Contributing Editor Toby Gooley is a writer and editor specializing in supply chain, logistics, and material handling, and a lecturer at MIT's Center for Transportation & Logistics. She previously was Senior Editor at DC VELOCITY and Editor of DCV's sister publication, CSCMP's Supply Chain Quarterly. Prior to joining AGiLE Business Media in 2007, she spent 20 years at Logistics Management magazine as Managing Editor and Senior Editor covering international trade and transportation. Prior to that she was an export traffic manager for 10 years. She holds a B.A. in Asian Studies from Cornell University.
Back when software was new and the idea of automating a time-consuming task was revolutionary and exciting, vendors tended to develop packages that could do one thing and do it well. Like pioneers settling the frontier, they found a good place to stake their claim and set up camp. Their flagship products attracted new customers, and revenues grew.
That strategy worked well for a long time—until the customers themselves changed. Over the years, shippers have found themselves managing increasingly complex global supply chains. As a result, customers that were once satisfied with software that handled a single function are now looking for packages whose capabilities reflect the breadth of their operations. To be precise, they want technology that provides visibility from order to delivery and allows them to integrate that information with other business processes, such as order management and finance.
It's a tall order, and one that is shaping the market for global trade management (GTM) software. GTM grew out of demand for tools that could automate import/export activities, including document creation, product classification, denied-party screening, and export-license determination. Nowadays, though, importers and exporters are looking for more than the basics from these solutions—and the vendors are responding. A few years back, for example, software suppliers noticed a surge in requests for total-landed-cost calculation, which is based on country-specific costs for product, transportation, duties, taxes, and handling; today, many vendors say they offer that capability.
This shift in expectations is redrawing the map of the GTM market. Several of the big enterprise resource planning (ERP) vendors—SAP, Oracle, QAD, and Infor—are making forays into GTM territory. Some are racking up sales by leveraging their existing customers' concerns about integration. And because connectivity between business processes is their stock in trade, they may be in the best position to respond to the market's demand for multifaceted products. "Users and software vendors have come to realize that the global trade category is really more than just a stand-alone," says Adrian Gonzalez, director of ARC Advisory Group's Logistics Executive Council. "It has an impact on so many different business processes, playing a role in procurement, transportation, and compliance, plus there are Sarbanes-Oxley implications."
But the "best-of-breed" GTM vendors aren't sitting around waiting for the ERP giants to overrun their core market. In response to ERP's incursion—and the changing customer needs that prompted it—they are themselves diversifying. GTM vendors are buying or forming alliances with other software firms to gain the additional capabilities their customers want. They're also striking out in new directions themselves, plowing their way into transportation management, supply chain visibility, finance, and other areas where ERP vendors have already ventured.
The best-of-breed vendors' hope, of course, is that these tactics will allow them to wrest some of their old territory back from the ERP giants. But that strategy also carries some risk. By trying to cover so much ground, they may be in danger of diluting product and service quality, thereby handing the advantage to their adversaries.
Consolidation: Good news, bad news
Consolidation is nothing new for GTM vendors; many were swallowed up when the bloated dot-com market collapsed a few years ago. The first round involved players such as Capstan Systems (bought by Qiva), ClearCross (bought by TradePoint), and From2 Global Solutions (bought by Arzoon).
Just a few years later, the buyers became the bought: Qiva was acquired by TradeBeam, Arzoon was bought by SSA Global (now Infor), and TradePoint was bought by Kewill Systems. Other GTM vendors have suffered a similar fate in the last three years: Open Harbor was bought by TradeBeam, NextLinx was purchased by Management Dynamics, and Vastera was bought by banker JPMorgan Chase. Meanwhile, smaller vendors like Blinco Systems, Integration Point, and QuestaWeb continue to hang in there but may themselves become targets for acquisition.
In general, consolidation among GTM competitors has been a good thing for their customers, strengthening both the products and the providers. "I haven't heard from a single user that has experienced any change in service level or product functionality," says consultant Beth Peterson, a customs-compliance expert and former GTM software executive who now helps clients evaluate and implement those solutions. "As a result of the mergers, the users have an increased confidence that their solution of choice will be around for years to come," adds Peterson, who founded her own firm, Beth Peterson Enterprises, in 2004.
