Christopher "Chris" Lofgren (PhD IE 1986) is president and chief executive officer at Schnieder National, Inc., a premier provider of transporation and logistics services. In this interview, he discusses current challenges and trends in freight transporation.

ISyE: What is the biggest challenge that you face in transportation logistics today?
CL: Clearly, it is that the current state of the economy has created a set of challenges that is fairly unprecedented in terms of volume downturns and pricing pressures, which ultimately require you to take cost actions and to rethink a number of the basic tenets on how you have managed in downtimes in a cyclical industry. These are things beyond what most people have experienced.

ISyE: How is the economy affecting the way you do business?
CL: We have a saying that the important thing is to keep the important thing the important thing. We have spent a significant amount of time examining ways to take cost out of the business without changing the ability to serve the customer safely and in a sustainable way. Right now, everybody understands that there is massive pricing pressure. With that, you also have to be selective about what things you can continue to do and the people for whom you can continue to do them. Essentially, you either have to do more with less or simply do less.

ISyE: Are there other challenges that you face now?
CL: Regulations were very favorable for the industry twenty years ago, but they are starting to challenge productivity. For example, regulations on the hours of service of drivers ***regardless of whether they were right or wrong***have fundamentally taken productivity out of the industry. The changes that are being made to the engines to meet new regulations on emissions have also driven significant cost back into the industry. In return, we benefited from lower emissions of both particulates and nitrous oxide. The benefits, though, came at a pretty significant cost and were inflationary to the industry at a time when it has been difficult to recover increasing costs in terms of price.

Another emerging issue is that of compaction. For example, when Procter & Gamble takes water out of its detergents and is able to put the same number of washes in a smaller package, the total number of shipments required goes down, which reduces volume in the industry. New lightweight flat-screen TVs are another example. Essentially, product reconfiguration due to technological advancement is taking volume out of the industry. This is not going to be a high-growth industry in the near future. Actually, volumes may shrink in terms of consumer non-durables and the retail supply chain.

One last thing is that there is a de-leveraging of the American consumer. We've undergone a radical change in terms of saving rates for the average U.S. household. What are the consumption patterns going to be in the future? They probably aren***t going to be what we saw three years ago, so what does that mean for volumes of freight and the number of different packaging alternatives? I've said that freight transportation and logistics is the "power train" of our country's physical economy. That power train demands less horsepower right now, and our industry will be impacted as U.S. citizens reconfigure their demands.

ISyE: What has been the most important technological innovation in your industry recently?
CL: We had to develop new engine capabilities in response to the emissions requirements, and that's been a pretty significant change and will continue to be one. We had to reduce emissions dramatically, and this really required a significant change in the design of the engine and the supporting components. I think we're going to continue to face challenges here as we receive further requirements for emissions reduction, but the next hurdle hasn't been placed out there in front of us yet.

Technologically, I think it's more about winning little battles. The tire manufacturers continue to work to achieve both longer wear and better miles per gallon (mpg) performance out of the tires. The tractor manufacturers continue to look for ways to figure out how to take out weight while adding strength, stability, wear resistance, and improved aerodynamics to the design. I think we're at a place now where we're not looking at big breakthroughs. I do think there is a lot of work being done today to figure out how to create technologies that promote safety. There are a whole series of things under investigation, such as looking at blinking patterns of eyeballs of drivers within the cab to try to identify fatigue.

ISyE: Are there any other green or sustainable efforts besides the lowering of the emissions that are going on in your industry?
CL: I think both the industry and our company have done a phenomenal job in terms of that. I'm a little bit jaded on some of this green stuff; I think in some cases it has been somewhat faddish for people who have chosen to do it. I think good companies in many different industries have done it because, number one, it's the right thing, and number two, there are ways to do it such that it doesn***t come as a negative impact to your financials. For example, we've long had a policy of giving drivers bonuses for improving their mpg performance. So, don't accelerate too fast. Don't idle your tractor when you don't have to because idling is the least fuel-efficient and the highest pollution cycle in the engine. We've made investments in a heat sync to allow the sleeper berth in the tractor to stay warm without requiring the use of the engine. Now, we're trying to figure out a technology to do that on the cooling cycle because you always want to ensure that a driver receives good rest.

In some cases, I don't think the industry has gotten the credit it deserves. After you add these technologies to the tractor, you face a higher cost for which you then have to pay a higher federal excise tax, and you lose some payload because it adds weight to the tractor. I've always been of the mindset that this ought to be an industry in which the government looks to incentivize and encourage, rather than to regulate and tax. A lot of things happen not because somebody made the industry do them, but because the industry was committed to doing the right things. We as a company have been committed to doing the right thing, but how do you get credit for it? It's the "carrot and stick" dilemma in some regards. I think it would be more interesting if we spent more time thinking about how to create more carrots rather than grabbing another stick.

ISyE: You are, and have been, a strong supporter of the Stewart School. You have supported the School in a variety of capacities, including being the chair of the School's Advisory Board. What do you find most rewarding about your work with Georgia Tech?
CL: Well first off, Georgia Tech has been very good to me. Clearly, the wonderful opportunity to be there and to learn there has been very instrumental in the kinds of opportunities I ended up having in my career. I continue to grow more grateful for all that I've been able to have because of my experience at Tech. It is a special place. It is a place that combines the highest standards in academics and research, but it does so with a spirit that is incredibly human. I think the warmth of its people and the aspects of the heart and the mind are what make Tech unique. We may have some strong competitors in terms of training people with the mind, but the students and faculty members who have the opportunity to be a part of Georgia Tech also become enriched in the heart. And that enriching of the heart is just as important as the enriching of the head.

This interview first appeared in the Fall 2009 issue of Industrial and Systems Engineering, the alumni magazine of the Stewart School of ISyE.