July 2018
This publication was produced by Nathan Associates Inc. for review by the United States Agency 
for International Development. 
ASEAN Single Window Baseline Study
ASEAN SINGLE WINDOW 
BASELINE STUDY
Submitted by: Andreja Zivkovic / Dennis C. Pantastico
Nathan Associates Inc. under
Contract No. AID-486- C-13-00004
Version 6.1
DISCLAIMER
This document is made possible by the support of the American people through the United States 
Agency for International Development (USAID). Its contents are the sole responsibility of the 
author or authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of USAID or the U.S government.
Distribution List
Name Organization
Documents available - US ACTI Version Author Version date
ASEAN SINGLE WINDOW Design of 
Project Management and Planning Team 
(Project Management Office)
Draft Report V 2.0 ACTI ASW Lead September 
2015
ASW Pilot – Live e-ATIGA Form D Final 
Report Version No. 0.01 Axway March 2017
ASEAN Single Window e-ATIGA Form D 
Process Specification and Message 
Implementation Guideline
Version No. 0.04 Axway February 
2016
ASW Pilot – e-ATIGA Form D Operations 
Handbook Version No. 0.07 Axway April 2016
List of Contact Points for the Live 
Operation n/a n/a April 2016
ASW Cross-Border Information Process 
Modelling Final Draft Report Version No. 0.03 
Karen Henderson; 
Kenneth Tiong; 
Francis Lopez
December 
2015
ASW Component 3 Technical and 
Financial Evaluation Final Report Version No. 1.00 Ian Hogg February 
2016
Terms of Reference of ASW Pilot Project 
Component 2 (Full-Fledged) Based on 
Staging Approach 
Version No. 9.0 n/a November 
2014
ASEAN Single Window Sustainability 
Study Final Report (Deliverable 9) n/a Lynn Salinger October 
2012
Memorandum of Understanding on the 
Implementation of the ASEAN Single 
Window Pilot Project
n/a n/a March 2010
Term of Reference of the ASW Pilot 
Project Component 2 (Scaled-down) n/a n/a August 2012
Development and Live Implementation of 
the ASEAN Single Window (ASW) 
Software for the exchange of the e-ATIGA 
CO Form D for Cambodia
Version No. 0.01 Axway July 2016
3
List of acronyms
ASEAN Association of Southeast Asian Nations
ACDD ASEAN Customs Declaration Document 
AMS ASEAN Member States
ASW ASEAN Single Window 
ATIGA ASEAN Trade in Goods Agreement
BPMN Business Process Model and Notation
CA Certificate Authority 
CDPS Customs Declaration Processing System 
COO Certificate of Origin
G2B Government to Business
G2G Government to Government
HA High Availability 
HTTPS Hyper Text Transfer Protocol Secure
IBM RUP SOA IBM Rational Unified Process Service-Oriented Architecture (SOA) 
IPSec Internet Protocol Security
IPSec tunneling Internet Protocol Security tunneling
ISO International Organization for Standardization
ISP Internet Service Provider
ITIL IT Infrastructure Library
KPA Key Performance Area
KPI Key Performance Indicators
NSW National Single Window
OGA Other Government Agencies
PI Performance Indicators
PKI Public Key Infrastructure 
PLF Protocol on the Legal Framework to Implement the ASW 
PMO Project Management Office
PMU Project Management Unit
QA Quality Assurance 
QOS Quality of Services 
SAD Single Administrative Documents 
SLA Service-Level Agreement
SOP Standard Operating Procedures 
SPOF Single Point of Failure 
SSL Secure Sockets Layer
SW Single Window
TWG Technical Working Group 
US ACTI The United States - Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) 
- Connectivity through Trade and Investment project
VPN Virtual Private Network
VPT-IT IT Virtual Project Team 
XML eXtensible Markup Language
4
1 Introduction
Today’s ASEAN Governments face a very interesting and challenging mix of demands coming from 
Trade, such as legal requirements, national & regional plans, social security and risk management, as 
well as demands of a purely technical nature. These emerging needs and demands drive ASEAN 
Member States’ Governments towards the next generation of Trade Facilitation (TF) Information 
systems. The transition to a modernized TF concept, based on generally accepted minimal 
requirements, is a multidimensional problem that containsfinancial, time management, political, legal 
and technical elements. Without a well-organized and developed ASEAN Single Window strategy 
followed by an AMS National Single Window Strategy, the proper tools and large-scale project 
experience, technical aspects of the transition, like cross border data exchange, adaptations, scaling, 
enhancements, etc. can turn into an unsolvable problem within the available timeframe and budget.
Pressure to strengthen cross-border initiatives is growing from two sides: the globalization of 
production; and security initiatives. The business sector is already operating global supply chains, and 
the freight forwarding and transport industry operates worldwide logistics networks and chains. They 
exchange data and information across borders amongst the supply chain and logistics chain partners 
and seek further facilitation at the border crossing and clearing points. A security initiative launched 
by governments worldwide pushes cross-border data exchange for risk and compliance management 
at an unprecedented level. 
TF is a rapidly evolving environment that is gradually shifting from manual / mixed processes1
and 
independent tasks to trade facilitation and integrated solutions. Following the business needs, the 
ASW and NSW should no longer offer standalone applications restricted to the client’s requirements; 
quite the contrary, it needs to be modernized and open to future extensions according to the current 
short and long-term trends.
The ASEAN Single Window (ASW) identifies some services, standards, concepts, functional 
components, and functional assets that can be used to achieve large scale TF goals. 
The ASW rely on a common conceptual framework, which is used as a reference model for linkage of 
the ASW Architecture and AMS National Single Windows. ASW addresses the TF needs of today, as 
well as the expected business and technological challenges of the foreseeable future. The favorable 
approach is that of a modular and flexible transformation, through a pilot and phased implementation 
plan that is implemented/introduced incrementally. This means that it can be used for developing 
functional components based on a modern, flexible ASW/NSW IT Architecture and at the same time
offer the means for the retention of some existing implementations (systems) through the provision 
of ASW integration services.
1.1 ASEAN Single Window Conceptual Framework 
Most of the AMS are geographically located on strategic transport corridors and actively participate in 
the integration of the movement of goods in respective regions.
The ASEAN Single Window is a trade facilitation tool or platform for exchanging standardized 
information, regulatory procedures and facilitating customs formalities based on international best 
practices. A core component of the regional SW is the implementation of a system which will put into 
place the most efficient environment possible for the movement of goods across national borders and 
international transport corridors. This is of the utmost importance if the region is to ensure economic 
development and take part in the global competition. Foreign investment, as well as imports to and 
exports from the ASEAN region, can only be increased if competitive advantages are offered, one of 
 
1 Paper, mixed / paper less and no paper environment
5
which is the speedy, cost-effective and safe movement of goods between AMS as well as other 
countries worldwide.
As a trade facilitation measure, the ASEAN Single Window is designed to facilitate movements of 
goods, facilitate legitimate trade and to integrate the ASEAN region's economies further. More 
specifically the intention is to simplify and harmonize transport, trade and customs regulations and 
regulatory requirements and to establish an effective, efficient, integrated and harmonized 
regional/common SWs.
The ASEAN Single Window’s goal is to promote/improve cross border communication and cooperation 
- regionalisation will contribute to closer cross-border cooperation, harmonization, simplification, and 
modernisation of procedures, practices and processes.
1.2 Development and Implementation of the ASEAN Single Window 
For the past four years, ASEAN Member States and US-ACTI have invested significant resources to 
create and maintain national single windows and connect them through the ASEAN Single Window. 
ASEAN has established and funded the ASW management team needed to operate the day-to-day 
operation of the ASW system, provided funding for its ongoing maintenance, support, and continuous 
improvement. Over the years, USAID has supported the following activities: 
 The design, launch and implement national single window programs, recently more on the
NSW needs assessment, project management support, and required technical specifications 
of the national single window programs of Cambodia, Lao PDR, Myanmar, and the Philippines;
 Legal gap analyses at the national level to support the establishment of single windows and 
their connection to the regional platform;
 Developing the necessary regional legal framework that was ratified by all Member States to 
operate the ASEAN Single Window;
 The design, development, and implementation of the ASEAN Single Window enabling 
platform;
 Harmonization and standardization of (cargo clearance data) the e-ATIGA Form D, ACDD, and 
e-SPS certificates to support trade facilitation in the region using the ASW platform;
 Development and promotion of the business case for the implementation of the ASEAN Single 
Window and lay the groundwork for needed regional funding; 
 Expanding the public-private dialogue on the ASEAN Single Window and national single 
windows;
 NSW software support in the installation of the ASW gateway on Brunei’s NSW system and 
started to install the ASW Gateway software in Cambodia to connect to the ASW enabling 
platform;
 NSW project management support to Cambodia in setting up the NSW system, and developing 
the required agency applications prior to the installation of ASW gateway software to connect 
to the ASW platform; and
 NSW needs assessment support in the Lao PDR, Myanmar, and the Philippines to ensure their 
readiness to connect to the ASW platform
1.3 ASEAN Single Window Live Implementation 
As of March 2016, Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore, Thailand, and Vietnam are now exchanging the live 
data of electronic certificates of origin, which covers the end-to-end service delivery of the message, 
including the Customs confirmation receipt response. However, Member States agreed to continue 
6
granting the preferential rate using paper until Member States are technical ready to generate the 
utilization response in electronic form. 
Brunei Darussalam is expected to join the ASW live implementation by November 2017, while 
Cambodia and the Philippines, which are both in the installation of the gateway software and testing 
phases, are expected to come on board by February 2018. Similarly, Lao PDR and Myanmar are being 
supported by USAID in the conduct of their NSW requirements analysis in setting up a basic NSW 
environment, including the required front-end applications for sending and receiving e-ATIGA 
messages, and automated granting of preferential rate. Both are expected to join the ASW live 
operation by the second half of 2018. 
