Logistics Viewpoints

A complete analysis of logistics trends, technologies, and services

Guest Commentary: Suit Filed Alleging FMCSA Overreach on Publication of SMS Methodology

Guest Commentary | By •

On July 16, 2012, ASECTT (the Alliance for Safe, Efficient and Competitive Truck Transportation), four other trade associations and twelve named plaintiffs sued the FMCSA over its May 16th publication of “New Resources Available for Shippers, Brokers, and Insurers” on its website. This guidance makes clear that the FMCSA does not intend to perform its job under existing statute of determining which carriers are fit to operate on the highways and shutting down the rest. Through the publication of CSA/SMS data and this guidance, the FMCSA is harming safe small carriers who are not inspected often enough to generate a reliable score; large safe carriers who happen to operate in the five states that generate 46 percent of all speeding tickets or warnings; and shippers and brokers who are targeted by lawyers for negligent hiring and vicarious liability lawsuits despite contracting with carriers that have been authorized by the DOT to operate in interstate commerce.

The worst aspect of this is that SMS scores have no correlation to accident frequency rates for individual carriers, so all of this damage is being done without any positive impact on highway safety. There are now three studies that conclusively show the lack of correlation. On July 2, Anthony Gallo of Wells Fargo published “CSA: Another Look with Similar Conclusions”  which stated, “…, we do not believe stakeholders should rely on CSA BASIC scores as an indicator of carrier safety performance or future crash risk.” The study was based on SMS scores and accident frequency data for 4,600 carriers with a minimum of 25 trucks and 50 inspections in the last 24 months. Also in early July, James Gimpel, a professor at the University of Maryland published “Statistical Issues in the Safety Measurement and Inspection of Motor Carriers.” The study points out numerous geographic deficiencies of the methodology that penalize carriers for where they operate, not how safely they operate. The study also challenges the deficiencies of SMS with regard to large versus small carriers. Data with fewer than 20 observations are not considered to meet a sufficient level of accuracy and most studies would not even publish such sparse data, but only 5 roadside inspections in the last 24 months are deemed sufficient under FMCSA’s methodology to brand a carrier as high risk. Analyzing data for tens of thousands of carriers the study showed little or no correlation between SMS scores and accident frequency. Finally, Transplace’s Director of Engineering, Inam Iyoob, published a study that also measured data for tens of thousands of carriers and found no relationship between SMS scores and individual carrier accident frequency.

The FMCSA continues to tout its studies showing a positive correlation between SMS scores and accident frequency, but to get that result they average the accident frequency of hundreds of carriers in each of 100 different percentiles and then calculate a regression of the average values. The purpose of regression analysis is to explain variation. Averaging hundreds of carriers at each percentile eliminates most of the variation in the data.

Logically, unsafe driving and driver fatigue do impact crashes. However, the way the SMS BASICs Unsafe Driving and Fatigued Driving are captured, calculated and interpreted by FMCSA does not show any correlation to crashes. Hence, usage of SMS data for carrier selection will unduly favor some and penalize others, and thus should be avoided.

A 32-year veteran in the logistics technology, third-party logistics (3PL), and transportation industries, Tom Sanderson is CEO of Transplace, a leading provider of logistics management services and technology. Prior to joining Transplace, Mr. Sanderson held various leadership positions, including president and CEO of Clicklogistics, co-owner and president of PTCG, and he worked 8 years in the trucking industry, serving as president of J.B. Hunt Special Commodities, Inc., Vice President of Marketing for J. B. Hunt Transport, Vice President of J. B. Hunt Logistics (now Transplace), as well as marketing and IT roles at Schneider National. He has 6 years of consulting experience with Mercer Management Consulting and Andersen Consulting (now Accenture). He has an MBA from Indiana University, has been married for 30 years and has three children

The UK’s Collaborative Regional Carrier Networks

Chemical Industry | By •

In the US we speak about “pallet pooling services,” while in the UK people speak of “pallet networks.” It turns out these are two very different things. The UK and the US — two nations divided by a common language.

“Pallet pooling services” involve shippers renting pallets from companies like CHEP. These service providers collect the empty pallets at the end of the supply chain, inspect them, and efficiently move them back upstream to the shippers that need them.

