Posts
When retail giant Wal-Mart decided it needed a food distribution center to serve the U.S. Northwest, several site selection criteria had to be weighed before it eventually chose Grandview, Washington, as the location for its 800,000-square-foot facility. For instance, it was advantageous that the land had been zoned for light industrial use and environmental reviews had already been completed. Although the land had to be annexed into the city of Grandview, relatively few people lived in the area, so the vote went in Wal-Mart's favor.
Grandview is situated near an interstate highway, 1-82, and the land chosen was flat, which were important considerations for the retailer. The city is centrally located within 200 miles of three major cities: Seattle, Spokane, and Portland. More than 60 local trucking companies serve the outlying area, as well as two railroads and nine air freight operators. Nearby, the Port of Pasco, located at the convergence of the Yakima and Snake Rivers, offers barge service on the Columbia River to the Port of Portland for containerized cargo.
In Grandview, Wal-Mart (not exactly known for paying top wages) found a populace with the lowest median wage in the area for warehouse workers—$8.11 per hour, more than $2.00 lower than the $10.58 Seattle pays. What's more, the average hourly wage for truck drivers in Grand-view is $14.02, considerably lower than the $17.62 they earn in Seattle.
And then there were the intangibles that no index or study can accurately categorize, but that played a huge part in Wal-Mart ultimately opting to go with Grandview. One of those intangibles is that the community was anxious to attract Wal-Mart's business and the jobs that went with the new DC. Other companies that had chosen Grandview as a distribution site—notably retailer Ace Hardware, which operates a 500,000-square-foot DC there—spoke positively of the area's capabilities. Even the mayors of surrounding communities came forward to support Grandview as the best site for the DC.
Yakima County, where Grandview is located, offered hiring and training support, and hooked Wal-Mart up with the state employment services agency, WorkSource Washington. The agency screened more than 6,000 applicants for the 400 jobs at the DC, and then sent the best candidates to Wal-Mart for final interviews. Overall, while labor costs and logistics capabilities made Grandview an attractive site for a DC, Wal-Mart's site selection best practices demonstrated a willingness to explore the qualities of a community that aren't necessarily published in a government report.
QUALITY OVER QUANTITY
Sometimes, having just one DC is plenty, even when a company has gotten too big for its current facility. That describes The Container Store's situation, a retailer of storage and organization products. Thanks to a 20 percent annual growth rate, the Dallas-based company outgrew its 300,000-square-foot DC, so it added a 155,000-square-foot satellite facility nearby That still wasn't quite sufficient, though, so it also arranged for space for 5,000 pallets under a third-party contract.
Even when the retailer reached the point where it had more than 30 stores throughout the United States, it still determined that one centrally located DC would be enough. "We looked into our whole network and asked whether it was time to do store replenishment out of our DC and direct customer fulfillment out of a different site," explains Amy Carobillano, The Container Store's vice president of logistics and distribution. The retailer decided that keeping to a single site worked to its advantage. For instance, all of the inventory is in one place, with corporate headquarters directly attached to the DC. That central location works well for the company's logistics network, which imports from Asia through the U.S. West Coast and from Europe through the Gulf of Mexico at the Port of Houston.
So the retailer opted to remain in Dallas, but to expand into a new 1.1-million-square-foot DC in another part of town. Not all of that square footage is currently being used, since The Container Store's master distribution plan calls for taking over the entire facility in stages. "If we're where we want to be, we'll need a conveyor in 2007 because that's when we'll have enough of our products conveyable to justify the expense," Carobillano says. In the meantime, the retailer focused its layout on its present needs. "Once you know what the vision is, you can buy part oi it now and develop the solution in phases." A lot of things will change before they take over the entire DC, she notes.
