Method for improving critical strategic and operational success factors in a port system

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

ScienceDirect ScienceDirect

Procedia Computer Science 00 (2018) 000–000 Procedia Computer Science 00 (2018) 000–000

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

ScienceDirect

www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia

Procedia Computer Science 139 (2018) 448–455

The International Academy of Information Technology and Quantitative Management, The International Academy of Information and Quantitative Management, the Peter Kiewit Institute,Technology University of Nebraska the Peter Kiewit Institute, University of Nebraska

Method for improving critical strategic and operational success Method for improving critical and operational success factors in astrategic port system factors in a port system Claudia A. Durána,*, , Felisa M. Córdovab, Fredi Palominosc Claudia A. Durána,*, , Felisa M. Córdovab, Fredi Palominosc

Faculty of Engineering, Universidad Autónoma de Chile, Av. Pedro de Valdivia 425, Santiago 7500912, Chile b Faculty of Engineering, UniversityAutónoma Finis Terrae, Av. Pedro de Valdivia 1509,425, Santiago 7501015, Chile Faculty of Engineering, Universidad de Chile, Av. Pedro de Valdivia Santiago 7500912, Chile c b Departament of MatematicsUniversity and Computer University of Valdivia Santiago1509, of Chile, Santiago, 9170124 Chile Faculty of Engineering, Finis Science, Terrae, Av. Pedro de Santiago 7501015, Chile c Departament of Matematics and Computer Science, University of Santiago of Chile, Santiago, 9170124 Chile

a a

Abstract Abstract This paper discusses the governance and its action over the port business where private companies and public organizations participate. The sources of strategicand inefficiencies that the affect are identified in the of political, This paper discusses the governance its action over port competitiveness business where private companies and context public organizations technological, economic, social aspects. Strategic that inefficiencies, business and operational, the decision-making participate. The sources and of strategic inefficiencies affect competitiveness are identifiedthatinaffect the context of political, process, are detected in port activity. areStrategic related toinefficiencies, port governance, loss ofand time, logistical costs and lack human capital. technological, economic, and social These aspects. business operational, that affect theofdecision-making Critical affected by inefficiencies in are export/import logistics chains are detected which, if overcome, may reduce their process,factors are detected in port activity. These related to port governance, lossalso of time, logistical costs and lack of human capital. logisticalfactors costs affected and increase port competitiveness. The greatest found in thewhich, publicif components andreduce the private Critical by inefficiencies in export/import logisticsinefficiencies chains are also detected overcome, may their companies are related to waiting (lead time) and time delaysinefficiencies caused by thefound actors in in the the public port business. It is observed that all logistical costs and increase porttime competitiveness. The greatest components and the private strategic interest groups not involved in time) the system anddelays a lack caused of synergy is also perceived at business levels companies are related to are waiting time (lead and time by the actors in the port business.and It isoperational observed that all in both public private Logistic related to transport, togetherlevels with strategic interest organizations groups are notand involved in companies. the system and a lack costs of synergy is also perceivedinventory, at businessstorage, and operational administrative supply costsand are private also considered. TheLogistic trends ofcosts the indicators the paper allow the monitoring of in both publicand organizations companies. related topresented transport,in inventory, storage, together with the factors of inefficiency the considered. port activity.The trends of the indicators presented in the paper allow the monitoring of administrative and supply detected costs areinalso the factors of inefficiency detected in the port activity. © 2018 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. © 2018 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open accessPublished article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/) © 2018 The Authors. by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/) Peer isreview under responsibility ofthethe scientific committee of The International Academy of Information Technology and This an open access article under CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/) Peer review under responsibility of the scientific committee of The International Academy of Information Technology and Quantitative Management, the Peter Kiewit Institute, University of Peer review under responsibility of the scientific committee The International Academy of Information Technology and Quantitative Management, the Peter Kiewit Institute, Universityof of Nebraska. Nebraska. Quantitative Management, the Peter Kiewit Institute, University of Nebraska. Keywords: governance; logistic chains; inefficiencies; services pricing Keywords: governance; logistic chains; inefficiencies; services pricing

* Corresponding author. Tel.: 56-22303600; fax: 56-22303600. address: [email protected] *E-mail Corresponding author. Tel.: 56-22303600; fax: 56-22303600. E-mail address: [email protected] 1877-0509 © 2018 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access under the CC by BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/) 1877-0509 © 2018 The article Authors. Published Elsevier B.V. Peer review under responsibility of the committee of The International Academy of Information Technology and Quant itative This is an open access article under the scientific CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/) Management, the Peter Kiewit Institute, University of Nebraska. Peer review under responsibility of the scientific committee of The International Academy of Information Technology and Quant itative Management, the Peter Kiewit Institute, University of Nebraska.

