Loading...
Loading...
By Jack Maxwell
Sep 03, 2024
One of the enduring images of the COVID-19 years was the sight of dozens of large cargo ships idling offshore near Long Beach, California. This vital port, along with many others around the world, was dealing with major logistical bottlenecks even as consumers, bored and confined to their homes, continued to add to the gridlock by ordering bread makers and fitness equipment.
Although these supply chain disruptions eventually eased, transport and logistics (T&L) professionals had to confront an uncomfortable reality in their wake. Improved information coordination among the many players in the goods movement process (GMP) was hampered by reliance on outmoded methods of communication and a lack of consistent terminology for even the most basic steps in that process.
Stepping into the breach in 2022, ASTM International formed the . Its scope was defined as “The promotion of knowledge; stimulation of research and the development of standards and specifications; formulation of definitions and terminology; and development of recommended practices and guides related to the sharing and use of digital information about the supply chain.”
In the nearly two years since its formation, F49 has already begun to make a difference in helping to ameliorate some of the goods movement process (GMP) issues brought into stark relief during the pandemic. Among other efforts, foundational standards on terminology are under way, and so is a push to address the crucial issue of container availability.
The committee’s rapid growth and the amount of work it has already completed speaks to the critical importance of improving the efficiency of the GMP.
The committee has attracted nearly 100 members from around the world, including representatives from key stakeholders like the United Nations Centre for Trade Facilitation and Electronic Business (UN/CEFACT) and GS1, an international standards development organization (SDO) best
known for barcodes. F49’s seven subcommittees have generated an impressive 17 active work items. However, these accomplishments did not come easily.
“We needed some time to get ourselves organized around the various subcommittees and how we would ensure alignment of their activities,” says Jaco Voorspuij. A founding member of F49 and chair of the subcommittee on recommended practices, guides, and specifications (F49.04), Voorspuij sees the primary goal of the committee as “enabling effective and efficient coordination and collaboration throughout the GMP. Smooth, predictable flow of goods requires that all stakeholders strive to coordinate their connected activities.”
Michael Darden, chair of the subcommittee on terminology (F49.01), expands on this point. “Our efforts are focused on ASTM work items that have been designed to segment the GMP into identifiable phases with precise milestone events that are common to all cargo movements on all modes.”
Identifying specific phases of the GMP and further breaking them down to understand their constituent parts are complex tasks, made even more difficult by the lack of a common lexicon. F49.01, with contributions from the other F49 subcommittees, has made significant progress in this area, as evidenced by the approval earlier this year of the standard terminology for precise foundational definitions for the GMP ().
“When the F49 committee was formed in 2022, the executive committee outlined the scope of our work and initiated a strategy to ‘chunk’ the work of standardizing the supply chain-critical events into a new rubric of statuses that occur during phases of the goods movement process,” explains Darden. F3682 defines five GMP phases: forecast, planning, execution, reconciliation, and analysis. It also defines related “events” that occur on each shipment : posted, pre-booked, booked, en route, delivered, invoiced, and archived.
The terminology standard was first submitted with ten foundational terms, but since then it has been refined and expanded – a process of incremental improvement that is reflected in the 13 active work items currently listed under the new standard. Darden notes that several of these will convert into modifications of F3682, rather than separate stand-alone standards.
For example, “WK88045 through WK88050 are specific work items to define events that occur during the goods movement process,” he says. “But they will not be new standards – rather they are improvements to the existing F3682. These work items were generated at the beginning of the development process to establish the roadmap for addressing a large and fragmented process like supply chain goods movement.”
A look at these six work items provides a glimpse into how the members of F49.01 decoupled the individual links of this “fragmented process” in order to make defining terms more manageable. Each work item encompasses “event terms” that fall within these links: posted to pre-booked;
pre-booked to booked; booked to en route; en route to delivered; delivered to invoiced; and invoiced to archived.
“These work items were developed to collect from industry representatives the ‘events’ that occur during phases that are of a negligible duration and the ‘statuses’ that have a measurable duration,” Darden explains. “The overarching objective being that if we standardize the terms and format so that transportation transaction information is consistently shared, then interoperability and interconnectedness can be achieved by stakeholders who abide by and have adopted the goods movement process from F49 to communicate with their logistics partners.”
