Instructions Planning for the Surge: How Do Amazon, UPS, and FedEx Manage Peak

Instructions
Planning for the Surge:
How Do Amazon, UPS, and FedEx Manage Peak Seasons?
(adapted from Principles of Management, Rice University, OpenStax)
Typically, the day after Thanksgiving (Black Friday) marks the beginning of the holiday shopping season in the United States. Holiday sales, typically defined as sales occurring in November and December, account for roughly 30 percent of annual sales for U.S. retailers (Holiday Forecasts and Historical Sales, 2015). For 2016, total online sales from November 10 to December 31 amounted to 91.7 billion dollars. And the top retailers for this period were eBay, Amazon, Walmart, and Target (Tasker, 2016). The growth in online sales appears inevitable, but how do the top shippers, UPS and FedEx, manage the sudden upsurge? Not always so well.
In 2013, both FedEx and UPS underestimated holiday demand, and with exceptionally bad weather conditions across the northern US, they struggled to deliver packages as promised. Since then, both carriers have worked hard to keep adequate resources available to handle the anticipated end-of-year upsurge. Then in 2014, UPS overcompensated and had too much capacity on hand for the level of demand. This too led to a significant loss in profitability at UPS (Livengood, 2017).
Matching retailer expectations to consumer demand is a real challenge, and not just for the shipping companies. Although retailers would love to have a “crystal ball” to reveal accurate sales figures, forecasts are often inaccurate. Sometimes wildly so. In preparing its forecast for the 2017 peak season, Logistics Management examined economic factors, such as GDP, job growth, retail sales, and inventory levels. It also looked at imports. An informal survey of Logistics professionals found that 93.5 percent of them expected that the 2017 season would be identical to 2016. It was not. 2017 saw a 35.5 percent increase in retail sales across the country over the 2016 season (Berman 2017).
In June 2017, UPS announced that it would be adding a surcharge to its peak season rates. According to the UPS website, “During the 2016 holiday season, the company’s average daily volume exceeded 30 million packages on more than half of the available shipping days. In contrast, on an average non¬peak day, the company ships more than 19 million packages” (UPS Establishes New Peak Shipping Charge, 2017). The rate for the 2017 peak season would apply to select services and to oversize shipments, primarily (UPS Establishes New Peak Shipping Charge 2017). Analysts see the surcharge as a signal that UPS is the rate setter in parcel delivery. Such an assessment is not surprising given that the increase in parcel delivery as an outcome of increased e-commerce is seen as a core driver of earnings for UPS (Franck, 2017).
Second-ranked FedEx, in contrast, announced that it would not follow suit but instead would “forgo most holiday surcharges on home deliveries this year” (Schlangenstein, 2017). The surcharges levied by UPS are aimed primarily at small shippers, not the larger contract shippers. By not adding a seasonal surcharge, FedEx might hope to capture sales from individuals and small businesses that are deterred by the UPS surcharge (Schlangenstein, 2017).
Kevin Sterling, a Seaport Global Holdings analyst, believes that FedEx has the existing capacity to absorb additional ground shipments. “[FedEx is] going to let UPS be Scrooge at Christmas” (Schlangenstein, 2017). UPS already has a contract with Amazon, the de facto behemoth of online shopping, for normal shipping, leaving room for FedEx to pick up the slack during the holiday rush (Schlangenstein, 2017).
In contrast, UPS reports that the additional charge is needed to offset the costs of additional resources necessary to achieve expected upsurges in capacity. UPS spokesperson Glenn Zaccara commented, “UPS’s peak season pricing positions the company to be appropriately compensated for the high value we provide at a time when the company must double daily delivery volume for six to seven consecutive weeks to meet customer demands” (Schlangenstein, 2017).
With or without surcharges, price structures at both companies strive to discourage shipment of heavy, odd-sized, or oversized packages because they don’t flow through either company’s sorting systems and require special handling. All the same, FedEx has seen a 240 percent increase in such shipments over the last 10 years, which make up roughly 10 percent of all packages shipped using its ground services. And although FedEx is not adding a holiday surcharge, per se, it has added charges for packages that require extra handling, particularly shipments between November 20 through December 24 (Schlangenstein, 2017).
And the global pandemic of 2020 didn’t help the situation. “Salesforce … says global digital orders continued to grow after Cyber Monday (Nov. 30), peaking to 71% growth year over year on Dec. 5 before slowing down on Dec. 7” (Evans, 2020). One logistics-saving innovation continued expansion during 2020 to help save valuable last-mile transportation resources: curb-side pickup. This ecommerce tool leverages on-line ordering with safe, social-distancing customer pickup. “Retailers with curbside pickup particularly benefitted, Salesforce adds. Digital sales Dec. 1–Dec. 14 grew 52% year over year for U.S. retailers that offered curbside, drive-thru and in-store pickup options” (Evans, 2020).