Others see the situation differently, noting that the mergers have not always been a positive development from the customers' point of view. Bruce Jabaay and Mahesh Rekhani, information technology professionals who support logistics and global trade at Amway parent Alticor, say they've seen a marked change in their GTM software provider since it was taken over by a larger company. Their internal customers use the software primarily for documentation, product classification, and denied-party screening for exports of household cleaning and health and beauty products to about 50 countries.
The two agree that automating processes like product classification and document creation has produced big benefits. The issue, they say, is service. When the vendor was a stand-alone company, it was flexible and accommodating. "Now everything has to be done their way—there's no negotiating other solutions," says Jabaay. For example, Alticor's switch from Microsoft Windows 2000 to Windows XP revealed incompatibilities with the GTM software. Rather than make relatively minor adjustments, the vendor insisted that Alticor purchase a full upgrade, Rekhani reports. "Before, we could negotiate."
All roads lead to finance
In the meantime, there are signs that the latest round of vendor consolidation may be over. Recently a different pattern has emerged: Rather than buying or merging with competing software providers, some GTM vendors are now forging alliances with providers of complementary products.
One vendor that has taken that route is TradeBeam. In a departure from its traditional pattern of buying its adversaries, TradeBeam announced in January that it was working with Oracle to integrate its trade-compliance modules with Oracle's Transportation Management product. The arrangement allows both vendors to fill information gaps by developing a solution that will manage international trade compliance, monitor supply chain events, track shipments, centralize performance measurement and monitoring, and much more.
Similarly, Management Dynamics struck an alliance last year with ILM Technologies, a vendor of e-commerce solutions for manufacturers and exporters. ILM has integrated Management Dynamics' total-landed-cost calculator into its Cameleon Commerce Server, which includes Web-based modules for customer and distributor management, supplier integration, order fulfillment, and product-catalog creation and maintenance. A similar arrangement was inked earlier this year with Hong Kong's Tradelink Electronic Commerce.
Companies like Management Dynamics, of course, benefit from these deals by scoring new customers through a third party. Perhaps more significant, though, is the fact that these arrangements break down barriers to sharing information between areas that are functionally separate but that all touch on international trade in some way. Once those barriers come down, vendors are able to provide customers with more cross-functional process visibility and higher-quality data.
And that, in a nutshell, is what GTM software users are asking for. It's part of the reason why QAD bought GTM vendor Precision Software. It's also the reason why Management Dynamics bought NextLinx: to combine Management Dynamics' visibility and transportation management capabilities with NextLinx's trade-compliance software.
And it's the reason why ERP and best-of-breed vendors alike are moving toward integrating trade-compliance capabilities with international logistics execution and transportation management, supply chain visibility, and supply chain finance, says Viktoriya Sadlovska. Sadlovska, a research analyst in supply chain finance and global trade at Aberdeen Group, recently surveyed some 200 enterprise executives about their trade management practices for a report titled "Global Trade Management Strategies: Surviving Growing Complexities in 2007."
Respondents to the survey identified both trade compliance and supply chain visibility as top concerns. But demand for integration with finance applications is rising and may eventually eclipse other requirements. As evidence, Sadlovska points to the emergence of supply chain costing as a high priority for improvement this year. "The convergence of supply chain finance and visibility applications can potentially help companies improve their supply chain costing processes," she explains.
It's a natural connection. "Logistics technology providers already have the ability to track documents and milestone events," Sadlovska observes. "A lot of the data they have can be used to connect with financial services, such as access to credit at various stages in the supply chain. They need to be able to use that information to provide new value-added services to their customers."
That intersection of trade compliance and shipment visibility is the critical connection for global traders, ARC's Gonzalez points out. "I've talked to shippers who say they don't know how cost accrues from order placement to delivery. They realize that they need to know how costs sometimes change depending on, for example, which port they bring goods into."
In Peterson's view, understanding cost in the context of profitability should be top of mind for GTM users. "It comes down to this: All business transactions must lead to the financials. If they don't, they're simply not measurable—read: important—on the business front," she says. If top management doesn't see the connection between global trade operations and the company's bottom line, then trade compliance won't be considered strategic and will be ignored, she believes. Moreover, companies that ignore or are unaware of the value of global trade compliance will suffer additional costs, cycle times, and product delays.
"Savvy GTM vendors realize this," Peterson observes. "ERP vendors also recognize the need to globalize their products so their customers can bring the element of global trade compliance into their financial and strategic calculation. Any company doing business without considering global trade costs will be leaving a lot on the table."
