Inverness, IL January 15, 2015 - We are very pleased to announce Country Pure Foods, Inc. (“Country Pure”), headquartered in Akron, Ohio has selected NGL's latest Dynamics TMS Transportation Management Solution to manage their multi mode transportation requirements in multiple plant locations in Akron, Ohio, Ellington, Connecticut, Deland, Florida and Houston, Texas. The solution allow Country Pure Foods to efficiently service its nationwide customer base and effectively implement inbound and outbound transportation management strategies
Showing posts with label Transportation Management. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Transportation Management. Show all posts
Wednesday, March 4, 2015
Next Generation Logistics Trademarks
FreightMaster TMS®, Dynamics TMS®, AzureTMS®, FreightMaster Express™, NGLNEXTStop™, FoodFreight™, OptiNet™, OptiFreight™, FreightMaster AMS™ and NEXTrack® are trademarks of Next Generation Logistics®, Inc.
Friday, March 28, 2014
Are Some TMS Solutions Too Difficult & Too Costly To Work With? - Some Final Thoughts From The 2014 Atlanta Supply Chain and Transportation Expo
During our exchange, what we found curious, is that many of these folks already had sophisticated enterprise ERP software in place! So the natural question we asked was "Why Aren't You Using The TMS You Already Have and Paid For?" (see recently published study on this issue)
They included statements such as:
1) Too difficult to understand, we don't have PhDs
2) IT department wanted it, but our users don't like it and just put up with it
3) Looks like Excel or Access on Steroids, all rows and columns
4) Too many "clicks" to book a load
5) Costs too much too keep updated
6) It doesn't do what we were told it would
7) We are disappointed in the results
8) A year later, little or no ROI
9) I can't get basic enhancements in time, I need them now
10) We don't want to wait for the next release to get basic functionality
Conclusion:
Making complex transportation software user friendly is difficult not easy, it takes time, it takes domain knowledge and continues to be a primary issue for even large "Magic Quadrant" companies.
Most software developers do not have specific domain expertise in every single discipline and therefore, are not aware of best practices. Consequently, in transportation software, we have found that corporate and independent developers have taken a "Tell Me What You Want and I'll Program It For You But We Have To Develop It Quick and Easy For IT" approach. (see recently published on IT and supply chain misalignment)
Unfortunately, this approach is shortsighted because it will likely ignore several aspects of transportation management requirements beyond the current company's sphere of knowledge, current industry best practices, local and global regulatory requirements to name a few.
 |
| The Complexity of the Supply Chain Process |
Thursday, March 27, 2014
66% of 2013 ERP Implementations Are Only Receiving 50% or Less Promised Benefits !
In a recent survey of ERP implementations conducted by the Panorama Consulting Group, it was discovered that over 66% of those ERP implementations say that they are receiving 50% or less of the promised benefits. Additionally, the study revealed that it did not matter who the ERP vendor was, Oracle, SAP or Microsoft Dynamics. This revelation should come of no surprise to seasoned ERP professionals.
Many times the companies hire as a "General Software Contractor" the very same value added reseller who marketed and sold them the ERP solution. As companies and users become more sophisticated in their requirements, it has become unreasonable, not to mention expensive, for any one single entity to successfully implement all the various modules that exist in advanced ERP software let alone begin "enhancements" into areas that they have no deep domain expertise in. As a result, you have over commitment, under performance and customer dissatisfaction.
To be certain, the customers themselves are to be held accountable for some of their own disappointment. All too often we have seen that new software implementations are used as a club to facilitate "process re-engineering" in companies without fully understanding the organizational impact. Furthermore, user departments and communities have become subservient to misguided IT policies direction at the expense of the organization.
As it becomes increasingly difficult and expensive to implement "enterprise" ERP software, companies need to focus on removing "silos" in their decision process and making Benefits Realization an essential part of the overall initial implementation process and not as an after thought to be completed in Phase 3 or 4 ....
Many times the companies hire as a "General Software Contractor" the very same value added reseller who marketed and sold them the ERP solution. As companies and users become more sophisticated in their requirements, it has become unreasonable, not to mention expensive, for any one single entity to successfully implement all the various modules that exist in advanced ERP software let alone begin "enhancements" into areas that they have no deep domain expertise in. As a result, you have over commitment, under performance and customer dissatisfaction.