1.4 ASEAN Single Window Live Operation 
In line with the decision of the 31st AEM-AFTA Council Meeting urging Member States to intensify 
efforts for ASW to transition to live operation by 1 January 2018, Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore and 
Viet Nam confirmed their readiness to transition to live operation on 1 January 2018 by accepting the 
e-ATIGA Form D to grant preferential treatment when received by such mode. The remaining Member 
States would continue the necessary preparatory work on their readiness to cutover to ASW Live 
Operation. 
1.5 ASEAN Single Window Post Implementation Review 
Member States agreed for the conduct of the Post Implementation Review (PIR) of the ASW, which 
would include both technical and financial analysis six (6) months after the cut-over to live operation 
in the production environment. 
Certain conditions were agreed, which would need to be met by Member States for the PIR to be 
effective and meaningful. At least five (5) Member States would participate in the “live operation of 
the ASW” and that at least two (2) documents would be exchanged. 
The specific goals of this review include: 
 Assess whether the objectives were met, the contractor and Member States delivered planned 
levels of benefits, addressed the specific requirements as originally defined; 
 Consider the analysis and recommendations of the ASW Baseline Study;
 Examine if further improvements can be made to optimize the benefits delivered;
 Assess the cost-benefit analysis of the project, outcome-based performance measurement 
information should also be identified and collected; and
 Cite the lessons learned from this project, which can be used by Member States to improve 
future ICT work in the region
1.6 Background -Purpose of the ASEAN Single Window Baseline Study
The purpose of this activity is to develop a set of key performance indicators for the ASEAN Single 
Window (ASW). The focus will be to provide baseline data on border clearance activities before live 
operation of the ASW that can be used to effectively measure the change in those activities six (6) 
months after the live operation when at least five countries begin exchanging at least two documents 
agreed on by the Member States. 
The study will provide a comprehensive view of how the ASEAN Member States currently use and 
implement ASEAN Single Window. The study will also reflect on the ways in which the ASEAN Member 
States can strengthen their efforts to ensure successful operations and sustainability and leverage a 
trade facilitation benefit. 
7
The proposed approach for delivering this study combines a cross-country assessment framework with
a pragmatic approach to policy options development. The work was implemented in 45 working days 
and entails off-site work for research, analysis, and drafting, as well as on-site work in selected ASEAN 
Member States for interviews with relevant stakeholders. 
1.7 Tasks
The following tasks are identified for drafting the ASEAN Single Window Baseline Study Concept Note;
 Analyze and revise the developed set of KPIs for the ASW, its definition, and parameters to be 
set;
 Provide the mechanism for collecting the data and sensitivities for each of the proposed KPIs;
 Provide the implementation strategy on how the KPIs would be used to measure the baseline 
data with the goals of the ASW;
 Provide the Revised Implementation Strategy Measurement Report;
 Based on an approved set of indicators, provide recommendations on the next steps that need 
to be undertaken by AMS to ensure that all stakeholders/key players can actively participate 
in measuring the proposed KPIs against the goals of the ASW;
 A presentation on the final documents to the 41st TWG meeting.
Outcomes and deliverables
The following Outcomes and deliverables are identified as an output from the ASEAN Single Window 
Baseline Study Concept Note;
 Finalized KPIs and their definitions for the ASW Baseline Study;
 A report with a methodology for data collection and challenges/sensitivities for the proposed 
KPIs, including the implementation strategy for the Member States approved criteria in the 
conduct of the Post Implementation Review;
 Submit the revised implementation strategy measurement report, incorporating comments 
received, for Member States’ approval;
 Provide appropriate recommendations on the next steps that need to be undertaken by AMS;
 ACTI Consultant to provide the draft final report based on the comments provided by AMS.
ASW Business Goals
 Establish a business model that supports AMS long-term vision, goals, and sustainability in 
trade facilitation;
 Create a cross border exchange of data and information (import and export) infrastructure 
based on international standards and data harmonization to facilitate interoperability and 
interconnectivity across the ASEAN business environment;
 ASEAN regional/public–private collaboration highlights the criticality of aligning integration 
efforts across each NSW and the ASW to overcome individual NSW disparities;
 The scope of AMS integration thresholds must be established to maintain business continuity;
 Active participation of the business community to support sustainability of ASW and mitigate 
decision risks;
 Continuous business process analysis (data harmonization and digital documentation of all 
cargo support documents);
o Certificate of Origin;
o ASEAN Customs Declaration Document (ACDD)
o Sanitary and Phytosanitary certificate;
o Animal Health certificate;
o Food Safety certificate;
o Others
8
 Adopt integrated risk management for cross border supply distribution to minimize cargo 
delays;
 Implement change management to convert from current Standard Operating Procedures
(SOP) to new standard operating procedures and techniques; and
 Implement a regional PMO to ensure day-to-day management of the regional ASW services;
ASW System Ownership 
Ownership of project activities by all AMS stakeholders is essential for successful implementation and 
integration of the ASW. The ASW main objective is to ensure that all AMS stakeholders are actively 
involved in the project, where the ASEAN Secretariat – the PMO- plays a leading role in supporting and 
facilitating the day-to-day management of the ASW regional services. A strong commitment by all AMS 
stakeholders is the most important element in ensuring that the approximation to the servicesreaches 
a higher level paying off in actual trade facilitation improvements. Therefore, the overall philosophy 
of the ASW approach will be to start working on the issues by pro-actively involving the stakeholders 
through a process of “learning-by-doing”.
Survey method 
Four types of survey questionnaires were produced and circulated to selected contact points in the 
ASEAN Member States. Two different channels were used for the dissemination of the survey: Through 
the ASEAN Secretariat and official contact points for Customs in AMS. Return rates on the survey were
acceptable and valuable information was collected for the NSW. The survey was produced to be simple
and short, encouraging contact points to reply and allowing the consultant to follow up on the replies 
to more in-depth questions (where needed). Survey information will also be complemented and 
verified through desk research / open source data by the consultant. Where no replies from the survey
are received, the consultant will rely on desk research as a source of information.
Desk research
In the past years, numerous studies have been published on the importance of SW and cross border 
exchange of information. Some of these publications describe the SW conceptual framework and best 
practices of trade facilitation; others summarize and evaluate individual country SW experiences. The 
consultant was reviewing these publications and uses the information to complement ASW / NSW 
survey information for the cross-country assessment.
In-country data collection
For five ASW participating AMS (Indonesia, Singapore, Vietnam, Thailand, and Malaysia – skype
conference) information wаs collected using personal interviews and observations. The consultant
visited five AMS to interview representatives of the Customs and Single Window entities. To the extent 
that the Customs / NSW entities allow and facilitate, services and functionalities of the NSW were
observed and data on performance collected.
The results of the in-country and survey data collection feed into the country assessment and in the 
future, into an AMS profile case study. These AMS case studies provide in–depth details regarding the 
particular NSW situation using the assessment framework used for the comparative assessment. 
Compared to the comparative assessment covering ten countries, the case studies, however, should 
provide more details with regards to the readiness of NSW to host and manage the new / planned 
ASW services with the details on business coverage, and business processes and technical criteria of 
the ASW / NSW assessment framework. 
1.8 ASEAN Single Window Interoperability
ASW Interconnectivity refers to the NSW to NSW connectivity or connectivity of the different services 
of systems which interact with one another. The key challenge of NSW system is interconnectivity 
9
services for Other Government Agencies (OGAs) and Customs to better respond to complex regulatory 
challenges and to improve the delivery of services to traders. The NSW should provide the agencies 
with collaborative, networked and interconnected approaches to deliver and support services. There 
are three basic interconnectivity concepts that should enable smooth interaction between the NSW 
services and user systems.
Procedure Interoperability: only Single Window harmonized procedures can be interoperable. 
Interoperability starts on process level by describing and harmonizing the SW procedures to build a 
foundation for a common process and data model. If the AMS NSW use different business processes 
and data models, interoperability will be hard to achieve. 
Message Interoperability: according to the best practices of the data modeling the data exchanged in 
a process must be based on the same semantic structures and definitions. In an ideal world, everybody 
would use the same syntax and the same message implementation guidelines. However, in the real
world, this works differently. ASW message interoperability can and must be achieved by matching 
the various implementation formats against the recognized information model to make sure there are 
no gaps. This ASW interoperability concept will always involve a certain amount of data translation or 
conversion, but the aim is to minimize these requirements to increase efficiency and reduce 
operational costs.
Technical interoperability: the ASW / NSW Architectural pattern must ensure that the technical 
exchange of information can be unified. This Architecture includes interconnectivity patterns like 
network systems and communication standards, security devices, and encryption, etc.
10 AMS National Single Window
ASEAN Single Window System Topology
ASW
National Domain
Customs
Agency 1
Agency 2
Agency n
AMS National Single Window National Domain
Customs
Agency 1
Agency 2
Agency n
ASW
Figure 1: ASEAN Single Window System Topology
11
2 ASW Baseline Study Questionnaires
In June 2017, the Consultant circulated the survey questionnaire to Member States with the objective 
of knowing the baseline data on border clearance activities prior to the live operation of the ASW 
enabling platform. This would assist the consultant to develop a set of key performance indicators 
(KPIs) that can be used effectively by Member States to measure the change in those activities six (6) 
months after the live operation and beyond. To date, six (6) Member States (Indonesia, Malaysia, 
Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, and Vietnam) submitted the completed questionnaires, which were 
consolidated by the consultant in a separate file “ASW Baseline Study - AMS Completed 
Questionnaires Matrix 171011” (attached).
3 Analysis of the KPAs and KPIs Initially Identified
To get a more detailed understanding of the value in the particular ASW goal areas, we try to identify 
Key Performance Areas (KPA) in the surveys. By studying the available literature as well as ASW and 
NSW surveys (see Annex IV), an initial set of KPAs and KPIs which is applicable for value assessment in 
AMS NSW was developed and can be used as a starting point for defining case-specific values for a 
particular AMS. Namely, for these generic KPAs, AMS specific Key Performance Indicators are 
elaborated. The analysis of the ASW and NSW will serve us also to validate and extend this set of KPAs.
3.1 Three Levels of Analysis
The identification of values to assess is made top-down by going through three levels of granularity.
