comparison of export processes may03 flow chart

COMPARISON OF SINGAPORE AND U.S.A. SEA CARGO CONTAINER EXPORT PROCESSES

Alan Erera* Keng-Huat Kwek†

Nandini Goswami† Chip White*

Huiwen Zhang†

The Logistics Institute ─ Asia Pacific Singapore

A collaboration between the National University of Singapore and the Georgia Institute of Technology

†TLI-AP National University of Singapore

Singapore

*School of Industrial and Systems Engineering Georgia Institute of Technology

Atlanta, Georgia USA

Abstract

The complicated end-to-end supply chain of sea trade can involve more than many stakeholders, each one adding to the security vulnerability. This paper presents a background study of the US and Singapore sea cargo processes. By understanding and comparing the current processes, we can design a more secure supply chain network, without compromising on efficiency and cost

Comparison of Singapore and U.S.A. Sea Cargo Export Processes Date: 4 May 2003

The Logistics Institute – Asia Pacific 2

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1 INTRODUCTION 3

1.1 BACKGROUND 3 1.2 OBJECTIVE 3

2 COMPARISON OF THE MAPS 5

2.1 OVERVIEW OF SHIPPING ENVIRONMENT 5 2.1.1 SINGAPORE 5 2.1.2 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 6 2.2 IN-DEPTH COMPARISON 6 2.2.1 STAKEHOLDERS 6 2.2.2 FUNCTIONAL AREAS 10 2.2.3 INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY SYSTEMS 12 2.2.4 INFORMATION EXCHANGE 14

3 CONCLUSIONS 15

4 REFERENCES 16



1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background

The terrorist attacks in New York and Washington, D.C., on 11 September 2001, brought to light the vulnerabilities in the U.S. domestic, and more generally the global, transportation system. The terrorist’s had used the openness of the U.S. transportation system to their advantage, openness also found in global transportation systems.

The implications on world trade, most of which occurs by sea, are enormous. Seventy-two million containers are moved internationally every year, and this number has continued to grow after 11 September 2001. Of these, some 7.8 million loaded containers are U.S bound and another 4.8 million are export cargo from the U.S. The entire end-to-end supply chain can involve various stakeholders, adding to the complications and security issues. The containers used for shipping goods are considered especially conducive instruments for smuggling hazardous material, thus making it increasingly essential to understand the current processes involving sea cargo. This paper is a first step in that regard. It seeks to understand and compare the sea cargo container export processes in Singapore and the U.S. for the following reasons:

a. Trade and transportation related security problems are interdependent as the risk faced by one country is determined in part by the risk management of its trade partners.

Thus in international trade and travel related issues, it is essential that countries collaborate and address security issues. This not only means well-enforced standards for security compliance, like the Customs Trade Partnership Against Terrorism (CTPAT), Container Security Initiative (CSI) and the 24-hour mandate initiatives1, but also standardized processes across trading countries to allow for greater visibility and transparency. The first step to designing standardized processes is to understand the current processes thoroughly.

b. A better understanding of the processes will allow better prediction and modeling of cost and efficiency related issues by highlighting more vulnerable nodes in the supply chain, which can then be studied in greater depth.

The complicated end-to-end supply chain for sea trade can involve dozens of stakeholders, each one adding to security vulnerability and/or protection.

1.2 Objective

Given the above reasons, this paper presents a background study of the U.S. and Singapore sea cargo export processes and seeks to achieve the following objectives: 1 Check site www.customs.ustreas.gov for details of security initiatives taken by the UC government



a. Understand the Container Export Process at Singapore

If Singapore wants to remain a preferred port for U.S. bound cargo, it must actively participate in the new U.S. global security initiatives and take appropriate measures to change or develop operational processes to ensure compliance. The first step in this regard is to understand clearly, the current sea cargo export/trans-shipment process (both information and physical) at Singapore, so that vulnerabilities can be identified and appropriate steps can be taken to ensure security requirements are met.

b. Compare the Container Export Processes at Singapore with that of the U.S.