1877-0509 © 2018 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/) Peer review under responsibility of the scientific committee of The International Academy of Information Technology and Quantitative Management, the Peter Kiewit Institute, University of Nebraska. 10.1016/j.procs.2018.10.253

2

Claudia A. Durán et al. / Procedia Computer Science 139 (2018) 448–455 Author name / Procedia Computer Science 00 (2018) 000–000

449

1. Introduction The port is defined as a triangular corporation interested in the relationships between external and internal aspects, in which the strategies and structure of each organization must be articulated [1]. In this context, it is complex to define the limits and responsibilities of the actors in a governance on corporate decisions, especially because they can be influenced by the power that the actors exert among themselves [2]. In general, this governance includes two principal actors that are the state that assigns a regional or national regulatory Authority, which regulates the port business through port laws, and private companies that have the role of port operators and infrastructure planners and who also define strategies and innovation [3,4]. A port with a public/private governance model is complex because actors interact with different roles and have different motivations [5]. The interest of the public organization is focused on the economic growth of the country and the region where the port is installed, to achieve it uses a centralized and bureaucratic planning in which it has to coordinate several ports [6,7]. Private sector companies are oriented to meet the needs of the market, seek the return of capital, economies of scale in the movement of cargo and speed in the delivery of logistical services [6,7]. The interaction between these stakeholders generates a flow of strategic decisions in which globalization, market changes and technological innovation promote new opportunities for governments through port reforms to making changes in port governance [8,9]. Thus, competitiveness is affected by various factors outside the ports linked to legal, political, technological, economic, social and environmental aspects [10,11]. On the other hand, competitiveness is also affected by internal factors because by acting as a multi-agent system in which each service provider collaborates in some degree with the port community, it can generate inefficiencies that may increase the total costs of logistics [12]. By increasing costs, the demand for lower incomes received by private companies, which define their level of production according to the structure of the market, may decrease [13]. 2. Sources of inefficiencies 2.1. Governance of the Port System The transport system of a medium-sized Chilean port uses a mixed governance model (public and private) in which the State fulfills the role of owner and regulator that, by law, grants private companies the administration and management of Port Terminals. Because the public-private relationship is complex, the state assigns the Public Enterprise System Committee (SEP) of the Ministry of Economy, Development and Tourism as a representative of its interests in corporate government. The SEP has the power to assign the members of the boards of the joint ventures, as well as to control and approve the strategic Plan and the annual budget that the concession-granted port company elaborates. If the annual budget is approved, it is sent to another public component in the budget Directorate (DIPRES) that belongs to the Ministry of Finance, to create a decree law approving the resources [14]. Additionally, the Ministry of Transport and Telecommunications (MTT) has been appointed as coordinator of the Strategic Guidelines for port development and modernization, including planning and investment in Urban/Interurban road infrastructure. Its activities must be aligned with its strategic definitions, related to modernization, the transport system of export and import logistic chains and efficient and effective management, favoring harmonic relationships between the port and the city it occupies. It also promotes public policies linked to competitiveness and greater incorporation of information and telecommunication technologies, to help decisionmaking and improve safety, environmental and productivity indices [15]. Based on the opinion of MTT's expert executives, it is important to note that the governance of the Port Logistics Communities (PLC), integrated by all the public and private actors related to the port business, is in a low degree of maturity in which an incipient application of good practices in the structure of governance is observed. On the other hand, it can be classified, like other mixed ports of Latin America, as a Landlord model of governance 1.0 that to evolve to governance 2.0, it lacks important reforms in both its structure and processes and a policy that incorporates the social capital in its corporate decision-making [8]. In relation to the social capital, the executives of the MTT agree that to attain that level, it is necessary to begin by improving the relations between the port and the city. This problem can be observed in the large percentage of inhabitants who believe that the installation of the Port affects the harmony of the city, mainly because it generates negative externalities in the urban environment and access

450

Claudia A. Durán et al. / Procedia Computer Science 139 (2018) 448–455 Author name / Procedia Computer Science 00 (2018) 000–000

3

roads to the city, causing traffic congestion and environmental pollution. They mentioned that better social integration would be achieved if governance were integrated by stakeholders such as public actors, private territory companies, citizen organizations and other representatives of non-formal organizations. According to the OECD [16], to improve social equity, land-use planning should be aligned with investment in port infrastructure, and transport sector information should be available, updated and be of quality in order to meet the requirements of the public agencies that use it. As shown in Figure 1, the main interest groups and their inefficiencies are identified in the strategic relationships that exist among them.

Fig. 1. Strategic inefficiencies in the port system. 1: Lack of port-city integration. 2: Actors are required to represent interest groups. 3: Insufficient resources for Port modernization. 4: Needs more strategic coordination. 5: Lack of strategic synergy [14]. 6: Low level of technological strategic synergy [11].

2.2. Export and import logistics chains The actors of the export and import logistic chains provide their logistic services to the port business in order that the customers can efficiently and effectively transfer their products to their destination market [14]. The client has a business perspective, which is generally unknown to service providers who operate in a competitive market structure, in which they have to differentiate themselves by decreasing their inefficiencies and by incorporating a greater added value to the port activities. On the other hand, public actors who play a regulatory role depend on public policies and evaluate their logistical costs according to the impact they generate at the global level in the logistic chain and the inefficiencies involved in the process. Tables 1 and 2 identify critical factors affected by inefficiencies in export and import logistics chains, which, if overcome, may reduce their logistical costs and increase port competitiveness. The tables are constructed from the results obtained from interviews to expert executives from 2 relevant ports.

4

Claudia A. Durán et al. / Procedia Computer Science 139 (2018) 448–455 Author name / Procedia Computer Science 00 (2018) 000–000

451

Table 1. Actors and critical success factors of the export logistics chain. Actors that cause inefficiency Exporter Custom Agency Freight Forwarders

Actors receiving inefficiency Shipping Company

Critical success factors (hrs.) Delay time.

Shipping Company

Internal Port Terminal

Lead time

Exporter Shipping Company

Transport Enterprise

Lead time

Public Roads Division

Transport Enterprise

Delay time

Agriculture and Livestock Service (SAG) Customs Agency Transport Enterprise Exporter

Transport Enterprise

Lead time

Externalized Port Terminal

Lead time

Internal Port Terminal

Transport Enterprise

Delay time

Transport Enterprise Exporter Exporter

Shipping Company

Delay time Lead time Delay time

Shipping Company Transport Enterprise

Description The actors enter part of the information of the load in the Knowledge Matrix (BL) with errors or incomplete, this situation generates charges by the shipping company. In international standards, there are deadlines for the shipping company to send the BL to its destination, 24 hours before the ship departure. Advance citation in container deposit of all planned cargo for boarding. Protocols and standards need to be defined to establish deadlines for citations. There are gaps between the payment being made and their confirmation due to the lack of integration in the information systems. Advance citation to consolidate or manipulate cargo to ship. For filling the containers. Changes in shipping planning, without prior notice affecting the programming of the land transport. Congestion in accesses for vehicular flow due to extension of road infrastructure works. Differences in hours of attention between the regulatory agency and the port terminals. This happens because the SAG does not have a continuous attention schedule, 24 hours a day. Not all the information of the daily inspection is given. The security attribute is not complied. Registration in the International Code for the Protection of ships and port facilities (ISPS) is required. The exporter does not record all the information that the access controls require. The carrier has to wait for the internal Terminal to call. There is no monitoring of service quality. The load arrives late to the stacking or the documentation is incomplete. The late arrival is charged. Lack of compliance with the planning of the ship's stowage. In the placement and ordering of the merchandise.

For the construction of Table 2 there is little information about the inefficiencies detected in the import logistic chains. Table 2. Actors and critical success factors of the import logistics chain. Actors that inefficiency

cause

Actors receiving inefficiency

Critical success factors (hrs.)

Description

Internal Port Terminal

Transport Enterprise

Lead time.

The carrier has to wait to remove the load, affecting the programming.

Transport Enterprise

Internal Port Terminal

Lead time

The carrier is late to remove the load and affects programming. If it does not arrive, the load is stored in the internal Terminal. In both cases a surcharge is payed.

