CONNECTING LOGISTICS NETWORKS GLOBALLY

VIA THE UN SINGLE WINDOW CONCEPT

Michael Linke

The UN Single Window concept is a proven approach to facilitate cross bor-

der business including transport, customs and other government-related
regulations by enabling seamless trade with a central IT platform, in a hub
and spoke like system. Several approaches and implementations already exist,
although one needs a proper planning for a further penetration worldwide.
Enterprise Architecture Management (EAM) as a specialized IT strategy dis-
cipline can help to manage this complex challenge of integrating application
landscapes into different existing UN integration frameworks.
Keywords: logistics networks, (UN) Single Window concept, cross border
business, transport regulations, customs regulations, government regulations,
seamless trade, EAM (Enterprise Architecture Management), Information
Technology (IT) strategy, UN integration frameworks, international trade.

In recent decades, the world has become increasingly globalized. Countries today are
more connected than ever and rely heavily upon international trade of goods and ser-
vices in order to function in an appropriate manner. Advanced communication net-
works seem to play an important role in this acceleration (Ardalan 2010). The results of
international trade seem to be more positive than negative and evidence suggests that it
has led to economic prosperity in many countries, subsequently resulting in an im-
proved quality of life for its citizens which is stated also in recent relevant studies in
that field (Sharmin and Rayhan 2011). Nonetheless other voices point out that poten-
tially backsides, especially with respect to inequality could still exist (Baumann 2011).
The United States, China and the European Union's 27 member states together account
for billions of dollars in trade each year. According to the World Trade Organization,
the EU exported 1.8 trillion USD worth of merchandise and imported nearly 2.0 trillion
USD in 2010.
As trade between countries becomes a more integral part of the world economy, the
need for fast and efficient methods of customs and security processes grows ever more
crucial. While no one country operates under the exact same processes or policies, very
few have streamlined practices when it comes to trade and customs regulations.
It should be mentioned that globalization seems to have an additional impact, especially
in the sovereignty domain of certain countries or economic unions, which might have
derived from that, also an impact of customs regulations as such (Grinin 2012). In fact,
in many countries, businesses who wish to involve themselves in international trade are
required to submit documentation (manual, automated or a mix) to several regulatory
bodies in order to legally conduct trade. This range of documentation, paperwork and
procedures depends on a number of factors including the type of goods or merchandise
Journal of Globalization Studies, Vol. 3 No. 2, November 2012 139–154
139
 140 Journal of Globalization Studies 2012 • November

involved, their value and destination country. The result is what many businesses view
as an inhibitive and stifling system that is overly complicated and slows the process of
trade.

Fig. 1. Current trade entities in various trading situations

A recent survey conducted by the World Customs Organization (WCO) Compendium
revealed that of 56 countries who participated in the survey, customs procedures in-
volved on the average 15 separate agencies, with 96 % of reporting countries requiring
at least 5 different regulatory bodies. From these findings, it is quite clear how the
combination of paperwork and customs regulations can slow or even stifle overall eco-
nomic prosperity at the macro level. At a more individual level, the regulations and
documentation surrounding the import and export of goods can prevent companies from
participating in international trade on the whole.

