1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188 
management
Page 97
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
matters by John Darker, AMBIM
Science in transport (6)
Computers in vehicle scheduling
IT IS I think, axiomatic that a high-wage economy tends to be more efficient than its opposite. As wage and salary levels leap up—as in the present unrestrained and, perhaps, unrestrainable situation—computer manufacturers, system designers and consultants must be rubbing their hands with glee. Employers in industries such as transport, with its heavily traditional, conservative approach to pay and productivity policies, are being compelled by the sheer pressure of events to search for higher efficiency, and hence profitability, by recourse to modern principles of management and staff motivation and by the fullest practicable utilization of scientific and technological aids.
The typical road haulage or bus operator who entered the industry 40 or more years ago must curse, as I do, the frightful jargon which seems inseparable from computerization. Consider, for example, a recent Press release commending a simulation system, 5 rejoicing in the designation "HALF8" which allows "the features of a UNIVAC 1108 computer to be simulated on a UNIVAC 1107".
"Prior to the introduction of HALF8" one is told by the UCC Computer Centre, 143 Bromsgrove Street, Birmingham, 5, "the extended instruction repertoire of the 1108 meant that programs containing 1108 only instructions had to be amended before running on an 1107. Using HALF8 however, this transfer is far more readily achieved. The user inserts eight standardized control cards into the program run deck, having punched on one of the cards the drum address at which the simulated 1108 user drum area is to begin. No recompilation or further user action is required and the program can be immediately run on an 1107 under an EXEC 11 operating system containing the HALF8 package...."
I have no doubt that a computer systems analyst would comprehend in a flash that the writer of this gobbledegook is selling an adaptor. But does the message have to be wrapped up, positively cocooned. in jargon? Sympathetic as I am to the widespread introduction of computerization in road transport, progress will be faster if advertisers and public relations people realize that most of the men with cheque books in surface transport left.school before computers were on the market.
The National Computing Centre Ltd (Quay House, Quay Street, Manchester M3 3HLT) recently issued a useful survey "Computers in Vehicle Scheduling," setting out the results of a questionnaire sent mainly to large own-account operators and to organizations responsible for the development of appropriate computer programs.
The study was set in train because the National Computing Centre (NCC) recognized that the UK was spending, back in 1966, around £2350m a year on the transport of goods by road. In 1960 the estimated total expenditure was a mere £1410m. When the current lunatic round of wage and salary increases has been digested road transport of goods will probably be costing some £3000m a year—a sum large enough to make even marginal savings worth any amount of effort.
Vehicle utilization If the NCC study can be believed, in 1966 no less than £29.6m could have been saved as a result of better vehicle utilization through the use of improved methods of vehicle scheduling. And vehicle scheduling is only one of the ways in which the computer boffins feel they can contribute to transport efficiency.
The projected saving of £29.6m through improved trip planning was based on an estimated six per cent saving in the cost of fleets employing more than 10 vehicles. Such fleets were responsible for 21 per cent of the total ton mileage in 1966.
Of course, it would be absurd to pretend that there are no snags in using computers for vehicle scheduling. The report says baldly: "A computer cannot think; its effectiveness depends entirely on the way in which it is used. It has to be programmed to carry out tasks, which because of their sheer magnitude, are beyond the scope of human beings. The systems analyst and the programmer must know the full complexity of the job in hand in order to describe the problem in the correct terms for the computer to provide the appropriate solution." In short, if you feed a computer with tosh the output is tosh—no more and no less. It is very helpful, I feel, if cornputer-derived policies and programs can be tested against commonsense experience by the "match stick" methods once commended by Sir Alec Douglas Home! But that may not always be possible.
The NCC study "Computers in Vehicle Scheduling" shows the scope for the introduction of vehicle scheduling and the comparatively rapid increase in the number of firms interested. In in earlier study within distribution companies only 15 per cent had actually put schemes into operation, and in the case of the food, drink and tobacco industry, where vehicle scheduling is most important, only one firm had implemented a computer scheduling system.
"The first plograms to be developed for vehicle schedZing were more appropriate for use in strategical studies, such as depot siting and fleet planning," says the report. "They were specifically designed for use in trip planning, but showed little success and even failure when used for this purpose because they were not robust enough to cope with all of the detailed constraints."
In co-operation with a study group of the Operational Research Society (62 Cannon Street, London EC4) the latest NCC survey shows that in 1967 54 organizations concerned with distribution had installed, were developing or planning to develop some kind of computer system for vehicle scheduling. This represents about 28 per cent of the sample of firms questioned. For the purpose of the new NCC survey this list of 54 firms was enlarged by the inclusion of 11 others known to be interested and NCC members not already included were invited to participate. The results are revealing.
It was fairly predictable that firms with fewer than 500 employees would not be interested in trip planning by computer; only two firms in the sample bothered to reply to the questionnaire. Interest increased rapidly with size of firm there being 12 replies from firms employing between 500 and 1500 and 30 replies from firms with a work force in excess of 5000.
Some 47 per dent of firms questioned with from six to 25 distribution centres responded to the questionnaire, indicating the scheduling problems of such sizeable firms. In contrast, very few replies were received from firms with from one to five distribution centres. Rather strangely, only 10 per cent of firms questioned with over 100 distribution centres replied to the questionnaire. Perhaps on this scale the large companies involved wanted to keep Their hard-won computer know-how to themselves!
Another question put to the sample firms concerned the number of delivery points. Most interest was forthcoming from firms