Agriculture and Livestock Service (SAG) Customs Agency

Transport Enterprise

Lead time

Differences in hours of attention between the regulatory agency and the port terminals. This happens because the SAG does not have a continuous attention schedule, 24 hours a day. Cargo inspections at the externalized port Terminal. Pay extra cost. Excessive demand in the externalized Terminal. Overdue delivery of documents by the customs broker.

Externalized Port Terminal

Transport Enterprise

Lead time

Deconsolidation of the container on the truck.

Claudia A. Durán et al. / Procedia Computer Science 139 (2018) 448–455 Author name / Procedia Computer Science 00 (2018) 000–000

452

5

This information is validated with the Doing Business report for the year 2015 [17], in which it is expressed that the most critical aspect is when the documentary process is delayed. In Chilean ports, documents similar to other international ports are required, but the documentary processing takes twice as much than in developed countries such as Korea and the United States. This is observed in the preparation activities of the documents, in the control performed at the customs, in the operations carried out by the internal terminal and transport. By applying good practices and reducing these inefficiencies, prices on exports and imports could be lowered by 7.2%. In relation to the World Bank's logistic performance indexes (LPI) for the year 2014 [18], when comparing the ports of developed countries with those of Latin America, it is noted that the latter lack of improvement in service aspects, showing an increase in Logistical costs and decreased logistical performance. These aspects are related to:  The service quality of the terrestrial road infrastructure, which affects the confidence and reliability of the logistic chains.  The document management control carried out by the Customs office, which is coordinated with other public sector agencies.  Cooperative work between the components of the state and private enterprises, in order to obtain greater efficiency and effectiveness.  The development of new information and telecommunication technologies (ICT).  Sustainability. As shown in Figure 2, in both the public components and the private companies that are part of the links of the export and import logistic chains, it is possible to identify inefficiencies related to waiting time (lead time) and time delay caused by the actors in the port business. Customs Agency 1 Shipping Company

Exporter/Freight Forwarders 1-2

2 Internal Port Terminal

1-2

1-2 Transport Enterprise 1 Public Roads Division

2 1-2 2

Externalized Port Terminal 2 Customs Agency 2 SAG

Fig. 2. Actors with a critical factor of inefficiency in the port system.1: Delay time, 2: Lead time

In Figure 2, it is observed that all strategic interest groups in Figure 1 are not involved in the system, in particular, the Ministry of Transport and Telecommunications (MTT) is not included, despite the fact that the State has assigned it the role of coordinator Control Port Business. It shows a lack of synergy at the business and operational levels with the Public Budget Directorate (DIPRES) and the public Enterprise Service Committee (SEP), because the DIPRES and the SEP interact with the Port logistic communities only at Corporate level. In relation to the Port Authority (PA), the actor is not included in Figure 2 because their role is linked to management and administration of the spaces, infrastructure and port facilities. So, the actors who are considered here present inefficiencies in the development of physical activities and documentaries which are performed in the maritime and terrestrial service zones in Port Terminals. There are other inefficiencies that are explicit or implicit in the port system which have an indirect link with the times involved in the logistic processes. These are more related to the added value of human, structural and relational capital described below: [14, 19, 20, 21]  Human capital. Is a characteristic of the people belonging to a team group in the company, corresponds to implicit knowledge; examples of this type of capital are levels of experience, learning and competencies of the people involved in different activities throughout the company.  Structural capital. It is mainly the explicit knowledge that the organization has, which all employees can access supported by Information and Telecommunications technologies. Examples of this capital include databases, processes, procedures, operational systems, intellectual property, patents, and trademarks.  Relational Capital. In possession of both the company and the employees. Here we highlight the interpersonal communications inside the company and out of it.

6

Claudia A. Durán et al. / Procedia Computer Science 139 (2018) 448–455 Author name / Procedia Computer Science 00 (2018) 000–000

