Routing Software Evaluation Project Report The University of Michigan College of Engineering Industrial and Operations Engineering 481 Senior Design Project Project Staff: Sean M. Athans Jennifer E. Rudy Kirk A. Ziehm Date Submitted: August 13, 1996 Project Client: Christopher J. Maksym, Pharm. D., Pharmacy Manager, HomeMed Infusion Services Project Coordinator: Richard J. Coffey, Ph. D., Director, Program and Operations Analysis Department; Adjunct Associate Professor, Department of Industrial and Operations Engineering
Transcript
Routing Software Evaluation Project Report
The University of Michigan College of EngineeringIndustrial and Operations Engineering 481 Senior Design Project
Project Staff: Sean M. AthansJennifer E. RudyKirk A. Ziehm
Date Submitted: August 13, 1996
Project Client: Christopher J. Maksym, Pharm. D., PharmacyManager, HomeMed Infusion Services
Project Coordinator: Richard J. Coffey, Ph. D., Director, Program andOperations Analysis Department; AdjunctAssociate Professor, Department of Industrialand Operations Engineering
Table of Contents
Executive Summary 2-3
Introduction and Background 4-5
Current Situation 5-7
Approach and Methodology 7-10
Alternatives and Hypotheses Considered 10
Findings 10-14
Discussion 14-15
Conclusions and Recommendations 15-16
Action Plan 16
1
Executive Summary
In January 1996, HomeMed Home Infusion Service initiated a project with thehelp of the Department of Program and Operations Analysis to analyzeprocesses to optimize routing, electronically capture demographic informationand reduce the average cost of deliveries. The purpose of the project was toconduct a quantitative analysis and qualitative assessment on routing softwarepackages predetermined to fit the HomeMed delivery system. Two softwarepackages were analyzed: RoadNet 5000® of RoadNet Technologies, Inc. andR0TecTM LoadPlanner of Comdata RoTec. The project staff was composed ofthree senior Industrial and Operations Engineering students, Sean Athans,Jennifer Rudy and Kirk Ziehm.
Comparing historical routing data from HomeMed’s delivery logs and routesheets to new routes produced by the prospective software venders, potentialsoftware savings capabilities were computed. In order for a software purchasingdecision to be justified, the expected reduction in delivery expenses over a twoyear period had to be greater than the price of the software. If both packagescould meet the two-year payback period, the purchase decision would thenbecome a matter of qualitative judgment.
Per the testing design proposed by Chris Maksym, Pharm. D., PharmacyManager, HomeMed Infusion Services, and accepted by Comdata RoTecrepresentatives, the analysis was to be conducted in two phases. The firstphase was to include information on deliveries made and relevant times andpatient information. In the second phase, the actual routes created byHomeMed were to be included. Due to project time constraints, phase two of theanalysis was not completed. The software companies’ results for the first phasewere compared against a benchmark of the historical manually-generated routeinformation. The hypothesis was that if the software is able to show betterroutes for what happened in the past, then it will also be able to increaseefficiency and decrease delivery expenses in the future.
Based on the three-day sample of data analyzed by R0TecTM LoadPlanner theone-day sample analyzed by RoadNet 5000®, the purchase of either softwaredoes not appear to be financially justified. The project staff thereforerecommends that neither routing software package be purchased at this time.
Although the R0TecTM LoadPlanner software results caused an increase indelivery expenses on two of the three days analyzed, the routes created on thehighest volume day that was analyzed indicate a savings in delivery expenses.RoadNet 5000®, however, shows an obvious increase in delivery expenses forthat same high-volume day (only this one day was analyzed by RoadNet5000®). Based on the RoTecTM LoadPlanner results for the high volume dayanalyzed, it appears that a software purchase may be justifiable with an
2 -
increased delivery volume. The project staff therefore recommends thatHomeMed perform another software delivery expense analysis when the volumeof deliveries increases to approximately 90 per day.
Analyzing the 1995 HomeMed delivery data in the early stages of the project, thestaff saw a high correlation between the number of ParaTransit deliveries andthe staffing levels. For instance, on days when Home Care Service Technicians(HCST) were on vacation or sick, the number of ParaTransit deliveries greatlyincreased. Based on this observation, the project staff recommends thatHomeMed investigate alternative delivery options for days where HCSTs are onvacation. The project staff also recommends that a cost analysis -be performedto compare hiring part-time or full-time HCSTs versus continuing to depend onParaTransit.
Comdata RoTec currently has the information to perform the second phase ofthe analysis. When HomeMed receives the results from this phase of theanalysis, any apparently large savings by way of decreases in mileage anddelivery time should be reviewed with caution. By providing them with the actualHomeMed routes for the test days, the person who creates the routes will havehindsight in formulating the second phase results.
3
Introduction and Background
HomeMed is the University of Michigan Medical Center service entityresponsible for providing home infusion services to patients in the home setting.Similarly, MedEquip is the service entity responsible for providing durablemedical equipment and medical supply services to patients in the home.HomeMed’s patient base is expanding because of the shift in health care frominpatient acute care to alternative settings.
HomeMed strives to utilize the Home Care Service Technician (HCST) staff tomake as many deliveries as possible utilizing University vehicles because thishas been the most cost effective option. In the Fiscal Year (FY) 1996 (July 1,1995 through June 30, 1996), non-HomeMed delivery expenses (i.e., couriercosts) were $169,000, approximately 51% above target.
Historically, HomeMed has provided services to patients of the University ofMichigan Health System (UMHS), most of whom reside in southeasternMichigan. Deliveries to these patients may be scheduled (at least 12 hoursnotice before delivery is due) or unscheduled, and include medications,nutritional supplements, durable medical equipment, and other healthcarerelated products. Utilizing a combination of scheduled staffing and on-callservices, HomeMed provides services 24 hours per day, although normal hoursof operation are 7:30 AM - 8:00 PM, Monday through Friday.
On average, HomeMed completed 953 total deliveries per month in FY ‘95. Thisincreased by 44% in FY ‘96 to an average of 1370 deliveries per month. Thepercentage of HCST filled deliveries have ranged from a low of 44% to a high of81 % in the FY ‘96. These percentages are a substantial increase from the rangeof 39.8% to 71.1 % in FY ‘95 (delivery summary information for FY ‘95 and FY’ 96is in Appendix 1).
The delivery range for HomeMed encompasses southeastern Michigan andextends as far west as Kalamazoo and as far north as Bay City. Deliveries aresometimes made beyond this range, but most often it is cheaper to sendpackages to customers in these outlying areas via Federal Express or UPS.
