Vessel sequencing
Compare alternative vessel and barge sequences when arrival times, berth availability, or commercial priorities change.
TOV BY LEKH · LIQUID-BULK TERMINAL DECISION SUPPORT
Better terminal decisions.
Before they become expensive ones.
TOV is being developed to help liquid-bulk terminal teams compare scheduling alternatives against operational constraints and commercial priorities. Start with a real historical decision from your terminal.
Current stage: prototype and historical Decision Replay evaluation.
WHEN THE PLAN CHANGES
One change can reshape the entire operating plan.
A late vessel. An unavailable berth. A maintenance window that moves. Each change can affect the sequence of work, customer commitments, and the use of shared infrastructure.
TOV’s initial focus is helping teams examine the alternatives: what can move, what must remain fixed, and which tradeoffs deserve attention.
Vessel delay
Revised berth sequence
Tank & line availabilityMaintenance windows
THE DECISION LANDSCAPE
Where terminal decisions
deserve a closer look.
Infrastructure constraints
Make relevant berth, tank, transfer-line, and maintenance restrictions explicit before evaluating a revised plan.
Operational tradeoffs
Examine waiting time, completion times, resource conflicts, and estimated economic consequences—including who captures the benefit.
Historical Decision Replay
Reconstruct an operating decision using the information available at the time, then assess feasible alternatives with your team.
Evaluation scope is agreed for each terminal. These are areas of focus, not a claim that every workflow is production-ready.
A DECISION, MADE VISIBLE
See the tradeoff
before choosing the plan.
A simplified example of how a scheduling comparison can make an operating decision easier to examine.
01 berth08:00–20:00 operating windowA must finish by 15:00
| Vessel / ready | Original service · wait | Alternative service · wait |
|---|---|---|
| A10:00 | 10:00–14:000h waiting | 11:00–15:001h waiting |
| B08:00 | 14:00–17:006h waiting | 08:00–11:000h waiting |
| C09:00 | 17:00–19:008h waiting | 15:00–17:006h waiting |
Total waiting · vessel-hours
14 7
Final completion
19:00 17:00
A’s deadline met
in both sequences
in both sequences
One vessel at a time. Uninterrupted service: A 4h, B 3h, C 2h. Waiting begins at vessel readiness.
In this simplified example, serving B first reduces total waiting while keeping A within its completion deadline. A waits one additional hour. Whether that tradeoff is acceptable depends on the terminal’s actual commitments and constraints.
Actual replay analysis must include the relevant operating restrictions, contractual terms, uncertainty, and costs. This illustration excludes transfer-line, tank, tidal, changeover, and other site-specific constraints.
THE TOV APPROACH
Every terminal decision
has constraints.
Make the tradeoffs visible.
Clear assumptions. Comparable alternatives.
A decision your team can examine.
A FOCUSED STARTING POINT
Bring one decision.
Examine the alternatives.
Decision Replay starts with one historical disruption and the scheduling window it affected. Together, we establish what was known, what constrained the decision, and what a useful comparison needs to show.
01 / YOUR INPUT
What your team provides
- Historical schedules and the changes made.
- Relevant availability, constraints, and commitments.
- An experienced scheduler to explain the decision context.
02 / THE EVALUATION
What the evaluation produces
- A reconstruction of the original decision and assumptions.
- A comparison of alternatives that satisfy the agreed model constraints.
- Estimated operational impact and, where supported, economic implications.
- Limitations and a recommendation on whether a pilot is justified.
Scope, timing, data handling, and commercial terms are agreed before work begins.
Discuss a Decision ReplayAN EVIDENCE-LED ENGAGEMENT
Progress when the
evidence supports it.
Historical Decision Replay
Establish whether the problem, available data, and comparison method support a credible evaluation.
DECISION GATE
A useful, customer-reviewed result.
Paid shadow pilot
A proposed 8–12-week evaluation alongside existing planning workflows, with scope and success criteria agreed in advance.
DECISION GATE
Sufficient operational value and a workable delivery model.
Potential deployment
Define the configuration, integrations, controls, support, and commercial agreement required for recurring use.
DECISION GATE
Operational, technical, and commercial approval.
Each stage is a separate decision. A replay does not commit your team to deployment.
RIGOR BEFORE RECOMMENDATION
A result your team
can challenge.
Constraints first.
Agree the restrictions and assumptions before comparing schedules.
No hindsight advantage.
Separate information available at the decision time from facts learned later.
Transparent uncertainty.
Identify missing data, estimated inputs, and limits to the conclusions.
Operator review.
Keep operational approval with the people responsible for the terminal.
LEKH / THE COMPANY BEHIND TOV
Focused on the decisions behind terminal performance.
LEKH is developing TOV to explore how structured decision support can help liquid-bulk terminal teams evaluate operational alternatives. The immediate priority is validating a focused use case with terminal operators.
Founded by Nisarg Patel.
START A CONVERSATION
Which terminal decision
would you revisit?
Tell us about the disruption, the decision your team faced, and what made it difficult. We can start by determining whether a Decision Replay is a useful next step.
Book directly on Calendly60-minute discovery conversation.
Prefer email? sales@lekh.io
BEFORE WE SPEAK
A few practical
questions.
Is TOV currently a production platform?
TOV is currently at the prototype and historical evaluation stage. Any pilot or deployment would have a separately agreed scope and readiness requirements.
Does this replace our scheduling system?
The initial approach is designed to evaluate decisions alongside existing workflows. A historical replay can begin with agreed data exports rather than a replacement system.
What data is needed?
Typically, the relevant schedules, changes, readiness and availability information, operating constraints, and commitments. Requirements are confirmed for the selected case.
Can you guarantee savings?
No. Historical alternatives produce estimates under stated assumptions. A pilot would test whether the approach creates sufficient value in your operating context.
How are data handling and confidentiality addressed?
Data scope and handling terms must be agreed before operational data is transferred. The initial inquiry should contain only a high-level description.
How long does an engagement take?
Replay timing depends on scope and data readiness. A subsequent shadow pilot is proposed at 8–12 weeks, subject to an agreed plan.