What the Golden Gate Bridge Means to LogTech
Welcome to the 61st edition of The LogTech Letter, a weekly look at the impact technology is having on the world of global and domestic logistics. Last week, I examined whether there was a correlation between the celeb status of the supply chain and recent investments in the digital forwarding model in Europe. This week, I try to explain why the search for innovation never really ends.
As a reminder, this is the place to turn on Fridays for quick reflection on a dynamic, software category, or specific company that’s on my mind. You’ll also find a collection of links to stories, videos and podcasts from me, my colleagues at the Journal of Commerce, and other analysis I find interesting.
For those that don’t know me, I’m Eric Johnson, senior technology editor at the Journal of Commerce and JOC.com. I can be reached at eric.johnson@ihsmarkit.com or on Twitter at @LogTechEric.
Let me start this week’s newsletter with one of the more famous historical clichés: the painting of the Golden Gate Bridge tale. The saying goes that the bridge took so long to paint that by the time the crew finished, it was time to start all over again on the other side. Whether apocryphal or not, it is seen as an example of how some things in life never really end, and how processes are often more about maintaining than finishing.
Viewed through the cipher of logistics technology, this tale rings pretty true. The minute an organization signs on the dotted line to use a piece of software, there’s a certain period in which the technology is implemented, staff is trained, users become proficient, and hacks and customizations are developed. Sometimes, the need to go back into the market (to complement or even replace) means that the bridge is never really ever fully painted.
But let me pull back to earlier in the process, to the part of the technology investment lifecycle where a company first scrutinizes its needs. This is the research/discovery phase of the process (a part where I attempt, both here and at JOC.com to be particularly valuable). If the implementation/proficiency phase of software usage is an ongoing process with no defined finish line, then the research/discovery phase is like a turbocharged version of that.
At least when a decision has been made to buy or lease a piece of software, there’s a defined starting point and deadline by which there should be tangible ROI. Whether those goals are achieved is another matter. And, the overall software market remains dynamic, not stopping in its tracks simply because your organization finally made a decision. So the implementation/proficiency phase is not static. But…
…the research/discovery phase is, quite literally, always ongoing. The need to research what’s in the market, the need to sort out what works and what doesn’t, to know which companies can deliver on their promises, to understand which companies have exciting but realistic roadmaps. The need to then map all those variables (and so many more) against your company’s needs. The reality that your company’s needs change over time as well. Remember the software you just bought and implemented? That changes the picture of your future needs. All of these considerations need to be constantly taking place.
That’s because the landscape is constantly shifting. M&A is running wild. Venture rounds are too. So are private equity investments and strategic ones. The environment looks like quicksand, but there are spots of extreme stability studded throughout. The challenge is to look for those spots among an array of sinkholes (to be clear I’m not suggesting certain technology providers are sinkholes, rather that the wrong relationship, even with a good provider, is essentially a sinkhole).
This is like painting the Golden Gate Bridge in four dimensions. The color and shape of the bridge change constantly, new paint brands come on the market, paint application technology becomes more efficient but trickier to manage at the same time. Oh, and you’re in a life or death competition with the Bay Bridge.
Gartner a decade ago referred to this challenge as the bi-modal supply chain. Essentially, it meant you needed to keep the plane flying while changing the engines in mid-flight. But it also now means having the ability to research new engine technology, and maybe even figure out if there’s some new technology that would replace the engine, if not the entire plane itself.
It’s a challenge, and not one that most in the industry are equipped to undertake on a regular, much less always-on basis. Perhaps there’s space for a research-as-a-service offering that can be outsourced completely or turned on and off to supplement internals teams when they run out of bandwidth. Either way, the challenge is to re-paint your supply chain and start all over again, day after day after day, and it’s not for the weak of heart. Tech is always a work in progress.
Here’s a roundup of pieces on JOC.com the past week from my colleagues and myself (note: there is a paywall):
On the surface, a container line announcing it is using a standard format for all the facilities through which shipments pass doesn’t sound like a huge innovation. And maybe it shouldn’t be seen as such, but it is progress toward a standard that the Digital Container Shipping Association helped develop. The fact that it took nearly a year for any of the DCSA members to adopt the standard is another matter, and one that’s worth a discussion of its own later.
project44 is taking on truckload booking, the company announced this week. A couple developments worth noting here: first, it’s the first application outside of visibility that it has layered on its network of underlying carrier connectivity. Second, it throws project44 into a market with some big players that connect truck location with available capacity projections. It’s a logical step, but still one worth paying attention to.
LA-based startup Vendorflow this week announced a $1.3 million seed round, with some notable investors. The company is targeting 3PLs that need to coordinate with carriers overwhelmed by the different apps and messaging platforms they need to use.
Interesting partnership here: two visibility providers (that use different means to generate insights for shippers) are partnering to link truck telematics and sensor-based shipment condition information. This will, by definition, not be useful for everyone, but it’s an intriguing offering for some.
Some upcoming events I’ll be involved in:
Looking forward to a great discussion with Flexport CTO James Chen and Convoy Chief Product Officer Ziad Ismail at 11:30 am ET/8:30 am PT Oct. 21 at Flexport’s Forward 2021 conference.
I’m moderating a JOC webinar at 2 pm Oct. 28 on visibility with Erin O’Leary of the Janel Group, Gregg Mau of Crocs, and Jeffrey Cronkshaw of Lancia Consult. Register here to catch this. Given the state of the market right now, and the number of discussions I’m having around global, multimodal visibility, this should be a great one!
Need a reason to come to TPMTech in Long Beach Feb. 24-25? Check this quick video to see why you should be there.
Disclaimer: This newsletter is in no way affiliated with The Journal of Commerce or IHS Markit, and any opinions are mine only.