To be certain, the customers themselves are to be held accountable for some of their own disappointment. All too often we have seen that new software implementations are used as a club to facilitate "process re-engineering" in companies without fully understanding the organizational impact. Furthermore, user departments and communities have become subservient to misguided IT policies direction at the expense of the organization.
As it becomes increasingly difficult and expensive to implement "enterprise" ERP software, companies need to focus on removing "silos" in their decision process and making Benefits Realization an essential part of the overall initial implementation process and not as an after thought to be completed in Phase 3 or 4 ....
 |
The Complexity of Supply Chain Management |
Sunday, February 16, 2014
Shields Bag and Printing, Yakima WA Selects Dynamics TMS
Thursday, August 2, 2012
Inbound Freight Opportunities - Still There!
Create
a project team. Call
on the expertise of your procurement and logistics representatives, and draw
on each department's need for specific cost information to better manage the
process. An IT member or advisor may also be a valuable addition.
|
Define
the project goals.
Decide what you expect to accomplish when this project is completed. Is it to
simply reduce costs, improve vendor relations, gain better inventory control,
create vendor managed inventory, attain control over inbound orders, or
better utilize a dedicated fleet?
|
Determine
key performance indicators (KPI). Create a baseline or benchmark
of current performance, and determine KPI, which might include supplier
performance (order acknowledge, order fill rate, ship on time), carrier
performance (accept shipment tender, on-time pick-up, on-time delivery),
exception summary reporting, and customer and supplier satisfaction metrics.
|
Classify
and quantify current inbound operations. Evaluate your current inbound
shipments and classify by who controls the freight (prepaid or collect),
where the freight costs lie, and whether the carrier is selected via a
routing guide.
|
Consider
investing in TMS technology. Transportation management
solutions and business-to-business connectivity can provide both a systematic
approach to your inbound processes and financial controls. http://www.FreightMasterTMS.com
|
Evaluate
best landed cost by supplier. To calculate best landed cost,
you must be able to allocate freight charges plus fuel surcharges plus
assessorial fees to get the true picture of your costs. Select a software
tool to help you rate and re-rate shipments based on all available scenarios.
Ask these questions: Does your organization really want to take on the
freight? If a supplier is larger than you, it may have better freight rates,
but what is being invoiced in the cost of goods? This is where the visibility
to freight costs segregated from the costs of goods gives an organization the
opportunity to control expenses.
|
Survey
supplier technology capabilities. Make sure they have EDI
capabilities, and a supplier portal with a web form to provide "ready to
ship" information. Don't underestimate the amount of work required to
"cleanse" the data from suppliers.
|
Prioritize
suppliers for quick results. In any project, delivering
quick wins or payback should be a goal. Prioritize your suppliers by ease of
implementation and largest payback. Typically these are non-compliant collect
suppliers or new suppliers where you can influence the freight terms.
|
Execute. Communicate the
plan in advance to all involved parties, both internally and externally, to
get their buy-in to the process. Then implement the targeted changes.
|
Measure/monitor
compliance and performance. Share with your suppliers how
their performance will be measured. Establish routing compliance reviews with
each supplier and ensure data is available for analysis by both parties at
any time.
|
Friday, November 25, 2011
Can Your TMS Handle Strategies?
Recently, I was struck by how many companies under utilize their TMS software only to execute day to day freight management activities as opposed to implementing, managing and measuring results of transportation strategies.
Order processing, route creation, carrier selection, tendering, settlement etc. are all base functions of most TMS. However, does your TMS allow you to quickly implement, manage and measure results of transpotation management strategies? An example would be senior management wanting to implement an inbound freight management program that would reduce landed cost by 15%.
Can your TMS handle these kinds of requests without consuming a large part of your time and requiring the use of Excel Spreadsheets? If it can, maybe you never implemented "Phase II" of your TMS Project. If it cannot, you should evaluate the ROI of upgrading to a TMS that can!
Order processing, route creation, carrier selection, tendering, settlement etc. are all base functions of most TMS. However, does your TMS allow you to quickly implement, manage and measure results of transpotation management strategies? An example would be senior management wanting to implement an inbound freight management program that would reduce landed cost by 15%.