Even though The Container Store was staying in the Dallas area, it recognized that a move of any distance could affect some of its workers, so it sought their input throughout the site selection process. "We took out a map of the Dallas-Fort Worth metroplex and put a pin where every single employee lived," Carobillano explains. Then the retailer looked for a site that would allow it to retain its employee base. "We talked to the employees who lived farthest away and would have the longest commutes," Carobillano notes, and offered to help them find a different way to get to work or to hook up in carpools. As a result, the company didn't lose a single warehouse or office worker after it relocated. "Nobody knows your business or cares about your business like you do," she points out.
When moving day arrived, The Container Store shut down its old DC over a four-day weekend and opened the new facility, and then began moving the merchandise from the old DC to the new one. The entire process took about eight weeks, at which point the retailer began receiving inbound merchandise at the new DC.
Focusing on its employees is definitely a best practice for The Container Store, where the corporate philosophy of "one great employee is worth three good ones" has fostered an environment conducive to developing great people. That kind of thinking pays off, as the company is consistently listed on Fortune magazine's list of "Best Places to Work."
Showing posts with label distribution center. Show all posts
Showing posts with label distribution center. Show all posts
Friday, August 29, 2008
Site Selection – Part 3 – Match Your Network to Your Business Strategy
However, Gillette's theoretical analysis ended up taking a backseat to a practical consideration: The company was locked in to significant lease commitments with its current warehouses, which made it prohibitively expensive to just pack up and leave. So the question became: How can Gillette deliver much better customer service without changing its physical infrastructure?
"The goal was, at a minimum, to have a warehouse on the East Coast that carried all of our products," Knabe says. Ultimately, Gillette ended up keeping both its Massachusetts and Tennessee DCs, but what changed was how they functioned in terms of what products they carried and who they shipped to. Both warehouses now stock all Gillette products.
So far, so good. Gillette discovered it could improve its customer service without having to invest in new infrastructure. However, as Knabe discovered, carrying all products in both warehouses would have significantly increased inventory levels, which was a no-no. To get past this potential sticking point, the company conducted a statistical safety stock analysis to optimize its distribution network. Gillette made some process changes to set its safety stock targets, which made it possible to hold inventory constant while improving customer service.
"Your distribution network should be a function of what your business strategy is," Knabe emphasizes. "If your business strategy is to be the low-cost provider, you set up one kind of a network. Wal-Mart, for example, sets up its distribution network to be as cost efficient as possible. If your business strategy is to be as responsive as possible, you set up a different network. For Boston Scientific, a maker of surgical equipment, it's not about the cost of its distribution network, it's about having the right product at the right place instantly."
In the end, by adhering to best practices in configuring its distribution network, Gillette was able to maximize its use of truckload shipments while improving its on-time deliveries to its customers. As a result, its goal of "excellent customer service at least cost" became a reality.
HOW MUCH IS TOO MUCH?
So how do you know if you're spending too much on your distribution network? Using the Site Selector index of the most logistics-friendly cities, location consulting firm The Boyd Company developed a comparative cost model that identifies how much it costs, on average, to operate a warehouse in the top 50 markets.10
Boyd's comparative model focuses on a hypothetical 350,000-square-foot warehouse employing 150 nonexempt workers. This hypothetical warehouse serves a national distribution network that delivers products to 10 destination cities. Not surprisingly, New York City is the most expensive city in which to own a warehouse, in terms of annual operating costs, which Boyd estimates to be $15.8 million. Of the cities studied, the least expensive is Mobile, Alabama, at $10.4 million.
The most expensive city in which to lease a warehouse is San Francisco ($14.5 million), while Mobile again ranks as the least expensive ($9 million). Overall trends play out pretty much as you'd expect: Cities in the Southeast tend to be the least expensive, those in the Northeast and on the West Coast are the most expensive, and the Midwest places in the middle.
Boyd also looks at a hypothetical outbound shipment model that assumes a volume of freight in 30,000-pound truckload shipments costing $1.46 per mile to move. This model indicates that it costs the most to serve a national market from Portland, Oregon ($4.1 million), while the most economical city for outbound shipments is St. Louis, Missouri ($2.4 million).