In contrast, “pallet networks” are collaborative regional 3PL networks. Ali Karim, the Managing Director of The Hazchem Network, explained to me how they work. It used to be that national 3PLs with a network of nationwide depots dominated transport. To compete with the national 3PLs, regional 3PLs banded together to facilitate national shipments.

The way this works is a regional 3PL, let’s say in Wales, gets a shipment order destined for Scotland. The Welsh “haulier” moves the goods to a hub location in the center of the UK run by the network service provider. Ali tells me the “golden triangle” for network hub services is bounded by Birmingham in the North-Midlands, Rugby in the East-Midlands, and Leicester in the West-Midlands. The Hazchem Network’s facility is in Rugby.

At the cross-dock in Rugby, the Welsh company’s shipment is loaded on a truck that has come south from Scotland. Meanwhile, the Scottish carrier’s goods are loaded on another regional carrier’s truck, even to destinations offshore such as Ireland and mainland Europe.

This hub and spoke network is based on night moves – “Night Trunking.” A regional carrier’s truck might leave its warehouse starting at about 4:00 in the afternoon. The hub location accepts inbound shipments and unloads trucks until midnight. From midnight to 2:00 am outbound trucks are loaded. Once loaded, the driver heads back to his home region and arrives before dawn. The truck is likely carrying multiple delivery orders so the freight is distributed among smaller trucks for localized delivery. Once the transloading is complete, the truck is then available for use during normal daylight working hours.

According to Mr. Karim, once these “pallet pooling networks” were formed, they grew quickly, 30 to 40 percent per year in the 1990’s. Meanwhile, national carriers lost market share.

The Hazchem Network, as its name suggests, moves hazardous materials (hazmat). These are non-bulk shipments – drums on a pallet or dry chemicals in traditional packaging.

All pallet networks need a good collaborative IT solution to support this business model. A typical network service needs a web-based solution that gathers and uses information on a pallet’s ultimate destination, the number of pallets, the barcodes associated with those pallets, the weight of the pallet, the scheduled arrival time at the hub, and it needs to support multiparty payments and credits. This is tough enough.

Hazchem’s IT solution needed to do much more. The hub warehouse needed to be divided into zones based on the chemical classes. As the incoming truck enters the hub, it enters different zones where the relevant items are removed. When it is time to load, the system lists the consignments that need to be loaded onto the vehicle and the truck will then enter the appropriate zones in an optimal manner. The driver is handed a loading sheet. This sheet is given to the forklift driver in each section who is responsible for locating and loading the relevant pallets. When the driver leaves the final section, the pallet barcodes are scanned to ensure they correspond to the manifest generated by the system and that the pallets are loaded in the correct configuration on the truck.

Hazchem Facility in Rugby, UK

Hazchem also needs to print the correct compliance documentation. To do this, the system needs the chemical’s name and the chemical class. They also need compliance data such as the transport chemical category and ‘proper’ shipping name, the UN number, packing group, and the tunnel code. The tunnel code ensures that hazardous chemicals are able to be carried through a particular tunnel. This is a ruling that came into law throughout Europe in 2009. Tunnels are graded  A – E, depending on a specific tunnel’s risk assessment and how hazardous the material being transported is.

Hazchem created a database of chemicals so that shipment forms could be populated with a minimum of keystrokes. There are about 180,000 different UN numbers associated with packaged chemicals. Further, the database helps with the safety documentation for drivers. The safety document tells the drivers what to do in the event of an emergency, such as a spill, with the chemicals they are carrying. The document links to Hazchem Network’s nationally recognized 24/7 emergency response service. To ensure the correct IT would be deployed, Deltion was Hazchem’s main software partner for this project.

This is all pretty slick, and I’m not the only one who thinks so. Hazchem was the winner of the 2005 Logichem European Supply Chain Project of the year.

I can’t recall hearing of this type of collaboration between regional carriers in the US. The US, of course, is much larger, which makes this model more difficult to implement. But the carrier business is highly competitive; any model that increases fuel efficiency, backhauls, and truck utilization seems worth exploring.

Guest Commentary: When a Truck Driver Fires Your Customer

Guest Commentary | By •

I was reminded recently of an old United Airlines commercial, where a company president assembles his entire team to discuss how their oldest customer had just fired the firm. The reason was plain and simple: the customer felt the company had lost touch with them. The company had forgotten the value of understanding its customer’s needs from the customer’s perspective. They were too busy using technology and systems to replace personal relationships. I remember this commercial vividly; at the time I saw it, it was almost a cautionary tale. I was shocked when I found out that this commercial originally aired in June 1990.

