Digital maturity varies widely across ports, terminals, and vessels, creating friction at every interface. In this insight, the consequences of uneven digitalisation are made clear, showing how cargo data exchange is often constrained by the least advanced participant in the port call.
The level of digitalisation of the cargo data exchange process compared to the broader maritime industry has been slow. Despite maritime being labelled as a slow-paced industry in terms of technology adoption, there have been significant digitalisation efforts in recent years, particularly after the outbreak of Covid-19 and the effects of global lockdowns.
While many carriers and terminals have upgraded their internal systems and adopted cloud platforms, automation, and modern planning tools, these investments have focused on internal optimisation rather than improving the interfaces between organisations.
Some major ports in advanced geographical regions operate highly automated systems. For example, Hamburg, Singapore, and Rotterdam. Meanwhile, many others still rely on spreadsheets, legacy software, or outdated EDI formats. Carriers must navigate this inconsistency across global ports, leaving operators constrained by the least digitalised terminals.
These disparities help explain why broader digitalisation has not translated into meaningful progress in terminal and carrier data exchange. Even in cases where one party is technologically capable, the other may be limited by old infrastructure.
Some well-funded terminals operate sophisticated digital systems and increasingly automated yard processes, but most ports worldwide still rely on older technologies, manual workflows, or customised terminal operating systems whose standards fall much below those of modern platforms.
Despite this, even at the most advanced terminals, the effectiveness of data exchange is often limited not by the terminal’s own capabilities, but by the interface between terminals and vessels.
An automated terminal could receive a vessel with limited connectivity, outdated onboard systems, or no real-time data abilities. Meaning the overall process needs to operate at the level of the least digitally mature participant.
Efforts to modernise the exchange layer, through community systems, shared platforms, or API-based pilots, have been launched in many regions, but most fail to progress beyond the pilot stage. Potential reasons include unclear standards, weak incentives, concerns surrounding exposing operational performance, and the absence of neutral governance as reasons for slower adoption rates.
The core technologies for real-time data exchange are already available, and both terminals and carriers recognise their potential benefits. However, adoption remains limited by differing levels of digital maturity, integration capabilities, and operational readiness.
Despite this, the operational and commercial conditions required for sector adoption are missing. Data sharing is a topic which is widely discussed, but sustained, meaningful progress is rare.
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.
Â