HomeMed requested assistance from the Department of Program andOperations Analysis in January 1996 to analyze processes to optimize routingthrough automation, electronically capture demographic information (e.g., date,time, and destination), and reduce the average cost of delivery. Two routingsoftware packages were selected for study on the basis of previous researchconducted by Tim Bowler, Serrina Pantera, and Tara Tesch, a team of graduatestudents in the School of Public Health at the University of Michigan. Theirresearch resulted in the identification of available routing software packagesdetermined to be compatible with HomeMed’s daily operations. The top two
- 4
software packages that best match the predetermined criteria were RoadNet5000® of RoadNet Technologies, Inc. (Timonium, MD) and RoTecLoadPlanner of Comdata RoTec (Avon, CT). The purpose of the project was toconduct a quantitative analysis and qualitative assessment on each of thesoftware packages under consideration utilizing actual HomeMed delivery data.
A purchaser of RoTecTM LoadPlanner may anticipate a small learning time as it isreportedly easy to use. It works with Microsoft Windows and thus is a visualapplication and very user-friendly. If the customer takes the time to really learnthe system, it may be able to modify the program to meet its own specific needs,as it is a flexible system. Manufacturer support is also available. RoadNet5000® is a subsidiary of UPS, so a purchase of their software would be instantlysupported by a well-known, cost-effective shipping company.
The Comdata RoTec software package costs anywhere from $20,000 to$120,000 to purchase (depending on the amount of features, expandedgeographic ranges, etc.), while the RoadNet software costs between $40,000and $50,000. In order to justify the purchase of one of the software packages,the expected decrease in delivery expenses over a two year period must begreater than or equal to the price of the software. This was set as the costjustification target.
Current Situation
HomeMed has one full-time equivalent (FTE) staff person allocated to thefunction of Shipping Coordinator. This person manually determines whatdeliveries are to be made by each HCST as well as the length of the routes.These routes and deliveries are chosen based on the number of orders perdispatch and the approximate number of hours that each truck is on the road.The routes are formulated such that the deliveries are made withinpredetermined time windows. The shipping coordinator attempts to manuallydetermine the best route to arrive at each patient’s address as well as the bestsequence in which to deliver the orders. The route may be modified by thedrivers as well, if they feel they have determined a more efficient route. Theshipping coordinator typically spends about three hours per day creating routes.
The shipping coordinator is also responsible for manually completing daily andmonthly activity reports (examples of two reports are in Appendix 2). Allinformation is hand transferred from the hand-written daily logs or routing sheetsinto an Excel spreadsheet. The daily delivery log consists of at least threepages (with fifteen deliveries per sheet) and one route sheet for each of the fiveor more drivers, which necessitates using substantial worker time for data entryonto the computer. Also, in order to do any sort of cost analysis, the data mustbe similarly hand-transferred to the PC software program.
5 -
Directions to patients’ homes are currently determined with the help of severalresources. HomeMed utilizes a computer program called Street Atlas, USAVersion 3.0 by DeLorme which creates maps for any given address whenprompted by a street address and zip code. Street Atlas, USA, however, is notcapable of formulating routes; it can only provide a detailed map of the roads toa desired destination. An index card system containing detailed writteninstructions is also maintained in the shipping label program. On-the-roadresources include a variety of county and state maps as well as a cellular phonefor each van.
When unscheduled orders are generated during the course of a day thecoordinator may determine the best delivery option using one of severalmethods. On a daily basis some flexibility is incorporated into the HCST workschedule by staggering the drivers’ hours (a sample work schedule is inAppendix 3). The drivers who come in early in the morning may take thoseorders that were already prepared (possibly from the previous night). Thedrivers who come later in the morning or early in the afternoon deliver many ofthe orders that come in during the course of the day, and the orders that wereonly recently completed. This method unfortunately is unable to account forlate-day orders because although there may be drivers at work at that time, theyare usually not able to return to the warehouse in mid-route. Currently, many ofthese late-day orders are either delivered using an outside courier or employeeovertime, both of which are targeted for reduction as a way to save money.
The time at which an order is ready is often dependent on the day of the week.For instance, some intravenous medicines cannot be prepared on Fridayevenings for delivery on Monday mornings, due to the perishability of theproduct (e.g. medication stability limitations). On other days this is not aproblem, but this is also a factor that will be unable to be limited regardless ofwhat delivery system is implemented. Another factor that is immutable is the factthat unexpected orders come in from the hospital to accommodate patientdischarges which must be filled, no matter what time of day they arrive. Theseorders often have same day due dates and short delivery time windows whichmust be met. Coordination with the hospital to get more advance dischargenotice is important.
If any deliveries are required outside the standard delivery region, they arealmost always sent via UPS or Federal Express. UPS two and three daydeliveries are the most cost effective non-HomeMed delivery option, whereasFederal Express overnight shipping has been used for more local deliverieswhen HomeMed is short-staffed because of its higher cost. These costs areunlikely to change greatly if a routing software is purchased, unless HomeMedexperiences enough growth to make traveling to outer regions more feasible.
6
This would occur only if there were enough customers in any given region tojustify a whole route devoted to that area.
Based on the previous project and conversations with the project client, ChrisMaksym, and the shipping coordinator, Randy Kelley, the project staffdetermined the key areas where increases in efficiency and decreases inexpenses would be especially beneficial to HomeMed. These areas are listedbelow:
A. Potential decreases in:1. Overall non-HomeMed courier utilization expense2. Average cost per HomeMed delivery3. Shipping coordinator’s time spent formulating daily routes4. Shipping coordinator’s time spent formulating monthly
reports
B. Potential increases in:1. Driver efficiency by way of optimizing the order of deliveries
on each route2. Percentage of HomeMed deliveries3. Percentage of on-time deliveries4. Time vans are on the road (maximizing efficiency)
In addition to the features listed above, other desired software capabilities arelisted below.
