As retailers continue to expand their omnichannel service offerings, they're increasingly turning to a traditionally underused resource: the brick-and-mortar store.
Talk to enough retailers, wholesalers, and manufacturers, and they'll tell you that building up their omnichannel fulfillment networks is imperative for maintaining market share. But dig a little deeper, and you'll soon realize that omnichannel retailing is not a single bullseye target, but rather a diverse mosaic of operations that can include everything from shuttling inventory between brick-and-mortar storefronts to offering BOPIS, or "buy online, pick up in store," services.
Many practitioners have traditionally defined "omnichannel" as "distribution from anywhere," including the distributor's distribution center (DC), direct from the supplier, or shipped from a store or third-party logistics partner (3PL). But today, the term "omnichannel" seems to have almost as many definitions as the number of players in the marketplace.
Article Figures
Which omnichannel capabilities do you currently enable?Enlarge this image
Which of the following technologies do you currently use as part of your omnichannel initiative?Enlarge this image
What percentage of your direct retail revenue comes from each channel?Enlarge this image
To learn more about the current state of omnichannel fulfillment practices, Supply Chain Quarterly's sister publication DC Velocity teamed up with ARC Advisory Group, a Dedham, Massachusetts-based management consulting firm, to conduct an industry survey. Respondents answered 32 questions about their approach to meeting current challenges in omnichannel commerce, with a focus on order fulfillment and, especially, the changing role of the retail store in helping companies deal with a surging tide of online orders. (For more information on the study, see the sidebar.)
ABOUT THE STUDY
This year's omnichannel study was conducted by ARC Advisory Group in conjunction with Supply Chain Quarterly's sister publication DC Velocity. ARC analyst Chris Cunnane oversaw the research and compiled the results.
The study explored current challenges in omnichannel commerce,with a focus on order fulfillment and, especially, the changing role of the retail store. Respondents included logistics professionals from a variety of industry verticals, who submitted answers during July and August 2018.
As for the demographic breakdown, the majority (60 percent) of respondents sold goods through a combination of direct and indirect sales channels. Another 30 percent sold merchandise through direct retail only, and the remaining 10 percent through indirect sales channels only.
A report containing a more detailed examination of the omnichannel survey results is available from ARC. For order information, visit https://www.arcweb.com.
Many different shades
The survey revealed that retailers deploy a broad spectrum of cross-channel tactics to support sales in today's challenging omnichannel environment from "order at store, fulfill from a warehouse (or another store)" to "return to store, even when goods are ordered online." (See Figure 1 for the full rundown.) The survey also looked at what particular tools respondents rely on to get those jobs done. The data showed that the most common technologies or applications currently used by respondents as part of their omnichannel initiatives are warehouse management systems (80 percent), transportation management systems (76 percent), and total-landed-cost analytics (61 percent). (See Figure 2 for the complete list.)
The respondents are also taking a variety of actions to recover the supply chain costs associated with fulfilling omnichannel orders. The numbers show that the most common approach is to collect fees for expedited delivery, cited by 51 percent of survey-takers. Next on the list was charging delivery fees for all orders (40 percent), followed by collecting fees for returns shipments (28 percent). (See Figure 3.)
Even with these efforts to recover costs, retailers' investments in their omnichannel capabilities (which include software, hardware, training, and shipping, among others) add up to serious money. So, what's motivating companies to continue adding tiles to the omnichannel mosaic? Respondents said the top four reasons they were participating in omnichannel commerce or intending to do so were: to increase sales (51 percent), to increase market share (50 percent), to improve customer loyalty (45 percent), and to increase margins (21 percent).
A growing role for stores
Over the past few years, there has been increasing attention paid to the practice of using store inventory to fulfill e-commerce orders. In response to this growing trend, this year's survey took a particularly close look at the role of the store in omnichannel fulfillment. While some major retailers, such as Walmart and Best Buy, are certainly using stores in this capacity, the survey found that the majority of e-commerce orders are still being filled from distribution centers. Sixty-eight percent of respondents said they were fulfilling at least some of their orders through a traditional DC that also handles e-commerce. Thirty-nine percent said items were shipped directly from the manufacturer or supplier, and 32 percent said they filled orders through a web-only DC. Only 26 percent of respondents said they were filling e-commerce from the store.
When were retailers choosing to use stores to fulfill e-commerce orders? The primary reason cited was inventory constraints or stockouts at the local DC (63 percent). That was followed by distance to the customer delivery location (53 percent) and resource constraints at the DC (13 percent).