Voorspuij points out that while the subcommittees were able to build on the foundation of terms and definitions available from other SDOs, “Surprisingly, many of the terms most often used in T&L did not have unambiguous definitions. F49.04 (in collaboration with F49.01) added the missing definitions.”
One surprising example Voorspuij cites is the term “cargo.” “We were unable to find clear definitions from global SDOs such as UN/CEFACT and GS1, despite the fact they have been active in standards for supply chain and T&L for several decades. Within the committee we landed on ‘a transport unit or a grouping of transport units assembled to be transported under one or more transport contracts.’”
Restoring effective supply chains was critical in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic.
“One of the things I am most proud of is the wide range of global supply chain experts who contribute to the harmonization of terms and definitions, so that ‘What is sent is what is understood’ at receipt,” says Darden. He also notes that the terminology subcommittee is required by the F49 bylaws to have a representative at each of the other subcommittee meetings to establish consistency of terminology.
To better understand the work being done by the committee and its subcommittees, the concept of the beneficial cargo owner (BCO) is critical.
“The key idea is in the last two words of the term,” Voorspuij says. “At any point in the journey of the goods being transported as cargo from the seller to the buyer, one of them is the legal owner of the cargo. That legal owner is the BCO. The legal ownership may change during the journey at a specific point agreed upon by the seller and the buyer in their sales contract. For example, the ownership often transfers from seller to buyer when the cargo departs from the port where the cargo is imported into the country of the buyer.”
Voorspuij emphasizes that F49’s focus on the GMP is anchored in the needs of the supply chain as a whole and BCOs in particular. From the perspective of the latter, goods need to flow as smoothly and predictably as possible. But in order to achieve this goal, stakeholders must enable coordination of their connected activities. Where this coordination is lacking, problems can occur.
At the subcommittee level, Voorspuij describes an effort to identify bottlenecks or other challenges to a smooth flow of the cargo. “The recommended practices we’re working on in F49.04 aim to assist the industry in addressing or even resolving the bottlenecks by offering much better alignment of activities by the stakeholders involved as well as removing confusion about the process, terms, and definitions exchanged among the stakeholders.”
“Currently most issues and disruptions occur at the handover points between stakeholders in T&L operations, generally as a result of the lack of timely exchange of necessary information,” he adds. “That information must also be correctly understood between stakeholders. Our committee is very much about enabling effective and efficient coordination and collaboration throughout the GMP.”
A common example of a situation where information is often not exchanged in a timely manner relates to the transport of the container away from the port terminal to its next destination inland. “Most terminals will communicate that the container is available only after it has reached that status,” Voorspuij notes. “This means that planning for the next transport can start only afterwards.
As a result, that planning always needs to happen in a hurry. There is limited time before the container must be transported away to avoid incurring additional charges.”
Ideally, the port terminal could provide an estimate about when the container is likely to be available so that the next transport movement can be planned in a more relaxed manner and unnecessary costs and charges can be avoided. This type of coordination should also ensure a smoother flow of cargo through the port and terminal.
ASTM is far from the only organization active in the T&L standards-development arena. In addition to UN/CEFACT and GS1, the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC); the International Hydrographic Organization (IHO); and the International Maritime Organization (IHO) are among a host of groups working to improve GMP efficiency through targeted standards.
Another important contributor is the Federal Maritime Commission (FMC), through its Maritime Transportation Data Initiative (MTDI). A report released by the FMC in April 2023, “Recommendations on the Maritime Transportation Data System Requirements,” highlighted problems encountered during the pandemic and proposed a focus on certain key objectives. It contained a lexicon of 200 terms and definitions related to the MTDI context. F49 identified the opportunity for lexicon alignment – essentially, comparison of the MTDI lexicon to other established and reputable glossaries to categorize exact matches, matches with differences, and missing terms. This work was taken up by the subcommittee on terminology, and the first seven comparisons have been completed.
However, the main issue the MTDI initiative identified as impeding the smooth flow of cargo into and away from the U.S. was a more consistent understanding of the term “container availability.” The work of F49.04, and work item WK87207, become important here.
