BE LOGIC WP1 D1-1 PROJECT PLAN FINAL 002 24022009 · BE LOGIC PROJECT PLAN DELIVERABLE D1.1 Grant Agreement Number: TREN/FP7TR/218694/”BE LOGIC” Project Acronym: BE LOGIC Project

BE LOGIC

PROJECT PLAN

DELIVERABLE D1.1

Grant Agreement Number: TREN/FP7TR/218694/”BE LOGIC”

Project Acronym: BE LOGIC

Project Title: Benchmark Logistics for Co-modality

Funding Scheme: Collaborative project

Beneficiary

Work Package WP1

Lead Beneficiary ECORYS

Due Date 01-11-2008

Actual Delivery Date 06-01-2009

Classification

PU Public X

PP Restricted to other programme participants (including Commission Services)

RE Restricted to a group specified by the consortium (including Commission Services)

CO Confidential, only for members of the consortium (including Commission Services)

BE LOGIC/WP1/BE LOGIC_WP1_D1-1 PROJECT PLAN_FINAL_002_24022009.doc/11/17/2009 1:40 PM page 2 of 33

Document Title: WP number:

Project Plan WP1

Document number:

D1.1

Document History Version Comments Date Authorised by

Draft 1.0 none 05-01-2009 Jeroen Bozuwa

Draft 2.0 AUEB 07-01-2009 Kostas Zografos

Final 2.0 24-02-2009 Jeroen Bozuwa

Number of pages: 33

Number of annexes: 3

Responsible Organisation: Principal Author(s):

Jeroen Bozuwa

Robert Ossevoort

ECORYS

Johan Gille

Contributing Organisation(s): Contributing Author(s):

Tom Zunder UNEW, MOBYCON

Ronald Jorna

WP Leader Name: Jeroen Bozuwa

WP Leader Organisation: ECORYS

Disclaimer

The content of the publication herein is the sole responsibility of the publishers and it does not

necessarily represent the views expressed by the European Commission or its services.

While the information contained in the documents is believed to be accurate, the author(s) or any

other participants in the BE LOGIC consortium make no warranty of any kind with regard to this

material including, but not limited to the implied warranties of merchantability and fitness for a

particular purpose.

Neither the BE LOGIC consortium nor any of its members, their officers, employees, or agents

shall be responsible or liable in negligence or otherwise howsoever in respect of any inaccuracy or

omission herein.

Without derogating from the generality of the foregoing neither the BE LOGIC consortium nor any

of its member, their officers, employees, or agents shall be liable for any direct or indirect or

consequential loss or damage caused by or arising from any information advice or inaccuracy or

omission herein.

BE LOGIC/WP1/BE LOGIC_WP1_D1-1 PROJECT PLAN_FINAL_002_24022009.doc/11/17/2009 1:40 PM page 3 of 33

Table of Contents

Summary 4

1 Project Goals 5

2 Approach 6

2.1 Approach in General 6

2.2 WP1: Coordination and Project Management 7

2.3 WP2: Methodology Development 8

2.4 WP3: Logistics Market Analysis and Benchmark 9

2.5 WP4: Benchmark Transport Logistics from the Policy Perspective 11

2.6 WP5: Benchmark Transport Logistics from the Transport Chain Perspective 12

2.7 WP6: Benchmark Transport Logistics from the Terminal Perspective 13

2.8 WP7: Quality Standards for Transport Logistics 13

2.9 WP8: Recommendations and Dissemination 14

3 Project Management 16

3.1 Introduction 16

3.2 Management Structure and Procedures 16

3.3 Quality Assurance 18

3.4 Planning 20

3.5 Achievements until Date 20

Annex 1 – Planning 22

Annex 2 - Vision Paper 23

Annex 3 - Quality Assurance Plan 29

Deliverable or Output Peer Review Template 33

BE LOGIC/WP 1/BE LOGIC_WP1_D1-1 PROJECT PLAN_FINAL_002_24022009.doc/17-11-2009 13:40 page 4 of 33

Summary

BE LOGIC aims at improving the efficiency within and across different modes of transport and

supporting the development of a quality logistics system. This is done through benchmarking

policy, transport chains and terminals, the development of an e-tool for on-line benchmarking of

SMEs and others, and the evaluation of existing quality systems and requirements for the logistics

sector. Promotion and dissemination is an important component in this project.

Work Package 1 of the BE LOGIC project deals with project management. This deliverable gives

a description of how the BE LOGIC project management is organized. The project management

consists of:

• Technical project management

• Administrative project management

• Quality assurance

The objective of WP1 is to manage and coordinate the entire project, making sure it stays on track

and delivers results that are useful to policymakers and stakeholders. More specifically:

• Efficient and effective project management, keeping control of quality, time and budget;

• Project administration in contractual and financial sense (this includes checking Participants

cost statements, preparation of progress reports and production of the final report);

• Point of contact point with EC and reporting to the project officer of the Commission;

• Liaison with stakeholders, other relevant projects and other external organizations;

• Organisation of plenary meetings.


1 Project Goals

Efficient use of transport modes and resources requires understanding the options and alternatives

and being able to make the right logistics choices. Benchmarking is an instrument which can help

to answer this question.

Differences in the performance of various modes within the transport sector of a given country,

and between the transport systems of different countries, imply that there is a significant potential

for improvement. Ongoing technological advances and changes in economic and institutional

approaches ensure that this potential is constantly evolving. The transportation sector is influenced

and moulded by ongoing economic, environmental and political (usually in the form of public

finances) pressures to realise its potential for improvement.

BE LOGIC project vision

The BE LOGIC project foresees the major improvement potential in logistics performance among

small and medium sized enterprises (SMEs), including shippers with relative small transport

volumes. Therefore, the focus in BE LOGIC lies on applying the logistics benchmark

methodology on SMEs.