"Survey respondents indicated that they frequently use stores for e-commerce picking, packing, and shipping when DCs are unable to meet overall order volumes," said ARC Senior Research Analyst Chris Cunnane, who oversaw the research and compiled the results. "In this case, when the DC is flooded with orders and will not be able to meet delivery timeframes, it will [hand off] the order to a local store to make sure the customer gets the order when they expect it."
To get a better sense of store-based fulfillment practices, the survey also asked respondents how they handled e-commerce orders filled through a store. The overwhelming majority (94 percent) said the stores both picked orders and shipped them to customers. Another 59 percent said their stores picked orders and held them for customer pickup, while 47 percent said orders were shipped from the DC to the store for customer pickup. (Survey-takers were allowed to select multiple responses to this question.)
"The most popular method for store fulfillment, as selected by 94 percent of respondents, is to pick orders in the store and ship them to the customer," Cunnane said. "Compared to last year's survey, when fewer than 70 percent of respondents identified pick and ship from the store, this is becoming a bigger part of store operations."
Turning retail stores into fulfillment operations will not be easy, however. Survey respondents identified three main capabilities that were crucial to a successful in-store fulfillment program. More than half (58 percent) of respondents said that they needed to  have visibility of inventory across all locations (58 percent), while 53 percent said the fulfillment process had to be easy for store staff to implement. Finally, 42 percent acknowledged that store associates would have to be trained in how to properly pick, pack, and ship orders.
"Training is a big part of ship-from-store, as the skills required for floor staff and warehouse staff are significantly different," Cunnane said. "Training store associates on how to properly pick, pack, and ship speeds up the process while helping to eliminate errors or damaged merchandise."
Given the need for additional investment in time and training, retailers appear to be somewhat selective about the stores they use for e-commerce fulfillment. Only 40 percent of respondents said they had enlisted all or almost all of their stores in the effort. From there, the numbers dropped off quickly. Twenty-seven percent indicated they handled e-commerce fulfillment at "a widespread selection" of stores, and another 27 percent at "a select subset" of stores. Thirteen percent said they used stores on a limited pilot basis, and 7 percent indicated that they didn't use stores for e-commerce fulfillment at all.
Brick and mortar is still king
The e-commerce revolution is happening fast, and our survey showed that most retailers are investing large amounts of time, labor, and money to keep up. But every gold rush needs a reality check, so it's worth remembering that brick and mortar is still king. Asked what percentage of their direct retail revenue currently comes from each channel, respondents said 57 percent came from brick-and-mortar outlets, 33 percent from online (including mobile) sales, and 14 percent from call center/catalog sales.
Still, it's clear where the trend line is going. Just five years ago, brick and mortar generated a full 64 percent of sales, according to the survey respondents. Brick and mortar's share has slipped to 57 percent today, and respondents expect it to slide further—to 50 percent—in five years' time. By contrast, survey-takers see online's share, which stood at just 22 percent five years ago, rising to 39 percent by 2023. (See Figure 4.)
Work in progress
Taken together, the survey results indicate that omnichannel fulfillment is still in a state of flux. As retailers scramble to adjust to a shifting marketplace, they continue to fine-tune their networks, processes, and technologies. At the same time, they're adding tiles to the complex omnichannel fulfillment mosaic. To make it all work, they're relying more and more on a resource that was once just a bit player in the omnichannel game: the retail store.
Editor's note:Â A similar version of this article originally appeared in the November 2018 issue of DC Velocity magazine.
Economic activity in the logistics industry expanded in November, continuing a steady growth pattern that began earlier this year and signaling a return to seasonality after several years of fluctuating conditions, according to the latest Logistics Managers’ Index report (LMI), released today.
The November LMI registered 58.4, down slightly from October’s reading of 58.9, which was the highest level in two years. The LMI is a monthly gauge of business conditions across warehousing and logistics markets; a reading above 50 indicates growth and a reading below 50 indicates contraction.
“The overall index has been very consistent in the past three months, with readings of 58.6, 58.9, and 58.4,” LMI analyst Zac Rogers, associate professor of supply chain management at Colorado State University, wrote in the November LMI report. “This plateau is slightly higher than a similar plateau of consistency earlier in the year when May to August saw four readings between 55.3 and 56.4. Seasonally speaking, it is consistent that this later year run of readings would be the highest all year.”
