Cover Story
The primary differentiator for INTTRA at the time was that it was not part of a broader software suite and was set up primarily to enable bookings and shipping instructions submissions in a neutral way . It later built a sizable revenue stream selling ocean visibility data to other software vendors .
By the end of the 2000s , INTTRA had also largely shaken off the perception that it was in place mostly for the benefit of its initial backers — the container lines . Indeed , by the 2010s , it was more common than not that any given forwarder would be using INT- TRA to make bookings on behalf of its shipper customers .
INTTRA 2.0 ?
But as INTTRA was absorbed into the broader product suite of e2open , the system integration landscape was shifting . APIs went from being an obscure computer programming term to a customer-facing product selling point about system connectivity . And ocean carriers began to slowly see the potential of providing self-service tools directly to shippers and small forwarders via their websites . That has led to the current focus on driving shippers , especially smaller ones , to carriers ’ own portals .
Logistics system integration specialists have also been picking up on demand from shippers to have access to a range of carrier booking tools through a single interface .
“ For the big [ shippers ] buying directly , they are starting to not see the value of the forwarder handling the bookings .”
Youredi , one such vendor , offers a multicarrier platform for shippers that do not want to make a direct investment in integrating with carriers ’ own booking portals . Those integrations can be tricky even if a carrier is using a standard booking API developed by the Digital Container Shipping Association ( DCSA ), a nonprofit consortium of nine shipping lines building technical standards for shipping processes .
Shippers “ don ’ t have to care if it ’ s an API , EDI [ electronic data interchange ], or XML ,” a programming language used for storing and transmitting data , said Youredi CEO Jaakko Elovaara . “ If you work with three carriers , they have different versions of the DCSA API , so you may need 10 versions of an integration .”
The multicarrier platform is , in some ways , the evolutionary version of INT- TRA , a carrier-neutral mechanism for making electronic bookings in a homogenous way . Many in the industry have called DCSA a de facto INTTRA 2.0 , but that is not a clean comparison . The association is merely providing the tools to create an INTTRA 2.0 environment , not building that environment itself .
The fall in e2open ’ s market share , tacitly acknowledged in April , was confirmed by a range of sources that spoke with the Journal of Commerce in recent months . All have said that various carriers and forwarders are seeking to lessen their reliance on INTTRA for bookings .
The questions hanging over that development are meaningful to the broader shipper-forwarder relationship . Does INTTRA ’ s waning hold on bookings portend an environment where shippers will use digital means to make their own bookings ? Or will forwarders still largely control that process , only via newer platforms ?
Bryn Heimbeck , president of logistics software provider Trade Tech , said that for smaller shippers not able to command top-tier relationships with carriers , forwarders will still have a large role as process managers , not just capacity providers .
“ For the big [ shippers ] buying directly , they are starting to not see the value of the forwarder handling the bookings ,” Heimbeck said . “ Back in the day , when each document had to be created , it made sense to outsource that . But there will be a tilt toward in-house for the big players .”
email : eric . johnson @ spglobal . com www . joc . com July 29 , 2024 | Journal of Commerce 15