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.
When it comes to logistics technology, the pace of innovation has never been faster. In recent years, the market has been inundated by waves of cool new tech tools, all promising to help users enhance their operations and cope with today’s myriad supply chain challenges.
But that ever-expanding array of offerings can make it difficult to separate the wheat from the chaff—technology that’s the real deal versus technology that’s just “vaporware,” meaning products that don’t live up to their hype and may even still be in the conceptual stage.
One way to cut through the confusion is to check out the entries for the “3 V’s of Supply Chain Innovation Awards,” an annual competition held by the Council of Supply Chain Management Professionals (CSCMP). This competition, which is hosted by DC Velocity’s sister publication, Supply Chain Xchange, and supply chain visionary and 3 V’s framework creator Art Mesher, recognizes companies that have parlayed the 3 V’s—“embracing variability, harnessing visibility, and competing with velocity”—into business success and advanced the practice of supply chain management. Awards are presented in two categories: the “Business Innovation Award,” which recognizes more established businesses, and the “Best Overall Innovative Startup/Early Stage Award,” which recognizes newer companies.
The judging for this year’s competition—the second annual contest—took place at CSCMP’s EDGE Supply Chain Conference & Exhibition in September, where the three finalists for each award presented their innovations via a fast-paced “elevator pitch.” (To watch a video of the presentations, visit the Supply Chain Xchange website.)
What follows is a brief look at the six companies that made the competition’s final round and the latest updates on their achievements:
Arkestro: This San Francisco-based firm offers a predictive procurement orchestration solution that uses machine learning (ML) and behavioral science to revolutionize sourcing, eliminating the need for outdated manual tools like pivot tables and for labor-intensive negotiations. Instead, procurement teams can process quotes and secure optimal supplier agreements at a speed and accuracy that would be impossible to achieve manually, the firm says.
The company recently joined the Amazon Web Services (AWS) Partner Network (APN), which it says will help it reach its goal of elevating procurement from a cost center to a strategic growth engine.
AutoScheduler.AI: This Austin, Texas-based company offers a predictive warehouse optimization platform that integrates with a user’s existing warehouse management system (WMS) and “accelerates” its ability to resolve problems like dock schedule conflicts, inefficient workforce allocation, poor on-time/in-full (OTIF) performance, and excessive intra-campus moves.
“We’re here to make the warehouse sexy,” the firm says on its website. “With our deep background in building machine learning solutions, everything delivered by the AutoScheduler team is designed to provide value by learning your challenges, environment, and best practices.” Privately funded up until this summer, the company recently secured venture capital funding that it will use to accelerate its growth and enhance its technologies.
Davinci Micro Fulfillment: Located in Bound Brook, New Jersey, Davinci operates a “microfulfillment as a service” platform that helps users expedite inventory turnover while reducing operating expenses by leveraging what it calls the “4 Ps of global distribution”—product, placement, price, and promotion. The firm operates a network of microfulfillment centers across the U.S., offering services that include front-end merchandising and network optimization.
Within the past year, the company raised seed funding to help enhance its technology capabilities.
Flying Ship: Headquartered in Leesburg, Virginia, Flying Ship has designed an unmanned, low-flying “ground-effect maritime craft” that moves freight over the ocean in coastal regions. Although the Flying Ship looks like a small aircraft or large drone, it is classified as a maritime vessel because it does not leave the air cushion over the waves, similar to a hovercraft.
The first-generation models are 30 feet long, electrically powered, and semi-autonomous. They can dock at existing marinas, beaches, and boat ramps to deliver goods, providing service that the company describes as faster than boats and cheaper than air. The firm says the next-generation models will be fully autonomous.
Flying Ship, which was honored with the Best Overall Startup Award in this year’s 3 V’s competition, is currently preparing to fly demo missions with the Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL).
Perfect Planner: Based in Alpharetta, Georgia, Perfect Planner operates a cloud-based platform that’s designed to streamline the material planning and replenishment process. The technology collects, organizes, and analyzes data from a business’s material requirements planning (MRP) system to create daily “to-do lists” for material planners/buyers, with the “to-dos” ranked in order of criticality. The solution also uses advanced analytics to “understand” and address inventory shortages and surpluses.
Perfect Planner was honored with the Business Innovation Award in this year’s 3 V’s competition.
