Innovation among Seaport Operators: A QCA Approach for Determining Success Conditions

Innovation in general seems to happen very rapidly these days. It therefore very strongly steers the pace and the way with which economic sectors are developing, and manage to remain competitive. However, the poor innovative strength displayed by the transport sector in the broad sense often contrasts strongly with that evidenced elsewhere. A comparative study by the International Transport Forum (2012) has shown the transport sector to score less than the average for the economy as a whole when it comes to innovation. At the same time, it can be concluded from existing literature and studies that quite a lot of innovative concepts in transportation have been studied in detail. The main focus hitherto however has always been on inventing or introducing new concepts and procedures. Taking into account the main observations from the ‘state-of-the-art’ on transport innovation, it is clear that innovation in surface transportation and in logistics chains, as a change producing mechanism, needs to be much further assessed and benchmarked. This allows assessing which innovations will generate which chain impacts, which conditions will conduce actors to innovate, or prevent them from doing so, and finally also what governments can do to stimulate innovation. The present paper makes an application to innovation by seaport-elated operators through a number of cases. On these cases, a standard set of information is collected. For collecting the information, use is made of existing documents on the cases at hand, on which a literature review is performed. Equally, sector and project contacts are used for verifying and completing the set of information on each case. In order to be able to derive meaningful conclusions from the set of cases, the fuzzy-set qualitative comparative analysis (fsQCA) technique is used. The policy and practical dimension of the research results makes them relevant to a range of stakeholders within the transport community, particularly governments, financing bodies, transport service providers, etc. The innovation success condition analysis is an exercise which is novel as far as seaport-related operators are concerned. This allows drawing conclusions with respect to important commonalities and dissimilarities between seaport innovation cases. The application of the fsQCA method is limited to the extent that sufficient data need to be available from the cases on each of the variables listed. Equally, one should be aware that the results give an indication of where the innovation initiative goes wrong, but are not a recipe for success.

[1]  Anne Goodchild,et al.  Using the truck appointment system to improve yard efficiency in container terminals , 2013 .

[2]  Walter Fernandez,et al.  Success in IT projects: A matter of definition? , 2008 .

[3]  R. Hirschheim,et al.  Analysing information systems evaluation: another look at an old problem , 1998 .

[4]  M. Flavia Monaco,et al.  Quay crane scheduling with time windows, one-way and spatial constraints , 2011 .

[5]  Fedele Iannone,et al.  A model optimizing the port-hinterland logistics of containers: The case of the Campania region in Southern Italy , 2012 .

[6]  Gin-Shuh Liang,et al.  Identifying solutions for adding service value to international port logistics centers in Taiwan , 2013 .

[7]  Debra Howcroft,et al.  Re-conceptualising failure: social shaping meets IS research , 2002, Eur. J. Inf. Syst..

[8]  Mihalis M. Golias A bi-objective berth allocation formulation to account for vessel handling time uncertainty , 2011 .

[9]  Eleni Hadjiconstantinou,et al.  Modelling and solution approaches to the multi-load AGV dispatching problem in container terminals , 2011 .

[10]  Vinh V. Thai,et al.  Competencies required by port personnel in the new era: conceptual framework and case study , 2012 .

[11]  Magdalena Klopott,et al.  Restructuring of environmental management in Baltic ports: case of Poland , 2013 .

[12]  Sandra Lowe,et al.  Redesigning Social Inquiry Fuzzy Sets And Beyond , 2016 .

[13]  Yavuz Keceli,et al.  A proposed innovation strategy for Turkish port administration policy via information technology , 2011 .

[14]  Nina Vojdani,et al.  Optimizing empty container logistics based on a collaborative network approach , 2013 .

[15]  Jasmine Siu Lee Lam,et al.  Environmental sustainability in seaports: a framework for successful innovation , 2014 .

[16]  Jasmine Siu Lee Lam,et al.  Port hinterland intermodal container flow optimisation with green concerns: a literature review and research agenda , 2013 .

[17]  Silvia Siri,et al.  A mathematical model to evaluate different train loading and stacking policies in a container terminal , 2013 .

[18]  Gordon Wilmsmeier,et al.  Port-centric logistics, dry ports and offshore logistics hubs: strategies to overcome double peripherality? , 2012 .

[19]  Shih-Liang Chao,et al.  Repositioning empty containers in East and North China ports , 2012 .

[20]  Alessandro Olivo,et al.  An optimization model for the inland repositioning of empty containers , 2013 .

[21]  Claudia Pani,et al.  Prediction of arrival times and human resources allocation for container terminal , 2011 .

[22]  Claudio Ferrari,et al.  How to turn an innovative concept into a success? An application to seaport-related innovation , 2013 .

[23]  Charles C. Ragin,et al.  Fuzzy-Set Social Science , 2001 .

[24]  Izabela Ewa Nielsen,et al.  Replenishment policies for empty containers in an inland multi-depot system , 2013 .

[25]  Dong-Wook Song,et al.  Defining maritime logistics hub and its implication for container port , 2011 .

[26]  Nathan Huynh,et al.  Yard crane scheduling at container terminals: A comparative study of centralized and decentralized approaches , 2012 .

[27]  Nikitas Nikitakos,et al.  Managing port e-services in a socio-technical context , 2011 .

[28]  Genevieve Giuliano,et al.  Reducing port-related truck emissions: The terminal gate appointment system at the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach , 2007 .

[29]  Robert Drazin,et al.  Equifinality: Functional Equivalence in Organization Design , 1997 .

[30]  Rob Zuidwijk,et al.  The extended gate concept for container terminals: Expanding the notion of dry ports , 2012 .

[31]  Enzo Defilippi Good regulations, bad regulation: a Peruvian port case , 2012 .

[32]  Quynh-Lam Ngoc Le,et al.  A consideration for developing a dry port system in Indochina area , 2011 .

[33]  Peter W. De Langen,et al.  A new approach to granting terminal concessions: the case of the Rotterdam World Gateway terminal , 2012 .

[34]  Mihalis M. Golias,et al.  Berth scheduling with variable cost functions , 2011 .