Opinion: The Case for Better Freight Transport Security

B>By Vin Gulisano

I>Senior Vice President, Global Sales and Marketing

PL Logistics Inc.

Many experts have pointed out that containers, trucks and other transportation equipment are potentially vulnerable to terrorism. The bad news is that this means that all of us who work in transportation and warehousing have become an inadvertent part of the national security challenge.

The good news is that it also means that we are a potentially vital part of the solution, provided we’re willing to change some of our long-held transportation paradigms and expectations.

The change must start with how we define logistics itself. It still means getting the right product to the right place at the right time in the right condition. But now it also means doing all of that without compromising people’s safety.

ecurity must dominate every logistics scenario, even if it means backing off a bit on what our industry has worked so hard to do — move inventory faster and turn it more often.

Over the past couple of decades, we logistics professionals have all been under intense pressure to reduce inventory carrying costs and improve customer service by condensing delivery times, and we’ve risen to the challenge with increasingly faster, more cost-effective performance. In the process, we’ve come to equate logistics speed with logistics quality.

Now, all of us must accept that speed, security and economy don’t always mix — and make the necessary allowances and accommodations.

As anyone who’s obtained C-TPAT certification knows, there’s a measure of thoroughness that goes hand-in-hand with good security measures, and that doesn’t happen without adding some expense or complexity to the supply chain. C-TPAT is the Customs-Trade Partnership Against Terrorism, a voluntary program that may give shippers faster import clearance in exchange for them performing a self-assessment of their security practices and developing and implementing a security program based on C-TPAT guidelines.

At the same time, we cannot and should not assume that a heightened degree of security is necessarily a bad thing for the transportation industry or logistics efficiency. In fact, the whole focus on security appears to have accelerated or brought about a number of positive changes that have been much needed in the logistics industry.

For example, one of the findings in my company’s recent white paper on security shows that shippers and carriers alike are gaining more knowledge about the day-to-day nuances of their international supply chains, including the people and vendors working on them.

While gaining this knowledge may have a temporarily detrimental effect on supply chain speed, it could ultimately result in some efficiency-enhancing productivity improvements, because the additional scrutiny may reveal some long-hidden performance weaknesses — or call attention to the fact that the parties companies have chosen to work with may no longer be the best match for them. A more tightly knit understanding of all supply chain constituents has always been a goal of the constantly improving supply chain.

To quote the white paper: “Security is less about slowing down processes than about ensuring that processes are done correctly as planned and that no gaps exist which permit unauthorized activities to take place.”

Another finding is the call for logistics to become even more technology-driven, with consistent information standards that begin early on in the supply chain process. People have been calling for such standards and practices for years. However, now that consistent logistics information is a matter of national concern, it is likely that supply chain professionals will work together to make this long-held wish a reality.

And let us not forget the trend toward greater centralization of the supply chain. While there is much to be said for using a wide variety of vendors, carriers and providers, logistics experts all agree that there still must be some strategic, central form of control over a company’s supply chain. Without such control, a company’s supply chain remains tactical instead of strategic — not to mention potentially vulnerable.

“Security gaps are less likely when control is centralized, with common standards applied under contract,” our white paper found. It serves to reason that other supply chain mistakes and inefficiencies are also less likely.

Security gaps are also less likely when everyone realizes that security isn’t just someone else’s job. It’s theirs.

Finally, although the transportation industry has had its share of healthy competition and individual accountability, some of that competitive behavior must be put aside if we are to move forward and make the supply chain a safer place.

As the author of our white paper said so well: “Success in securing the supply chain relies less on new methods and technology than it does on greater cooperation and information sharing among supply chain parties and between the public and private sectors.”

Such cooperation is why you see shippers, carriers and logistics providers alike applying for C-TPAT certification. It’s why the government is calling for the private sector to partner with it on increasing vigilance. And it’s why all of us would do well to remember that a weakness in one carrier’s or shipper’s security program could have long-lasting effects for us all.

APL Logistics, Oakland, Calif., is a subsidiary of NOL (Neptune Orient Lines) Group, an international transportation company with container services.

For the full story, see the March 24 edition of Transport Topics. Subscribe today.