According to Jack Boyd, principal of The Boyd Company, companies now prefer to build their own warehouses rather than lease them. The trend today is also toward building fewer but larger facilities, often including nonwarehousing corporate functions within the buildings to save on costs. In effect, this involves moving white-collar workers into blue-collar locations. You're locating to a warehouse where real estate costs $5 per square foot versus the $20 or more per square foot you would pay in an office building, Boyd points out. "Staffing requirements for warehouses have been elevated over the years as companies become more information technology intensive," Boyd explains. "There are greater labor and skill set demands, and it does require more labor cost analysis as part of the mix in terms of where these warehouses should be located."
"The goal was, at a minimum, to have a warehouse on the East Coast that carried all of our products," Knabe says. Ultimately, Gillette ended up keeping both its Massachusetts and Tennessee DCs, but what changed was how they functioned in terms of what products they carried and who they shipped to. Both warehouses now stock all Gillette products.
So far, so good. Gillette discovered it could improve its customer service without having to invest in new infrastructure. However, as Knabe discovered, carrying all products in both warehouses would have significantly increased inventory levels, which was a no-no. To get past this potential sticking point, the company conducted a statistical safety stock analysis to optimize its distribution network. Gillette made some process changes to set its safety stock targets, which made it possible to hold inventory constant while improving customer service.
"Your distribution network should be a function of what your business strategy is," Knabe emphasizes. "If your business strategy is to be the low-cost provider, you set up one kind of a network. Wal-Mart, for example, sets up its distribution network to be as cost efficient as possible. If your business strategy is to be as responsive as possible, you set up a different network. For Boston Scientific, a maker of surgical equipment, it's not about the cost of its distribution network, it's about having the right product at the right place instantly."
In the end, by adhering to best practices in configuring its distribution network, Gillette was able to maximize its use of truckload shipments while improving its on-time deliveries to its customers. As a result, its goal of "excellent customer service at least cost" became a reality.
HOW MUCH IS TOO MUCH?
So how do you know if you're spending too much on your distribution network? Using the Site Selector index of the most logistics-friendly cities, location consulting firm The Boyd Company developed a comparative cost model that identifies how much it costs, on average, to operate a warehouse in the top 50 markets.10
Boyd's comparative model focuses on a hypothetical 350,000-square-foot warehouse employing 150 nonexempt workers. This hypothetical warehouse serves a national distribution network that delivers products to 10 destination cities. Not surprisingly, New York City is the most expensive city in which to own a warehouse, in terms of annual operating costs, which Boyd estimates to be $15.8 million. Of the cities studied, the least expensive is Mobile, Alabama, at $10.4 million.
The most expensive city in which to lease a warehouse is San Francisco ($14.5 million), while Mobile again ranks as the least expensive ($9 million). Overall trends play out pretty much as you'd expect: Cities in the Southeast tend to be the least expensive, those in the Northeast and on the West Coast are the most expensive, and the Midwest places in the middle.
Boyd also looks at a hypothetical outbound shipment model that assumes a volume of freight in 30,000-pound truckload shipments costing $1.46 per mile to move. This model indicates that it costs the most to serve a national market from Portland, Oregon ($4.1 million), while the most economical city for outbound shipments is St. Louis, Missouri ($2.4 million).
According to Jack Boyd, principal of The Boyd Company, companies now prefer to build their own warehouses rather than lease them. The trend today is also toward building fewer but larger facilities, often including nonwarehousing corporate functions within the buildings to save on costs. In effect, this involves moving white-collar workers into blue-collar locations. You're locating to a warehouse where real estate costs $5 per square foot versus the $20 or more per square foot you would pay in an office building, Boyd points out. "Staffing requirements for warehouses have been elevated over the years as companies become more information technology intensive," Boyd explains. "There are greater labor and skill set demands, and it does require more labor cost analysis as part of the mix in terms of where these warehouses should be located."