ProvisionAi: Located in Franklin, Tennessee, ProvisionAi has developed load optimization software that helps consumer packaged goods (CPG) companies move their freight with fewer trucks, thereby cutting their transportation costs. The firm says its flagship offering is an automatic order optimization (AutoO2) system that bolts onto a company’s existing enterprise resource planning (ERP) or WMS platform and guides larger orders through execution, ensuring that what is planned is actually loaded on the truck. The firm’s CEO and founder, Tom Moore, was recognized as a 2024 Rainmaker by this magazine.
Global forklift sales have slumped in 2024, falling short of initial forecasts as a result of the struggling economy in Europe and the slow release of project funding in the U.S., a report from market analyst firm Interact Analysis says.
In response, the London-based firm has reduced its shipment forecast for the year to rise just 0.3%, although it still predicts consistent growth of around 4-5% out to 2034.
The “bleak” figures come as the European economy has stagnated during the second half of 2024, with two of the leading industry sectors for forklifts - automotive and logistics – struggling. In addition, order backlogs from the pandemic have now been absorbed, so order volumes for the global forklift market will be slightly lower than shipment volumes over the next few years, Interact Analysis said.
On a more positive note, 3 million forklifts are forecast to be shipped per year by 2031 as enterprises are forced to reduce their dependence on manual labor. Interact Analysis has observed that major forklift OEMs are continuing with their long-term expansion plans, while other manufacturers that are affected by demand fluctuations are much more cautious with spending on automation projects.
At the same time, the forklift market is seeing a fundamental shift in power sources, with demand for Li-ion battery-powered forklifts showing a growth rate of over 10% while internal combustion engine (ICE) demand shrank by 1% and lead-acid battery-powered forklift fell 7%.
And according to Interact Analysis, those trends will continue, with the report predicting that ICE annual market demand will shrink over 20% from 670,000 units in 2024 to a projected 500,000 units by 2034. And by 2034, Interact Analysis predicts 81% of fully electric forklifts will be powered by li-ion batteries.
The reasons driving that shift include a move in Europe to cleaner alternatives to comply with environmental policies, and a swing in the primary customer base for forklifts from manufacturing to logistics and warehousing, due to the rise of e-commerce. Electric forklift demand is also growing in emerging markets, but for different reasons—labor costs are creating a growing need for automation in factories, especially in China, India, and Eastern Europe. And since lithium-ion battery production is primarily based in Asia, the average cost of equipping forklifts with li-ion batteries is much lower than the rest of the world.
Companies in every sector are converting assets from fossil fuel to electric power in their push to reach net-zero energy targets and to reduce costs along the way, but to truly accelerate those efforts, they also need to improve electric energy efficiency, according to a study from technology consulting firm ABI Research.
In fact, boosting that efficiency could contribute fully 25% of the emissions reductions needed to reach net zero. And the pursuit of that goal will drive aggregated global investments in energy efficiency technologies to grow from $106 Billion in 2024 to $153 Billion in 2030, ABI said today in a report titled “The Role of Energy Efficiency in Reaching Net Zero Targets for Enterprises and Industries.”
ABI’s report divided the range of energy-efficiency-enhancing technologies and equipment into three industrial categories:
Commercial Buildings – Network Lighting Control (NLC) and occupancy sensing for automated lighting and heating; Artificial Intelligence (AI)-based energy management; heat-pumps and energy-efficient HVAC equipment; insulation technologies
Manufacturing Plants – Energy digital twins, factory automation, manufacturing process design and optimization software (PLM, MES, simulation); Electric Arc Furnaces (EAFs); energy efficient electric motors (compressors, fans, pumps)
“Both the International Energy Agency (IEA) and the United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP) continue to insist on the importance of energy efficiency,” Dominique Bonte, VP of End Markets and Verticals at ABI Research, said in a release. “At COP 29 in Dubai, it was agreed to commit to collectively double the global average annual rate of energy efficiency improvements from around 2% to over 4% every year until 2030, following recommendations from the IEA. This complements the EU’s Energy Efficiency First (EE1) Framework and the U.S. 2022 Inflation Reduction Act in which US$86 billion was earmarked for energy efficiency actions.”
Many AI deployments are getting stuck in the planning stages due to a lack of AI skills, governance issues, and insufficient resources, leading 61% of global businesses to scale back their AI investments, according to a study from the analytics and AI provider Qlik.