Key objectives of BE LOGIC:

• Improve the efficiency within and across different modes of transport • Support the development of a quality logistics system

Derived objectives and research questions:

• Develop a methodology to assess transport logistics performance in quantitative terms at different levels in Europe and globally

• Applying the benchmark methodology to assess logistics and intermodal policies of Member

States and other countries • To assess transport logistics choices and performance from shippers/LSP

• To assess transport logistics performance from transhipment points

• Examine existing quality standards (e.g. ISO, CEN) for transport logistics

• Consider the need for new quality standards for transport logistics

Our approach includes 3 viewpoints:

• Viewpoint from the policy maker

• Viewpoint from transport chains • Viewpoint from transhipment points


2 Approach

This chapter aims at explaining the approach of BE LOGIC to the objectives set for the project.

First, the approach in general is explained. This is subsequently followed by an overview per Work

Package. This WP description entails amongst others the overall objectives of the WP and the

short term goals. More details regarding the approach of the several WPs can be found in their

Inception Reports, which have already been or are still pending to be delivered. Special attention

is given to WP3, for which changes compared to the Description of Work (Annex I to the Grant

Agreement) are proposed.

2.1 Approach in General

The overall strategy is aimed at realising the project objective: improving the quality and

efficiency within and across different modes of transport. This contribution comes from three

pillars:

• Providing the most effective recommendations for policy makers to help them be successful in

creating the optimal framework conditions for efficient and environmentally sustainable

transport logistics in Europe. This is to be achieved by the policy benchmark.

• Improving the individual performance of transport chain actors that will act as benchmark

demonstrators. This is to be achieved by the transport chain and intermodal terminal

benchmarks. Although the benchmark might have considerable impact on realizing the

improvement potential of these actors, the impact on a European wide scale is very limited.

However, by disseminating the benchmark results, the lessons learned during these benchmark

analyses and the best practices, a wider group of stakeholders can learn from these findings

and apply them to their own practice.

• With the eBenchmark tool in principle all transport chain actors in Europe can be reached, an

enormous potential target group. The major European players in transport logistics often have

high-educated specialists with a huge knowledge of logistics and these organizations already

use sophisticated methods to measure and assess their own performance in accordance to

competitors and others. We do not consider this group of players as our target group for using

the e-Benchmark tool. Since we are aware of the difficulties of reaching the right target group,

we will strongly focus on reaching SMEs active in transport logistics. This is the target group

that in our opinion can realize the greatest improvement potential in their transport logistics

performance and there will be a need for simply guiding them through the benchmark process.

If we succeed in reaching only a small percentage of this target group with our online

eBenchmark tool, the impact on the project objective will be considerable.


Figure 2.1 The BE LOGIC strategy visualised

E-benchmarking

tool

Benchmark among30 demonstrators

Policy benchmark

Improved framework

conditions

Dissemination

lessons

Total logistics environment

Improved quality and efficiency

E-benchmarking

tool

Benchmark among30 demonstrators

Policy benchmark

Improved framework

conditions

Dissemination

lessons

Total logistics environment

Improved quality and efficiency

In the subsequent sections, short WP descriptions and short term goals are indicated. WP leaders

are indicated in bold.

2.2 WP1: Coordination and Project Management

Work Package number 1 Starting date: Month 1

Work package title Coordination and project management

Activity type MGT

Participant number 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Total

Participant short name

EC

OR

YS

ISL

DA

PP

UN

EW

MO

BY

CO

N

AU

EB

-RC

HE

RR

Y

VG

TU

UIR

R

Person months per

participant

8 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 12

Overall objectives of this WP

Manage and coordinate the entire project, making sure it stays on track and delivers results that

are useful to policymakers and stakeholders. More specifically:

• Efficient and effective project management, keeping control of quality, time and budget;

• Project administration in contractual and financial sense (this includes checking Participants

cost statements, preparation of progress reports and production of the final report);

• Point of contact point with EC and reporting to the project officer of the Commission;

• Liaison with stakeholders, other relevant projects and other external organizations;

• Organisation of plenary meetings.

Short term goals


• Informal meeting with the European Commission (John Berry) in Brussels on January 9th

2009.

• Organisations that have agreed on participation in BE LOGIC as demonstrator are being

contacted to reconfirm their commitment.

• Contact High Level Support Group (HLSG) for first meeting in Brussels.

• Finalise Quality Assurance Plan.

• Fill in intermediate cost statements for 1st half year (September 2008 – February 2009) with

the aim to have an overview of the budget expenditure so far and to gain experience with the

new cost statement templates; this way we hope to avoid problems and delays in payments

when submitting the first official Financial Statement, which is due in August 2009 (there is no

payment involved with this intermediate Financial Statement). The cost statements are used

by the project management only for monitoring purposes and will not be submitted to the

European Commission.

More details on project management can be found in chapter 3 of this report.

2.3 WP2: Methodology Development


Work package title Methodology development

Activity type RTD



EC

OR

YS

ISL

DA

PP

UN

EW

MO

BY

CO

N

AU

EB

-RC

HE

RR

Y

VG

TU

UIR

R

Person months per

participant

2 8 6 2 2,5 0 2,5 0 2,5 25,5


Work package 2 prepares the methodologies for the concrete benchmarking processes in work

packages 4, 5 and 6. The aim is to prepare feasible and harmonised methodologies for the

different benchmarking processes, i.e. for the policy level, for the transport chain level and for the

inland terminal level in order to achieve results that can be implemented in the e-benchmark tool.

Furthermore, work package 2 shall ensure that the methodologies used for benchmarking in the

work packages 4, 5 and 6 generate indicators and process that are practical-oriented and also

feasible to be applied in practice.

Short term goals

• Finalise inception report which forms the guideline for subsequent WP4, 5 and 6.

• Deliverable Report D2.1 on overall benchmarking framework (March 2009).

• Deliverable Report D2.2 on methodology for indicators for macro comparison and policy

benchmarking (April 2009).

• Deliverable Report D2.3 on methodology for indicators for a transport chain benchmarking

(April 2009).


• Deliverable Report D2.4 on methodology for indicators for an inland terminal benchmarking

(April 2009).

