Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Outline
Inbound
Different levels of integration Key performance indicators
Outbound
Key performance indicators
3 D C
RDC
Plant
3 D C
2 weeks
1 day?
2 weeks
1 month
3:1 36 hours
Mon
Tue
Pick-up Sheets are received at vendors & carriers
Fri
PUS received at depots, some via courier
Mon
Fri
Mon
Fri
Release of orders
Consolidation in Europe
Delivery to Plant
Route Generation
UK Start Collection
COLLECTION ROUTE
SUPPLIERS
VM
CROSSDOCK
Host
12 10
8
8
6
Days
6
4
4 2 0
3 2 1.66 0.97
86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98
Actual
Note:- Figures shown also include work in progress (W.I.P.)
Information reliability:
Short term changes occur due to: Call-off change by VM Lack of empty stillages
3 D C
3DayCar Requirements I
24 hour Delivery and Pick-up
Flexible delivery slots Electronic signature Secure drop & pick location at supplier Reduce cost through multi-franchise or
cross-sector consolidation
3 D C
Overlap of UK Suppliers VM C
16% 21% 4% 11% 27% 14% 7%
VM B
VM A
3 D C
3DayCar Requirements II
Real-time Visibility
3 D C
Standardised containers
3 D C
Plant
DC / Compound
Dealer
Import/ Export
2.75
2.75
2.67
1.94
2.4
2.0
8.5%
3.6%
1.5%
2.63 0.6%
3.5 0.4%
3 0.8%
Outbound B
Outbound C
Monthly + Weekly f/c Daily call-off
Weekly
Hourly call-off
Total Volume
Volume per Model / Monthly Body Weekly Daily Volume by Market Monthly Monthly
Weekly
Feedback Given
Example: 2 UK Plants
Forecast v Actual Volumes
3500 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0 Jan- Feb- Mar- Apr- May- Jun99 99 99 99 99 99
Jul- Aug- Sep- Oct- Nov- Dec- Jan- Feb- Mar- Apr99 99 99 99 99 99 00 00 00 00
3 D C
Plant 1 - F/C Plant 1 - Actual Plant 2 - F/C Plant 2 - Actual
3 D C
Plant 1 - Variability Plant 2 - Variability
Main Issues
Only one contracted time, regardless of order&volume Backloading required (average 60%)
...but no formal process Contributes to 3 days load building time
3 D C
Problem
How to deliver vehicles
3 D C
Assumptions
Excludes current rail trunking Based on 11 car transporters No increase in volume fluctuations Reactive scheduling Loss of efficiency in back loading
3 D C
33%
29%
3 D C
Cost situation
Current Cost:
c. 60 per vehicle
3 D C
Solutions
logistics companies
Multi Franchise Backloading
3 D C
3 D C
1990s :
Example of multi- franchise from one port Logistics company co-operation to maximise backloading opportunity ( now c. 60 % ) 2000s : Big PR opportunity for manufacturers to work together to increase cost and distance efficiency of transportation
3 D C
Multi Franchise
3 D C
Multi Franchise
3 D C
Multi Franchise
3 D C
Multi Franchise
3 D C
Backloading
3 D C
3 D C
20 >3 5 >8
3 D C
Cost Savings
Savings >8 Co-operation 9 Mix of transporter size BUT Combined saving only 14 More co-operation = Less need to use smaller transporters Additional Savings required 6
3 D C
20
Planned Logistics
3 D C
LOGISTICS COMPANY
ZZZZZZ ...
DEALER
3 D C
SORRY, SIR
MANUFACTURER
3 D C
LOGISTICS COMPANY DEALER
Feasible Solution
3 D C
Cost Savings
3 D C
20 >8 9 4 21 1
Solution Effects
Transportation Cost Saving Deletion of Distribution Centre Minimum Saving Potential
3 D C
1 20 21
l km 3D C ow
3 D C
105%
N E ast
3 D C
customer segments: I day - 3DayCar 3 day - Demonstrator One delivery date throughout supply chain End of life vehicle recycle 24 hour delivery to dealer
3 D C
3 D C
3 D C
3 D C
3 D C
Conclusions
BUT depends on co-operation between parties Good PR for manufacturers to operate on multi-franchise basis with logistics comps. Further research work required What about direct delivery to customer?
3 D C