First, Key Performance Areas (KPA) were identified, i.e. the key goals of the ASW and NSW. Next, Key 
Performance Indicators (KPIs) are defined per value type for each KPA. Finally, every KPI can be 
measured (on a quantitative basis) or assessed (on a qualitative basis) by one or more concrete 
Performance Indicators (PIs). The three level of analysis can be represented as a pyramid; at the top 
there are the KPA and in the bottom the very specific Key Performance Indicators that are used to 
assess the performances value. Each level is additionally elaborated on further in this section.
12
Figure 2: Three level of analysis represented as a pyramid
3.2 Key Performance Areas
Key performance areas, referred to as KPAs, are areas for business success factors and improved 
performance of an organization, in this case, ASW and NSW. A KPA can be assessed by assessing one 
or more concrete KPIs which are all related to this specific area. This hierarchy enables a transparent 
and aggregated view of a large number of KPIs especially for ASW and NSW with complex structures 
and heterogeneous business processes. For ASW strategic organization’s planning, the first step is to 
define goal areas and success factors on KPA level. Afterward goals and factors can be defined and 
refined by different KPIs.
3.3 Key Performance Indicators
Key performance indicators, also known as KPIs, are quantitative or qualitative measurements, which 
reflect the business success factors and strategic performance of the ASW. For this Baseline Study, the 
KPIs are qualitative, which one may not necessarily measure with a quantitative measurement (e.g., 
acceptance of ASW common standards). Therefore, in this document, we use the terms “measure” to 
relate to quantitative KPIs, and the term “assets” to refer to qualitative KPIs or a set of qualitative and 
quantitative KPIs. 
13
Figure 3: KPI Value added and selection criteria2
3.4 Performance Indicators
Often more than one KPI is related to the same success factor - Performance Indicators (PI). In that 
way different areas of interest can be evaluated to achieve a specific ASW KPI goal. The PIs are usually 
long- term considerations or refer to a specific period, during which their values will be collected, 
measured or assessed. The definition of what they are and how they are measured or assessed does 
not change often. It is important for ASW performance measurements to stay with the same definition 
of the KPI from year to year or a particular period.
Each PI must be correctly defined by a specific target, the period of validation (e.g. month or year), 
considerations, the unit of measurement (e.g. lower cost for traders) and a description how to 
assess/measure it respectively how and where the data can be collected.
3.5 Performance Indicators Baseline, Target, and Actual Data
Member States are currently under live implementation stage, which allows Member States to start 
exchanging live data based on the agreements and MOUs signed such as the ATIGA rules, ACDD 
message implementation guide (MIG) and other MIGs. The baseline data will be set on 31 December 
2017 based on the actual number of Member States participating in the live exchange and messages 
successfully exchanged. All the baseline data metrics provided are indicative based on the available 
current information. This will be updated by December 2017 by the consultant, as the suggested 
baseline process point. It is up to the ASW Management Team (PMO) to determine on how the 
baseline data would be set. This can be qualitative, in which case the assessment criteria need to be 
identified, or it can be numerical or using a scale, in which case the formula or scales with categories 
need to be identified. Example, using a 0-10 scale (not at all likely to extremely likely) respondents will 
 
2
Source: PKI Institute
14
answer: How likely is a particular cargo document agreed by Member States would be exchanged 
using the ASW platform? 
The target and actual data columns are suggested to provide metrics to monitor the performance of 
Member States and ASW stakeholders per key performance area / performance indicators. 
4 ASW Implementation Strategy
Transparency, coordination, public credibility, flexibility, longevity, and effectiveness are the key 
principles upon which the ASW implementation shall stand. By implementing the strategy the ASW
shall strive to these principles in the organization’s culture. The adoption of these principles must be
a long-term objective which shall be achieved by the certain time frame, and it will be accomplished
if AMS accept the new working practices and attitudes. 
4.1 Key Performance Area - ASW Implementation Strategy Performance
Implementation Strategy Performance Area takes a broad view of performance management to keep 
organizations on the right track. Creating a service value to drive the ASW and NSW performance, the 
development of planned and governance processes will ensure that the short-term goals are aligned
with the ASW long term strategy and agenda.
Figure 4: ASW Implementation Strategy Performances3
By using a wide variety of KPI proven tools and techniques, including project management 
methodologies, balanced scorecards, and trader/government feedback surveys, the goal is to focus 
and guide their activities. No matter which performance management tools used, the fact that they 
used at all—and that they are used effectively—is most important. 
The ASW service value generating mechanisms follow:
 Provide services in a secure, accurate, and timely manner;
 Increases in efficiency – obtaining increased outputs or goal attainment with the same 
resources, or obtaining the same outputs or goals with lower resource consumption. (e.g. 
reduce time and costs for import procedure);
 Increases in effectiveness – increasing the quality and quantity of the services. (e.g. increase 
revenue, better risk management);
 
3
Source: PKI Institute
15
 Enablement – providing means or allowing otherwise infeasible or prohibited desirable 
activity, or preventing or reducing undesirable events or outcomes. (e.g. increase control, 
preventing fraud); and
 Intrinsic enhancements – changing the environment or circumstances of a stakeholder in ways 
that are valued for their sake. (e.g. G2B and G2G partnership enhancement).
16
Key 
Performance 
Indicator
Performance Indicator
Baseline 
Data
(December 
2017)
Year 1 
Target
Year 1 
Actual Description and Unit of Measurement
Data Source 
/ Reporting 
Authority
Reporting 
Frequency
ASW / NSW 
Implementation
Tracking the regional 
protocols, agreements, 
and MOUs that need 
to be adopted by 
ASEAN to implement 
the ASW
5/11 2
This indicator keeps track on the 
progress of achieving the activities 
agreed/to be agreed by ASEAN in 
relation to the implementation of the 
ASW. Regional protocols, agreements, 
and Memorandum of Understanding 
(MOU) refer to the binding legal 
agreements that Member States 
signed/ratified. Member States that 
spearhead the execution of the ASW 
objectives in relation to the use of the 
ASW enabling infrastructure for the 
exchange of live data.
List of agreements considered:
1. Protocol on the Legal 
Framework to Implement the 
ASW (PLF)
2. ASW Project Management 
Office (PMO) or the ASW 
Regional Service Management 
Team 
3. Study on the viability of the 
ASEAN Secretariat to host the 
ASW Regional Services 
servers/Sustainability Plan
ASW / NSW
On update 
by the 
Member 
States 
17
Key 
Performance 
Indicator
Performance Indicator
Baseline 
Data
(December 
2017)
Year 1 
Target
Year 1 
Actual Description and Unit of Measurement
Data Source 
/ Reporting 
Authority
Reporting 
Frequency
4. Amended Operational 
Certification Procedure (OCP) 
of the ATIGA Form D
5. Electronic ATIGA Form D 
Message Implementation Guide 
and Process Specifications
6. ACDD Message Implementation 
Guide and Process 
Specifications
7. Electronic Phyto-sanitary 
Certificate Message 
Implementation Guide and 
Process Specifications
8. Electronic Animal Health 
Certificate Message 
Implementation Guide and 
Process Specifications
9. Electronic Food Safety Message 
Implementation Guide and 
Process Specifications
10. PKI Paper to Implement a 
Robust, Flexible, and Neutral 
Certificate Validation Solution 
based on International 
Standards
11. ASW Information Security 
Policy
18
Key 
Performance 
Indicator
Performance Indicator
Baseline 
Data
(December 
2017)
Year 1 
Target
Year 1 
Actual Description and Unit of Measurement
Data Source 
/ Reporting 
Authority
Reporting 
Frequency
Number of Member 
States adopting 
specific regional 
Protocols, Agreements, 
and MOU 
14/50 5
Member States refer to any ASEAN 
country that is complying with the 
agreed agreements. This PI counts the 
Member States that will comply with 
only the following agreements: 
1. Protocol on the Legal 
Framework to Implement the 
ASW (PLF)
2. ACDD Message Implementation 
Guide and Process 
Specifications
3. Electronic Phyto-sanitary 
Certificate Message 
Implementation Guide and 
Process Specifications
4. Electronic Animal Health 
Certificate Message 
Implementation Guide and 
Process Specifications
5. Electronic Food Safety Message 
Implementation Guide and 
Process Specifications
The baseline data fourteen (14) is based 
on the completed domestic ratification 
of the PLF by all Member States, and 
the four Member States that are 
ASW / NSW
On update 
by the 
Member 
States
19
Key 
Performance 
Indicator
Performance Indicator
Baseline 
Data
(December 
2017)
Year 1 
Target
Year 1 
Actual Description and Unit of Measurement
Data Source 
/ Reporting 
Authority
Reporting 
Frequency
already exchanging live data of the 
ATIGA Form D, 
Number of messages 
successfully exchanged 
of e-ATIGA Form D 
based on the Importing 
Country Gateway 
confirmation response 
(RES) 
0 400,000
This PI counts the number of XML 
messages exchanged using the ASW 
platform. Capture the number of e￾ATIGA Form D messages from the ASW 
RS Services Management Report (at 
least a RES returned by receiving AMS)
ASW / NSW
ASW Weekly 
and Monthly 
RS Service 
Management 
Report
Total number of ATIGA 
Form D 
issued/processed by all 
Member States 
2,000,000
(indicative 
number)
2,000,000
(indicative 
number) 
This PI counts the number of ATIGA 
Form D issued by all Member States for 
both paper and electronic form 
ASW / NSW
Monthly to 
be provided 
by the 
Member 
States
Percentage of e-ATIGA 
Form D processed 13.5% 20%
Percentage of electronic ATIGA Form D 
processed/transmitted through the 
ASW platform out of the total number 
of ATIGA Form D issued by all Member 
States. The intent is to know the 
progress of Member States in shifting 
to electronic environment. 
