John Deere: Tracking Reusable Packaging in a Global Assembly Manufacturing Supply Chain

Still a very useful case study, this story was posted in 2012. Written by Jerry Wel­come, former Reusable Pack­ag­ing Asso­ci­a­tion Pres­i­dent, with input from Lyle Schmitt, Man­ager, Global Pack­ag­ing and Qual­ity, John Deere; and mem­ber, Reusable Pack­ag­ing Association.

Whether you’re a farmer or an occa­sional week­end gar­dener, almost every­one rec­og­nizes the green and yel­low col­ors asso­ci­ated with John Deere. The com­pany is the world’s lead­ing man­u­fac­turer of farm equip­ment, and pro­duces and mar­kets North America’s broad­est line of lawn and gar­den trac­tors, mow­ers, golf course equip­ment, and other out­door power prod­ucts. In addi­tion, John Deere pro­vides irri­ga­tion equip­ment and nurs­ery sup­plies to landscape-service pro­fes­sion­als across the United States, and is a major man­u­fac­turer of con­struc­tion and forestry equip­ment in North America.

Many John Deere prod­ucts are large and heavy. Con­se­quently mov­ing ser­vice parts, com­po­nents for man­u­fac­tur­ing, and fin­ished goods through­out the world is a daunt­ing logis­ti­cal chal­lenge. Deere has man­u­fac­tur­ing oper­a­tions in Rus­sia, China, India, Brazil and other coun­tries, as well as over a dozen loca­tions in the US. Reusable pack­ag­ing is used pri­mar­ily for man­u­fac­tur­ing com­po­nents, but also for ser­vice parts and small fin­ished goods such as lawn and gar­den tractors.

Deere is one of the top 30 man­u­fac­tur­ing com­pa­nies in ton­nage of global imports/exports. Because logis­tics is so crit­i­cal to the enter­prise and because global ambi­tions included expand­ing man­u­fac­tur­ing to dif­fer­ent parts of the world, the Depart­ment of World­wide Logis­tics was orga­nized in 1999 as a core com­pe­tency of the com­pany. Cen­tral­ized man­age­ment of reusable con­tain­ers was part of the ini­tial strat­egy. Today, Deere owns about 1,500,000 reusable con­tain­ers that are used to ship every­thing from nuts and bolts to hoods and engines.

Deploy­ment and Track­ing of Reusable Con­tain­ers
We define “return­able” as a cus­tomized special-use con­tainer that must be returned to its point of ori­gin, so obvi­ously reverse logis­tics is crit­i­cal. We define “reusable” as a generic con­tainer that, once emp­tied, has no defined return-to loca­tion. The chal­lenge is to quickly and effi­ciently relo­cate the empty reusable to a nearby point of need. The goal is to min­i­mize the dis­tance to the next point of use with­out endur­ing too much dwell time wait­ing for a need to develop.

To effec­tively man­age our reverse logis­tics, we have devel­oped a sophis­ti­cated and inte­grated track­ing sys­tem through­out our global sup­ply chain. Our 1,500,000 con­tain­ers each have some sort of track­ing tag affixed to them and are tracked through an internet-based track­ing sys­tem. An abil­ity to track con­tainer assets is essen­tial to effec­tively man­ag­ing a global net­work where con­tain­ers are con­stantly mov­ing some­where 24 hours a day. With­out a track­ing sys­tem, the prob­a­bil­ity of shrink­age increases as geog­ra­phy expands, to the point that it under­mines the finan­cial via­bil­ity of invest­ing in reusable con­tain­ers. An inte­grated tracking/management sys­tem pro­vides the strongest and best value propo­si­tion by har­vest­ing numer­ous ben­e­fits from the same infrastructure.

Our returnable/reusable con­tain­ers come in many forms. At the high-cost end, we have $500 cus­tom racks to trans­port high appear­ance parts such as trac­tor hoods that can­not have any con­tact with other parts or with pack­ag­ing mate­r­ial, except for spe­cific points of attach­ment. Next, we have stan­dard generic bulk con­tain­ers that con­tain per­ma­nently affixed cus­tomized dun­nage, so these units must also be returned to their point of ori­gin. Our great­est quan­tity of con­tain­ers is generic, and might never travel the same route twice. The value of the con­tainer and the nature of its route deter­mine the type of track­ing tag used.