Site Selection – Part 2 - A Site for Sore Eyes
When you get right down to it, all logistics (like all politics) is local. HP maintains 88 distribution hubs throughout the world. IBM Corp. has at least one major logistics site on every continent in the world except for Africa, and 28 in all. The Gillette Co. has four distribution centers in the United States and 60 total worldwide. In the United States alone, retail behemoth Wal-Mart has 128 distribution centers strategically located in 38 states.
And yet, there's a feeling that the site selection process is more art than science, more luck than strategy. Determining exactly where in the United States a company should locate its logistics and distribution centers requires a study of many factors beyond just transportation costs (although transportation is a major factor in the decision).
For many years, Expansion Management, a magazine that specializes in site selection, has teamed up with Logistics Today to produce the Site Selector—a tool that offers an objective ranking of the 362 major U.S. cities (i.e., metropolitan statistical areas, as defined by the U.S. Office of Management and Budget).
FINDING THE RIGHT PLACE
The Site Selector was designed to help companies find the right city or region for their distribution needs. Because virtually every company uses motor carriers at some point in its distribution network, access to good roads is an important factor, but it's not the only factor. The city of Trenton, New Jersey, for instance, was ranked at number one (the highest rating) for road infrastructure in the 2005 study, which is not too surprising given the city's proximity to major highways and turnpikes. Trenton is also strategically sandwiched between two major metropolises—Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and New York, New York.
However, the condition of its roads is not very good at all. Trenton's rank in that category was number 355 out of 362. Taking a look at some of the other categories, we find that Trenton placed well for taxes and fees (number 30), and fair-to-middling for rail access (number 151) and transportation and distribution industry (number 154). All things considered, Trenton finished nationally at number 68, which puts it just inside the top 20 percent.
But because most site selection decisions focus on a region of the United States rather than the entire country, it's also helpful to identify how well a city does compared to other cities within the same region. Trenton, for instance, ranks as the 15th most logistics-friendly city within the U.S. Northeast. The condition of its roads is far less of a factor for companies with supply chains in the Northeast because, frankly, none of the roads in that part of the country are in very good shape, relatively speaking. The one-two punch of congestion and Mother Nature accounts for the perpetual epidemic of orange cones on highways in the Northeast. As a result, road condition is almost a nonfactor for companies making site selection decisions centered on the Northeast.
Chicago Consulting undertook a study to determine the best warehouse networks in the United States, with best indicating the lowest possible transit lead times to customers, based on population patterns. Using that criterion, the best place for a company managing one distribution center would be Bloomington, Indiana. The average distance to a customer would be 803 miles, with an average transit time of 2.28 days. For a company operating two DCs, the optimum locations would be Ashland, Kentucky, and Palmdale, California.
When The Gillette Co., a manufacturer of personal care products, batteries, and other consumer packaged goods, launched its North American Network Study in 2002, the goal was straightforward: Identify the best distribution network that would allow the company to deliver excellent customer service at the least cost. As solutions manager for the company, Louise Knabe's job was to figure out how many DCs Gillette should have and where they should be. Least cost was an important consideration, Knabe points out, because if Gillette's goal had been simply to provide the best possible customer service, the network study could well have suggested putting a distribution center in every state.
"From a logistics and distribution perspective, Gillette measures customer service by order cycle time (time from when the customer places the order until they receive the order) and on-time delivery performance (percentage ol shipments that arrive on time)," Knabe explains. "The strategic DC network design affects the order cycle time because the location of the DCs affects the transit time to the customer."
At the time of the network study, Gillette had two DCs located on the East Coast, one near Boston, Massachusetts, and the other near Chattanooga, Tennessee. The Tennessee warehouse stocked only Duracell batteries, while the Massachusetts warehouse stocked everything else. Neither warehouse carried all of Gillette's products.
So why was this a problem? "Our project analysis revealed that this situation made it difficult to deliver top-quality customer service," Knabe points out. "Let's say I was a customer based in Virginia. That meant I was getting a shipment from Tennessee of batteries and shipments from Massachusetts of everything else. So I've got two trucks showing up with Gillette products on it, which was a bit of a nuisance."