• Automates workload, financial, statistical reports and daily logs• Formulates optimal routes with constraints quickly• Groups and prioritizes deliveries by driver• Adjusts for unscheduled deliveries• Accommodates daily, weekly, and monthly planning of deliveries• Performs other activities [e.g., prints shipping labels, connects to
HomeMed Client Home Infusion Erogram (CHIPs), allows output to berouted to multiple printers]
• Will have capaity to meet current and future growth• Capable of receiving patient demographic information downloaded
from HomeMed’s operational software• Prints maps with routes and special directions
Approach and Methodology
The purpose of the project was to conduct a quantitative analysis and qualitativeassessment on each of the software packages under consideration utilizingactual HomeMed delivery data. The goal of the quantitative analysis was to
- 7
objectively determine the amount of savings (i.e. time and expense) that couldbe expected if one of the softwares were purchased and implemented. ActualHomeMed delivery data were submitted to Comdata RoTec and RoadNetTechnologies, Inc. technical support representatives. Each vender was asked todevelop delivery routes for each day. The routes and performance datagenerated by the vendors were then compared to the actual HomeMed deliveryroutes prepared by the HomeMed shipping coordinator (this was to become thebenchmark). The expected savings of using each software were thencalculated. In addition, several software customers were contacted and queriedabout their experiences and the routing software capabilities of RoTecLoadPlanner. -
Initially, the project staffs analysis was to be based on the HomeMed deliverylog data from April 1995 through January 1996; however, upon determininginadequacy of the provided data due to the omission of several factors essentialfor a quantitative analysis, the project team agreed to expand the scope of theproject to include more recent data. Critical data required included the timesthat the order was actually filled and ready for shipment, the delivery time, andthe miles driven on each route. The time that the order is ready for shipment isimportant to the analysis because both tested software packages needed todevelop routes based on the orders that were ready for dispatch at any givenpoint of the day. On April 25, 1996, Rich Hayden, Sales Engineer, and PaulLawhead, Account Executive, of Comdata RoTec came to HomeMed to discussand demonstrate the use of R0TecTM LoadPlanner. At this time the project teamextended the project and initiated collection of new data with all requiredinformation needed for the quantitative analysis. This required extension of theproject beyond the end of the University of Michigan semester was outside of theproject scope. However, the project staff agreed since it was important to theproject and the client.
The methodology for the re-engineered analysis was finalized during the April25, 1996 meeting with the Comdata RoTec representatives. Comdata RoTecfollowed up by sending HomeMed the agreed upon design for the testing of thenew HomeMed delivery data. A copy of this design appears in Appendix 4.
Per the testing design, Randy Kelley, the HomeMed shipping coordinator, begancollecting new, detailed routing information. The final data file sent to thesoftware representatives consisted of a few missing delivery times and actualmiles traveled on routes, which was re-constructed with the help of RandyKelley. With the information that could not be rebuilt, the project staff used closeestimates to fill in the unknowns based upon the known information.
The new routing information and a list of patient addresses for five test dayswere put into Excel spreadsheets by the project staff, in the requested format.Data were then sent to each software company for analysis in two phases. In
8 -
phase one, raw data excluding the actual routes utilized by HomeMed weresubmitted. In phase two, each vender was sent the actual routes and timesutilized by HomeMed to complete the deliveries on each of the test days.
Routing information was not made known to the software representatives inphase one, because it was agreed upon that they should have to start fromscratch, as the software will theoretically be doing this in the future, If therepresentatives were merely building on HomeMed’s experience then the testcould potentially not be objective. They were, however, given the number ofroutes that HomeMed created and the number of deliveries made by ParaTransitcouriers for each of the five test days in this phase of the study. To allow forcomparisons between the two software companies, the same testing procedurewas followed by both RoTec and RoadNet. A copy of the spreadsheets thatwere sent for analysis is in Appendix 5 (please note that the name of the HCST,the route number and the delivery order columns in this appendix were not givento the software companies in the first phase of the experiment).’
Data were sent to both software companies for the first phase of the quantitativeanalysis in the first week of June 1996. Due to several issues [e.g., inaccurateaddresses in the patient address file, data points outside of the test region(information on the range of the test region appears in Appendix 4), issues withroute formulation rules that HomeMed utilizes, etc.], final results from the firststage of the analysis were not received until July 23, 1996 from Comdata RoTecand August 2, 1996 from RoadNet. Each of the software companies eliminatedseveral of the days data in performing their analyses. Time and budgetingconstraints prompted the deletion of two days’ delivery data from the R0TecTMLoadPlanner analysis and four days from the RoadNet analysis. Also due totime constraints, phase two of the analysis could not be completed by the projectstaff.
The project staff set the benchmark standard for the quantitative analysis usingthe routing data that contained the actual HomeMed delivery routes for the testdays. The expected monetary savings from software usage were calculated bycomparing the routes created by each of the software packages against the setstandard. The expectation was that the total miles traveled and the total timespent on deliveries by the HCSTs, as well as the number of deliveries made byParaTransit, a local courier company, would aN be reduced by a routingsoftware.
The total time generated on the software simulation was subtracted from thebenchmark time values. The same was done for the mileage values. The
‘The addresses that were sent to RoadNet and RoTec were collected from the HomeMed patient database (CHIPS) and putinto an Excel file with the help of a query that was written and run by Jim Kotsories, HomeMed System Analyst. The patientaddresses that were not in the five test days were deleted from the address file, and the then the names of all of the patientsremaining on the file were replaced by arbitrary letters to preserve patient confidentiality.
9
differences in the time values were multiplied by the approximate hourly wagerate including fringe benefits of $11.96 for regular time and $16.59 for overtimeof the HCSTs. Similarly, the mileage differences were multiplied by theapproximate per mile vehicle cost (e.g., gas, maintenance, lease, etc.) of $0.30.
In addition to the quantitative analysis of each software, users of the R0TecTMLoadPlanner software were contacted and asked specific questions about easeof use, overall cost, potential savings capabilities and increases in efficiency aswell as other relevant questions. General questions that were asked are listedin Appendix 6. RoadNet software owners were not contacted due to thesoftware’s poor performance in the quantitative analysis.
Alternatives and Hypotheses Considered
In choosing a software package, there were three options from which HomeMedcould choose. HomeMed could purchase either RoadNet 5000® or R0TecTMLoadPlanner or they could opt for the “do-nothing” alternative in whichHomeMed retains the status quo, perhaps refining their manual tasks slightly.HomeMed did, in fact, choose to do this during the course of the project byexperimenting with the length of the workdays of their HCSTs, adding a fifthvehicle to the delivery fleet and by changing the shipping coordinator positionfrom a rotating to regular position.
The project staffs hypothesis was that a software package would reduce overallHomeMed delivery costs, optimize routes, increase driver efficiency, and reducedelivery expense, thus justifying the purchase within a two year softwarepayback period.
Findings
Quantitative Analysis
The benchmark data is listed in Table 1. Three days of data were determined tobe complete and include the total number of deliveries, the number ofParaTransit deliveries, the number of routes created, the number of milestraveled by the HomeMed HCSTs, and the total delivery times. The number ofmiles traveled by each of the HCSTs per route and the total delivery time perroute are detailed in Appendix 7.
