key performance indicators for food and drink supply chains 2009
TRANSCRIPT
-
7/27/2019 Key Performance Indicators for Food and Drink Supply Chains 2009
1/28
FreightBestPractice
Key Performance Indicators for
Food and Drink Supply Chains
2009
Ben
chmarkingGu
ide
-
7/27/2019 Key Performance Indicators for Food and Drink Supply Chains 2009
2/28
AcknowledgementsThanksareduetothefollowingbusinesseswhichtookpartintheSurvey.Thetimeandeffortputinbytheirstaffinattendingworkshopsandgatheringdataisgreatlyappreciated.
Drink
AdnamsBargainBoozeEverardsBreweryFullerSmith&TurnerInbevNorbert-Dentressangle(Threshers)ShepherdNeameWaverleyTBSWincantonFoodACS&T LangdonsApetito NestleAsda NorfolkLineBooker PepsicoColdMove Re-VisionLogistics(NISA)Co-op SamworthDistributionStobartGroup TDGStone(JSainbury)FineLadyBakery TescoGist UnitedBiscuitsGreatBear VitacressHowardTenens Wincanton(Heinz)KeystoneDistributionUK
i
-
7/27/2019 Key Performance Indicators for Food and Drink Supply Chains 2009
3/28
-
7/27/2019 Key Performance Indicators for Food and Drink Supply Chains 2009
4/28
ContentsForeword iv
1 Introduction 12 TheKeyPerformanceIndicators 3
2.1 SurveyStatistics 42.2 TheSurveyDay 52.3 VehicleFill 52.4 EmptyRunning 72.5 TimeUtilisation 82.6 Delays(DeviationsfromSchedule) 132.7 ConsumptionandEnergyEfficiency 152.8 OperatingRestrictions 192.9 FuelUseandEmissionsStandards 19
3 Conclusions 213.1 LevelsofEfficiency3.2 Summary
2122
iii
-
7/27/2019 Key Performance Indicators for Food and Drink Supply Chains 2009
5/28
ForewordTheroleofKeyPerformanceIndicatorsiswellknownandestablishedthroughoutallsectorsofindustry.Theyprovideasimple,focussedmeasureofperformance,
and
so
provide
management
with
a
short,concisepictureofwhatishappeningintheiroperation.Overthepastfewyears,theDepartmentforTransport,throughtheFreightBestPracticeprogramme,hassupportedanumberofsurveysthathavedevelopedarangeofKeyPerformanceIndicators(KPIs)inavarietyofindustrysectors.TheKPIshaveprovidedthoseinthefreightindustrywithaconsistentmeasureofthelevelsofefficiencybeingachievedwithintheirsector.Comparing,orbenchmarking,theirownperformanceagainstthoseKPIsprovidestheopportunitytofocusonthoseaspectswhicharemostlikelytoyieldperformanceimprovement.ThisBenchmarkingGuideaimstoprovideoperatorswiththosecriticalcomparisons,andhencetohelpthemimproveefficiency,reduceoperatingcostsandtoreducetheimpactofroadtransportontheenvironment.
iv
-
7/27/2019 Key Performance Indicators for Food and Drink Supply Chains 2009
6/28
1. IntroductionAsfarbackas1992theDepartmentoftheEnvironmentsupportedaprojectonimprovingvehicleefficiencythroughaerodynamics,throughtheEnergyEfficiency
Best
Practice
programme.
This
was
followed
bytheestablishmentofadiscretetransportefficiencyprogrammein1994,whichby2005hadevolvedintotheFreightBestPracticeProgramme.Workwithinthefoodsectorstartedin1997,andwasfollowedbylargerSurveysin1998and2002.ThesubsequentSurveyin2007,forthefirsttime,includedthedrinkssector.IneachcasetheresultsoftheSurveyenabledparticipantstobenchmarktheirindividualperformanceagainstthatofothercompanieswithintheirsector.The2009Survey,whichagainincludesthedrinkssector,followsthenaturalprogressionofearlierworkandshowsacontinuingcommitmentbytheDepartmentforTransporttoprovideroadvehicleoperatorswiththemeansbywhichtocomparetheiroperationalefficiencywiththeirpeergroup.Thosecompanieswhohaveparticipatedregularlynowhaveanadditionalmeasureoftheirprogressovertheyears,andallroadfreightoperators,bothwithinthefoodanddrinksectorsandothers,haveanotherbenchmarkofoperationalperformanceagainstwhichtomeasureandcomparetheirownoperationaleffectiveness.
TheoverallaimofthisSurvey,andindeedtheoneswhichprecededit,istostimulateandsupportexistingeffortstoimproveefficiencyintheoperationanduseofvehiclesby:
ProvidingmeasuresofefficiencylevelsbeingachievedinthefoodanddrinkssectorsEnablingcompaniestomeasuretheirownefficiencyagainstthatoftheindustryasawholeStimulatingandsupportingexistingeffortstoimproveefficiencyintheoperationanduseoftheirvehicles.
OntheSurveyday12March2009theactivitiesofover4,700tractorsunits,trailers,andrigidswerecloselymonitoredandrecorded.Allofthesevehicleswereoperatinginthefoodanddrinkssectors,andcoveredthemovementofproductfromproducerstotheultimatepointofsale.Thedatagatheredenabledtheoperationalefficiencyofthosevehiclestobeanalysed,andmeasuresofthatefficiency,i.e.KeyPerformanceIndicatorswereestablished.Comparisonswithprevioussurveyswillshowgeneraltrendsandthelevelsofefficiencywithinthesector.However,therehaveinevitablybeendifferencesinthefleetmixinthevariousSurveysandisimpossibletobesurethattheresultsrepresentanabsolutelikeforlikecomparison.TheSurveygatheredinformationinthreebroadcategories:
Generalinformationcoveringthedetailsofthevehiclesbeingsurveyedsize,type,capacity,age,fuelconsumptionDetaileddataonajourneybyjourneybasis,foralljourneysundertakenduringthesampleperiodAnhourlyauditofvehicleactivityduringthesampleperiod.