Fig. 2. Number of government agencies involved in cross border transactions

Source: Centre for Trade Facilitation and Electronic Business 2005.
 Linke • Connecting Logistics Networks Globally via the UN Single Window Concept 141
The UN Single Window concept was introduced in order to reduce the aforementioned
issues and inefficiencies involved with the importing and exporting of goods. Backed
by a number of international organizations including the United Nations Economic
Commission for Europe (UNECE), the World Customs Organization (WCO) and the
Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), it is defined by the UNECE as:
A facility that allows parties involved in trade and transport to lodge stan-
dardized information and documents with a single entry point to fulfill all im-
port, export, and transit-related regulatory requirements. If information is
electronic then individual data elements should only be submitted once (GFP
2012, ASEAN 2007, APEC 2007).
As an organization dedicated to the facilitation of both trade and electronic busi-
ness, the UNECE Centre for Trade Facilitation and Electronic Business (UNECE 2012)
has been instrumental in researching the Single Window concept in depth as well as
creating a set of recommendations for future implementation based on their findings
(Centre for Trade Facilitation and Electronic Business 2005). Through a careful re-
search and examination of existing implementations, the benefits of adopting a single
window are clear. Both the public and private sectors have much to gain by this meth-
odized streamlining of customs and trade regulations.
Governments stand to benefit from implementing a single window at a number of dif-
ferent levels. Any changes put in place would be in an effort to streamline and regulate
processes across a number of agencies simultaneously. This consolidation and standardi-
zation can lead to reduced overheads and a reduction in process errors resulting in reduced
risk. In addition, having all customs and trade information flowing through a single win-
dow will allow governments to monitor more easily what is coming in and out of the
country. This is important not only for economic and statistics agencies who report on
such matters, but also to the nation's security. Security agencies will be able to access
all pertinent information about goods entering the country through the single window
instead of being forced to collect information from a number of different departments,
allowing security to move more swiftly and effectively.
Overall, the effect of a single window on a government is far reaching. Customs
agencies, permit departments and trade monitoring agencies can work together under
a standardized umbrella and works towards making customs procedures faster, safer
and more efficient. These changes will propagate through the economy and allow busi-
ness to engage in international trade more easily.
 142 Journal of Globalization Studies 2012 • November

Fig. 3. Single window meta concept

As to the government, the private sector would benefit enormously from the use of
a single window. Many scholars predict that it will eliminate or reduce the existing
non-tariff related barriers to trade (Dobson 2010), thus lowering the costs of interna-
tional trade. In addition, due to the standardization of required documentation as a part
of the single window, businesses would no longer be required to expend as much en-
ergy and resources submitting and keeping up to date with paperwork from more than
one agency. This process would be made much more efficient and all required docu-
mentation would go to one source, or window. The positive effects of a single window
propagate even further to shipping and delivery companies, the banking and accounting
industries, and eventually to consumers.
Technical Dimensions of a Single Window
There does not exist single stringent set of specifications which outline the definition and
a scope of a Single Window. Every country has developed its own processes regarding
customs and trade and consequently, will require different solutions in order to achieve a
single window. The UN/CEFACT has created a number of guidelines for single window
created with a view to ‘enhance the efficient exchange of information between trade and
government’ (Centre for Trade Facilitation and Electronic Business 2005). In these guide-
lines there are suggested three models for a single window – Single Authority, Single
Automated System and Automated Information Transaction System.
Single Authority
In the Single Authority model, there is one body or agency that acts as a singular re-
tainer for electronic or paper documentation related to a defined unique business func-
tion or service. Upon receiving documentation, this single retainer acts as an authority
 Linke • Connecting Logistics Networks Globally via the UN Single Window Concept 143
and either manually or automatically files necessary paperwork and disseminates the
required documentation to the respective agencies or authorities. As a part of its func-
tionality, this singular authority should only disperse documentation once overviewed
and formatted to the recipient's specifications. See Fig. 4 for an illustrated diagram of
the Single Authority model.

Fig. 4. Single Authority conception

Single Automated System

The Single Automated System can take three forms – an Integrated System (illustrated
below), an Interfaced System and a combination of integrated and interfaced systems.
In all three forms, businesses submit all electronic information related to trade with
other countries to a singular source which is either a public or private entity, or win-
dow. Here, the electronic information will be collected, integrated and stored. In the
case of an integrated system, this central window not only receives information, but
processes it as well. On the other hand, an interfaced system will send the formatted
data to all the relevant agencies rather than process it itself. However, it is important to
keep in mind that regardless of the type of Single Automated system, a user experience
from the business or trader perspective does not change as in any scenario all necessary
documentation is submitted electronically to one authority.
 144 Journal of Globalization Studies 2012 • November

Fig. 5. Single Automated System conception

Automated Information Transaction System

The Automated Information Transaction System is the most complex single window
model, but it also the most advantageous for businesses. In this model, entities involved
in international trade are only required to submit electronic information through a sin-
gular application. This application contains in its application backend the integration
with all concerning agencies and regulatory authorities. In many cases, custom fees, tar-
iffs and taxes can also be calculated and integrated within this application allowing
businesses not only to submit their information, but also make the necessary payments
for their trades.
According to a survey conducted by the WCO Compendium, in 2011 only 33 per
cent of participating customs administrations operated on a single window model, while
the rest were still in the process of developing one. A breakdown of the survey results is
as follows (Choi 2011):
• 4 % operate Single Window – Integrated Model;
• 7 % operate Single Window – Interfaced Model;
• 22 % operate Single Window – Hybrid Model;
• 13 % operate One-stop Service;
• 44 % operate Stand-alone system;
• 9 % operate other systems.
 Linke • Connecting Logistics Networks Globally via the UN Single Window Concept 145