Separately, Rogers said the end-of-year growth reflects the return to a healthy holiday peak, which started when inventory levels expanded in late summer and early fall as retailers began stocking up to meet consumer demand. Pandemic-driven shifts in consumer buying behavior, inflation, and economic uncertainty contributed to volatile peak season conditions over the past four years, with the LMI swinging from record-high growth in late 2020 and 2021 to slower growth in 2022 and contraction in 2023.
“The LMI contracted at this time a year ago, so basically [there was] no peak season,” Rogers said, citing inflation as a drag on demand. “To have a normal November … [really] for the first time in five years, justifies what we’ve seen all these companies doing—building up inventory in a sustainable, seasonal way.
“Based on what we’re seeing, a lot of supply chains called it right and were ready for healthy holiday season, so far.”
The LMI has remained in the mid to high 50s range since January—with the exception of April, when the index dipped to 52.9—signaling strong and consistent demand for warehousing and transportation services.
The LMI is a monthly survey of logistics managers from across the country. It tracks industry growth overall and across eight areas: inventory levels and costs; warehousing capacity, utilization, and prices; and transportation capacity, utilization, and prices. The report is released monthly by researchers from Arizona State University, Colorado State University, Rochester Institute of Technology, Rutgers University, and the University of Nevada, Reno, in conjunction with the Council of Supply Chain Management Professionals (CSCMP).
Grocers and retailers are struggling to get their systems back online just before the winter holiday peak, following a software hack that hit the supply chain software provider Blue Yonder this week.
The ransomware attack is snarling inventory distribution patterns because of its impact on systems such as the employee scheduling system for coffee stalwart Starbucks, according to a published report. Scottsdale, Arizona-based Blue Yonder provides a wide range of supply chain software, including warehouse management system (WMS), transportation management system (TMS), order management and commerce, network and control tower, returns management, and others.
Blue Yonder today acknowledged the disruptions, saying they were the result of a ransomware incident affecting its managed services hosted environment. The company has established a dedicated cybersecurity incident update webpage to communicate its recovery progress, but it had not been updated for nearly two days as of Tuesday afternoon. “Since learning of the incident, the Blue Yonder team has been working diligently together with external cybersecurity firms to make progress in their recovery process. We have implemented several defensive and forensic protocols,” a Blue Yonder spokesperson said in an email.
The timing of the attack suggests that hackers may have targeted Blue Yonder in a calculated attack based on the upcoming Thanksgiving break, since many U.S. organizations downsize their security staffing on holidays and weekends, according to a statement from Dan Lattimer, VP of Semperis, a New Jersey-based computer and network security firm.
“While details on the specifics of the Blue Yonder attack are scant, it is yet another reminder how damaging supply chain disruptions become when suppliers are taken offline. Kudos to Blue Yonder for dealing with this cyberattack head on but we still don’t know how far reaching the business disruptions will be in the UK, U.S. and other countries,” Lattimer said. “Now is time for organizations to fight back against threat actors. Deciding whether or not to pay a ransom is a personal decision that each company has to make, but paying emboldens threat actors and throws more fuel onto an already burning inferno. Simply, it doesn’t pay-to-pay,” he said.
The incident closely followed an unrelated cybersecurity issue at the grocery giant Ahold Delhaize, which has been recovering from impacts to the Stop & Shop chain that it across the U.S. Northeast region. In a statement apologizing to customers for the inconvenience of the cybersecurity issue, Netherlands-based Ahold Delhaize said its top priority is the security of its customers, associates and partners, and that the company’s internal IT security staff was working with external cybersecurity experts and law enforcement to speed recovery. “Our teams are taking steps to assess and mitigate the issue. This includes taking some systems offline to help protect them. This issue and subsequent mitigating actions have affected certain Ahold Delhaize USA brands and services including a number of pharmacies and certain e-commerce operations,” the company said.
Editor's note:This article was revised on November 27 to indicate that the cybersecurity issue at Ahold Delhaize was unrelated to the Blue Yonder hack.
The new funding brings Amazon's total investment in Anthropic to $8 billion, while maintaining the e-commerce giant’s position as a minority investor, according to Anthropic. The partnership was launched in 2023, when Amazon invested its first $4 billion round in the firm.
