VI. Looking Forward

A. Implications of the Current Situation

The current array of modal and freight community approaches to freight identification technologies is high on variety and low on harmonization and interoperability. Although progress towards harmonization is possible, the fundamental diversity is likely to persist for some time—diversity in tags, in information systems, and in telecommunications.

Barcodes are the most common form of identification for freight items themselves, with specific standards and format chosen by the shipper or their customer. Barcodes serve as retail point-of-sale labels on merchandise and as shipping labels, such as the Military Shipping Label or a FedEx package label. It is rare when a shipper chooses to apply a more sophisticated identification or tracking device directly to the freight. Package express carriers tend to add their own barcode labels to customer packages in order to control movement through their closed loop operations.

The diversity is most evident in the identification of transportation conveyances. There is sporadic and uneven use of standard RFID tags to manage fleet assets. Railroads must use the AAR standard RFID tag on their rolling stock. Two ocean container carriers use the ISO standard RFID tag to track chassis or containers in order to improve the efficiency of their ocean terminals. At least one airline uses the IATA recommended RFID tag to manage its air containers, but most carriers do not.

Motor carriers have more variety than other modes. Although there is growing use of DSRC tags for electronic clearance and of electronic toll payment tags, many systems are neither interoperable nor compatible. Long-haul truckload carriers control their tractors with Qualcomm OmniTracs and comparable alternatives, then track their trailers and customer loads through association with a tractor. One venue for harmonization is linking their fleet management systems with ITS/CVO systems.

A large portion of transportation equipment has no identifier beyond its serial number and, in some cases, a barcode label inside the trailer or container door to scan when loading or unloading freight. While image recognition can transform painted serial numbers into digital data, this is still uncommon.

Movement towards "smart freight in smarter networks" will tend to encourage harmonization by reducing some of the technical barriers to interoperability. However, "smart freight in smart networks" will not eliminate the diversity in freight identification approaches. People who support harmonization and interoperability are assured of a long-term challenge.

B. Key Enablers of Coming Changes

Section III described the barcode-and-database model or architecture ("talking freight in listening networks") as encompassing today's best commercial practices. Two application developments and one general trend may combine to move the definition of best practice beyond the current model and towards "smart freight in smarter networks." This section discusses those developments.

1. Auto-Networking Tags

Figure 2 illustrated the nesting or Russian Doll relationships inherent in the most freight shipments: small shipments can combined in larger packages, mixed together on pallets, which are loaded in trailers that may move both on a flatcar and behind a tractor. Each layer has a unique identifier and related documentation and the relationships must be maintained correctly. Auto-networking tags are tags capable of providing or receiving and managing hierarchical independent reports, as in a pallet's tag reporting its arrival on board to a container's more capable tag. Reliable, inexpensive auto-networking would, among other things, permit the creation and updating of portable inventories. These tags would be well suited to dynamic shipments such as multiple stop-offs and to a need for field-accessible temporary storage. At least two firms have done or are working to develop this capability. Savi Technology pursued the concept several years ago and PAR Technology is working on it now.

2. Cheaper, Smarter Real-Time Tracking

Mobile location tracking will benefit directly from the expanding array and falling cost of telecommunications and from the development of smaller, cheaper microprocessors. The price/performance ratio for real-time location tracking will continue to fall. Location determination technologies, predominantly GPS and later a new generation of Inmarsat, will be combined with more distributed intelligence and multiple modes of communications. We are already seeing the first wave of untethered trailer tracking equipment and services approach the market. As their prices fall and their value is proven, larger markets will open for mobile location tracking beyond the fleet management and tracking forecasts discussed above. Another indicator of things to come is this material taken from the web on Eagle Eye Technologies, Inc.:

"Tracking People and Objects World Wide

Eagle Eye is the developer of a wristwatch sized mobile satellite terminal and service. Our SpaceTRAC tracking service will be compatible with the emerging low Earth orbiting mobile satellite communication systems.

The Eagle Eye system is designed to allow a previously tagged person or object to be located via satellite anywhere in the world. Applications include tracking Alzheimer's patients, children, executives, probationers and parolees, military personnel, shipping containers, and vehicles."