Increased customer demand for holiday shipping created the perfect-storm, with the pandemic drastically hitting transportation supply at the same time. “Nearly 19,000 of the [United States Postal Service’s] 644,000 workers are under quarantine after testing positive for the virus or after a close exposure, according to the American Postal Workers Union” (Bogage & Denham, 2020). It wasn’t unexpected but it was rather unprecedented when “FedEx and UPS enacted restrictions on large-volume retail shippers in early December, according to industry tracking firm ShipMatrix. For the week of Dec. 6, FedEx delivered 93.9 percent of its parcels on time, UPS delivered 96.1 percent, and the Postal Service, 87.5 percent” (Bogage & Denham, 2020). To many, however, the number of lost and delayed packages seemed even greater. It appears that Amazon’s investments for additional in-house personnel, trucks, sorting centers and even cargo aircraft paid off in 2020, as they claimed Prime Members could still shop for most items through Dec 23 or even Dec 24 (Steiner, 2020). When next day just isn’t good enough, many consumers are now willing to pay for two-hour delivery!
The year 2021 was even worse.
Case Study Questions: (edited from original text)
For this business case study, you are writing it as a mid-level manager at the company you chose to analyze (UPS, FedEx, or Amazon). Use effective written communication to present your findings and recommendations to your boss/supervisor.
Remember: We have both been working at this same company for a number of years now. So don’t tell me that our CEO at Amazon is Jeff Bezos. I already know that!
Choose one of the three companies discussed in this Case Study (Amazon, UPS or FedEx). Introduce the business situation.
From outside of the Case Study using open sources, find the Vision and Mission for your company. Present them with a brief critique based on your knowledge of proper statements. If you found them adequate as written, say so, but then justify in writing why you deem them to be effective.
Conduct your analysis by creating the start of a SWOT Analysis Table. Identify TWO items in each quadrant of your SWOT table. Then, in the first paragraph that follows the table, write a brief discussion of each SWOT element used in your analysis.
Plan for next year’s surge by using the 5-Step Planning process. Provide your specific recommendations applicable to each step in the process. Use general statements in your discussion. Do not use detailed corporate plans that could be hundreds of pages long.
Conclude your report with your recommendations. First, provide a specific, difficult goal that clearly communicates your strategic plan to the entire workforce. Finish by describing your solution to this year’s recurring surge problem at your company.
Guidelines:
This assignment is considered a complete Business Case Study. Therefore, your report should be written as a formal business report of your analysis.
This report should be between 2-4 pages (not including title page and references).
Internal references (e.g. textbook, readings, lectures, etc.) and External references (e.g. other published works) should be used to add credibility to your statements.
As this is a real-time analysis, write in the present tense to describe your findings and recommended actions (except when describing past events).
Current APA format is required, including title page and reference pageUse Headings and Sub-headings as appropriate
Exception: DO NOT include an Abstract or Table of Contents for this short report
DO NOT cite your own information (personal or corporate), which is everything provided in the Case Study (if details or data are provided)
NU Library resource for APA guidance: https://nu.libguides.com/citations/APA
Sources:
Berman, J. (2017). Prospects for Peak Season appear to be cautiously optimistic. Logistics Management. http://www.logisticsmgmt.com/article/prospects_for_peak_season_appear_to_be_cautiously_optimistic
Bogage, J. & Denham, H. (2020, Dec 21). Millions of Christmas presents may arrive late because of Postal Service delays. Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2020/12/21/usps-delays-christmas/
Evans, K. (2020, Dec 22). Holidays and health concerns continue to drive online sales in December. https://www.digitalcommerce360.com/article/coronavirus-impact-online-retail/
Franck, T. (2017). UPS set to make a boatload on its new surcharges during holiday season, Citi predicts. CNBC. https://www.cnbc.com/2017/08/08/ups-set-to-make-a-boatload-on-its-new-surcharges-during-holiday-season-citi-predicts.html
Rubric Name: Planning rubric
Print
CriteriaOutstandingCommendable
Acceptable
Marginal
Failing
Missing/Unacceptable
Criterion Score
Introduction (10%)
2 points
Clear description of of events. Written as a business problem statement. Ends with an overview of what follows.
1.7 points
Complete description provided. Clear presentation of the business issue/problem & some details that will be used in the analysis. Overview of the sections that will follow.
1.5 points
Description is somewhat complete; however, more depth &/or length are needed. Lacking details or overview.
1.3 points
Brief with some depth, fails to meet some criteria. Lacking details and missing overview
1 point
Some description provided but lacking major details of the case and including unrelated information.
0 points
Score of Introduction (10%),
/ 2
Vision and Mission (15%)
3 points
In-depth analysis of question. Exceptional integration of the business case and course material. All components of vision and mission included.
2.55 points
In-depth analysis of question. Good integration of the business case and course material. All components of vision and mission included.