Can your TMS handle these kinds of requests without consuming a large part of your time and requiring the use of Excel Spreadsheets? If it can, maybe you never implemented "Phase II" of your TMS Project. If it cannot, you should evaluate the ROI of upgrading to a TMS that can!
Friday, October 28, 2011
TMS in the MS Azure Cloud
We are extremely pleased to announce our move to Microsoft's Azure Cloud Services at this year's Dynamics ERP user conference Nov 9-11 in Las Vegas, NV. Dynamics ERP users will now have the option to use the DynamicsTMS NEXTrack Internet Collaboration Portal either in an "on-premise" or a "Microsoft Azure Cloud" offering. Being an early participant in the Microsoft Azure CTP, AzureTMS is written exclusively to leverage all Azures functionality including AzureSQL, AzureStorage, AppFabric along with exceptional Azure's global redundancy and scalability features.
Thursday, May 5, 2011
When Is A TMS Not A TMS?
Transportation expenses as a percentage of sales continues to climb and need to be managed on a strategic as well as a transactional basis. Consequently, we have seen an explosion of companies requesting and utilizing (TMS) transportation management software to help them decrease costs and improve customer service for inbound, outbound and transfer freight movements.
Unfortunately, many of the existing enterprise ERP and "supply chain" solutions do not adequately address all the present and future transportation management needs. Enterprise level transportation management requirements and customers have become much more sophisticated.
In recent demos we have conducted with prospects, the claim that one solution can be "all things to all people" is being seriously challenged.
Concurrently, it seems that our definition of what comprises a TMS varies tremendously. The term "TMS" itself has degenerated into a catch all phrase that encompasses anything and everything in transportation just like "Cloud" now means everything Internet. See Wikipedia's TMS Definition.
Certainly, each company has different transportation requirements which range widely in complexity, but respectfully, for software to be considered a true transportation management solution, or for software vendors to "tag" their software as a TMS, it should have more functionality than loading a truck, assigning a carrier or costing out a load.
Unfortunately, many of the existing enterprise ERP and "supply chain" solutions do not adequately address all the present and future transportation management needs. Enterprise level transportation management requirements and customers have become much more sophisticated.
In recent demos we have conducted with prospects, the claim that one solution can be "all things to all people" is being seriously challenged.
Concurrently, it seems that our definition of what comprises a TMS varies tremendously. The term "TMS" itself has degenerated into a catch all phrase that encompasses anything and everything in transportation just like "Cloud" now means everything Internet. See Wikipedia's TMS Definition.
Certainly, each company has different transportation requirements which range widely in complexity, but respectfully, for software to be considered a true transportation management solution, or for software vendors to "tag" their software as a TMS, it should have more functionality than loading a truck, assigning a carrier or costing out a load.
Saturday, February 5, 2011
Microsoft Dynamics AX 2012 & FreightMaster TMS 5.0: A Perfect Match
In their recent 2011 Dynamics Technology Conference in Redmond last month, Microsoft unveiled their new flagship ERP, Dynamics AX 2012. The new ERP software has undergone a major upgrade leveraging Microsoft technologies such as SQL 2008R2, SQL Reporting Services (SSRS)and application integration utilizing Visual Studio 2010.
The great news is that it is exactly the technology that FreightMaster TMS 5.0 utilizes. Written to leverage .NET 4.0 and WCF as well as other core Microsoft technologies, TMS can now be launched from within the new and improved AX Business Portal making it the perfect "kissin cousin" to AX 2012 in look, touch, feel and technology.
See both at the upcoming Dynamics Convergence 2011 Conference in Atlanta this April.
The great news is that it is exactly the technology that FreightMaster TMS 5.0 utilizes. Written to leverage .NET 4.0 and WCF as well as other core Microsoft technologies, TMS can now be launched from within the new and improved AX Business Portal making it the perfect "kissin cousin" to AX 2012 in look, touch, feel and technology.
See both at the upcoming Dynamics Convergence 2011 Conference in Atlanta this April.
Sunday, August 1, 2010
Best of Breed TMS vs All in One ERP Suites
Over the last several months, I have noticed many white papers and blogs detailing the advantages of licensing a single enterprise software suite that will solve all your supply chain needs from a single source.