- 10
Table 1. Quantitative Analysis Benchmark-Actual HomeMed Delivery DataTotal Total Miles Total Delivery
Deliveries ParaTransit Number of Traveled on Time From(Includes Deliveries Routes HomeMed HomeMed
Date ParaTransit) Created Routes Routes (hours)
4-26-96 78 17 13 1119* 36.95-15-96 49 2 13 1092* 31 .35-16-96 39 0 6 662 23.5*This value does not contain the miles traveled to fill the ParaTransit deliveries.**This value does not contain the time that it took to fill the ParaTransit deliveries. Also, the 4-26-96 total delivery time value does not contain the delivery times for two hospital deliveries thatwere in the delivery log but not on any of the route sheets.
The values in Table I require some clarification. The ParaTransit miles traveledand delivery times are not added into the total miles and total time values inTable 1. Also, on 4-26-96, two deliveries were included in the delivery log, butnot on any of the route sheets. Both were deliveries to the hospital, therefore,they would not have significantly effected the total delivery time values in Table1.
In the phase one of the analysis, R0TecTM LoadPlanner delivered all of theorders for each of the three test days (i.e., LoadPlanner filled the deliveries thatwere made by ParaTransit and also the ones made by HCSTs). In other words,the total miles traveled by RoTecTM LoadPlanner may be higher than the totalmiles in the benchmark even if the software-generated routes were more costeffective and efficient. Due to some accidental omissions in the address file thatwas sent to RoadNet, only 62 of the 78 orders were made into routes for the 4-26-96 data.
Four routes from the test days were excluded from the benchmark datastandard. One route with two stops from the 4-26-96 test data, two routes with atotal of eleven stops from the 5-1 5-96 test data, and one route with two stopsfrom the 5-16-96 test data were deleted from the analysis because theycontained deliveries outside of the RoTecTM LoadPlanner analysis region (referto Appendix 4 for a map of this region).
Table 2 provides the miles traveled on the benchmark routes as compared tothose for the software-generated routes. Appendix 8 contains samples of therouting results that were received from Comdata RoTec, and Appendix 9contains samples of those received from RoadNet Technologies, Inc.
11
Table 2. Miles Traveled on Benchmark and Software Created Routes
Benchmark:HomeMed Actual
Date Miles
Besides a possible savings in total miles traveled, the softwares were. also
expected to reduce the total delivery time: The actual delivery time values from
the benchmark and the software-generated delivery times are listed in Table 3.
. RoTecLoadPlanner RoadNet 5000
Simulated SimulatedDelivery Time Delivery Time
Benchmark: (hours) (hours)10 mm per 5 mm per 10 mm per 5 mm perresidential residential residential residential
stop stop stop stopHomeMed Actual 15 miri per 10 mm per 15 mm per 10 mm per
Total Delivery hospital hospital hospital hospital
Date Time (hours) stop stop stop stop
4/26/96 36.9* 49.5 43 50.2 45
5/15/96 31.3* 42.7 38.6 N/A N/A
5/16/96 23.5 27.7 24.5 N/A N/A
*Delivery times for ParaTransit were not added into these figures. Also the
4-26-96 time does not contain two deliveries that were not on route sheets,
but were in the delivery logs.
An important factor that could skew the total delivery time for the software route
simulation is the deterministic stop times that were used. RoTec LoadPlanner
and RoadNet 5000® assumed stop times of 15 minutes for each hospital
delivery and 10 minutes for each non-hospital delivery. These times were used
based on HomeMed’s best judgment of the amount of time spent at delivery
sites. If total delivery stop times of 10 minutes for hospital deliveries and 5
minutes for non-hospital deliveries were more accurate than 15 minutes and 10
minutes, respectively, then the total delivery times generated by the software
would have been reduced. The simulated total delivery time values with the
reduced stop times are still greater than all the benchmark time values (Table 3).
The expense decrease / increase on each of the three days by RoTec
LoadPlanner are shown in Table 4, and Table 5 contains the same information
RoTec LoadPlannerSimulated Miles
4-26-96 111.9* 1023
5-15-96 1092* 1148
5-16-96 662 684
RoadNet 5000®Simulated Miles
1577
‘These figures only give the actual miles traveled by HCSTs (i.e., they do not include the
ParaTransit miles).
N/AN/A
Table 3. Delivery Times on Benchmark and Software Created Routes
12
for RoadNet 5000® performance. The savings values in the tables are basedon the 10 minute hospital stop times and 5 minute residential stop times (Table3).
Table 4. RoTec LoadPlanner Delivery Routes vs. Benchmark Routes
Day Change in Change in Change in Total ChangeMileage Delivery Time ParaTransit in DeliveryExpense Expense Expense* Expenses
Day Change in Change in Change in Total ChangeMileage Delivery Time ParaTransit in DeliveryExpense Expense Expense Expenses
4-26-96 $137.40 $124.09 NIA* $261.49*The number of deliveries made by RoadNet 5000® was only one more than the HCSTdeliveries made for 4-26-96. This number could have been calculated if RoadNet would havehad all of the patients’ addresses for that day.
The reduction in ParaTransit expense on 4-26-96 by R0TecTM LoadPlanneramounts to a very high savings. In the LoadPlanner created routes for 4-26-96,however, HCST overtime was required.
In addition to providing savings in overall delivery expenses, a software needs tobe able to make deliveries within the predetermined time windows to ensurepatient satisfaction. On the routes that RoTecTM LoadPlanner created, at least 7deliveries on 4-26-96, 1 delivery on 5-15-96, and 2 deliveries on 5-16-96 werenot made within the time windows. Nearly all missed time windows, however,were missed by less than 30 minutes. With RoadNet 5000®, twelve deliverieswere not made within the time windows for the routes that it created for 4-26-96.As with LoadPlanner, nearly all time windows missed by RoadNet 5000® weremissed by less than 30 minutes. Some actual HomeMed deliveries, however,were also not made within the time windows. Because many of the stop times ateach delivery location were not written on the route sheets, the number of timewindows that were missed by HomeMed for the test days could not bedetermined.
*The ParaTransit invoices used to calculate these figures are in Appendix 10.‘This figure shows a very high savings, but HCST overtime was required to fill the ParaTransit
deliveries.
Table 5. RoadNet 5000® Delivery Routes vs. Benchmark Routes
13
Qualitative Assessment
Interviews with ROTecTM LoadPlanner customers were conducted by SeanAthans and Chris Maksym via telephone. The questions that were asked appearin Appendix 6 and full transcripts of conversations with references appear inAppendix 11. Based on these interviews, qualitative information regardingR0TecTM LoadPlanner software was gathered.
