by Elizabeth Hines | Feb 21, 2017 | Blog, Consumer Electronics, Manufacturing & Distribution, Strategy, Supply Chain
Will sustainability trends from the consumer packaging industry have an impact on electronics manufacturing this year?
As we wrap up the first big consumer holiday of 2017, it’s interesting to think about how innovation in packaging never stops. While many of the newest ideas are hitting consumer applications first, perhaps they will point to new directions for electronics manufacturing as well.
Packaging trends suggest a wide range of startups, researchers, and big companies are committed to finding solutions that match the buzzwords du jour — sustainable, bio-degradable, natural, and eco-friendly.
Here are some sustainability trends in packaging that I think will gain momentum in 2017.
2017 packaging trends to watch
1) Multiple uses
Great packaging protects not only your product, but also your brand. But what if the packaging is part of the product itself?
That is the case with innovations such as the expandable bowl by Swedish design studio Tomorrow Machine. Using 100% bio-based and biodegradable materials, the company created a cellulose wrapper that hugs freeze-dried food and morphs into a bowl when hot water is poured into the spout. The bowl ― a sustainable packaging award winner ― is now in good company, and I expect more will follow.
2) Unconventional materials
Egg shells, fermented sugars, barley, and wheat ribbons — those were the materials used to create, in turn:
- Bio-compostable films: Nano-particles from waste eggshells helped researchers at Tuskegee University in Alabama make a plastic film that is completely sustainable and 700% more flexible than other bio-plastic blends. Film made of the new material could be used in retail packaging, grocery bags and food containers.
- A prototype PHBottle: The European PHBottle project aims to initially create a bottle, cap, and sleeve, although use in other applications (non-food packaging and non-packaging uses) will be tested. The bio-plastic material used to make the bottle comes from the transformation of organic matter found in juice processing by-products.
- Edible six-pack rings for beer: Imagine washing down the six-pack ring with your favorite beer. Although that moment is not quite here yet, the future is looking up for a piece of plastic that is notorious for ensnaring wildlife. The first bio-degradable edible six-pack ring for beer is the result of a partnership between Saltwater Brewery; We Believers, an advertising agency; and Entelequia, Inc., a small startup in Mexico. Made from barley and wheat ribbons spent grain from the brewing process, the rings are safe for wildlife to eat and sturdy enough to support the cans.
3) Reusable packaging
The throw-away culture is not for everyone. In fact, Mintel’s Global Packaging Trends 2017 shows 63% of U.S. consumers actively seek out packages they can re-use. More than half of consumers also say they would prefer to buy foods with minimal or even no packaging. With such great demand for waste reduction, innovation is bound to pick up even more momentum.
What do you think 2017 will bring in terms of sustainable packaging for the electronics industry? Let us know about promising innovations you’ve seen.
This post originally appeared on EBN Online.
Related posts:
by Elizabeth Hines | Jan 18, 2017 | Blog, Logistics, Strategy, Supply Chain, Warehousing & Materials Handling
Having a modern, flexible supply chain is important to finding the way out of inventory dilemmas.
Imagine your irritation when you try to place an order online and are greeted by the message: “We apologize for the inconvenience, but this item is out of stock.”
However, even if the item is in stock, your mood is likely to sour if delivery will take more than a few days — and, even worse, you also have to pay for shipping. If you’re anything like me, you will quickly find an equivalent product that’s available immediately and ready to be shipped that same day.
It’s in the light of this hyper-competitive environment that the current inventory crisis should be seen. To sum it up from the perspective of warehouse owners: these are good times. Warehouse rents are hitting new highs as vacancy rates sit below five percent in many major cities.
From the viewpoint of retailers, on the other hand, it’s a significant challenge. Excess inventory is building even as consumer demand remains relatively high. Well aware of the consequences of not meeting ever-rising consumer expectations, retailers have felt compelled to stock up to — at all costs — avoid that irritating “out-of-stock” disclaimer. On the other hand, a chock-full warehouse is not necessarily good for business or speedy fulfillment.