ASW / NSW
Monthly / 
Yearly / 
Computed 
Number of messages 
successfully exchanged 
of ACDD based on the 
Importing Country 
0 1,000
This PI counts the number of XML 
messages exchanged using the ASW 
platform. Capture the number of ACDD 
messages from the ASW RS Services 
ASW / NSW
ASW Weekly 
and Monthly 
RS Service 
Management 
Report
20
Key 
Performance 
Indicator
Performance Indicator
Baseline 
Data
(December 
2017)
Year 1 
Target
Year 1 
Actual Description and Unit of Measurement
Data Source 
/ Reporting 
Authority
Reporting 
Frequency
Gateway confirmation 
response (AS4) 
Management Report (at least an AS4
returned by receiving AMS)
Total number of ACDD
processed by all 
Member States 
1,000,000 1,200,000
This PI counts the number of ACDD 
processed and transmitted by all 
Member States for both paper and 
electronic form 
ASW / NSW
Monthly to 
be provided 
by the 
Member 
States
Percentage of ACDD 
processed 0% 0%
Percentage of electronic ACDD Form D 
processed/transmitted through the 
ASW platform out of the total number 
of ACDD issued by all Member States. 
The intent is to know the progress of 
Member States in shifting to electronic 
environment. 
ASW / NSW
Monthly / 
Yearly / 
Computed 
Number of messages 
successfully exchanged 
of e-Phyto certificate 
based on the Importing 
Country Gateway 
confirmation response 
(AS4) 
0 100
This PI counts the number of XML 
messages exchanged using the ASW 
platform. Capture the number of e￾Phyto-sanitary certficate messages 
from the ASW RS Services Management 
Report (at least an AS4 returned by 
receiving AMS)
ASW / NSW
ASW Weekly 
and Monthly 
RS Service 
Management 
Report
Number of messages 
successfully exchanged 
of e-Animal Health 
certificate based on 
0 0
This PI counts the number of XML 
messages exchanged using the ASW 
platform. Capture the number of e￾Animal Health messages from the ASW 
ASW / NSW
ASW Weekly 
and Monthly 
RS Service 
21
Key 
Performance 
Indicator
Performance Indicator
Baseline 
Data
(December 
2017)
Year 1 
Target
Year 1 
Actual Description and Unit of Measurement
Data Source 
/ Reporting 
Authority
Reporting 
Frequency
the Importing Country 
Gateway confirmation 
response (AS4) 
RS Services Management Report (at 
least an AS4 returned by receiving AMS)
Management 
Report
Number of messages 
successfully exchanged 
of Food Safety 
certificate based on 
the Importing Country 
Gateway confirmation 
response (AS4) 
0 0
This PI counts the number of XML 
messages exchanged using the ASW 
platform. Capture the number of e￾Food Safety messages from the ASW RS 
Services Management Report (at least 
an AS4 returned by receiving AMS)
ASW / NSW
ASW RS 
Weekly and 
Monthly 
Service 
Management 
Report
Time to Export: Border 
Compliance, Average 144 130 Hours, Work Bank Doing Business 
Report – Trading Across Borders
World Bank 
Report Annually
Time to Export: 
Documentary 
Compliance, Average 
144 130 Hours, Work Bank Doing Business
Report – Trading Across Borders
World Bank 
Report Annually
Time to Import: Border 
Compliance, Average 152 136 Hours, Work Bank Doing Business 
Report – Trading Across Borders
World Bank 
Report Annually
Time to Import: 
Documentary 
Compliance, Average 
152 136 Hours, Work Bank Doing Business 
Report – Trading Across Borders
World Bank 
Report Annually
22
Key 
Performance 
Indicator
Performance Indicator
Baseline 
Data
(December 
2017)
Year 1 
Target
Year 1 
Actual Description and Unit of Measurement
Data Source 
/ Reporting 
Authority
Reporting 
Frequency
Number of Documents 
to Export, Average 4 3
Number of Documents Needed to 
Export, Work Bank Doing Business 
Report – Trading Across Borders or 
World Development Indicators
World Bank 
Report Annually
Number of Documents 
to Import, Average 6 5
Number of Documents Needed to 
Import, Work Bank Doing Business 
Report – Trading Across Borders or 
World Development Indicators
World Bank 
Report Annually
Logistics Performance 
Index, Average 6 7
Rating, 1- 10, Logistics Performance 
Index
World 
Development 
Indicators 
Annually
Average time saving 
for consignments 
supported by 
documents exchanged 
through the ASW
0 0.5 days
This will require that AMS 
NSWs/Customs systems are able to 
collect data on clearance times by 
consignment and then compare 
between those using ASW data and 
those not using ASW data
NSW or 
Customs / 
AMS
Quarterly
Table 1: ASW / NSW Implementation Strategy KPIs
4.2 Key Performance Area - ASW Current and Planned Services
The KPIs related to the current and future/planned ASW services are the most important to measure the impact of the ASW. The ASW services KPIs must be 
updated accordingly, with focus on the AMS national domain readiness to manage the services provided by ASW. 
Member States are working closely with development partners in addressing the sustainability of the ASW, as well as training the ASEAN Secretariat staff to 
competently operate the ASW prior to handing over the ASW platform to Member States, which agreed to use the ASEAN Secretariat’s Annual Operations 
Budget (AOB) to sustain the day-to-day operations of the ASW platform starting 01 April 2017. Moreover, US-ACTI is assisting the Member States for the 
23
exchange of the Export Information Data (ACDD) to support Member States’ Risk Management Systems as well as the exchange of electronic Phyto-sanitary 
Certificate starting next year
As a result of utilizing the the certificate of origins (e-ATIGA Form D), participating Member States were able to enhance their National Single Window in 
supporting their risk management system for online informed decision. Further, dashboards are being used to allow traders to see time-stamped e-ATIGA 
Form D live data in real-time
Key Performance Indicator -
ASW Performance Indicator
Baseline Data 
(December 
2017)
Year 1 
Target
Year 1 
Actual
Data Source / 
Reporting 
Authority
Implementation of the Intra￾ASEAN certificate of origin 
(ATIGA Form D)
Number of Countries, successful conduct of the end￾to-end testing phase 5 7
ASW / NSW / SC￾AROO Customs
Number of Countries, Member States that are 
exchanging live data of the e-ATIGA Form D 4 7
ASW / NSW / SC￾AROO / Customs
Number of Countries, utilizing the e-ATIGA Form D and 
sending electronic notification in granting preferential 
rate
0 7
ASW / NSW / SC￾AROO / Customs
Implementation of the ASW 
Common Message Exchange 
Header
Endorsement of the Technical Design of the ASW 
Common Message Exchange Header No Yes ASW / NSW / 
Customs
Number of Countries, successful conduct of the end￾to-end testing phase 0 7
ASW / NSW / 
Customs
Implementation of the ASEAN 
Customs Declaration Document 
(ACDD)
Number of Countries, successful conduct of the end￾to-end testing phase 0 7
ASW / NSW / 
Customs
Number of Countries, Member States that are 
exchanging live data of the ACDD 0 7
ASW / NSW / 
Customs
Number of Countries, utilizing the ACDD as advance 
information to support their Risk Management System 0 7 ASW / NSW
E-Phyto-sanitary Certificate Number of Countries, successful conduct of the end￾to-end testing phase 0 3
ASW / NSW / 
ASCP
24
Key Performance Indicator -
ASW Performance Indicator
Baseline Data 
(December 
2017)
Year 1 
Target
Year 1 
Actual
Data Source / 
Reporting 
Authority
Number of Countries, Member States that are 
exchanging live data of the e-Phyto-sanitary Certificate 0 3
ASW / NSW / 
ASCP
Number of Countries, utilizing the e-Phyto-sanitary 
certificate in compliance with SPS Measures and 
sending electronic notification to the Exporting 
Country
0 3
ASW / NSW / 
ASCP
Animal Health Certificate
Number of Countries, successful conduct of the end￾to-end testing phase 0 0
ASW / NSW / 
ASCP
Number of Countries, Member States that are 
exchanging live data of the e-Animal Health 0 0
ASW / NSW / 
ASCP
Number of Countries, utilizing the e-Animal Health in 
compliance with SPS Measures and sending electronic 
notification to the Exporting Country
0 0
ASW / NSW / 
ASCP
Food Safety Certificate
Number of Countries, successful conduct of the end￾to-end testing phase 0 0
ASW / NSW / 
ASCP
Number of Countries, Member States that are 
exchanging live data of the e-Food Safety 0 0
ASW / NSW / 
ASCP
Number of Countries, utilizing the e-Food Safety in 
compliance with SPS Measures and sending electronic 
notification to the Exporting Country
0 0
ASW / NSW / 
ASCP
Other Documents [Template 
only for future documents]
Member States’ endorsement of the Message 
Implementation Guide and Process Specifications for 
the additional document
ASW / NSW
Number of Countries, successful conduct of the end￾to-end testing phase ASW / NSW
Number of Countries, Member States that are 
exchanging live data of the additional document 
ASW / NSW
25
Key Performance Indicator -
ASW Performance Indicator
Baseline Data 
(December 
2017)
Year 1 
Target
Year 1 
Actual
Data Source / 
Reporting 
Authority
Number of Countries, utilizing the additional 
document and sending electronic notification to the 
Exporting Country
ASW / NSW
Table 2: ASW Current and Planned Services KPIs
4.3 Key Performance Area – Funds and Resources
The funds and resources KPIs involve creating and managing the PMO which includes defining the roles and responsibilities with a clear chain of reporting. 
Solid project management, planning of resources and funding should be the vital component of the ASW’s management structure in determining the actual 
budget needed for the yearly operation of the ASW enabling infrastructure. 
ASEAN Member States started funding the operation of the ASW platform beginning October 2016. Two technical staffs as indicated in the ASW Governance 
Structure Paper (PMO Study) were hired in the last quarter of 2016 and trained to take over the operations of the ASW beginning March 2017. Member States 
of ASEAN have agreed that the costs of operating the ASEAN Single Window will be shared across Member States equally. 