The bigger issue for Gillette, though, was that because neither warehouse had all of the company's products, many customer shipments had to be delivered by less-than-truckload (LTL) carriers, a more expensive transportation mode than truckload. The transit times were longer and the reliability was lower than it would have been if Gillette had been able to get all products loaded onto the same truck. Gillette concluded that in order to deliver top-quality service, it needed to find a way to convert as many of those LTL shipments into full truckload as possible.
That's when Gillette got to work on its site selection best practices, with the goal of developing a network that would locate the DCs close to the customer and make it possible to regularly ship by truckload.
COST VERSUS SERVICE
To answer the questions of how many warehouses it needed and where they should be, Gillette conducted a complete theoretical analysis to identify the best locations. The company factored in such considerations as the location of its manufacturing plants and its sourcing points. Equally important, Gillette looked at where its customers were located, and specifically at who ordered what, and in what volume. "You take those two things and then ask: How do I marry them up and how do I figure out where my warehouses should be?" Knabe says.
"In terms of distribution cost, we looked at the freight cost of going from the plant to the warehouse, and then we also looked at the freight cost of going from the warehouse to the customer," she explains. Using an optimization software tool to evaluate every possible scenario, Gillette asked questions such as: If we had three warehouses, where would they be to minimize our freight costs? The company looked at other distribution costs, including real estate, labor, and taxes, and utility costs, such as electricity ("That ruled out Manhattan pretty fast," Knabe notes). Inventory carrying costs were also factored into the plan.
On the service side, the question Gillette asked was: How can we impact customer service when we're designing our distribution network? According to Knabe, there were two ways. The first way was to set up the distribution network so that Gillette could maximize its use of truckload, which meant stocking all products in all warehouses.
The second part of the answer involves order cycle time. "The location of our warehouses affects transit time to the customer," Knabe says, "so we looked at how many warehouses we needed if we had to be able to get to every customer within 48 hours. And then we asked: How many warehouses would we need if we only had to get to 85 percent of our customers within 48 hours? We looked at our network from both of those angles—cost and service—and figured out what made the most sense."
And yet, there's a feeling that the site selection process is more art than science, more luck than strategy. Determining exactly where in the United States a company should locate its logistics and distribution centers requires a study of many factors beyond just transportation costs (although transportation is a major factor in the decision).
For many years, Expansion Management, a magazine that specializes in site selection, has teamed up with Logistics Today to produce the Site Selector—a tool that offers an objective ranking of the 362 major U.S. cities (i.e., metropolitan statistical areas, as defined by the U.S. Office of Management and Budget).
FINDING THE RIGHT PLACE
The Site Selector was designed to help companies find the right city or region for their distribution needs. Because virtually every company uses motor carriers at some point in its distribution network, access to good roads is an important factor, but it's not the only factor. The city of Trenton, New Jersey, for instance, was ranked at number one (the highest rating) for road infrastructure in the 2005 study, which is not too surprising given the city's proximity to major highways and turnpikes. Trenton is also strategically sandwiched between two major metropolises—Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and New York, New York.
However, the condition of its roads is not very good at all. Trenton's rank in that category was number 355 out of 362. Taking a look at some of the other categories, we find that Trenton placed well for taxes and fees (number 30), and fair-to-middling for rail access (number 151) and transportation and distribution industry (number 154). All things considered, Trenton finished nationally at number 68, which puts it just inside the top 20 percent.
But because most site selection decisions focus on a region of the United States rather than the entire country, it's also helpful to identify how well a city does compared to other cities within the same region. Trenton, for instance, ranks as the 15th most logistics-friendly city within the U.S. Northeast. The condition of its roads is far less of a factor for companies with supply chains in the Northeast because, frankly, none of the roads in that part of the country are in very good shape, relatively speaking. The one-two punch of congestion and Mother Nature accounts for the perpetual epidemic of orange cones on highways in the Northeast. As a result, road condition is almost a nonfactor for companies making site selection decisions centered on the Northeast.