Anthropic’s “Claude” family of AI assistant models is available on AWS’s Amazon Bedrock, which is a cloud-based managed service that lets companies build specialized generative AI applications by choosing from an array of foundation models (FMs) developed by AI providers like AI21 Labs, Anthropic, Cohere, Meta, Mistral AI, Stability AI, and Amazon itself.
According to Amazon, tens of thousands of customers, from startups to enterprises and government institutions, are currently running their generative AI workloads using Anthropic’s models in the AWS cloud. Those GenAI tools are powering tasks such as customer service chatbots, coding assistants, translation applications, drug discovery, engineering design, and complex business processes.
"The response from AWS customers who are developing generative AI applications powered by Anthropic in Amazon Bedrock has been remarkable," Matt Garman, AWS CEO, said in a release. "By continuing to deploy Anthropic models in Amazon Bedrock and collaborating with Anthropic on the development of our custom Trainium chips, we’ll keep pushing the boundaries of what customers can achieve with generative AI technologies. We’ve been impressed by Anthropic’s pace of innovation and commitment to responsible development of generative AI, and look forward to deepening our collaboration."
Businesses engaged in international trade face three major supply chain hurdles as they head into 2025: the disruptions caused by Chinese New Year (CNY), the looming threat of potential tariffs on foreign-made products that could be imposed by the incoming Trump Administration, and the unresolved contract negotiations between the International Longshoremen’s Association (ILA) and the U.S. Maritime Alliance (USMX), according to an analysis from trucking and logistics provider Averitt.
Each of those factors could lead to significant shipping delays, production slowdowns, and increased costs, Averitt said.
First, Chinese New Year 2025 begins on January 29, prompting factories across China and other regions to shut down for weeks, typically causing production to halt and freight demand to skyrocket. The ripple effects can range from increased shipping costs to extended lead times, disrupting even the most well-planned operations. To prepare for that event, shippers should place orders early, build inventory buffers, secure freight space in advance, diversify shipping modes, and communicate with logistics providers, Averitt said.
Second, new or increased tariffs on foreign-made goods could drive up the cost of imports, disrupt established supply chains, and create uncertainty in the marketplace. In turn, shippers may face freight rate volatility and capacity constraints as businesses rush to stockpile inventory ahead of tariff deadlines. To navigate these challenges, shippers should prepare advance shipments and inventory stockpiling, diversity sourcing, negotiate supplier agreements, explore domestic production, and leverage financial strategies.
Third, unresolved contract negotiations between the ILA and the USMX will come to a head by January 15, when the current contract expires. Labor action or strikes could cause severe disruptions at East and Gulf Coast ports, triggering widespread delays and bottlenecks across the supply chain. To prepare for the worst, shippers should adopt a similar strategy to the other potential January threats: collaborate early, secure freight, diversify supply chains, and monitor policy changes.
According to Averitt, companies can cushion the impact of all three challenges by deploying a seamless, end-to-end solution covering the entire path from customs clearance to final-mile delivery. That strategy can help businesses to store inventory closer to their customers, mitigate delays, and reduce costs associated with supply chain disruptions. And combined with proactive communication and real-time visibility tools, the approach allows companies to maintain control and keep their supply chains resilient in the face of global uncertainties, Averitt said.
Specifically, the new global average robot density has reached a record 162 units per 10,000 employees in 2023, which is more than double the mark of 74 units measured seven years ago.
Broken into geographical regions, the European Union has a robot density of 219 units per 10,000 employees, an increase of 5.2%, with Germany, Sweden, Denmark and Slovenia in the global top ten. Next, North America’s robot density is 197 units per 10,000 employees – up 4.2%. And Asia has a robot density of 182 units per 10,000 persons employed in manufacturing - an increase of 7.6%. The economies of Korea, Singapore, mainland China and Japan are among the top ten most automated countries.
Broken into individual countries, the U.S. ranked in 10th place in 2023, with a robot density of 295 units. Higher up on the list, the top five are:
The Republic of Korea, with 1,012 robot units, showing a 5% increase on average each year since 2018 thanks to its strong electronics and automotive industries.
Singapore had 770 robot units, in part because it is a small country with a very low number of employees in the manufacturing industry, so it can reach a high robot density with a relatively small operational stock.
China took third place in 2023, surpassing Germany and Japan with a mark of 470 robot units as the nation has managed to double its robot density within four years.
Germany ranks fourth with 429 robot units for a 5% CAGR since 2018.
Japan is in fifth place with 419 robot units, showing growth of 7% on average each year from 2018 to 2023.