Print Page | Contact Us | Sign In | Join RVCF
Blog Home All Blogs
RVCF LINK focuses on the challenges and trends relevant to today's changing retail landscape. Our newsletter contains case studies, articles of note, and original content regarding collaborative initiatives, research, and training occurring in the world of RVCF.


Search all posts for:   


Top tags: Omni-Channel  e-commerce  Inventory Management  3PL  Collaboration  Kaizen  Vendor Compliance  Amazon  Brick-and-Mortar  RVCF Fall Conference 2015  RVCF Fall Conference 2016  supply chain  Chargeback  EDI  Onboarding  Shortages  Chargebacks  Compliance Management  Holiday 2014  RVCF Conferences  RVCF Membership  Tariff  Audit  CBP  Economic Sanctions  exports  Holiday 2015  Imports  NAFTA  Ports 

If You Ship with UPS or FedEx, You Should Be Auditing Their Invoices

Posted By RCVF Admin, Friday, January 25, 2019

RVCF Link Image 

If You Ship with UPS or FedEx, You Should Be Auditing Their Invoices
by Kenneth Kowal, Founder of ShipStarter

The cost of shipping is a constant concern for manufacturers, retailers, and distributors who send a large volume of small packages with UPS and FedEx. Both carriers’ service agreements are complex, and their pricing is hard to understand, even for seasoned logistics pros. This makes optimizing cost extremely difficult for most companies.

What’s worse? The carriers can’t be trusted to invoice for shipments accurately. They also cannot be trusted to credit customers fairly for refunds they are owed for delivery errors like missing a guaranteed due date. In fact, the carriers make errors on an average of 5% of invoices. But since it’s so hard for shippers to audit invoices, most companies either don’t notice the errors, or see this problem as just a cost of doing business.

So, What’s a Parcel Shipper to Do?

To help recover the money they’re owed, smart small parcel shippers enlist help. Yet, the 2017 Annual Third-Party Logistics Survey from JDA reported that 68% of companies either conduct their own shipping invoice audits or are not auditing their invoices at all. And given how difficult it is to audit small parcel invoices thoroughly and well, it’s questionable if any of the companies that are conducting audits in-house are doing so effectively.

Perhaps shippers do not realize just how advantageous an audit can be, or as we’ve said, they would rather take the hit to their bottom line as a cost of doing business than spend the large amount of human resource time that’s necessary to properly audit the invoices.

Parcel invoice auditing is an integral part of confirming that carrier pricing matches the original agreement. An audit can tell a shipper if they are being overcharged for errors or late shipments, as well as find other inefficiencies in the supply chain.

Why Are There Errors?

The reason there are errors is that carrier rates agreements are complex and depend on a lot of variable circumstances. And since shipping by its nature often involves contingencies, costs can often end up being very different than what is estimated by a shipper when a package is handed off to a carrier.

There are several errors that occur regularly, including:

  • Fuel surcharge errors
  • Incorrect billing address
  • Wrong PO number
  • Incorrect exchange rates
  • Wrong weight calculation
  • Duplicate shipments or invoices

Some of the errors can be on the part of the shipper, and some by the carrier. An incorrect billing address can be easily corrected, but it comes with a hefty price tag. A mistake like this will cost at least $11 per shipment, depending on the carrier. Address errors are not always the shipper’s fault, however. But if you are not checking, how do you know?

How Much Can a Shipper Save?

On average, working with a parcel audit service will result in a savings of 2%–5% or more on the total spend. The average savings will vary by business and can end up being a lot more. So, is it worth it? Think about what a 5% reduction in small parcel shipping costs would mean to your company’s bottom line.

What Else?

It’s clear how auditing invoices can recover a significant amount of money for many shippers. But what about other areas of your business? The data on your parcel shipping program that comes out of the auditing process can also help you tighten up your shipping operation in other ways. Parcel data can provide insights into carrier performance and your overall network efficiency, down to the package level. Armed with data, logistics managers can analyze their operation to make better business decisions.

A partnership between a small parcel shipper and its audit team provides value across the supply chain. It’s a simple way to remove cost and waste from your company, while ensuring that the terms of your carrier agreement are being met.