Fig. 6. Conception Automated Information Transaction System

Single Window Case Studies

Several organizations began making strides towards achieving the Single Window con-
cept in the 1990s, while many more started work in the last decade. Every country
faced unique situations and goals which in turn led to various implementations of
methods. It was clear through each case study, however, that there were certain com-
mon steps that each organization took in order to achieve their goals.
The first was clearly a preparation. Due to the scale of a single window project en-
compassing departments that involve customs, imports and exports, an enormous prepa-
ration process was required in order to achieve a proper foundation upon which to build
a single window. The UNECE emphasizes the importance of choosing a suitable
agency to lead all others in the single window effort. While this agency can be public or
private, it is important to ensure that is has enough legal power and government fund-
ing to act as an effective leader.
After a leading agency is chosen, it becomes crucial to set the requirements. It is
important to identify early which processes, organization units and cross-
organisational counterparts in related agencies should be integrated into the system's
initial release. Each of these bodies should define its own requirements and only after
this phase is completed there should begin the feasibility assessment and initial de-
sign work.
 146 Journal of Globalization Studies 2012 • November

Variations in Single Window Implementation

The UNECE has revealed through study and survey of the countries that have or are in
the process of introducing a single window, that there is a wide range of options in ref-
erence to the methods in which these systems are set up. For instance, while nations
such as Finland and the United States fund the development of a single window through
their government, other single window systems, including the one in Germany, are paid
by the private sector (Butterly n.d.). The country of Mauritius, which will be further
discussed, received funding from both the public and private sectors.
Countries also vary in the way in which the single window is used. It is mandatory
in some countries (Finland, Senegal, Mauritius), while intended to be voluntary in oth-
ers (Germany, Sweden). Additionally, Germany, Senegal, Malaysia and a few other na-
tions charge for use of their single window system. Each nation inevitably runs into
challenges when implementing new systems, though these can vary as well. The coun-
tries such as the United States that have a complex and long-existing infrastructure to
handle the trade, find it difficult to make the transition from older legal systems to a
single window. Other nations find it difficult to get support from all participating agen-
cies, while others run into problems finding initial funding and development power for
the project (Butterly n.d.). The UNECE emphasizes the importance, but not the neces-
sity of technology in single window development. Though it is really advantageous to
incorporate computerized and automated processes within the single window, the over-
all methodology can be executed manually in cases where funds for technology cannot
be secured (Centre for Trade Facilitation and Electronic Business 2005).
Mauritius
Mauritius, despite having an economy ranked 128th in the world (CIA 2011), was one
of the first countries to have an information transaction system, proving that existing
economic wealth is not a prerequisite to implementing a Single Window system.
Through a corporation called Mauritius Network Services Ltd., consisting of public and
private sector representatives combined with outsourced technical assistance, the Trad-
eNet application was developed.
TradeNet is a completely proprietary electronic data interchange (EDI) application
designed to receive information from IT applications including content related to cus-
toms, imports, exports, duties and tariffs. Since the launch of the program in 1994,
businesses are able to submit all their information electronically through TradeNet as
well as to make bank payments in the system in order to pay for any necessary duties,
taxes or tariffs.
According to UN/CEFACT, ‘it is estimated that TradeNet has decreased the av-
erage clearance time of goods from about 4 hours to around 15 minutes for non-
litigious declarations, with estimated savings of around 1 % of GDP’ (Centre for
Trade Facilitation and Electronic Business 2005). Thus, it is no surprise then, that
Mauritius is bucking the trend in Africa and has been on the receiving end of consis-
tent economic growth over the last 15 years. Global investment and exports seem to
have increased and the countries could experience therefore a possible healthier dis-
tribution of wealth. The success of the single window in Mauritius has attracted at-
tention of other African countries such as Uganda and Rwanda, both of which are in