Chicago Consulting undertook a study to determine the best warehouse networks in the United States, with best indicating the lowest possible transit lead times to customers, based on population patterns. Using that criterion, the best place for a company managing one distribution center would be Bloomington, Indiana. The average distance to a customer would be 803 miles, with an average transit time of 2.28 days. For a company operating two DCs, the optimum locations would be Ashland, Kentucky, and Palmdale, California.
When The Gillette Co., a manufacturer of personal care products, batteries, and other consumer packaged goods, launched its North American Network Study in 2002, the goal was straightforward: Identify the best distribution network that would allow the company to deliver excellent customer service at the least cost. As solutions manager for the company, Louise Knabe's job was to figure out how many DCs Gillette should have and where they should be. Least cost was an important consideration, Knabe points out, because if Gillette's goal had been simply to provide the best possible customer service, the network study could well have suggested putting a distribution center in every state.
"From a logistics and distribution perspective, Gillette measures customer service by order cycle time (time from when the customer places the order until they receive the order) and on-time delivery performance (percentage ol shipments that arrive on time)," Knabe explains. "The strategic DC network design affects the order cycle time because the location of the DCs affects the transit time to the customer."
At the time of the network study, Gillette had two DCs located on the East Coast, one near Boston, Massachusetts, and the other near Chattanooga, Tennessee. The Tennessee warehouse stocked only Duracell batteries, while the Massachusetts warehouse stocked everything else. Neither warehouse carried all of Gillette's products.
So why was this a problem? "Our project analysis revealed that this situation made it difficult to deliver top-quality customer service," Knabe points out. "Let's say I was a customer based in Virginia. That meant I was getting a shipment from Tennessee of batteries and shipments from Massachusetts of everything else. So I've got two trucks showing up with Gillette products on it, which was a bit of a nuisance."
The bigger issue for Gillette, though, was that because neither warehouse had all of the company's products, many customer shipments had to be delivered by less-than-truckload (LTL) carriers, a more expensive transportation mode than truckload. The transit times were longer and the reliability was lower than it would have been if Gillette had been able to get all products loaded onto the same truck. Gillette concluded that in order to deliver top-quality service, it needed to find a way to convert as many of those LTL shipments into full truckload as possible.
That's when Gillette got to work on its site selection best practices, with the goal of developing a network that would locate the DCs close to the customer and make it possible to regularly ship by truckload.
COST VERSUS SERVICE
To answer the questions of how many warehouses it needed and where they should be, Gillette conducted a complete theoretical analysis to identify the best locations. The company factored in such considerations as the location of its manufacturing plants and its sourcing points. Equally important, Gillette looked at where its customers were located, and specifically at who ordered what, and in what volume. "You take those two things and then ask: How do I marry them up and how do I figure out where my warehouses should be?" Knabe says.
"In terms of distribution cost, we looked at the freight cost of going from the plant to the warehouse, and then we also looked at the freight cost of going from the warehouse to the customer," she explains. Using an optimization software tool to evaluate every possible scenario, Gillette asked questions such as: If we had three warehouses, where would they be to minimize our freight costs? The company looked at other distribution costs, including real estate, labor, and taxes, and utility costs, such as electricity ("That ruled out Manhattan pretty fast," Knabe notes). Inventory carrying costs were also factored into the plan.
On the service side, the question Gillette asked was: How can we impact customer service when we're designing our distribution network? According to Knabe, there were two ways. The first way was to set up the distribution network so that Gillette could maximize its use of truckload, which meant stocking all products in all warehouses.
The second part of the answer involves order cycle time. "The location of our warehouses affects transit time to the customer," Knabe says, "so we looked at how many warehouses we needed if we had to be able to get to every customer within 48 hours. And then we asked: How many warehouses would we need if we only had to get to 85 percent of our customers within 48 hours? We looked at our network from both of those angles—cost and service—and figured out what made the most sense."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)