Cargo data is rarely exchanged through a single, consistent channel. This insight looks at how the continued reliance on emails, spreadsheets, messaging apps, and formal systems at the same time leads to fragmented communication, multiple versions of the truth, and increased operational risk.
Across geographical regions, with varying levels of system maturity, survey respondents report recurring structural, behavioural, technical, and commercial constraints.
The survey responses highlight challenges in the daily operations of both terminal operators and carriers. The responses were reviewed across both terminal and carrier roles to understand where challenges are shared, rather than focusing on isolated role-specific issues.
The results show that cargo data exchange remains fragmented, operationally uneven, and heavily reliant on manual processes.
Survey respondents routinely described how they exchange operational data through multiple channels at the same time, rather than through a single, structured system. The channels used range from formal digital interfaces to informal and manual tools.
Examples of how operational data is exchanged include email notifications, SMS alerts, phone or WhatsApp messages, online dashboards or portals, digital solutions, EDI, Excel, PDF, and other paper documents.
This experience was described by both terminal operators and carriers, highlighting how fragmentation is felt on both sides of the working relationship.
This enduring reliance on messaging applications, email, spreadsheets, and paper documents alongside EDI and dashboards suggests that data exchange has evolved incrementally rather than through a coordinated redesign of workflows.
In practice, this means that different teams are often working from different versions of the same information. The process relies on people rather than systems, which makes it fragile during shift changes, busy periods, or when operations come under pressure.
Responses show there to be a wide variation in how quickly operational changes are communicated. While some terminals report immediate updates, others describe delays of hours or days.
In several cases, data updates are not event-driven but tied to fixed moments or contractual triggers. Carriers also reported low update frequency in some cases.
The variation highlights the lack of a shared expectation around when operational data should be exchanged during a port call. Instead of being triggered by what is actually happening, updates are often driven by local habits, contractual arrangements, or organisational routines.
Respondents consistently pointed to a lack of structured data exchange during active cargo operations. While pre-arrival and post-departure data are generally exchanged, updates during execution remain limited.
To discover what effective cargo data exchange looks like, and how it can be achieved in today’s port operations read the full Thought Leadership report ‘Rethinking Cargo Data Exchange: Modernising Communication Between Terminals, Carriers, and Vessels’ produced in partnership with Kaleris.