According to the Comdata RoTec software customers contacted, R0TecTM
LoadPlanner software should enable any purchaser to reduce the number oftrucks on the road, as well as help the customer to utilize what trucks they haveto a greater advantage, which would reduce HCST and vehicle expenses.
Besides the purchase price of approximately $50,000, which will vary dependingon the amount of extra features purchased, the customer should expect to payno less than $5000 per year in maintenance costs, but for a company the size ofHomeMed, the maintenance cost should not be above $8000 per year. Anadditional source of costs for R0TecTM LoadPlanner will come from the purchaseof additional geocoded counties, or the counties for which maps and routes canbe generated.
The Comdata RoTec customers contacted could not determine the exact amountof savings achieved by implementing the software, because resu!ts varied fromcompany to company, but all of the referent companies have reported areduction in delivery expenses.
Discussion
Fifteen of the seventeen ParaTransit deliveries that were made on 4-26-96 wereAnn Arbor deliveries. In other words, these deliveries would not have drasticallyadded to the total delivery time and miles listed in Table 1. The other twoParaTransit deliveries on 4-26-96 in Table 1 were made to Shelby Township andDetroit, respectively. These two deliveries would have probably added at least150 miles and 3 hours to the benchmark values. The two ParaTransit deliveriesthat were made on 5-15-96 were both Ann Arbor deliveries, and they would haveadded very little to the time and mileage values in Table 1.
One factor that may have lowered the total delivery time from the benchmark isspeeding on the highways by the HCSTs. If the HCSTs exceeded the speedlimit on their routes on the three test days, the benchmark delivery time valuesthat were used to compute potential savings were too low. The softwaresdevelop routes using the speed limits on each of the roads that the HCST is totravel.
14 -
The total miles traveled in the benchmark for 5-15-96 and 5-16-96 are both lessthan the total miles traveled in the R0TecTM LoadPlanner route simulation.However, on 4-26-96, the miles traveled by the software simulation are less thanthe miles traveled in the benchmark. This seems to indicate a substantialsavings since the mileages for the 17 ParaTransit deliveries are not added intothe benchmark. Looking at the apparent $415.39 reduction in expenses for thisone day, it appears that the software would be capable of making its greatestsavings on higher volume delivery days.
The apparently large reduction in delivery expenses by R0TecTM LoadPlanner on4-26-96 should not be misinterpreted. The savings do not necessarily mean thatLoadPlanner is the best option for HomeMed. If another HCST would haveworked on 4-26-96 with an hourly wage of $11.96, many of the ParaTransitdeliveries could have been made by HomeMed at far less cost than the $477.50that they were billed by ParaTransit.
Based on a $50,000 purchase price and a $5,000 per year softwaremaintenance contract, a two year payback period could be achieved if theaverage daily reduction in delivery expenses is approximately $118 (for 255days of business in a year).
Conclusions and Recommendations
Based of the small sample of data that was analyzed by each software, neitherthe purchase of R0TecTM LoadPlanner nor RoadNet 5000® appears to befinancially justified. The project staff therefore recommends that neither routingsoftware package be purchased at this time.
Although the R0TecTM LoadPlanner software results caused an increase indelivery expenses on 5-15-96 and 5-16-96, the routes created on the highervolume day that was analyzed, 4-26-96, indicate a savings in delivery expenses.RoadNet 5000®, however, shows an obvious increase in delivery expenses forthat same high-volume day. Based on the R0TecTM LoadPlanner results for 4-26-96, it appears that a software purchase may be justifiable with an increaseddelivery volume. The project staff therefore recommends that HomeMed performanother software delivery expense analysis when the daily volume of deliveriesincreases to approximately 90. When HomeMed’s daily deliveries hit that level,an investigation of the available routing softwares may again need to beconducted because new ones may become available and currently availableones may become obsolete. To facilitate any future software analyses, theproject staff recommends that HomeMed HCSTs fill in the route sheets with theindividual route times, mileages, and stop times.
15
Analyzing the 1995 HomeMed delivery data in the early stages of the project, thestaff saw a high correlation between the number of ParaTransit deliveries andthe staffing levels. For instance, on days when HCSTs were on vacation or sick,the number of ParaTransit deliveries greatly increased. Based on thisobservation, the project staff recommends that HomeMed investigate alternativedelivery options for days where HCSTs are on vacation. The staff alsorecommends that a cost analysis be performed to compare hiring part-time orfull-time HCSTs versus continuing to depend on ParaTransit.
Comdata RoTec currently has the information to perform the second phase ofthe analysis. When HomeMed receives the results from this phase of theanalysis, any apparently large savings by way of decreases in mileage anddelivery time should be reviewed with caution. By providing them with the actualHomeMed routes for the test days, the person who creates the routes will havehindsight in formulating the second phase results.
Action Plan
The purchase of a software is not financially justified at this point. When thedaily delivery volume reaches approximately 90 orders per day, anotherinvestigation of available routing softwares should be conducted. Based on theresults of that investigation, an analysis similar to that done by the project staffshould be used to determine the possible reduction in expenses of the softwaresanalyzed.
16
Appendix 1
FY ‘96 and FY ‘95 Delivery Summaries
Hom
eMed
Couri
erE
xp
ense
sA
nal
ysi
sFY
‘95
Mon
thP
ara
Tra
nsi
tA
lIn
tern
atio
nal
Fed
eral
Expre
ssU
PS
Mon
thly
Tot
al#
Del
iver
ies/
Mon
thA
ve.
Cos
tID
el./
Mon
th
July
’94
$6,4
92.7
5$1
,865
.00
$1,3
27.6
7$8
78.9
8$1
0,56
4.40
341
$30.
98A
ugust
‘94
$9,0
45.5
5$2
10.0
0$3
,405
.38
$745
.89
$13,
406.
8231
2$4
2.97
Sep
tem
ber
’94
$8,4
53.1
0$1
,730
.00
$2,2
06.3
9$1
,034
.98
$13,
424.
4734
3$3
9.14
Oct
ober
’94
$7,9
02.1
0$1
,750
.00
$4,1
40.3
8$9
69.9
7$1
4,76
2.45
411
$35.
92N
ov
emb
er‘9
4$9
,674
.03
$1,2
60.0
0$2
,072
.69
$945
.30
$13,
952.
