Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
Trends in Yard
Management
Systems
March 2010
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Editor’s Note ..................................................................................................................................................................3
Business Profile, Organizational Roles & Supply Chain Service Involvement | .........................................................6
Question 3: Does your organization purchase/utilize OR provide/coordinate supply chain services? .................8
Question 4: If you chose "Purchase/Utilize", what is your organization's annual supply chain budget?..............9
Question 5: If you chose "Provide/Coordinate", what is your organization's annual supply chain budget? ......10
Question 6: If you chose “Provide/Coordinate”, what is your organization’s primary service role? ..................11
Question 7: Types of Equipment Managed through your Yards and Facilities ...................................................12
Question 10: What Percentage of your Yards and Facilities use an electronic Yard Management System? .....15
Question 11: How would you rate your experience with your existing Yard Management System? .................16
Question 12: Which technology platforms currently touch your yard and facility operations? .........................17
Question 13: Satisfaction ratings for each tech. category applicable to your yard and facilities management .18
Question 14: What type of Functionality do you look for in a Yard Management System? ...............................19
Question 15: When do you plan on investing in a Yard Management System? ..................................................20
Confidentiality .....................................................................................................................................................22
EDITOR’S NOTE
March, 2010
The research was brief, precisely focused and designed in the form of a 15 question
survey distributed online to a targeted list of supply chain professionals. Although the
brevity of the survey indicated that the results would merely be a temperature check of
current opinions on the subject, we found that the responses yielded much richer
results and correlations than initially anticipated.
Thank you to all the respondents that made this study possible and I hope that you
find the results as interesting and useful as we did.
Marc A. Brazeau
Principal
AutoDiversity Management inc. (ADMi)
As part of that exercise, many companies have begun looking at those areas that
traditionally have low operating margins and therefore have lower returns than other
larger scale supply chain initiatives. One of those areas where ADMi is seeing a lot of
activity and investment in is yard management systems. Yard management refers to the
‘first’ and ‘last’ mile activities that happen with any number of change of custody
locations; ports, containers, trucking activity, cross-docks, manufacturing points,
distribution centers and motor vehicle storage yards, which seem fairly straightforward
on the surface (thus the low operating margins), however, represent a critical piece in
the supply chain and in just-in-time inventory management.
ADMi worked with several Global supply chain publications to develop the
distribution list for our 2010 Trends in Yard Management Systems survey during the
months of December 2009 and January 2010, distributing the questionnaire to
subscribers across nine industries. Participants were asked to assess the interest in,
need for and effectiveness of yard management systems in their organization. Survey
responses were collected through the first week in February then analyzed and
summarized at an aggregate level.
Respondent Profile |
Survey participants were drawn from nine global industries, all of which rely heavily
on supply chain networks. Respondents were targeted through the Global subscription
lists of 2 major supply chain magazines and identified as recognized decision makers
that would be interested in participating in this survey.
• Responses from the United Kingdom, the European Union, North America, Asia,
and Africa
The opening question profiled the primary business interest of respondents. The
2010 Trends in Yard Management Systems Survey (YMS) captures data from a wide
array of industries though, not surprisingly, High Tech and Supply Chain Services
represent over 50% of respondents. What is unexpected is that these numbers and
those for Manufacturing & Processing (15%) and Transportation Providers (13%) were
not higher given the narrow focus of the survey on a very tactical piece of the supply
chain.
The interest shown by the High Tech sector (20%) which comprises mostly software
and application development organizations is a strong indicator of commercial interest
in the development of YMS applications, management hardware, and support
technologies for this market.
With 44% of the respondents either beneficiaries or support developers, the study
highlights the increasing importance and focus on what many consider the “weak link’ in
supply chain management function and implies a burgeoning willingness to support YMS
initiatives that result in greater investment in R&D and the emergence of tools to allow
service providers to improve efficiency and derive further savings in this traditionally
low-margin segment of the supply chain.
This question identifies the roles of the respondents and provides insight into who
may have input into Yard Management decisions.
As per Fig. 2, although fairly equal distribution was found among the top three
respondent roles the survey illustrates that decision makers at the C-Level/Executive The study highlights the
and IT levels far outweigh the participation rate from actual Supply Chain Strategy and
Operations personnel (36%). This finding runs counter-intuitive to the research
increasing focus on the
expectations of a high number of respondents that would have hands-on experience or “weak link” in SCM and a
responsibility with the operations management of a truck or trailer yard taking the lead
willingness to support
in responding. These results, demonstrating the involvement of these respondents to
this survey, indicate a high interest, or timeliness, in considering re-investment in the YMS
Yard Management sector.
Finally the participation of IT Management hints at the current landscape for yard
management systems; historically, YMS were developed in-house as an extension of
existing warehouse management or freight payment systems, however, the increased
pace of development over the past 10 years coupled with the emergence of off-the-
shelf alternatives provides organizations with additional development and support
options for their existing legacy systems.