Transportation Impact provides small parcel rate negotiation and invoice audit services to large-volume FedEx and UPS shippers. We’ve saved hundreds of companies over $100MM in the past ten years. To learn more, visit


Tags:  audit  fedex  invoices  parcels  shippers  shipping  transportation  ups 

Share |

Retail Value Chain 101: Why Suppliers Need Internal Audit Processes that Mimic Those of Retailers

Posted By Administration, Thursday, October 19, 2017
Updated: Wednesday, October 18, 2017


The Retail Value Chain 101 article for retailers from this issue of RVCF Link discusses the keys to building and maintaining an effective communication program with suppliers. Of course, proactive communication is not the sole responsibility of any single party. We often see suppliers make two mistakes when communicating with their retailer customers. First, suppliers tend to wait until there's a problem – typically, chargebacks – to contact the retailer.

Second, suppliers are often quick to point fingers at retailers and look for settlements or reversals before working out the kinks within their own organization. For example, suppose a supplier is hit with repeated chargebacks for the same compliance violation. They schedule a visit to the retailer's distribution center to watch one of their shipments being audited. How embarrassing would it be to sit there in front of the retailer as an audit reveals multiple errors, validates all chargebacks, and shows exactly how disruptive these problems are to the retailer's operations? To be clear, visits to retailer distribution centers are highly encouraged because they can open the supplier's eyes to the problems caused by shipping errors and help them correct these issues. But nobody enjoys public shaming.

Before approaching the retailer about problems, particularly with chargebacks and failed audits, suppliers need to know they're doing what they should be doing to satisfy retailer requirements. This is accomplished through the implementation of a formal supplier audit process that ensures shipment integrity by auditing both inbound shipments from the factory and the supplier's own outbound shipments to retailers.

Not only should suppliers have their own audit processes in place, but they should be modeled after retailer audit processes to ensure consistency. Many retailers have audit processes for new vendors, new EDI implementations, cross dock qualification, quality checks, etc. Obviously, every supplier should be working hard to pass these audits. That's how you stay on cross dock, preferred vendor, and other advantageous programs. And the less humans have to inspect, correct, or otherwise touch a shipment, the better.

Retailers typically spot check a certain percentage of cartons for quality. Do tickets have accurate information? Do products intended to be hung have hangers? Do folded products have size strips? Do prepacks have the proper size scale? If a minimum accuracy threshold isn't met, more cartons are checked. If those cartons fail the audit, further escalation is required, and an entire purchase order or shipment might need to be checked. Nobody wants to be moved to full manual processing, which is time-consuming and costly.

Failed audits cause shipping delays that result in out-of-stocks, lost sales, markdowns and reduced profits. Retailers are forced to waste time and money to correct these problems. As a result, chargebacks are issued to suppliers, often resulting in friction in the trading partner relationship.

Best practice for suppliers is to emulate the audit processes of retailers, especially if the supplier is bringing in goods from overseas, to ensure the integrity of carton contents and floor ready compliance.

When bringing in goods from overseas, the supplier often seeks to improve speed to market and cost efficiency by having the factory pack the goods for cross dock through their distribution center and the retailer's distribution center. If it's not possible to pack for cross dock, the supplier may still choose to have certain value-added services handled by the factories, such as pre-ticketing, hanger application, sizer or size strip application, and RFID or EAS application.

Look at retailer programs holistically and develop a single program that averages the number of cartons checked, the percentage of accuracy required, etc. For example, if a supplier's largest retailer partners routinely audit an average of two cartons per PO and require 98 percent accuracy to achieve cross dock status, the supplier should be following the same processes and holding the factory to the same standards. If two cartons fail, check "x" number of cartons. If those fail, a full audit should be required.

Auditing factories for shipment integrity should be followed with chargebacks for non-compliance, which should be spelled out in the agreement with the factory. Just like suppliers should visit retailer distribution centers, factories should also be visited to ensure their processes are aligned with supplier processes. The same holds true for third party logistics providers.

Suppliers should also be auditing their own outbound shipments and proactively addressing any issues uncovered. Are cartons packed correctly? Are tickets applied and cartons labeled properly? Are trucks loaded correctly?

Once the supplier has audited both inbound shipments from the factory and outbound shipments from its own facility, the supplier can visit retailer distribution centers with confidence and determine if a retailer's processes could be contributing to chargebacks and/or performance scores.

