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.
Congestion on U.S. highways is costing the trucking industry big, according to research from the American Transportation Research Institute (ATRI), released today.
The group found that traffic congestion on U.S. highways added $108.8 billion in costs to the trucking industry in 2022, a record high. The information comes from ATRI’s Cost of Congestion study, which is part of the organization’s ongoing highway performance measurement research.
Total hours of congestion fell slightly compared to 2021 due to softening freight market conditions, but the cost of operating a truck increased at a much higher rate, according to the research. As a result, the overall cost of congestion increased by 15% year-over-year—a level equivalent to more than 430,000 commercial truck drivers sitting idle for one work year and an average cost of $7,588 for every registered combination truck.
The analysis also identified metropolitan delays and related impacts, showing that the top 10 most-congested states each experienced added costs of more than $8 billion. That list was led by Texas, at $9.17 billion in added costs; California, at $8.77 billion; and Florida, $8.44 billion. Rounding out the top 10 list were New York, Georgia, New Jersey, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Louisiana, and Tennessee. Combined, the top 10 states account for more than half of the trucking industry’s congestion costs nationwide—52%, according to the research.
The metro areas with the highest congestion costs include New York City, $6.68 billion; Miami, $3.2 billion; and Chicago, $3.14 billion.
ATRI’s analysis also found that the trucking industry wasted more than 6.4 billion gallons of diesel fuel in 2022 due to congestion, resulting in additional fuel costs of $32.1 billion.
ATRI used a combination of data sources, including its truck GPS database and Operational Costs study benchmarks, to calculate the impacts of trucking delays on major U.S. roadways.
There’s a photo from 1971 that John Kent, professor of supply chain management at the University of Arkansas, likes to show. It’s of a shaggy-haired 18-year-old named Glenn Cowan grinning at three-time world table tennis champion Zhuang Zedong, while holding a silk tapestry Zhuang had just given him. Cowan was a member of the U.S. table tennis team who participated in the 1971 World Table Tennis Championships in Nagoya, Japan. Story has it that one morning, he overslept and missed his bus to the tournament and had to hitch a ride with the Chinese national team and met and connected with Zhuang.
Cowan and Zhuang’s interaction led to an invitation for the U.S. team to visit China. At the time, the two countries were just beginning to emerge from a 20-year period of decidedly frosty relations, strict travel bans, and trade restrictions. The highly publicized trip signaled a willingness on both sides to renew relations and launched the term “pingpong diplomacy.”
Kent, who is a senior fellow at the George H. W. Bush Foundation for U.S.-China Relations, believes the photograph is a good reminder that some 50-odd years ago, the economies of the United States and China were not as tightly interwoven as they are today. At the time, the Nixon administration was looking to form closer political and economic ties between the two countries in hopes of reducing chances of future conflict (and to weaken alliances among Communist countries).
The signals coming out of Washington and Beijing are now, of course, much different than they were in the early 1970s. Instead of advocating for better relations, political rhetoric focuses on the need for the U.S. to “decouple” from China. Both Republicans and Democrats have warned that the U.S. economy is too dependent on goods manufactured in China. They see this dependency as a threat to economic strength, American jobs, supply chain resiliency, and national security.
Supply chain professionals, however, know that extricating ourselves from our reliance on Chinese manufacturing is easier said than done. Many pundits push for a “China + 1” strategy, where companies diversify their manufacturing and sourcing options beyond China. But in reality, that “plus one” is often a Chinese company operating in a different country or a non-Chinese manufacturer that is still heavily dependent on material or subcomponents made in China.
This is the problem when supply chain decisions are made on a global scale without input from supply chain professionals. In an article in the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, Kent argues that, “The discussions on supply chains mainly take place between government officials who typically bring many other competing issues and agendas to the table. Corporate entities—the individuals and companies directly impacted by supply chains—tend to be under-represented in the conversation.”
Kent is a proponent of what he calls “supply chain diplomacy,” where experts from academia and industry from the U.S. and China work collaboratively to create better, more efficient global supply chains. Take, for example, the “Peace Beans” project that Kent is involved with. This project, jointly formed by Zhejiang University and the Bush China Foundation, proposes balancing supply chains by exporting soybeans from Arkansas to tofu producers in China’s Yunnan province, and, in return, importing coffee beans grown in Yunnan to coffee roasters in Arkansas. Kent believes the operation could even use the same transportation equipment.
The benefits of working collaboratively—instead of continuing to build friction in the supply chain through tariffs and adversarial relationships—are numerous, according to Kent and his colleagues. They believe it would be much better if the two major world economies worked together on issues like global inflation, climate change, and artificial intelligence.
And such relations could play a significant role in strengthening world peace, particularly in light of ongoing tensions over Taiwan. Because, as Kent writes, “The 19th-century idea that ‘When goods don’t cross borders, soldiers will’ is as true today as ever. Perhaps more so.”
