Merlyn Consult / Historical case, updated 2026
Intermodal Transport Management Suite: from fragmented planning to connected supply chains
Road, rail and inland waterways can move goods efficiently. But when the data between partners does not move with them, every handover becomes a potential disruption. The original challenge remains relevant in 2026: turning disconnected transport activities into one coordinated supply chain.
One operational picture: booking status, milestones, ETA, exceptions and documents shared where they matter.
The original business problem
The freight moved. The information often did not.
The original Merlyn article described how shippers, freight forwarders, carriers, shipping agents, stevedores, shipowners, port authorities and public bodies struggled with incompatible IT infrastructures. A change in planning or execution could require more calls, emails and manual coordination.
It argued for a suitable intermodal transport management suite to make planning, scheduling and execution more transparent and responsive — from the initial order to fulfilment.
Why it mattered
Accurate, timely order fulfilment depends on knowing where cargo is, which leg is next and how quickly disruption can be handled.
- Too many disconnected systems and handovers
- Limited shared understanding of cargo status
- Manual effort to manage a single change
- Pressure on lead times, errors and customer service
A clear distinction
From the original case to 2026
The historic story focused on IT connectivity, operational collaboration, transport milestone sharing and predictable fulfilment.
The same foundation is increasingly complemented by event-based visibility, configurable APIs, predictive ETAs and exception-driven workflows. These are sector developments, not verified outcomes of the historical project.
EU eFTI rules reach full application on 9 July 2027, when authorities must accept electronic freight information presented through compliant platforms. Preparing data and interfaces now is relevant.
The 2027 date concerns public-authority acceptance of eFTI information, not a general obligation for every business to adopt a particular TMS.
Infographic / From events to decisions
Five handovers. One chain of visibility.
The goal is not a dashboard full of dots. It is a useful, trusted timeline that helps partners take the right action before a shipment misses its customer promise.
What matters in 2026
Six capabilities that create operational value
Shared milestones
Agree on the meaning and ownership of events across terminals, modes and carriers.
Exceptions first
Focus planners on deviations and decisions instead of constant manual status checking.
Reliable integrations
Connect existing ERP, TMS, WMS, carrier and port-community data without assuming a single replacement system.
ETA confidence
Use actual events and quality-controlled predictions, with clear ownership of uncertain data.
Documents with the flow
Link shipment records and necessary freight documents to operational events and user permissions.
Cost-to-serve
Compare delays, dwell, empty running and handover effort alongside delivery reliability.
Original case / Technology in its historical context
The Yellowstar approach described at the time
Connectivity and change management
The original article referenced Star Connect for interfacing applications, including SAP, with an enterprise service bus based on Talend. It also described Yellow Team as support for IT change and implementation activities.
These product and technology descriptions reflect the time of the original assignment; their current product status and architecture have not been independently confirmed.
Visibility and control
The article referred to Yellowstar Star Suite, Star Flow and Star Insight as ways to bring data flows and actionable insight together, including an Oracle APEX-based presentation layer.
The enduring concept is relevant: connect operational events, provide one reliable picture and let people resolve exceptions quickly.
Historical source attribution: Harry Luijk, Logistics & Supply Chain Professional and Partner at Merlyn Consult. The original article stated it was written during an assignment at Yellowstar Solutions B.V.
Practical assessment / What to do next
Start with the process. Then select the platform.
The original article recommended a FitGap analysis. That remains a sensible approach: define what needs to work between organisations before investing in yet another system.
Map the chain
Identify actors, handovers, responsibilities and existing tools.
Define critical events
Agree which milestones, documents and exceptions must be shared.
Run the FitGap
Assess process, integration, data quality, governance and user needs.
Prove the value
Start with a focused lane or customer flow, then measure before scaling.
Milestone completeness · on-time delivery (OTIF) · handover dwell · manual interventions per shipment · ETA reliability · transport cost-to-serve.
The European context
Digital freight information is becoming the norm
eFTI: prepare, do not overpromise
EU Regulation 2020/1056 supports electronic exchange of regulated freight information. As of 9 July 2027, competent authorities across Member States will have to accept information supplied through compliant systems. For transport businesses, 2026 is a practical time to review data definitions, processes and interface readiness.
Cyber resilience belongs in the design
More connected carriers, platforms and terminals also create more digital dependencies. Access rights, partner trust, incident response and resilient integration are essential parts of an intermodal operating model — not an afterthought.
Merlyn Consult / Independent perspective
Less chasing. More control.
Intermodal collaboration works when every organisation can act on the same operational truth — without needing to replace every legacy application first. Merlyn helps connect process design, supply chain performance and independent software decisions.
Editorial note: The historical sections summarise the original Merlyn case and retain its named systems and attribution. The 2026 sections are a present-day editorial update, not evidence of outcomes achieved by the original client. External context: European Commission eFTI and ENISA transport security guidance.