Encouraging customers to track the freight: a valuable service, or a monster?
I believe that the concept of the customer tracking the freight, from shipper to consignee, was dreamed up by some genius (and aren't they all?) in Marketing, then aggressively promoted, as a way to provide better "service", rather than in response to real customer demand. I believe it's a bad idea. A very bad idea, in fact. I think they may have even created a monster, with this idea.
Consider: the whole concept rests on the desire of the customer to be assured that his freight will arrive on time, as promised. But we were already satisfying that desire, no? Why plant the suggestion that a carrier's track record, reputation, (and, in some cases, a guarantee) is not to be trusted? Why even hint that a commitment is insufficient assurance that the job will be done as promised? (Try calling payroll every 4 hrs, to check on the status of your money, see what the carrier thinks about that
)
In this process of fixing something that wasn't broke, we now have a number of people who are diverted from their actual work, to "check the status/location of the truck" The customer, the carrier. broker, and the driver, must all take the time to comply with this imperative - time that, IMO, could be better spent doing their actual job, instead. (Short of human organs enroute to a transplant facility, there's not much freight that truly requires treating it (and the drivers) like a newborn baby, with monitors & checkups every 4 hrs, at least with general freight.
In the case of the drivers, especially, the interruption of a location update is at best, a distraction ( of which we could do with less, rather than more ), and at worst, a safety risk. We are supposed to pull over, before answering the phone, or reading the QC, but how often do we find that to be a time consuming inconvenience, and reply while driving? Most of the time, for me personally. I'd really rather not, but finding a safe place to stop, in a truck, can waste a fair amount of time and fuel, out here in the real world. I know of one driver who, responding to a telephoned request from dispatch for information on the BOL, who reached for the paperwork, ran off the side of the road a bit, (forgetting that the hand always follows the eye), overcompensated on the return to the road, and rolled the truck. ( The driver wasn't seriously hurt, but the truck was, and the driver was terminated from the carrier before even being discharged from a few hours stay in the hospital!)
In a time sensitive environment, the fewer "timeouts" from shipper to consignee, the sooner we can safely deliver, so why add unnecessary interruptions?
If I were in charge, I'd base my marketing efforts on the promise that once the load is booked, the customer can then "Fuhgeddaboutit" (to borrow a great phrase), and devote his time to his actual work, rather than tracking his shipment. The dispatchers could focus on booking loads, etc, the driver could focus on their job, and we'd all be more efficient. (In theory).
This rant was brought to you courtesy of the carrier for whom I ran a load yesterday, and from whom I got calls every 4 hours, asking for my location, and advising me of their 'projected delivery time'. The latter was truly annoying: when they informed me that their computer showed delivery being an hour late, I wanted to reply that MY computer, using my intended route, actual location and speed, projected a delivery time of an hour ahead of schedule, so BACK OFF! Of course, I merely replied that I expected to deliver on time, if not early, and of course, I did just that.
Why would anyone suggest, to drivers or customers, that we might do it any other way?!
I believe that the concept of the customer tracking the freight, from shipper to consignee, was dreamed up by some genius (and aren't they all?) in Marketing, then aggressively promoted, as a way to provide better "service", rather than in response to real customer demand. I believe it's a bad idea. A very bad idea, in fact. I think they may have even created a monster, with this idea.
Consider: the whole concept rests on the desire of the customer to be assured that his freight will arrive on time, as promised. But we were already satisfying that desire, no? Why plant the suggestion that a carrier's track record, reputation, (and, in some cases, a guarantee) is not to be trusted? Why even hint that a commitment is insufficient assurance that the job will be done as promised? (Try calling payroll every 4 hrs, to check on the status of your money, see what the carrier thinks about that
)In this process of fixing something that wasn't broke, we now have a number of people who are diverted from their actual work, to "check the status/location of the truck" The customer, the carrier. broker, and the driver, must all take the time to comply with this imperative - time that, IMO, could be better spent doing their actual job, instead. (Short of human organs enroute to a transplant facility, there's not much freight that truly requires treating it (and the drivers) like a newborn baby, with monitors & checkups every 4 hrs, at least with general freight.
In the case of the drivers, especially, the interruption of a location update is at best, a distraction ( of which we could do with less, rather than more ), and at worst, a safety risk. We are supposed to pull over, before answering the phone, or reading the QC, but how often do we find that to be a time consuming inconvenience, and reply while driving? Most of the time, for me personally. I'd really rather not, but finding a safe place to stop, in a truck, can waste a fair amount of time and fuel, out here in the real world. I know of one driver who, responding to a telephoned request from dispatch for information on the BOL, who reached for the paperwork, ran off the side of the road a bit, (forgetting that the hand always follows the eye), overcompensated on the return to the road, and rolled the truck. ( The driver wasn't seriously hurt, but the truck was, and the driver was terminated from the carrier before even being discharged from a few hours stay in the hospital!)
In a time sensitive environment, the fewer "timeouts" from shipper to consignee, the sooner we can safely deliver, so why add unnecessary interruptions?
If I were in charge, I'd base my marketing efforts on the promise that once the load is booked, the customer can then "Fuhgeddaboutit" (to borrow a great phrase), and devote his time to his actual work, rather than tracking his shipment. The dispatchers could focus on booking loads, etc, the driver could focus on their job, and we'd all be more efficient. (In theory).
This rant was brought to you courtesy of the carrier for whom I ran a load yesterday, and from whom I got calls every 4 hours, asking for my location, and advising me of their 'projected delivery time'. The latter was truly annoying: when they informed me that their computer showed delivery being an hour late, I wanted to reply that MY computer, using my intended route, actual location and speed, projected a delivery time of an hour ahead of schedule, so BACK OFF!
Of course, I merely replied that I expected to deliver on time, if not early, and of course, I did just that.Why would anyone suggest, to drivers or customers, that we might do it any other way?!
