2006年度寻找最佳品质物流

美国《物流管理》杂志（Logistics Management）主持评定的第二十三届寻找最佳品质物流在本年8月公布结果。在110家物流运输供应商中，根据不同分类，大众票选得出了2006年度的最佳物流品质商。共计六个分类，分别为：公路运输类、铁路运输类、海运类、航空及航空快递类、货代类和第三方物流供应商类（motor carriers, railroad and intermodal services, ocean carriers, airlines and air express carriers, freight forwarders, and third-party/contract logistics service providers）。本次评定共回收有效答卷6098份。
所有的物流运输供应商们在5项要点被评定：按时表现、价值、客户服务、信息科技和设施及操作（On-time Performance, Value, Customer Service, Information Technology, and Equipment & Operations）。由于供应链本身赋予第三方物流的特殊性，所以在评估第三方物流供应商时 ，标准有所不同，包括：承运人选择及谈判、指示完成充分性、运输和配送、存货管理和物流信息系统（ Carrier Selection & Negotiation, Order Fulfillment, Transportation & Distribution, Inventory Management, and Logistics Information Systems）。
评定采用5分制。5分代表最满意，1分代表最不满意。
除了对单个的物流供应商们做评定，这份调查还探讨了关于核心承运人的课题， 包括诸如与核心承运人之间关系界定等问题。

调查结果部分小结

1．关于对物流供应商的评估
Figure 1 Performance Attributes' Importance
Company Type On-Time Performance Value Information Technology Customer Service Equipment & Operations
National/Multiregional LTL and Surface Package Carriers 4.7 3.8 2.1 2.6 1.8
Truckload, Van Lines, Expedited 4.7 3.8 1.5 2.6 2.4
Rail/Intermodal Service Providers 4.4 3.7 1.5 2.6 2.8
Ocean Carriers 4.4 3.9 2.0 2.8 1.9
Airlines and Air Express Carriers 4.7 3.7 2.2 2.8 1.6
Freight Forwarders 4.7 3.7 2.2 2.8 1.6
Source: Logistics Management, Reed Research Group

Carrier Selection & Negotiation Order Fulfillment Transportation/Distribution Inventory Management Logistics Information Systems
3PLs 3.0 3.4 3.2 2.6 2.8
Source: Logistics Management, Reed Research Group

我们可以看到，无论是那种承运服务，货主们最满意的一般仍然是按时服务On-time Performance，其次是价值Value，客户服务也是重要考量。而对于第三方物流，货主们最满意的依次是指示完成充分性、运输和配送、承运人选择及谈判、物流信息系统和存货管理。

2．关于核心承运伙伴关系
本年度调查表明，货主和海运承运人建立最为紧密的核心承运伙伴关系。在问卷回应里，100%的货主与他们的主要海运承运人已有核心承运伙伴关系。 98%的答卷称与他们的主要快递承运人建立了核心承运伙伴关系。
Figure 2 Core Carrier Satisfaction Ratings
Mode % using Core Carriers Overall Satisfaction Score* Core Satisfaction Score*
National LTL 81 32.15 36.26
Multiregional LTL 40 30.52 35.51
Surface Package 79 34.42 37.46
Northeast/Mid-Atlantic Regional LTL 32 34.78 39.14
South/South Central Regional LTL 22 34.05 38.69
Midwest/North Central Regional LTL 28 33.99 37.73
Western Regional LTL 19 33.23 36.88
Truckload - Bulk 37 32.60 36.01
Truckload - Household Goods & High-Value Goods 11 32.56 37.14
Truckload - Industrial/Heavy-Haul 17 34.09 38.05
Truckload - Dry Freight 50 32.61 35.84
Truckload - Expedited 59 34.81 37.38
Rail/Intermodal 78 29.11 30.28
Intermodal Marketing Companies 72 31.75 36.07
Ocean Carriers 100 32.76 35.08
Air Express 98 34.25 37.55
Airlines 27 32.03 33.43
*Average weighted score
Source: Logistics Management, Reed Research Group
在关于是否满意他们核心承运伙伴的服务时，货主们明显地偏爱满意这些核心承运伙伴的服务，其满意指数远远高于那些非核心承运商的服务。这与2005年的调查结果相仿。但有一点与往年不一样的是，相对于2005年度，所有满意指数有下落趋势，均比2005年偏低。

3．海运承运人满意程度排名
Figure 3 Ocean Carriers
On-time Performance Value Information Technology Customer Service Equipment & Operations Weighted Score
Wallenius Wilhelmsen 12.00 9.75 4.40 7.00 4.56 37.71
Atlantic Container Line (ACL) 11.10 8.67 4.22 6.92 4.69 35.60
NYK Line 10.70 9.13 4.47 6.40 4.24 34.93
Horizon Lines 10.69 8.54 4.40 6.67 4.49 34.79
Matson Navigation 11.00 8.78 4.36 6.11 4.43 34.68
“K” Line 10.32 8.64 4.29 6.69 4.34 34.28
Hamburg-Sud (includes Alianca) 10.79 8.55 4.13 6.30 4.50 34.27
OOCL 10.54 8.64 4.36 6.19 4.28 34.02
Hyundai Merchant Marine 10.20 8.71 4.34 6.28 4.17 33.71
MOL 9.97 8.78 4.21 6.50 4.24 33.70
Canada Maritime (Hapag-Lloyd) 10.59 8.89 4.15 5.82 4.24 33.70
Yang Ming Line 10.16 9.13 4.05 6.28 4.04 33.67
Evergreen Line 10.10 9.03 4.27 5.64 4.29 33.32
APL 10.30 7.85 4.40 6.33 4.38 33.25
Cast (Hapag-Lloyd) 9.63 8.91 4.43 6.30 3.94 33.20
Hapag-Lloyd 10.07 8.67 4.18 5.99 4.17 33.08
Hanjin Shipping 9.90 8.79 4.09 5.90 4.31 32.99
FESCO 10.27 8.67 3.56 6.65 3.80 32.94
Maersk Line 10.10 8.27 4.43 5.60 4.35 32.76
AVERAGE 9.93 8.61 4.11 5.95 4.16 32.76
All scores are weighted. Weighted scores are determined by multiplying the average raw scores by the average importance of each attribute (1 = least important; 5 = most important). To find the attributed weights for this category, see the introduction to the Quest for Quality report.
Source: Logistics Management, Reed Research Group