\t\t\t\tThis is probably one of the biggest issues that causes strife between carriers and distribution departments more than any other.\u00a0 This article explores options and consequences of different shipping\/receiving department scheduling philosophies.\u00a0 At the heart of this issue is that carriers get paid by the mile, so they don’t want to wait to get loaded\/unloaded, and shipping departments get paid by the hour, so they don’t want to be standing around waiting for trucks to arrive, or add extra labour to accommodate the small periods of “busy” times during the day when trucks show up.<\/p>\n
Depending on who you ask, some people love this method of scheduling trucks for pickup and delivery and others hate it.\u00a0 This practise tends to favor the shipper and receiver at expense of the trucker.\u00a0 Usually, it means that the shipping\/receiving department has limited resources and has the trucks wait in queue until they are able to be served.\u00a0 Sounds fair right?\u00a0 If you get there first you get unloaded first.\u00a0 However, truckers get paid by the mile and not by the hour.\u00a0 Having to wait 2-3 hours to get unloaded is unreasonable for the carrier.<\/p>\n
This system is not without benefit for carriers some of the time though.\u00a0 If a carrier can show up “anytime on Tuesday” for delivery, they get flexibility in when they have to be there and it really helps them when unforeseen delays occur like weather and traffic.<\/p>\n
Best of both worlds?\u00a0 A FCFS system with enough internal resources at the shipper\/receiver to handle the busiest times.\u00a0 However, now this becomes expensive for the shipper, they’ll have labour sitting around 90% waiting to serve the 10% of the time when it’s busy.<\/p>\n
Some people love appointment scheduling, others hate it.\u00a0 Similar to FCFS, it has both benefits and drawbacks.\u00a0 Appointment scheduling is great for carriers when they arrive on time and get in and out fast.\u00a0 It’s also great for shippers\/receivers because they can plan the load on the department in advance and arrange for the appropriate amount of labour.\u00a0 This sounds like it’s efficient for everyone! It can be! However, when uncertainty creeps in, it causes problems for this system.\u00a0 If a carrier gets stuck in traffic, has a breakdown or gets delayed at a prior, all which is in a day’s work for a carrier, then the system breaks down.\u00a0 If Carrier A shows up for his 10am appointment at 10:30 due to getting stuck in traffic,\u00a0 \u00a0there is no one to unload him because the labour is already committed to serving the 10:30 appointment who is there on time.\u00a0 This is fair right?\u00a0 Make him wait till 4pm when all the other deliveries are unloaded.\u00a0 Not really.\u00a0 It shouldn’t be a punishment to deliver at your\u00a0 facility!\u00a0 Strict adherence to a scheduling system causes a lot of bad feelings with carriers who do their best to get your freight delivered.\u00a0 On the other hand, always accommodating late appointments will earn you the reputation as “the last delivery”.\u00a0 You’ll forever be accommodating late deliveries.<\/p>\n
There really isn’t a “perfect” solution to this problem.\u00a0 Each shipping\/receiving policy has cost consequences for both the shipper and the carrier.\u00a0 Any cost absorbed by the carrier, will eventually find its way back to the shipper in the form of rates increases.\u00a0 So the optimal solution has to be a cooperative one.\u00a0 One which balances the needs and resources of the carrier with the needs and resources of the shipper.<\/p>\n