The “Intermodal Freight Technology Working Group”, whose members include U.S. Department of Transport (USDOT) staff, ITS America staff, and private sector and other stakeholders, with the help of Booze-Allen and Hamilton consultants, developed a set of process maps showing U.S. domestic movement of surface-based freight. The focus of the maps is “Intermodal Transfer of Goods” in the U.S. export-import processes. Thus, some critical functional areas (from a security standpoint), like picking and packing of containers have not been highlighted in these maps. However, additional research has been used to substantiate this missing information.

The processes will be compared in the following four areas:

1. Stakeholders: The respective parties, including forwarders, shippers, and land transport operators, etc., in both supply chains will be compared in terms of their roles and responsibilities and level and type of interaction in the value chain.

2. Functional Areas: The entire export process has been divided into five functional areas, which cover all the mandatory steps in any export process. We will study and compare the sub-processes within each of these functional areas.

3. Systems: Also included is a section on the systems used during the export process, thus comparing the degree of automation.

4. Information Exchange: We have compared the various mandatory information exchange instruments in both supply chains and have compared them in terms of who initiates the exchange and who receives it.

This paper will thus help to improve our understanding of the end-to-end export processes in Singapore and in the U.S. We will identify key features, peculiarities and issues in both processes and provide a background for the design of standardized and more visible supply chains in the near future. This paper is intended to be a background study to identify future, more focused research areas related to sea cargo export. We will include conclusions of our understanding and recommendations on next steps.



2 COMPARISON OF THE MAPS

Singapore Process Maps

The Singapore Sea Cargo Export Process Map, (included as an appendix to this document) was designed to show the high-level stepwise flow of the complicated set of processes that comprise the current export process in Singapore. The map describes the information flow and the physical flow of goods. This map was drawn with the intention of analyzing the current export process in order to identify the various participants and vulnerable points in the supply chain, with the future intent of designing new, more efficient and secure processes.

US Process Maps

The “Intermodal Freight Technology Working Group” comprising of US Department of Transport (USDOT) and ITS America with the help of the consulting group Booze-Allen and Hamilton, developed a set of process maps showing US domestic movement of International freight. The focus of the maps is “Intermodal Transfer of Goods” in the US export-import processes.

Gaps in the Process Maps

• Not Security Focused: As the focus of the U.S. maps was intermodal transfer of goods, some critical functional areas (from a security standpoint), like picking and packing of containers have not been highlighted. This has led to some gap in our understanding. Additional research has been used to substantiate this missing information wherever possible.

• Not information exchange focused: The Singapore process maps have tried to capture the actual flow of materials and information, and some of the technical details having no bearing on security (what EDI codes are used to communicate) have not been highlighted in these maps.

2.1 Overview of Shipping Environment

Most of the differences in the export processes at Singapore and the U.S. stems from the differences in the shipping environments of both countries. Shipping Environment includes, Government involvement and initiatives (regulations), demographics of the country (Singapore is a small city compared to the U.S., where intermodal transportation is a vital link in the supply chain.) and the type of traffic (most of the sea cargo traffic in Singapore is transshipment).

2.1.1 Singapore

The Port of Singapore is overseen by the Maritime and Port Authority of Singapore (MPA), which acts as the sole regulatory body for the Republic's port and maritime affairs. MPA is



responsible for safeguarding Singapore’s international maritime/port interests. It also acts as a developer working with other agencies to make Singapore a top maritime center. The Port of Singapore is also overseen by MPA. Almost all of the sea terminals in Singapore are managed by PSA (Port of Singapore Authority). This makes Singapore a highly regulated shipping environment.

The shipping community in Singapore is served by the PORTNET system, which is a wholly owned subsidiary of PSA. PortNet is a nationwide system serving the entire shipping community that operates through Singapore. (www.portnet.com).

In addition to PortNet, the Singapore shipping community uses an EDI-based system called TradeNet for exchange of trade documents. TradeNet connects Singapore's Port Authority with global traders, shipping agents, Singapore's custom services, and other government agencies.

Singapore customs and IE Singapore (formerly the Trade Development Board) are the two regulatory bodies for trade in Singapore.

Both TradeNet and PortNet make the Singapore shipping environment highly centralized and regulated.