1
-
7/27/2019 Key Performance Indicators for Food and Drink Supply Chains 2009
7/28
Asin2007thisSurveyhasincludedtractorunitsaswellassemi-trailersandrigids.Inordertomaketheresultsasreliableaspossible,and,therefore,themostusefulbothtoparticipantsandsubsequentusersoftheGuide,itisimportantthatdatagatheringiscarefullyprescribed.Standardisedsoftwarewasusedasthemediumtoassembletheinformationandenablecomputeranalysis.Followingtheuseofa24hourdatasamplingperiodin2007itwasdecidedthat24hourswasperfectlyadequate.Ashadbeenexpectedthereductionto24hoursimposedlessdatagatheringonparticipantswithoutdetractingfromthevalueoftheresults.Abroadmeasureofweeklyactivity,anddailyactivityforeachdayofthesurveyweekwasalsogatheredforeachfleet.ThisprovidedameasureofvariationsinthroughputandhencethevalidityofthechosenSurveydateandday.
2
-
7/27/2019 Key Performance Indicators for Food and Drink Supply Chains 2009
8/28
2. TheKeyPerformanceIndicators
ThemainKPIsusedinthe2009Surveywerethesameasthoseusedinthe2007andearlierSurveys.Withdueregardtothecautionexpressedaboveaboutlikefor-likecomparisons,thisSurveydoesprovideoperationalmeasureswhichcannowbetracedbackformorethantenyears.ThemainKPIswere:1. VehicleFillThisisthemeasureofloadcarried,comparedwithvehiclecapacity,oneachvehiclejourney.Thiswasmeasured,forthefoodsector,byloadheight,payloadweightandloadunitnumbers.FormostloadsinthefoodSurveyproductwascarriedinunitloads,i.e.arollcageorwoodenpallet.Wherethiswasnotthecase,conversionfactorswereusedtoenablethecreationofapallet-equivalentmeasure.For2009onlyoneversionofthesoftwarewasused,andalldrinksfleetsusedtonnageastheirloadmeasure,aswasthecasein2007.Thetonnagemeasurecanonlyberegardedasprovidinganapproximationofloadvolumesinceinitselfitgivesnoindicationofloadmix,i.e.kegs/casks/cases,cans,bottlesetc.Howeveritiswidelyusedintheindustryandwasthemeasureusedbyallparticipants.2. EmptyRunningThisisthedistancewhichavehiclerunsempty,thatisnotcarryingproductorequipment,usuallythefinallegofajourneywhenthevehiclereturnstodepotormovesontoanotherpointatwhichitcollectsafurtherload.3. TimeUtilisationThiswasthemeasureofwhatvehiclesweredoingateachhourthroughthesampleperiod.Thesevencategoriesusedwere:runningontheroad,awaitingloading/unloading,beingloaded/unloaded,pre-loadedandawaitingdeparture,driverdaily(overnight)restperiod,vehicleidle(emptyandstationary)andmaintenanceorrepair.
Additionally,fortractorunitsonly,therewasrunningsolo(i.e.ontheroadbutwithoutasemi-trailer).4. Delays(formallytermedDeviationfrom
Schedule)ThisisthemeasureofthedelayssufferedbythevehiclesintheSurvey.Categoriesofdelaywere:lackofdriver,delayatvehiclesownbase/pointofdeparture,delayatacollectionpoint,delayatdeliverypoint,trafficdelay,vehiclebreakdown,vehicleaccident.5. FuelconsumptionDatawasrequestedforeachvehicletypewithintheSurvey.Performanceoverasustainedperiodwasrequiredandsodatacoveringthreewintermonthswasrequested.Theunitofmeasureforfuelconsumptionisagainmilespergallon.Operatorfeedbacksuggeststhatmilespergallon(mpg)isstillthemeasurewhichpeopleuseandrelatetomostreadily.TheSurveycoveredallaspectsofthemovementoffinishedfood,i.e.foodthatisreadyforsaleratherthanrawmaterials.Definitionswereprovidedforcompaniestakingpartsothattheallocationoffleetstoparticularpartsofthesupplychainwouldbeasconsistentaswasreasonablypracticable.Activitieswereseparatedinto:
Primary:Movementofsaleableproduct,workinprogress,returns,packagingorhandlingequipmentbetweenasupplierandfactory/factoryandNDC/NDCandcustomersRDC,HubdepotorWholesaledepotincludingC&CsSecondary:MovementofsaleableproductfromretailerRDCorFoodServiceHubdepotintoretailoutletorpickingdepot.Inaddition,thereturnofequipmentorgoodsfromoutlettoRDCorHub.Tertiary:Movementofsaleablegoodsfromafactory,regionalorpickingdepot,includingwholesaler,intothefinaloutletwhereproductisconsumedi.e.home,pubs&clubs,smallindependentcornershops,retailforecourtsorrestaurants
3
-
7/27/2019 Key Performance Indicators for Food and Drink Supply Chains 2009
9/28
Figure1 FoodDistributionChannels
2.1. SurveyStatistics Table2 Survey Statistics (drinks)Atotalof78fleets,frombothfoodanddrinkssectors,participatedintheSurvey.
2007 2009No.offleets 22 36TractorUnits 363 70Trailers 644 136RigidvehiclesJourneysTonnesdelivered
268956
12,716
374507
2,943Kilometrestravelled 172,028 95,311
Thefleetssurveyedcomprised1,436tractorunits,2,765trailers,and559rigidvehicles.Duringthe24hoursthefoodsectorvehiclesdeliveredover56thousandpalletequivalents,andthoseinthedrinkssectordelivered2,900tonnesofproduct.Totaldistancerunforbothgroupsofvehicleswasalmost800,000kilometres.Tables1and2showtheSurveyStatistics.
Table1 Survey Statistics (food)1998 2002 2007 2009
No.offleets 36 53 91 42TractorUnits 1,393 1,446 2,286 1,366Trailers 1,952 3,088 4,052 2,629Rigidvehicles 182 546 1,362 185Journeys/24hrs 2,012 3,034 7,064 2,499Palletsdelivered/24hrs 103,101 110,329 147,645 56,147Kilometrestravelled/24hrs 580,956 727,111 1,226,408 693,833
NBPriorto2007Surveyscoveredone. twodays,andtheSurveysin2007and2009coveredonly
4
-
7/27/2019 Key Performance Indicators for Food and Drink Supply Chains 2009
10/28
2.2 TheSurveyDayAsin2007theSurveycoveredasingleday.Activityonthesampleday(Thursday)comparedtotheremainderof
the
week
is
shown
in
Figure
2.
