Conclusions and discussion

In general the similarities identified in the context of the test sites are consistent with the results of the questionnaire, discussed in deliverable 3.1. Integration of systems is applied to the areas of:

• on-board computers and the operational planning system and/or the central administrative system; • positioning and operational planning system;

• administrative system and operational system.

The technologies used differ between the choice of EDI or Internet solutions. Mobile data communication is used or planned by all the test site companies.

As with systems, the functions involved do not vary a great deal, although the final execution in terms of information flows differ, probably caused by differences in activities, specialisations and customer needs per company. The required functionalities do not vary as much, because similarities in the content of the information flow, such as the description of objects (i.e. vehicle related data, orders and drivers), have to be researched during the building of the conceptual information model stage.

For the transport companies in the INTACT project the main parties involved in the transport process are the consignor, forwarder and consignee/shipper, which is also in line with the results of the literature review and the questionnaire carried out in users' requirement workpackage.

The test site companies also indicate that they are more concerned with the information flows between the carrier/fleet manager and the vehicle/driver, than with the information flows within and between the functions carried out by the driver/vehicle. However it should be noted that a more efficient "integration" between the vehicle and the driver may be a mean to improve the integration with other systems.

Authorities, other transport mode operator and traffic manager and the functions performed by them are not, at this time, important for the interfaces developed at the four test sites. This does not mean that they are not important for the generic model. At the most it gives an indication of the priority of the transport sector concerning the integration of telematics applications.

This leads to the following set of generic functions: • Transport Order Issuing;

• Order planning and execution; • Order Control;

• Operational Planning (Dispatching); • Trip/Route Planning;

• Trip/Route Execution; • Trip/Tour Control; • Fleet Vehicle Monitoring; • Shipment Progress Control;

• Remote Vehicle & Cargo Reporting; • Invoicing;

7

Conclusions

This report describes the work carried out within the functional specification workpackage of the INTACT project. The objective of the workpackage is to define the functional specification of an integrated management system for road freight transport in two ways:

• specific for each demonstrator company;

• generic for the road freight transport sector as a whole.

These two streams reflect the two "tracks" of the INTACT project. Even though the streams address the same issues, they give answers from different perspectives. This workpackage is an important platform for later work in the project, where demonstration applications will be designed and a generic information model will be built.

The method of analysis used in the INTACT project is consistent with that set out by the CONVERGE project. According to CONVERGE the functional architecture needs to describe the logical behaviour of the system using a conceptual model.

The main objective of the specific track is to provide a functional specification that is detailed enough to make it possible to start the design phase of the demonstrator applications. Therefore the specific analysis focuses on the site-specific details rather than broader issues. For the generic track the situation is more or less reverse. In this case the INTACT framework, which was an important part of the user requirements analysis in workpackage 3, has been used as the platform.

The original INTACT framework was based on an early draft proposal of the CEN TC278 committee, which has now been updated and replaced by a new version. Therefore a comparison has been made of the INTACT framework and the new CEN proposal. The differences have been analysed and considered.

The generic analysis consists of three consecutive parts: 1. Revision of the INTACT framework.

An important task for the revision is to identify components that are relevant to the model and to exclude components that are not necessary or of less interest. It is of great advantage to keep the model as simple as possible. The framework must be exhaustive enough to describe the daily operations of the transport business. The level of detail has been adapted to the needs of the current analysis. Only details that have been deemed relevant to the further analysis have been included in the model.

2. Break-down analysis of the functions within the framework.

In the generic track a break-down analysis has been made of the revised INTACT framework. All functions have been split into several sub-functions. The information flows between these sub- functions (i.e. inside the original functions) have been identified and mapped.

3. Building a data dictionary with descriptions of the components.

From the break-down analysis, all components of the framework have been described and further analysed. The result of this has been a data dictionary, which is a very important input to the INTACT workpackage 6, where a conceptual information model is to be built.

The specific track of the INTACT project concentrates on providing a functional specification for systems integration at the four road freight transport companies participating in the INTACT consortium. Each company can be considered as a medium or large sized operator. Each regards telematics applications as a means of achieving improved business efficiency, that provides them with a competitive edge in those markets in which they operate.

The objectives of the specific functional analysis were the following:

• to create a functional specification that will serve as an input to the design workpackage (WP7); • to perform an analysis that makes it possible to compare the test sites;

• to perform an analysis that is comparable with the generic one in order to verify the generic framework.

To explore which similarities exist between the test sites, an analysis was made of the different findings. Comparisons were made through the following perspectives:

• central administration systems in general; • on-board computers and administrative system; • operational planning systems and on-board computers; • administrative systems and operational planning systems.

In order to validate the INTACT framework it has been related to the experience from: • the test site projects;

• the results of the questionnaire survey in the users' requirements workpackage. The analysis leads to the following set of generic functions:

• Transport Order Issuing; • Order planning and execution; • Order Control;

• Operational Planning (Dispatching); • Trip/Route Planning;

• Trip/Route Execution; • Trip/Tour Control; • Fleet Vehicle Monitoring; • Shipment Progress Control;

• Remote Vehicle & Cargo Reporting; • Invoicing;

References:

EU-reports

TR4018 INTACT Project, User needs for integrated telematics applications in road freight transport, Deliverable D3.1, European Commission, May 1998

TR4018 INTACT Project, Main existing freight telematics systems and compatibility, Internal Report IR4.1, European Commission, May 1998

TR1101 CONVERGE Systems Architecture, Enhanced Architecture Guidelines, Deliverable DSA2.2,

European Commission, December 1996.

Other sources

CEN/TC278/WG2 N124, Road Transport and Traffic Telematics (RTTT), Freight and Fleet

Management Systems (FFMS), Reference architecture and terminology, Part 1: High level architecture and terms, July 1997

CEN/TC278/WG2 N130 Road Transport and Traffic Telematics (RTTT), Freight and Fleet

Management Systems (FFMS) Reference architecture and terminology, Part 2: Detailed Architecture,

September 1997

Avison D.E., Fitzgerald G, Information Systems Development - Methodologies, Techniques and Tools, Alfred Waller Publishing Ltd., Oxfordshire, 1993

Martin J, Odell J, Object-Oriented Methods - Pragmatic Considerations, Prentice Hall, New Jersey, 1996

Rumbaugh J, Blaha M, Premerlain W, Eddy F, Lorensen W, Object-Oriented Modeling and Design, Prentice Hall, New Jersey, 1991

Abbreviations: