Closing the Data Infrastructure Gap
Following their initial meetings, FEDA’s new Future of Distribution Council subcommittees are taking a three-pronged approach to reducing inefficiency around shipping practices, product data, and transportation management.
T
he FEDA Future of Distribution Council (FDC) took a major step forward in February as its three newly formed subcommittees convened their kickoff meetings. Each
group was tasked with addressing a critical component of the distribution process: how equipment is packaged and shipped, how product data is structured and shared, and how logistics information is managed and tracked. While these focus areas may appear distinct, early discussions revealed a high degree of overlap, pointing to a fragmented ecosystem that is hampering operations across the foodservice equipment and supplies industry. Across all three subcommittees, participants identifi ed issues
ranging from freight damage and inconsistent product data to limited visibility into transportation processes. Each of these challenges stems from the same place: lack of shared standards, reliable information, and integrated systems. The shared experiences from distributors and manufacturers participating in the subcommittees indicate the need to tackle these underlying issues from different perspectives. At their initial meetings, the groups began the process of building a more standardized, transparent, and data-driven foundation for the industry that enables distributors, manufacturers, and other industry partners to operate more effectively.
Phase 1 Subcommittee: Shipping, Packaging & Handling Standards (SPHS)
The foodservice equipment sector experiences higher shipping damage rates than comparable industrial markets, with most incidents occurring while freight is in the carrier’s possession. While the National Motor Freight Classifi cation (NMFC) standards provide some guidance on packaging and testing, there are no widespread shipping or packaging standards in use by the foodservice equipment and supplies industry. Standards for packaging and handling guidelines would help protect equipment during shipping, preventing many common damage incidents.
This SPHS subcommittee was formed to close this gap.
Pulling from models such as the NMFC, the group is working to develop practical, scalable industry guidelines for shipping,
28 FEDA News & Views
packaging, and handling that reduce freight damage across the supply chain. These new standards will carry the collective weight of the industry behind them, strengthening their adoption and positioning them to become best practices among distributors and manufacturers. To support that goal, FEDA staff are reaching out to executives at carrier companies to bring their perspective into the process. Additionally, subcommittee members are sharing strategies they use to mitigate damage, which will help form the basis for wider industry recommendations.
Phase 2 Subcommittee: Product Data Standards & Integration (PDSI) Inconsistencies in product data between distributors and manufacturers can create noticeable friction across the supply chain, leading to delivery delays or inaccurate quotes for customers. Having standardized data ensures that distributors and manufacturers are talking the same language when it comes to crucial factors like shipping dimensions or freight classifi cation codes.
The PDSI’s focus is advancing product data consistency
across distributor and manufacturer systems to enable seamless data sharing. Using the FEDA Data Portal standardized fi elds as a baseline, the group is identifying priority data fi elds while working to understand potential challenges to entering and maintaining that data. From there, the PDSI will refi ne the FEDA Data Portal’s current data standards and recommend possible new data fi elds to further expand product information.
Transportation Management System Pilot Project (TMS)
Manually managing all the shipping and logistics information a distributor deals with every day can be overwhelming. There are order details, routing information, delivery confi rmations, mileage reports, and even more granular data like fuel consumption trends. Entering all that information by hand and fi guring out how to use it to optimize operations is time consuming and labor intensive. Today’s automated TMS solutions offer a much more effi cient alternative, but getting the most out of them still requires understanding of how to fi t them to the specifi c needs of the foodservice equipment and supplies chain. The TMS pilot project is exploring how broader adoption of TMS can help distributors and manufacturers signifi cantly improve logistics visibility and process effi ciency for LTL shipments. To do this, participants are mapping current freight management processes, documenting the real-world challenges distributors without a TMS face, and building a value case for TMS adoption based on fi rsthand member experiences and the measurable impacts on their operations. Work on those focus areas will continue throughout the year, with the next series of subcommittee meetings held in April. Findings and recommendations from all three groups will be presented in September.
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72
