Transparency is the key to happiness

- Last updated on GMT

Related tags: Third-party logistics, Electric charge, Warehouse

Transparency is the key to happiness
I recently came across a bad example of a warehouse draft contract, which failed the two basic rules of 'fit for purpose' for relationships where the...

I recently came across a bad example of a warehouse draft contract, which failed the two basic rules of 'fit for purpose' for relationships where the user occupies the bulk of the space in a shed.Those tests are 'mutual transparency' and 'mutual fairness'.

The deal gave the user a totally variable charge based on usage of space and labour.The third party logistics provider (3PL) had sought a minimum occupancy charge by quoting a cost per pallet per week, but with a minimum guarantee of 8,000 pallets. All other charges were either a) RH&D (receipt, handling and despatch) at a cost per pallet received or b) a charge per case picked.

But there were two problems: the total cost was too high and it was unclear where the excess was hidden.

So we stripped out dedicated staff costs and asked for productivity on fork trucks and case picking.Then it became clear that the excess charge was built equally into both RH&D and picking but for different reasons.

RH&D productivity was set at 20 pallets per hour, which is OK for most warehouses. However, the RH&D charge bore no relationship to the resources consumed. Picking productivity had been set for charging purposes at 235 cases an hour where 290 would have been a fair expectation.

We accepted the occupancy charges and the minimum guarantee as we could reconcile a rate of £1.32 per pallet per week against rent, rates, depreciation and IT with a reasonable profit margin. This number was both fair and transparently related to the costs incurred. We accepted dedicated staff costs and paid for them transparently. We then negotiated a rate for RH&D that recovered the costs of hourly-paid staff and equipment rental. For picking we showed the 3PL an example of picking the specific goods and negotiated the rate in line with that productivity.

So was the outcome fair to both parties? Neither got precisely what he thought he wanted at the start, but both agreed the outcome was at least mutually acceptable. Was the outcome transparent to both parties? Undoubtedly so!

Tim Knowles

is director, ProActive

http://www.proactive21.com

Related topics: Supply Chain, Services, IT

Related products

show more

Modern ERP system enables food waste reduction

Modern ERP system enables food waste reduction

Epicor | 05-Sep-2019 | Technical / White Paper

We’re all becoming increasingly aware and mindful of wastage in our personal lives. Food waste is already a significant concern for the food and beverage...

Industry report: Food for thought

Industry report: Food for thought

Columbus | 09-May-2019 | Technical / White Paper

A global industry report exploring challenges affecting food companies today and technologies that will help future-proof their businesses.

Listeria Management & Drainage: 5 Essential Steps

Listeria Management & Drainage: 5 Essential Steps

Aco Building Drainage | 26-Apr-2019 | Technical / White Paper

Listeria is widely recognised as a universal problem for food and drink manufacturers. To ensure effective listeria management and control, food and drink...

Related suppliers

Follow us

Featured Events

View more

Products

View more

Webinars