There are many opinions on this topic, and it seems like there’s been a recent explosion of AI-generated content online. And since we’re on the topic, I’d like to say that this newsletter is not written by a bot. While we’ve used AI and experimented with Chat GPT like everyone else (and it gives some well-rounded answers to transportation questions, I admit), I still write this with the help of Rachael McMunn’s wordsmithing every week, and we are supplying 100% human written content here! Regardless, let’s talk about AI and Automation in transportation for a bit.
In general usage, automation can be defined as a technology concerned with performing a process by means of programmed commands combined with automatic feedback control to ensure proper execution of the instructions. The resulting system is capable of operating without human intervention.
Automation is not necessarily artificial intelligence (AI). Automation is following rule-based instructions that are predetermined. This is not the case for AI. As many people are now learning firsthand using platforms like Chat GPT, AI can make predictions and decisions based on data by ‘thinking’, not just following rule-based logic.
The readers of The Shipper Report are fully aware I am a strong proponent of technology that improves both the external and internal customer experience. To clarify, the external customer is the one the company is trying to sell its goods and services, and the internal customers are the individuals who work within the company to provide services to the external customer. Both groups benefit greatly from the efficiency and reporting that technology can provide them.
Transportation providers have implemented automation for years that have improved and provided value to both customers. Our industry provided improved visibility through GPS on our trucks and trailers, EDI for communication, EFT/ ACH for financial transactions, and TMS high-level reporting are just a few examples. In most cases these advancements did not replace drivers, dispatchers, accountants, or IT personnel, rather they enhanced and added roles in many of these departments.
In my career, I have also had the pleasure of doing tours of the distribution facilities at Giant Tiger, Sobeys, and Tim Hortons and have seen first-hand the kind of advancements being made with automation. These facilities have applied warehouse management systems with robotic systems to pick and pack orders, build skids, shrink wrap, and place the pallet on a conveyor for staging. These systems are impressive primarily for the speed and accuracy with which they can pick orders, and they too appear to replace the jobs of the individuals who used to complete this labor.
While Automation like this has improved efficiencies, costing, order errors, created more consistent pallet dims, and more, it still often gets a bad rap because it appears that the internal customer (employee) was replaced. In the cases I’ve seen these companies did not terminate internal customers, they reassigned them to other areas requiring human interaction. The technology and automation were able to provide a win-win for everyone involved.
These are positive implementations with positive results in my opinion. Rather than resisting change where efficiency can be created, we can look to training and hiring an adaptable workforce that moves well with advancements. It’s already clear that hiring for minimum wage manual labour jobs is difficult in our current economy. Why not allow tech to open up jobs in different areas that provide people options for better-paying positions? On the other side of this opinion, there are implementations that simply were too advanced for their environment.
As an example, one company introduced a new sign-in process for trucks where the driver had to punch all of their information into a keypad upon arrival at the shipper instead of checking in with a person. Their dock door was to be assigned by computer and keypad. Unfortunately, the process didn’t go as smoothly as anticipated, and drivers reported being lined up outside one facility for 3-5 hours as each driver struggled to learn the system and check-in. In this case, it sounds like the check-in technology was efficient in itself, but would have been better off in the hands of a trained human being operating the gate with consistency. It was simply too hard for each driver to adapt to the interface upon arrival.
As another argument for being "a bit too advanced" for our current market, we can talk about autonomous vehicles. With driver shortages, it does make sense that we would look at autonomous vehicles long term. When you look at today, however, our market actually has too much capacity, which is driving rates down. I’m not sure we really need autonomous driving just yet, and I don’t think truck drivers are about to be replaced. Even though the technology is fascinating, I’m not sure it’s yet reached ‘useful’.
And lastly, I recently had a company reach out to ask if I would like a demo of their AI-powered HR software. I replied does the H in HR not stand for Human? Are we ready to address HR challenges by computer or AI?
AI is being used by LinkedIn to decide what content I should read, but not sure how they believe I want to read about fashion. Alexis listening to my family dinner time, then when my sons and wife activate their phones and tablets, they are pushed ads on all the subjects we talked about during dinner. To me this is intrusive, believe it is also against the privacy act.
Maybe so, I just personally do not believe I am ready to come to work to say “Good morning, HAL, did you catch the game?”, and I think there is quite a bit more time before we’re seeing widespread role replacement. For now, we can all focus on being adaptable and doing our best to understand the tech that enters the market. Like in any economic lifecycle, there will be some roles that become obsolete in time, while new roles will open and thrive. This doesn’t change that humanity can’t be replaced.
Always interested in the readers take.