 Linke • Connecting Logistics Networks Globally via the UN Single Window Concept 147
the development stages of a Single Window system (Hitimana 2012; TradeMark East
Africa 2012).
Sweden
As a part of an ongoing initiative to provide more government transparency to its citi-
zens, Sweden created a single window system known as the Virtual Customs Office
(VCO), which is aimed at electronic processing of customs declaration as well as im-
port and export licenses. The single window incorporates a large number of national
organizations including the Swedish Customs Authority, Swedish Board of Agriculture,
National Board of Trade, The National Inspectorate of Strategic Products, Swedish Po-
lice and The National Tax Administration and Statistics of Sweden (Centre for Trade
Facilitation and Electronic Business 2005).
The VCO aims at providing a user-friendly service to traders in an attempt to make
the filling customs declarations and import/export licenses as simple as possible. Inte-
grated into the virtual office are real-time updates of taxes, tariff codes and duties,
which traders can receive either via email or SMS. Fully financed by the Swedish gov-
ernment, a survey of VCO users revealed that 80 % of traders saved time, 54 % saved
money as a direct result of using the system, 72 % believed it provided increased flexi-
bility, and 65 % thought the quality and speed of served had improved (Ibid.).
The Netherlands
Air cargo handled through Schiphol Airport in the Netherlands is processed through
a single window system headed by the customs department. Called VIPPROG, the
Netherlands' single window is integrated with a private documentation system called
Cargonaut, which handles cargo manifest paperwork. The government pays Cargonaut
in order to maintain and have access to relevant records (Centre for Trade Facilitation
and Electronic Business 2005).
In this situation, the customs department acts as the leading agency in the single
window initiative and they process all paperwork in the form of a single automated (in-
tegrated) system. Here all cargo is given a risk assessment and depending on the results,
any risk factors are sent to one or more of the corresponding agencies. The system is
designed to integrate with the customs department and ten other agencies including
immigration, and various health and agriculture offices (Ibid.). If any of these agencies
wish to further inspect the cargo, the customs department arranges an inspection ap-
pointment, where any and all interested agencies can examine the cargo during a certain
scheduled time. This ensures that all goods can be checked at once, accelerating the
time in which cargo is generally processed through the airport while at the same time
mitigating risks.
The United States of America
In the United States of America, there is a large concerted effort to implement and util-
ize a single window integrated with many of the country's government agencies in order
to improve the trade process. The United States is one of the largest importers in the
world and exports quite a bit as well with a combined total of three trillion USD worth
of merchandise coming in and out of the country in 2011 (GFP 2012). As a result, the
country has set up a group known as the International Trade Data System (ITDS),
 148 Journal of Globalization Studies 2012 • November

aimed at establishing a ‘single window through which the data required by government
agencies for international trade transactions may be submitted’ (ITDS 2012). By im-
plementing a secure government-wide system to collect, store, integrate and dissemi-
nate information related to trade, the ITDS hopes to reduce public and private sector
overhead, comply more easily with a number of government requirements, and improve
national security allowing multiple agencies to have access to pertinent information
(Ibid.).
In the United States there seem to be more than a hundred agencies who require ac-
cess to trade documentation (Ibid.). The ITDS has the monumental task of setting up a
system whereby members of the trade and transportation communities are required to
submit relevant documentation through a secure EDI only once, leaving the single win-
dow to take care of the rest. Much like VIPPROG in Schiphol Airport, the goal is to
have the single window perform a security and risk assessment, then forward on the
findings to any government agencies who are qualified to further assess compliance or
security risk.
Still in the process of development, it is hoped that the country will benefit from
this new system in a number of ways. Though providing efficient means of transporting
goods across the country's boundaries will no doubt reduce overheads for both the gov-
ernment and private businesses, one of the most important goals is to increase govern-
ment compliance and security. Storing and handling all data under a central hub or sin-
gle window will facilitate the sharing of information between government agencies, al-
lowing them to collaborate on security and compliance efforts.