“Container availability has basically two main sides to it,” explains Voorspuij. “When is it ready and can start its next transport movement? And how do you provide timely and accurate information to the next party involved related to the container being or becoming available?”
Currently, according to Voorspuij, there is quite a lot of confusion among stakeholders around what conditions must be met for a container to become available, which relates to the first aspect. To address this issue he says: “Our subcommittee has identified that there are often 12 or more steps in the life cycle of container-based transport of cargo in international transportation of that cargo, where the concept of ‘availability of the container’ is important to coordinate activities among stakeholders involved.”
Regarding improved communication (the second aspect), he says there is also much too little exchange of timely, accurate, reliable information among stakeholders who need to plan and execute for the next transport movement of the container.
These issues are being addressed under WK87207, which could become a recommended practice that describes the end-to-end process as well as the needs for information exchanges at each step in that process. “That will enable the stakeholders involved to exchange the information needed for good coordination of activities in a timely fashion. These exchanges may be voluntary, or may be required under future regulations from the FMC,” Voorspuij concludes.
It’s unlikely that any T&L professional would view the supply-chain disruptions that resulted from the pandemic as anything other than a disaster. Nonetheless, they served as both cautionary tale and wake-up call.
Voorspuij believes that two primary issues received new levels of scrutiny because of the pandemic: 1) the need for better collaboration and coordination to ensure that T&L organizations are able to meet the needs of BCOs in supply chains that rely on international networks; 2) increased digitalization of T&L operations.
“Organizations that wish to collaborate and coordinate need to exchange lots of information swiftly and easily,” he states. “That is feasible only when done in a digital fashion. Digitalizing paper documents such as bills of lading and exchanging them in seconds removes costs and delays. In addition, there is ever-increasing pressure from authorities to submit more and more information in an electronic/digital format.”
“Awareness of the many vulnerabilities that can occur during the goods movement process is more known to more people than ever before,” notes Darden. “Supply chains have operated in the back rooms of warehouses and terminal centers for decades, mostly with manually processed paper and photocopies mailed, emailed, faxed, or transmitted in batches. Carriers’ sales reps had historically brought in donuts or pizzas to earn a chance at some freight to quote.”
COVID-19, in Darden’s view, changed all that. Lists of shippers’ transport needs were digitized and fed into technology platforms that tried to match these needs with available options, without human intervention. “Freight-matching technology filled this void to match and arrange transactions, but also exposed a data-consistency issue that was addressed with customized app programming interfaces, or APIs,” Darden says.
In the chaos of this pandemic-fueled transformation, the exchange of sensitive data was not sufficiently protected, and in Darden’s words: “Before long, nefarious actors began taking advantage of non-standardized practices. The expectation of good intentions is not to be counted on, and the ability of government authorities to enforce the regulations in a timely way is missing. The result is that the world of the s highly volatile and unpredictable. Our objective is to devise the framework for structured messages to carry information; deliver the message carrying the information to the intended recipient of the information; and ensure that the message sent carries the same message through receipt and use.”
According to F49 chair Jeff Weiss, the committee is stepping up to meet the challenge. “At a big picture level, F49 is growing and there is a lot of exciting work happening.”
“We have more than a dozen standards under development,” he says. “Membership is steadily increasing, federal agencies are participating in the work, and we’re actively exploring collaborative partnerships with likeminded SDOs, associations, and other entities.
“In addition to standards relating to digital information in the goods movement process, we’ve expanded our committee’s focus to standards for ensuring the authenticity of that information.”
Voorspuij points out that F49 is currently one of the few groups that looks at the entire scope of the GMP with an emphasis on BCO and supply-chain perspectives. “Furthermore, F49 has more than once explicitly stated that it wants to build on standards that are already available from other sources rather than reinventing those standards,” he adds. “That means that the results from the committee’s efforts are far more likely to be immediately interoperable with standards from other sources that often ignore preexisting standards.”
For more information or to get involved, please contact F49 staff manager Jennifer Tursi at
jtursi@astm.org. ■
Jack Maxwell is a freelance writer based in Westmont, N.J.
September / October 2024