Figure2 Percentageofvolumedeliveredacrosstheweek
2.3 VehicleFillFoodThemeasurementofvehiclecapacityinthefoodsectorisrelativelycomplex.Vehicleswilleitherweightout,i.e.thepayloadlimitisreached,or,moreusually,theywillcubeouti.e.thevehicleisfilledbeforereachingitsallowedpayloadlimit.Forthissurvey,aswiththepreviousones,thefundamentalunitusedwasthepallet,beingregardedashavingbasedimensionsof1mby1.2m.Wherecompaniesuseddifferenthandlingmethodsrollcages,cartons,ordollieswithtoteboxesforinstancethenumberofthesecarriedwasconvertedintopalletequivalents,thatis1.2squaremetresofvehicledeck
space.TheSurveyalsoaskedfortonnagecarriedandforvehiclecarryingcapacity.Thesecondkeymeasurewastypicalheightofaloadwithinthevehicle.Participantswereaskedtoprovideanestimateofthetypicalloadheightprofileacrosstheiroperation.TherewasnorequirementtomeasureactualloadsonthedayoftheSurveyduetoanticipatedpracticaldifficulties,butmostoperatorswereabletosupplyrepresentativenumbersfortheirtypicalloadheightprofile.TheaverageheightusedonladentripsisshownbelowinFigure3Figure3 Distributionofheightsonloadedvehicletrips(food)
Theresults
show
that
many
companies
are
unable
to
fullyutilisethetypicalavailableheightwithinastandardvehicleofaround2.1metres,whichallowsforaircirculationintemperaturecontrolledvehicles.Acrossalltripsinthesurveyonthesampleday,themeanheightutilisationfigurewas68%,around4%lowerthanthatin2007Table3showsachangeinprofilesincethe2007survey,withmorevehiclesbeingloadedtoheightsoflessthan1.7m.Table3 Vehicle height utilisation (food) %age oftrips by height used
2007 2009under0.8m 5% 7%0.8 1.5m 28% 36%1.5m 1.7m 32% 29%Over1.7m 35% 28%
5
-
7/27/2019 Key Performance Indicators for Food and Drink Supply Chains 2009
11/28
Thisappearstobeanopportunityforsignificantimprovementbutthereareanumberofobstacleswhichpreventusingthecube.Theseincludeaninabilitytostackcertainproductsduetofragilityorinstability,orarequirementtosupplypalletsofaparticularheighttocustomers,oracustomerrequirementforsinglestackingtofacilitatetheirownhandlingmethodology.TheaverageutilisationatthestartofjourneysforeachfleetisshowninFigures4and5.Figure4 Averagedeckutilisationbyfleet(food)
Figure5 Averageweightutilisationbyfleet(food)
Takingallfoodtripswithinthesurveytheaverageutilisationatthestartofthejourney,measuredbyuseofdeckspace,was83.1%,andbyweightwas57.2%.Acrossthethreeactivitystreamsinfoodthelevelsofutilisation,measuredatthestartofthevehicles
journey,wereasshowninFigure6below.Figure6 Vehicleutilisationbyactivity(food)
DrinksTheaverageheightusedonladentripswithinthedrinkssectorisshownbelowinFigure7.Figure7 Distributionofheightsonloadedvehicletrips
(drinks)
Utilisationofheightwithindrinksfleetsistoalargeextentgovernedbymethodologyused.Manydrayoperationscarrykegsandcasksloosewithintheload,andsostacking,toanygreatextent,isnotpractical.Theprimaryfleets,deliveringmainlyintothefoodretailandwholesalesectorscanstackpalletsofcannedorbottleddrinks,andbytheuseoflocatorboards,canalsostackkegsandcasks.AcrossalljourneysintheSurveyonthesampledaythemeanheightutilisationfigurewas58%.
6
-
7/27/2019 Key Performance Indicators for Food and Drink Supply Chains 2009
12/28
Table4 Vehicle height Utilisation (drinks) %age oftrips by height utilised
under0.8m2007 200913% 6%
0.8 1.5m 48% 71%1.5m 1.7m 39% 21%Over1.7m 0% 2%
Withindrinksthemeasureusedforvehicleutilisationisweight,andFigure8showstheaverageweightutilisationatthestartofatripforeachfleet.
Figure8 Averageweightutilisationbyfleet(drinks)
TakingeverytripbyalldrinksvehicleswithintheSurveytheaverageweightutilisationwas56.7%.Inthecaseofdrinksvehicles,particularlydraysonpub/clubdeliveries,mostoperatorsusetonnageincludingkeg/caskbeerandbottledbeers,wines,spiritsandsoftdrinks)asameasureofvehiclefill.However,althoughkegsorcasksareheavy,thevehicles
rarely
use
their
full
weight
carrying
capability.
Vehicleoperatorsuseanotionalvehiclecapacity,intonnes,forloadplanning,basedontheirexperienceofwhatwillfitontovehicles.Thisnotionalcapacityisrarely,ifever,thesameasthevehicleslegalweightcarryingcapacity,andthereisoftenadifferenceofseveraltonnesonatypical17/18tvehicle.Duetotheinherentdifficultiesofhandlingandsecuring,kegsandcasksarerarelystackedondraysandsotheloadheightisusuallylow.