The human element
Does the trend toward integrating trade-compliance functionality with other business processes signal that best-ofbreed vendors will hold their own—or perhaps even recapture some territory from the ERP vendors?
Maybe, says Peterson. "The best-of-breed vendors have a huge leg up on the ERP vendors. They already have the integration points to the ERP vendors and have deep functionality that the ERP vendors still need to build," she says. Once the ERP providers build or buy the GTM functionality their customers are asking for, they will still have to keep up with the best-of-breed vendors, who may have a more agile development process, she adds. "That said, it's time for the best-of-breed vendors to step up and deliver more functionality—tying back to the financials so they can keep one step ahead of the ERP vendors."
But even that may not be enough for GTM vendors to compete against the likes of SAP and Oracle, warns Gonzalez. "In global trade, more than perhaps other areas, technology can only get you so far," he says. "The global trade environment is so dynamic and so complex that ultimately human expertise has to be part of that environment." GTM vendors will be able to thrive if they can improve the efficiency of their customers' business processes, identify and implement best practices, and provide ongoing oversight, he says. "It's about more than just technology; it's also about value-added services and the human element. I think that's going to be one of their main competitive weapons."
Editor's Note: Aberdeen Group's report, "Global Trade Management Strategies: Surviving Growing Complexities in 2007," is available for free download through July 26, 2007.
The Port of Oakland has been awarded $50 million from the U.S. Department of Transportation’s Maritime Administration (MARAD) to modernize wharves and terminal infrastructure at its Outer Harbor facility, the port said today.
Those upgrades would enable the Outer Harbor to accommodate Ultra Large Container Vessels (ULCVs), which are now a regular part of the shipping fleet calling on West Coast ports. Each of these ships has a handling capacity of up to 24,000 TEUs (20-foot containers) but are currently restricted at portions of Oakland’s Outer Harbor by aging wharves which were originally designed for smaller ships.
According to the port, those changes will let it handle newer, larger vessels, which are more efficient, cost effective, and environmentally cleaner to operate than older ships. Specific investments for the project will include: wharf strengthening, structural repairs, replacing container crane rails, adding support piles, strengthening support beams, and replacing electrical bus bar system to accommodate larger ship-to-shore cranes.
Commercial fleet operators are steadily increasing their use of GPS fleet tracking, in-cab video solutions, and predictive analytics, driven by rising costs, evolving regulations, and competitive pressures, according to an industry report from Verizon Connect.
Those conclusions come from the company’s fifth annual “Fleet Technology Trends Report,” conducted in partnership with Bobit Business Media, and based on responses from 543 fleet management professionals.
The study showed that for five consecutive years, at least four out of five respondents have reported using at least one form of fleet technology, said Atlanta-based Verizon Connect, which provides fleet and mobile workforce management software platforms, embedded OEM hardware, and a connected vehicle device called Hum by Verizon.
The most commonly used of those technologies is GPS fleet tracking, with 69% of fleets across industries reporting its use, the survey showed. Of those users, 72% find it extremely or very beneficial, citing improved efficiency (62%) and a reduction in harsh driving/speeding events (49%).
Respondents also reported a focus on safety, with 57% of respondents citing improved driver safety as a key benefit of GPS fleet tracking. And 68% of users said in-cab video solutions are extremely or very beneficial. Together, those technologies help reduce distracted driving incidents, improve coaching sessions, and help reduce accident and insurance costs, Verizon Connect said.
Looking at the future, fleet management software is evolving to meet emerging challenges, including sustainability and electrification, the company said. "The findings from this year's Fleet Technology Trends Report highlight a strong commitment across industries to embracing fleet technology, with GPS tracking and in-cab video solutions consistently delivering measurable results,” Peter Mitchell, General Manager, Verizon Connect, said in a release. “As fleets face rising costs and increased regulatory pressures, these technologies are proving to be indispensable in helping organizations optimize their operations, reduce expenses, and navigate the path toward a more sustainable future.”
Businesses engaged in international trade face three major supply chain hurdles as they head into 2025: the disruptions caused by Chinese New Year (CNY), the looming threat of potential tariffs on foreign-made products that could be imposed by the incoming Trump Administration, and the unresolved contract negotiations between the International Longshoremen’s Association (ILA) and the U.S. Maritime Alliance (USMX), according to an analysis from trucking and logistics provider Averitt.
