Lou Smyrlis

The transportation and logistics practices so ingrained into our business culture – from JIT deliveries to global supply chains -- stem from trying to most efficiently distribute goods produced in massive production runs and reliant on economies of scale. But there is a new manufacturing technology that may change both manufacturing and the supply chain practices that support it.

In a recent cover story, the Economist declared this new technology “may have as profound an impact on the world as the coming of the factory did,” proclaiming a “new industrial revolution may be on the way.” Professor Richard Hague heads a world-leading manufacturing group and is so enamored with the almost limitless freedom the new technology gives to designers that he was quoted in the UK’s The Engineer magazine as calling it “almost as close to Nirvana as you’re ever going to get.”

And this is no far into the future vision. Dr. Hod Lipson, director of the Computational Synthesis Laboratory at Cornell, recently told the BBC: “In 20 years this technology will be mainstream.”

The technology I’m talking about is called additive manufacturing. It’s also often referred to as three-dimensional printing as it works in a similar way to a laser printer. Using this technique along with a blueprint on a computer, a solid object can be built up gradually from a series of layers - each one printed directly on top of the previous one. The raw material used is a powder, which can be a metal, plastic, aluminium, stainless steel, etc, or a combination of these. The object – a spare part for a car, a hearing aid, a bicycle frame – is built by either depositing material from a nozzle or by selectively solidifying a thin layer of plastic or metal dust using tiny drops of glue or a tightly focused beam.

When production becomes that easy, it does not require a factory in many instances and so greatly reduces the cost of manufacturing by making production lines and the expensive tooling they require unnecessary. Smaller items can be made by a machine like a desktop printer, in the corner of an office or the back of a shop, maybe even a house. And as the Economist and the other publications I read explained, three dimensional printing makes is as cheap to produce single items as it is to produces thousands. Just as important, since this new technology allows each item to be created individually, rather than from a single mould, each item can be made slightly differently at almost no extra cost. This could push business away from mass production and towards mass customisation for all sorts of products. For example, Digital Forming is a company already using 3D design software and offers a service to mobile-phone companies in which subscribers can go online to change the shape, colour and other features of the case of their new phone.

These three factors combine to undermine the economies of scale our current manufacturing business models – and the supply chain strategies that support them – are built upon.
Three dimensional printing is not new to manufacturing; 3D printers have been used in factories for more than a decade, but mostly to make prototypes faster and more cost effectively than with traditional methods. As the advantages provided by the new technology became more apparent they were put to use making final products rather than prototypes. Already more than 20% of the output of 3D printers is final products and that figure could more than double by the next decade.

This is certain to change transportation and distribution practices. Customization is certain to lead to smaller and more frequent shipments. And when that is the case, would it make sense to have such products made overseas or would the move away from economies of scale reset the economics of regionally-based manufacturing and shorter shipping distances? That possibility was already on the agenda of a conference put on by DHL last year.

Add it all up, and the future of transportation and logistics could be significantly different from what we have become used to.

Every successful trading society throughout history – from the Persian and Roman empires of ancient times to the European Union and United States of today – has understood the importance of an effective, harmonized, transportation system.

I wonder when Canada will learn that lesson?

From the ridiculously long time it took to get anywhere close to harmonized weights and measures and the mess we have endured at our busiest border crossing for decades, it would seem that narrow-minded and short sighted provincial thinking too often places the greater good in jeopardy. What has been happening in Quebec over electronic onboard recorders is just the latest example.

Forward-thinking motor carriers have begun investing in electronic onboard recorders to improve their hours of service compliance and respond much more quickly to discrepancies and violations than is possible through the outdated paper log method. These carriers should be commended for their initiative. And also for having the patience and determination to deal with all the driver fears surrounding e-logs. I have had candid conversations with several early adopters of e-logs so far and they all say the same: they are a much more efficient way to deal with hours of service than the paper logs currently being used by the majority in our industry. And they are much less likely to be falsified.

Yet, for some reason beyond understanding, enforcement officers in Quebec recently took to fining carriers for failing to provide paper logs during roadside inspections. And they weren’t holding back on the fines either. For example, Total Logistics Group received a fine of $956 for failing to provide paper logbooks. The company reported that one of its drivers was pulled in for inspection by an enforcement officer who was not familiar with e-logs. The driver first offered to provide a paper copy of the records by faxing the documents to the inspector’s office, however after some consideration the officer reportedly said a fax wouldn’t suffice. The driver, who had a paper logbook with him, then offered to update it to match what was displayed by the EOBR. But the officer told him he had to update his logbook before leaving the terminal, according to Total Logistics, adding that the officer said he’d never seen an e-log before and it was not accepted in Quebec.

The Canadian Council of Motor Transport Administrators (CCMTA) EOBR working group labored for some time to come up with an EOBR protocol for enforcement agencies across the country. This way how inspectors from various regions accepted, viewed and interpreted electronic logs would be harmonized. That’s what countries that are serious about having a national transportation system do. They ensure that carriers and the supply chains they serve are not handicapped by conflicting regulations and practices as they cross each provincial boundary.

The CCMTA’s policy recommends that inspection officers first try to interpret the logs via the device’s display screen, which is usually attached by cord to the dash so it can be handed out the window to an officer. Failing that, the CCMTA’s policy suggests inspection officers allow the driver to fax the records to the scale house, where they can be viewed in printed form.

Sounds pretty reasonable but I guess it wasn’t good enough for some of the enforcement folks in Quebec. We even heard of one instance where the driver informed the enforcement officer that e-logs are legal in Canada, only to be told “You’re not in Canada, you’re in Quebec.”

Such actions by Quebec’s enforcement officials have left carriers who were wise enough to be early adopters of the e-log technology either second guessing their decision or, worse, holding off on moving to e-logs.

Since our executive editor James Menzies brought this issue to the industry’s attention on trucknews.com and with a front-page story in our sister publication, Truck News, a meeting involving several stakeholders has been held. By the end of the three-hour meeting, SAAQ policy makers promised to remind their front-line enforcement officers that e-logs are to be accepted in the province, provided they meet all the regulatory requirements.

Now the whole fiasco is being chalked up to a simple lack of communication between policy makers and enforcement officials and confusion over whether the enforcement folks should be accepting CCTMA policy.

Isn’t it funny though how enforcement officials are always quick to point out that ignorance of the law is no excuse? Perhaps Quebec’s enforcement officials should follow their own advice and understand the law before enforcing it. It would be one small step towards removing the small-minded actions that routinely interfere with Canada having a truly national and harmonized transportation system.