Relations to the INTACT Framework

In this section the test-sites will be related to the revised common INTACT framework, as described in chapter 3 and similarities in terms of parties, functions and information flow will be identified.

6.1.1 Parties

Table 6.1 shows the number of parties that are relevant to each test site, in the context of INTACT. These are the key participants in the transport process. The consignor issues the instruction to transport the shipment, which may be directly to a carrier or through a forwarder The carrier/fleet manager transports a shipment and delivers it to the consignee.

Table 6.1: Pilot projects per party in the INTACT framework

Number of projects at the test sites

Party

4 (all test sites)

P.1 - Consignor

P.3 - Carrier / Fleet Manager P.7 - Consignee / Shipper

3

P.2 - Forwarder P.4 - Driver P.8 - Vehicle

2 P.6 - Transport Centre Operator

1 P.11 - Support Services Supplier

None

P.5 - Traffic Manager

P.9 - Other Mode of Transport Operator P.10 - Authorities

Driver, vehicle and forwarder are mentioned by three test sites. The driver and vehicle are used by the carrier/fleet manager to transport the shipment. The forwarder instructs a carrier to transport the shipment.

The transport centre operator is mentioned by two test-sites. This party has two key functions: to store goods; and to tranship goods. Both ICT and Patinter want to give some of their customers more detailed information about the goods being stored or transhipped.

The support service supplier is only mentioned by one test site. The support service supplier provides services (i.e. fuel, tyres, maintenance etc) to the carrier/fleet manager. In this case, ICT receives actual fuel prices from fuel companies and after processing and comparing, provides modified information to its drivers.

The operator of other modes of transport, the traffic manager and the authorities are not mentioned by any of the four test sites. These parties are not directly involved in the interfaces being developed within the INTACT-project. The other modes of transport operator is not mentioned, because intermodal transport is not the main business of any of the four test sites companies. Specific traffic information from a traffic manager is, at this moment, not used by the test-sites. Authorities are not an important party, because they are not directly involved in the main process from the test sites. Customs clearance is also not very important, because the main activities from the four test sites are within the EC.

To summarise, the INTACT test sites encompass the main parties involved in the transport process. Since the companies themselves are carrier/fleet managers and even (partly) forwarders, the other main parties involved are the consignor and consignee and the driver and vehicle.

6.1.2 Functions

Cost & performance analysis is the only function that is to be interfaced at all of the test sites.

Table 6.2: Functions in the INTACT framework affected by pilot projects

Number of test sites Functions

4 (all test sites)

F.17 – Cost and Performance Analysis

3

F.1 – Transport Order Issuing F.3 – Order planning and Execution F.5 – Operational Planning F.7 – Fleet / Vehicle Monitoring F.12 – Shipment Progress Control F.14 - Remote Vehicle & Cargo Reporting F.16 – Invoicing

2

F.4 – Order Control F.6 – Trip / Route Planning

1

F.2 - Shipment Progress Control F.8 - Trip / Route Execution F.9 - Trip / Route Control

F.11 – Transshipment / Storage Process F.18 – Consumables Cost Issuing

(None)

F.10 - Traffic Management F.13 - Combined Transport Process F.15 - Vehicle & Cargo Monitoring

One of the consignor’s funcitons, transport ordering, is mentioned by three test sites. Shipment progress control is mentioned by ICT and Van Heezik. Order planning and execution, order control and invoicing are mentioned by three test sites. These three functions are performed by the forwarder. Fleet/vehicle monitoring is mentioned by three test sites. Together with cost & performance analysis, and trip/route planning and operational planning (dispatching), which are mentioned by De Rijk and Van Heezik, all of the functions are performed by the carrier/fleet manager. Shipment progress control, the only function performed by the consignee/shipper is mentioned by three test-sites.

test sites. De Rijk and Van Heezik consider the driver and the vehicle external to their system and are mainly concerned with the information flows to and from the driver and vehicle and not in the specific functions performed by these parties. This is the reason why of the two functions of the vehicle, remote vehicle & cargo reporting is mentioned by three test-sites and vehicle & cargo monitoring is not mentioned by the test-sites.

Consumables cost issuing, which is the only function which is performed by the support service supplier is mentioned by ICT and Van Heezik. ICT plans to develop an interface to that party. The transhipment/ storage process, which is performed by the transport centre operator is only mentioned by ICT.

Traffic management, which is performed by the traffic manager and combined transport process, which is performed by the other mode of transport operator are not mentioned by the test-sites. These two parties are not relevant for the interfaces which are developed at the four test-sites. The functions performed by the authorities are outside the scope of the INTACT-project.

Summarising the above: Cost & performance analysis appears to be the focus of telematics integration. This is closely linked to fleet/vehicle monitoring and in general communication with the driver/vehicle. The transport companies also want to satisfy the needs of their customers (consignor, consignee) with respect to order planning and execution, shipment progress control and invoicing. Less common but not less important, are the interfaces concerned with consumables cost issuing an and the transhipment/storage process.

6.1.3 Information flows

Although the functions and parties involved per test site have similarities, the specific information flows, defined by the data that have to be translated by the interfaces, are quite dissimilar. The exact content of the flow differs per company, mainly because they are customised to meet the specific conditions or activities of a company. In a broader sense the contents of the information flows may differ, but the functionality is less variable.

Similarities in the generic functions F1 Transport Ordering issues and F3 Order planning & execution, are represented by information flows 2, 3 in the generic framework. These flows concerning ‘transport booking instruction and confirmation/refusual’ are mentioned by three test sites. This indicates the importance of electronic communications with customers. For Van Heezik and De Rijk this flow represents an EDI possibility to communicate on issues of order management. At Patinter this represents the access by Internet to the order database.

Similarities between the generic functions F.3-Order Planning & Execution and F.5-Operational planning (Dispatching) are represented the information flows 14 and 15. This refers to the test -sites of Van Heezik and the Rijk, the internal synchronisation of data concerning orders in the order management and the operational planning system.

Another information flow with similarities (Van Heezik & Patinter) is the IF38 invoice, sent from F6 Invoicing to the F1. Transport order Issuing. In the common INTACT framework the consignor is assumed to be the freight-payer, in practice this could also be the consignee or another forwarder or a third party.

Another group of information flows with similarities, are the ones related to the interface between vehicle/driver and the central administrative and/or operational planning system. In relation with the following generic functions, most similar information flows are:

• IF 35; concerning trip expenses/Km’s and time reports; the sending of logistic tripdata from the driver to the office. In relation to the framework this concerns the information flow between the

functions F.9-Trip/tour control and F.17-Cost &Performance analysis. This flow is relevant for ICT, Van Heezik and de Rijk;

• IF 16, 19 and 20; concerning information on the status of the trip/tour and the daily delivery plan. These information flows concern between the functions F8/9. trip/tour execution or control (both belong to the diver) and the functions F6. Trip /tour planning. At van Heezik and de Rijk these are internal flows, at Patinter customers have restricted access to these data.