2.1.2 United States of America

By virtue of its size and completely different geographic attributes (185 seaports), the U.S. marine system is far less regulated than is Singapore’s. More than 100 state, local, and county seaport agencies, navigation districts, and port authorities make up the public sector port industry in the U.S. today2. This makes the export process in the US much more complicated than the process in Singapore, as the goods might have to be brought by rail or truck by intermodal carriers before they can be transported to the terminal for loading. These additional steps introduce more parties and thus additional vulnerabilities in the U.S. export process. This point will be further highlighted in our following sections.

The main regulatory body in the U.S. is U.S. Customs, which leads the initiative to enforce common security practices for sea freight. The U.S. has also been taking wide-ranging initiatives on improving the trade and commerce environment. This has included the introduction of the Automated Export System (AES) and more recently the development of a modernized and advanced system (Automated Commercial Environment) to allow for more automated, standardized and thus more secure workflow.

2.2 In-depth comparison

2.2.1 Stakeholders

Stakeholders are defined as individuals and/or companies involved anywhere during the export process from when the shipper/seller initiates the process to when the goods reach the destination

2 http://www.aapa-ports.org/industryinfo/americasports.htm

http://www.portnet.com/



consignee. The stakeholders are the building blocks of the trade processes and hence will be discussed first. The point to note is that there are two types of stakeholders. First, there are the key players who are mandatory in any export process, irrespective of the country. Second, there are the additional players introduced due to peculiarities of a specific export process. The supply chain is formed by the interactions of these players to various degrees. Also, and importantly, the different stakeholders can actually be owned and operated by the same owner but have been segregated as they perform different functions. For example, a shipper, freight forwarder, or port may own a warehouse.

Given that there is interaction between key players in every export supply chain, the differences between the stakeholders can be broadly divided into two categories:

1. Roles and Responsibilities: The intent is to specify the roles and responsibilities of stakeholders regarding the export process and how these compare and contrast between the U.S. and Singapore, e.g., how the roles and responsibilities of a freight forwarder in Singapore differ from those of a freight forwarder in U.S.

2. Level of Interaction: The intent is to understand the communications and decision-making structures in Singapore and the U.S. and how they compare and contrast.

2.2.1.1 Roles and Responsibilities of the Stakeholders

All the stakeholders in the both export processes are now listed and defined. Note that some of the key players, although performing the same functions, may be referred to by different names or titles. For example, a drayage company in the U.S. performs essentially the same functions as a land transport operator in Singapore.

1. Shipper / Seller: An individual or firm that wants to move goods that it owns or controls.

A shipper does not own or operate a ship, but it owns and controls the goods to be moved. A seller is a specific type of shipper who is shipping goods that have been purchased by the consignee.

2. Freight Forwarder: A firm or individual who performs tasks to facilitate the shipment of goods. The freight forwarder acts on the behalf of the shipper and receives compensation from the shipper and, in some cases, from the consignee. A freight forwarder in Singapore performs the same tasks as those performed by a freight forwarder, a marine terminal operator, and an ocean carrier in the U.S. For instance:

• A freight forwarder in Singapore is responsible for assembling all export documentation. In the U.S. a marine terminal operator may also arrange for inspection and clearance by customs.

• In Singapore the freight forwarder coordinates the activities of the trucking function with the land transport operators, while in the U.S. the ocean carrier can



also have agreements with drayage companies and rail carriers and might coordinate the delivery of goods to the terminal.

3. Ocean Carrier: Owns ships and transports goods from port to port. An ocean carrier in the U.S. may carry out additional coordination functions, including:

• Maintaining an equipment inventory list (refer to section 2.2.3)

• Providing a load tendering agreement for truck or rail, which would then generate a train manifest.

• Coordinating the delivery of containers with the marine terminal operator.

4. Warehouse Operators: Individuals or parties that operate warehouses or storage areas. Warehouse operators can also perform value-added services, such as picking, packing, labeling, and sub-assembly. A port operator, forwarder, or shipper usually owns a warehouse.

5. Land Transport Operators / Drayage Company: Land transport operators (in Singapore) and drayage companies (in the U.S.) manage land transportation into and out of a. Land transport operators and drayage companies are often part of larger organization providing various third-party logistics services. In the U.S. the ocean carrier will typically have agreements with the drayage company for trucking goods for intermodal transport.

6. Depot Operators: Deport operators own and manage containers and are usually owned by the carrier and are based at the port terminals.