Modernity and flexibility are key
This is when the importance of having a modern, flexible supply chain really comes into play:
- How quickly can the supply chain adjust to changes in demand?
- What’s the visibility up and down the supply chain?
- How aware is each link of what others are doing?
- How fast can inventory be refocused?
Some companies like Nordstrom have invested in cloud-based supply chain services. In Nordstrom’s case, the acquisition of a minority stake in DS Co., a supply chain software firm, which links inventory management between retailers and suppliers, was designed to facilitate direct shipments from vendors to customers, thereby circumventing the need for more inventory space. When suppliers and retailers track the inventory of one another, the risk of out-of-stock disappointments is reduced and risk is shifted up the supply chain.
Put to practice, it means that an order placed on the luxury retailer’s website is routed to the manufacturer, which then ships the item directly from its warehouse to the buyer. The Wall Street Journal noted Nordstrom’s investment comes “as retailers are racing to compete with e-commerce companies such as Amazon.com Inc. to provide convenience and speedy delivery to customers while keeping costs down.”
J.C. Penney is also shifting gears to avoid inventory gluts. The new business model essentially turns part of the store into a showroom for one of its suppliers, Ashley Furniture. Instead of keeping inventory in store or in distribution centers, all orders will be shipped straight to the consumer from Ashley Furniture.
Drones are not surprisingly part of solving the inventory dilemma. Walmart, for example, is testing the use of drones to catalog inventory, finishing in one day what it takes employees a whole month to get done. The intent is partly to make the giant retailer’s supply chain more efficient.
Clearly, traditional retailers are exploring new territory to meet consumer demand.
What do you think is key to solving the inventory crisis?
This post originally appeared at EBN Online.
Related posts:
by Elizabeth Hines | Dec 7, 2016 | Blog, Current Events, Strategy, Supply Chain
Regardless of Trump’s campaign promises, global trade and trade agreements are complex issues that can’t be solved with the wave of a tariff wand.
Trade was at the forefront of the 2016 presidential race, with both candidates putting the United States on a collision course with China. President-elect Donald Trump, of course, made massive tariff hikes one of the defining issues of his campaign.
In stark contrast to traditional Republican rhetoric, Trump vowed during his acceptance speech in July — while also promising to bring jobs back to Ohio, Pennsylvania, New York, Michigan, and “all of America” — “I am not going to let companies move to other countries, firing their employees along the way, without consequences. Not going to happen anymore.”
Although such language makes trade experts and economists balk, that line in particular earned the approval of both Democratic (72%) and Republican (61%) voters who listened to the speech as part of a focus group. If you have been directly affected by the manufacturing layoffs, it may be tempting to assume that waving the tariff wand and putting the screws on American companies will bring about a manufacturing renaissance in the United States.
The complex problem of global supply chains
The reality is, as countless experts caution, far from that simple, threatening instead to severely disrupt U.S. manufacturers that rely on global supply chains.
One of the bleakest assessments by Moody’s Analytics maintains hitting China and Mexico with tariffs of 45% and 35%, respectively — and assuming they do not retaliate with the same rates — would cause two million American workers to lose their jobs, throw the country into recession, and lead to another 1.5 million jobs never being created that otherwise would have been.
Besides the global implications of a trade war, imposing high tariffs on China, to which the United States sold $116 billion of goods in 2016 (including aircraft parts, semiconductors and automobiles) could have far-reaching consequences on the health of our high-value industries if China decides to hit back.
The law of unintended consequences
The law of unintended consequences was on display when the U.S. Commerce Department in 2012 slapped anti-dumping duties on Chinese solar panels after SolarWorld AG charged below-cost Chinese imports cost hurt the company’s U.S. production. In response to the 78% duty, China hit U.S. producers of polycrystalline silicon, the raw material for photovoltaic cells, with 57% duties.
As a result, a fast-growing industry gearing up to meet demand from Chinese solar panel makers took a significant hit. Hemlock Semiconductor in 2014 abandoned construction of a $1.5 billion new silicon plant, while REC Silicon in Moses Lake, Wash., halted production this year.