Enterprise Architecture Management (EAM) as an IT discipline

The more or less new discipline of Enterprise Architecture Management (EAM) as par-
tially a discipline of the organization studies and IT can be described on the basis of
two partial entities, which are already indicated by the combination of words.
Conceptual and historical dimension of the term EAM
An enterprise is an activity that contains a well-defined target. Currently, this can
mean a large number of organizations and suborganizations, which pursue a common
target or produce a common result. An enterprise can thus mean anything – from a
big group to a state or public institution – in practice, also summarized into holdings,
trusts, and other divisionally separated legal forms. Thus, they also have several En-
terprise Architectures. An enterprise in this context can also be an Extended Enter-
prise, which includes all the partners, suppliers, and clients of the actual business in
its value-added or administration chain into its own IT-based value added. The busi-
ness architecture within the framework of Information Technology (IT) describes the
interaction of the elements of information technology and the business activities
within the business. It distinguishes above all due to the sub-elements, for example,
the information architecture or the software architecture with a global view on the
role of information technology within an organization. The official definition of the
term architecture according to the ANSI/IEEE standard 1471–2000 in the IT envi-
ronment is:
 Linke • Connecting Logistics Networks Globally via the UN Single Window Concept 149
An architecture is the fundamental organization of a system, embodied in its
components, their relationships to each other and the environment, and the
principles governing its design and evolution.
The definition used, however, is narrower: an architecture is a formal description of
a system, a detailed plan of the system and its components, the structure of the compo-
nents, their mutual effects, their principles and guidelines, which control their draft,
their development, and their implementation. In larger groups, several different Enter-
prise Architectures can exist at the same time. However, in all cases, an Enterprise
Architecture includes several technical systems. The enlarged concept of Enterprise Ar-
chitecture dates from the 1980s. One of the leaders of the architecture movement, John
Zachman, saw the value of the use of an abstract architecture for the integration of systems
and their components. Zachman developed the analogies in the field of traditional construc-
tion architecture and later used concepts from the airplane industry in order to cover the
business process aspects in his framework. Since then, a number of frameworks have been
published, which all aim at describing a business in a structural way (Zachmann 2008).
Architecture frameworks as an auxiliary
An Architecture Framework divides a complex task of the IT architecture management
into several partial layers, which can be described separately to partially reduce com-
plexity. Each partial layer (Layers) should be specified in the Meta model of the
Framework. An approach is the ISO standard 15704, which defines general demands
towards the company architecture. In this standard, the architecture is considered as a
description of the fundamental structure of the system parts and the links between the
individual subsystems.

The Relationship between the Single Window Concept and Enterprise

Architecture
The goal of a single window system for trade is to consolidate existing processes and
simplify existing procedures. When incorporating technology, this concept aligns itself
well to enterprise architecture, which is defined as ‘the process of translating business
vision and strategy into effective enterprise change by creating, communicating and
improving the key requirements, principles and models that describe the enterprise's fu-
ture state and enable its evolution’ (Gartner 2012).
 150 Journal of Globalization Studies 2012 • November