0244
5$3
1.35
Dec
emb
er’9
4$9
,055
.15
$1,3
20.0
0$3
,654
.54
$1,1
14.5
0$1
5,14
4.19
458
$33.
07Ja
nuar
y’9
5$5
,688
.35
$520
.00
$3,5
74.1
3$1
,299
.74
$11,
082.
2234
8$3
1.85
Feb
ruar
y95
$6,9
67.5
8$1
,065
.00
$3,1
02.2
5$9
68.5
8$1
2,10
3.41
345
$35.
08M
arch
‘95
$16,
325.
00$1
,825
.00
$3,5
66.9
2$1
,034
.57
$22,
751.
4965
4$3
4.79
Apr
il’9
5$5
,101
.75
$730
.00
$3,6
83.0
9$9
15.5
2$1
0,43
0.36
304
$34.
31M
ay’9
5$4
,150
.15
$1,9
55.0
0$4
,138
.72
$1,3
33.2
0$1
1,57
7.07
303
$38.
21Ju
ne
‘95
$5,9
67.0
5$4
60.0
0$3
,521
.37
$1,3
08.5
1$1
1.25
6.93
332
$33.
91Y
earl
yT
ota
ls$
$94,
822.
56$1
4,69
0.00
$38,
393.
53$1
2,54
9.74
$160
,455
.83
4596
$34.
91
#D
eliv
erie
s/C
ouri
er24
9518
512
8962
745
96A
ve.
Cost
IDel
./C
ouri
er$3
8.01
$79.
41$2
9.79
$20.
02$3
4.91
S:\
Act
ivit
y\C
ourC
ost\
Cou
r949
5P
age
1
Hom
eMed
Couri
erE
xp
ense
sA
naly
sis
FY’9
6(A
ctua
lP
erM
onth
ofS
hipm
entl
Del
iver
y)81
1219
6
Mon
thP
ara
Tra
nsi
tM
Fed
Ex
UP
SB
FIT
otal
#C
ouri
erlM
onth
#T
otal
lMon
th%
IMon
th$I
Del
JMon
th
July
’95
$10,
253.
26$7
10.0
0$4
,192
.73
$1,2
62.9
8*
*$1
6,41
8.97
516
1164
44.3
3%$3
1.82
August
’95
$13,
713.
34$1
,780
.00
$3,9
90.3
5$1
,968
.66
**
$21,
452.
3562
211
2155
.49%
$34.
49S
epte
mb
er’9
5$1
7,07
7.84
$150
.00
*$1
,657
.62
**
$18,
885.
4642
310
46*
*
Oct
ob
er’9
5$1
9,42
3.10
$640
.00
$3,9
24.8
4$2
,225
.35
**
$26,
213.
2985
114
2059
.93%
$30.
80N
ov
emb
er’9
5$1
0,37
2.55
$0.0
0$5
,487
.61
$1,4
52.8
5**
$17,
313.
0158
913
5043
.63%
$29.
39D
ecem
ber
’95
$10,
806.
05$1
,425
.00
$4,9
25.0
9$1
,186
.36
**
$18,
342.
5067
413
1951
.10%
$27.
21Ja
nuar
y’9
6$7
,594
.65
$0.0
0$4
,114
.20
$1,5
89.3
5**
$13,
298.
2049
914
5134
.39%
$26.
65F
ebru
ary’9
6$4
,406
.65
$550
.00
$4,9
74.7
5$1
,506
.58
**
$11,
437.
9849
815
4032
.34%
$22.
97M
arch
’96
$4,4
12.5
0$0
.00
$3,3
95.6
0$1
,241
.46
**
$9,0
49.5
642
715
1628
.17%
$21.
19A
pril
’96
$2,4
70.7
5$2
10.0
0$3
,999
.61
$1,5
59.1
3$7
5.00
$8,3
14.4
932
814
6522
.39%
$25.
35M
ay’9
6$1
,201
.45
$0.0
0$4
,128
.86
$1,3
98.1
9$1
25.0
0$6
,853
.50
292
1556
18.7
7%$2
3.47
Jun
e’9
6$4
.617
.05
$0.0
0$1
,241
.77
$100
.00
$5.9
58.8
219
113
5814
.06%
$31.
20Y
earl
yT
ota
ls$
$106
,349
.19
$5,4
65.0
0$4
3,13
3.64
$18,
290.
30$3
00.0
0$1
73,5
38.1
359
1016
306
36.2
4%$2
9.36
#D
eliv
erie
slC
ouri
er33
6368
1682
786
1159
10A
ve.
Cos
tJD
el.I
Cou
rier
$31.
62$8
0.37
$25.
64$2
3.27
$27.
27$2
9.36
*D
ata
for
this
entr
yis
inco
mpl
ete;
ther
efor
e,no
data
for
Fed
Ex
inS
epte
mbe
r19
95is
used
inca
lcul
atio
ns.
**
BFI
was
tepi
ck-u
psw
ere
initi
ated
Apr
il19
96.
Bas
era
tefo
rpi
ck-u
pis
$25.
00.
Des
tinat
ion
char
ges
not
incl
uded
.
S:’
Act
ivit
y\C
ourC
ost\
Cou
r959
6
Appendix 2
Monthly and Daily Activity Reports
Hom
eMed
Cou
rier
Expen
ses
Ana
lysi
sFY
’96
(Act
ual
Per
Mon
thof
Shi
pmen
tlD
eliv
ery)
719/
96
Mon
thP
ara
Tra
nsi
tM
Fed
Ex
UP
SB
FIT
otal
#C
ouri
erlM
onth
#T
otal
lMon
th%
lMon
th$I
DeL
IMon
th
July
’95
$10,
253.
26$7
10.0
0$4
,192
.73
$1,2
62.9
8*
*$1
6,41
8.97
516
1164
44.3
3%$3
1.82
Au
gu
st’9
5$1
3,71
3.34
$1,7
60.0
0$3
,990
.35
$1,9
68.6
6$2
1,45
2.35
622
1121
55.4
9%$3
4.49
Sep
tem
ber
’95
$17,
077.
84$1
50.0
0*
$1,6
57.6
2**
$18,
885.
4642
310
46*
*
Oct
ob
er’9
5$1
9,42
3.10
$640
.00
$3,9
24.8
4$2
,225
.35
**
$26,
213.
2985
114
2059
.93%
$30.
80
Novem
ber
’95
$10,
372.
55$0
.00
$5,4
87.6
1$1
,452
.85
**
$17,
313.
0158
913
5043
.63%
$29.
39D
ecem
ber
’95
$10,
806.