That tale was brought back into sharp focus recently, when a driver for one of our carrier partners refused to drive to a particular destination ever again. Effectively, this driver fired the customer.

This is a good driver, a trusted driver, a driver that has chosen the profession of driving and understands the challenges and lifestyle that comes with full truckload, over-the-road, truck driving. And he took the time to write a letter to his carrier company, explaining why he was unwilling to deliver to that destination again. This driver did not quit. He did not stop driving. He simply exercised his right to determine where he was going to drive to. He even went the extra step of explaining why he was firing this particular receiver; he felt harassed, disrespected, and ignored by the receiver. He was delivering to a live-unload destination and was made to wait over 3 hours, with no other trucks in front of him. During his wait, he was insulted and told that he had to wait because this receiver’s last delivery was late—even though that shipment was delivered by a different carrier and driver!

In an industry where driver turnover can exceed 100% and hiring is difficult even during tough economic times, this driver considers himself a “professional driver.” He has exhibited respect for his employer and his customers, and takes pride in his job. If an experienced professional driver was experiencing this, what would be the impact on newly hired or inexperienced drivers?

I immediately thought of that commercial. I thought of the company that had lost touch with its customer. While freight can make the customer/supplier relationship more complex, it still comes down to being in touch. In this case, the receiver was our customer, a customer of the shipper. But in the evolving transportation industry, it’s not uncommon for the carrier to see the driver as the customer. I see challenges for shippers that either disregard this reality, or worse, challenge it.

Both the receiver and the shipper should recognize the driver as a customer. The term “driver-friendly freight” certainly recognizes the importance of the driver in the freight equation. A single shipper cannot erase the ingrained images of the over-the-road driver and the trucking profession that influence people’s attitudes. But good shippers can, and should, address these issues in their own supply chain.

Have you articulated a “driver-friendly” strategy? Do you know how your carriers and their drivers view your business, your customers? Would you be surprised if a driver fired you? The answers to these questions may provide insight into your transportation and carrier strategies.

In our case, it was these questions, asked more than a few years ago, that caused us to look at the entire delivery cycle. Our most recent strategy was to initiate a driver survey of our facilities, to better understand the driver’s experience from their point of view.

As for the driver that fired our customer, I wasn’t able to get on the plane and visit him, but I did write him a personal letter, thanking him for his feedback, his tremendous track record with our customers, and for being such a professional. He’s still not taking shipments to that receiver, but he’s still hauling our shipments.

Craig Boroughf is Senior Director, Transportation & Indirect Sourcing at United States Gypsum Company. During his twenty-one year tenure with USG, he has worked in finance, transportation, and procurement. During his tenure, USG has been recognized as a SmartWay Excellence Award winner and as NASSTRAC’s Shipper of the Year. He is currently a Director of the Traffic Club of Chicago, and sits on customary advisory boards of both 3PL’s and carriers.

Guest Commentary: Fostering Long-Term Carrier Partnerships

Guest Commentary | By •

Last month, Manhattan Associates hosted the Inaugural “Shipper/Carrier” Exchange event in Atlanta. Attendees included an array of large shippers, 3PLs and carriers including GENCO ATC, HEB Grocery, Publix Super Markets, Celadon Trucking and Knight Transportation.

The event focused on the importance and benefit of strengthening relationships between shippers and their transportation service providers. While there were occasional areas of disagreement, there was consensus in one critical area: Freight rates are going up!

The Law of Supply and Demand
It is no surprise that fundamental supply/demand principles apply to freight transportation pricing just as they do to any other product or service. As supply tightens, either capacity must increase or higher prices will result. The key factors that are driving this in domestic TL transportation have been well documented, but nuanced thoughts identifying the potential consequences of the changing demographic, economic and regulatory landscape were raised by the event participants.