Although response rates indicate a slight slant towards service providers, the
important finding is the fairly equitable distribution of responses from both companies
providing supply chain services (59%) and those purchasing supply chain services (41%),
providing a fairly balanced opinion base for the remaining survey questions.
This question establishes the significance of the annual spend on supply chain
operations. The YMS survey illustrates that regardless of an organization’s annual
budget for most the supply chain costs represents a significant overhead.
Based on feedback, smaller companies are leading the charge towards exploiting
the opportunities provided by effective yard management advancements. Fifty percent
of all respondents have a supply chain budget of under $10 million per year.
Based on feedback,
smaller companies are
leading the charge
Larger companies, those with budgets greater than $100 million, represented the
smallest group of respondents while mid-sized companies, grouped by three different
spend categories, equally split the remaining responses. This breakdown makes sense
given the focus on improving a relatively small, though critical, piece of the supply chain
and the following considerations:
As depicted earlier in Fig. 3, 59% of the respondents are providers and coordinators
of supply chain services
The survey revealed that 26% of the respondents both purchased, and provided
supply chain services. These companies need to fully understand the importance of
developing tools to improve efficiencies and capitalize on re-engineering efforts. They
stand to benefit the most by improving profit margins and becoming more competitive
in the marketplace.
The response to this question highlights the organizational roles that are
demonstrating a greater interest in Yard Management systems. The top three
functions, which make up over 80% of the respondents, will be evaluating the latest
available yard management technology and its capabilities.
Chief respondents are companies that provide 3PL Services (33%), indicating either
an interest in improving current horizontally integrated abilities, investing in operational
capability or investigating emerging technologies as a matter of strategy.
Here again, we see a tremendous interest from the IT Systems and Services sector
in the service provider category. This sector indicates a strong interest in emerging
technology for this area and where IT Systems and Services can integrate further down
the supply chain from CRM to ERP to WMS to TMS and finally YMS.
Consulting Services demonstrates the third highest interest and plays a significant
role in identifying, promoting and supporting emerging supply chain technologies. Their
interest in YMS is not surprising given the potential revenue streams created by
software integration and support engagements.
Trucking and Vessel Services, as well as Others (Express Couriers and LTL providers)
make up the remaining respondents. These categories interface with YMS to either
receive instructions from, or provide input to, specific yard management systems
streamlining delivery and receipt of goods, and ensuring effective scheduling of
truck/trailer resources.
The response to this question demonstrates that supply chains are currently
running the full spectrum of different types of equipment all of which require some sort
of interface to Yard Management Systems.
Standard containers proved to be the most common type of equipment in use with
an exposure rate of 65% while standard Truck-Trailer combinations came second with a
showing of between 40-44%.
Beyond container and truckload traffic, which require the least amount of
complexity in terms of yard management system, equipment types used are a wide
variety of truck configurations, rail and finished motor vehicles. This complex variety of
equipment is an important consideration for yard management systems as it requires
shipment details, handling instructions, yard configuration and asset scheduling
information that surpasses any effortless tracking of single pieces of equipment within a
yard. Therefore, service providers require greater and greater complexity and flexibility
in terms of yard management system upgrades, changes or replacements.
Responses proved fairly consistent regarding the types of yards either utilized or
managed, with no category accounting for more than 47% of total responses.
There is a clear split however between certain categories, with finished vehicles,
ports and vehicle homologation centers accounting for fewer than 15% of activity whilst
the 5 leading categories comprise between 34% and 47% of yard activity.
With no category accounting for greater than 50% of responses, it’s clear that most
providers of yard services have developed the capacity to handle multiple operations
and modality within their yard locations and that their yard management system
considerations must be flexible and robust enough to handle the increased complexity
present in contemporary supply chain management yards.
These results support earlier analysis that interest in YMS is led by relatively smaller
companies (revenues of $10 million/year) and single facility companies (that may have
geographic leverage over the business they represent) that would see more benefit
from adopting standardized YMS. This finding could equally imply that perhaps these
same smaller companies simply have yet to make the investment in YMS that larger
organizations may have already committed.
Question 10: What Percentage of your Yards and Facilities use an electronic
Yard Management System?
This question clarifies and supports the previous analysis regarding potential
demand and future adoption rates for YMS. Results show that 56% of respondents
(comparable to the population of respondents that operate under 5 facilities) currently
have no electronic yard management capability.
Figure 10 – Percentage of Yards and Facilities Managed using an electronic Yard Management System
Results underscore the potential for efficiency and cost improvements for
respondents currently without a system. For operations with thin margins, replacing
legacy or existing applications is frequently a low priority regardless of the potential of
emerging technologies, however, for those without any systems, operating off of paper,
clipboards and dispatch whiteboards, productivity improvements provide a compelling
business case for investment.
Question 11: How would you rate your experience with your existing Yard
Management System?
The results to this question are interesting for the overall level of satisfaction they
indicate for existing solutions (still representing only 44% of all responses), and the
cluster of mediocrity that all dimensions represent (between 2.6 and 2.8).