Philadelphia-based Qlik found a disconnect in the market where 88% of senior decision makers say they feel AI is absolutely essential or very important to achieving success. Despite that support, multiple factors are slowing down or totally blocking those AI projects: a lack of skills to develop AI [23%] or to roll out AI once it’s developed [22%], data governance challenges [23%], budget constraints [21%], and a lack of trusted data for AI to work with [21%].
The numbers come from a survey of 4,200 C-Suite executives and AI decision makers, revealing what is hindering AI progress globally and how to overcome these barriers.
Respondents also said that many stakeholders lack trust in AI technology generally, which holds those projects back. Over a third [37%] of AI decision makers say their senior managers lack trust in AI, 42% feel less senior employees don’t trust the technology., and a fifth [21%] believe their customers don’t trust AI either.
“Business leaders know the value of AI, but they face a multitude of barriers that prevent them from moving from proof of concept to value creating deployment of the technology,” James Fisher, Chief Strategy Officer at Qlik, said in a release. “The first step to creating an AI strategy is to identify a clear use case, with defined goals and measures of success, and use this to identify the skills, resources and data needed to support it at scale. In doing so you start to build trust and win management buy-in to help you succeed.”
Many chief supply chain officers (CSCOs) are focused on reorganizing their supply chains in today’s business climate—but as they do so, they should be careful to avoid common pitfalls that can derail their efforts.
That’s according to recent research from Gartner that identifies critical organizational design mistakes that will prevent supply chain leaders from delivering on business goals.
“Supply chain reorganization is high up on CSCOs’ agendas, yet many are unclear about how organization design outcomes link to business goals,” according to Alan O'Keeffe, senior director analyst in Gartner’s Supply Chain practice.
The research revealed that the most successful projects radically redesign supply chain structure based on distinct organizational needs “while prioritizing balance, strength, and speed as key business objectives.”
“Our findings reveal that the leaders who achieved success took a more radical approach to redesigning their supply chain organizations, resulting in the ability to deliver on new and transformational operating models,” O’Keefe said in a statement announcing the findings.
The research was based on a series of interviews with supply chain leaders as well as data gathered from Gartner clients. It revealed that successful organizations assigned responsibilities to reporting lines in radically diverse ways, and that they focused on the unique characteristics of their business to design supply chain organizations that were tailored to meet their needs.
“The commonality between successful organizations is that their leaders intentionally prioritized the organizational goals of balance, strength and speed into their design process,” said O’Keeffe. “In doing so, they sidestepped the most common pitfalls in supply chain reorganization design.”
The three most common errors, according to Gartner, are:
Mistake 1: The “either/or” approach
Unbalanced organizational structures result in delays, gaps in performance, and confusion about responsibility. This often stems from a binary choice between centralized and decentralized models. Such an approach limits design possibilities and can lead to organizational power struggles, with teams feeling overwhelmed and misaligned.
Successful CSCOs recognize balance as a critical outcome. They employ both integration (combining activities under one team structure) and differentiation (empowering multiple units to conduct activities in unique ways). This granular approach ensures that decisions, expertise, and resources are allocated optimally to serve diverse customer needs while maintaining internally coherent operating models.
Mistake 2: Debilitating headcount reduction
Reducing headcount as a primary goal of reorganization can undermine long-term organizational capability. This approach often leads to a focus on short-term cost savings at the expense of losing critical talent and expertise, which are essential for driving future success.
Instead, CSCOs should focus on understanding what capabilities will make the organization strong in the short, medium, and long term. They should also prioritize the development and leveraging of people capabilities, social networks, and autonomy. This approach not only enhances organizational effectiveness but also ensures that the organization is ready to meet future challenges.
Mistake 3: The copy/paste approach
Copying organizational designs from other companies without considering enterprise-specific variations can slow decision-making and hinder organizational effectiveness. Each organization has unique characteristics that must be factored into its design.
CSCOs who successfully redesign their organizations make speed an explicit outcome by assigning and clarifying authority and expertise to remove elements that slow decision-making speed. This involves:
Designing structures that enable rapid response to customer needs;
Streamlining internal decision-making processes;
And differentiating between operational execution and transformation efforts.
The research for the report was based in part on qualitative interviews conducted between February and June 2024 with supply chain leaders from organizations that had undergone organizational redesign, according to Gartner. Insights were drawn from those who had successfully completed a radical reorganization, defined as a shift that enabled organizations to deliver on new activities and operating models that better met the needs of the business. The researchers also drew on more than 1,200 inquiries with clients conducted between July 2022 and June 2024 for the report.