戴勒姆-克莱斯勒集团物流展望.ppt

Daimler Chrysler Logistics Rail Outlook,Marc A. Brazeau Manager, North American Logistics Integration DaimlerChrysler Corporation,2,C H R Y S L E R G R O U P,Procurement & Supply,Motivated Employees,Lean Processes,Aspirational Products,Customer Focus,Shareholder Value,“Disciplined Pizzazz”,Quality Cost Technology Supply,LEAN PROCESS STRATEGIES,Suppliers adapt to delivery requirements defined by World Wide Supply, NAFTA, & GSC Strategy,Chrysler Group Goals,C H R Y S L E R G R O U P,Common Understanding Vision - “Shaping the worlds most effective supply chain” Customer Focus Objectives Guiding Principles Supply backbone process sets framework for interaction Within DaimlerChrysler With Outside Customers Enablers IT Performance Measurement Human Resources,DaimlerChrysler Supply Strategy,The Supply Backbone is the common process model of DaimlerChrysler Supply.,DaimlerChrysler Supply System,Key Measures in the Automotive Logistics,Quality Vehicle Damage Frequency Cost Material Cost Management Technology Insight Network Logistics Supply Vehicle Transit Time,System Cost & Supply,Technology & Quality,Resource,Repair,Reward,Repair,E,D,Logistics Industry,Overall Logistics and Transportation Expenditures are down to a record low as a percentage of GDP,46% Decline,Cost,MCM target is an 18.8% reduction in Logistics cost through 2003 Total Supply Cost Reduction of 31% per unit 2001 through 2006,Rail Industry,Intermodal volumes have increased 11.1% since 1999; 5.8% last year alone. Intermodal opportunity: strengthening economy truckload capacity service improvements,The Transportation sector represents 8% of total rail freight revenue Rail and intermodal provide a cost effective alternative to traditional transportation for the automotive industry,+5.8%,DCX Parts & Materials Transportation,2002 Logistics Expenditures % of Spend,70,000 part shipments per day Daily, we unload 7700 truckloads 140 rail cars,+30% from 2001,Network Optimization Chrysler Group,Value-added partnerships provide strategic solutions Collaboration of multiple service providers (Ryder, CSX, Union Pacific, TFM) provides lower cost alternative unique to DCX. Over 50 direct suppliers plus RILC material launched on stack train. 18% savings: $14.2 million.,Collaboration of Strategic Partners,North and Southbound Stack Train,DCX Finished Vehicle Logistics,2002 Logistics Expenditures % of Spend,Ship 11,000 vehicles per day Over 2.5 million vehicles in 2002. 75% of all vehicles move via rail during their route from manufacturing point to dealer,+6% from 2001,Critical Factors for Vehicle Delivery Process,Technology,Standardized Launch Planning Increased Carrier Base Extended Enterprise,CAPS Modeling VIN Vision VIN Logic,Route Optimization Asset Planning Performance Measurement,Supply,Speed to Market & Reliability, Visibility Process Control & Continuous Improvement Visibility, Responsiveness & Customer Satisfaction,Capacity vs. Demand,Industry volumes in North America are projected to increase by 7% per year from 2003 to 2007 Introduction of trucks, SUVs and crossover vehicles will impact rail car supply There is a widening gap between railcar requirements and available supply,Asset Management,Improve transit time to reduce the gap between equipment capacity and demand,Make necessary capital equipment expenditures to increase capacity of bi-levels and Q2 cars,Railcar Capacity vs. Demand,Network Optimization Chrysler Group,Ocean movement of finished vehicles from Mexico to east coast ramps Damage frequency reduced Transit time maintained Cost savings provided of $1.6 million per year,Quality - Damage Prevention,In 2002, Railroads paid $142.4 million for loss and damage 38.8 %, or $55.2 million is attributed to transportation equipment,2002 Loss & Damage Payments,by Commodity,Coal, Ore,Minerals,3.3%,Food Products,11.6%,Chemicals,5.6%,Misc. Mixed,18.1%,Farm Products,8.7%,Transportation,Equipment,38.8%,Metal Products &,Machinery,3.9%,Lumber, Wood &,Paper Products,10.0%,US Auto Market Forecast,Effectively Track Funding,Source: Eno Transportation Foundation,Hurdle rate of 10% for rail capital programs seems conservative Automotive commodity draws on capital: Line expansion Terminal capacity Asset Management Impact on captive shippers: Subsidizing modal competitive commodities Reduced leverage,Investment Pyramid,Suggests that investment is needed to satisfy volume capacity Must consider the range of commodity needs Public funding needs to be tied to: Open access Co-production Commodity parity,Grade crossings, branch & commuter lines,Corridor capacity, intermodal & terminals,Automotive Freight Corridors,Assessment of freight corridors: Report example 2: Chicago gateway connections Report example 3: Northeast congestion Report example 5: Detroit Mexico corridor Automotive requirements: Terminal & yard capacity Regional line capacity Dimensional clearances Plan for growth,Possible Futures,No Growth: Widens the gap between captive and modal competitive customers Promotes internal commodity subsidies Would force the development of lower cost alternatives Constrained Investment: Could address stop-gap capacity measures Focus would continue to be on supporting modal competitive commodities Wouldnt support asset renewal Base Case: Would maintain current rate structure Most likely result in current service levels In light of shippers targets wouldnt eliminate the on-going need to pursue service alternatives Aggressive Investment: Promote effective capacity growth Support co-location/co-production projects Explore technological improvements,The Bottom Line,Investment must satisfy railroads, shippers, and public interest Yard & terminal cap