  • Lost TL capacity due to bankruptcy: A study by Avondale Partners was quoted that states that 12% of total TL capacity has been eliminated in the past few years due to the economic downturn. Many of these vehicles were shipped overseas and will be lost forever from the US inventory.
  • Driver Shortage: Carriers discussed the difficulty they are having in finding and retaining qualified long-haul drivers. This is all the more remarkable given that nationwide employment exceeds 9% and the US economy continues to sputter along with sub 2% growth. The feeling amongst the carrier community is that if they cannot find drivers now, the only recourse will be to increase driver pay until supply returns to equilibrium with demand.
  • CSA 2010: While the participants agreed that the objectives of CSA are laudable, the net impact will be a reduction in the driver pool. They noted that shippers are monitoring carriers and that the threat of litigation may preclude poor carriers, as defined by their BASIC scores, from being utilized. The participants also noted that a lack of consistency in enforcement across states may make transportation service providers leery to haul freight in certain geographic regions where the probability of being cited for an infraction is high. This could lead to regional shortages or significantly higher rates when carriers are traversing these regions.
  • Potential Changes to Hours of Service: In contrast to CSA 2010, the participants viewed the changes to HoS rules much more disdainfully. The general feeling was that the proposed HoS rules are a solution looking for a problem. It was noted that safety is at or near all time historic highs and the proposed changes under consideration will simply reduce overall trucking productivity with little in the way of benefits to the trucking industry or society in general. Additionally, it was noted that the required midnight to 6:00 am driver reset will lead to a heavy influx of trucks just as rush hour begins each day.

So what’s a shipper to do?
Truly meaningful shipper/carrier partnerships remain elusive. The feeling amongst the attendees was that there is often times a lack of trust and willingness to share information because in doing so, an advantage is given to the other party. In many shipper / carrier relationships, the concept of “win-win” is dubiously looked upon as an overly naive concept most likely developed by a consultant.

However, the forward thinking shippers and carriers at this event see things differently. As the supply / demand pendulum swings back to the carriers, three areas were discussed as means for shippers to lock in capacity without breaking the bank.

  1. Ensure Network Alignment: A quick glance at a carrier’s quarterly report tells you all you need to know about the importance of network alignment. High empty miles lead to high operating ratios. Requiring carriers to haul freight which is not aligned with their internal network reduces their profitability. Also, keep in mind that economies of scope are the driving factor in enabling carriers to reduce cost and thereby provide better rates. There is no such thing as economies of scale in TL transportation.
  2. Focus on Operational Efficiency: Carriers generate revenue by moving freight, not by sitting in a yard. Shippers that have inefficient yard operations are eating away at the productivity and profitability of the carrier. Shippers that get the reputation for poor receiving or loading processes will pay through detention charges, higher rates and/or lost capacity. Focusing on efficiently flowing carriers into and out of facilities will enable carriers to do more with less, which will drive savings that can be passed back to the shipper.
  3. Implement “Carrier-Centric” Policies: Dr. Chris Caplice, Executive Director at the Center for Transportation and Logistics at MIT, shared the results of a recent study he conducted. Based on a “market basket” of policies that determine whether a shipper is carrier-centric or not, Dr. Caplice showed that those shippers that implement policies more favorable to carriers have rates that are on average 2-3% lower than those shippers who have less “friendly” policies.

Unlike musical chairs, where the kid left without a seat is randomly determined, the pending TL capacity shortage will target shippers that are the least profitable for carriers to serve. Understanding the factors that make your carrier partners successful is the best way to ensure you have a seat when the music stops.

Mike Mulqueen is the Senior Product Director for Manhattan Associates’ Transportation Lifecycle Management solution suite.

Guest Commentary: Leveling the Fuel Surcharge Playing Field

Guest Commentary | By •

Is it possible to create a fuel surcharge program that is consistently fair to shippers and carriers?

As we have seen over recent months, the cost of motor vehicle fuel is a national preoccupation. Perhaps this is one reason why rising prices at the pump, and mechanisms such as fuel surcharges that are designed to spread the pain between shippers and service providers equably, attract so much attention.

Another possible reason is that freight practitioners come under pressure to control fuel costs when prices are climbing. Corporate procurement departments are not always familiar with the intricacies of freight transportation. When fuel prices are rising, procurement has been known to increase scrutiny of transportation managers’ decision making and pricing practices.

Even though these competing interests are unlikely to disappear, creating an unbiased surcharge formula that works for all parties in the transaction does seem like a good idea. Such a solution would remove – or at least mitigate – a potential source of conflict between shippers and transportation providers.