3. Miniaturization and Integration

The major trend in information technology has been the delivery of more and denser processing power and data storage—more power in less space—at less cost per unit. There is no reason to expect a significant near-term break in that trend or in the concomitant ability of vendors to design and deliver smaller, better integrated, more robust and less expensive packages. This trend enables the development of more powerful decision support and display capabilities.

Even more intriguing, specialized analytic horsepower can be packaged on smaller chips. Embedded microprocessors or chips—from automobile engines and traffic signals to restroom faucets—reportedly outnumber personal computers by 30:1, and the ratio will increase.[30] Embedded chips, useful to capture data and control processes, are essential for distributed freight-related processes.

The power of embedded microprocessors multiplies when they are connected. Davis and Meyer describe interactive systemwide control as the "ultimate killer app for embedded processors." Systems rich in connected embedded processors will be more transparent and more adaptable.[31]

Smaller, more capable, less expensive microprocessors are the drivers behind this paper's forecast of cost-effective smart freight. Connected microprocessors combined with more powerful decision support tools are the drivers behind smarter logistics networks.

C. Impediments to and Tools for Change

Impediments. What little standardization and interoperability there is in regard to freight identification technologies is scattered in separate niches, and many factors impede efforts to bridge those niches. This is not uncommon in implementing new technologies, nor is the fact that the impediments are more institutional than technical. Some of the key impediments to address are:

• Legacy problems of an installed base—as in ITS/CVO and DOD RFID applications
• Problems of scale and consistency—as in APL's decision to back off from putting AEI tags on all containers when it joined the capacity-sharing alliance
• RF frequency choice and its trade-offs—among ITS/CVO communities (915 MHz and 5.8 GHz), commercial AEI (915 MHz and 2.45 GHz), and DOD RFID (433 MHz)
• Fuzzy benefits attributed to greater interoperability—first order user benefits and second order system benefits tend to be glib and general
• User focus on capabilities tied to short-term requirements
• Concerns about government intrusion and regulation

Tools for Change. There are opportunities and approaches to overcome these impediments to greater harmonization and interoperability. The June 1998 Freight Identification Technology Workshop is one opportunity and some of the approaches most relevant to it are outlined below:

• Clarify User Requirements and How They May Change. Harmonization across communities requires shared understanding of the interests and needs of your potential partners. To be productive, discuss requirements in an open frame of mind, not as a tightly defended turf.
• Articulate Potential Benefits of Harmonization. It is critical to transform fuzzy benefits into clear, concrete first order benefits for users and second order benefits for the broader system. Done well, this will be the catalyst that energizes harmonization and greater interoperability. Done poorly, it will largely guarantee slow, tepid, and ineffective progress. Of course, it is also possible that a good assessment will indicate there are few concrete benefits and little need to invest time and effort in harmonization.
• Accumulate Lessons Learned and Success Stories. One useful focal point is what did and did not work in identifying and overcoming barriers.
• Identify Projects and Activities to Focus Energy. Identify projects as part of an overall strategy and agenda for action. Agree to roles and a timeline.
• Establish Ways to Follow-up and Maintain Communication.

D. User Requirements vs. Changes in Technology

The most fundamental engine for implementing technologies such as freight identification tools may be user requirements as defined by the users. It seems fitting to conclude with an observation about the interplay between requirements and technology.

Although business imperatives properly drive technology choices, technology options can change perceptions of business possibilities and then of business imperatives. Technologies and services that seem absurd and unnecessary today can turn into competitive advantages tomorrow and essentials for survival soon after.

This may happen when accurate, current status and location information can be derived from small, cheap processors and communications options. Functional user requirements are relative, not fixed: any definition of requirements inherently reflects its author's often implicit assumptions about the context in which she or he operates. Those assumptions include issues of technical possibilities, costs, and values. For example, given today's information technology capabilities and costs, most thoughtful industry logisticians see no requirement for data-rich RFID tags in normal commerce, nor any requirement for distributed intelligence on normal shipments. However, dramatic changes in technical capabilities or their costs could change one's view of what is required for good business practice.

This kind of combination of changing technology and changing perceptions could move us from "talking freight in listening networks" to "smart freight in smarter networks."

previous