that not enough FTSE 100 companies have made explicit commitments for when they will achieve Net Zero. INVERTO’s research shows that so far, only 53 FTSE 100 companies have set a clear target date for fully decarbonising their supply chains. With an average target date of 2043 (see table below), INVERTO says that more FTSE 100 companies should be setting challenging targets for faster supply chain decarbonisation.

Agarwal says there is also a lack of FTSE 100 companies setting interim targets on their roadmap to Net Zero. This tactic means companies are more likely to commit resources to decarbonisation today, rather than hoping to catch up in 10 or 20 years’ time. “All companies should have a clear deadline for achieving Net Zero and milestones in place to get there. If they are targeting 2050 for complete decarbonisation of their supply chains, they should make clear where they will reach by 2030 and 2040 too. While some sectors will of course take much longer to get there, their progress will undoubtedly quicken over time.”

Far more reporting needed from the UK’s biggest listed companies

INVERTO says there is also a lack of regular and precise reporting on progress in reducing supply chain emissions by FTSE 100 companies. Overall, 57 FTSE 100 companies report their progress to shareholders, although the quality of the reporting varies significantly. While 57 companies have reporting in place, only 44 are reporting by using a clear metric – most often a percentage change on the year before. This is a sign that improvement is necessary, says Agarwal.

Highest-emitting sectors account for lion’s share of overall supply chain emissions

Despite the FTSE 100 as a whole emitting some 3 billion tonnes of CO2, just two sectors accounted for five sixths of the total: oil & gas with 49.6% and mining with 34.3%. Between them both, oil & gas and mining amount to just eight FTSE 100 companies.

Agarwal concludes: “All companies have a responsibility to bring down their supply chain emissions, but some more so than others. It’s expected that oil & gas and mining account for the lion’s share of emissions, so these sectors have the most to contribute to decarbonisation. Their efforts will automatically have a huge effect on other companies Scope 3 emissions as well.”

Subscribe

Get notified about New Episodes of our Podcast, New Magazine Issues and stay updated with our Weekly Newsletter.