Having multiple warehouses forces standardization across your processes, interfaces, and operations. If you don’t build that standardization into your tech, the gaps stay wide open, and grow wider every time you expand. How do you close them? Build your shipping, receiving, and delivery standards right into the apps your people use to do their jobs.
The Real Cost Of Letting Warehouses Do Their Own Thing
Most operations don’t start out siloed. They drift that way. A site manager in one region develops a workaround that sticks. A carrier relationship at another facility leads to manual booking decisions that bypass the approved vendor list. Over time, each warehouse runs on its own informal rulebook, and the cumulative damage shows up in your data.
You get carrier rate discrepancies between facilities shipping similar freight. Delivery windows vary by site even when the SLA commitments to your customers don’t. Tracking data is fragmented because not every dock is feeding the same system. Operational inconsistencies and manual errors in shipping and warehousing processes can account for 20% to 30% of a logistics company’s overall operational inefficiencies (McKinsey & Company).
That’s not a training problem. That’s a structural problem – and it needs a structural solution.
Centralizing Carrier Selection and Rate Shopping
The place where most multi-warehouse operations have the clearest opportunity to recover cost is in here. It shouldn’t be up to individual warehouse managers to pick a carrier. It needs to be automatic, based on the logic you decided to apply as a business and then programmed into a shipping solution.
Rate shopping – comparing carrier rates in real time before booking – is not a particularly effective optimization when it comes to driving that productive decision-making everywhere. If this process operates differently across each of your locations, it’s not scalable or effective. One location might always default to the carrier they’ve always preferred. Another might worry about their last decision shooting their fill rate in the foot and be prioritizing speed over cost. Neither of those decisions reflects what your routing strategy really is.
A good shipping solution locks those routing rules in centrally and applies them at every location without anyone on the floor having to dedicate any thought to it. The system compares available rates, and since it already knows your routing strategy, books the shipment based on your logic. Every site gets the same logic. Margin doesn’t leak out the side because a site manager made a one-off call.
This is also where LTL and FTL rules need to be explicit. The system must define full truckload versus LTL based on the thresholds you program into the system, not the judgment of a manager or associate.
Standardizing Documentation Before Anything Else
The transition of goods between your warehouse and a carrier can show more problems than in any other part of the supply chain, because aspects of your operation that lack consistency are fully exposed. If one location goes live with RFID tracking a container before anyone else, you can be sure carriers will know about it. If one facility sends a Bill of Lading with different field formatting than another, carriers sense it. If you didn’t bother adding the customer’s reference number from the Bill of Lading to the trailer-in in your system, disputes follow.
The good news is that this makes the problem easier to find. The handoff between you and a carrier is one of the easiest data points to monitor – just collect and compare the paperwork. Did the carrier receive a Bill of Lading, packing slip and labels and did they all identify/contain the same information/fields? Was the packing slip exactly the same as the shipment record in your system that the carrier had to use to check-off the shipment?
The first lever to pull is the easiest to reach. The documentation itself is the simplest place to start counteracting this visibility problem. Getting rid of paper is a good goal, but you may not be there yet. So start with paper. Go get every warehouse manager, administrator or worker that might ever press “print” on a Bill of Lading, packing slip or labels and wrestle them to the ground. It’s going to take a while. Ask them about their facility, what software they use, how they print. And then send them this, replicated exactly as possible from a Word doc to the millimeter, for example.
Physical Consistency Matters As Much As Digital
Standardization is not limited to the digital dimension. Physical staging of each facility also plays a role in determining how faithfully the digital standards can be implemented.
When the setups of staging lanes are different across locations – different zones, different label scanning points, different flow paths between LTL versus FTL freight – transferee employees slow down and make more mistakes. Training is more expensive. Error rates go up in peak periods.
You can’t always match the physical layout between facilities given differently shaped buildings, but you should be able to make the sequence and logic of the staging process identical. Where a shipment moves from packing station to staging lane to dock should be the same steps whether the building is in Wisconsin or Pennsylvania. Standardizing dim weight measurement at the packing station is part of this – if each site measures and records dimensional weight differently, you’ll see billing disputes and unexpected carrier charges that are hard to match to the shipper.
Cross docking, where freight moves directly from inbound to outbound with no storage, is particularly unforgiving of this. The speed makes any procedural difference immediately expensive.
Using Shared KPIs To Catch Drift Before It Becomes A Habit
Once standardized processes are established enterprise-wide, maintenance is key to ensuring each facility doesn’t revert back to its own ways.
Unification is a less daunting task if the operational metrics necessary for control and improvement are gathered via a single platform. For example, imagine electronically capturing metrics on “order cycle time.” Immediately, when a performance variance appears in the data, operators can quickly identify the source of the variance and correct it – before a dissatisfied customer calls to complain about a late delivery.
Modern TMS solutions manage this oversight. Performance metrics that need gathering in a modern TMS include order cycle time, OTIF rate, and carrier booking accuracy. When these metrics are captured automatically by the TMS software, they should be accessible by the operations executive at both a network overview and individual location. If TMS technology is not capturing and analyzing the real-time data essential to assessing performance, it’s time to begin investigating solutions that do.
Leave a Reply