Key 
Performance 
Indicator
Performance 
Indicator
Baseline Data 
(December 
2017)
2018 2019 
Description and Unit of 
Measurement
Data 
Source / 
Reporting 
Authority
Reporting 
Frequency
Funding and 
resources
ASW Regional 
Services servers' 
operational cost (in 
US dollars)
24,000 43,400 Annual ASEAN Secretariat’s 
Operating Budget for ASW
ASEAN 
Secretariat annually
The ASW Regional IT 
operational budget
(in US dollars)
0 8,800 Annual ASEAN Secretariat’s 
Operating Budget for ASW
ASEAN 
Secretariat annually
26
Key 
Performance 
Indicator
Performance 
Indicator
Baseline Data 
(December 
2017)
2018 2019 
Description and Unit of 
Measurement
Data 
Source / 
Reporting 
Authority
Reporting 
Frequency
Percentage Actual 
ASW Expenditure 66.67% TBD From the ASEAN Secretariat 
financial records
ASEAN 
Secretariat quarterly
PMO Personnel 2 2 3
From the ASEAN Secretariat 
personnel records
ASEAN 
Secretariat quarterly
Table 3: ASW Funds and Resources KPIs
4.4 Key Performance Area - ASW Management and Planning Team (Project Management Office)
This part is providing KPIs and PIs for the ASW Management and Planning Team (PMO) based on the reference material provided by the ACTI ASW lead on 
the ASW Governance Structure. The implementation approach in setting up the PMO team for managing the ASW and establishing the broader project 
management and planning team (PMO) was based on three (3) phases:
 Phase 1 was handled by the IT Virtual Project Team (VPT-IT), comprised of national technical experts from Member States, that managed and tracked 
the testing phase of the project, until the creation of the ASW PMO, which was agreed to be in place prior to ASW live implementation which started 
in March 2016.
 Phase 2 covered the initial two-year setup consisting of a technical officer and senior officer, given the minimal volume of messages to be exchanged 
in the first two years of live operation. Formal training and hands-on familiarization activities were provided by the ASW contractor to the PMO staff. 
 In anticipation of the completion of the exchange of additional documents using the ASW platform, the basic PMO team setup would evolve to a full 
ASW PMO by 2019 (Phase 3). This will require the services of a dedicated ASW Project Manager, Assistant Director Level, that is familiar with 
information security policies based on international standards and best practices, including information security areas such as human resources 
security, physical and environmental security, access control, incident management, business continuity management, and compliance. 
27
Key 
Performance 
Indicator –
ASW
Performance Indicator Performance 
Indicator Details
Baseline 
Data 
(December 
2017)
Year 1 
Target
Year 1 
Actual
Description and Unit of 
Measurement
Data 
Source / 
Reporting 
Authority
Project 
Management 
and Planning 
Team’s 
(PMO) 
Performance
Reviews and resolves technical 
issues within their capacity, or 
ensure that these issues 
should be addressed at the 
appropriate level promptly
Number of technical 
issues raised by AMS 25 20
Number of technical 
issues submitted to 
VPT_IT using the Issue 
Statement Form
Member 
States and 
PMO
reports, 
Quarterly
Number 
pending/resolved 
each quarter 5 5
Number of pending 
technical issues 
submitted to VPT_IT 
using the Issue 
Statement Form
Average time from 
submission to 
resolution
5 days 4 days Time, average time from 
submission to resolution
Average percentage 
of total issues 
resolved within 5 
days at the end of 
quarter.
20 % 25%
Time, average pending 
time to resolve 
outstanding issues
Average percentage 
of total issues 
resolved within 15 
days at the end of 
quarter.
30% 40%
Average percentage 
of total issues 
resolved within 30 
days at the end of 
quarter.
50% 80%
28
Key 
Performance 
Indicator –
ASW
Performance Indicator Performance 
Indicator Details
Baseline 
Data 
(December 
2017)
Year 1 
Target
Year 1 
Actual
Description and Unit of 
Measurement
Data 
Source / 
Reporting 
Authority
Resolving network problems, 
perform further investigation 
of network problems, and 
change the network security 
configuration, if necessary 
Response time in 
addressing network 
problems 5 days 4 days
Response time, average 
time in addressing 
network problems
Member 
States and 
PMO
reports
Response time in 
performing 
enhancement for the 
continuous 
improvement of the 
network security 
configuration
30 days 15 days
Response time, 
performing 
enhancement for the 
improvement of the 
network security
Notifies any deviations/gaps 
from defined requirements at 
the earliest instance, require 
the contractor to take 
corrective action. 
Number of technical 
issues raised by AMS 19 15
Number of technical 
issues submitted to 
VPT_IT using the Issue 
Statement Form
Member 
States and 
PMO 
reports, 
quarterly
Number 
pending/resolved 
each quarter 5 4
Number of pending 
technical issues 
submitted to VPT_IT 
using the Issue 
Statement Form
Average time from 
submission to 
resolution
5 days 4 days Time, average time from 
submission to resolution
Average pending 
time for incomplete 
at end of quarter.
10 days 8 days
Time, average pending 
time to resolve 
outstanding issues
29
Key 
Performance 
Indicator –
ASW
Performance Indicator Performance 
Indicator Details
Baseline 
Data 
(December 
2017)
Year 1 
Target
Year 1 
Actual
Description and Unit of 
Measurement
Data 
Source / 
Reporting 
Authority
Monitors progress on activities 
of the project and provides 
regular feedback to AMS/TWG
Timely submission of 
[weekly] transaction 
reports
7 8
Rating, 1 – 10, 10 is the 
highest
Member 
States and 
PMO 
reports
Handling of the ASW 
Meetings 8 8
Rating, 1 – 10, 10 is the 
highest
Time to finalize 
meeting report after 
meeting
9 9
Rating, 1 – 10, 10 is the 
highest
Provides technical guidance 
and assistance to AMS in 
conducting activities related to
operational /planned services
6 7
Rating, 1 – 10, 10 is the 
highest
Member 
States and 
PMO 
reports
Table 4: ASW Management and Planning Team KPIs
4.5 Key Performance Area - the Protocol on the Legal Framework to Implement the ASW (PLF)
The Protocol on the Legal Framework to Implement the ASW (PLF), signed in September 2015 by the Finance Ministers, and was ratified in June 2017 by all 
Member States. The following KPIs are covering the Protocol on the Legal Framework to Implement the ASW (PLF) KPIs for their implementation in the AMS. 
This PLF will supplement and implement the ASW Agreement, and shall be read and interpreted in accordance with the ASW Agreement. In the event of any 
inconsistency between this Protocol and the ASW Agreement, the provisions of the ASW Agreement shall prevail to the extent of such inconsistency. The PLF 
will not affect the rights and obligations of Member States under any other international agreements to which two or more Member States are party. In the 
event of any inconsistency between this PLF and the ASW Protocol, Member States shall immediately consult each other with a view to finding a mutually 
satisfactory solution. 
This PLF aims to provide a legal framework for the operations, interactions, and electronic processing of transactions between NSWs within the ASW 
environment, taking into account the relevant international standards and best practices recommended by international agreements and conventions 
concerning trade facilitation and modernisation of customs techniques and practices. Member States shall establish and maintain national laws and 
30
regulations4
that enable the operation of their NSWs and permit cross-border transmission and exchange of trade and customs-related data and information 
between NSWs that Member States have specifically agreed to for the purposes of the ASW. Such transmission and exchange shall be subject to the consent 
of the trader submitting the data and information, where such consent is required by national law, and shall be made in accordance with this PLF.
ASEAN Member States shall establish policies and regulations for the transmission and exchange, use, and dissemination of NSW data and information for 
domestic government usage that are consistent with the provisions of this Protocol. Data and information transmitted, exchanged and disseminated by a
Member State’s NSW to another Member State’s NSW through the ASW environment shall be used and maintained only in furtherance of this PLF. 
Performance Indicator 
(Derived from Protocol on the 
Legal Framework to 
Implement the ASW)
Baseline Data 
(December 
2017)
Description and Unit of Measurement
Data Source / 
Reporting 
Authority
Reporting 
Frequency
Policies and regulations for the 
transmission, use and exchange 
and dissemination
Yes
Protocol on the Legal Framework to Implement ASEAN Single 
Window Article 6.1 - Policies and regulations for the 
transmission, use and exchange and dissemination – Message 
Implementation Guide and Process Specifications were agreed 
by Member States for cross-border documents to be exchanged 
using the ASW platform
Data Modelling 
International 
Standards / ASW
documents
When 
needed
Recognition of e-signature 
(digital signature) No
Protocol on the Legal Framework to Implement ASEAN Single 
Window Article 6.1 and Article 15 - Recognition of electronic
signature (system to system, national and cross border / ASEAN)
ASW / NSW
documents
When 
needed
Establishment of policies and 
regulations for the transmission 
and exchange, use, and 
dissemination of data 
Yes
Protocol Article 6.2. – Establishment of policies and regulations 
for the transmission and exchange, use, and dissemination of 
NSW data and information for domestic government usage that 
is consistent with the provisions of this Protocol
ASW / NSW
documents
When 
needed
Agreed and adopted 
communication and transaction 
protocol
Yes
Article 7 – Service Level Requirements – Member States agreed 
and adopted the web services communication on protocol on 
bilateral level / ASEAN Level
Data Modelling 
International 
Standards / ASW
documents
When 
needed
 
4
In adopting or maintaining laws and regulations referred under this provision, Member States may decide to ensure that the transmission and exchange of data and information within the ASW environment shall be 
subject to comparable safeguards to those it applies in its own jurisdiction. 
31
Performance Indicator 
(Derived from Protocol on the 
Legal Framework to 
Implement the ASW)
Baseline Data 
(December 
2017)
Description and Unit of Measurement
Data Source / 
Reporting 
Authority
Reporting 
Frequency
SLA at ASEAN level and 
adoption and use of these SLA 
at national level
No Article 7 – Service Level Requirements - Are there SLA at ASEAN 
level and adoption and use of these SLA at national level
ASW / NSW / 
Customs
When 
needed
Alignment with international 
data modelling standards and 
other relevant international 
standards including data model
Yes
Article 8 – Standardized Data and Information - Cross-border 
documents agreed were aligned with relevant international data 
modelling standards. 