Each of those factors could lead to significant shipping delays, production slowdowns, and increased costs, Averitt said.
First, Chinese New Year 2025 begins on January 29, prompting factories across China and other regions to shut down for weeks, typically causing production to halt and freight demand to skyrocket. The ripple effects can range from increased shipping costs to extended lead times, disrupting even the most well-planned operations. To prepare for that event, shippers should place orders early, build inventory buffers, secure freight space in advance, diversify shipping modes, and communicate with logistics providers, Averitt said.
Second, new or increased tariffs on foreign-made goods could drive up the cost of imports, disrupt established supply chains, and create uncertainty in the marketplace. In turn, shippers may face freight rate volatility and capacity constraints as businesses rush to stockpile inventory ahead of tariff deadlines. To navigate these challenges, shippers should prepare advance shipments and inventory stockpiling, diversity sourcing, negotiate supplier agreements, explore domestic production, and leverage financial strategies.
Third, unresolved contract negotiations between the ILA and the USMX will come to a head by January 15, when the current contract expires. Labor action or strikes could cause severe disruptions at East and Gulf Coast ports, triggering widespread delays and bottlenecks across the supply chain. To prepare for the worst, shippers should adopt a similar strategy to the other potential January threats: collaborate early, secure freight, diversify supply chains, and monitor policy changes.
According to Averitt, companies can cushion the impact of all three challenges by deploying a seamless, end-to-end solution covering the entire path from customs clearance to final-mile delivery. That strategy can help businesses to store inventory closer to their customers, mitigate delays, and reduce costs associated with supply chain disruptions. And combined with proactive communication and real-time visibility tools, the approach allows companies to maintain control and keep their supply chains resilient in the face of global uncertainties, Averitt said.
Bloomington, Indiana-based FTR said its Trucking Conditions Index declined in September to -2.47 from -1.39 in August as weakness in the principal freight dynamics – freight rates, utilization, and volume – offset lower fuel costs and slightly less unfavorable financing costs.
Those negative numbers are nothing new—the TCI has been positive only twice – in May and June of this year – since April 2022, but the group’s current forecast still envisions consistently positive readings through at least a two-year forecast horizon.
“Aside from a near-term boost mostly related to falling diesel prices, we have not changed our Trucking Conditions Index forecast significantly in the wake of the election,” Avery Vise, FTR’s vice president of trucking, said in a release. “The outlook continues to be more favorable for carriers than what they have experienced for well over two years. Our analysis indicates gradual but steadily rising capacity utilization leading to stronger freight rates in 2025.”
But FTR said its forecast remains unchanged. “Just like everyone else, we’ll be watching closely to see exactly what trade and other economic policies are implemented and over what time frame. Some freight disruptions are likely due to tariffs and other factors, but it is not yet clear that those actions will do more than shift the timing of activity,” Vise said.
The TCI tracks the changes representing five major conditions in the U.S. truck market: freight volumes, freight rates, fleet capacity, fuel prices, and financing costs. Combined into a single index indicating the industry’s overall health, a positive score represents good, optimistic conditions while a negative score shows the inverse.
Specifically, the new global average robot density has reached a record 162 units per 10,000 employees in 2023, which is more than double the mark of 74 units measured seven years ago.
Broken into geographical regions, the European Union has a robot density of 219 units per 10,000 employees, an increase of 5.2%, with Germany, Sweden, Denmark and Slovenia in the global top ten. Next, North America’s robot density is 197 units per 10,000 employees – up 4.2%. And Asia has a robot density of 182 units per 10,000 persons employed in manufacturing - an increase of 7.6%. The economies of Korea, Singapore, mainland China and Japan are among the top ten most automated countries.
Broken into individual countries, the U.S. ranked in 10th place in 2023, with a robot density of 295 units. Higher up on the list, the top five are:
The Republic of Korea, with 1,012 robot units, showing a 5% increase on average each year since 2018 thanks to its strong electronics and automotive industries.
Singapore had 770 robot units, in part because it is a small country with a very low number of employees in the manufacturing industry, so it can reach a high robot density with a relatively small operational stock.
China took third place in 2023, surpassing Germany and Japan with a mark of 470 robot units as the nation has managed to double its robot density within four years.
Germany ranks fourth with 429 robot units for a 5% CAGR since 2018.
Japan is in fifth place with 419 robot units, showing growth of 7% on average each year from 2018 to 2023.