Fig. 7. TOGAF model

SWIF and TOGAF ADM
In fact, the UNECE has created a framework meant to assist in the creation of a single
window called the Single Window Implementation Framework (SWIF). It is based very
heavily upon an existing standardized enterprise architecture framework known as
The Open Group Architecture Framework (TOGAF) and its Architecture Development
Method (ADM), which has evolved from initial work performed by the US Department
of Defense. The figure above (Zachmann 2008) illustrates the core entities of the
TOGAF model.
Overview of SWIF Methodology
SWIF is divided into a preliminary stage and additional eight phases, each consisting of
a defined set of objectives, activities and outputs/results. Designed to be a dynamic and
iterative process, these phases together are intended to outline the general steps neces-
sary to establishing and maintaining an EA-based Single Window System.
Phase A: Architecture Vision
This is the highest-level phase, where the project can identified through broad defini-
tions. The keys in this phase are to identify stakeholders. As the Single Window con-
cept pertains to customs and trade, there are four categories of stakeholders – Authority,
Supplier, Customer, and Intermediary. These refer to relevant government agencies,
exporters, importers, and auxiliary parties such as financial and shipping institutions re-
spectively (van Stijn et al. 2011).
 Linke • Connecting Logistics Networks Globally via the UN Single Window Concept 151
Once all the stakeholders are identified, the goals of this phase are to create a very
broad overview of the requirements of the stakeholders, and establish key performance
indicators for the project.
Phase B: Business Architecture
Much of the work that goes into streamlining processes occurs in Phase B. In this
phase, existing business processes are examined and weaknesses identified. Functions
which can be automated or consolidated should also be identified.
Phase C: Information Systems Architecture
This is the first phase which heavily involves IT. One of its main goals is to harmonize
data, which will be a key component to facilitate future modifications and scalability.
Standardized data allows for increased interoperability between business processes, al-
lowing for more transparency and ease of use. A data model should be designed in this
phase, incorporating all consolidated and streamlined business processes (Phase B),
along with any data which will be utilized.
Phases D–H
Phase D deals with obtaining, designing and/or modifying any hardware or software re-
quired to implement the new business processes. In the next phase, a plan should be put
in place for ‘implementing, deploying and operating the Single Window’ (van Stijn et
al. 2011). Phase F involves the final preparations required to ensure that all the sub-
systems in place fulfill the requirements of the original high-level plan. The last two
phases entail the implementation of a monitoring system and identifying ways to im-
prove the system.
Throughout each of the phases, the management of requirements should be always
kept in mind. It is important to ensure that all the work going towards the implementa-
tion of the enterprise structure does not ever stray from the business requirement estab-
lished during the preliminary phase and Phase A.
The trade industry is very dynamic and experiences constant changes in regula-
tions, duties and tariffs as a result of a various factors. Therefore, a single window sys-
tem must be designed to be alterable, dynamic and growth scalable. The TOGAF ADM
and SWIF account for the dynamic nature business in the design of their methodology.
The previously described phases are intended to work in a cyclical format on several
different levels. The framework is flexible enough to support the cycling of a single
phase, between phases and around the entire ADM itself, allowing for changes, new
initiatives and sub projects to be implemented during the life of the single window.
This dynamic capability combined with the properties of enterprise architecture will en-
sure fewer faults associated with updates to regulations or tariffs, resulting in a more
secure trade industry and lower overheads.
Integrating Security into a Single Window System
Security is an important factor in international trade and any new system put in place to fa-
cilitate the processing of goods across national boundaries should not compromise a coun-
try's security. Due to the structure of SWIF, in which harmonized data and business
processes allow for an easier propagation of necessary modifications and alterations
 152 Journal of Globalization Studies 2012 • November

throughout the system, adding security features to a single window more easily exe-
cuted.
Single windows designed through the SWIF benefit from having data, business
processes and documentation in a standardized format. This clear, hierarchical structure
reduces the possibilities of data security issues that can arise from having a group of
separate legacy systems. Furthermore, the adoption of security standards such as ISO
28000 and BS 7799 (as recommended by UNECE) are made easier due to the simpli-
fied architecture created through SWIF.
On the user-end, countries which already employ a Single Window system use a num-
ber of techniques to secure their application(s). Amongst the most common security im-
plementations are a PIN/Password system, Public Key Infrastructure (PKI), Authentica-
tion Tokens, Biometrics and Smartcards (Choi 2011). Additionally, in most countries
they protect raw data through an additional level of security incorporated during the
implementation of the architecture. As a result, other government agencies are not able
to access any raw data. Instead, they rely upon the single window to provide them with
the processed information, thus reducing the exposure of raw information.
Of course, these security features are all additional to the more secure borders cre-
ated by the single window itself. The window is responsible for receiving all the data
and information associated with customs and trades, which should provide it will all the
tools necessary to assess risk (ITDS, Centre for Trade Facilitation and Electronic Busi-
ness). This is in stark opposition to many existing border control methods when several
departments are responsible for different pieces of information, making risk assess-
ments more difficult.
Conclusion
The Single Window concept as proposed by the UNECE is beneficial to the world
economy and security in a number of ways. Its structure, mainly drawn from an existing
approach to enterprise architecture, is aimed at simplifying customs procedures while at
the same time improving security techniques. No doubt, a streamlined method of inter-
national trade requires less time to bring imported goods to the market, which will be
very much appreciated by business.
Case studies performed on the countries already benefiting from a single window
system have received overwhelmingly positive reviews from the private sector.
The single windows not only decrease the amount of time needed to clear goods, but
also saves business money by reducing overheads. From a public sector perspective, the
ability to update duties and tariffs through a single window has been shown in countries
such as Mauritius to increase revenue from foreign trade. Governments are also on the
receiving end of steep overhead reductions, which is typical for organizations convert-
ing from legacy to enterprise architecture systems. Citizens, too, have much to gain
from the single window as the ripple effects of this implementation are widespread.
Mauritius is a prime example of a country which has transformed itself from a localized
agricultural economy into a significant member of the world trading community.
 Linke • Connecting Logistics Networks Globally via the UN Single Window Concept 153