ASW documents When 
needed
Use of data and information 
received through the ASW 
environment shall be for lawful 
and authorized purposes
Yes
Protocol on the Legal Framework to Implement the ASEAN 
Single Window Article 9.2 - Ensure that the use of data and 
information received through the ASW environment shall be for 
lawful and authorized purposes
ASW / NSW / 
Customs
When 
needed
Establishment of national laws 
and regulations, protection Yes
Protocol on the Legal Framework to Implement the ASEAN 
Single Window Article 9.3 - Establishment of national laws and 
regulations, protection from unlawful disclosure of confidential 
information that may be transmitted, exchanged or 
disseminated by the NSWs of other AMS
ASW / NSW / 
Customs
When 
needed
Registry of an AMS for access 
ASW data No
Protocol on the Legal Framework to Implement the ASEAN 
Single Window Article 12 - Registry of an AMS - NSW shall not 
be permitted access to data or information other than that are 
authorized by law, rules, regulations, and policies
ASW / NSW / 
Customs
When 
needed
Technical standards Partial
Protocol on the Legal Framework to Implement the ASEAN 
Single Window Article 13.2 - Technical standards:
- Minimum schedules for data retention, archiving, and data 
disposal for each type of data that is processed in their 
respective NSW;
- Establishment of technical standards and procedures for 
maintaining authenticated electronic data and information;
ASW / NSW / 
Customs
When 
needed
Table 5: Protocol on the Legal Framework to Implement the ASW (PLF) KPIs
32
4.6 Key Performance Area – ASW Security Policy
The ASW KPIs Security Policy assessment includes defining and valuing the assets, defining the threats to those assets, determining the system’s 
vulnerabilities, and recommending reasonable safeguards to bring the risks down to acceptable levels. This is to ensure that the ASW platform conforms to 
the international standards on security policies. An security officer should closely work with the Member States information security officers, if any. These 
security officers are responsible for communicating any security threats and issues that may affect the daily operation of the ASW enabling infrastructure for 
them to take the applicable measures and actions.
Member States agreed in principle to co-locate the ASW Regional Services servers to a private data center provider in Jakarta, Indonesia, where the ASEAN 
Secretariat is located, for the following reasons:
(i) The ASEAN Secretariat’s Computer Room is not Tier-III compliant, which means that it is not secure based on international data hosting 
standards; 
(ii) The data center co-location service must provide reliable, flexible, and cost effective to meet current demands, and comply with international 
hosting standards;
(iii) The data center would provide power and cooling to the space, but the IT equipment would still be owned by the ASEAN Secretariat; 
(iv) ASEAN Secretariat could still retain full control of the design and management of the servers and storage, but turn over the daily task of 
managing data center and facility infrastructure to the data center provider;
(v) Near enough for the ASEAN Secretariat’s PMO staff to be able to make occasional visits. However, the data center should not be so close to 
the ASEAN Secretariat such that its operations would be affected in case a disaster or other disruptive events should occur; and
(vi) Co-locating service could include redundancy and mirroring to address disaster recovery management
33
Key Performance 
Indicator - ASW 
Strategy 
performance 
(Derived from 
Protocol on the Legal 
Framework to 
Implement the ASW)
Performance Indicator
Baseline 
Data 
(December 
2017)
Year 1 
Target
Year 1 
Actual
Description and Unit of 
Measurement
Data 
Source / 
Reporting 
Authority
Reporting 
Frequency
Information Security 
Policy
Member States defined, developed, 
and endorsed an Information 
Security Policy 
No Yes
Member States accepted and 
endorsed an ASW 
Information Security Policy 
ASW / 
NSW
For Member 
States review 
and 
acceptance. 
Once 
accepted, 
subject to 
annual review
0 5
Number of Countries, 
developed an Information 
Security Policy at the 
national level 
Regular updates, monitoring, and 
management of the ASW Security 
Policy
No TBD No Information Security 
Policy 
ASW / 
NSW
For Member 
States review 
and 
acceptance. 
Once 
accepted, 
subject to 
annual review
ASW Software 
Security Objectives
Active management of 
authorization/access within the ASW 
systems
6 7
Rating, 1 – 10, the PMO 
should provide active 
management of 
authorization and access 
policies within the ASW 
ASW / 
NSW
Member 
States and 
PMO reports, 
annually
34
Key Performance 
Indicator - ASW 
Strategy 
performance 
(Derived from 
Protocol on the Legal 
Framework to 
Implement the ASW)
Performance Indicator
Baseline 
Data 
(December 
2017)
Year 1 
Target
Year 1 
Actual
Description and Unit of 
Measurement
Data 
Source / 
Reporting 
Authority
Reporting 
Frequency
systems, ensuring that data 
and information is processed 
according to the need to 
know and modify access
Develop the SOP for Testing of 
Software Updates No
No Standard Operating 
Procedure for Testing of 
Software Updates 
ASW / 
NSW
Member 
States and 
PMO reports, 
annually
Number of Times New Software is 
Installed and Tested 5 7
Number, count for new 
software installed and tested 
Vendor / 
ASW / 
NSW
Member 
States and 
PMO reports, 
annually
Table 6: ASW Security Policy KPIs
4.7 Key Performance Area – ASW / NSW Public Key Infrastructure - Digital Signature
For the application of ASW / NSW security mechanisms, it is necessary to use services of Public Key Infrastructure (PKI) for the management of the certificates 
needed both for platforms (for example to support SSL, IPSec, HTTPS, IPSec tunneling, etc.) and for the functions of signature electronic data and documents. 
The PKI must also support the system-to-system digital signature, for cross-border exchange of cargo clearance documents, and signature of data packages.
As the reliance on paper shifts to electronic transactions and documents, so must the reliance on traditional trust factors shift to electronic security measures 
to authenticate electronic transactions of actors involved in cargo clearance before engaging in the exchange of information, goods, and services. Similarly, 
the need for confidentiality and confidence in the integrity of exchanged information is critical. As the world of commerce becomes increasingly dependent 
on the electronic storage, accessibility, and delivery of valuable information, the question of maintaining a level of trust in all those business processes, which 
35
is commensurate with the levels well established in the brick and mortar world, becomes critical. In electronic commerce, the establishment of trust is key.
Not only must we trust the identity of the business partner but we must also have utmost confidence in the transaction itself. Digitally signing a transaction 
can achieve both of these trust objectives. A digital signature or public key certificate, binds a public key to identifying information about its owner, the 
infrastructure is designed to create the binding, and manage it for the benefit of all within the community of use.
In order to ensure essential ICT security for a supply chain security strategy in the exchange of electronic messages, the use of PKI arrangements (digital 
certificates) to authenticate/verify the identity of the trader ensures integrity, confidentiality, non-repudiation, and can play an important role in securing the 
electronic exchange of cross-border information. This would allow the authorized trader to sign all electronic messages to those ASEAN Member States having
accepted to recognize this certificate. As such, there’s a need for ASEAN to continue discussing the business, legal compatibility, and technical interoperability 
of authentication schemes. This will cross-jurisdictional electronic transactions, and will ensure that authentication can be deployed at both the national and 
regional levels.
Member States challenges in implementing Mutual Recognition Agreement for PKI
 Physical security requirements are high. AMS registration officers, whether a person or an agency, must be subject to strict security polices and 
practices. In order to create a digital identity that can be relied upon, users need to correctly and securely take ownership of their key pair(s). In PKI 
terms, this means that:
o the CA, usually through a trusted relationship with registration authority, must be sure of the applicant’s identity
o a certificate request must be created, which has correct and unique user identification
o once the user has taken charge of their private authentication key(s), measures must be taken to ensure that this key cannot be used by 
anyone else. In particular, ensure that there is no possibility of any application or person at the issuing site (e.g. the AMS Registration Officer) 
having taken a copy of the keys or the PIN protecting those keys.
 Difficult to fit the technical standards to the requirements of ASEAN. AMS struggle to comprehend the implications of the use of digital signatures, 
formulating for laws for a technology which is still debatable. There are so many conflicting papers on the benefit/non-benefit of PKI infrastructure. 
There is not yet a viable alternative to the strong authentication afforded by public key cryptography. Looking around, there are some product vendors 
and organization that are advancing their capability in implementing PKI. However, ASEAN is still in the experimentation stage, trying to understand 
where the technology best fits, and how it can be adapted without compromising security. In the case of Malaysia, under its digital signature Act 
1997, any document digitally signed using digital signature is deemed to be written document in terms of validity and use for enforcement. Further, 
Malaysian court recognizes the use of PKI and digital signature in case of a legal dispute arises. Moreover, Malaysia recognizes that there’s a need for 
36
AMS to adopt a standard in developing PKI for ASW to ensure interoperability of digital certificates among AMS and to enable the cross-certification 
between AMS. Vietnam has confirmed that there’s already an operational root CA handling all the digital signatures of the government, while 
Indonesia has no available root CA yet to handle digital signatures. 
 Readiness for recognition of cross-border digital signatures. The readiness of national legislation and PKI implementation is crucial to regulate the 
cross-border PKI implementation and to ensure the digital signature is valid and enforceable. There is a need to conduct domestic consultation on 
the requirements of Mutual Recognition Framework in ASEAN, which includes proposal on the governance structure to enable mutual recognition of 
cross-border digital certificate, and ensure effective monitoring of ASW Digital Signature Mutual Recognition Framework. Further, domestic 
consultation with relevant government agencies such as the Attorney General Chambers, the agency which controls ICT implementation, ICT 
standards, information security policies, etc. to confirm:
o Level and type of document that require digital signature, etc.;
o Appointment of Root CA for the ASW.
o Each AMS must decide which CA they want to appoint
 Identify resources required for the implementation of ASW digital signatures at the national level. Estimating the costs and resources required to 
implement the enhancement should include how much to set it up, impact to network traffic, human resources required to carry out the activities, 
the fastest way to do it, the cost of issuing a digital certificate, potential revenue stream, setting up a Root CA, sustainability issues, and the estimated 
cost for their NSW system enhancement to accommodate PKI digital signatures. 
