1 / 18

The Cost/Value of Perfect Information

The Cost/Value of Perfect Information. A Technology Case for the Rail Industry. Shipper ’ s Issues. Need more efficient use of shipper/carrier infrastructure & assets Inventory/working capital costs Incur unnecessarily high costs for use of cars (private car owners)

kaiser
Download Presentation

The Cost/Value of Perfect Information

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. The Cost/Value of Perfect Information A Technology Case for the Rail Industry

  2. Shipper’s Issues • Need more efficient use of shipper/carrier infrastructure & assets • Inventory/working capital costs • Incur unnecessarily high costs for use of cars (private car owners) • Staff to make sure supply chain continues to move effectively • Back office inefficiencies • Lack of ability to resolve accounts payable transactions • Inability to accrue & book expenses in proper period • Information delivery from railroads (i.e. paper)

  3. Shipper’s Goals Clean, easily accessible data which allows: • Supply chain improvements • Efficient electronic transactions • Closer management of assets • Quicker resolution & payment of obligations • Data standards …where both parties benefit So what’s the problem?

  4. Rail Technology Advantages • E-billing • Electronic scheduling • Rail Car Tracking (CLM)

  5. Rail Technology Disadvantages • E-billing • Inaccurate billings • Excess charges in conflict with the CLM data (below) • Electronic scheduling • Inconsistent availability • Inconsistent car flow (both RR-owned and shipper-owned) • Rail Car Tracking (CLM) • Inaccurate car locator messages • Incomplete tracking data • High cost/value multiple

  6. Age of Information Sharing • Technology has allowed the railroads to reap mostly one-sided benefits • While offering some tracking in the public eye (see the websites of the Big 4) the back office is inconsistent or non-existent • Partnership between shipper and shipping mode can work to the benefit of both—technology can make it happen • Shippers need a common solution across carriers that fosters true logistics visibility

  7. Car Locations—The Info Key • Tracking technology has improved • RFID • Advanced Bar Code • Satellite/GPS • Little of this technology is implemented outside of the railroad tracking its own assets

  8. Demand Better Data • Shippers should be able to demand better information on car location • If shippers don’t demand it now, the Department of Homeland Security may demand it later at a much higher price • Accurate tracking is the key to better billing, better asset tracking, and better scheduling

  9. Improving Car Location Tracking • Satellite • Highest cost, most accurate, most detailed, on-demand • RFID • Middle-tier cost, very accurate, relies on infrastructure improvements and standards, fixed demand, active or passive • Bar Code • Lower-tier cost, fairly accurate, relies on infrastructure improvements and standards, fixed demand, passive

  10. Better CLM Data Improves… • E-Billing • More accurate locations and times for freight bills & location-based accessorial charges • More timely information for accurate accrual accounting • Electronic Scheduling • More accurate ETA information for scheduling car delivery/pickup • Improved track utilization through location analysis trends

  11. Rumor Mill • Is CLM Data really that bad? If so, why? • Only about 30% of CLM data comes from the AEI tags—the rest comes from train constructs • Inconsistent location identification—abbreviations, old names, misspellings • Time delay—hours to days as data weaves its way to/from RAILINC

  12. The CLM Technologies • Satellite/GPS • PRO: Cost has come down in the past 5 –7 years as increased satellite sharing and utilization has become important • PRO: Partnerships with ground-based systems for communication (e.g. cell towers) • CON: Still not cost-effective for all assets—even the railroads typically use it only for high value assets

  13. The CLM Technologies • RFID • PRO: Cost has come down drastically over the past 3 years—thanks to Wal-Mart and the DoD • PRO: Increased utilization on toll roads and other modes of freight transports has worked out most of the “bugs” • PRO/CON: Requires better standards to gain “economies of scale” • CON: Current value of data from AEI tags affected significantly by maintenance of readers

  14. The CLM Technologies • Advanced Barcode • PRO: Since the last attempt (ACI in the 60’s and 70’s) technology has improved • PRO: Cost of implementation, repair, and redundancy has come down significantly over last 10 years • CON: Dirt and Frost/Ice on both readers and code plates • CON: Passive only system (ID only)

  15. Debunking the Myths • The Railroad Industry spent $250 Million in the early 90s for AEI and it hasn’t helped • Did they get the ROI expected? Ask BNSF, whose internal use has contributed directly to the bottom line and drives their R&D budget • Sharing information dilutes the competitive advantage of technology • By sharing the information with customers, they get better tracking • By sharing the information with competitors, better track utilization and more accurate cross-system billings occur

  16. Everybody Wins • Who is everybody? • Railroads • Get their money quicker • Make customers (shippers) happy • Shippers • Get better data on assets • Get better data on liabilities • Get better data on product location • Other stakeholders (DOT, DHS, etc.) • Get info that has not been available previously • Better information for negotiations (ROW, Security, etc.)

  17. Speakers • Phil Marlino, Director of Transportation Processes and Data Management, ConocoPhillips • Phil.marlino@conocophillips.com • Rob Roberts, Managing Director, EnterSys Group • Robroberts@entersysgroup.com

  18. Questions?

More Related