In another thread, Special K said,
I grumbled yesterday to the company (phone call and e-mail to appropriate people) and concluded (1) that I am whistling in the wind, and (2) the IT capabilities of the company may be impressive but they are also bound by specific priorities and staffing limitations.
If you doubt it, consider the fact that contractors have not been able to access their load-acceptance numbers on the extranet for over two years now (two years!). Then consider the fact that we used to be able to access this data at will.
I had to push for an answer and was finally told that making load-acceptance numbers available to contractors on the extranet is not a priority for the IT department. It is not a priority because they are preoccupied with developing a new system that will presumably be more comprehensive and better than the old.
I suggested, properly, proactively and through channels, that if the company is not willing to tell contractors what their load-acceptance numbers are, they should abandon load-acceptance as a criteria by which contractors are evaluated.
The numbers can be produced. That's not the issue. The issue is they are not being provided to the contractors in an easily-accessible way. Contractors are being asked to play a game without being told the score.
The response was that the numbers are needed for use in determining which contractors are eligible for Four Star recognition and the company-paid recognition event. My suggestion to scrap the Four Star program and thereby free the company from the expense and administrative burden it creates was met with silence.
I also suggested that the IT department be beefed up so the expected benefits of the new system can be sooner realized. That too was met with silence.
I did not push to have the IT suggestion forwarded higher or to speak directly with the top people in the company. These people are not stupid and I am certain that present IT staffing and skill levels are the result of an already-considered decision.
Patience is a virtue in things like this and it helps to remember that our carrier, along with the entire transportation industry, has been rocked by a severe recession and cuts have been made.
It also helps to understand that moving an entire company from an old information management system to a new one is a huge, issue-laden project. A whole lot goes on behind the scenes that contractors never see or think about. The FedEx Corporation technology initiatives across all operating companies are well conceived but are also, I presume, a complicating factor for FDCC.
At our lowly contractor level, it helps to reduce the technology expectations one has in the company and take with a grain of salt anything you hear about new technology. Over six years of experience proves that to be the best course. We have been highly successful under the old system and see little in the new system that will make us any more so.
Diane and I have been providing outstanding service to FDCC and our shared customers since 2003. In that time, we have been using the same Qualcomm, TripPak and paper log book system we started with, and with which we are generally satisfied.
A service we do not use was added; text messages to notify contractors of pending load offers. The telephone works just fine for us when we are out of the truck.
Automated departure calls were added but the technology remains the same: cell phone. The automated calls have helped reduce hold times, but staffing cuts have increased hold times on other calls for a net hold time increase.
The dispatch system changed but no contractor-used technology changed with it. The content may be different but the same Qualcomm unit beeps in the truck.
The Extranet is being used more effectively such that we can now download a number of forms that used to come by mail or fax.
There may be other new technologies in use now, fleet-wide, that I have forgotten about or do not know about. I am open to learning more about them if there is more to learn. Otherwise, six-plus years of talk about new company technology has produced nothing new for contractors beyond the few and incrimental changes mentioned above. If new Qualcomm units are actually being installed in trucks now, that will be the first significant technology change (improvement?) we have seen (and we have yet to see such a unit with our own eyes).
From the day we started, we have heard talk about new technology that was coming soon. This not from truck stop rumors or half-baked claims on this forum but from council members, contractor coordinators and others who are presumably in a position to know.
In their defense, these people were not lying. They just repeated what they are told. Like many human beings, they sometimes yielded to the temptation to be the first to know and share the news ahead of others. They meant well but when delays later came or changes were later made, the company turned their exciting news into an unintentional falsehood, and themselves into a suspect source for new info.
Again, Diane and I are satisfied and successful with the present system. I am not complaining about the "old" technology. I am actually glad to see multi-year delays in the roll out of the new stuff that is supposedly coming.
The longer we can continue to use what we use now, the better; especially in a regulatory environment in which the rules change in significant ways year after year. I do not like the idea of being forced to put new technology in our truck only to find out a year or two later that it is made obsolete by yet another regulatory change.
I'd love to see FDCC be the last of all carriers to go to EBORs. Let others be the first to go through the mine field. Let some time pass so the regulators can (hopefully) settle in to a new normal. Then we can commit to a system that is generally accepted, industry-proven and has a useful life expectancy.
A new Qualcomm unit that costs $5 a week more and provides the ability to fax paperwork to the company is of no benefit to Diane and me. It is an added expense, $260 a year, that we must build into our operating costs and pricing. While our carrier can charge us the $260, it is not a cost we will absorb. It is a cost that will be passed right back to the carrier in the form of the higher price they must pay if they want to put freight on our truck. (Just as the great fuel and tire discounts our carrier provides gets passed on in the form of the lower price they must pay to put freight on our truck).
We already have devices in our truck with which we can fax paperwork to the company. We use them with every TVAL load we do and on some other loads too. We can also send faxes to and receive and print faxes from anyone.
Two hundred sixty dollars a year extra to fax papers to the company? Go ahead and charge us if you want to, but the money will come out of your pocket, not ours. Diane and I are not among those expediters who mistake miles for success. Every cost imposed on us by our carrier is charged directly back to them.
