26


Issue4 2013


///FREIGHT SOFTWARE GUIDE E-freight is no guarantee of an e-asy life


There’s no shortage of initiatives and directives urging us to embrace the Cloud, or turn airwaysbills into


e-airwaybills or customs into


e-customs. But making it happen in reality is another matter altogether, says Marcia MacLeod.


Cloud of doom or silver lining?


If 2012 can be defined, from a technology point of view, in one word, it must be ‘Cloud’. No one can escape it for long. But while soſtware companies might tell you that you haven’t lived if you haven’t been ‘on the Cloud’, do you really want to join what Collins English Dictionary describes as “a mass of water or ice particles visible in the sky, usually white or grey, from which rain or snow falls when the particles coagulate”? In reality, the technology


version of the ‘Cloud’ is nothing new: all it means is holding data and applications on a remote server and making them available to authorised individuals over the Internet. SaS (Soſtware as Services) and ASP (Application Service Provision) did the same thing five, ten, even 15 years ago. “There is a lot of hype out


there about ‘Cloud’,” emphasises Peter Day, MD of Impatex. “All it is is Windows packages offered over the Internet. And a lot of people forget that by signing up to Cloud-based services, they are losing control of their data because it is being based on the service supplier’s server. Many of our customers prefer to run our Netfreight soſtware on their own server so they keep control.” Of course, the Internet has


brought a tremendous number of benefits. Internet-based services have mushroomed since smartphones arrived on the scene, since they allow busy freight executives to access their personal data and corporate networks while they are on the move. Everyone from Luſthansa to Safmarine, Schenker to DHL have developed mobile apps to allow customers to


track and trace cargo, book space, check schedules and so on. The increased speed and


reliability of the Internet, along with a greater global provision of Internet technology, which has connected more countries to the web than ever before, have encouraged more businesses to fly into Cyberspace. “Four or five years ago, the web was too slow for many business activities,” says Day. “And if some parts of your operation could not access the Internet, there was little point in basing your business around it. Today, we have an oil company client who gets its orders from a customer on an oil rig; that could not have happened before.” Alistair Moncreif, MD of IMS,


agrees. “The increased reliability and capability of Internet and


mobile technology means people can be in touch with their systems from anywhere in the world. The growth of 3G has meant that IMS ePod has been able to take off tremendously, allowing fuel and lubricant distributors to obtain instant PoDs and deliver an invoice on the doorstep. We piloted the ePod 11 years ago, but the technology wasn’t there to turn it into a useful tool. We’re now developing the ePod for domestic distribution - and talking to someone who wants to use it in Europe.” Maybe so, but many


businesses in the UK are still suffering from poor connections, dropped calls and so on. Maybe that has something to do with an


alternative definition of


‘Cloud’: “something that darkens, threatens or carries gloom”.


E-freight still stuck on the runway


IATA may be pushing e-Freight; airlines may, finally, be embracing the idea of electronic documents - undoubtedly because they are now required to submit advanced data for the Import Control System; but many forwarders are still reluctant to even think about electronic airwaybills and other documentation. So why has it taken so long for e-freight to take off? Unisys developed a soſtware programme to create electronic waybills at least ten years ago; when BA launched Carat - the first- ever airfreight system to enable forwarders to communicate with airlines, to obtain quotations, book space or query shipment status - it, too, talked about expanding this to enable electronic airwaybills. There are probably a number


of reasons for the industry’s apparent lethargy. As Henrik Ambak,


VP general services


and commercial IT at Cargolux, said at the Aviation IT Solutions conference last December, IATA is a little bit too ambitious. “It is trying to make e-Freight the cargo equivalent of an e-Ticket,” he said, “but passengers still have a paper passport or visa to carry with them for identification, whereas e-Freight is meant to cover everything, including invoice, certificate of origin, packing list and so on.” The inability to use electronic


documents in some parts of the world is still a barrier. Some African countries apparently not only want paper documents - but want them printed on a dot matrix, rather than a laser, printer. Nations mired in bureaucracy and corruption also insist on paper, as that makes it easier to hold goods up and ask for various fees for paperwork that is incorrect,


incomplete, late, in the wrong language or whatever else they can dream up to earn a bit of extra cash. Lack of standards doesn’t help.


Peter MacSwiney, chairman of ASM, points out that “there appears to be no real ability for IATA to mandate the same version of the forwarders’ waybill across all carriers”. And standards are not just relevant to waybills: the Global Air Cargo Advisory Group has called for a standard Consignment Security


Declaration to regulators. We’re be


developed and adopted by ICAO, World Customs Organisation and national


waiting. But probably the main reason


comes down, as always, to money. Airlines and forwarders don’t want to invest in something if they can’t see the benefits - and so far, few can. As indicated


still


earlier, airlines’ responsibility for import data is changing things, as it is much easier for them if the forwarder supplies information electronically, so they can just paste it into the relevant customs form, but many forwarders see the pressure to go electronic more as a burden than a benefit. While the economic downturn


over the last five years has made everyone tighten their belts, the curse of industry-wide miserliness is not new. Too many people buy a piece of soſtware because they have to - for example, to comply with new regulations - and build their IT systems piecemeal, in silos. Few take a holistic and long-term view - deciding how they want to, or have to, run their business and then choosing soſtware that will support it. IATA has a huge challenge ahead in changing this mindset.


Industry shows community spirit


Last summer, the European Port Community Systems Association launched a best practice guide on how to set up a port community system. It seemed a little bit behind the times, since the first port community system - at Felixstowe - was conceived in 1978, but EPCSA said it was “trying to make sure that those ports and airports which do not have community systems understand their benefits”. EPCSA is also lobbying the


EU to ensure any directives governing electronic aspects of trade are efficient, easy to understand and implement and do not duplicate work already done. And it all sounds good, until you realise there are a vast number of directives out there - like the latest one, the Ships Reporting Formality Directive. Where do they dream up these names? The number of directives in existence, the length of time it takes to get anything done and the amount of data now required doesn’t just lead to information overload: it’s enough to make any sensible freight forwarder, liner operator, port executive - or freight manager working in any other mode of transport - lose the will to live. The whole point of these


directives are, presumably, to give authorities visibility of cargo, be that containers and their contents, dry or liquid bulk or, where airfreight is concerned, pallets and loose cargo. However many directives are published, though, the resultant data doesn’t help if customs procedures can’t keep up. The UK’s replacement for Chief, the main customs computer, is still on a drawing board somewhere; proposals


for controlling goods moving to Enhanced Remote Transit Sheds (ERTS), or inland depots to you and me,


are causing


consternation in anyone who might clear or transit through these facilities; and the freight industry always seems to be the last to be granted access for testing new HMRC or EU systems, such as the National Community Transit System, which came into being last year. In any case, the benefits do


not always percolate down to individual freight operators, forwarders and shippers, who need access to the data themselves in order to not only gain visibility of their supply chain, but to plan better and streamline


their logistics


operations. Not all is doom and gloom,


though. The Port of Dover, which remained the only port with its own, internal community system long beyond its use-by date, finally joined the wider world last year by signing up to Pentant’s CusLink and freight soſtware providers are continuing to add new dimensions to their systems. Fargo Systems, for example, now interfaces


its TOPS forwarder


soſtware to Community Network Services’ Compass port community system and AEB has just launched a Time Slot Management Solution, which enables users to plan transport activities such as loading and unloading and despatch. Still, if NLIP, the Netherlands-


wide freight community system, backed by the Dutch government comes off, it will set a new standard for cooperation and visibility that could turn the rest of the world green with envy.


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40