Fig. 8. UN Single Window Implementation Roadmap

The UN Single Window concept could therefore be a next logical step in trade
globalization. It will help facilitate international trade, enable governments to give
businesses an opportunity to reduce their overheads and simplify international
shipments while at the same time keeping borders secure and documentation updated
and in check.

REFERENCES
Ardalan, K.
2010. Globalization and Finance: Four Paradigmatic Views. Journal of Globalization
Studies 1(2): 41–67.
APEC – Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation
2007. Single Window Strategic Plan. URL: http://www.apec.org/About-Us/About-
APEC/~/media/DE912B04B0AC485A803823C32EB8750C.ashx.
ASEAN – Association of Southeast Asian Nations
2011. Trade and Facilitation. URL: http://www.aseansec.org/Fact%20Sheet/AEC/
AEC-01.pdf.
Bauman, Z.
2011. From Agora to the Marketplace, and Whereto from Here? Journal of Globaliza-
tion Studies 2(1): 3–14.
Butterly, T.
n.d. Single Window Implementation Framework. URL: http://css.escwa.org.lb/edgd/
1476/d2s4-3.pdf
 154 Journal of Globalization Studies 2012 • November

Centre for Trade Facilitation and Electronic Business

2005. Recommendation and Guidelines on Establishing a Single Window to Enhance
the Efficient Exchange of Information between Trade and Agreement. New York: United
Nations Centre for Trade Facilitation and Electronic Business. URL: http://www.unece.org/
fileadmin/DAM/cefact/recommendations/ rec33/rec33_trd352e.pdf.
Choi, Jae Young
2011. A Survey of Single Window Implementation. URL: http://www.wcoomd.org/files/
1.%20Public%20files/PDFandDocuments/research/17_SW_Survey%20Analysis_Choi_EN.pdf
Dobson, W.
2010. Gravity Shift: How Asia's New Economic Powerhouses will Shape the 21st Cen-
tury. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. URL: http://www.lob.de/cgi-bin/work/
suche2?titnr=259464463&flag=citavi
Gartner
2012. IT Glossary: Enterprise Architecture (EA). URL: http://www.gartner.com/it-
glossary/enterprise-architecture-ea/.
GFP – Global Facilitation Partnership for Transportation and Trade
2012. Single Window Environment. URL: http://www.gfptt.org/entities/TopicProfile.
aspx?name=single-window.
Hitimana, B.
2012. Uganda: Clearing Goods. URL: http://allafrica.com/stories/201203271181.html.
Grinin, L.
2012. New Foundations of International System or Why do States Lose Their Sover-
eignty in the Age of Globalization? Journal of Globalization Studies 3(1): 3–38.
ITDS – International Trade Data System
2012. What is ITDS? URL: http://www.itds.gov/xp/itds/toolbox/background/
background.xml.
Sharmin, S., and Rayhan, Md I.
2011. Does Globalization Always Increase Inequality? An Econometric Analysis in
Bangladesh Perspective. Journal of Globalization Studies 2(2): 160–172.
UNECE – United Nations Economic Commission for Europe
2012. UN/CEFACT: About Us. URL: http://www.unece.org/cefact/ about.html
TradeMark East Africa
2012. Electronic Single Window Pilot Launch. URL: http://www.trademarkea.com/
site/?000=1&001=23&003=news&004=771.
van Stijn, E., Phuaphanthong, T., Kerotho, S., Pikart, M., Hofman, W., and Tan, Y.
2011. Single Window Implementation Framework: D5.0:4b. URL: http://www.unece.
org/fileadmin/DAM/cefact/SingleWindowImplementationFramework.pdf.
Zachman, J.
2008. John Zachman's Concise Definition of the Zachman Framework. URL:
http://www.zachman.com/about-the-zachman-framework