One reason why this subject sparks lively debate is that some believe surcharges are not always used to fairly distribute the costs between shippers and providers. The challenges of such programs are highlighted in research carried out recently at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT)[i]. The graduate students in the MIT Supply Chain Management (SCM) program at the MIT Center for Transportation & Logistics point out that when a shipper modifies a fuel surcharge, “the carrier will counter with an adjustment to the line-haul bid. This means that ultimately line haul rates and FSC (fuel surcharge) schedules are compensating.” This “revenue neutrality” means that “it does not seem possible for a shipper or carrier to establish a new FSC or modify their existing FSC in order to significantly reduce costs (shipper) or increase revenue (carrier),” according to the researchers.

But even if a fair-minded fuel surcharge is desirable, is it possible? The answer is affirmative, providing more thought is given to how the formula is structured.

The number of miles that a truck covers does not necessarily correspond with the point-to-point distances between origins and destinations, for instance. Calculating mileage when driving a car is relatively straightforward: you simply record the odometer readings at the beginning and the end of a trip. In trucking industry parlance this is called hub miles (hub refers to a wheel hub or the actual miles traveled). However, carriers don’t get paid on the actual distance traveled but according to a set of theoretical miles derived from a mileage program.

Another complication is deadhead miles, which can significantly increase the distance covered to deliver a load and hence total fuel consumption. Short haul carriers tend to have higher deadhead mileage and probably worse fuel economy in terms of the number of loaded miles they travel.

The three scenarios below illustrate how these factors affect the miles per gallon (MPG) figure that is the basis of fuel surcharge programs. The calculations show what the real MPG should be in order to fully compensate the carrier for the distance it covers. The hub miles refer to the actual distances traveled by the carrier, and the paid miles are point-to-point map distances as measured by guides such as PC Miler or Rand McNally.

We compiled the figures for illustrative purposes only. Scenario 1 might be a long haul carrier being paid on short miles. The statistics in Scenario 2 fit the profile of a regional short haul carrier with higher dead head. Scenario 3 depicts a long haul carrier being paid on practical miles. The difference in effective MPG between the highest and lowest scenarios is 17%, a significant number.

SCENARIO 1

Assumed Fuel Surcharge  MPG 6
Adjustment for Paid Miles to Hub Miles 5%
Effective MPG for Hub Miles 6.3
Dead Head 12%
Effective total MPG 7.056

SCENARIO 2

Assumed Fuel Surcharge MPG 6
Adjustment for Paid Miles to Hub Miles 5%
Effective MPG for Hub Miles 6.3
Dead Head 25%
Effective total MPG 7.875

SCENARIO 3

Assumed Fuel Surcharge MPG 6
Adjustment for Paid Miles to Hub Miles 2%
Effective MPG for Hub Miles 6.12
Dead Head 10%
Effective total MPG 6.732

The MIT researchers maintain that the escalator — the factor that represents the fuel efficiency of the carrier’s fleet in the fuel surcharge equation — is the “most contentious issue of the FSC discussion.” The above three scenarios illustrate why. The escalator defines whether a fuel surcharge is perceived as “at-market” or “below-market” or “generous” by carriers. Even a generous surcharge is not necessarily well received by carriers because “it forces them to drop their line-haul rates, in effect, placing the cost of transportation into the FSC.”

So what is an equitable solution? I’m not sure there is a single answer. However, one way to minimize the variance in these scenarios is to set a fuel surcharge program base or trigger point as close as possible to your average fuel cost. This minimizes the amount of variance between your fuel escalator and the carrier’s actual needs. The approach is not without risk since a decline in fuel costs will require you to reduce the carrier’s rate, and as a manager you will have to explain why these costs have moved from the fuel surcharge expense bucket to the line haul bucket.

Do you agree, and what is your experience? We welcome your input.

Kevin McCarthy works for C.H. Robinson as a Director of Consulting Services. Kevin has over 25 years of experience in the logistics industry working for a service provider, a small food manufacturer, and a large retailer (Target Stores). Kevin has an MBA from the University of Minnesota Carlson School of Business with an emphasis in Management Information Systems and an undergraduate business degree with an emphasis in Marketing. Kevin speaks on a regular basis at industry events, has written numerous white papers, and is a frequent contributor to TMC’s Managed TMC Blog.

———–

[i] “Risk Sharing in Contracts: The Use of Fuel Surcharge Programs,” Madhavi Kanteti and Jordan Levine, MIT Supply Chain Management thesis, Class of 2011. To view the abstract and Executive Summary, click here. To request a copy of the full thesis, please contact Dr. Bruce Arntzen, Executive Director, MIT Supply Chain Management Program at: barntzen@mit.edu.