REC Chief Legal Officer Francine Sullivan commented in Fortune, the “necessity and value in putting on tariffs to protect solar panels in the U.S. was just not thought through. We’ve suffered enormous financial damage as a result of this.”
As I reviewed a variety of opinions for this piece, I came across two quotes that offer valid yet widely different perspectives on the issue:
First, here is Scott Paul, president of the Alliance for American Manufacturing, in Fortune:
“I don’t think [Trump] does our issue any favors by being so incredibly jingoistic and bombastic. But I believe there is widespread agreement. … There is something amiss with our economic relationship with China, and it’s past time that our government pushes back a little more forcefully.”
Secondly, Doug Oberhelman, chairman and CEO of Caterpillar and president of Business Roundtable, who has described higher tariffs as “very dangerous,” told the New York Times:
“We are 5% of the world population. Ninety-five percent of our potential customers are elsewhere. We’ve got to learn and figure out how to deal with that.”
Regardless of which viewpoint coincides with your own, it is safe to say trade and trade agreements are enormously complex issues that hardly fit into the narrative of populist appeal. An outright trade war will benefit no one.
What is your take on this issue?
This post originally appeared on EBN online.
by Elizabeth Hines | Dec 1, 2016 | Blog, Logistics, Strategy, Supply Chain
Consumer expectations of expedited, free shipping come at a cost to e-commerce businesses — but is it worth it?
The race to deliver orders at an ever-increasing pace — free of charge — is raising the stakes for shippers and retailers. Everything from the size of packaging to the selection of the right carrier has to be examined to prevent e-commerce ventures from becoming financially unviable.
While Amazon, the uncontested super power of e-commerce, has been known to rack up big losses to gain market share, smaller players are battling to meet consumer expectations of two-day, next-day, or even same-day delivery. The Amazon effect also means consumers are less willing to pay anything at all for shipping.
As free shipping is becoming a prerequisite for building customer loyalty, retailers know that charging even a minimal amount to deliver the product can break the deal. If the cost of shipping is perceived to be excessive, 63% of consumers surveyed by Jupiter Media Metrix will cancel the purchase.
In addition, consumers have grown accustomed to adding on smaller items to qualify for free shipping. But those items — one-ounce face creams, eye shadow, ear plugs — frequently arrive at their destination at significant cost. Jupiter found, for example, 45% of companies lose money on shipping.
Shippers also pay the price as small items do not necessarily come packaged in small boxes, consuming valuable space at a time when U.S. trucking tonnage is at record highs. FedEx and UPS both made headlines early last year when they, despite low fuel prices, raised shipping rates, partly as a result of dimensional weight pricing.
Now standard industry practice, dimensional weight pricing is estimated to have increased parcel shipping costs by as much as 20%, an additional expense ultimately passed on to consumers as well as small business owners. And with e-commerce forecast to grow from $392 billion this year to $491 billion in 2018, according to eMarketer Projections, demand will remain high at the same time as the shortage of drivers appears to have no real solution.
Pressure is likely to mount further as Amazon seems to be preparing to launch its own global package-delivery service that could rival those of competitors such as UPS and FedEx. With space on pallets a hot commodity, Amazon kicked off the year by adding thousands of trailers to its fleet, which is transported by third-party carriers. The online giant also hopes to build its own U.S. cargo operations to guard itself against delivery delays that affected some shoppers this past holiday season.
So what is the small business owner with a burgeoning e-commerce business to do?
Since it may be nearly impossible to rival the speed of Amazon Prime, focusing on keeping shipping costs to a minimum should pay off, advise several experts interviewed by Entrepreneur.
Steve Strauss, author and founder of www.smallbiz.com, a small-business consulting site, recommends businesses offer at least one express service and one standard service. “In this competitive environment where there’s very little customer loyalty, things like shipping matters. Look at it this way: If you don’t have a store location, you’re saving on rent and employees. Eat the shipping. It’s a small cost to you, and customers will respond,” he said.