05$1
,425
.00
$4,9
25.0
9$1
,186
.36
**
$18,
342.
5067
413
1951
.10%
$27.
21Ja
nuar
y’9
6$7
,594
.65
$0.0
0$4
,114
.20
$1,5
89.3
5*
$13,
298.
2049
914
5134
.39%
$26.
65F
ebru
ary’9
6$4
,406
.65
$550
.00
$4,9
74.7
5$1
,506
.58
**
$11,
437.
9849
815
4032
.34%
$22.
97M
arch
’96
$4,4
12.5
0$0
.00
$3,3
95.6
0$1
,241
.46
**
$9,0
49.5
642
715
1628
.17%
$21.
19A
pril
’96
$2,4
70.7
5$2
10.0
0$3
,999
.61
$1,5
59.1
3$7
5.00
$8,3
14.4
932
814
6522
.39%
$25.
35M
ay’9
6$1
,201
.45
$0.0
0$4
,128
.86
$1,3
98.1
9$1
00.0
0$6
,828
.50
291
1556
18.7
0%$2
3.47
June’
96
$4,6
17.0
5$0
.00
$1,2
41.7
7$1
00.0
0$5
,958
.82
1358
14.0
6%$3
1.20
Yea
rly
Tota
ls$
$106
,349
.19
$5,4
65.0
0$4
3,13
3.64
$18,
290.
30$2
75.0
0$1
73,5
13.1
359
0916
306
36.2
4%$2
9.36
#D
eliv
erie
slC
ouri
er33
6368
1682
786
1059
09
Ave
.C
ost
lDel
iCo
uri
er$3
1.62
$80.
37$2
5.64
$23.
27$2
7.50
$29.
36
*D
ata
for
this
entr
yis
inco
mpl
ete;
ther
efor
e,no
data
for
Fed
Ex
inS
epte
mbe
r19
95is
used
inca
lcul
atio
ns.
SF1
was
tepi
ck-u
psw
ere
Initi
ated
Apr
il19
96.
Bas
era
tefo
rpi
ck-u
pIs
$25.
00.
Des
tinat
ion
char
ges
not
incl
uded
.
S:A
cUv
ity
Co
urC
ost
\Co
ur9
596
892
64.2
7%
MIC
HIG
AN
HO
MEC
ES
ER
VIC
ES
DA
ILY
DE
LIV
ER
YR
EP
OR
Tfo
rJU
LY
1996
.H
OM
EM
ED
HC
ST
HC
ST
AV
ER
AG
EPA
RA
TR
AN
SIT
A-i
UP
SFE
DE
XO
TH
ER
DA
TE
It1-
IMED
MQ
UIP
BO
TFI
DE
LIV
ER
IES
per
HC
ST
1-IM
EDM
QU
IPH
ME
DM
QU
IPlI
ME
DM
QU
IPlI
ME
DM
UIP
HM
ED
MQ
UIP
SUB
TO
TA
LT
OT
AL
15
501
051
10.2
02
00
02
06
00
010
615
490
049
9.80
80
00
40
120
00
2473
3.
570
01
7114
.20
220
00
50
21
00
3010
11
20
02
2.00
00
00
00
00
00
02
54
360
036
9,00
131
00
50
80
10
2864
61
00
00
0.00
00
00
00
00
00
00
71
00
00
0.00
00
00
00
00
00
00
84
321
033
8.25
121
00
60
100
00
2962
94
470
047
11.7
57
10
04
06
00
018
6510
458
‘00
5814
.50
70
00
20
80
00
1775
114
390
039
9.75
90
00
30
80
00
2059
124
462
048
12.0
08
00
02
03
00
013
6113
00
00
00.
000
00
00
00
00
00
014
00
00
00.
000
00
00
00
00
00
015
442
20
4411
.00
80
00
.2
010
00
020
6416
437
10
389.
5010
10
03
010
01
025
6317
446
10
4711
.75
311
00
10
130
00
4693
184
410
041
10.2
53
00
08
06
01
018
5919
438
01
399.
7517
00
02
08
00
027
6620
11
00
10.
000
00
00
00
00
00
121
10
00
00.
000
00
00
00
00
00
022
440
12
4340
.00
40
00
30
90
00
1659
234
440
044
11.0
019
20
03
014
00
038
8224
448
10
490.
008
00
05
08
00
021
7025
428
01
297.
2516
00
00
015
00
031
6026
436
00
369.
0019
00
01
08
00
028
6427
26
00
63.
001
00
00
00
00
01
728
11
00
11.
000
00
00
00
00
00
129
340
00
4013
.33
110
00
80
152
00
3676
303
390
039
13.0
024
40
05
017
00
050
8931
449
00
4912
.25
191
00
30
61
00
3079
SUB
TO
TA
L87
710
59.
9123
57
00
690
179
33
049
6-
TO
TA
L24
20
6918
213
88
S:V
\c(i
vity
DeI
iver
yDeI
9697
Appendix 3
Sample Work Schedule
SERVICE TECHNICIAN SCHEDULE -
Drivers Schedule8/12 8/13 8/14 8/15 8/16
NAME MONDAY TUESDAY WEDNESDAY THURSDAY FRIDAY
Traci Towne 9:30-8:00 iS 9:30-3:00 IS 9:30-8:00 IS 9:30-8:00 iS 9:30-3:00 IS 40.0
HOM9 Repeat PMPATNBR 86 Jerome t0 Burton MI 1P12A1N NN 30A/N 30A/N
____2SAJN
2A - - 1OA!N
Order File
PMPATNB DELIVER DELIVER DELIVER DELIVER STOP TIME COURIER STOPR AFTER DATE AFTER TIME BEFORE DATE BEFORE TIME . SEQUENCE_____HOM Date of Order Arrival Same as Deliver Latest Time for Estimated Each Route must be Hide on First
Delivery-- .PLv.eiY
12 A/N MM/DDiYY HH:MM Mittary MM/DDIYY HH:MM Miltary MM 5 A/N 3 N -__________
• HomeMed drivers should track the start and end time of the route, actual miles
driven on the route, actual stop time of each delivery, and the sequence of actual
deliveries. This will help in determining the validity of the before/after test. Above
information should be relayed to COMDATA RoTec in the spreadsheet.
Frida May 03. 1996 Page: 1 C:\DATA\WORD\ACCTINFO\UMICHTST.DQC
HomeMed COMOATA
Before/AfterTest Proposal
• After RoTéc has successfully routed all of the stops (one week, 5 days, Monday-Friday) in the data provided by HomeMed and presented results. COMDATARoTec will receive a second download with the actual sequence (same test data),so that COMDATA RoTec may review previous results and make adjustments dueto HomeMed business rules.