Taking into consideration that this applies only to those with systems (44%) and, it
is assumed both legacy and newer systems, these results form an effective benchmark
for the 56% of respondents that don’t currently use any systems.
Question 12: Which technology platforms currently touch your yard and
facility operations?
Figure 12 – Technology Platforms which touch the yard and facility operations
YMS modules will most likely have to interface with the following enterprise
applications, whether commercially packaged or an in-house, or legacy, application:
The responses do, however, highlight the use of commercially available off-the-
shelf applications when it comes to management or enterprise software within the
sample population. Commercial applications account for roughly 50% within each
category, with further adoption reasonably expected to grow. With the majority of
respondents experienced in selecting and implementing commercially available systems
for other aspects of their supply chain, we would expect the market for YMS systems,
with such a low current penetration rate, to increase as more flexible applications with
proven ROI track records become widely available.
Question 13: Satisfaction ratings for each technical category applicable to your
yard and facilities management
This response highlights a potential integration issue with existing YMS, particularly
as it relates to current YMS and TMS solutions.
These responses are further eroded when compared to the results for YMS
satisfaction (Q.11) highlighting the importance of the integration experience as a crucial
component to overal all satisfaction. In fact, the most compelling aspect of these
responses is the perceived satisfaction that those who currently utilize no software have
a slightly higher satisfaction ranking that those who utilize the different types of systems
available. Although this doesn’t address the functional benefits of YMS systems, merely
the satisfaction of those systems once implemented, this does underline the difficulties
in adopting, integrating and utilizing automated systems where there were none in the
past.
This appears to further highlight the need for system providers to improve the
implementation and delivery aspects of their applications or, in other words, somehow
overcome the perceptive hurdle between satisfaction and functionality.
Figure 13 – Satisfaction Levels with Technology used as part of your Yard and Facilities Management
Figure 14 – What type of functionality do you look for in a Yard and Facilities Management System?
Although few respondents were sure of when they would/could invest in a yard
management system, 22% felt that they were in a position to invest in the next 12
months.
Only 4% gave any indication that they would invest in the next 2 years, implying a
shorter sales cycle than traditional supply chain solutions and requiring providers to
focus on leads that generate potential within the first 12 months of contact.
CONCLUDING ANALYSIS
The 2010 Trends in Yard Management Systems white paper reflects that
although a majority of companies are not currently invested in YMS at this
time, there is a significant interest in the subject at a high level in both service
consumers and providers, specifically within the C-level and IT management
roles. The market opportunity seems to support a significant growth in
investment in YMS over the next 12 months with a tremendous market capacity of non-
users that could benefit from further automation.
Smaller companies appear to be leading the trend to improve this critical piece of
the supply chain. This may be because they’ve already addressed the higher priority
issues within their supply chain networks and are now positioned to address yard
throughput issues. Larger companies may still be concentrating their efforts on the
more complex issues of their network that result in more significant savings. This means
that the smaller companies may be better positioned to take advantage of a near term
economic recovery, as well as the lead in yard management best practices. This also
underlines the need for small companies to remain innovative and progressive in order
to compete in a market that will only see more and more consolidation.
The trend is definitely shifting away from in-house developed systems that may or
may not be inflexible in operating multiple locations based on their specific
requirements, or do not have the scalability to support strategic growth. In any event, it
appears that there are finally enough off-the-shelf options in the market that most
organizations expect to, at the very least; perform detailed build versus buy analysis
when considering implementing or upgrading a system. In fact the results indicate that
commercially available systems are already outstripping all other categories as the
preferred option.
The challenge in this market will be how providers overcome the perceived
dissatisfaction, or at least ambivalence, with the integration and functionality
experience of those companies that have invested in YMS (or other enterprise solutions)
and are currently using some sort of automation for managing their yards. This
‘ambivalence’ puts a premium on those service providers and or applications that
demonstrate superior ease of integration and implementation, flexibility in function,
maintenance and distribution, as well as flexible cost options that reflect the users’
specific needs.
ADMi is an impartial supply chain consultancy and research organization that offers
clients strategy, research and collaboration support by providing supply chain
benchmarking and analysis. ADMi provides strategy consulting, transportation research,
decision and purchasing support to the Global supply chain industry. ADMi is uniquely
designed to provide unbiased, non-conflict of interest supply chain research and
decision support services to all the supply chain industry by creating mutually
productive collaborative network opportunities, promote supply chain innovation and
standards, as well as provide qualifying tools to emerging carriers and service providers
to improve overall competition.
Contact Information
For more information on this report or to participate in further studies please contact:
David C. Vandenbossche,
Principal Consultant
dcv@autodiversity.com
Confidentiality
All information in this document is provided in confidence for the sole purpose of
adjudication of the document and shall not be used for any other purpose, be published
or disclosed wholly or in part to any other party without ADMI’s prior permission in
writing nor be held in safe custody. These obligations shall not apply to information
which is published or becomes known legitimately from some source other than ADMI.