2.4 EmptyRunningEmptyrunningiswidelyseenasthebaneofcommercialvehicleoperationsinceitusuallyrepresentsmileagewhichisbeingrunwithoutdirectcommercialbenefitorpurpose,atbestreturningormovingontocollectanotherload.Ofthe789,000kilometresrunbythevehiclesduringtheSurvey,just22.9%offoodvehiclekilometreswereempty,whilethecorrespondingnumberfordrinkswas19.5%.Theseshowaslightimprovementsince2007whenthecorrespondingfigureswere23.7%and20.3%.Thequestionofemptyrunningismademorecomplicatedinthefoodsectorbytheusebymanyretailersofroll-cagesfortheinboundsupplytotheirstores.HavingbeendeliveredtostoreswithproducttheymustofcoursebereturnedtoDistributionCentresforre-filling.Thisreturnjourneytakesupavehiclesloadspace,evenwhentheroll-cagedesignallowsthecagestobenestedwhenempty.Sincethecageisemptyitcanbearguedthatthevehicleisalsoempty,sinceitcarriesnosaleableproduct,andthatthecarriageofemptyroll-cagesistheresultofthemodeofdeliveryoperationchosenbythatretailer.Thealternativeviewisthatavehicleloadedwithemptyroll-cagesisfull.Whatevertheview,inpracticethecarriageofemptyrollcagestakesupspaceandpreventsthecarriageofother,usuallypalletisedgoods,suchasnewproductfromasupplier.Theproportionofemptykilometresrun,i.e.thosewithoutanyproduct,isshowninFigure9.Figure9 Proportionofkilometresrunempty,(food)
7
-
7/27/2019 Key Performance Indicators for Food and Drink Supply Chains 2009
13/28
Emptyrunningisaninevitablepartofvehicleoperationinthefoodsectorandtheextentofitisdependentonboththenatureofthejourneyprimary,secondaryortertiaryandonthewaythatvehicledeliveryroutesareplannedandexecuted.Aprimaryroutemayinvolveafullloaddeliverytoasinglepointandthenareturn.Ifnoarrangementsforabackloadaremadethen50%emptyrunningwillresult.Asecondaryortertiarydeliveryroutewillusuallyrunthelastlegempty,butthelengthofthatlastleg,andhencetheproportionofemptyrunningcandependonthewaythatthejourneyisplanned.Ifdeliveriesaredoneontheoutboundpartofthejourney,upto50%(returningmileage)maybeempty,whereasrunningouttothefurthestpointandoffloadingonthewaybackmayleaveonlyashortemptylegbacktobaseafterthelastdrop.Table5givesthepercentageofemptymilesbyactivityforthefoodsector.Table5 Empty running by activity (food).Activity
%
of
kms
empty
PrimarySecondaryTertiary
24.922.415.9
Inthecaseofthedrinkssectorthereturnofemptykegsandcasksisinevitable.Theyaretheonlymeansofsupplyingdraftbeersandlagersandfartooexpensivetobeanythingotherthanreturnable.Theamountofemptyrunningwithinthedrinkssectoris
verymuchlessthaninfood,withmanyofthedrinksfleetsnotrecordingany,duetothereturnofkegsandcasks.TheextentisshownbelowinFigure10.
Figure10 Proportionofkilometresrunempty,byfleet(drinks)
2.5. TimeUtilisationVehicleactivityoverthe24hourperiodwasmeasuredbyrecordingthemainactivityofeachvehicleforeachhouroftheSurvey.Trailersandrigidsinthefoodsectorspent23%ofthetimerunningontheroad(Figure11),afigurewhichissignificantlylowerthanthatrecordedin2007.AlthoughvehicleoperationisseenasbeingasubstantialexpensetheSurveyshowsthat,inthefoodsector,vehiclesspendslightlylesstime(47%)activeontheroad,loading/unloading,ordelayedthantheydoinactive.Againthisisareductiononthenumbersseeninthe2007Survey.
Figure11 Vehicleactivities(trailersandrigids)(food)
8
-
7/27/2019 Key Performance Indicators for Food and Drink Supply Chains 2009
14/28
Figure12 Vehicleactivities(tractorunits)(food)
Thecomparisonsaboveclearlyshowthebenefitofusingarticulatedcombinationswherethetimespentontheroadbytractorunitswas44%comparedwithjust23%forrigidsandtrailers.Thefiguresfortrailerandrigidactivitiesinthedrinkssectorareshownbelow.Figure13 Vehicleactivities(trailersandrigids)(drinks)
Figure14 Vehicleactivities(tractorunits)(drinks)
Separationofvehiclesintoactivities,i.e.primary,secondaryandtertiaryshowsanumberofdifferences.Inprimaryoperationsvehiclesspend23%oftheirtimeidleandstationary,whereasinbothsecondaryandtertiarytheidletimewasaround33%.Itmightbeexpectedthatprimaryvehicleswouldbespendingmoretimeontheroadsincefactorytodepotoperationsoffermoreopportunitiesforefficientloadscheduling.Withinthe2009samplegrouphowevertheconversewastruewith21%oftimeontheroadcomparedwith38%fortertiary.Notablythetertiaryvehiclesspentrelativelylittletimeloadingandunloading,perhapssupportingtheimageofanumberofsmalldrops,usuallycarriedoutbythedriver,atadeliverypointwherethevehicleisliabletocause
obstruction
and
there
is
every
incentive
to
have
itquicklyonitsway.Figure15 Vehicleutilisationbyactivity(food)
Thedataalsoenablesustoconsiderthespreadofactivitiesacrossthe24hourperiodandthedifferenceshereareverymarked.Figures16,17and18showmarkeddifferencesinlevelsofactivityover24hoursacrosstheprimary,secondaryandtertiaryfleets.Whilstthenumbersareslightlydifferenttothoseobtainedin2007theoverallprofilesremainverysimilar.