2.25 points
Overview analysis of question. Limited integration of the business case and course material. Many components of vision and mission included.
1.95 points
Minimal analysis of question. Limited integration of the business case and course material. Only a few components of vision and mission included.
1.5 points
Little analysis of question. No integration of the business case and course material. Only some of the components of vision and mission included.
0 points
Score of Vision and Mission (15%),
/ 3
SWOT (15%)
3 points
In-depth analysis of question. Exceptional integration of the business case and course material. SWOT items are clear, appropriate, and insightful to the business case.
2.55 points
In-depth analysis of question. Good integration of the business case and course material. SWOT items are clear, appropriate, and insightful to the business case.
2.25 points
Overview analysis of question. Limited integration of the business case and course material. SWOT items are somewhat clear, appropriate, and insightful to the business case.
1.95 points
Minimal analysis of question. Limited integration of the business case and course material. SWOT items are not very clear, appropriate, nor insightful to the business case.
1.5 points
Little analysis of question. No integration of the business case and course material. Self-assessment is limited. SWOT items are not directly related to the business case.
0 points
Score of SWOT (15%),
/ 3
Planning (25%)
5 points
In-depth analysis of question. Exceptional integration of the business case and course material. Planning steps are all included and directly relate to the business case. Recommendations are insightful.
4.25 points
Planning steps are all included and directly relate to the business case. Recommendations are somewhat insightful.
3.75 points
Planning steps are mostly included and directly relate to the business case. Recommendations are somewhat insightful.
3.25 points
Planning steps are all included and directly relate to the business case. Planning steps are limited and/or do not directly relate to the business case. Recommendations are not very insightful.
2.5 points
Planning steps are all included and directly relate to the business case. Planning steps are poorly explained and not very related to the business case. Recommendations are not very insightful.
0 points
Score of Planning (25%),
/ 5
Conclusion (5%)
1 point
Clear summary of key points and recommendations. Ends with strong action statement.
0.85 points
Summary of all key points and recommendations. Ending isn’t action or big-picture.
0.75 points
Summary of most key points and recommendations. Ending isn’t action or big-picture.
0.65 points
Summary of some key points and some recommendations. Ending isn’t action or big-picture.
0.5 points
Summary of some key points. Missing recommendations. Order is not the same as the report. Ending isn’t action or big-picture.
0 points
Score of Conclusion (5%),
/ 1
Critical Thinking and Support (10%)
2 points
A clear, logical connection is made between the data, analysis & recommendations. Claims are supported by reputable sources, both from class and external to the course material.
1.7 points
A logical connection is made between the data, analysis & recommendations, but may not be clear at all times. A few class and external sources are used. All are reputable.
1.5 points
Most of the time a logical connection is made between the data, analysis & recommendations, but may not be clear at all times. Only a few sources are used, or all from the course material. Not all sources are reputable.
1.3 points
Several logical discrepancies are made, and several points may not be clear. Only a couple of sources are used, or none are reputable.
1 point
Many discrepancies are note or no connection between data and analysis, or between analysis and recommendations are noted. Only 1 class reference is used, or none are reputable.
0 points
Score of Critical Thinking and Support (10%),
/ 2
APA Guidelines and Organization (10%)
2 points
Cover Page, title, headings & page numbers properly formatted. Questions used as main heading, plus Introduction & Conclusion. Correct quoting, paraphrasing, style & formatting followed.
1.7 points
Cover Page, title, headings & page numbers properly formatted. Questions used as main heading, plus Introduction & Conclusion. Correct quoting, paraphrasing, style & formatting followed.
1.5 points
Missing Cover Page, title or pages numbers. Questions not repeated as headings. Missing some in-text citations &/or quoting/para- phrasing errors.
1.3 points
Missing Cover Page, or title, page number and headings. Questions are not repeated as headings. APA Style guidelines not followed in many areas.
1 point
Some structure in formatting is consistent in the document, but not in accordance with APA guidelines. Report does not flow with the questions.
0 points
Score of APA Guidelines and Organization (10%),
/ 2
Grammar, Spelling & Mechanics (10%)
2 points
No errors. Paragraphs and sentences are properly structured to promote understanding by the reader.
1.7 points
Few minor errors or one major error. Paragraphs and sentences are properly structured to promote understanding by the reader.
1.5 points
Some minor errors or a couple of major errors. Most paragraphs and most sentences are properly structured to promote understanding by the reader.
1.3 points
Several errors. Lacking paragraph structure to support flow. Sentence structure in mostly correct.
1 point
Many errors. Some sentences difficult to understand due to errors.
0 points
Score of Grammar, Spelling & Mechanics (10%),
/ 2
TotalScore of Planning rubric,
/ 20
Overall Score
Outstanding18.5 points minimum
Commendable17 points minimum
Acceptable15 points minimum
Marginal13 points minimum
Failing10 points minimum
Missing/Unacceptable0 points minimum