66
FUEL MANAGEMENT
TRANSPORT BUSINESS INTERNATIONAL ISSUE 12 / www.transportbusiness.net
f there is one thing that all
businesses have in common it
is pressure to save money. For
over 15 years, FTA has been working with
companies across the UK to improve the
way they run, maintain and test their vehicle
fleets, and has helped them achieve some
convincing results, with one operation alone
making a saving of �150,000 a year, as
well as maintaining its in-house transport
workshop function without making a
proposed multi-million pound investment.
It pays to be circumspect when receiving
advice from a third party. A district audit
had recommended to a local authority that
as its current transport workshop was no
longer fit for purpose, the only viable option
was to build a new one. The problem was
that this would come with a �4 million
price tag. To exacerbate matters, council
management had also been misled by the
results of another review. This time, the
external best value audit had recommended
that the workshop function should in fact
be outsourced, and that all future vehicles
would need to be procured through
contract hire. So, after discovering that a
shiny, new workshop would be beyond
its reach, the local authority was resigned
to the belief that outsourcing its existing
workshop requirements, which can quickly
become a significant drain on annual
budgets, was the only option available.
Both audits provided large-scale and
expensive solutions. And both were wrong.
ONLY STRUCTURAL REPAIRS NEEDED
There is a propensity among private and
public organisations to look at outsourcing as
the panacea for all ills, and this `if in doubt,
outsource' mentality is a dangerously popular
trend. This is no surprise as outsourcing can
be a very attractive proposition for workshop
managers who see what looks, on paper at
least, to be the best price. However, having
taken a rigorous look at previous reviews
commissioned by the council in question, FTA
quickly came to the conclusion that in this
instance neither outsourcing nor investing
in a new workshop was necessary. Instead,
FTA found a far more palatable solution � an
investment of a mere �25,000 in structural
repairs to the existing premises. To make this
investment work, the council needed to focus
on just three main areas for improvement.
FTA consultants explained that structural
repairs to the roof would remove the
problem of leaks that posed a risk to both the
equipment, through water contamination,
and the safety of the workshop staff who
were often working in slippery conditions. The
flooding that was causing a problem outside
the building and hindering engineering work,
which often occurred when the workshop was
full, could be remedied by repairing the poorly
maintained guttering. Finally, the well-worn
and severely pitted concrete floors that not
only limited the area available for engineering
work and made the testing of fluid levels,
such as those for oil and hydraulics, nigh on
impossible, but also posed a significant health
and safety risk to workshop staff could be
quickly and satisfactorily fixed with resurfacing
work. All these measures were proven to be
an efficient and cost effective way to improve
the workshop's functionality and safety
dramatically, thus negating the need for a
new workshop or large-scale outsourcing.
Clearly, the application of a few common
sense measures can make a big difference.
As well as saving the council millions of
pounds it didn't have on a superfluous
workshop, it also became apparent to
FTA's Consultancy team that the substantial
budget deficit at which the council was
running could also be massively reduced
(and, as it turned out, eventually reversed),
with a few intelligent management tweaks.
Outsiders have the ability to take a step
back and look at the big picture. Thankfully,
FTA was able to do just that when it
identified the various reasons why the
council was facing its mountainous �150,000
budget deficit. It seemed that what had
been eluding the council was the disparity
between the department that controlled
the budget, in this case the council's
fleet services division, and the operations
departments themselves, effectively,
the users. Quite simply, the budget was
not monitored closely enough by fleet
services, and the transport team in charge
of vehicle procurement and maintenance
was not allocating the funding in a way
that would achieve maximum benefit.
There were a range of factors contributing
to this hemorrhaging of cash. Staffing
costs were running far higher than the
equivalent national average because
vehicles were subject to more repairs and
maintenance as a result of misuse and
abuse; an ageing vehicle fleet, which had
developed a high rate of breakdown;
and a lack responsibility within the `user'
group i.e. the operations departments.
A plan of action was devised to plug
the holes in this rapidly sinking ship.
I
Think smart, not big,
to drive down costs
Cost reduction, streamlining and efficiency improvements are paramount in the
minds of transport managers. James Tillyer, project manager for the Freight Transport
Association's specialist consultancy team, explains how the leading trade body has
helped companies do just that, and saved them millions of pounds along the way

Page 1Page 2Page 3Page 4Page 5Page 6Page 7Page 8Page 9Page 10Page 11Page 12Page 13Page 14Page 15Page 16Page 17Page 18Page 19Page 20Page 21Page 22Page 23Page 24Page 25Page 26Page 27Page 28Page 29Page 30Page 31Page 32Page 33Page 34Page 35Page 36Page 37Page 38Page 39Page 40Page 41Page 42Page 43Page 44Page 45Page 46Page 47Page 48Page 49Page 50Page 51Page 52Page 53Page 54Page 55Page 56Page 57Page 58Page 59Page 60Page 61Page 62Page 63Page 64Page 65Page 66Page 67Page 68Page 69Page 70 Produced by PageSuite