9
-
7/27/2019 Key Performance Indicators for Food and Drink Supply Chains 2009
15/28
Figure16 Timeutilisationprimaryfleets(food)
Figure17 Timeutilisationsecondaryfleets(food)
Figure18 Timeutilisationtertiaryfleets(food)
10
-
7/27/2019 Key Performance Indicators for Food and Drink Supply Chains 2009
16/28
Whilsttheactivityofprimaryfleetsisspreadrelativelyevenlyacrossthewhole24hourssecondaryfleetactivityismorevaried.Thereissubstantialactivityacrossthewholeperiodbutwithaclearincreaseinactivitystartingataround04:00,andagentleandconsistentdeclinefromaround13:00.Thisprofileissomewhatflatterthanin2007.Theprofilefortertiaryactivitiesisalsosomewhatflatterthanin2007withmoreactivitytakingplaceinthehoursfrom12:00onwards.The2009datastillsshowsapredominantlydayoperationhoweverwithapeakoccurringinthehoursbetween07:00and10:00.Figure19 Standardpalletsdeliveredineachhour(food)
Thesurveyalsoshowsthepatternsofactivitywithinthedifferenttemperatureregimes.Allthreeregimesshowapeakduringtheearlypartoftheday,butitismostmarkedinmultitemperatureoperations.Thisisincontrastto2007whentheclearpeakwasindeliveryofchilledproduct.Itispossibleofcoursethatmuchofthemixed
product
being
delivered
in
the
early
hours
of
thedaywaschilled.Thiswouldalignmorecloselywith
2007andalsoconformwiththeexpectationthatmostchilledproduceisfreshandisrequiredtobeinshopsatthestartoftheday.Overallthefourprecedingfiguresshowthatalthoughmuchactivitydoestakeplaceoutofhourstherearestillmarkedpeaks.Evenallowingfortheneedforretailerstomanagetheirstocksandstaffinglevelseffectively,andforcommercialvehiclestooperateinharmonywithlocalresidents,theresultssuggestthatthereisstillanopportunityforthesectorasawholetolookagainatfurtheroutofhoursdeliveries.Figure20 Tonnesdeliveredineachhour(drinks)
Figures21to23showthepatternsofactivityacrossthedayinthedrinkssector.Withinprimarytheactivity,aswithfood,isspreadacrossthedayalthoughmuchoftheloadingandoffloadingactivityisdonewithinthenormalworkingday.Inbothsecondaryandtertiarytheactivitiesarepredominantlycarriedoutintheday,withsomepreloadingbeingdoneoutofhourssothatvehiclescanbedespatchedpromptlyduringtheearlymorning.Wheredeliveriesarebeingmadetopubsthesetakeplacealmostexclusivelyduringafairlynarrowtimeband,drivenbywhatisacceptabletopublicanstofitinwiththeiropeninghours.
11
-
7/27/2019 Key Performance Indicators for Food and Drink Supply Chains 2009
17/28
Figure21 Timeutilisationprimaryfleets(drinks)
Figure22 Timeutilisationsecondaryfleets(drinks)
12
-
7/27/2019 Key Performance Indicators for Food and Drink Supply Chains 2009
18/28
Figure23 Timeutilisationtertiaryfleets(drinks)
2.6. Delays(DeviationsfromSchedule)
Delaysincurredinvehiclejourneyscontinuetobeamajorfactorinplanningtransportoperations,anditislikelythatthiswillbecomeevermoreimportantasoperators
seek
to
utilise
spare
capacity
on
return
legs.
Ofallcausesofdelaytrafficcongestionistheonewhichhasthehighestprofile,especiallyintheeyesofthepublic.Inpracticehoweverdelayscausedbytrafficcongestionarejustpartofamuchbroaderproblem.Inthefoodsectorin2009trafficcongestioncaused26%ofthedelaysincurred.Thisisactuallyafallcomparedwiththe2007figureof32%,althoughthismaybedueinparttorecordingdelaysonawholejourneybasisratherthanlegbyleg.Minordelayduetotrafficmay
wellhavebeenrecordedagainstindividuallegsin2007andoverlookedin2009if,inthedriverseyes,itwasdwarfedbyamoresubstantialdelay.Formanydriversthiswillseemcounterintuitivebutitmaybetheresultofbetterplanningthroughgreaterknowledgeoftrafficconditionsandroadspeeds,andtheuseofthisknowledgeinfinetuningcomputervehiclerouteschedulingsystems.Itmayalsobedueinparttothegeneralbeliefthattrafficvolumeshavefallensomewhatduetofuelpricesandtheimpactoftherecessionongenerallevelsofroadactivity.Theseviewsareofcoursespeculativebuttheresultsshowthat70%offoodsectordelayswerecausedbyowncompanyaction,orbyproblemsincurredinmakingdeliveriesorcollections.AsinthepreviousSurveythesenumberssuggestthattheopportunityforimprovementliesintheareasoverwhichmanagementhassomecontrol.Clearlythisisnotasimpleissuesincedeliveryandcollectionpointsaregenerallyverybusyandsubjecttodisruptionbutneverthelessthesearetheactivitieswhichgenerateovertwothirdsofthedelays.WhilstcomparisonswithpreviousSurveyscanbeunreliableitisperhapsworthnotingthatthepercentageofdelayscausedbydeliveryproblemshasincreasedfrom26%in2007to39%in2009.
13
-
7/27/2019 Key Performance Indicators for Food and Drink Supply Chains 2009
19/28
Figure24 Delaybynumberofoccurrences(food)
Figure25 Averagelengthofdelaybycause(food)
Onaverage,adelaylastedforonehourandthreeminutes,anincreaseof12minutesover2007,whichwasitselfanincreaseofeightminuteson2002.Thelengthiestdelayswerethosecausedbyvehiclebreakdown,incontrasttolackofdriverin2007.Thecombinationoflengthofdelayandnumberofoccurrencesgivesameasureofoverallimpact.Thepictureisverysimilartothatobtainedfromlookingatoccurrences,withatotalof78%oftimelostbeingincurredatownpremisesanddeliveryandcollectionpoints.Withinthedrinkssectorthenumberslooksomewhatdifferent,partlybecauseofthenatureofthework.
Figure26 Totallengthofdelaybycause(food) Inthecaseofdraysthevehiclesaresubjecttomanyofthesamedelaysexperiencedbyvehiclesinthefoodsector.Formany,however,thereistheopportunitytominimisetheeffectofdelaysatoffloadingpointsbymovingontothenextcustomer,andthenreturningtotheonethatwasnotreadytoreceiveadelivery.Thisinformalityisnotgenerallyavailablewithinthefoodsector,butcanbeusefulwhereconsecutivedeliveriesaregeographicallyclose.Theotherelementofpubdeliveriesisthatitisnotunusualfordraycrewstodeliveroutofsequencewheretheybelievethatthiswillbebeneficial.Thismayormaynotbringbenefitsinefficiencybutitinvariablymakesitdifficulttoassessdelays,andtounderstand
14
-
7/27/2019 Key Performance Indicators for Food and Drink Supply Chains 2009
20/28
theeffectivenessofplannedroutesandopportunitiestoimprovethem.Figure27 Delaybynumberofoccurrences(drinks)
Forallthedifferencesinthesectorhowevertheoverallpictureremainsverysimilartothatfoundinfood.WhilstthereportingofdelaywasnotasFigure28 Averagelengthofdelaybycause(drinks)
Figure29 Totallengthofdelaysbycause(drinks)
comprehensiveitisstillclearthatthemajorityofdelays,58%arecausedbydeliveryandcollectionproblems.Comparedtothefoodsectortheaveragedelaywasslightlylongeratonehourand19minutes,withcollectionproblemscausingthelongestdelay.Combiningnumberofdelayswithlengthofdelay,aswithfood,doesnotchangetheoverallpicturebyverymuchwithcollectionanddeliveryproblemsaccountingfor61%oftimelost.