2.4 WP3: Logistics Market Analysis and Benchmark

During the Kick-Off Meeting in Amsterdam, 18 September 2008, partners identified a number of

open issues related to the definition of the scope and the actual content of the work to be

performed within WP3. These open issues related to the definition of WP3 scope and objectives,

its positioning within the framework of BE-LOGIC, its interactions with other WPs, and the use of

its output by other BE-LOGIC WPs and/or external recipients.

It was decided that WP3 should focus on an assessment of how the external (e.g., social,

technological, economic, political) environment influences freight transport performance (as

expressed by a set of Aggregate Performance Indicators - APIs). Thus, the Task 3.1 objectives

were defined as follows:

• Analysis of the external environment of freight transport.

• Identification of the impact of trends in freight transport on Aggregate Performance Indicators

(APIs) for freight transport (this is explained in greater detail in the WP3 inception report,

which is currently available as draft version).

Therefore the Description of Work (Annex I to the Grant Agreement) regards WP3 has slightly

changed. The full text of the changed WP3 description and the revised timing of WP3 deliverables

is provided hereafter.


Work package title Logistics market analysis and initial benchmark

Activity type RTD



EC

OR

YS

ISL

DA

PP

UN

EW

MO

BY

CO

N

AU

EB

-

RC

HE

RR

Y

VG

TU

UIR

R

Person months per

participant

0 4 0 2 3 8 0 0 0 17


The objective of this work package is twofold: first, to assess the impact of freight transport trends on a set of Aggregate Performance Indicators (APIs

1) for freight transport (WP 3.1) and second to

provide an initial benchmark regarding logistical performance in Europe (WP 3.2). In order to achieve these objectives, the research activities of the work package will be organized in two tasks. The first task (Task 3.1) will be focused on the impact of a set of identified supply chain

1 The term “Aggregate Performance Indicators (APIs)” refers to a set of indicators that measure the

performance of the freight transport system at modal / sector level. APIs constitute the interface between the detailed KPIs required for the benchmarking exercise and the higher level of detail required for the assessment of the impact of freight transport trends on freight transport system performance.


and freight transport trends on a set of freight transport APIs, while the second task (Task 3.2) will identify and collect logistical good practices.

Short term goals

• Finalise inception report.

• Impact analysis of external environment on supply chain and freight transport trends.

• Matching of APIs (aggregate performance indicators) with KPIs (key performance indicators).

• Analysis of impact of supply chain and freight transport trends on APIs.

• External validation of results (through HLSG and/or local contacts of partners).

• Synthesis of results and report writing (continuing after April 2009).

Description of work

Task 3.1 Impact of Freight Transport Trends on Strategic Key Performance Indicators for

Freight Transport (task leader: AUEB-RC)

This task will identify and examine the impacts of freight transport trends on a set of APIs for

freight transport. To achieve the objectives of this Task, the following activities will be undertaken:

Task 3.1.1: Development of methodology

The objective of this task is to develop the methodological approach for the identification and assessment of the impact of the political, economic, social and technological environment of freight transport on strategic key performance indicators.

- Task 3.1.2: Analysis of external environment of freight transport in Europe

The objective of this task is to analyse the political, socio-economic, ecological and technological environment of freight transport in Europe and to identify relevant drivers affecting the behaviour (characteristics, organization and performance) of the freight transport system.

- Task 3.1.3: Assessment of the impact of the external environment on supply chain and freight transport trends

The objective of this task is to assess the impact of the external drivers on the supply chain trends and the freight transport trends. This part of the work of Task 3.1 will categorize the impact of the environment trends in two categories:

o Supply chain trends

o Freight transport demand and supply trends

This task will involve the following activities:

o Analyse the impact of the external environment on supply chain trends

o Analyse the impact of supply chain trends on freight transport trends for each transport mode

o Discuss the impact of the external environment on freight transport trends

o Discuss the impact of the external environment on modal split

- Task 3.1.4: Matching of APIs with KPIs

This task will involve the development of APIs and the association of KPIs (developed by WP2) with said APIs.


- Task 3.1.5: Analysis of the impact of supply chain and freight transport trends on APIs

This task will involve the analysis of the impact of supply chain and freight transport trends on identified APIs. For each of the APIs to be analysed, the direction (i.e., positive, neutral or negative) in which supply chain and freight transport trends influence the APIs will be determined. Moreover, where relevant quantitative studies are available, a meta-analysis and synthesis of their results will be performed to reinforce the findings of the qualitative analysis.

Desktop research is the exclusive method of work for this Task. Sources include:

o Scholarly literature

o Policy documents

o Reports from national and international organizations (mostly for supportive quantitative data)

o Output of previous research projects

o Press releases / general press

- Task 3.1.6: External validation of results

This task will involve the validation of the results of the analysis of the impact of freight transport trends on freight transport APIs by a High Level Steering Group comprising of experts from the freight transport industry.

- Task 3.1.7: Synthesis of results and report writing

Task 3.2 Identification and collection of Best Practices for micro benchmark (Task leader:

ISL)

This task will identify transport logistics best practices in Europe. In the identification phase we will

not repeat work already done. Many best practice examples have been disseminated already in

other projects, like PROMIT. Special emphasis will be placed on the practices of small and

medium size enterprises making use of intermodal transport solutions. Institutional and

organizational factors affecting the operation and performance of transport logistical companies in

Europe will also be considered. The adoption of emerging technologies for streamlining transport

logistical operations will also be examined.

Deliverables

D3.1: Impact of Freight Transport Trends on Strategic Key Performance Indicators for Freight

Transport: Month 11

D3.2: Factors Affecting Transport Logistics Good Practices: Month 9

2.5 WP4: Benchmark Transport Logistics from the Policy Perspective


Work package title Benchmark transport logistics from the policy perspective

Activity type RTD




EC

OR

YS

ISL

DA

PP

UN

EW

MO

BY

CO

N

AU

EB

-RC

HE

RR

Y

VG

TU

UIR

R

Person months per

participant

2,5 2,5 2,5 1,5 1,5 3,5 9 2,5 0 25,5


Transport logistics Policy at national and European level has a main influence on the frame work

conditions for transport logistics and intermodality. This WP aims at identifying the relevant policy

framework conditions, at comparing these conditions and finally at analysing them on order to

identify policy based barriers for efficient transport logistics and inter modality.