7. Equipment Suppliers: Equipment suppliers own and lease intermodal equipment including chassis, trailers, containers, and tractors.

8. Regulators: Government agents and trade organizations in charge of approving and inspecting goods being traded.

9. Port Operator/Marine Terminal Operator: Port operators coordinate much of the work between the various stakeholders in the process of loading or discharging cargo. In Singapore, PSA, or Port of Singapore Authority, controls all the port operations. Marine terminal operators generally work for specific carriers. There are no terminal operators specific to a certain carrier in Singapore. The marine terminal operators have additional responsibilities in the export function in the U.S., including:

• Clearing for Customs and other government agencies

• They may or may not inspect containers

• They must review the Drayer’s contract and confirm all interchange agreements.



10. Intermodal Marketing Company: Intermodal marketing companies work for forwarders to coordinate the movement of goods between transport modes (within U.S.). They are thus, unique to the U.S. process.

11. Rail Carrier: Rail carriers bring in goods from various places within the U.S. before the goods are transported to the marine terminal. Rail carriers are not part of the export process in Singapore. Goods carried by rail from neighboring countries like Malaysia and Thailand, fall under imports or transshipment processes.

12. Destination/Consignee: The party to whom goods will be delivered in the country of destination.

2.2.1.2 Interaction As in Figure 1, the freight forwarder appointed by the shipper coordinates the export and trans-shipment processes in Singapore. The shipper initiates the process by sending shipment instructions containing destination, consignee details, products, quantities, warehouse and delivery dates to the forwarder.

Figure 1: High-level Interaction Between Various Stakeholders in the Export Process in Singapore

The forwarder coordinates with the ocean carrier, land transport operators, regulators, and ports to ensure that the export process is going on smoothly. At every point the stakeholders send the forwarders relevant update documents to keep them posted and for them to prepare the necessary documentation. The forwarders obtain necessary permits and approvals from the different governmental bodies, e.g., the Trade Development Board (Singapore) and U.S. Customs.

Figure 2 shows the high-level interaction between the various stakeholders in the U.S. export process. There is no central party coordinating all the activities. The forwarder, carrier and the marine terminal operator all share the responsibilities, which will be further described in the next section where we describe the differences in functional areas (Section 2.2.2).

Forwarder

Shipper

Warehouse Operators

Port Operator Ocean Carrier

Depot Operator

Regulator Land Trans. Operators



Figure 2: High-level Interaction Between Various Stakeholders in the Export Process in the U.S.

The export process could have various players depending on where the goods being exported originate. If the goods are being transported by truck or rail before they can be moved to a marine terminal, parties like intermodal marketing companies and intermodal carriers (be it rail or truck) may be involved. Other parties possibly involved in the U.S. are drayage companies and/or independent truck operators. Unlike in Singapore, the U.S. trucker is responsible for inspecting the containers and equipment pick up for transport.

2.2.2 Functional Areas

There is a mandatory set of functions that has to be carried out for any export process in any country. What differ from country to country are the degree of automation and regulation and the list of stakeholder responsibility assignments. The mandatory processes that need to be carried out in any export process are:

1. Process shipment

2. Obtain empty containers

3. Pick and pack

4. Deliver containers to the port

5. Prepare export documentation

6. Release export.

The U.S. process maps were developed to show the intermodal movement of goods, and hence the export process, was divided into the following areas:

Forwarder

Shipper

Marine Terminal Op

Drayage Company

Ocean Carrier

Intermodal Marketing Co.

Regulators

Rail Carrier



1. Export dray pick-up and transport to export rail (1,2 and 3 in the Singapore classification)

2. Export rail transport (4 in the Singapore classifications)

3. Export dray transport to vessel (4 in the Singapore classifications)

4. Vessel load and transport (5 in the Singapore classifications)

For our comparison we will use the broader functional classifications used to draw the Singapore maps. The following describes the functional differences at each step of the process.

Process Shipment Notification

The first step in both the processes is initiated by the shipper/seller who sends the shipment instructions/order for goods to the freight forwarder. And in both U.S. and Singapore, the forwarder contacts the ocean carrier to book the shipment.