2.7 ConsumptionandEnergyEfficiency
FuelConsumptionFuelconsumptiondatawasrequestedfortheperiodOctober2008January2009.Itwasconsideredworthwhilespecifyingathreemonthperiodtoallowsufficientsmoothingofcompanydatatogivearepresentativefigure,butalsotominimisetheeffectofvehiclereplacementprogrammeshadalongerperiodbeenrequested.Theoverallresultswere:
Table6 Fuel consumption by vehicle type(mpg)(food)1998 2002 2007 2009
Smallrigid 11.3(4.0) 13.1(4.7) 15.4(5.5)Mediumrigid 10.4(3.7) 10.2(3.6) 9.8(3.5) 11.5(4.1)Largerigid 10.4(3.7) 8.8(3.1) 10.4(3.7) 10.1(3.6)Drawbar 8.8(3.1) 7.2(2.5)Urbanartic 9.0(3.2) 9.0(3.2) 8.5(3.0) 10.0(3.5)Mediumartic 8.8(3.1) 9.0(3.2) 9.3(3.3) 8.8(3.1)Largeartic 8.2(2.9) 8.2(2.9) 8.6(3.0) 8.5(3.0)
(Table6showskms/litrefiguresinbrackets)Aswithmostoftheotherdatagathereddirectcomparisonswithprevioussurveysisunreliabledueto
15
-
7/27/2019 Key Performance Indicators for Food and Drink Supply Chains 2009
21/28
thecompositionofthesamplegroupandthetypeofworkandjourneysundertaken.Howeveritisworthnotingthatinonlythreevehiclecategoriessmallandmediumrigidsandcityarticshasfuelconsumptionimproved.Largearticsreturnedthesamefigureas2007,withlargerigidsandmediumarticsshowingadeterioration.Table7 Fuel consumption by vehicle type(mpg)(drinks)
2007 2009Smallrigid 15.1(5.3) 15.8(5.6)Mediumrigid 8.0(2.8) 10.7(3.8)Largerigid 8.2(2.9) 10.0(3.5)DrawbarUrbanartic 7.0(2.5) 8.5(3.0)Mediumartic 8.7(3.1)Largeartic 8.6(3.0) 8.3(3.0)
(Table7showskms/litrefiguresinbrackets)
Asin2007fuelconsumptioninthedrinkssectorwaspoorerthanfoodinallvehiclecategories,exceptsmallrigids.Thismaybeduetothenatureofthework,i.e.shortjourneyswithlargenumberofdeliveriesinpredominantlyurbanareasinthecaseofdrayvehiclesandrunningatfairlyhighweightsinthecaseofprimaryactivities.Comparedwith2007thefiguresshowanimprovementinallvehicletypesexceptformaximumweightartics.Figure30 Fuelconsumptionbyvehicletype(food)
Withinseveralvehicletypesthereisawiderangeoffuelconsumptionlevels,whichthisyearappliestoallvehicletypes.Therangewillbecausedbyanumberofissuesincludingthetypeofjourneyundertaken,weightofproductcarried,andthepowerusedbyancillaryequipmentespeciallyrefrigerationunits.Thenumbersdosuggestthatfuelcontinuestobeanaspectofvehicleoperationwhichmustattractmanagementattention.Thenatureoftheworkprobablycannotchangebuttherangeoffuelconsumptionfiguresreportedsuggeststhattheremaybeopportunitiesforimprovement.Correspondingdatafordrinksisshownbelow.Figure31 Fuelconsumptionbyvehicletype(drinks)
EnergyEfficiencyItisnowovertenyearssincetheKyotoagreementwasfirstnegotiated,significantlyraisingtheprofile,forbusinessesandindividuals,oftheneedtoreduceCO2emissions.RecognitionoftheneedhasfurtherincreasedinthetwoyearssincethelastSurveyandanumberofmajorbusinesseswithinthesectorhaveundertakenchangestothewaythattheyoperate.Inconsideringsupplychainemissionsitwillalwaysbenecessarytoevaluatethewholesupplychain,ofwhichtransportisjustpart.Itmaybethatthemosteffectivemeansofproducinganddeliveringfoodtotheconsumer,fromanenvironmentalpointofview,doesinvolvetransportingfoodoverlongdistances.Whatisimportantforthetransportoperatoristhateachtransportoperationisrunasefficientlyaspossible,andthatemissionsaretherebyminimised.
16
-
7/27/2019 Key Performance Indicators for Food and Drink Supply Chains 2009
22/28
Ithasalwaysbeendifficulttomakemeaningfulcomparisonsoftransportefficiencybetweendifferentoperations.Therearemanyvariableswhichwillaffectanymeasureused,including:
thenatureandgeographicalrangeoftheworkundertakenefficiency
of
load
planning
how
is
time
utilised?
thecorrectspecificationofvehiclesaretheytherightsizeandtype? itisveryeasytofillvehicleswhicharesmallerthantheyshouldbethefuelconsumptionachievedbythosevehicles.
