S11111011110 ISSUE
Page 32
Page 33
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
There is often no industry standard for IT equipment in the trucking world, and the choice of systems is bewildering. Toby Clark takes a look at some of the options on offer to hauliers with an eye to competing through IT in the future.
For ten years or more, vehicle operators have been hearing from firms offering vehicle tracking, in-cab communications, resource planning, load monitoring, stock control and routeirg & scheduling systems. Dozens of contenders have appeared, some claiming to integrate all these functions as fleet management systems or, an mom inclusively, telematics systems.
To their credit, some operators have made such sysns work profitably. But why is this such a confusing sate enter?
Apart from the technical jargon, one of the main obstacles to entering the telematics market is the lack of generally accepted industry standards. Without clearly defined performance criteria, or even commonly accepted descriptions of what a system can do, it is difficult to compare the various contenders.
All of these telematics functions need both a platform and an interface. The platform consists of on-board computers communicating with devices such as engine management systems, satellite navigation units and temperature monitors, as well as a wireless communications system. The platform also includes desk-based control systems either at the operator's base or at a service provider (an agency which collates and manages the data). The interface is whatever communicates with the operator; be it a software package, a web page, a telephone helpline (giving information on demand) or simply a printed monthly report As far as the operator is concerned, the platform should not be relevant—he will only "see" the interface, and some fleet management firms are happy for this to be the case. lsotrak is one of them: spun off from NFC in 1999, it describes itself as a "supplier of supply chain technology services" and concentrates on the service it provides rather than the hardware platform.
Chief Operating Officer Craig Sears-Black says: "Our role is much less about putting computing power into trucks than about dealing with the information that comes out of them." Isotrak marketing director Clive Girling adds: "Isotrak would be very happy to have every truck pre-installed with a system. If you look five years down the line every truck should have a 'black box' installed, but what form that will take I don't know."
Telematics is going to play an increasingly prominent role in the industry—as operating costs rise, any way of improving vehicle utilisation is valuable—so it would make sense if there was a standard hardware platform.
There is already a standard for internal electronic communication within a vehicle (the CAN bus or SAE J1939 system) so why hasn't this gone further? furling says: "A lot of the vehicle manufacturers have dabbled with putting telematics units in their trucks. They all feel they should be doing it, but they all see it as a point of market differentiation. The industry is very immature, it's not consolidated at all. We wish it were!"
At the other end of the system, where the fleet operator sees the information he needs, do we need a standard interface? The World Wide Web has shown how a relatively simple communications standard can become almost universal and lead to an infinite number of user interfaces: you can access the same Internet site via any brand of computer, a "web TV" or ever a palmtop PC. If a tracking or fleet management system is based around a purpose-built computer and proprietary software, installation and customer support become major issues. Web-based access to the same information is likely to be cheaper and can be supported on an existing computer network. Service providers such as DaimlerChrysier's FleetBoard are moving towards this model.
If a relatively simple communications standard can lead to a revolution in computer use, isn't there room for a similar move in vehicle systems? The advent of onboard computer platforms such as Windows CF (see Freightliner box) could be the start of a change, allowing third parties to write appropriate software and to connect virtually any type of hardware. Eventually, powerful systems like this could bypass the need for a true onboard standard, by "translating" between the truck's own systems and any add-on systems.
For now, however, we are left with a lack of standards and a confusing variety of solutions. If an industry-wide standard for vehicle interfaces is on the way, it cannot Come too soon.