Subscribe to our free, weekly email newsletter!


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, Associate Editor
November 29, 2012

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

image
Josh Bond
Associate Editor

Josh Bond is an associate editor to Modern. Josh was formerly Modern’s lift truck columnist and contributing editor, has a degree in Journalism from Keene State College and has studied business management at Franklin Pierce.


Subscribe to Modern Materials Handling magazine

Subscribe today. It's FREE!
Find out what the world’s most innovative companies are doing to improve productivity in their plants and distribution centers.
Start your FREE subscription today!

Recent Entries

American Logistics Aid Network mobilizes logistics partners to deliver supplies to difficult-to-reach areas.

In a fundamentally changed world, your approach to strategy, and your supply chain, must also change. Andrew Winston, author of The Big Pivot, discusses how business can profit from this fundamental change.

Voice-enabled work is one element in a broad management strategy to improve order accuracy, increase productivity, and reduce labor costs in the supply chain. This complimentary white paper is designed to help you speak the ROI language, and provides a calculation formula to present the performance and financial payback from a variety of voice-enabled applications.

Conveyor manufacturers revise growth estimate up from 2% to 5%.

Experienced executive joins provider of automated storage and retrieval systems.

About the Author

Josh Bond, Associate Editor
Josh Bond is an associate editor to Modern. Josh was formerly Modern’s lift truck columnist and contributing editor, has a degree in Journalism from Keene State College and has studied business management at Franklin Pierce. Contact Josh Bond


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