Allofthesefactorsaffectefficiency,i.e.theamountoffuelusedinmovingoneunitofloadfromorigintodestination.InthelasttwoSurveysacompositemeasurepalletkmsperlitrewasusedinordertobringsomeofthevariablestogether.Ithasnotbeenclearthatthismeasurehasmetwithagreatdealofacceptancesimplybecauseitcombineselementswithoutcreatingaclearandinformativepicture.For2009twodifferentmeasureshavebeenusedtowhichwebelieveoperatorswillmorereadilyrelate.Thesearelitresperunitdeliveredandkilometresperunitdelivered,thefirstofwhichisshownbelow.Thechartshowsarangeofvaluesandsincedistanceandcircumstanceswillvarythereislittleapparent
Figure32 LitresusedandCO2emissionsperpalletdelivered(food)
correlationbetweenprimary,secondaryandtertiaryoperations.Whenconsideringtheenvironmentalimpactofthewaythatfoodsupplychainsareconstructed,furthermeasureswillbecomeimportant,andfoodmilesremainsaheadlinemeasure.Thistypeofsurveycannotreadilyidentifyfoodmilessinceitdoesnotfollowfoodthroughoutitsentiresupplychain.Asin2007wedohoweverhavemeasuresofthenumberofmilesruninmovingaquantityofgoodswithinthefinishedgoodspartofthesupplychain.Figure35showstheaveragefiguresforeachfleetbyactivity.Incontrastto2007thisSurveyhasnotshownagoodcorrelationbetweenactivitieswhichperhapsmighthavebeenexpected.The2007resultsgenerallyshowedtertiaryfleetsgeneratinghighkms/palletfigures,due,presumably,topredominantuseofsmallvehicles,whereasprimaryfleets,typicallycarryingat
17
-
7/27/2019 Key Performance Indicators for Food and Drink Supply Chains 2009
23/28
Figure33 Distancetravelled- kms/loadedpallet(food)
least26palletsforeachkilometrerecordedlowerfigures.Overallthefiguresarelowerthistimewithsomefleetsexceeding50kmsperpalletin2007.NBFigures32and33refertopallets.Inmanycasesthisisthewaythatparticipantsreportedthroughput.Insomecaseshoweverotherunitshavebeenused,rollcagesortraysforinstances,andforthesefleetsquantitieshavebeenconvertedtopalletequivalents.Thecorrespondinggraphsforthedrinkssector,wherethroughputwasexclusivelymeasuredintonnes,areshownbelow.
Figure34 LitresusedandCO2emissionspertonne(drinks)
Figure35 Distancetravelled- kmspertonne(drinks)
18
-
7/27/2019 Key Performance Indicators for Food and Drink Supply Chains 2009
24/28
2.8 OperatingRestrictionsIn2007theSurveycovered,forthefirsttime,theextenttowhichfleetoperationswereaffectedbylocalauthorityrestrictionsorbyrestrictionsplacedbycustomers.Thiswasrepeatedin2009.Deliveryrestrictionshavesignificantimpactwith53%offoodfleetsand92%ofdrinksfleetsreportingcustomerdeliverytimerestrictions.Thesecomparewith40%and59%respectivelyin2007.Theextentoftherestrictionsisshownbelow.
Figure36 %ofcustomerswithdeliveryrestrictions(food)
Figure37 %ofcustomerswithdeliveryrestrictions(drinks)
Participantswerealsoaskedfortheextentoftheimpactofparkingfinesandtollsontheiroperation.
50fleetsreportedannualcostsincurred,witharangefrom30toover77thousandpounds.Therangeisshownbelow.Figure38 Finesandchargesbyfleet
2.9 FuelUseandEmissionsStandards
Participantswereaskedtospecifythetypeoffuelused,and,wheremorethanonetypewasusedtheratiobetweenthetypes.Therewerenofleetswithinthedrinkssectorusinganythingotherthanstandardspecificationdiesel.Amongstthefoodfleetsfivewereoperatingsolelyonbio-diesel.Afurtherfourfleetswereusingacombinationofstandarddieselandbio,oneofwhomwasalsousingasmallquantityofcompressednaturalgas.Inansweringthequestionparticipantswereaskedtoignorethesmallamountofbiowhichisincludedinalldiesel,andonlytoclaimuseofbioiftheywereusingafuelwithahigherpercentageofbiocontent.
19
-
7/27/2019 Key Performance Indicators for Food and Drink Supply Chains 2009
25/28
SincethelastSurveythelimitsonvehicleemissionshavebeenfurthertightened.WhilstEuroIIwasbecomingthenormin2002,by2009ithasbecomevirtuallyextinct.IndeedthedominanceofEuroIIIin2007hasbeenrapidlyeroded,andin2009thecombinedtotalforEuroIVandEuroVexceededEuroIIIby15%.Figure39showstherateofchange.Figure39 EuroEmissionStandardsofSurveyedVehicles
20
-
7/27/2019 Key Performance Indicators for Food and Drink Supply Chains 2009
26/28
3 Conclusions3.1 LevelsofEfficiencyVehicleFillTheamountofproductcarried,orvehiclefill,isoneofthemostimportantmeasuresofutilisationandhenceefficiency.Inmostcasesvehiclescarryingfoodproductswillbefullintermsofvolumeusedbeforethevehiclereachesitsweightcarryingcapacity.Comparedwiththe2007Surveytheuseofheightwithinvehicleshasdeteriorated.The2009Surveyhadmoreloadswithlessthan0.8mofthevehiclesheightused,7%comparedwith5%,and28%oftripshadproductover1.7mcomparedwith35%.Utilisationofvehicledeckspaceincreasedfromanaverageof75%toanaverageof83%.Weightutilisationsawafurtherslightincreasefrom55%to57%.Thedrinkssectorissubstantiallydifferent.Theproductisheavyand,inmanydrayoperationswithamixofproductbeingdelivered,isnotoriouslydifficulttostack.Averageweightutilisationwas57%,whichisverymuchlowerthanin2007.EmptyRunningEmptyrunningisseenasameasureofseriousvehicleinefficiencyandmostcompanieswilltrytoeliminateitsince,almostbydefinition,vehiclescannotbeearningrevenuewhenrunningempty.Inpracticethelevelofemptyrunningwilloftendependonthetypeofoperationbeingconsidered,butalsowithinoperations,onthewayinwhichvehicleroutesareplanned.Multidroploadstendtohavethelowestemptyrunningsinceonlythelastlegisempty.Thatlastlegcan,however,
bealongoneifdeliveriesaremadeontheoutwardjourney,withthelastdropatthefurthestpoint.In2007thelevelsofemptyrunningaveragedaround24%forthefoodfleetsand20%fordrinks.In2009thecorrespondingfigureswere23%forfoodand19%forthedrinksfleets.TimeUtilisationSomemeasuresoftimeutilisationareworsethanthosein2007withtractors,trailersandrigidsinthefoodsectorspendinglesstimeontheroad.Idletimefortractorunitshasincreasedslightly,butreducedfortrailersandrigids.Inthedrinkssectorvehiclesspentmoretimeontheroadandincurredlessidletime.Takenacrossthedayitisclearthatprimarymovementshaveremainedalargely24houroperation.Secondaryoperationsarenowspreadacross24hourswithaclearpeakduringtheperiodwhichmightberegardedasanormalworkingday.Tertiaryoperationsaresubstantiallyadayoperation,butaremovingtowardsasevendayweek.DelaysThedataforDelaysshowsmixedresultswhencomparedwith2007.Theproportionofdelayscausedbycongestioninthefoodsectorwas26%,downfrom32%,andthetimelostwas15%downfrom19%.Inthedrinkssectorthecongestioncaused25%ofdelays,upfrom21%,and17%oflosttimecomparedwith13%.Theremaybeanumberofreasonsforthis,suchasimprovedvehicleroutingandschedulingpackagesandthepossibilitythattrafficlevelshavefallenduetofuelpricesandrecession.Itisalsolikely,thoughnotquantifiable,thatlowerroadspeedsarebeingusedinplanningsystems,i.e.congestionisplannedintovehiclerouting.