In the U.S., the forwarder might contact the intermodal carrier to handle the transport, who would handle the entire supply chain involving dray, ocean, and rail. This is by virtue of the fact that the goods being transported might be brought from distant places by dray and rail before being transported to the specific marine terminal. In Singapore, the land transport operators are contacted to handle the delivery of containers to the warehouse and the goods from the warehouse to the ports.

The forwarder in the U.S. would contact the marine terminal at this stage for them to produce the stow plan. The stow plan generates the ocean carrier bill of lading, export manifest, and load verification documents. In Singapore, the ports/marine terminals are not informed of the shipment till after the containers are loaded (or ‘stuffed’).

Obtain Empty Containers

In Singapore, the ocean carrier confirms the vessel booking number to the forwarder who in turn informs the shipper, warehouse and land transport operator to coordinate the next step of the process.

In the U.S. export process, the ocean carrier, who sends the vessel booking numbers to the Equipment Inventory List (EIL), carries out this coordination task. The EIL triggers or initiates an EDI signal so that a load tendering agreement for rail or dray can be produced. This starts the process of picking up an empty container from the equipment supplier (who can be an ocean carrier at the marine terminal) and ultimately delivering the loaded container back to the marine terminal. At each point, the EIL is updated to track the movement of the containers. Thus, the ocean carrier helps coordinate the container acquisition and delivery process.

In Singapore, the land transport operators coordinate the process by planning deliver routes, identifying and allocating resources, etc.



The depot operators handle the containers and exchange Equipment Interchange Report (EIR) with the driver from the land transport operators. In the U.S., the EIR links in to the EIL, which eventually goes into the cargo manifest.

One key difference at this point is that the truckers in the U.S. are responsible for the inspection of the equipment.

Pick and Pack

In the U.S. export process that we are studying, picking and packing of containers has not been shown explicitly. They are either handled by the shipper or by specific third parties. In Singapore, the warehouse operators (which could be owned by the shipper/forwarder/port) are in charge of ensuring proper handling and checking of goods at this stage. A trucker in Singapore has no checking responsibilities.

Delivery Containers to Ports

In the US export process, when cargo is transported by truck or rail before it can be moved to a marine terminal, the ocean carrier generates a load tendering agreement. The ocean carrier also has a contract for transport with drayage companies.

The ocean carrier does not coordinate the delivery of goods to the ports in Singapore. The land transport operators, and the forwarders and the port to some extent, coordinate the process.

Prepare Export Documentation

The export documentation part is quite similar in both the countries, with the forwarder preparing the house bill of lading and the carrier sending the ocean bill of lading. The EIL, which forms an important part of the export process in the U.S., does not exist in Singapore.

Release Export

The port operations before the containers are loaded onto the ship are handled the same way for both countries. The ports plan the loading details and supervise the loading of the containers.

2.2.3 Information Technology Systems

The drive towards improved efficiency is highly correlated with the increasing use of information technology (IT); therefore, a study of the current processes is not complete without understanding the IT in place. As mentioned earlier, various IT systems are used at different steps of the export process. In-depth study of these systems is beyond the scope of our current study. These systems used can be divided into the following categories:



1. Trade Documentation System: This connects the trading parties to the regulatory bodies (customs and other clearing agencies). In Singapore, this system is TradeNet and in the US it is Automated Export System (AES).

2. Port Management System: The terminal operators manage their planning, allocation, and scheduling processes using this system. A port management system can also include tracking and other built-in workflows for security. The Singapore port uses CITOS (Computer Integrated Terminal System). There is no specific terminal management system used by the operators in the U.S.

3. Community Wide Web-based Networks: These are used by all the stakeholders in the shipping community as one-stop information on all the needed data. Stakeholders can submit requests, track container, check vessel schedules, etc. PortNet, developed by the PSA, connects the entire shipping community in Singapore. FIRST (Freight Information in Real-time System for Transport) is a system developed by the port authorities of New York and New Jersey to for similar purposes as PortNet (www.firstnynj.com).

4. Others: The rest of the systems focus on specific needs of the export process, which includes specific tracking devices, gate in-out checking systems, equipment tracking systems, etc. Various new technologies like X-Ray and gamma ray screening devices, wireless devices for tracking and tracing, and electronic seals, have been introduced at various ports to support specific functions in the export process. Encouraged by the U.S., numerous pilots are being tested at various port in the U.S, e.g., CEDEX and BoxNet in Singapore and the Sea Link trucker identification system at the New York and New Jersey Ports.