Short term goals

• Develop and provide interview guidelines to WP partners (mid January 2009).

• Select interviewees amongst policy makers (January 2009).

• Conduct interviews with policy makers (February/March 2009).

• Analysis of potential risks for collection phase (March 2009).

Actual collection and analysis of benchmarking indicators is launched in April 2009.

2.6 WP5: Benchmark Transport Logistics from the Transport Chain

Perspective


Work package title Benchmark transport logistics from the transport chain perspective

Activity type



EC

OR

YS

ISL

DA

PP

UN

EW

MO

BY

CO

N

AU

EB

-RC

HE

RR

Y

VG

TU

UIR

R

Person months per

participant

5,5 3,25 3,25 3,25 9 3,25 3,25 3,25 0 34


To assess transport logistics performance in quantitative terms at the level of European transport

chains. The

internal strengths and weaknesses of different modes separately and in comparison with each

other will be measured reliably.

Short term goals


• Select interviewees amongst transport chain operators (January/February 2009).

• Conduct interviews with transport chain operators (February/March 2009).



Actual collection and analysis of benchmarking indicators for 1st range of transport chains is

launched in April 2009 and will last until February 2010.

2.7 WP6: Benchmark Transport Logistics from the Terminal Perspective


Work package title Benchmark transport logistics from the intermodal terminal perspective

Activity type RTD



EC

OR

YS

ISL

DA

PP

UN

EW

MO

BY

CO

N

AU

EB

-RC

HE

RR

Y

VG

TU

UIR

R

Person months per

participant

12 2 2 2 2 2 2 0 4 28


The inland terminals form an essential link in the intermodal transport chain. There functioning

determines the success of intermodal initiatives and therefore the objective of this Work Package

is to assess transport logistics performance from the European inland terminal’s perspective. The

strengths and weaknesses of the different inland terminals will be assessed separately and will be

compared with each other. This will be done, as much is possible, in quantitative terms and will be

measured reliably.

Short term goals


• Select interviewees amongst transport chain operators (January/February 2009).

• Conduct interviews with transport chain operators (February/March 2009).


Actual collection and analysis of benchmarking indicators for 1st range of terminals is launched in

April 2009 and will last until February 2010.

2.8 WP7: Quality Standards for Transport Logistics


Work package title Quality standards for transport logistics

Activity type RTD



EC

OR

YS

ISL

DA

PP

UN

EW

MO

BY

CO

N

AU

EB

-RC

HE

RR

Y

VG

TU

UIR

R

Person months per 1 0 0 8 0 0 0 7 3 19


participant


The objective of WP7 is to analyse existing standards for logistics quality, to identify their

strengths and weaknesses, to review market take up and their acceptance by customers and

operators. The work package will then work with the results of the work in WP3 and WP4 and

consult with industry actors and stakeholders to develop one or more quality standards to which

the logistics industry and their customers can aspire to.

It is our intention that BE LOGIC will evaluate and develop the right model for standards such that

they do not duplicate the core standards of ISO9001 and ISO14001, but that a similarly

aspirational standard can be developed by CEN, the European Committee for Standardization,

can draw up as voluntary standards to support the Single Market in Europe.

Short term goals

• Inception report providing guidelines of what is expected from other partners (February 2009)

2.9 WP8: Recommendations and Dissemination


Work package title Recommendations and dissemination

Activity type RTD



EC

OR

YS

ISL

DA

PP

UN

EW

MO

BY

CO

N

AU

EB

-RC

HE

RR

Y

VG

TU

UIR

R

Person months per

participant

6 0,25 4,5 0,25 0,25 2 0,25 0,25 2,5 16,25


The objective of this WP is twofold. On one hand, it aims at building consensus around the

achievements of the whole project. The good development of the dissemination activities will help

in achieving a critical mass of players well aware of the benchmark in logistics; therefore, a set of

tools for dissemination will be prepared such as a project website, the project brochures, the BE

Logic Newsletter, and a final project conference. The focus on the SME typical of the BE Logic

approach makes it more important, thus more critical, to perform dissemination in a effective way,

since the difficulty of reaching and achieving a critical mass to ensure the exploitation of the

project potential gets higher when SMEs are dealt with.

On the other hand, it would divulge good practices, lessons learned and recommendations to the

logistics industry in terms of performance and common quality goals for logistics services. This

pushes policy makers to improve framework conditions and stimulates the logistics industry to

improve their performance.

Short term goals


• Finalise website (January 2009)

• Send out first BE LOGIC brochure to stakeholders (February 2009)

• Preparation of first workshop (March 2009)


3 Project Management

This chapter describes the organisation of the project management.

3.1 Introduction

Technical Project Management is the responsibility of the Project Coordinator (PC), who

represents the Consortium towards the EC. It will deal with the technical quality of the work, the

timely (i.e. according to the approved Annex B) execution of the work packages, the distribution

of the work, the coordination of the technical activities and generally all that has to do with the

technical content of the work. It will also make sure that the advice of the HLSG and EC is

included in the project.

The administrative project management deals with all matters of administration, progress report

writing as well as logistics for the execution of the project. This includes collection and

dissemination of EC financial contribution, preparation of project financial statements and also the

organisation of project meetings. The PC will be responsible for the timely execution of the work,

i.e. within the agreed time frame, and for taking corrective actions

3.2 Management Structure and Procedures

The technical project management is a combined effort of the Project Coordinator (PC) and all

Work Package Leaders (WPLs). The PC is responsible for the direction, content and quality of the

whole project and therefore the overall project management. However, the PC will make decisions

in coordination with the WPLs via the Work Package Leader Committee (WPLC). The WPLs are

responsible for the management of their specific Work Packages (WPs). The PC will provide

strategic guidance to the project and the individual work packages and will see to it that both the

individual work package results and the overall result of the BE LOGIC project form a consistent

and coherent result.

The quality of the implementation of the project will be guaranteed and further enhanced by a

High Level Support Group (HLSG). This Group will consist of relevant stakeholder

representations and experts which will provide advice on the proceedings of the project and they

serve as a valuable source of knowledge and will secure that the project will be useful for the end-

user.


Figure 3.1 Management structure BE LOGIC

DG TREN

Project CoordinatorECORYS

WP1 Technical Management

Administrative Management

WPL

Committee

WPL6ECORYS

WPL7UNEW

WPL8DAPP

WPL4HERRY

WPL5MOBYCON

WPL2ISL

WPL3AEUB-RC

High Level Support

Group

Quality Assurance

UNEW

WP Partners

The management structure is shown in figure 1.1 and contains the following five elements: Project

Coordination (PC), High Level Support Group (HLSG), Work Package Leader Committee

(WPLC), Work Package Management (WPM) and Quality Assurance (QA).

The Project Coordinator (ECORYS) will be the overall responsible for the technical and

administrative project management. The project coordinator will act in situations of conflicts,

contractual amendments and solving internal consortium issues and will represent the BE LOGIC

consortium on important external occasions.

Technical Project Management will deal with the technical quality of the work, the timely (i.e.

according to the approved Annex B) execution of the work packages, the distribution of the work,

the coordination of the technical activities and generally all that has to do with the technical

content of the work. It will also make sure that the advice of the HLSG and EC is included in the

project. Jeroen Bozuwa from ECORYS is responsible for Technical Project Management, and will

be supported by Robert Ossevoort from ECORYS and Ronald Jorna from Mobycon.

Administrative Management is the responsibility of the Project Coordinator (PC), who will

represent the Consortium towards the EC. This level will deal with all matters of administration,

progress report writing as well as logistics for the execution of the project. This includes collection

and dissemination of EC financial contribution, preparation of project financial statements and also

the organisation of project meetings. The Administrative Project Manager will be responsible for

the timely execution of the work, i.e. within the agreed time frame, and for taking corrective

actions. Robert Ossevoort from ECORYS is the Administrative Project Manager in BE LOGIC.

Work Package Leader Committee (WPLC)


This Committee consists of all Work Package Leaders and the coordinator chairs the PMC. The

Committee is responsible for general planning and overall progress control (cost management,

deliverables, work plan, controlling time schedule). The WPLC will meet six times during the

course of the project, preferably in combination with other project workshops. All contacts with

the Commission will in principle take place via the PC. The composition of the WPLC is

presented in chapter 2.3.

Work Package Management

In each work package, the work package leader (WPL) coordinates the activities by

communicating with their task leaders. All participants answer to the WPL.

3.3 Quality Assurance

The Quality Assurance of BE LOGIC consists of a Quality Assurance Manager and the High

Level Steering Group.

3.3.1 Quality Assurance Manager

To assure that BE LOGIC delivers high quality deliverables and other outputs; a Quality

Assurance Plan has been drafted. This QAP was produced by the QA manager, UNEW. The

QAP is included in this deliverable as Annex 3.

3.3.2 High Level Steering Group

In order to guarantee the technical contents of the work and to make sure that the advice of the

High Level Support Group (HLSG) is included, BE LOGIC will provide a number of milestones

which will be reviewed by the HLSG. The table below gives an overview of these proposed

milestones and their delivery dates.

Table 3.2 List of milestones and planning of reviews by High Level Support Group

Milestone

no.

Milestone name WPs no’s. Lead

beneficiary

Delivery date from Annex I Comments

M1 Benchmark

methodology

and e-tool

WP2 ISL Month 9 2nd

HLSG

meeting and

successful

tool

verification

test

M2 Logistics

market

analysis

WP3 AUEB-RC Month 11 2nd

HLSG

meeting

M3 Intermediate

benchmark

results

WP4,

WP5,

WP6

HERRY,

MOBYCON,

ECORYS

Month 18 3rd

HLSG

meeting


Milestone

no.

Milestone name WPs no’s. Lead

beneficiary

Delivery date from Annex I Comments

M6 Final project

results

All WP’s ECORYS Month 30 4th HLSG

meeting

M7 Final BE

LOGIC

conference

All WPs DAPP Month 30 Conference

participation

The Description of Work (Annex I to the Grant Agreement) provides a tentative list of key

stakeholders for the HLSG. These persons and their organisations are presented in the table below.

Table 3.3 The tentative composition of the High Level Support Group for BE LOGIC

Organisation Name Position with organisation

European Shipper’s Council Nicolette van der Jagt Secretary General (to be

confirmed)

CLECAT Marco Sorgetti Director General (confirmed)

UIRR Martin Burkhardt Director General (confirmed)

European Intermodal Association Peter Wolters Secretary General (confirmed)

RSC Rotterdam and EIRAC Member Cor Hoenders General Director (confirmed)

Transfrigoroute International Joe Grealy President, Technical

Consultative Council (to be

confirmed)

Supply Chain Consulting Peter Klein Confirmed

International Road Union Jens Hügel Confirmed

3.3.3 Project Reviews by the Commission

Further a tentative planning of project reviews by the European Commission is needed to make

sure that the EC’s advice is included as well.

Table 3.4 Tentative planning of project reviews by the European Commission

Review

no.

Tentative timing, i.e. after

month X = end of a reporting

period2

planned venue

of review

Comments , if any

1 After project month: 12 To be

determined

Review of benchmark methodology

and e-tool (M1) and Logistics market

analysis (M2)


determined

Review of Adjusted methodology and

e-tool (M4)


determined

Review of final project results (M6)

2 Month after which the review will take place. Month 1 marking the start date of the project, and all dates being relative to this start date.


3.4 Planning

The planning for BE LOGIC is included in Annex 1 (as a separate file); the meetings below are

already scheduled.

Meetings

• Informal meeting with European Commission (John Berry) on 9 January 2009 in Brussels.

• Progress meeting all WPs on 26 March 2009. This meeting is scheduled in Athens, which has

to be agreed upon on 8 January next at the latest. Alternative locations are Newcastle or

Vienna.

• 1st Meeting with HLSG, the date has to be agreed upon after confirmation of the HLSG-

representatives.

• Workshop in June 2009, location and precise date are to be decided.

3.5 Achievements until Date

The BE LOGIC project officially started at 1 September 2009. A kick-off meeting in Amsterdam

has taken place on the 18 September 2009 where all partners and the commission have

participated. Subsequently a WP2 and WP3 meeting have taken place in Bremen on 9 October

2009 and a progress meeting covering all WPs in Amsterdam on 11 December 2009.

Important outputs of these meetings are:

• Vision paper of BE LOGIC, providing answers on why, what and how of BE LOGIC;

• Inception reports on WP2 and WP3;

For WP2 and WP3 separate inception reports have been drafted. These reports are currently being

discussed and will form the actual framework of the BE LOGIC activities. Following the

discussion during the kick off meeting, the contents of WP3 have slightly changed in order to

provide useful input for the subsequent WP’s. The focus of task 3.1 will be on assessing how the

external (e.g., social, technological, economic, political) environment influences freight transport

performance (as expressed by a set of Aggregate Performance Indicators - APIs). A detailed

approach has been provided in a separate (draft) inception report.

The following table summarises the achievements since the project start in September 2008.

WP Achievement Date of achievement/

~ of status

All Kick-off Meeting 18-09-2008

All Progress Meeting 11-12-2008

1 Advance payment received from EC 20-10-2008

1 Advance payments transferred to partners 27-11-2008 (last payment)


WP Achievement Date of achievement/

~ of status

2, 3 Technical workshop with WP-partners 09-10-2008

6 Two interviews with terminals 20-12-2008

7 Several interviews on quality labels 11-12-2008

8 Presentation of BE LOGIC at EIRAC plenary meeting 27-10-2008

8 Preliminary website launched 30-11-2008

8 Presentation of BE LOGIC at 2-days conference on transport

and logistics (Vervoerslogistieke Werkdagen) 14-11-2008

8 Draft Brochure BE LOGIC 02-12-2008


Annex 1 – Planning

This chapter provides the most important activities foreseen for the next 4 months (January 2009 –

April 2009). For practical reasons a time schedule chart for the whole project is provided as a

separate document (Adobe PDF).


Annex 2 - Vision Paper

BE LOGIC has produced a vision paper, describing the vision and scope of the project. Its aim is

to reach agreement among the project partners of BE LOGIC on the vision of the project, the

scope of the work to be conducted and the definitions to be used. The vision paper should be the

basis for follow-up work and provide for answers on the why, what and how of BE LOGIC.

Why BE LOGIC?

Efficient use of transport modes and resources requires understanding the options and alternatives

and being able to make the right logistics choices. Knowing the options and alternatives is

therefore the key to efficient and effective transport planning. While large companies may have

their own experts in-house to assess the transport options and select optimal logistics alternatives,

we know that small and medium enterprises (SME) may lack this expertise. The logistics process

is complex, and SMEs, with limited resources and equipment may focus on the maximum

involvement of their equipment (say vehicle) instead of looking for potentially attractive

alternatives. In our opinion, the major improvement potential in logistics performance is thus

among small and medium sized enterprises (SMEs), including shippers with relatively small

transport volumes.

Why then a benchmark? A benchmark of logistics chains can give SMEs insight into the potential

gains of reconsidering their logistics choices in terms of:

• Costs and performance: what cost savings are associated to alternative choices, and what will

be the performance in terms of reliability, transit time, etc.?

• Environment: how can other choices, including co-modality, contribute to sustainable

company activities?

• Quality: on the longer term, benchmarking can contribute to the introduction of a common

quality label.

While the first two terms have a short term focus (‘what’s in it for the company directly?’), the

latter is considered to be relevant on a longer term, e.g. when a quality label has been introduced

and its value has become clear to clients and suppliers.

What BE LOGIC Needs To Do

SMEs lack sufficient knowledge about logistics alternatives, and this leads to a suboptimal

performance.

The scope in this respect is co-modality. This implies that we seek for logistics alternatives that

offer the potential involvement of other modes. This does not imply that we only look at terminal –

terminal sections; door to door may also be relevant, as well as terminal to door, or door to

terminal. This can only be defined case by case. Whether we will look at terminal to terminal or

door to door will depend on the shippers and logistics chain managers involved and the extent of

their responsibility. A few examples to explain this:


• A Dutch shipper of perishable goods may receive these goods at its terminal in the

Netherlands, and be responsible for delivery to various final consumers in southern Germany.

Shipments are organised starting from the Dutch terminal and delivered directly to these end

consumers. In that case, the relevant chain is terminal to door, as the shipper does not organise

the shipments from origin to its terminal, but does so from its terminal until the final

destination.

• A haulage company ships containers from a Polish sea port into the central European

hinterland, to terminals in Slovakia and the Czech republic. From there, the stripping and

stuffing activities are being organised by the terminal, as well as the onward transport to end

users. The haulage company thus only carries responsibility for the route between sea port and

terminal. Therefore the relevant chain is terminal to terminal (where the sea port is taken to be

a terminal as well).

Neither do we have to fix a certain minimum chain length. The potential for intermodal transport is

not restricted as such. However, very short routes and pure city logistics chains may not offer any

intermodal opportunity. The chain length will further depend on the type of cargo involved. E.g.

for container transport the intermodal option may become attractive at shorter distances than for

example for general cargo or bulk. We assume that typical chain lengths would be in the order of

300-500 km or more, and perhaps around 100-200 km and more for container transport. This is

however not stated as a minimum requirement, but merely as an indication of typical chains to be

considered.

The approach of BE LOGIC has both a micro and macro involvement:

• Micro, looking at the performance of both transport chains and terminals:

• Transport chains: by benchmarking transport chains we are able to compare the costs,

performance (quality) and the environmental impact of alternative transport chain

solutions, e.g. road only versus road – rail – road.

• Terminals are important nodes in the logistic chain and often are considered bottlenecks.

Benchmarking terminals can give insight in their relative performance and help to learn

from successful colleagues in the market. The aim is to contribute to an improvement of

the performance of the entire chain.

• Macro, looking at the policy perspective and what can be learned from other countries:

• What kind of policies to support co-modality do they have?

• Are there any barriers in legislation hindering the use of co-modality?

How Is This Achieved?

Micro-level: transport chains

The approach is to analyse transport chains. Within BE LOGIC this will be done as explained in

graph below, left: a shipper or logistics service provider is now organising its transport from A to

B, say, directly by road. In the project alternative choices, say, from A to C by rail and from there

to B by road, will be investigated and compared against the direct A-B route. The KPIs of each


route can be compared. These KPIs will be in the area of costs, performance (e.g. transport time,

reliability) as well as environment (fuel use per km, fuel use per ton transported, etc).

The chain from A to B may involve shippers, transport companies, terminal operators and logistics

service providers. Likely, one or more of these parties will be an SME. We propose that we do not

force ourselves to select only chains where all parties are SMEs, but rather look at chains that are

geographically spread and cover a wide range of commodities.

Micro-level: terminals

The role of terminals in the logistics chain – this is the most detailed level of analysis, focused on

crucial points in the logistics chain. The aim is to analyse the performance of intermodal terminals

in order to:

• Assess the performance of an individual terminal, to help the terminal operator to gain insight

into its performance in terms of indicators relevant for its users

• Benchmark the performance against other terminals

• Assess the position of the terminal within the transport chain that it serves.


Typically the indicators to be addressed are focusing on performance aspects that terminal users

are interested in (e.g. costs of handling, average service times, waiting times for trucks or ships

before being served, average dwell times, etc.) Environmental and social indicators will be

included as well (e.g. average energy use per cargo unit handled, CO2 emission per unit handled,

etc.).

Macro-level: policy

Typical indicators to be addressed in this domain are in the field of policies (barriers, stimuli) that

have a (potential) impact on efficient co-modal transport chains. One should think of rail

liberalisation, pricing policy, government aids, etc. Comparisons will be made between European

countries and between Europe, Japan and the USA.


In addition to these three main benchmarking activities, wider trends that may affect the KPIs,

such as the introduction of pricing or the legal approval of the use of large and heavy vehicles will

be investigated.

The success of the project depends largely on the use of the e-tool (designed in WP2.5) by SMEs.

Therefore the dissemination (WP8) will aim at these SMEs pointing out the benefits of using the e-

tool. In addition lessons learnt and recommendations for the EC will be drafted.

The approach for each component is described in the Description of Work and illustrated by the

figure below.

Result

An important result of the project will be an e-tool that can be used by SMEs. They can compare

their own transport chain, say from D to E, with similar chains investigated in BE LOGIC. If we

assume that D-E is a similar route as A-B (on the basis of countries involved, route length,

physical barriers encountered, etc.), the relative performance of the e-tool user on D-E can be

compared with the findings of BE LOGIC on the A-B route. The e-tool user will know whether he

performs better or worse, and if the latter is the case, where he can possibly improve his

performance.


Moreover, he may receive an indication of the relevance of considering alternative logistics

choices, such as co-modality and/or routing via terminal C.

The more SMEs that are using the e-tool, the more data will become available to refine the

comparisons and to look for the best fitting chain with which the user’s transport chain will be

compared. The extent to which this can be detailed will depend both on the results of the BE

LOGIC benchmark case studies and on the number and level of detail of SME users of the e-tool.


Annex 3 - Quality Assurance Plan

Introduction

Quality assurance includes:

• Setting of guidelines for scientific soundness;

• Reviewing of methodological rigour of the investigations carried out, as well as compliance

with the project’s objectives;

• Proposing improvements to the scientific quality of the work, when necessary;

• Reviewing of the scientific quality of contractual deliverables and, when necessary, internal

deliverables, and approval of both.

The quality manager (UNEW) is responsible for the scientific soundness of the work. The

technical manager makes sure that all the deliverables are reviewed by the quality manager before

submission to the Commission or distribution to the public.

This section lays out the fundamentals to assure that quality is maintained in BE LOGIC.

It applies to all ‘Deliverables’ listed in the Technical Annex and also any ‘Outputs’ such as the

online benchmarking tool, dissemination materials or the website.

Quality Assurance in the BE LOGIC project is in line with the requirements of BS5750 and

ISO9000/EN29000 series standards.

Format of Deliverable or Outputs

The language to be used in all BE LOGIC Deliverable or Outputs is “English (U.K.)”. The

structure of each Deliverable or Output that has the form of a report is as:

• Report front page;

• Document Control Sheet;

• Table of Contents including list of figures, list of tables, annexes and appendices (when

applicable);

• Summary;

• Main body of the report, starting with an Introduction to the report, usually finishing with a

Summary and Conclusion;

• A section on References will normally follow the main sections of the Deliverable or Output;

• Any Annexes and Appendices will be at the end of the Deliverable or Output or in a separate

document clearly identified in the main report.

The page layout should follow the layout used in the document template. It is important to use as

much as possible the provided styles, without applying direct formatting through the buttons

provided by MS Word.


File Naming

All documents, including in particular reports and presentations, should apply the following

convention for files names: “BE LOGIC”_”Work Package Number.Task Number”_”file

title”_”file status”_”File Version”_”Date [ddmmyyyy]”.