37
Key Performance 
Indicator - ASW 
Strategy 
performance
Performance Indicator
Baseline 
Data 
(December 
2017)
Description and Unit of 
Measurement
Data Source / 
Reporting 
Authority
Reporting 
Frequency
Development and 
Implementation of 
Public Key 
Infrastructure and 
Digital Signature
Legislation
Is the existing legislation able to 
support electronic transactions 
exchanged via a NSW? 8
Number of Countries, existing 
legislation able to support electronic 
transactions. Cambodia and Lao PDR 
did not provide their responses
ASW / NSW When 
needed
Does the country’s legal framework 
recognize electronic transactions 
with digital signatures? 8
Number of Countries, existing 
legislation recognizing electronic 
transactions with digital signatures. 
Cambodia and Lao PDR did not 
provide their responses
ASW / NSW When 
needed
Does the country have a plan for 
enhancement of the legislation 
framework to support the ASW 
implementation? 4
Number of Countries, supporting a 
plan to support ASW implementation 
of digital signatures. Indonesia and 
Philippines said “no” and for Brunei 
and Singapore, not applicable. 
Cambodia and Lao PDR did not 
provide their responses
ASW / NSW When 
needed
Certificate Authority
Is there a government appointed 
Certificate Authority for government 
electronic transactions?
4
Number of Countries, is there a 
government appointed CA for 
government transactions? Malaysia, 
Myanmar, Philippines, and Vietnam 
said “Yes.” Cambodia and Lao PDR 
did not provide their responses.
ASW / NSW When 
needed
38
PKI Implementation
Are digital signatures used in NSW 
transactions?
3
Number of Countries, is there a 
government appointed CA for 
government transactions? Malaysia, 
Thailand, and Vietnam said “Yes.” 
Cambodia and Lao PDR did not 
provide their responses.
ASW / NSW When 
needed
Are there any other government 
projects using digital signatures? 
6
Number of Countries, is there a 
government appointed CA for 
government transactions? Brunei and 
Myanmar said “No.” Cambodia and 
Lao PDR did not provide their 
responses.
ASW / NSW When 
needed
Table 7: ASW / NSW Public Key Infrastructure KPIs
39
4.8 Key Performance Area - ASW Public Outreach (Awareness and Visibility)
As live operation of the ASW requires significant participation by all stakeholders, Member States are 
implementing a series of public outreach activities with the support of development partners to 
expand the awareness of ASEAN’s efforts to implement the ASW platform while managing 
expectations and promote demand for governments and other stakeholders to expand the ASW. 
Outreach activities in support of the ASW focuses on promotion efforts and raising 
awareness/knowledge about the ASW—both implementation and adoption—as a key element to 
support the establishment of the AEC, and that ASW benefits governments and businesses in the 
region, in line with the goal and objectives of the AEC
Challenges
To better determine how Member States could best support outreach efforts for the ASW work 
stream, it is important to understand the challenges faced by the program to raise awareness about 
the ASEAN Single Window and its operation. 
The main challenges in implementing the ASW as a trade facilitation measure are:
 An ASW Potential Impact Survey conducted in September 2012 revealed that only 30 percent 
of the companies surveyed understand the concept of ASW and how it benefits all the 
stakeholders including government and private sector. Survey respondents represented 
mostly manufacturers, especially textiles and apparel and food industry manufacturers, but 
traders (importers and exporters) and logistics companies were also well represented. 
Findings at that time included:
1. Paper forms were the primary means for government and companies to exchange 
cross-border documentation. E-mail was the means used most often in data exchange 
with commercial partners; 
2. The largest savings from the single window project were expected to come from the 
reduction of dispatch costs, particularly in the exchange of regulatory documentation;
3. When processes are fully automated in the ASW/NSW framework – that is, when data 
are standardized and harmonized and when business processes are aligned –
companies can expect to reduce the time they spend on documentation significantly; 
and
4. The future of the ASW depends on the cooperation between the private sector and 
governments in outlining and implementing a vision of paperless clearance in ASEAN 
over time. 
 The business sector has yet to be convinced that using the ASW will be much faster than the 
current process since some processes at the agency level will still be manual. What is in it for 
them to shift to a new system? What are the benefits for early bird users, and possible 
incentives to encourage the traders to use the ASW/NSW system? 
The impact of the ASW will be felt gradually as National Single Windows integrate electronic cross￾border data into pre-arrival clearance processes and risk management. There should be a business 
case that would translate to significant savings for the traders that using the ASW enabling 
infrastructure would be more beneficial.
The Communications and Outreach Plan for the ASW program aims to:
 Raise stakeholder awareness, especially (regional) governments and businesses, regarding the 
ASW as a key trade facilitation measure to achieve the ASEAN Economic Community goal – a 
single market and production base, and highly competitive economic region.
 Create a demand among private sector stakeholders for the adoption and continuous 
improvement of the ASW while managing stakeholder expectations about its early impact and 
implementation.
40
 After the commencement of live operation of the ASW, the outreach activities will shift to 
highlighting updates and milestones to show the impact of ASW implementation and 
expansion.
 Highlight ASW benefits and impact for a range of stakeholders (especially governments and 
businesses) to encourage other ASEAN member states to join and expand the ASW.
Public awareness supports the compliance impact of the ASEAN Single Window: traders are made 
aware of the enhanced ability of governments to detect offences and fraud through the data exchange 
and adjust their behaviour accordingly. Because behaviour of the traders is crucial for strengthening 
regulatory compliance, the role of effect awareness of the ASW is very important.
Key issue: Differing concepts, poor awareness and understanding of the importance and criticality of 
the ASW role among NSW and OGAs and the business community sector, with some interpreting the 
ASW as a “virtual” building or a one stop shop for trade approvals, and others as standard software 
which would facilitate information exchange among AMS OGAs and traders;
The Internet, as the most widespread medium, offers extremely scarce information on the role and 
importance of ASW. The ASW website provides basic information that is quite technical and very 
vague. To obtain a clearer overview of the ASW website, the consultant utilized Alexa5
and Quantcast6
(Checking website traffic and rank is the basis for uncovering actionable ideas). The limits of this 
analysis are set by the fact that both Alexa and Quantcast are subscription based services; therefore,
the data presented below has been obtained through a free trial account. 
The website itself – asw.asean.org offers little to no information on ASW. The ASW website particularly 
lacks information in the planned/future ASW services section. The last update was in 2016, in the 
Beyond 2015 section. 
Referring domains, also known as "ref domain," are websites which have a backlink pointing to a page, 
or link, to the site asw.asean.org. In total, there is a 17 Referring Domains backlink pointing to the site 
asw.asean.org.
The impact of social media is vast for the business community; ASW should take advantage of this 
digital version of word-of-mouth marketing. However, “asw.asean.org” has not been widely shared on 
social media
 
5 http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo
6 https://www.quantcast.com/measure/properties/
41
Figure 5: Example – Social Media Business Intelligence Dashboard
4.9 Keyword consistency
Keyword consistency is the use of keywords throughout the different elements of the web page. 
Consistent keyword use helps crawlers index7 of your site and determines relevancy to search queries.
The list above highlights the most frequently used keywords on “asw.asean.org” page and how 
consistently is used.
Keyword consistency results for http://asw.asean.org
 There are 727 words on page;
 Of those 727 words 260 words are linked ones with the key words;
 Of 727 words 467 are not linked;
 Of 467 nonlinked words, 166 words are either stop words or have less than three
phrases/characters – critical for most search engines – example: “ASEAN Single Window.”
 
7 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_crawler
42
Web Traffic Share by AMS
The analysis conducted using Alexa has shown that only a few AMS access asw.asean.org and mostly 
refers to a handful of keywords. The rate of access through mobile devices is negligent compared to 
access through a desktop device. 
Out of a total of 510 website visits during June 28th – July 28th, the largest portion of visits comes from 
Lao PDR – 70%. 
Figure 6: Traffic Share by AMS
In most cases, the access to the website is through search engines. The image below shows traffic 
sources, were 75% is through search engines. 
Figure 7: Web traffic sources
The table below represents the results of a search of the term “ASEAN Single Window” in google.com.