453

3. Inefficiencies and Logistical costs There is a port system in which different actors interact with different economic criteria, and who, at global level, have to reduce the inefficiencies and the total logistic costs of the exported or imported cargo. Logistic costs are considered to be related to [22]:  Transport: is equivalent to the tariff charged by the carrier for the waiting time. It transfers the collection to the exporter or importer.  Inventory: Corresponds to the opportunity cost generated by operating time, insurance and depreciation. It comprises the inventory in transit and security.  Storage: Includes loading/unloading and packing costs. The latter concentrates on the consolidation operations, the provision of the empty container, among others.  Administrative and supply costs: the costs of the information process and the implementation of new logistic systems are considered. Digital and paper documentation are handled [14]. Logistic service providers and concession-granted companies operate in a market structure with competitive characteristics, in which they regulate their costs and reduce their inefficiencies in order to offer competitive prices to their customers and eliminate strategic and operational gaps with other similar ports. Public components that play a supervisory role depend on public policies and assess their logistical costs, according to the impact they generate at the global level in the logistic chain and the inefficiencies involved in the process. Although private companies and public components have different criteria, the client or exporter must pay fees implying total logistics costs and inefficiencies involved in the entire process. That is to say, to calculate the tariffs, the port system must be financed in its integrity and not by each separate component. According to the Doing Business report for 2015 [17], logistics costs are an important part of the sales price of some products sold in international markets. The report shows that in some products, the relevant factors that determine costs are associated with the cost of fuel for ships and ground transportation of cargo and the lack of coordination and planning among the actors, which generates sub-utilization of resources in terms of waiting times. 4. Indicators In order to improve the efficiency of the port system, it is necessary to know the trends of the logistic costs, to achieve this, management indicators of operational activities can be used. Based on the critical success factors and once identified the inefficiencies and logistics costs, it is possible to build a set of indicators representative of these aspects. Table 3 presents the indicators that experts from the two relevant ports in Chile consider important to measure the inefficiencies detected in Tables 1 and 2. Table 3. Indicators, measures and description Indicator (measures) Container rotation rate filled in the Internal Terminal (hours). Average vessel waiting time in port due to lack of berth (hours). Average time of stay of the trucks in the Internal Terminal (hours). Average waiting time for public service trucks (hours). Number of documents received by the shipping company with incomplete information (Number) Average waiting time for anticipated citations (hours) Average wait time for non-compliance with ISPS security attributes (hours) Time lost for traffic congestion in port access (hours) Number of documents issued by the exporter with

Description If the indicator is low, this could indicate that the vessel was in the internal Terminal longer than the scheduled time. Waiting time at berthing site. It is the time of operation that takes a truck between the entry with load and its exit with an empty container. The trucks arriving at the Terminal outsourced after the closing time of SAG and customs, have to wait to be monitored until the next day. To comply with the times stipulated in the international regulations, the information is subsequently entered. This could generate bad practices. The schedule is changed in container deposit activities and load consolidation. The carrier must comply with the package of measures to improve the safety of ships and port facilities. Road congestion in the Externalized Terminal entrance. The carrier does not comply with the Internal and Externalized terminal

Claudia A. Durán et al. / Procedia Computer Science 139 (2018) 448–455 Author name / Procedia Computer Science 00 (2018) 000–000

454

incomplete information (Number) Percentage weight of an actor's logistical cost (%) Cargo storage opportunity cost in Internal Port Terminal (US $) Total average costs of an export chain product (US $/Ton)

7

security controls. Is the relationship between the logistic cost of an actor and the total cost of the export logistics chain. By using the storage spaces more than the time stipulated, another customer has to wait to store their cargo. Includes the following costs: services, inventory and waiting-time for each activity in the export logistics process.

5. Discussion and conclusions The developed research identifies that the main strategic, business and operational inefficiencies that affect the decision-making process, detected in port activity, relate to port governance, losses of time, logistical costs and lack of human capital. The governance is constituted by public sector companies, government authorities and private sector representatives who are directly related to port businesses. There is a lack of participation by local authorities representing the community and port-related companies and cooperatives, which belong to the city where the port operates. This produces problems of coordination between the port system and the city, due to the diversity of interests among the participants. Loss of time and logistical costs are outstanding factors affecting export/import companies. For example, a truck that occupies a longer space than expected in the port terminal, affects the whole chain in itself and that of other exporters, since another vehicle is prevented from using that space. For the waiting truck, there is also a cost associated with its delay in scheduled activities. Finally, the vehicle arrives at final destination with delay, affecting the final customer receiving the merchandise with the greatest delay of the scheduled. This can cause a shortage of these products in the market, a situation that can bring great harm to companies that require inputs that have no substitutes or are difficult to replace. In the analysis of intellectual capital, structural and relational, lack of training of human capital has been detected, lack of technological integration, mismanagement of document management, and lack of coordination between auditing organizations and Service providers of the logistic chains, while the action of trade unions disturbing the port activity also deserves a mention. The trends of the indicators presented in the paper allow the monitoring of the inefficiency factors detected in the port activity. With the help of a systemic analysis of costing and pricing of public and private services, the real price of intermediate and final services could be determined. Acknowledgements The Faculty of Engineering of Universidad Autónoma de Chile, the Faculty of Engineering at Universidad Finis Terrae and Department of Mathematics and Computer Science of the University of Santiago of Chile, supported this work. References [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9]