A wise person once said, "Delay is the death of the sale." That's a painful fact in the world of retail. The downstream effects of failed audits are very real and very serious. Delays can be minimized if not eliminated when suppliers implement internal audit processes modeled after retailer audit processes. That's the only way to ensure a reduction in chargebacks, the fast arrival of goods to sales floors, and future orders and replenishment while minimizing the risk of lost sales and profits.

CLICK HERE to return to the OCTOBER 2017 RVCF LINK

Tags:  Audit  Order Accuracy  Quality Control 

Share |
PermalinkComments (0)

Can Audit Guidelines Reduce Trade Disputes? Chasm of Opinion, Impact on Profitability

Posted By Administration, Thursday, January 19, 2017
Updated: Tuesday, January 17, 2017

by APEX Analytix

Disputed trade deductions continue to be one of the most emotionally charged issues that face retailers and suppliers. The situation fosters an adversarial relationship between the supplier and retailer, and impacts the profitability of both organizations. Significant money is at stake and the administrative burden of resolving deductions many months after the transaction saps both organizations.

Is there a way to take the sting out of disputed trade deductions and create an environment that results in greater profitability for both supplier and retailer? We believe that clearly articulated audit guidelines, recovery best practices, and well-understood metrics can go a long way in achieving this goal. We have seen first-hand that long cycle times and "non-value added" administrative costs are dramatically reduced when audit guidelines are communicated, recovery audit best practices are implemented, and both parties operate under a common language of metrics.

The two biggest culprits
To start, let's take a look at the two primary causes driving trade deal deductions (from the retail perspective):

  1. Incorrect billing. This may be a pricing problem, a valid promotional deal that never made its way into the supplier system, incorrect payment terms on the face of the invoice, a new store allowance that was mishandled, incorrect freight terms or any number of billing errors. Only by studying these errors to get at the root cause can the supplier fix its underlying systems to prevent future occurrences. By and large, these cannot be fixed by the retailer as the issue is with the supplier, or the supplier's communication channels to the retailer.
  2. Difference in interpretation of a trade deal. For example, the supplier's deal may specify a $5.00 per case billback applies to all product that is ordered between June 1 and June 30 per the supplier's deal sheet when the specific SKUs are promoted through a circular. What if the retailer ordered the product on May 30 in significant quantity (three times the normal turn) to support this deal? Or, what if the retailer did not get the required advance notice of the promotional offer from the supplier and placed its final promotional order on July 2nd? The supplier would likely take a position that the order did not fulfill the specific conditions of the deal and was therefore not eligible. In both situations, the retailer would likely take the position that since the supplier ultimately got the product moved through the retail channel (even though it did not conform to the "letter of the law"), the retailer should be entitled to the deal monies.

So, how do we go about resolving this conflict? For the first one, the responsibility lies with the supplier. There are many suppliers that bill accurately every time, and this can be translated into a meaningful metric understood by both parties. Let's call it the "Billed Right 1st Time Percentage." If you are a retailer, being billed correctly the first time dramatically reduces your cost of invoice processing. Some companies call this "touchless" processing, meaning that no human intervention is required. If the retailer has to make manual adjustments due to a supplier billing error, it increases the cost of doing business with the supplier due to exception processing. This is often a category on a vendor scorecard, particularly as it will show how your performance compares to your peers both within and outside of your category.

For the second factor, the solution is more involved, and requires an understanding of the other party's perspective. We think that clearly articulated audit guidelines, created by the retailer and communicated to its suppliers, is the first step in this solution. These audit guidelines should address the retailer's expectations regarding lead time to process cost and deal changes, handling of cash discounts (i.e., based on gross vs. net), pricing on returns, new item allowances, compliance fees (if applicable), "family of items," and more. An even better option is to check directly with your retailers to see if they have such audit guidelines. If they do, yet their claim does not conform to their stated procedures, you should be able to resolve the issue in your favor. If the claim does conform to their guidelines, you have a bigger issue as these guidelines are generally agreed to by their merchants and are not likely to change without significant negotiation. Remember, retailers are required to conform to Sarbanes-Oxley just as strictly as their supplier counterparts. All deductions taken need to be properly substantiated with the relevant supporting documentation. By clearly understanding the "rules" that the retailer is operating under, most of these issues can be addressed by fixing the root cause of the error. Successful retailers have a healthy respect for their vendors and do not want to negatively impact the relationship via questionable deductions.