21
-
7/27/2019 Key Performance Indicators for Food and Drink Supply Chains 2009
27/28
Themostimportantmessageforbothsectorshoweveristhatmostdelays,andmosttimelost,occurofftheroadduringloadingandunloading,andnotontheroad.FuelConsumptionIn2007theSurveysuggestedthatoverallfuelconsumptionofvehicleswithinthefoodsectorhadnotimproveddrasticallysincethefirstsurveyin1998,butin2009thepictureissomewhatvaried.Forrigidvehiclestherehasbeensomeimprovement,bothinthefoodanddrinkssectors.Lightweightarticulatedvehiclesshowedimprovementinbothfoodanddrinks,butinthelargervehiclestheresultsremainedsimilartoor
worse
than
2007.
ThereasonsfortheselevelsofchangecannotbereadilyidentifiedfromtheSurvey.Therewillhavebeenmanychangesinthenatureofthefoodsupplychainssince1998,anditisalmostcertainthatthemixofthefleetswhichhavetakenpartinthelastthreeSurveyswillhavechanged.Withinsomeparticipantsthereisaviewthatfuelconsumptionimprovementswillinevitablyplateauasemissionsstandardscontinuetotighten,andalsothatthereisafuelconsumptionpenaltyintheuseofbiofuel.
3.2 SummaryInsummarytheresultsshow:
Opportunitiesappeartoexistforimprovementinvehicleutilisationintermsofloadheight.Theaveragefill,byarea,of83%alreadybeingachievedinthefoodfleets,andthelimitationsimposedbycustomerservicerequirementswillprobablymakefurtherprogressincreasinglydifficult.Emptyrunningappearstohavedecreasedslightlyinbothfoodanddrinksfleets.Timeutilisationremainsanissuewithtrailersandrigidvehiclesrunningontheroadforlessthanonethirdoftheiravailabletime.Infoodtertiaryanddrinksupplychainsmostoftheactivitytakesplaceduringtheday,offeringmoreopportunityforoutofhoursdeliveries.Thisismuchlessthecaseinsecondaryoperations.Primaryactivitiesarealreadywellspreadacrossthewhole24hours.Vehicleoperationsstillexperiencedelaysduetotrafficcongestionbutthebiggestimpact,asin2007,iscausedbydelayswithinsuppliersorcustomerspremisesratherthanbytrafficcongestion.Theproportionofdelayscausedbytrafficcongestion
was
lower
in
the
food
sector
but
higherinthedrinkssectorwhencomparedwith2007.Therehavebeenchangesinthelevelsoffuelconsumptionachievedwithbetterresultsfromrigidvehicles,butlittleoverallimprovementfromtractorunits.Theadventofsevendaytradingledtotransportactivitiesbecomingmoreevenlydistributedacrosstheweek.However,SaturdayandSundaytrafficaccountedforslightlylessactivitythanin2007.
22
-
7/27/2019 Key Performance Indicators for Food and Drink Supply Chains 2009
28/28
Freight Best Practice publications, including those listed below, can be obtained
FREE of charge by calling the Hotline on 0845 877 0 877 or by downloading
them from the website www.freightbestpractice.org.uk
SavingFUEL
Fuel Management Guide
This is the definitive guide to improving the fuel
performance of your fleet. It gives step-by-step
explanations of the key elements of fuel management,
how to measure performance and how to implement
an effective improvement programme.
DevelopingSKILLS
Power to Your People
This case study provides examples of change
management and motivational techniques employed to
improve efficiency and morale in three transport
operations.
Equipment & SYSTEMS
Make Back-loading Work for You
This guide shows you how to find and choose
backloads in order to improve your fleet efficiency.
Performance MANAGEMENT
Monitoring and Understanding CO2 Emissions
from Road Freight Operations
This guide provides step by step advice for creating a
comprehensive CO2 inventory and the benefits this
can bring. It provides templates to enable the reader to
monitor the amount of CO2 produced by its Trucks,
Vans, Warehouses, MHE and Company Cars.
Multi-MODAL
Interactive Multi-modal Map coming soon
This map allows you to identify terminals that could be
used to transfer loads from road to either rail or water
(or both). The map provides details on where these
terminals are located, who operates them and how to
contact them. It should be your first port of call to
transferring to alternative modes of transport.
Case STUDIES
There are over 25 case studies showing how
companies have implemented best practice and the
savings achieved including:
Short Haul Rail Freighton Track for Profits in
Scotland
Switch for Sustainability
Tesco Sets the Pace on Low Carbon and Efficiency
9 781848 640474
ISBN 978-1-84864-047-4