Maps• Test map will be of a Local Road Network and cover 21 counties, see map below
for details. —
• Local Road Network consists of interstate highways, primary roads, secondaryroads, landmarks, railroads and water at a residential detail level.
7 N\
5AY •__
MIDLAND...
BeforelAfter Test Map
GENESEE ST. CLAIR
dN ivi::ro
HILLSDALE
HomeMed Coverage AreaLUCAS
but not on the B/A Test Map FULTON,,.- —
B/A Test Map Coverage Area HENRY
5/3/96
Geocoding• Two methods will be used for geocoding (assigning a latitude/longitude to patient
accounts):1. Street Address. All records will be analyzed by COMDATA RoTec’s
Address Correction Utility and updated as needed.2. Zip+4. COMDATA RoTec will assign the Zip+4 to the records
automatically.• Any exceptions (patients accounts that can not be geocoded due to bad addresses)
will be communicated back to HomeMed for correction.
Routing and Schedule• Ground mile calculation and real road miles will be used.• Appointment times will be honored.• Other HomeMed business rules will be applied, so that the before/after test will be
practically and operationally sound.
d99 Page: 2C:\DATA\WQRDCCTlNFO\UMlCHTST.DOC
Appendix 5
Copy of Address File and Order Files Sent toSoftware Companies
DIRECT EXPRESS DEL 7.75DIRECT EXPRESS DEL 10.25DIRECT EXPRESS DEL 9.75DIRECT EXPRESS DEL 199.55DIRECT EXPRESS DEL 19.75DIRECT EXPRESS DEL 103.70DIRECT EXPRESS DEL 68.25DIRECT EXPRESS DEL 20.75DIRECT EXPRESS DEL 22.75DIRECT EXPRESS DEL 15.00DIRECT EXPRESS DEL 27.75DIRECT EXPRESS DEL 8.75DIRECT EXPRESS DEL 67.25
Appendix 11
Results of Conversations with RoTec References
5/9/96
Bill MooradianMooradian’s FurnitureTroy, NY(518) 274-5500
•Mooradianis Furniture got RoTec about 3 years ago, before which time all the routing was donemanually.
•They have 5 trucks. Before RoTec was installed it took 1 hour of planning for each truck,now with RoTec it takes 2 hours.
•They have about an 100 mile range for deliveries.•RoTec reduces the stress load to the coordinator, who is now able to do other jobs while
using the load planner, such as answering the phone, with out losing hisconcentration.
•The company can build features into the system, such as padding the schedules sothe driver can return and go out again for such things as unscheduled deliveries.
‘Mr. Mooradian said that RoTec changed his company ‘from a stop managed company to a timemanaged company.”
•lnstead of using 5 trucks at 80%, now is using 4 trucks at 100%, leaving a driver forunexpected deliveries.
‘They are currently experiencing their highest ever maintenance costs at about$5000 a year.
•When Mr. Mooradian was learning to use RoTec it was easy enough that he didn’t need amanual. For him, the harder part is trying to match it exactly to his own business.
•The only disadvantage was that when value mail updates are performed (the updating processfor new zip codes), they have to throw out the entire old database to regeocode.
•lf there is a difference in old and new addresses the entire system will crash, which Mr.Mooradian described as more of an annoyance than a problem with the system.
•Mr. Mooradian also wants more flexibility in generating reports, but he believes he can learn tobetter understand the options.
‘Overall, he was very satisfied with the entire system.
5/8/96
Contact: Bob Reel, System AdministratorCobe TransportDeland, FL(904) 738-2778
•Cobe Transport delivers medical equipment nation wide..1800 Subscribers.•55-65 Truck loads a week, with 8-15 deliveries per truck load.
•RoTec was first installed in February 1996 and first implemented in March 1996.
‘Before Cobe got RoTec all routing was done manually on one day of the week by two
employees (approximately 16 hours per week). This was a hassle because of all the
stacks of files that were to be sorted.•RoTec, RoadShow, and TruckStop all fit their requirements, but RoadNet did not.
•Cobe then narrowed it then down to RoTec and RoadShow and invited them in for
demonstrations. After completing a short analysis they decided to buy RoTec, mainly
because of its Windows capability. RoadShow is DOS based.
‘In the one month of operation, RoTec has produced more cost effective routes with fewer miles
traveled. Cobe have also seen a reduction in labor: it now takes only about 4 hours per
week to do the routing, with less chaos. RoTec also improved their on-time delivery
schedule. They were not, however, able to make more deliveries per route.
‘These savings have not yet been able to justify the cost of the system because of the short time
that it has been in use. Mr. Reel will do analysis after 6 months of use.
‘The employees like the system because of its easy of use. They can move around the interface
with total control.•Cobe have experienced a minor problem with the geocoding which is being worked out.
‘The cost to Cobe was about $150,000, which includes two machines/licenses. They have every
county in the country geocoded.•Maintenance is about $8000 per year.•Overall, Mr. Reel was very satisfied with the purchase of RoTec; he liked the system and
support that was given to him. He said the more it is used, the better one will be able to
understand it, and use it to its full potential.
5/9/96
Bill BollingerMediquik ExpressChapel Hill, NC(800) 421-9128, X2218(919) 967-7260
•Mediquik is like a larger version of HomeMed, they deliver medical supplies to hospitals,warehouses, and homes.
•Mediquik serves all of the United States and Canada.•Mediquik has been using RoTec for the past 3 years before which time routing was done
manually.•RoadShow, TruckStop, and CAPS were investigated as well, but none of these quite satisfied
the company’s needs.•There were 4 people doing the routing before their purchase of RoTec, now it only takes 1
person 4-5 hours.•They have two customers, one has 700-900 deliveries per week, the other has 500 deliveries
per week.•They have two systems: one that is used for routing, and the other that is used for sales and
operation analysis. The whole package cost under $50,000, but they were one ofRoTec’s first customers.
•Mediquik pays $6000-7000 year in maintenance•They say it is very easy to learn and use. It was up and running in a week.•RoTec has saved them 12% in road mileage. More importantly it has eased the work load
for the employees, now can spend time doing other things.•Mediquik noticed a large improvement in hitting their time windows, increasing their customer
satisfaction.•lt was recommended to use Fox Pro with the system to help clean up the data, and do
maintenance.•The time that it takes to compute the routes is a geometric, not a linear, progression based on
the number of people a company delivers to.•Mediquik is quite happy with the system as a whole.