Key strategies and metrics
In working with the world's largest retailers to develop common metrics to measure their success in recovery audit, our objective was to understand current recovery audit best practices, provide a common framework to compare retailers to their peers and "best in class" organizations, and to identify emerging best practices that may be a good fit for retail clients and prospects. These best practices have taken the form of metrics and strategies that enhance their performance. Perhaps, surprisingly, the strategies and metrics are very much aligned with the future state desired by the manufacturer/supplier as well. Below are the key strategies and metrics:

Recovery audit strategies

  • Ensure Comprehensive Compliance with ALL Negotiated Agreements
  • Foster Process Improvements
  • Enhance Vendor Relationships

Key performance metrics

  • Effectiveness: Percentage of Audit Recoveries Captured Internally
    • Median: 52%, best in class – 86%
  • Efficiency: Recoveries per Recovery Audit FTE
    • Median: $1.6 million, best in class - $4.2 million
  • Cycle Time: Transaction to Internal Audit Cycle Time
    • Median: 12 months, best in class – 45 days
  • Quality: Payback %
    • Median: 8%, best in class – 3%
  • Cost: Effective Audit Rate = Internal FTE costs + external fees / overall recoveries
    • (internal focus - varies widely based on company size & findings)

Under Recovery Audit Strategies, we believe that most suppliers would understand retailer's desire to ensure compliance with contracts as well as applaud the retailer's willingness to improve the process and enhance vendor relationships. As far as the Key Performance Metrics for capturing recoveries, reducing cycle time, and minimizing payback through higher quality claims are concepts that are well-aligned with suppliers. Claims submitted by internal recovery groups are timelier and tend to be more conservative, as the external audit groups are more likely to push the envelope into "gray areas." Retailers embracing these strategies and metrics will improve their financial performance as well as improve relationships with their supplier partners. On the supplier side, these strategies and metrics help to minimize the administrative burden and the uncertainty associated with deductions taken 12-24 months after the original transaction occurred.

Supplier retailer relationship nirvana
The factors that converge to create a highly dynamic and complex trading relationship between retailers and suppliers are unlikely to disappear. In fact, many of these factors – ever more creative pricing strategies, discounts, promotions; competitive negotiations that go down to the wire before an ad or an in-store special; and the market dynamics that reduce costs and maintain margins for suppliers and retailers – are the essence of capitalism and commerce. But these are often the same factors that result in trade deductions. We think that as the communication channels improve in the trading relationship, and as the root causes of deductions are addressed, the bulk of disputed trade deductions will migrate from a base of manageable, preventable deductions, to those that are a by-product of an efficiently-operating competitive marketplace. Indeed, nirvana would be that all deals are completely documented, there is complete and instant visibility into performance, and all transactions are accurately billed, but the very nature of retail makes this unlikely. A more realistic focus is process improvement that strives to control the weaknesses and inaccuracies in the current environment. And this is absolutely achievable as top retailers are already proving.

APEX Analytix helps companies audit, recover and optimize working capital across the global financial supply chain. Our innovative people, processes and FirstStrike® technology have transformed the recovery audit industry—producing billions in documented savings for companies in virtually every country in the world. Our portfolio includes software and services for recovery audit, overpayment prevention, procure-to-pay process automation, fraud and risk detection, data analytics, reporting and controls. For more information, visit or call 800-284-4522.

CLICK HERE to return to the JANUARY 2017 RVCF LINK

Tags:  Audit 

Share |
PermalinkComments (0)

How One Supplier Used Overseas Audits to Reduce Shipping Errors

Posted By Administration, Thursday, June 9, 2016
Updated: Wednesday, June 8, 2016


It's no secret that shipping errors lead to chargebacks, lower margins, slower time to market, unhappy customers, and friction in the trading partner relationship. But what do you do when the source of the problem is on the other side of the world?

This is a conversation we had with Stu Levitt, a supply chain compliance executive from a major merchandise supplier. Based on scorecarding from various retailers, it was obvious that there were serious problems with shipments received from overseas factories, especially prepacks. Anything that could go wrong did go wrong – from incorrect prepack ratios to missing units to missing tickets.

Of course, the problems went deeper than chargebacks. The supplier's relationships with its retailer customers were suffering. When your shipments consistently have major compliance issues, you can forget about asking for a waiver, a change in a shipping window, or any leeway whatsoever. If you expect to maintain a strong relationship, the least a supplier can do is ship what the retailer orders.

