DC Velocity - December 2011

ed by passive and static current systems.

His conclusion? We remain amazingly vulnerable to the entry of mechanisms that would wipe out a major port, cripple our supply systems, and bring down the global economy. Would that, could that, actually happen? The point may be debated, but Giermanski’s conclusions point to the worst case. And the best case, in our view, would be some level of devastation.

And yet, we, amidst the bureaucratic maneuvering, have yet to mandate the in-container application of demonstrably effective existing technology, container security devices (CSDs) that monitor movement, report contents, detect unauthorized entry, and more.

A FINAL SLAP IN THE FACE An ultimate irony, with potential consequences that are considerably beyond ironic, is that all of our efforts are focused on inbound cargo and containers. We pay no attention whatsoever to outbound containers. This is a remarkable oversight, given the rise of home-grown terrorism around the planet (which the Europeans recognize and act on) and the requirement that every single domestic passenger (outbound human cargo) is subjected to examination, often stringent and intrusive.

THE BEAT GOES ON

In a subsequent think piece in the Sept. 26 MarEx Newsletter, Dr. Giermanski took a hard look at CBP’s Automated Commercial Environment (ACE) program. CBP maintains that ACE will better protect us from attempts by terrorists to use the international supply chain as a means to attack the United States, or in a more benign application, to smuggle illegal cargo into the country.

His conclusion is that ACE, whatever it is claimed to be, is not a cargo security system and reveals nothing about real cargo to CBP.

Much of the rest of the world is begin-

ning to understand the usefulness and importance of a chain-of-custody system from initial origin to ultimate destination. C-TPAT, to be fair, has source-to-destination intentions, but, as noted, remains voluntary. ACE, based on interviews, is reported to be full of gaps and inconsistencies, with differing interpretations of when and how discrepancies are handled and reported.

The ultimate questions center on whether the agencies charged with protecting us are: 1) capable; 2) influenced by transient political correctness; and/or 3) genuinely understand the execution processes involved in global supply chain operations.

BAITING THE BEAR

So, Giermanski soldiers on, continuing to make his case and constantly digging deeper into areas of concern for supply chain security, and, consequently, national security. We could get into—and he has gotten into—border security issues and the related political sensitivities.

He has been brave enough to ask tough questions of DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano. Questions tough enough that we, wishing to stay off any no-fly list, might hesitate to pose.

We, in turn, are positioning these issues and questions in front of you. Consumed as most of us are with the nitty-gritty of on-time complete shipments, pick/pack/ship productivity, and the cost of fuel, it is an imperative to consider the larger issues from time to time.

Especially those that have the potential to bring us all down. Keep your eyes peeled for black feathers. ;

“If ads were forklifts, it would require 100% of this space, blue, yellow & green, to advertise a conventional forklift.” “It would require only 75% of this space, yellow & green, to advertise a reach truck.”

“Advertising the Flexi only requires 60% of the space, just the green! Turn your blue and yellow into green ($$$) with a Flexi.”

Art van Bodegraven, practice leader at S4 Consulting, may be reached at (614) 336-0346 or avan@columbus.rr.com. You can read his blog at http://blogs.dcvelocity.com/the_art_of_art/. Kenneth B. Ackerman, president of The Ackerman Company, can be reached at (614) 488-3165 or ken@warehousing-forum.com.