Mixed messages

It's certainly a bit of a cliché, but one of the first messages from every gate solutions provider is that one size doesn’t fit all. Even if there is such a thing as a simple gate automation system, most ports are looking to bolt on a few or more extras, and the gate solutions providers are continuing to offer an expanding portfolio, to the point that their systems are increasingly overlapping with the port’s terminal operating system.

Even the definition of ‘gate’ is up for question: “There are several ‘gates’ to consider at container terminals,” says Meta Rotenberg, vice-president marketing and business development at Israel-based Hi-Tech Solutions (HTS). “Although historically the traditional gate represented the physical entry/exit of trucks, the alternative ‘gates’ for OCR [optical character recognition] technology solutions can be understood as each location where virtual eyes are required to ‘see’ containers. This would include not only the truck gate, but also the vessel and rail points of entry/exit. HTS has developed a product for each of the gating areas of a container terminal, including rail OCR and crane OCR.”

Due to port congestion, emission controls, increased security and changes in operational processes, there is a drive to reduce truck turnround times through the introduction of technology, says Ms Rotenberg. “A trend we are seeing involves numerous third party systems requiring extensive messaging, tight integration with high accuracy and real time processing. From the addition of RFID tags to biometrics, from appointment systems to terminal container handling equipment automation, numerous systems are being integrated in the terminal operations.”

She describes the picture where a truck arrives at a terminal where technology is required such as RFID, federal ID, state ID, port ID, local terminal ID plus appointment identifier. “That trucker, upon arrival, may then receive a piece of paper or text message to his cell phone regarding details of his current transaction. The individual terminals need to expedite information processing in order to not only maintain current standards of trucker turnaround time, but decrease them. Some of the technology is introduced as government mandates and others by terminal operations seeking improved trucker turn-around time.”

Security systems are also ever increasing in demand, including CCTV, and those requiring the biometrics of the truck drivers and also all personnel accessing the terminal, she says.

This increase in third party systems means that ports perceived the integration of those technologies as a significant challenge, says Ms Rotenberg. HTS’s GCS middleware monitors, processes and records all messaging between subsystems, whether modern or ‘legacy’, she says.

However: “A challenge faced today is helping potential customers understand the simplicity of integration, especially between OCR systems and the TOS.”

John Lund, sales manager for Finland-based Visy, says: “Historically, the TOS was managing the yard itself and maybe things going on the ship, but some TOS providers are now expanding out of ‘strict terminal operations’ and into the realm of gate operating systems (GOS), data collection, and IT systems integration. GOS providers, who have typically managed data collection and access control issues with technologies like OCR, now find themselves doing work with traffic flow management, systems integration and even some automation. So essentially you can end up with an overlap of what the TOS and GOS providers can do, although neither can 100% perform the function of the other.

Some TOS providers see gate solutions providers like Visy as a threat, or competition, he says. “But the reality is that we all have to work together. It is a situation where some TOS/gate providers may be partners on some projects and competitors on others – and that can make for a pretty interesting and messy mix in the end.

"Part of the problem for customers is that this sends mixed signals because they don’t really know what the relationship is between the two. Can they work together or can’t they? In almost all situations, the TOS and GOS of any two providers will be compatible, but a strategic or commercial consideration from one provider could block the integration. This means that the customer may not get the technology mix that they want, which affects how they want their operation to run, which undermines the point of the technology upgrade in the first place.”

A recent development from Visy is the Quay Gate Operating System (QCOS), which treats the quay as a ‘gate’ similar to road/rail gates.

“It works by taking mega-resolution images of boxes, running OCR over the images, then storing the images for damage inspection purposes,” says Mr Lund. “The OCR data is used for systems such as the TOS. The QCOS will also link the movement to cargo handling equipment or lorries as appropriate.”

Extending this into the yard, straddle carriers or shuttle carriers can also be equipped with OCR to save time on each transaction, he says. “Strads can also be equipped with OCR to roam the stacks and search for lost or misplaced boxes. These same strads can also reference the TOS on the box location. If a strad OCR read reveals that a box in the yard is in a different location than what the TOS expects, an alarm will be sent to an operator and they can verify the box number based on the OCR images. This is a simple, safe and inexpensive way to verify stack integrity.”

US-based APS Technology Group’s automated gate system includes OCR for container and licence plate recognition, damage inspection imaging, driver interaction kiosks and gate operating system. For rail, it has OCR systems for containers and rail wagons, as well as a patented system for tracking precise equipment locations along the processing and storage tracks within a facility.

“We also have an extensive portfolio of crane-based products, including OCR, our patented MatchMaker system which complete the handoff between the crane and terminal tractor, and our SureStow application that provides load and discharge positions of containers on the vessel,” says APS business development director Matt Ramsey. “In addition, we have developed user applications, such as X-Clerk, to allow our customers to remotely correct exceptions and review images that can be applied to any of these functional areas.”

He says one of the biggest challenges for ports sorting out their gate solutions revolves around a customs or security process. “Certain paperwork and required approvals slow down the gate process despite the operators’ best efforts,” he says. “Because of factors like congestion and restricted capacity, many operators are moving towards electronic paperwork and web-based solutions that ease the implementation of solutions like an automated gate.”

What are customers asking for in the ports sector: is price always the main priority? “Not always,” says Mr Ramsey. “The main priority is – and should be – value. Terminal automation is not a ‘one size fits all’ commodity, and the upfront cost should be weighed very carefully with the long-term value and ROI the solution provides. 

“Our customers have varied reasons for automating their processes, whether at the gate, berth, rail or within the yard, but it always comes down to a solution that will meet their business objectives. This could include operating cost, security, safety of personnel, efficiency, throughput capacity. We can’t dictate what should be the value to any single customer until we understand what drives their business.”

Add-on options should offer cost reduction and/or revenue generation factors involved in the items mentioned, he says. “However, our customers are in business to grow. Automating these processes provides a stable cost basis as their volumes increase, and can help avoid high-cost projects such as terminal redesign when volumes exceed available space and resources. Very much the ‘do more with less’ philosophy.”