High-cost con­tain­ers in multi-stop, long-distance loops war­rant active RFID, fea­tur­ing auto­mated ver­i­fi­ca­tion of arrival and peri­odic mon­i­tor­ing of dwell in each loca­tion. It is com­mon to query active tags in each loca­tion every 5 min­utes. Pas­sive RFID is deployed on con­tain­ers that nat­u­rally flow through a cen­tral loca­tion. One exam­ple is con­tain­ers sent to deal­ers from cen­tral­ized part dis­tri­b­u­tion cen­ters. Another exam­ple is Enviro-crates; reusable, stack­able, steel, fold-down, con­tain­ers used to ship lawn and gar­den trac­tors to deal­ers and to mass mar­keters such as Lowes and Home Depot. Pas­sive RFID read­ers auto­mat­i­cally ver­ify that each con­tainer has returned to the DC from its lat­est deploy­ment. Man­ual scan­ning of bar codes is still the most com­mon input into our track­ing sys­tem, espe­cially for small inex­pen­sive totes used for fas­ten­ers and fit­tings, but man­ual scan­ning is more labor inten­sive and less reli­able than RFID. All bar-coded tags pur­chased in recent years also con­tain RFID chips, so over time the per­cent­age of man­ual scans will dimin­ish as our RFID infra­struc­ture is expanded.

We do not yet put a $10 active RFID tag on many con­tain­ers. We deploy active tags when it is impor­tant to con­tin­u­ously know where a con­tainer is; within the supplier’s facil­ity or at any other loca­tion in the sup­ply chain, such as an inter­ven­ing stop for paint­ing, plat­ing, or sub­assem­bly. We put pas­sive RFID tags on all other reusable bulk con­tain­ers. We do not believe man­u­ally scan­ning bar-codes will ever pro­vide the level of accu­racy we need to sup­port con­tin­u­ous improve­ment. Note that both pas­sive and active tags also fea­ture bar­codes and human-readable print­ing, so all tags can use lesser tech­nol­ogy when appro­pri­ate.

Regard­less of the source of track­ing input, all infor­ma­tion flows into an inte­grated sys­tem wherein this infor­ma­tion is used for plan­ning, per­for­mance met­rics, and mon­i­tor­ing cus­tody of reusable con­tain­ers. One such per­for­mance met­ric is accu­racy in deliv­er­ing the right prod­uct to the right cus­tomer. Deliv­ery errors were essen­tially elim­i­nated by installing stop-and-go lights on the dock doors of a DC for Turf Care prod­ucts. Prod­uct ser­ial num­bers are asso­ci­ated with that of the spe­cific deliv­ery crate used to pack­age units at the end of the assem­bly line. The ser­ial num­ber of the deliv­ery crate is read as it enters each truck and trig­gers a green light only after being ver­i­fied as correct.

An inte­grated tracking/management sys­tem pro­vides the strongest and best value propo­si­tion by har­vest­ing numer­ous ben­e­fits from the same infra­struc­ture.

I ear­lier men­tioned that “reusable” con­tain­ers, as we define the term, have no iden­ti­fied next des­ti­na­tion once they are emp­tied. Our goal is to relo­cate empty con­tain­ers to a point of need that is much closer than the point of ori­gin of that cycle. “Return­able” con­tain­ers, by def­i­n­i­tion, must travel a mile empty for every mile full. The ratio of empty miles to full miles is a mea­sure of how effec­tively reusable con­tain­ers are man­aged. Almost all empty con­tain­ers flow from fac­to­ries to pro­cess­ing cen­ters which are strate­gi­cally located close to major fac­to­ries. Four of the pro­cess­ing cen­ters are in USA; oth­ers are in Ger­many, Spain, and Mexico.

Finan­cial jus­ti­fi­ca­tion
Ben­e­fits derived from deploy­ing reusable con­tain­ers can be loosely cat­e­go­rized into non-quantifiable and quan­tifi­able sav­ings. Non-quantifiable sav­ings are very real and impor­tant, but dif­fi­cult to capture.