The following table provides a summary of some of the key systems mentioned thus far:

Name of System Category of System

Singapore U.S.

1. Trade Documentation TradeNet AES

2. Port Management CITOS

3. Community Wide Web-Based PortNet FIRST

4. Others BoxNet, CEDEX Sea Link Trucker

ID System

http://www.firstnynj.com/



Various key technology companies are developing information technology solutions which can meet the new security requirements at the ports while ensuring efficiency is not compromised. U.S. Customs is undertaking an initiative called the Automated Commercial Environment (ACE) to modernize its activities. ACE seeks to connect the entire shipping community in the U.S. (www.customs.ustreas.gov/xp/cgov/toolbox/about/modernization/ace/).

2.2.4 Information Exchange

At each step in the export process information is exchanged between various parties. This information is very crucial to the cargo export process, and some of this information goes into the required export documentation. Many, but not all, of the documents are common across both the countries. The following table compares some of the key documents/information instruments exchanged between the stakeholders in the U.S. and Singapore. We remark that some of these data are manually inserted while some are inserted through Electronic Data Interchange (EDI). The EDIFACT standard is followed in the trading community for the exchange of information. The specific EDI code numbers are captured in the U.S. maps but have not been captured in the Singapore maps. The list below is by no means completely exhaustive. However, it captures most of the key information instruments.

Source/Destination No:

Information Instrument

Singapore/US Singapore US

1. Shipment Instruction/Order for Goods Shipper/FF Shipper/FF

2. Transport Instructions/ Load tendering request for Dray, Ocean or Rail

FF FF

3. Vessel Booking FF/OC FF/OC or IMC/OC

3. Booking Confirmation/Vessel Booking Confirmation

OC/FF OC/FF and MTO

4. Loading Appointment Request LTO/PO Not Applicable

5. Loading Appointment Details PO/LTO Not Applicable

6. Container Pick-Up Details OC/LTO and Depot Not Applicable

7. Equipment Inventory List (EIL) Not Applicable OC or OC /IMC (The

EIL could also be maintained by the ES

8. Load Tendering Agreement Not Applicable OC/Truck or RC



9. Release Order for Empty Container Carrier/Depot Not Applicable

10. Equipment Interchange Receipt (EIR) Depot/LTO Sent to the OC or ES’s

EIL

11. Packing List Warehouse/LTO and

FF Not Sure

12. House Bill of Lading FF/OC FF/OC

13. Ocean Bill of Lading OC/FF OC/FF

14. Permit Application/Export Authorization

FF/Regulators FF/OC/Regulators

15. Export Manifest/Cargo Manifest FF FF

16. Proof of Delivery Dest. FF/Source FF Dest. FF/Source FF

17. Load Tendering Agreement for Dray Not Applicable OC/Drayage Company

18. Trailer Interchange Agreement or One-time Contract for Transport

Not Applicable OC/Drayage Company

19. Load Tendering Agreement for Rail which generates the Train Manifest

Not Applicable OC/RC

20. Import Berthing Application (to ensure Berth Assignment

Not Applicable OC/MTO

3 CONCLUSIONS

Although the overall export processes in Singapore and the U.S. are quite similar, the issues faced by both countries differ. Inter-modal transfer within the U.S. can lead to relatively significant efficiency and security challenges as it brings more complexity into supply chains. This complexity, and hence vulnerability from the perspectives of both security and productivity, suggests a need to thoroughly understand the freight transportation process and enhance asset visibility by making greater use of enabling information technology.

Singapore’s small size helps to make it easier, relative to the U.S., to regulate and centralize shipping activities and easier to implement and coordinate operational processes in terms of new security initiatives, etc. However, by virtue of its small land area, costs due to increased traffic or greater retention of cargo at the ports for inspection are critical to the Singapore port, and hence it



is especially important that any change in operational processes be efficient so that the Singapore port can remain competitive.

4 REFERENCES

1. Andersen Consulting “Logistics Information System (LIS) Project”, Version 1.0, 19 June 1998.

2. The Logistics Institute Asia-Pacific, “The Asia-Pacific Sea Cargo Report”, Research Paper no: TLI-AP/01/02, 2002.

3. US Department of Transport and Intelligent Transportation Society of America “Intermodal Freight Technology Study”, June 13, 2000.