What do you think is the key to staying competitive in the e-commerce space?
This post originally appeared on EBN online.
Related posts:
by Elizabeth Hines | Nov 23, 2016 | Blog, Strategy, Supply Chain, Warehousing & Materials Handling
The evolution of driverless robotic vehicles continues unabated. But what will it take for them to overtake certain warehouse tasks?
A lucky few have already experienced it — the thrill of taking their hands off the steering wheel and letting the car take care of the driving. As a reporter from the Guardian rode in the driver’s seat of a multi-million euro research vehicle “Jack” by Audi on the autobahn, she observed it carried out maneuvers so smoothly “it felt like the car was participating in a courtly dance with others on the road.”
Despite such glowing reviews and the unabated evolution of driverless vehicles, Jack and many its counterparts will not be available for mass consumption for another decade or so.
AGVs and today’s warehouse
In the world of material handling, the notion of driverless has been around for 60 years since the first Automated Guided Vehicle (AGV) appeared in a grocery warehouse. High-tech warehouse operations are already used to the sight of AGVs performing tasks, such as the vertical storage and retrieval of pallets and the loading and unloading of pallets onto outbound trailers.
Driverless robotic vehicles, on the other hand, have generally been assigned to low complexity and repetitive horizontal movement of materials, as well as assisted order picking that involves a high degree of machine and human interaction. Although it may sometimes sound as if driverless vehicles are about to phase out forklift drivers altogether, Toyota Material Handling, which has developed an Autopilot AGV driverless forklift range, notes in a blog post that “there is still value in human operators in an automated warehouse. Human operators are far more capable of identifying issues in the immediate environment and any problems with picking orders. The role of the human operator in an automated warehouse will be more dynamic and varied as the ‘grunt work’ is now tasked to the automated system.”
This argument echoes the challenge that makers of driverless automobiles have expressed: In order for the technology to reach the next level of effectiveness, it has to assume “human” qualities. While the driverless car comes to a complete stop at the sight of a yellow light, the human driver is more likely to speed up to beat the red light, a fact that has been blamed for a number of collisions during testing of a Google autonomous vehicle prototype.
The potential of driverless vehicles
That being said, driverless robotic vehicles hold enormous potential. In an interesting webcast on DC Velocity — which addresses the technology’s role in distribution operations that include horizontal transport and full-case picking applications — two experts tout ROI and productivity gains.
DC Velocity Senior Editor David Maloney and Marc Wulfraat, president of global supply chain and logistics consulting firm MWPVL International, estimate a three-year ROI is possible and that 20-25% productivity gains for order picking are realistic, as long as certain obstacles are overcome. For example, old legacy applications rarely integrate well with newer real-time technologies. If the two are forced together, it may happen at the expense of speedy processes, thus negating the effect of why the driverless technology was introduced in the first place.
Maloney and Wulfraat explain: “In high-density full-case picking environments (e.g., grocery distribution), an order selector can pick 175 – 200 cases/hr or one case every 18 – 20 seconds. If a 5-second delay due to system latency is introduced, then this would result in a major decrease (19 – 24%) in order selection productivity to 141 – 157 cases/hr. In a facility shipping 1 million cases/week with labor cost of $23/hour fully loaded, this would add around $1.6 M of warehouse labor expense to the operation. Clearly, this type of technology cannot add any system latency, which suppliers are working hard to guarantee.”
Another challenge arises when multiple vehicles have to pass within the same operating aisle. Considering the minimum clearance that it takes for a robotic vehicle to pass another without safety sensors bringing it to a halt could pose a problem in distribution centers with narrow aisle widths.
Still, in the big scheme such challenges pale in comparison to how far the technology has already come. When it comes to automating the horizontal transfer of products in a warehouse or distribution center, driverless robotic vehicles are undoubtedly the answer.
What do you consider to be the main challenges to full-scale adoption of driverless robotic vehicles in the warehouse or DC?
This article originally appeared on EBN Online.
Related posts:
