Which Carriers Should You Should Use?

Our findings suggest that carriers cater to varying market needs.

Subscriber: Log Out

Editor’s Note: Every year, 40 or so students in the MIT Center for Transportation & Logistics' (MIT CTL) Master of Supply Chain Management (SCM) program complete one-year thesis research projects. The students are early-career business professionals from multiple countries with 2 to 10 years of experience in the industry. Most of the research projects are chosen, sponsored by, and carried out in collaboration with multinational corporations. Joint teams that include MIT SCM students and MIT CTL faculty work on the real-world problems. In this series, we summarize a selection of the latest SCM research.

Trucking companies are rated on a general scorecard, which allows them to benchmark, and gives shippers some guidance on performance levels when developing their routing guides.

But what if current scorecards are too general to give shippers the information they need to create a portfolio of high-performance carriers with different market strategies?

In our research on the attributes of high-performing carriers, we analyzed the impact of individual and groups of attributes on service performance. We used a three-year dataset of both tender level and stop level data from TMC, a subsidiary of C. H. Robinson.

One of the insights from the research is that there were clear distinctions in marketplace roles and subsequent strategies between carriers, which had direct implications for their general service performance.

Which entities are performing?

Binary logistic regression and hierarchical clustering were used to identify the individual and groups of freight attributes that impacted performance success in terms of on time delivery, on time pick up, and first tender acceptance rate.

Three main performance groups of carriers were identified and their subsequent underlying attributes and strategies analyzed. This research confirmed industry belief that differing strategies and freight profile roles result in different performance levels; specifically, that more focused carriers tend to provide better service than unfocused carriers.

The research also showed that some groups of attributes work together to improve freight performance. These include longer lead times, consistency of load volume, geographic and lane focus, younger price ages, and certain mixes of types of both asset and non-asset carriers within a shipper's portfolio. An analysis of shippers' portfolios of the carriers employing different strategies showed that diversified portfolios with a higher proportion of more focused carriers have stronger performance.

The research provides some guidance for shippers in building their routing guides. For example:

1. Identify more focused carriers on the lanes you need to use. This advice stems from the focus-based performance findings derived from asset and non-asset clustering analyses.

2. When broader coverage is needed, use the larger carriers that have familiarity on the lanes you will be using. These carriers fill the “regional leader” role on those lanes.

Why does strategy matter?

This research offers a strategic review of groups of freight attributes that contribute to performance outcome. Within this review, carriers were shown to have different underlying roles within shippers' portfolios, which may suggest the need for different ways to measure their performance. Our findings suggest that carriers cater to varying market needs. The differences in strategy within the clustering analyses for both asset and non-asset carriers, implies that the uniform scorecards used to evaluate shipper performance may not be the most appropriate way to rate carriers.

There is a research opportunity in developing more strategy-specific key performance indicators (KPIs) and corresponding scorecards, to give shippers a better understanding of the performance of carriers relative to their specific market needs.

The SCM thesis Understanding Carrier Strategy and Performance was authored by Caroline Bleggi and Frederick (Qian) Zhou, and supervised by Dr. Chris Caplice, Executive Director, MIT Center for Transportation & Logistics. The research partner was C. H. Robinson. For more information on the research please contact Chris Caplice at [email protected].

SC
MR

Latest Podcast
Talking Supply Chain: Doomsday never arrives for Baltimore bridge collapse impacts
The collapse of Baltimore’s Francis Scott Key bridge brought doomsday headlines for the supply chain. But the reality has been something less…
Listen in

About the Author

Patrick Burnson, Executive Editor
Patrick Burnson

Patrick is a widely-published writer and editor specializing in international trade, global logistics, and supply chain management. He is based in San Francisco, where he provides a Pacific Rim perspective on industry trends and forecasts. He may be reached at his downtown office: [email protected].

View Patrick 's author profile.

Subscribe

Supply Chain Management Review delivers the best industry content.
Subscribe today and get full access to all of Supply Chain Management Review’s exclusive content, email newsletters, premium resources and in-depth, comprehensive feature articles written by the industry's top experts on the subjects that matter most to supply chain professionals.
×

Search

Search

Sourcing & Procurement

Inventory Management Risk Management Global Trade Ports & Shipping

Business Management

Supply Chain TMS WMS 3PL Government & Regulation Sustainability Finance

Software & Technology

Artificial Intelligence Automation Cloud IoT Robotics Software

The Academy

Executive Education Associations Institutions Universities & Colleges

Resources

Podcasts Webcasts Companies Visionaries White Papers Special Reports Premiums Magazine Archive

Subscribe

SCMR Magazine Newsletters Magazine Archives Customer Service