Hyster-Yale Materials Handling today announced its plans to fulfill the domestic manufacturing requirements of the Build America, Buy America (BABA) Act for certain portions of its lineup of forklift trucks and container handling equipment.
That means the Greenville, North Carolina-based company now plans to expand its existing American manufacturing with a targeted set of high-capacity models, including electric options, that align with the needs of infrastructure projects subject to BABA requirements. The company’s plans include determining the optimal production location in the United States, strategically expanding sourcing agreements to meet local material requirements, and further developing electric power options for high-capacity equipment.
As a part of the 2021 Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, the BABA Act aims to increase the use of American-made materials in federally funded infrastructure projects across the U.S., Hyster-Yale says. It was enacted as part of a broader effort to boost domestic manufacturing and economic growth, and mandates that federal dollars allocated to infrastructure – such as roads, bridges, ports and public transit systems – must prioritize materials produced in the USA, including critical items like steel, iron and various construction materials.
Hyster-Yale’s footprint in the U.S. is spread across 10 locations, including three manufacturing facilities.
“Our leadership is fully invested in meeting the needs of businesses that require BABA-compliant material handling solutions,” Tony Salgado, Hyster-Yale’s chief operating officer, said in a release. “We are working to partner with our key domestic suppliers, as well as identifying how best to leverage our own American manufacturing footprint to deliver a competitive solution for our customers and stakeholders. But beyond mere compliance, and in line with the many areas of our business where we are evolving to better support our customers, our commitment remains steadfast. We are dedicated to delivering industry-leading standards in design, durability and performance — qualities that have become synonymous with our brands worldwide and that our customers have come to rely on and expect.”
In a separate move, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) also gave its approval for the state to advance its Heavy-Duty Omnibus Rule, which is crafted to significantly reduce smog-forming nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions from new heavy-duty, diesel-powered trucks.
Both rules are intended to deliver health benefits to California citizens affected by vehicle pollution, according to the environmental group Earthjustice. If the state gets federal approval for the final steps to become law, the rules mean that cars on the road in California will largely be zero-emissions a generation from now in the 2050s, accounting for the average vehicle lifespan of vehicles with internal combustion engine (ICE) power sold before that 2035 date.
“This might read like checking a bureaucratic box, but EPA’s approval is a critical step forward in protecting our lungs from pollution and our wallets from the expenses of combustion fuels,” Paul Cort, director of Earthjustice’s Right To Zero campaign, said in a release. “The gradual shift in car sales to zero-emissions models will cut smog and household costs while growing California’s clean energy workforce. Cutting truck pollution will help clear our skies of smog. EPA should now approve the remaining authorization requests from California to allow the state to clean its air and protect its residents.”
However, the truck drivers' industry group Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association (OOIDA) pushed back against the federal decision allowing the Omnibus Low-NOx rule to advance. "The Omnibus Low-NOx waiver for California calls into question the policymaking process under the Biden administration's EPA. Purposefully injecting uncertainty into a $588 billion American industry is bad for our economy and makes no meaningful progress towards purported environmental goals," (OOIDA) President Todd Spencer said in a release. "EPA's credibility outside of radical environmental circles would have been better served by working with regulated industries rather than ramming through last-minute special interest favors. We look forward to working with the Trump administration's EPA in good faith towards achievable environmental outcomes.”
Editor's note:This article was revised on December 18 to add reaction from OOIDA.
Global trade will see a moderate rebound in 2025, likely growing by 3.6% in volume terms, helped by companies restocking and households renewing purchases of durable goods while reducing spending on services, according to a forecast from trade credit insurer Allianz Trade.
The end of the year for 2024 will also likely be supported by companies rushing to ship goods in anticipation of the higher tariffs likely to be imposed by the coming Trump administration, and other potential disruptions in the coming quarters, the report said.
However, that tailwind for global trade will likely shift to a headwind once the effects of a renewed but contained trade war are felt from the second half of 2025 and in full in 2026. As a result, Allianz Trade has throttled back its predictions, saying that global trade in volume will grow by 2.8% in 2025 (reduced by 0.2 percentage points vs. its previous forecast) and 2.3% in 2026 (reduced by 0.5 percentage points).
The same logic applies to Allianz Trade’s forecast for export prices in U.S. dollars, which the firm has now revised downward to predict growth reaching 2.3% in 2025 (reduced by 1.7 percentage points) and 4.1% in 2026 (reduced by 0.8 percentage points).
In the meantime, the rush to frontload imports into the U.S. is giving freight carriers an early Christmas present. According to Allianz Trade, data released last week showed Chinese exports rising by a robust 6.7% y/y in November. And imports of some consumer goods that have been threatened with a likely 25% tariff under the new Trump administration have outperformed even more, growing by nearly 20% y/y on average between July and September.