• Safety is always a first con­sid­er­a­tion. While plas­tic and even steel con­tain­ers can fail, it is less likely than with card­board. Their strength remains con­sis­tent, even in moist envi­ron­ments. We do de-rate the manufacturer’s stated capac­ity by 25% for most of our appli­ca­tions. Wood tends to splin­ter cre­at­ing its own hazard.

• Qual­ity is improved. Mate­r­ial in con­tain­ers is less likely to be dam­aged dur­ing tran­sit and han­dling because reusable con­tain­ers are typ­i­cally more resis­tant to punc­ture and struc­tural failure.

• House­keep­ing also is an impor­tant con­sid­er­a­tion. Reusable con­tain­ers fall into a lim­ited num­ber of foot­prints, so they lend them­selves well to the time hon­ored adage; a place for every­thing and every­thing in its place.

• Being envi­ron­men­tally respon­si­ble is a foun­da­tional value of John Deere. An increas­ingly appre­ci­ated ben­e­fit of reusable pack­ag­ing is its less­ened envi­ron­men­tal impact. An envi­ron­men­tal study pub­lished by the Reusable Pack­ag­ing Asso­ci­a­tion con­cluded that land­fill require­ments decreased by 90 per­cent when using reusables. And despite requir­ing return trans­porta­tion, life cycle energy con­sump­tion and car­bon emis­sions were lower than those of expend­able pack­ag­ing. All of our end-of-life scrap is sent to one of our pri­mary sup­pli­ers to regrind into new con­tain­ers.

Most of our quan­tifi­able sav­ings, about 85 per­cent, are attrib­uted to lower expense for expend­able pack­ag­ing. For exam­ple, instead of pack­ag­ing light­ing brack­ets in two heavy-duty 24” x 24” x 36” card­board boxes ($21 each) on an $8 wood pal­let, the mate­r­ial can be packed in a 45” x 48” x 34” reusable con­tainer that costs less than $20 to cycle.

Other sig­nif­i­cant sav­ings result from reduced cost of dis­posal, and improved trans­porta­tion den­sity. While we attribute only 7 per­cent of our total sav­ings to greater pay­load of mate­r­ial trucked into our fac­to­ries, its poten­tial is much higher. Even though we man­u­fac­ture heavy equip­ment, we have enough light­weight mate­r­ial to often cube-out trucks before they reach allow­able weight. Stack­able con­tain­ers often enable addi­tional mate­r­ial to fit on a truck, thus get­ting a free ride.

The Future
The future of track­ing tech­nol­ogy is as unpre­dictable as any­thing else, but the trend of lower cost for high level devices such as pas­sive and active RFID tags sug­gests that automa­tion will soon elim­i­nate man­ual scan­ning. More pow­er­ful con­tainer man­age­ment soft­ware will bet­ter pre­dict the forth­com­ing needs of each sup­plier, for each type of reusable con­tainer, and will opti­mize cost by build­ing bet­ter loads and opti­miz­ing return routes.

Another level up is Wi-Fi tech­nol­ogy. Not long ago, the cost of a Wi-Fi tag was $50. They’re now about $30, sub­stan­tially less if pur­chased in high vol­umes, so that might be a track­ing possibility.

Whether it is Wi-Fi or other emerg­ing new tech­nol­ogy, we are con­tin­u­ally look­ing for new ways to reduce costs and con­tin­u­ally improve the effi­ciency of our sup­ply chain. Regard­less of the tech­nol­ogy, I believe that reusables will remain a con­stant in our operations.



  1. “1,500,000 reusable con­tain­ers each have some sort of track­ing tag” – Wow, thats quite a number, I wonder how do they manage to do all this stuff. Every single one with tracking tag? They must have quite a system and database to track this. Well, it’s a big company with a big bugdet, so they have all the resources they need for this kind of activities.

  2. Isabelle says


    I have found the same article but written by another author: “By Jerry Welcome, Reusable Packaging Association President, with input from Lyle Schmitt, Manager, Global Packaging and Quality, John Deere; and member, Reusable Packaging Association” who is the correct person to quote?


  3. Rick LeBlanc says

    Please attribute this article to Jerry Welcome.

  4. Lexus Sai Gon says

    Great website you have here but I was wondering if
    you knew of any forums that cover the same topics talked about here?
    I’d really love to be a part of group where I can get feed-back from other experienced people
    that share the same interest. If you have any recommendations, please let me know.
    Many thanks!