Example: “BE LOGIC_WP 1.4_ QUALITY ASSURANCE PLAN_DRAFT_ 001_13102008.doc”

where

• “BE LOGIC” characterises the file as part of the BE LOGIC project;

• “WP 1.4” signifies work package and task number;

• “QUALITY ASSURANCE PLAN” is the file title;

• “ DRAFT” is the file status, options are: DRAFT, FINAL;

• “001” is the version number;

• “13102008” is the date 13th October 2008;

Project Software Packages

MS Word, MS Excel and MS PowerPoint 97-2003 file formats will be the standard files used in

the project. Open Document and Office 2007 files (.odt, .odp, .ods and .docx, .xlsx, and .pptx) will

not be circulated. Partners may use any packages they wish providing the files produced are

compatible. In the event of significant formatting issues (which often occur between different

Microsoft versions) these should be resolved by using the Adobe Acrobat (pdf) format.

E-mail Communication

E-mail communication between all partners should be clear and direct. All emails should have a

clear subject, including (if possible) the WP-numbers. The minimum is to include “(BE LOGIC)”

in the subject. For emails sent to:

• ECORYS, apart from addressing the appropriate persons, also the general email account

[email protected] should be included

• D’Appolonia, idem, [email protected]

• Mobycon, idem, [email protected]

BE LOGIC Logo

The BE LOGIC project should be used in the front page of all project reports, in the top left corner

of each page (as in this document).


Peer Review of Deliverable or Outputs

All Deliverables or Outputs listed in the BE LOGIC Technical Annex are subject to a Peer

Review. The Peer Review will be carried out by the Peer Reviewer nominated by the Quality

Manager. The Peer Review will follow the template in Annex 2.

This is part of the process depicted below:

The final draft of each Deliverable or Output will be sent to the Quality Manager and the Project

Co-ordinator, wherever possible, 2 weeks before the delivery date. On receipt of the draft

Deliverable or Output, the Peer Reviewers and the Project Co-ordinator, comparing the quality of

the draft Deliverable or Output with the rules and standards described in this Project Quality

Standards (see below) and with his technical knowledge of the subject matter, should express

within 2 weeks of receipt, one of the following judgements:

“A”: Accepted

“B”: Accepted with Minor Modifications - In this case the proposed modifications should be

briefly indicated to the author and no iteration is required

“C”: Major Modification Suggested - In this case the proposed modifications should be

extensively indicated to the author and iteration is required.

If all the recommendations are “A” or “B”, the report is deemed to be accepted, and the author

should produce a final version taking into account all minor modifications suggested within one

week. If a Peer Reviewer issues a recommendation “C”, the author should prepare and submit as


soon as possible to the Peer Reviewers and the Project Co-ordinator. The revised draft Deliverable

or Output taking into account all recommendations made.

After producing the final version, the author will complete the Compliance Table in each

Deliverable or Output Peer Review document (for recommendations “B” and “C”) and will send

the Peer Reviews back to each Reviewer indicating how each comment was taken into account.

The final version of all project Deliverables or Outputs should be sent to the Project Co-ordinator

one week prior to the delivery date. ECORYS is responsible for the final formatting of the reports

prior to its submission to the EC.

Project Quality Standards

Contextual – all research in BE LOGIC needs to be set in the context of existing evidenced best

practice, previous and concurrent research activities (both publicly and privately funded), and

commercial initiatives.

Methodological – all research in BE LOGIC needs to follow a methodological approach that is

well defined, contextual and internally consistent. Evidence should be given to explain the

evaluations of methodologies considered and why a particular one was chosen. Explanation of

where work deviated from the methodology, why, and a reflection on what this means should be

provided.

Evidenced – all reports for BE LOGIC need to evidence the choices made, reasons why, work

done, deviations, consequences and conclusions drawn. All work is to be in the context of the state

of the art and as the project proceeds the references may increasingly be to projects within the

project, but all should be referenced using [insert agreed reference standard, probably Harvard].

Validated – all research in BE LOGIC needs to have a methodological standard by which the

results can be evidenced as valid. These standards of validity should be based on accepted good

practice for the chosen methodology: e.g. quantitative surveys have agreed standards of statistical

validity, whereas qualitative surveys have different standards. Review of the validity of results

should be evidenced, explained and commented on.

Reflective – all reports should be self-critical, aiding the reader in assessing both the strengths and

weaknesses of the work. Evaluation of research is greatly aided by self-aware analysis and

commentary by the author should evidence both successes and problems. This reflection should

critically assess how the progress of the work informs the reader and wider public on the state of

the art, methodological issues, validity of results as well as focused findings on the outcome of the

research.


Deliverable or Output Peer Review Template

Project No 218694 Project Acronym BE LOGIC

Deliverable or

Output No Classification

Deliverable or

Output Title

Version

Reviewer Date

For each of points 1 to 4 below, only a couple of paragraphs are required (although you are

allowed to expand as much as you want), or in a few cases even only a “not applicable”.

1. Relevance of Deliverable or Output

2. Contribution to the State-Of-The-Art

3. Depth and Extent Of Coverage

4. Clarity of Presentation

5. Other Comments

Please number and fill in the ‘Comment’ field in the following table for any specific suggestions you may

have for amendment or modification of the Deliverable or Output. The author will fill in the ‘Compliance’

field with “yes” or “no” and the ‘Author’s Comment’ field with either an explanation how they complied

(only if that is not obvious anyhow) or reasons why they have not complied. The co-ordinator will send back

the form to the Reviewer (the revised Deliverable or Output will also be enclosed for a C verdict).

Please delete/add rows as appropriate:

# Comment Compliance

Yes / No Author’s Comment

1.

2.

3.

Verdict:

Please delete as appropriate:

A - Accepted

B - Accepted with Minor Modifications

C - Major Modification Suggested

Documents

BE LOGIC WP1 D1-1 PROJECT PLAN FINAL 002 24022009 · BE LOGIC PROJECT PLAN DELIVERABLE D1.1 Grant Agreement Number: TREN/FP7TR/218694/”BE LOGIC” Project Acronym: BE LOGIC Project