When shipments arrived in the U.S. from the factories, the supplier could audit the shipment, which costs time and money and disrupts the flow of goods through the supply chain. They could send the shipment along to the retailer, unaudited, and hope for the best. Obviously, neither of these solutions is viable or desirable.

The only way to fix the problem was to address it overseas at the point of origin. Only the factories have the units, the tags and anything else required to make each shipment whole and compliant.

Making the Case
The supplier's compliance department knew it would have to make a strong case to get senior management buy-in, as well as cooperation from the factories. They used retailer scorecards and feedback to determine where the majority of issues that triggered chargebacks were occurring. They came up with a priority list of factories – the worst offenders, so to speak.

This information was presented to senior management. The CIO was also involved because the initiative would involve deploying technology at home to support and monitor the overseas solution. The decision was made to bring in a service provider that had a permanent presence near the overseas factories. This meant the supplier wouldn't have to set up its own team overseas, purchase the hardware, or train factory personnel.

The factories slowly began to agree to an onsite auditing process. After all, the supplier wasn't gouging the factories – they were simply transferring the chargebacks that the factories created. The supplier's compliance and sourcing departments had to hammer home the fact that implementing a solution at the factories would reduce chargebacks. Some factories simply refused, but most of the high-priority factories agreed to move forward.

At the end of the day, everyone needed this – the supplier, the factories, and the retailers.

Implementing the Solution
One of the problems was the fact that each unit wasn't being properly reviewed before it was packed in the carton. For example, if a carton required 10 units, the factory worker would simply count 10 units and assume the stack they were given was correct. They weren't verifying proper size or color, or the presence or proper placement of a tag. The step that was added to the process was the mandatory scanning of each unit that went into a carton.

Of course, a packer can circumvent this process by simply scanning the top unit 10 times. The key is to make sure the supervisors are doing their job so the packers don't take the easy way out. The computer system will then tell you if a carton is packed with the correct units and the correct number of units. You then create a database of what is going into the carton, which can be used to create reports that prove how a carton was packed.

The implementation of the processes and technology was overseen by the supplier's sourcing personnel, while the service provider continues to monitor the process on an ongoing basis. The supplier held weekly conference calls with the factories and the service provider to discuss the progress. The IT department was also able to monitor the implementation from the U.S.

Today, several dozen factories have implemented this factory-based auditing process.

The supplier noticed marked scorecard improvement and a consistency in lower audit failure rates within two months. The most significant progress came in shipments to large retailers. The supplier's quality control group conducted outbound audits as well. Quality control and compliance also saw obvious improvement within two months.

The supplier was able to reach out to retailers to show that investments in process improvements and technology were being made to solve the problem. Because of these efforts, retailers were willing to negotiate settlements and issue reversals on chargebacks.

The Lesson
By the time incorrect shipments from overseas factories arrive in the U.S., it's often too late to fix them cost effectively. The only way to solve the problem is to go directly to the source. Rather than passing along chargebacks to the factory or simply accepting chargebacks as a cost of doing business, RVCF encourages supplier members to collaborate with retailers. Pinpoint the cause of shipping errors and work with service providers if necessary to implement permanent solutions. This is the most effective way to reduce shipping errors and chargebacks, preserve profit margins, avoid unnecessary audits in distribution centers, delight customers, and improve trading partner relationships.

For inquiries about how this process was implemented, Stu may be contacted at

CLICK HERE to return to the JUNE 2016 RVCF LINK

Tags:  Audit  Concealed Shortage  Shortages 

Share |
PermalinkComments (0)

Not Just for Retailers: More Ways RFID Can Benefit Retail Brand Owners

Posted By Administration, Thursday, November 19, 2015
Updated: Saturday, November 14, 2015

by Sheldon R. Reich, CYBRA Corporation

As stated in Not Just for Retailers, sooner or later you'll be supplying RFID-tagged merchandise to your retail customers who are seeing strong benefits with RFID from the DC to the back room and selling floor. Here are more ways that every RBO (Retail Brand Owner) can also benefit from RFID and can turn the cost of an EPC (Electronic Product Code) retail compliance mandate into a supply chain enhancing investment.

At the recent RVCF Fall Conference in Scottsdale, a number of leading retailers and brand owners we met with discussed their plans for implementing RFID. The retailers are adding product categories and rapidly expanding their RFID compliance mandates. In short, it's full speed ahead.

