Aug/Sept 2008

Dots on maps or integrated business intelligence? Sharon Clancy warns of the pitfalls of choosing the wrong approach, but urges users not to judge tracking systems on price alonehe vehicle tracking market is in a state of flux at the moment. A plethora of suppliers is targeting the less sophisticated end of the market with sales tactics more familiar in consumer than business circles.

At the same time, much more advanced systems are becoming established, using tracking telemetry as a key component among a range of business intelligence tools that measure and analyse performance levels across an entire transport operation.

You might imagine that the tracking market is becoming polarised between the basic dots-on-map tracking systems and a new generation of more ambitious and capable products; but actually you have to look a bit beyond the obvious. Poorly funded suppliers might try to tempt you with rock-bottom rates, but bigger and better-established companies have some very affordable packages on offer too.

Whichever approach you adopt, the fact is that the tracking system suppliers still have to convince non-users of their business benefits. A survey of 150 companies in transport and field service published by DigiCore earlier in the year revealed that 25 per cent of fleets in the UK are now using some form of tracking. However, among non-users, only 48 per cent thought telematics could benefit their business, and only 44 per cent believed they would offer a return on investment.

 

This may be partly because of a perception that the telematics market is bedevilled by over-selling. This was certainly the view of many of DigiCore's respondents, who had doubts about the financial status of some suppliers and the robustness of their technology. Indeed, where respondents had complaints, most of these were about inflexible technology, failures in telecommunications and equipment, and the expense incurred by solutions that fail to provide ROI.

The good news? Well, at least strong supplier relationships were valued. But that pre-supposes that the suppliers have established those relationships with users in the first place. If you're not already using tracking systems, you may be waiting to be convinced that you should.

One of the problems for a new telematics user is working out how to recognise a suitable supplier. Now that lots of suppliers are selling pence-per-day vehicle tracking contracts, it can be difficult for non-experts to differentiate between them.

But that situation might not continue. Some observers believe that the current economic climate could prompt a shakeout among suppliers. But while that may get rid of some disreputable players, the inevitable fallout could bring problems for buyers who made an unfortunate choice.

'The cheap end of the market is entering a very competitive phase as business slows down,' warns Roger Marks, managing director of Aeromark. 'Whilst this should sound attractive to potential purchasers, the result could be many suppliers disappearing.'

Some experts suggest that buyers should be wary of separate or third-party lease contracts for the 'black box' (the on-board control unit) and communications packages that form part of nearly all tracking systems. But some third-party suppliers are perfectly reputable, and indeed, some well-funded tracking suppliers rely on them; so you can't generalise.

The danger, of course, is that if a telematics hardware supplier does disappear from the scene, vehicle operators using its equipment can be left saddled with airtime contracts but no telematics system.

'Unfortunately, most customers will sign a contract with a lease company so that the supplier gets their money up-front,' Marks points out. 'This could easily leave a purchaser with a non-functional system but still having to pay for the lease costs.'

DigiCore managing director Tom O'Connor agrees. 'Check the financial balance sheet of your supplier. Don't rush into a third-party lease for the equipment. You could end up paying for obsolete equipment if the tracking company goes bust.'

TRACKING DEVELOPMENTS

One of the problems in choosing between suppliers is that you can't assume that low prices mean limited or compromised functionality. These days, large and highly reputable suppliers may offer very appealing prices. Quartix, for instance, charges a competitive flat rate of 66p per day for one of its tracking packages, but gives you a lot for your money, including a range of reports such as route analysis and planning, geo-fence triggers and vehicle utilisation analysis.

Trimble MRM, part of a strong and long-established international group, offers its TrimWeb package at rates starting from just 71p a day, while if you prefer the data and maps to reside on your own computers there is TrimView.

Trimble has developed an online cost-savings calculator to help fleet operators work out the potential return on investment, based on assumed 5 per cent fuel savings – and also, if relevant, on savings in overtime payments. Operators enter the number of vehicles in the fleet, number of drivers, daily mileage, average cost paid per litre of fuel, and typical mpg of the vehicle.

