key performance indicators for food and drink supply chains 2009

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


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


3/28


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


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


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


7/28

Asin2007thisSurveyhasincludedtractorunitsaswellassemi-trailersandrigids.Inordertomaketheresultsasreliableaspossible,and,therefore,themostusefulbothtoparticipantsandsubsequentusersoftheGuide,itisimportantthatdatagatheringiscarefullyprescribed.Standardisedsoftwarewasusedasthemediumtoassembletheinformationandenablecomputeranalysis.Followingtheuseofa24hourdatasamplingperiodin2007itwasdecidedthat24hourswasperfectlyadequate.Ashadbeenexpectedthereductionto24hoursimposedlessdatagatheringonparticipantswithoutdetractingfromthevalueoftheresults.Abroadmeasureofweeklyactivity,anddailyactivityforeachdayofthesurveyweekwasalsogatheredforeachfleet.ThisprovidedameasureofvariationsinthroughputandhencethevalidityofthechosenSurveydateandday.

2


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


15/28

Figure16 Timeutilisationprimaryfleets(food)

Figure17 Timeutilisationsecondaryfleets(food)

Figure18 Timeutilisationtertiaryfleets(food)

10


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


17/28

Figure21 Timeutilisationprimaryfleets(drinks)

Figure22 Timeutilisationsecondaryfleets(drinks)

12


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


25/28

SincethelastSurveythelimitsonvehicleemissionshavebeenfurthertightened.WhilstEuroIIwasbecomingthenormin2002,by2009ithasbecomevirtuallyextinct.IndeedthedominanceofEuroIIIin2007hasbeenrapidlyeroded,andin2009thecombinedtotalforEuroIVandEuroVexceededEuroIIIby15%.Figure39showstherateofchange.Figure39 EuroEmissionStandardsofSurveyedVehicles

20


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


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


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

key performance indicators for food and drink supply chains 2009

Documents