Position url Keyword Engine Mobile
version
1 http://asw.asean.org/ ASEAN Single 
Window Google null
2
http://asw.asean.org/component/content/category/13-
static-pages
ASEAN Single 
Window Google null
3 http://asw.asean.org/about-asw
ASEAN Single 
Window Google null
4 http://asw.asean.org/events/category/asean-single-window ASEAN Single 
Window Google null
5
http://www.asean.org/storage/images/2015/October/outre
ach-document/Edited%20ASEAN%20Single%20Window￾2.pdf
ASEAN Single 
Window Google null
6
http://asw.asean.org/news/item/vietnam-officially-joins￾asean-single-window-customs-system
ASEAN Single 
Window Google null
7 http://www.miti.gov.my/index.php/pages/view/1284 ASEAN Single 
Window Google null
43
Position url Keyword Engine Mobile
version
8
http://www.portcalls.com/phs-asw-connectivity-target￾date-remains-unclear/
ASEAN Single 
Window Google null
9 http://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/PA00JKPP.pdf ASEAN Single 
Window Google null
10
https://www.usaid.gov/vietnam/press-releases/sep-8-2015-
vietnam-officially-joins-asean-single-window-customs￾system
ASEAN Single 
Window Google null
11 http://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/Pnadm816.pdf ASEAN Single 
Window Google null
12
http://www.conferencesw.org/SWC2013/uk/presentation/2
01309_Antananarivo_SW_Conference-ASW￾Viboon_Chaojirapant.pdf
ASEAN Single 
Window Google null
13 http://www.dagangnet.com/trade-facilitation/asean-single￾window/
ASEAN Single 
Window Google null
14
https://csis-prod.s3.amazonaws.com/s3fs￾public/legacy_files/files/attachments/130829_GeorgeTan.p
df
ASEAN Single 
Window Google null
15 http://www.nathaninc.com/projects-and-cases/asean￾single-window-2008-2012
ASEAN Single 
Window Google null
16 https://www.usaseanconnect.gov/pdfs/ACTI-Asean-Single￾Window_Dec-2015.pdf
ASEAN Single 
Window Google null
17
http://www.bworldonline.com/content.php?section=Econo
my&title=single-window-trade-system-seen-integrated￾with-asean-by-dec.&id=146868
ASEAN Single 
Window Google null
18 http://scholarworks.waldenu.edu/dissertations/3174/ ASEAN Single 
Window Google null
19
https://vnembassy-daressalaam.mofa.gov.vn/en￾us/About%20Vietnam/General%20Information/Economic/P
ages/Official-connect-ASEAN-Single-Window.aspx
ASEAN Single 
Window Google null
20 https://www.jiffa.or.jp/en/news/entry-4435.html ASEAN Single 
Window Google null
21 http://www.customs.gov.kh/trade-facilitation/national￾single-window/
ASEAN Single 
Window Google null
22 http://www.jus.uio.no/english/services/library/treaties/09/
9-04/asean_protocol_single_window.xml
ASEAN Single 
Window Google null
23 https://unnext.unescap.org/content/cross-border-e-trade￾asean-single-window
ASEAN Single 
Window Google null
24 http://www.jastpro.org/topics/pdf/asw_2012e.pdf ASEAN Single 
Window Google null
25 https://www.slideshare.net/Africanalliance/asean-single￾window-for-regional-integrationskswc2016
ASEAN Single 
Window Google null
26 http://www.dnex.com.my/dnex-enables-customers￾leverage-on-asean-single-window/
ASEAN Single 
Window Google null
27 https://www.customs.gov.vn/Lists/EnglishNews/ViewDetail
s.aspx?ID=433
ASEAN Single 
Window Google null
44
Position url Keyword Engine Mobile
version
28
http://customsnews.vn/establishment-of-the-national￾steering-committee-for-the-asean-single-window-and￾national-single-window-1226.html
ASEAN Single 
Window Google null
29 http://customstrade.asia/2017/06/20/ph-plans-yearend￾nsw-linkup-with-asean-single-window/
ASEAN Single 
Window Google null
30 https://www.sbs.ox.ac.uk/cybersecurity￾capacity/content/asean-single-window-project
ASEAN Single 
Window Google null
Table 8: Results of a search of the term “ASEAN Single Window” in google.com
45
Key 
Performance 
Indicator -
ASW 
Performance 
Indicator
Baseline Data 
(December 
2017)
Year 1 
Target
Year 1 
Actual
Description and 
Unit of 
Measurement
Data Source 
/ Reporting 
Authority
ASW 
Awareness 
and Visibility
General public 
and business 
community 
support
Medium Medium
Making the general 
public and business 
community in AMS 
aware of the 
importance of the 
ASW services. 
Support the work it 
does, the problems 
in encounters
ASW / AMS 
NSW
Public Relation 
Strategy /
Communication 
and Visibility 
plan
Medium Medium
Rating, increasing 
awareness of the 
ASW stakeholders 
ASW
Raising public 
awareness
High High
Explain ASW 
objectives in a 
specific, 
measurable, 
achievable, realistic 
and timely manner
• Conferences
• Statements
• Profile articles
ASW / AMS 
NSW
Provisions for 
feedback (when 
applicable)
Low Medium
Publication of 
assessment forms 
or other means 
used to get 
feedback on the 
activity for each 
target group
ASW / AMS 
NSW
Public 
awareness 
responsibilities
Medium Medium
Identify the 
resources
within the ASW / 
NSW / Customs 
Public 
Relation/who have 
public awareness 
responsibilities
Raise awareness of 
how the ASW and 
the partner work 
ASW / AMS 
NSW
Financial 
resources
Low Medium Allocation of the 
budget required to ASW
46
Key 
Performance 
Indicator -
ASW 
Performance 
Indicator
Baseline Data 
(December 
2017)
Year 1 
Target
Year 1 
Actual
Description and 
Unit of 
Measurement
Data Source 
/ Reporting 
Authority
implement the 
awareness and 
visibility activities -
in absolute figures 
and as a 
percentage of the 
overall ASW 
budget
Newsletters / 
Newspaper ads Low Low
Regular update the 
news / newsletter 
page of ASW and 
AMS NSW / 
Customs web sites 
-
http://asw.asean.o
rg/news - last 
update Friday, 01 
April 2016
ASW / AMS 
NSW
Referring 
Website/Ads on 
other sites
Low Low
Banners (links) 
point to ASW 
• NSW
• Customs
• Forwarding 
Agents
• Business 
community
• Chamber of 
Commerce
ASW / AMS 
NSW
Social media 
activity 
/Present ASW 
on social 
platforms
Low Medium
Create social media 
profiles associated 
with ASW 
(asw.asean.org) on 
Facebook, 
Pinterest, LinkedIn, 
Google+ and other 
sites that can be 
used to increase 
awareness of ASW
ASW / AMS 
NSW
Table 9: ASW Awareness and Visibility KPIs
5 Annex I, II and III Findings
The following findings have been observed through a statistical analysis of ASEAN member states’ 
trade volumes data, collected through a World Bank methodology. The first portion of the report 
focuses on determining the trends of trade volume that can be observed in the ASEAN member states 
47
prior to and after the process of implementation and integration, where applicable, of the Single 
Window system. The second portion focuses on determining the extent to which there is a change in 
tendency, positive of negative trade volumes, towards Total World volume and towards Total ASEAN 
volume. The final portion focuses on observing the trends of the ASEAN member states and their 
respective LPI ranking across four years prior to and after the operation of the ASW enabling 
infrastructure. 
Key Performance Indicator -AMS Performance 
Indicator Description and Unit of Measurement
World Bank World Development 
National Indicators
Cost to export US$ per container
Cost to export Border compliance US$
Cost to export Documentary compliance US$
Cost to import US$ per container
Cost to import Border compliance US$
Cost to import Documentary compliance US$
Documents to export Number
Documents to import Number
Time to export Days
Time to export Border compliance hours
Time to export Documentary compliance hours
Time to import Days
Time to import Border compliance hours
Time to import Documentary compliance hours
Table 10: World Bank World Development National KPIs
5.1 ASEAN Member States - Logistics Performance Index rank and score analysis
The ASEAN countries display a mixed trend with some countries backsliding in their overall logistics 
performance and others performing above the regional average. 
Singapore topped the list of ASEAN countries for time period examined in this study. 
Top performing countries are countries from ASW&NSW group of countries. The report found that a 
“logistics gap” exists between three groups of countries. The leading position in LPI ranking belongs 
to ASW&NSW countries, followed by NSW only, not ASW countries. Cambodia and Myanmar, grouped 
together as neither ASW nor NSW countries, are ranked lowest compared to the two other groups of 
countries. 
Singapore, Malaysia, Thailand and Indonesia are countries that all outperformed the regional average, 
with Indonesia, Vietnam and the Philippines ranking high as well. 
However, apart from Singapore, Myanmar and Cambodia, all other ASEAN countries backslide in their 
2016 rankings compared to two years ago. 
Lao PDR has dropped significantly in ranking in the measured period, and has the lowest rank from all 
ASEAN countries.
Infrastructure plays a big role in assuring basic connectivity and access to gateways for most 
developing countries. In all ASEAN countries except Singapore and Malaysia, the scores for 
infrastructure are lower than the overall scores.
48
Regarding timeliness, the frequency at which shipments reach their destination within the scheduled 
or expected time, ASEAN countries scored highest. Compared to 2014, Singapore showed the largest 
improvement in the timeliness indicator in 2016.
Key Performance 
Indicator - AMS Performance Indicator Description and Unit of 
Measurement
International LPI 
Performances
Efficiency of the clearance process (i.e., 
speed, simplicity and predictability of 
formalities) by border control agencies, 
including customs
LPI Performance show on a 
scale (lowest score to highest 
score) from 1 to 5 (worst to 
best)
Quality of trade and transport related 
infrastructure (e.g., ports, railroads, roads, 
information technology);
LPI Performance show on a 
scale (lowest score to highest 
score) from 1 to 5 (worst to 
best)
Ease of arranging competitively priced 
shipments
LPI Performance show on a 
scale (lowest score to highest 
score) from 1 to 5 (worst to 
best)
Competence and quality of logistics services 
(e.g., transport operators, customs brokers)
LPI Performance show on a 
scale (lowest score to highest 
score) from 1 to 5 (worst to 
best)
Ability to track and trace consignments
LPI Performance show on a 
scale (lowest score to highest 
score) from 1 to 5 (worst to 
best)
Timeliness of shipments in reaching 
destination within the scheduled or 
expected delivery time
LPI Performance show on a 
scale (lowest score to highest 
score) from 1 to 5 (worst to 
best)
Table 11: AMS International LPI Performances KPIs
Key Performance 
Indicator -AMS Performance Indicator
Description and 
Unit of 
Measurement
Description and 
Unit of 
Measurement
Domestic LPI: 
Performances
Export time and cost/ Port or airport 
supply chain Lead time (days) Cost (US$)
Export time and cost/ Land supply 
chain Lead time (days) Cost (US$)
Import time and cost/ Port or airport 
supply chain Lead time (days) Cost (US$)
Import time and cost/ Land supply 
chain Lead time (days) Cost (US$)
Shipments meeting quality criteria (%)
Number of agencies – exports
Number of agencies – imports
Number of documents – exports
Number of documents – imports
Clearance time without physical 
inspection (days)
49
Key Performance 
Indicator -AMS Performance Indicator
Description and 
Unit of 
Measurement
Description and 
Unit of 
Measurement
Clearance time with physical 
inspection (days)
Physical inspection (%)
Multiple inspections (%)
Declarations submitted and processed 
electronically and on-line (%)
Importers using a licensed Customs 
Broker (%)
Able to choose the location of the final 
clearance (%)
Goods released pending customs 
clearance (%)
Table 12: AMS Domestic LPI Performances KPIs