Wang James J., Adolf Koi-Yu Ng and Olivier Daniel (2004) “Port governance in China: a review of policies in an era of internationalizing port management practices” Transport Policy 11(3):237–250. Stoker, Gerry (1998)” Governance as theory: five propositions” International social science journal 50(155):17–28. Debrie Jean, Lavaud-Letilleul Valerie and Parola Francesco (2013) “Shaping port governance: the territorial trajectories of reform” Journal of Transport Geography 27: 56-65. Brooks Mary R. (2016) “Port governance as a tool of economic development: Revisiting the question” In Dynamic Shipping and Port Development in the Globalized Economy, London, Palgrave Macmillan editors. Brooks Mary R. (2004), “The governance structure of ports” Review of Network Economics 3(2): 168-183. Ferrari Claudio, Parola Francesco and Tei Alessio (2015) “Governance models and port concessions in Europe: Commonalities, critical issues and policy perspectives” Transport Policy 41: 60–67. Galvao Cassia Bomer, Wang Grace WY. and Mileski Joan (2016) “Public-Private Interests and Conflicts in Ports: A Content Analysis Approach” The Asian Journal of Shipping and Logistics 32(1): 13–22. Sánchez Ricardo and Pinto Francisca (2015) “El gran desafío para los puertos: la hora de pensar una nueva gobernanza portuaria ha llegado”. Brooks Mary R. and Pallis Athanasios A. (2012) “Port governance” The Blackwell companion to maritime economics :491–516.

8

Claudia A. Durán et al. / Procedia Computer Science 139 (2018) 448–455 Author name / Procedia Computer Science 00 (2018) 000–000

455

[10] Parola Francesco and Maugeri Salvatore (2013) “Origin and taxonomy of conflicts in seaports: Towards a research agenda” Research in Transportation Business & Management 8:114–122. [11] Durán Claudia A. and Córdova Felisa M. (2016) “Conceptual model to identify technological synergic relationships of strategic level in a medium-sized Chilean port” Procedia Computer Science 91: 382–391. [12] Irannezhad Elnaz, Hickman Mark and Prato Carlo (2017) “Modeling the efficiency of a port community system as an agent-based process” Procedia Computer Science 109: 917–922. [13] Guasch Jose Luis (2011) “Logistics as a Driver for Competitiveness in Latin America and the Caribbean” Inter-American Development Bank. [14] Durán Claudia A. and Córdova Felisa M. (2015) “Synergy and Technology Gaps in Export Logistics Chains between a Chilean and a Spanish medium-sized Port” Procedia Computer Science 55: 632–641. [15] Comisión Estrategia 2030 de Puertos y su Logística (2015) “Logística y puertos: una plataforma estratégica de desarrollo para Chile” Consejo Nacional de Innovación para el Desarrollo. [16] OECD (2017) “Brechas y estándares de gobernanza de la infraestructura pública en Chile: Análisis de Gobernanza de Infraestructura” OECD Publishing. [17] World Bank Group (2014) “Doing Business 2015: Going Beyond Efficiency: Comparing Business Regulations for Domestic Firms in 189 Economies: a World Bank Group Flagship Report” World Bank Publications. [18] https://lpi.worldbank.org/international/global/2014, 2018. [19] Córdova Felisa M., Durán Claudia A. and Galindo Raquel (2015 ) “The Chilean medium-sized port companies in knowledge management: diagnosis, challenges and trends” Procedia Computer Science 55: 1133-1142. [20] Aggarwal Raj and Kyaw NyoNyo A. (2008) “Internal capital networks as a source of MNC competitive advantage: Evidence from foreign subsidiary capital structure decisions” Research in International Business and Finance 22 (3): 409-439. [21] Casado AM. (2014) “Intangible management monitors and tools: Reviews” Expert Systems with Applications 41(4): 1609-1629. [22] Carlan Valentin, Sys Christa and Vanelslander Thierry (2016) “How port community systems can contribute to port competitiveness: Developing a cost–benefit framework” Research in Transportation Business & Management 19: 51-64.