Connecting inland ports and seaports via intermodal transportation: A process evaluation

The objectives of this research are to identify and qualitatively assess the seaport processes that can be carried out at an inland port to improve economic value add and contribute to supply chain performance. The general frameworks of seaport processes and inland port processes were developed based on the analysis of literature on container seaports, intermodal transportation, and intermodal terminals in inland ports. Face-to-face semi-structured interviews were also conducted on three seaport-inland port pairs that actively use intermodal transportation to move freight between the seaports and connected inland ports. The three pairs are the port of Virginia and Virginia inland port in the United States, the port of Sydney and Minto terminal in Australia, and the port of Gothenburg and Hallsberg terminal in Sweden. To ensure the validity of data, interview data were triangulated with multiple means of data collection, including site visits, e-mail correspondence, and secondary data drawn from internal company reports, archival records, and publicly available port and trade data from port websites. The three port pairs were qualitatively assessed with business model analysis to form possible business models for integrating the inland port with the seaport via intermodal transportation. Findings of this research provide essential understanding for further investigating inland port services offered, examining the business benefits, and offering a benchmark for ports around the world to achieve business and process efficiency.

[1]  Mansour Rahimi,et al.  An Inland Port Location-Allocation Model for a Regional Intermodal Goods Movement System , 2008 .

[2]  P. V. Reeven,et al.  The Effect of Competition on Economic Rents in Seaports , 2010 .

[3]  J. Sinfield,et al.  How to Identify New Business Models , 2012 .

[4]  A. Strauss,et al.  Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. , 1993 .

[5]  Wael M Erdem Seizing the White Space: Business Model Innovation for Growth and Renewal , 2014 .

[6]  Johan Woxenius,et al.  The dry port concept: connecting container seaports with the hinterland , 2009 .

[7]  Mateus Magala,et al.  A New Approach to Port Choice Modelling , 2008 .

[8]  Theo Notteboom,et al.  CONCENTRATION AND LOAD CENTRE DEVELOPMENT IN THE EUROPEAN CONTAINER PORT SYSTEM , 1997 .

[9]  Jean-Paul Rodrigue,et al.  Functions and actors of inland ports: European and North American dynamics , 2010 .

[10]  Danny Samson,et al.  Effective case research in operations management: a process perspective , 2002 .

[11]  Peter W. de Langen,et al.  Ensuring Hinterland Access The Role of Port Authorities , 2008 .

[12]  S. U.,et al.  Labor and the Geographic Reorganization of Container Shipping in the , 2010 .

[13]  José Holguín-Veras,et al.  Implementation of Priority Systems for Containers at Marine Intermodal Terminals , 1997 .

[14]  Genevieve Giuliano,et al.  Responding to Increasing Port-related Freight Volumes: Lessons from Los Angeles / Long Beach and Other US Ports and Hinterlands , 2008 .

[15]  Violeta Roso,et al.  Dry port in concept and practice , 2012 .

[16]  Theo Notteboom,et al.  The Relationship between Seaports and the Inter-Modal Hinterland in Light of Global Supply Chains , 2008 .

[17]  R. Robinson Ports as elements in value-driven chain systems: the new paradigm , 2002 .

[18]  Chandra Lalwani,et al.  Port‐centric logistics , 2008 .

[19]  Jean-Paul Rodrigue,et al.  The geography of containerization: half a century of revolution, adaptation and diffusion , 2009 .

[20]  Christopher M. Anderson,et al.  The Demand for Import Services at US Container Ports , 2009 .

[21]  M. Flavia Monaco,et al.  Operations Research for the management of a transhipment container terminal: The Gioia Tauro case , 2009 .

[22]  P. Lindgren Business Model Innovation Leadership: How Do SME's Strategically Lead Business Model Innovation? , 2012 .

[23]  Peter Bernard Marlow,et al.  Fourth generation ports – a question of agility? , 2003 .

[24]  Alejandro Micco,et al.  Port Efficiency, Maritime Transport Costs and Bilateral Trade , 2004 .

[25]  Theo Notteboom,et al.  Consolidation and contestability in the European container handling industry , 2002 .

[26]  Tengfei Wang,et al.  The efficiency analysis of container port production using DEA panel data approaches , 2010, OR Spectr..

[27]  H. Meersman,et al.  Co-operation and competition in international container transport: strategies for ports , 2001 .

[28]  Peter W. de Langen,et al.  Hinterland access regimes in seaports , 2003, Les Cahiers Scientifiques du Transport - Scientific Papers in Transportation.

[29]  H. Chesbrough,et al.  The Role of the Business Model in Capturing Value from Innovation: Evidence from Xerox Corporation's Technology Spin-Off Companies , 2002 .

[30]  Verna Allee,et al.  Value Networks and the True Nature of Collaboration , 2015 .

[31]  Dong-Wook Song,et al.  Evaluating impacts of institutional reforms on port efficiency changes: Ownership, corporate structure, and total factor productivity changes of world container ports , 2010 .

[32]  Violeta Roso Factors influencing implementation of a dry port , 2008 .

[33]  A. Strauss,et al.  The discovery of grounded theory: strategies for qualitative research aldine de gruyter , 1968 .

[34]  T. Notteboom,et al.  Structural changes in logistics: how will port authorities face the challenge? , 2001 .

[35]  鳥居 泰彦,et al.  世界経済・社会統計 = World development indicators , 1998 .

[36]  I. Novo-Corti,et al.  Maritime Transport and Trade: The Impact of European Transport Policy: An Overview of Maritime Freight Transport Patterns , 2009 .