Although many of the large corporate software companies have "beefed up" specific offerings thru a flurry of acquisitions, there are many legitimate arguments for building best of breed modules around a solid ERP software package instead of the "all in one" approach. Here are just a couple.
First, most best of breed TMS or WMS software modules have their foundation deep in a specific supply chain decipline (domain expertise) that their founders and developers are known experts. This domain expertise is eventually lost via acquisition as the visionaries "cash out" move on to other opportunities.
Secondly, with the current cross platform computer technologies, interfaces to legacy and other ERP software can be very cost effective and developed extremely radipdly. Yet we see that enterprise corporate environments still buy into the old integration scare tactics.
Thirdly, how many times have you heared "small organizations cannot compete with the big guys"? Again this old argument is no longer valid. Small organizations are not burdened by paying for the "goodwill" of their acquisitions and have virtually unlimited access to capital. Further, as a percentage of sales, entreprenuers invest a much higher level in R&D for their niche product. The result many times is that you will get a better product for less money.
There are good reasons for pursuing a solid base ERP system such as Microsoft's Dynamics ERP suite. A one size fits all approach, even with detailed configuration, is not always the best approach for an organization. It certainly does not guarantee the best functionality at a reasonable cost.
Although many of the large corporate software companies have "beefed up" specific offerings thru a flurry of acquisitions, there are many legitimate arguments for building best of breed modules around a solid ERP software package instead of the "all in one" approach. Here are just a couple.
First, most best of breed TMS or WMS software modules have their foundation deep in a specific supply chain decipline (domain expertise) that their founders and developers are known experts. This domain expertise is eventually lost via acquisition as the visionaries "cash out" move on to other opportunities.
Secondly, with the current cross platform computer technologies, interfaces to legacy and other ERP software can be very cost effective and developed extremely radipdly. Yet we see that enterprise corporate environments still buy into the old integration scare tactics.
Thirdly, how many times have you heared "small organizations cannot compete with the big guys"? Again this old argument is no longer valid. Small organizations are not burdened by paying for the "goodwill" of their acquisitions and have virtually unlimited access to capital. Further, as a percentage of sales, entreprenuers invest a much higher level in R&D for their niche product. The result many times is that you will get a better product for less money.
There are good reasons for pursuing a solid base ERP system such as Microsoft's Dynamics ERP suite. A one size fits all approach, even with detailed configuration, is not always the best approach for an organization. It certainly does not guarantee the best functionality at a reasonable cost.
Friday, May 22, 2009
The Danger of Over Utilizing "Spot" Market Rates with Carriers
As most transportation management professionals know, the last several months have been a buyers market for motor carrier transportation, a trend which seems may continue for the immediate future. In the normal course of conducting business, I have run across several organizations that subscribe to the tactic of sending out their entire dispatch for a daily "spot" market quote.
This process can take the form of calling, faxing, Internet load posting, or utilizing sophisticated software provided and encouraged by leading TMS companies as a "best practice".
Although in the short term this "bottom feeding" tactic could reduce freight spent, it does nothing to promote a longer term strategic partnership with the motor carrier community. I believe that a shipper should have an established carrier base to which they can depend on with competitive rates and excellent service levels.
There are various legitimate scenarios in which using the "spot" approach is beneficial without putting at risk your established carrier base, but it should not be used as the only method.
Carriers I have spoken with understand that shippers need to be "opportunistic", but they also indicate that, taken too far, this technique will eventually work against the shippers especially when the economy begins it's turnaround and the "struggle to book a load" becomes reality once again.
What do you think?
This process can take the form of calling, faxing, Internet load posting, or utilizing sophisticated software provided and encouraged by leading TMS companies as a "best practice".
Although in the short term this "bottom feeding" tactic could reduce freight spent, it does nothing to promote a longer term strategic partnership with the motor carrier community. I believe that a shipper should have an established carrier base to which they can depend on with competitive rates and excellent service levels.
There are various legitimate scenarios in which using the "spot" approach is beneficial without putting at risk your established carrier base, but it should not be used as the only method.
Carriers I have spoken with understand that shippers need to be "opportunistic", but they also indicate that, taken too far, this technique will eventually work against the shippers especially when the economy begins it's turnaround and the "struggle to book a load" becomes reality once again.
What do you think?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)