4. Hau L. Lee and Michael Wolfe, “Supply Chain Security Without Tears”, Supply Chain Management Review, January 1, 2003.

5. Marvin Bower and Benn Konsynski, “Singapore TradeNet: A Tale of One City”, Harvard Business Review, September 1995.

6. Howard Kunreuther, Geofrrey Heal, Peter R. Orszag, “Interdependent Security: Implications for Homeland Security Policy and Other Areas”, The Brookings Institution, Policy Brief #108, October 2002.

7. US Customs Service, Bureau of Census, Foreign Trade Division, “Outbound Process Improvement: Quality of US Export Trade Statistics – Automated Export System”, September 16 1998.

8. Tradenet, http://www.tradenet.gov.sg. 9. Portnet, http://www.portnet.com.sg. 10. US Customs, http://www.customs.ustreas.gov/. 11. http://www.tdctrade.com 12. Linda Rosencrance, “E-Commerce Speeds Business at U.S. Ports”,

http://www.computerworld.com/industrytopics/transportation/story/0,10801,54588,00.html.

13. Singapore Customs, http://www.gov.sg/customs/ 14. Maritime Port Authority of Singapore, http://www.mpa.gov.sg/.

http://www.tradenet.gov.sg/

http://www.portnet.com.sg/

http://www.tdctrade.com/

http://www.computerworld.com/industrytopics/transportation/story/0,10801,54588,00.html

http://www.computerworld.com/industrytopics/transportation/story/0,10801,54588,00.html

http://www.gov.sg/customs/

http://www.mpa.gov.sg/



APPENDIX

OceanCarrier

Remarks

System

Doc No: Version 1.0

Process Name:Page: 1 of 9

Shipper

FreightForwarder

LandTransportOperators

WarehouseOperators

DepotOperators

Regulators(TDB, CED)

PortOperators

Destination

Sea Cargo Export ProcessDated: 14/02/03

1. Process Shipment Notification

Confirm the shipment byproviding booking no, vessel

details and charges

ShipmentInstruction

Recieve and documentshipment instructions

ShipmentInstruction

Start - 1

Send shipment instructionscontaining destination, consigneedetails, products, quantities etc

Confirm-ation

Contact carrier tobook shipment

Carry out necessary securitychecks on goods, destination

A

Security Step 1 a

aThe Freight Forwarder has tocheck if goods need extrasecurity, the destination port isCTPAT, non-CTPAT, electronicprocessing or manualprocessing

No issues

Security issues

Make necessaryamendments/ obtain

permits

OceanCarrier

Remarks

System

Doc No: Version 1.0


Shipper

FreightForwarder


WarehouseOperators

DepotOperators


PortOperators

Destination


End-1

Send shipment confirmation toShipper, documentation to

warehouse

Confirm-ation

Shipmentdocument

ation

Shipmentdocument

ation

Coordinate ontransportation instruction

Coordinate regarding shipmentdetails (product, quantities, vesselsailing schedule, delivery times.)

A

1. Process Shipment Notification

Make additional securityarrangements, if necessary

Start - 3

Start - 2

OceanCarrier

Remarks

System

Doc No: Version 1.0


Shipper

FreightForwarder


WarehouseOperators

DepotOperators


PortOperators

Destination


Give container pick up detailsafter making sure relevant

security information is available

Start - 2

Call for emptycontainers

2. Obtain Empty Container from Depot and Deliver to Warehouse

Relevant depotoperators, yard location,

and container type

Security Step 2

Plan delivery requirements,routes, identify resource

requirements

Allocate resources after thoroughsecurity checks have been performed

(eg: on the drivers)Security Step 3

B

Arrange for pick-up and deliverytimes by sending Loading

Appointment Requests (LAR)

PortNet

LAR

LAR

OceanCarrier

Remarks

System

Doc No: Version 1.0


Shipper

FreightForwarder


WarehouseOperators

DepotOperators


PortOperators

Destination


LAR

Send confirmation of containerdelivery time at port by sending

Loading Appointment Details (LAD)