Guest Commentary: Key CSA Scores May Be Poor Indicators of Carrier Safety

Guest Commentary | By •

Wells Fargo Senior Analyst Anthony Gallo published an excellent document on March 28 highlighting critical problems with CSA 2010. You can contact me or contact Anthony directly at anthony.gallo@wellsfargo.com for the full document, but I want to highlight a couple of key points. The analysis shows little or no correlation between the CSA BASIC scores for unsafe driving and fatigued driving and accidents per million miles. Everyone wants to see continued reductions in truck-related accidents. It appears, however, that the key CSA measures that would indicate a carrier should be a candidate for further scrutiny bear no relationship to the actual safety ratings of those carriers. This is one of numerous reasons why shippers should not use CSA data to create their own carrier credentialing methodologies. Here is an excerpt from the Wells Fargo publication.

FMCSA assigns a composite score in seven Behavior Analysis and Safety Improvement Categories (BASICs) along with a corresponding “limit” threshold. When a carrier breaches the threshold, corrective actions must be taken to remedy the violations. Serious or persistent violations can result in enforcement actions against either the driver or carrier. Motor carriers initially receive a “warning letter” informing them of their violations. According to several reports as many as 50,000 letters were expected to be sent in H1 2011.

 

When we dissected the underlying data in relation to the composite scores, we were somewhat surprised to see that there was little correlation between the scores and the actual number of accidents and injuries/fatalities. Specifically, we observed little correlation between poor scores in the Unsafe Drivers and Fatigued Drivers categories and the actual number of accidents or injuries/fatalities. Further, we could not find and are not aware of FMCSA data that statistically demonstrates a correlation behind these factors and accidents. Certainly, it is intuitive that “unsafe drivers” and “fatigued drivers” should be more prone to accidents. However, this does not appear to be the case. We feel this may be due, in part, to the methodology by which the categories are scored. For example, unfavorable Fatigued Drivers scores typically result from Hours of Service violations, but also include Logbook violations and errors. So while a fatigued/tired driver (assumed to be tired if outside of HOS criteria) may indeed be more likely to be involved in an accident, one with Logbook errors would perhaps not be. Thus, if an unfavorable Fatigued Driver score is in fact being driven by Logbook errors, the composite score would be less likely to correlate with accidents, in our view.

Accidents per Million Miles by Unsafe Driver Score (Source: Wells Fargo report; click to enlarge)
Accidents per Million Miles by Fatigued Driver Score (Source: Wells Fargo report; click to enlarge)

We understand the Unsafe Drivers/Driving category is meant to capture speeding, reckless driving, improper lane changes, etc. Certainly we think these behaviors should be captured and likely have some correlation with accidents. However, there are literally dozens of subcategories within the Unsafe Driving category, and a severity weight is given to each violation subcategory. This may help explain some of the disconnect between the scores and the actual number of accidents. For example, “reckless driving” and “texting while driving” both carry 10 point weights. Conversely, “failure to use a seatbelt” has a 7 weight whereas “improper lane change” and “following too close” each carry a 5 weight, although intuitively the latter two appear to be less safe activities, in our view.

The bottom line is that CSA is too new and unproven for shippers and brokers to be using the posted data to make carrier selection decisions. Shippers should avoid creating their own carrier credentialing methodologies that will open them up to challenges by trial lawyers when accidents do occur. It is the duty of the FMCSA to determine whether a carrier is fit for service. Shippers and brokers should be choosing carriers that provide good service at a competitive price and who maintain adequate insurance coverage.

Tom Sanderson is chairman, president & CEO of Transplace, a leading provider of logistics technology and transportation management services. Sanderson’s nearly 30 years of experience includes senior executive roles at Clicklogistics and PTCG, Inc. He also spent several years in the trucking industry, holding management positions at J.B. Hunt Special Commodities, Inc., J. B. Hunt Transport, J. B. Hunt Logistics (now Transplace) and Schneider National. Sanderson also has consulting experience with Mercer Management Consulting and Andersen Consulting (now Accenture). Sanderson has a master’s in business from Indiana University, has been married for 28 years and has three children.

Copyright © 2020 Logistics Viewpoints, ARC Advisory Group. All rights reserved • Design by

Archives