PROBLEM
The operations of Huffman Trucking have been smooth thus far, but there are ways to improve the delivery systems of our trucks. As it stands, our current communication methods are inadequate to handle the large number of trucks in our fleet; often, navigation errors will occur that leave shipments arriving late or at the wrong destination. This can cost us fuel, resources and customers, leaving us to find a solution that will satisfy all involved. Often, navigation errors can lead to accidents, which can leave us financially liable for insurance reasons, costing the company substantial amounts of money in coverage. These problems require a solution, a persistent way for the drivers and our fleet of vehicles to maintain constant contact with headquarters, and receive ongoing navigation assistance to get the drivers where they need to go.
POTENTIAL SOLUTION
A fleet tracking system will improve communication and fuel efficiency, as well as navigation, permitting our drivers to coordinate their efforts with home personnel to arrive at destinations correctly and on time. As it stands, there are three vendors with turnkey fleet tracking systems – Telogis’OnTrack system, ATI’s Shadow Tracker, and TransCore’s Global Wave tracker – that we are considering for this project. All three feature comprehensive GPS navigation and efficient communication avenues between the driver and headquarters, and any of them would be an equally smart investment for Huffman Trucking.
REASONING TO SUPPORT PROJECT
The new fleet tracking system set to be implemented by Huffman Trucking would increase the effectiveness of our fleet, and would be well worth the potential cost. Insurance liability would also be lessened, as open communication and stronger navigation would prevent potential accidents or damage to goods. The marketing goodwill we would engender through reliably delivering goods on time would lead to more business as well.
Of course, there is some opposition to the project. There are those who feel that the extra cost would outweigh whatever benefits could be gleaned from the use of this system. Within 9 months, many companies who have used these programs have seen returns in insurance liability and fuel costs, making it well worth the cost. Given the potential profitability of these programs, it is clear that these concerns are well addressed – at the bottom line, it would cost less to operate this program than leave our fleet vulnerable to missed deliveries and accidents.
The cost of the system would be approximately $100 per vehicle per month, and people would have to be trained on the new technology. The labor unions would also be opposed to this system, as it may cut into their hours and potential pay. However, the continuation of our business through taking whatever steps necessary to prevent truck, cargo and driver from getting lost or in an accident make this potential investment worth it. Paying an extra $100 for a vehicle would be akin to placing insurance on it, investing in the increased profitability and reduced liability that vehicle would incur.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, it is my opinion that we should move forward with this program. There must be consensus that it would be in the best interests of this company to provide quality service and accurate, timely deliveries to our customers. The addition of a fleet tracking system would allow for greater coordination of our shipping efforts, would enable drivers to get assistance more readily, and to ensure that navigation is constantly accurate and available to the drivers. This system would be a tool for drivers to use in order to help them make their deliveries; in order to make sure that our customers are happy, we must give the drivers whatever they need. The cost-effectiveness of the program is also unquestionable, with profitability in key areas reached in 9 months.
References
Lesikar, Flatley and Rentz. (2008). Business communication: Making Connections in a Digital
World (11th ed.). McGraw-Hill Company.
Thornbory G., White, C. (2007 March). How to present a business case. Occupational Health,
59(3), 20-21.