I grumbled yesterday to the company (phone call and e-mail to appropriate people) and concluded (1) that I am whistling in the wind, and (2) the IT capabilities of the company may be impressive but they are also bound by specific priorities and staffing limitations.
If you doubt it, consider the fact that contractors have not been able to access their load-acceptance numbers on the extranet for over two years now (two years!). Then consider the fact that we used to be able to access this data at will.
I had to push for an answer and was finally told that making load-acceptance numbers available to contractors on the extranet is not a priority for the IT department. It is not a priority because they are preoccupied with developing a new system that will presumably be more comprehensive and better than the old.
I suggested, properly, proactively and through channels, that if the company is not willing to tell contractors what their load-acceptance numbers are, they should abandon load-acceptance as a criteria by which contractors are evaluated.
The numbers can be produced. That's not the issue. The issue is they are not being provided to the contractors in an easily-accessible way. Contractors are being asked to play a game without being told the score.
The response was that the numbers are needed for use in determining which contractors are eligible for Four Star recognition and the company-paid recognition event. My suggestion to scrap the Four Star program and thereby free the company from the expense and administrative burden it creates was met with silence.
I also suggested that the IT department be beefed up so the expected benefits of the new system can be sooner realized. That too was met with silence.
I did not push to have the IT suggestion forwarded higher or to speak directly with the top people in the company. These people are not stupid and I am certain that present IT staffing and skill levels are the result of an already-considered decision.
Patience is a virtue in things like this and it helps to remember that our carrier, along with the entire transportation industry, has been rocked by a severe recession and cuts have been made.
It also helps to understand that moving an entire company from an old information management system to a new one is a huge, issue-laden project. A whole lot goes on behind the scenes that contractors never see or think about. The FedEx Corporation technology initiatives across all operating companies are well conceived but are also, I presume, a complicating factor for FDCC.
At our lowly contractor level, it helps to reduce the technology expectations one has in the company and take with a grain of salt anything you hear about new technology. Over six years of experience proves that to be the best course. We have been highly successful under the old system and see little in the new system that will make us any more so.
Diane and I have been providing outstanding service to FDCC and our shared customers since 2003. In that time, we have been using the same Qualcomm, TripPak and paper log book system we started with, and with which we are generally satisfied.
A service we do not use was added; text messages to notify contractors of pending load offers. The telephone works just fine for us when we are out of the truck.
Automated departure calls were added but the technology remains the same: cell phone. The automated calls have helped reduce hold times, but staffing cuts have increased hold times on other calls for a net hold time increase.
The dispatch system changed but no contractor-used technology changed with it. The content may be different but the same Qualcomm unit beeps in the truck.
The Extranet is being used more effectively such that we can now download a number of forms that used to come by mail or fax.
There may be other new technologies in use now, fleet-wide, that I have forgotten about or do not know about. I am open to learning more about them if there is more to learn. Otherwise, six-plus years of talk about new company technology has produced nothing new for contractors beyond the few and incrimental changes mentioned above. If new Qualcomm units are actually being installed in trucks now, that will be the first significant technology change (improvement?) we have seen (and we have yet to see such a unit with our own eyes).
From the day we started, we have heard talk about new technology that was coming soon. This not from truck stop rumors or half-baked claims on this forum but from council members, contractor coordinators and others who are presumably in a position to know.
In their defense, these people were not lying. They just repeated what they are told. Like many human beings, they sometimes yielded to the temptation to be the first to know and share the news ahead of others. They meant well but when delays later came or changes were later made, the company turned their exciting news into an unintentional falsehood, and themselves into a suspect source for new info.
Again, Diane and I are satisfied and successful with the present system. I am not complaining about the "old" technology. I am actually glad to see multi-year delays in the roll out of the new stuff that is supposedly coming.
The longer we can continue to use what we use now, the better; especially in a regulatory environment in which the rules change in significant ways year after year. I do not like the idea of being forced to put new technology in our truck only to find out a year or two later that it is made obsolete by yet another regulatory change.
I'd love to see FDCC be the last of all carriers to go to EBORs. Let others be the first to go through the mine field. Let some time pass so the regulators can (hopefully) settle in to a new normal. Then we can commit to a system that is generally accepted, industry-proven and has a useful life expectancy.
A new Qualcomm unit that costs $5 a week more and provides the ability to fax paperwork to the company is of no benefit to Diane and me. It is an added expense, $260 a year, that we must build into our operating costs and pricing. While our carrier can charge us the $260, it is not a cost we will absorb. It is a cost that will be passed right back to the carrier in the form of the higher price they must pay if they want to put freight on our truck. (Just as the great fuel and tire discounts our carrier provides gets passed on in the form of the lower price they must pay to put freight on our truck).
We already have devices in our truck with which we can fax paperwork to the company. We use them with every TVAL load we do and on some other loads too. We can also send faxes to and receive and print faxes from anyone.
Two hundred sixty dollars a year extra to fax papers to the company? Go ahead and charge us if you want to, but the money will come out of your pocket, not ours. Diane and I are not among those expediters who mistake miles for success. Every cost imposed on us by our carrier is charged directly back to them.
Last edited:
