Tracking Reusable Assets with Multiple

Parties using masLogic

Typical Scenario

One of the most ideal requirements in
trading reusable assets is that every
party involved is able to track the
movement with full visibility. In a
typical scenario, as shown in Figure 1,
the flow of information follows a
closed-loop system where the
reusable asset manufacturer can track
the assets between its primary trading
partners the customer and depot. In
this setting, assets are either recorded
as inventory or balance. For example,
when the manufacturer ships 100
pallets from its own warehouse to the
customer, those assets can be recorded as inventory at the customers warehouse, or incurred
as owing 100 pallets to the manufacturer. Depending on the type of shipment selection,
masLogic is designed to handle both requirements.

Oftentimes, situations are far more complicated. A manufacturer may require tracking asset
movements beyond its primary trading affiliates. This type of movement is a transaction that
occurs between customer and end user, which is outside the course of 2-party scope. To combat
challenges like this, masLogic offers two solutions:
Group Modeling: Organize Trading Partners as Own Groups

In the Group Modeling approach,
masLogic supports powerful internal
movement tracking capabilities. This
model as depicted in Figure 2, the top-
most group or the pallet manufacturer
has centralized control of data on all
reusable asset movements shared
within its network. The parties with
which the assets are traded are
arranged by sub-categories. With this
Customer

End User
Depot
Reusable Asset
Manufacturer
Figure 1: Typical 4-Party Movement Scenario
Reusable Asset
Manufacturers Circle
Customer End User
Depot Reusable Asset
Manufacturer
Warehouse
Warehouse Warehouse
Warehouse
Figure 2: Group Modeling Scenario
masLogic - Tracking Reusable Assets with Multiple Parties using masLogic 1

level of organization, the tracking of information can be registered as internal transactions,
where the data is entered into the system by the manufacturer of pallets and received by
Groups consisting of customers, end users, and depots. These Group partners have two options
of involvement to take part in the reusable asset management system or opt out. If the former
is chosen, the user must first attain the pallet manufacturers consent and approval prior to
logging in to the masLogic system and registered as one of the customer group members. This
option offers a unique systematic method of tracking movements of reusable assets where both
the shipper and receiver are given the options of electronically documenting shipment quantity
for inventory by location along with balances with trading partners, and assigning liability to a
specific party in the shipment flow. On the other hand, when parties decide to opt out of the
system, the pallet manufacturer is wholly responsible for all transactional information that takes
place amongst its network of trading partners without losing visibility.
Independent Company Model: Trading Partners as Independent
Entities

The second option provides companies with complete control of their own data, in contrast from
Group Model that has control of all the movement of assets. In this model, every stakeholder is
set up as an independent company profile with its own linear structure. The flow of transaction
begins with Groups as administrators linked to their respective assigned Shipping Account users
comprised of warehouses, trading partners, and internal departments. Each Group can authorize
login accounts to Shipping Accounts and handle all data on behalf of the parties with which they
trade reusable assets (Figure 3).









Customer End User
Depot
Pallet Manufacturer
Warehouse
Warehouse Warehouse
Warehouse
Figure 3: Independent Company Profile
masLogic - Tracking Reusable Assets with Multiple Parties using masLogic 2


Under extenuating circumstances, both solutions can be combined to create a Hybrid Model that
features both capabilities of the Group and Independent Company models.

To determine which solution is better suited for your company, consider whether managing
reusable assets requires full control, then, scenario 1 or Group Model is a more viable option.
Whereas, Independent grouping is geared more to companies needing their own system
structure. Table 1 succinctly summarizes the capabilities of both models:

Capabilities Group Modeling Independent Company Model
Control Centralized Decentralized
Tracking
Levels
Inter-network transactions between:
Group vs. Group
Group vs. Shipping Account
Shipping Account vs. Shipping Account
One Group can be represented as the Customer, or one of
its internal departments. In this case, masLogic supports
balance reports at these various levels:
o
Company vs. Company
o
Department vs. Company
o
Department vs. Department
o
Shipping Account vs. Department
o
Shipping Account vs. Company
o
Shipping Account vs. Shipping Account
From one companys perspective only:
Company vs. Trading Partner
Group vs. Trading Partner
Shipping Account vs. Trading Partner


Shipment Shipper and Receiver are the same:
Users from the same company play both roles
Shipper and Receiver are different.
However, in an external movement:
Users from different companies play the
roles of the Shipper and Receiver
Set-up
Complexity
Setup per group:
Initialize forwarding balance at group level
Compared with Independent Company Profile:
It requires additional steps: extra group level
(e.g. Pallet Manufacturers circle)
Fewer steps: Trading Partner, asset type, asset
condition, role setup per company
Setup per company:
Initialize forwarding balance at company
level
Table 1: Comparison of Group vs. Independent Company Profiles
masLogic - Tracking Reusable Assets with Multiple Parties using masLogic 3

However, the tracking levels and capabilities of these two approaches vary. Group Model, for
example, can provide balance reports at departmental levels between the Pallet Manufacturer
and Customer. With the Independent Company Model, the amount of information is limited to
delivery address, contact, and company name, plus the company structure information is
unknown to other stakeholders.

Aside from the capabilities and tracking levels, the adoption of either model could pose a
challenge to many companies in accommodating many of their Group partners varying reusable
asset management requirements. Oftentimes, the best practice is to set up the whole system by
selecting one approach, yet in reality, certain procedures are more complicated. Suppose a pallet
manufacturer chooses the Group Model as a platform, with organizational structure as reflected
in Figure 2 where it is linked to its Groups. When one of these Groups decides to take itself out
of the system, the Group Model chain structure breaks, thus limiting the amount of information
collected on reusable assets as a result. In order to resolve this issue, it is imperative to carefully
determine all the factors that could affect the efficiency of the selected model solution before
choosing the ultimate model.
Closing Remarks

Managing reusable assets can be a daunting and time-consuming task. masLogic offers viable
solutions to alleviate key pain points. The Group Model approach is applicable to conditions
where the requirements of tracking asset movement need a centralized control of data, while
the Independent Company Model offers discrete, independent structure. Both platforms offer
varying capabilities that allow tracking of reusable asset movements beyond 2-party transaction
with features that can be scaled and configured, creating a unique solution that best satisfies
supply chain industries existing procedures.


masLogic - Tracking Reusable Assets with Multiple Parties using masLogic 4



21-156 Duncan Mill Road
Toronto, ON M3B 3N2 Canada
Tel: 1 (416) 480-2266