Some brand owners are shipping goods with EPC-compliant RFID tags, but not taking advantage of any of the benefits the technology offers. An even larger number of brand owners came to our booth in the exhibit hall with RFID questions and concerns such as "How do we begin?" and "How do we justify the cost of investing in RFID infrastructure?"

ROI Begins with Reducing Chargebacks
To help customers quantify the ROI (Return on Investment) of RFID, we asked the brand representatives if they would share the size of the chargebacks they are assessed. We were amazed at the costs these brands are shouldering. The chargebacks ranged from tens of thousands of dollars to millions of dollars for the largest brand owners. There are lots of reasons shipments are charged back – merchandising issues, compliance marking errors, etc. – but packing and shipment errors are easily addressed with RFID technology and anything the brand can do to lower the chargebacks directly impacts the bottom line. Just by reducing chargebacks alone, an RFID system will quickly pay for itself.

Start with a Pilot then Scale
If only a portion of your stock needs to be tagged, you can begin by tagging merchandise in your DC. Typically this is done at a VAS (Value Added Station). What is the equipment required? An RFID printer can print and encode EPC labels to affix to those products shipping to the mandating customer. Add a mobile computer with RFID and you can start to take advantage of such labor savers as RFID cycle counting and RFID pack and ship validation. This will give you a taste of the benefits of RFID. As you tag more and more merchandise an investment in fixed RFID infrastructure such as dock door portals and RFID-enabled MHE (Material Handling Equipment) will give you even more bang for the buck. As you roll out more RFID enabled processes, the investment made to comply with your customer mandates will immediately begin to reduce chargebacks, and lower labor costs as you process more shipments with more accuracy in less time.

The Big Four
As noted in our September article, there are four areas that RFID will give you the greatest impact. Here's how we've helped brand owners use RFID to reduce their supply chain costs:

Receiving – For one customer whose goods are tagged at source, fixed RFID readers on inbound conveyors read the tags of every single item in the carton. The system compares the ASN (Advanced Ship Notice) from the factory and confirms that each carton contains exactly what was ordered. This validation is an audit of every single carton arriving from overseas and it happens in real time without any misreads and without slowing down the receiving line.

Cycle Counting – There's no need to shut the DC for a few days to conduct physical inventory. A small team armed with mobile RFID readers can count inventory in a fraction of the time compared to traditional barcode based methods. Because it is easier and faster to count, you can cycle count more often with greater accuracy.

Packing – By adding fixed RFID readers at each pack station, orders are validated in real time, the packing process is faster with the reduction in product handling and hand barcode scanning, and errors are reduced to zero as operators can be signaled instantly if the wrong item is placed in the carton.

Shipping – By investing in RFID portals at outbound dock doors, you can validate each carton loaded into an outbound trailer and confirm it is going on the right truck. RFID validation can automatically "close" a shipment and act as a trigger for generating an EPOD (Electronic Proof of Delivery) record.

By investing in robust RFID software and infrastructure additional benefits can be reaped. For example, we are helping brand owners track preproduction samples and molds, job tickets and employee applications, reusable pallets and trolleys, and IT assets. Once installed, you'll find dozens of processes that can be quickly and easily enhanced using RFID.

By putting RFID to work inside your four walls, you will reduce the costs of receiving, counting, packing, and shipping goods, and you will be able to pay for the RFID investment with a major reduction in chargebacks.

Sheldon R. Reich is Chief Solution Architect for CYBRA Corporation, the developer of EdgeMagic RFID Platform Software, and MarkMagic Barcode Label, E-Forms and Report Writing software. Sheldon has significant technical knowledge of Auto ID system design, integration, and troubleshooting on a wide range of platforms and has helped hundreds of companies implement Auto-ID systems since 1989. CYBRA and Jamison RFID, the leading manufacturer of RFID portals, are the RFID Sponsors and will be demonstrating their field-proven retail supply chain hardware and software at the RVCF Annual Fall Conference November 8-11 at the JW Marriott Scottsdale Camelback Inn Resort & Spa. Sheldon can be reached at or 914-963-6600 ext. 209. Learn more about CYBRA and Jamison RFID at: and

CLICK HERE to return to the NOVEMBER 2015 RVCF LINK

Tags:  Audit  Item Level Tagging  Order Accuracy  RFID 

Share |
PermalinkComments (0)
          Innovative Retail Technologies EDI Academy