LAD

Send truck to pick-up empty container

Allocate appropriatecontainer

Update containerdetails

End-2

PortNet

LAD

BoxNet/CEDEX d

B

Security Step 4 c

cThe Depot operators need tohave proper systemdocumentation of the allocatedcontainers to ensure propertracking and security

dBoxnet was implemented byPSA to improvecommunication between theport/depot terminal andhauliers

EIR

C

File EIR

EIR

EIR

Raise EquipmentInterchange Report

(EIR)

BoxNet/CEDEX

Release containersUpdate careers oncontainer out

EIR

2. Obtain Empty Container from Depot and Deliver to Warehouse

? b

bWhat do the regulators usethe EIR for? Why do theyneed a copy?

OceanCarrier

Remarks

System

Doc No: Version 1.0


Shipper

FreightForwarder


WarehouseOperators

DepotOperators


PortOperators

Destination


Start - 3

3. Pick and Pack and Deliver Stuffed Container to Port

Pick liist

Prepare Pick List andshipment documentationSchedule tasks

PickPerform other value-added services likeassembling

Pick liist

PackStage shipment atloading dock

Packingliist

Packingliist

Exchange receipt forempty containers

C

Stuff containers

D

Security Step 5 e

eSecurity initiatives need to be kept inmind while allocating resourcesOnly authorized personnel should beallowed to pick and packSecurity guards should be employedto ensure packed containers are nottampered with

OceanCarrier

Remarks

System

Doc No: Version 1.0


Shipper

FreightForwarder


WarehouseOperators

DepotOperators


PortOperators

Destination


Send inventoryupdate

Packingliist

Note packing list

Shipmentdocument

ation

Issue receipt of containerdelivery

PortNet

Receipt

Receipt

Send receipt toforwarder to confirm

delivery

Receipt Receipt

End-3

Packingliist

D

Load container withgoodsVerify count

Packingliist

Perform customschecksSeal container

NoDiscrepancy

Discrepancy? f

Release containers/goods

3. Pick and Pack and Deliver Stuffed Container to Port

Security Step 6

Start - 4

Start - 5

fThere might be specific informationflows necessary at this stage.The container seals (refer to SAVImaps) could be used to race andtrack the containers

End-3

OceanCarrier

Remarks

System

Doc No: Version 1.0


Shipper

FreightForwarder


WarehouseOperators

DepotOperators


PortOperators

Destination


Security Step 8 g

Apply for Permitbased on clear details

of shipment

Start - 4

Prepare and send theHouse Bill of Lading

(HBoL)

4. Prepare Export Documentation

Finalize shippingdocumentationSend Ocean Bill of Lading(OBoL) and Packing List

End-4

HBoL

HBoL

Tradenet

Approve permit and cargorelease. Update tradenet

Tradenet

PackingList

OBoL

PackingList

OBoL

Send Bill of Lading, cargomanifest and packing list todestination forwarderSend all documents, certificatesand permits to shipper

PackingList

BoL

CargoManifest

Tradenet

gConditions for approvalmight change with newsecurity initiativesThe 24 hour manifest rulefor US bound ships ifapplicable, the regulatorsneeds to send alldocuments to destinationport

Security Step 9

OceanCarrier

Remarks

System

Doc No: Version 1.0


Shipper

FreightForwarder


WarehouseOperators

DepotOperators


PortOperators

Destination


Security Step 10 h

5. Release Export

Storage and stack up ofcontainer

Start - 5

Give Location anddirection to truck

hSecurity initiatives need to be kept in mind while allocating resourcesOnly authorized personnel should be allowed to load/unload trucksThe drivers etc should have proper authorization documentsSecurity guards should be employed to ensure packed containers are not tampered with

Flow through GateSystem

Goods needinspection

No inspectionrequired

Inspect goods

E

Gate-System

OceanCarrier

Remarks

System

Doc No: Version 1.0


Shipper

FreightForwarder


WarehouseOperators

DepotOperators


PortOperators

Destination


Load container ontovessel for export

End-5

E

Plan for yard allocation,loading, pre-vessel

handling

CITOS i

5. Release Export

iThe CITOS system is a container terminalmanaging system used by PSA. Details on thissystem in accompanying slides

comparison of export processes may03 flow chart

Documents