The most reputable tracking companies offer modular solutions that allow you to add functions and extra reports during the course of the contract. Quartix points out that a vehicle typically has a five-year life, and both technology and a company's needs can change in that time. Any telematics system has to be flexible enough to cope with that, says marketing director Andy Kirk.

He advises asking for a trial installation, and urges users to be wary if this is not available. 'Even if you pay a small charge for it, that is not so costly as getting it wrong and being stuck with a contract that is not flexible enough to cope with changing business needs.'

Aeromark also points out the need to take a long-term view of what the business might need in the future. 'User-companies often find that not long after installing a tracking system, they want to get more out of it than they originally anticipated,' says Roger Marks, 'especially when their own business changes.'

His advice to users is to work out a 'road map' with their supplier. 'Buy from a reputable company who can offer a path that takes you from a simple tracking system through to a fully integrated system with pre-determined upgrade costs.'

BOX: E-GPS

The latest technology that is getting mobile operators excited is Enhanced Global Positioning System (also known as E-GPS or eGPS). It has been developed specifically for small form-factor mobile devices such as phones by technology company CSR.

CSR bought Cambridge Positioning Technologies, developers of Assisted GPS (A-GPS) systems, in 2007. The company has now established an E-GPS forum to develop and standardise the platform.

E-GPS is designed to resolve some of the issues surrounding GPS location technology on mobile phones, including location fix times, and the ability to work indoors and in areas where GPS signals are weak or non-existent.

While there are a lot of devices out there with GPS chips in them, there can be issues over usability. Business users might be prepared to put up with them for the sake of the benefits GPS brings, but consumers are far less accommodating, and it is consumers whom the network operators are targeting with location-based services.

CRS claims E-GPS delivers virtually on-demand position fixes. With GPS, there is usually a time lag between requesting a position fix and obtaining it. Assisted-GPS (A-GPS) was the first attempt to resolve the problem; it uses data from the cellular phone networks to speed the time to fix. However, says CSR, fixes can still take 30 seconds or more, and this system cannot help in locations such as urban canyons where signals are weak or non-existent.

E-GPS combines CSR's Matrix technology with GPS. When users make a location request, the Matrix location is provided instantly, and is said to be accurate to within 100m. CSR's Fine Time Aiding then helps the device look for a satellite to obtain a GPS signal. Fine Time Aiding is said to be more sensitive and faster than the standard GPS hardware 'correlators' found in today's terminals.

It's not just the improved location fixing that is exciting the mobile industry about eGPS; the technology is also said to resolve some of the technical headaches posed by the phones themselves. GPS chips and systems can be too large and power-hungry to be integrated easily into mobile phones. CSR overcomes this by making E-GPS an integrated element of a Bluetooth device.

It utilises the existing radio device, eliminating the need for a separate GPS controller and most of the external components that are usually required. A system called time-domain slicing prevents interference between the Bluetooth and GPS radios and because the time required to capture GPS signals is very short (under 100 milliseconds), there is no fundamental effect on performance, as non-contiguous samples are handled by signal-processing algorithms.

E-GPS also uses the processing resources of the host CPU. CSR says modern phone CPUs can handle the extra load, partly because the push-to-fix load is minimised through the use of Fine Time Aiding to help the satellite search, and technology that allows continuous tracking without loading up the host processor.

A typical E-GPS push-to-fix will be available in less than 4 seconds, accurate to within 10m, says CRS, and require the equivalent power of less than 1 second of handset talk time.

Assisted GPS

Assisted GPS (or A-GPS) is well-proven technology for speeding up time-to-fix location requests. The mobile device uses a cellular phone network to get an approximate location fix, while waiting for the GPS receiver to communicate with satellites.

A-GPS developers such as U-Blox have now got even cleverer with the latest GPS receiver chipsets. 'GPS is now ubiquitous in many handsets, but it is important to recognise that GPS chipsets vary in terms of sensitivity, accuracy and reliability,' says the company's Huub Robroek.

'A good GPS chip will log on more quickly than a fast one. New architecture enables receivers to detect satellites faster, with start-up times of a few seconds rather than thirty or forty.'