Port Community Systems: A structured literature review

Transportation Research Part A 133 (2020) 27–46

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Transportation Research Part A journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/tra

Port Community Systems: A structured literature review Adriana Moros-Dazaa,b, , René Amaya-Miera, Carlos Paternina-Arboledaa ⁎

a b

T

Departamento de Ingenieria Industrial, Universidad del Norte, Barranquilla, Colombia Institute of Information Systems (IWI), University of Hamburg, Germany

ARTICLE INFO

ABSTRACT

Keywords: Port community systems Inventory Taxonomy Structured literature review

Port Community Systems (PCS) are inter-organizational software platforms that connects port community actors, enabling commercial services and information exchange between the port to their customers and a variety of stakeholders. Our main motivation for this paper lies in the absence of surveys on the PCS literature, hence the purpose of this paper is to perform a structured literature review on PCS to establish promising research gaps. Such review was conducted surveying the literature about PCS from 2001 until 2019. The study introduces a detailed and current worldwide PCS inventory using a proposed evolution framework and a taxonomy, the latter built upon commonly cited factors from the IT systems development literature in the context of port communities, which are synthesized into three frames: a Business frame, an Integration frame, and a Legal frame. Findings show that literature on PCS is scarce and fragmented, oftentimes with PCS research published in non-specialized documents on the topic, with few comparative studies between countries and several countries receiving little attention. Few authors have high specialization on the topic while most authors in average contribute less than once to the body of knowledge. Additionally, it was found that industry is ahead of scientific research in terms of documenting PCS development and technical features. The results also show a lack of innovation regarding PCS research studies, which risks relegating PCS research to irrelevance. A major critique to extant PCS literature is about its inertia, as research tends to be excessively comfortable with the legacy PCS, neglecting its need to evolve and adapt to new markets (in response to the growth of emerging economies) or to extended functionalities (taking advantage of the surge of new technologies). Furthermore, it was found that the future of PCS research should aim for addressing practical needs, while fostering collaboration among practitioners and scholars.

1. Introduction Nowadays, electronic collaboration in logistics is a key factor to every business process, because it improves the competitiveness of firms in the global markets (Banco Mundial, 2008). In the port industry, this is not an exception (IPCSA, 2015; Posti et al., 2011) and the tendency to use electronic collaboration is increasing day by day. One of the most commonly used developments in the port communities is the Port Community System (PCS) (IPCSA, 2015; Tsamboulas et al., 2013). A PCS can be defined as an interorganizational system used for enabling commercial services and providing information exchange between the port to their customers and a variety of stakeholders, such as forwarders, carriers, importers, exporters, customs, among others (IPCSA, 2015; Tsamboulas et al., 2013; Long, 2009). For over 30 years, this kind of electronic collaboration tool has been used almost exclusively by

⁎

Corresponding author at: Departamento de Ingeniería Industrial, Universidad del Norte, Barranquilla, Colombia. E-mail address: [email protected] (A. Moros-Daza).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2019.12.021 Received 21 January 2019; Received in revised form 2 November 2019; Accepted 16 December 2019 0965-8564/ © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Transportation Research Part A 133 (2020) 27–46

A. Moros-Daza, et al.

Fig. 1. PCS evolution framework.

evolved economies with very active port industries (IPCSA, 2015; Tsamboulas et al., 2013; Long, 2009). The main reason to use PCS was to solve problems of information exchange and disconnection of multiple communication systems. Despite the recognized benefits of PCS worldwide (IPCSA, 2015; Tsamboulas et al., 2013; Long, 2009), there are no studies that have presented an updated inventory of PCS. This article seeks to fill such gap, initially by providing a full inventory of existing PCS worldwide but classified into what herein we have designated as PCS waves, as in groups of PCS sharing a common deployment time as well as other geo-economic and socio-technical settings. We developed a PCS evolution framework featured by such PCS waves and shown in Fig. 1, which we found of use not only to preliminary categorize PCS settings and to identify significant milestones of its evolution in time and space, but also constitutes an essential construct of our proposed taxonomy for conducting a structured review on the PCS literature (Massaro et al., 2016), the defining and ultimate purpose of this paper. Depending on variables such as the time of introduction of a PCS and its location, as well as regional variables such as technological and economical development, political environment, local regulations and environmental aspects, it is possible to identify common patterns in time and to categorize 48 PCS established around the world (PORTEL, 2009; IPCSA, 2019) into what we termed as PCS waves. Fig. 1 depicts four cumulative PCS waves across time, which respectively collects 13, 15, 16 and 4 PCS instances into a first, second, third and fourth wave with a distinctive overlapping color and also featuring a note on the prevalent PCS locations (to be further detailed in forthcoming tables). Each wave is determined based on technological, political and legal, environmental, and economical factors, with some of its defining milestones marked over the time-line. Most former factors name convey a direct meaning. However, our economical factor is based on the so-called trade openness index (in short, ’trade index’) and the market categorization of the country where the PCS operates. In more detail, the trade index is an economic metric calculated as the ratio of a country’s total trade (the sum of exports plus imports) to the country’s gross domestic product (Ortiz-Ospina et al., 2018). The higher the index the larger the influence of trade on domestic economic activities. Moreover, we distinguish PCS in varying economic settings depending on the country, in which it operates (hereafter termed as ”market”) with the following labels: developed, emerging, frontier, or standalone market (MSCI Inc., 2018). Each country can be indexed in any of the above mentioned categories based on their economic development and accessibility to its market. By this, a developed market is associated to a country with an advanced economy, featuring highly developed capital markets with high levels of liquidity, meaningful regulatory bodies, large market capitalization, and high levels of per capita income. Developed markets are mostly in Western Europe, North America, and Australasia. Following this idea, an emerging market is associated with a country in the process of rapid growth and development with lower per capita incomes and less mature capital markets than developed countries. On the other hand, a frontier market is a subset of the emerging market category, meaning that frontier markets are emerging markets, but not all emerging markets are frontier markets. The frontier markets are characterized by little market liquidity, marginally developed capital markets, and lower per capita incomes. In addition to these three categories, MSCI Inc.1 proposes the standalone markets category (MSCI Inc., 2018), which refers to countries with severe deterioration in market accessibility or size and liquidity for that market. This category includes newly eligible markets that can demonstrate a relative openness and accessibility for foreign investors and are not undergoing a 1 MSCI Inc. is a leader company, consider as a global provider of equity, fixed income, hedge fund stock market indexes, and multi-asset portfolio analysis tools. It publishes the MSCI BRIC, MSCI World and MSCI EAFE Indexes (MSCI Inc., 2018).

28

29 2 1 1

DP World Yarimca (Turkey) Port of Tarragona, Port of Huelva, Port of Bahia de Algeciras, Port of Galicia (Spain) Ports of Southampton, Tilbury, London, Heathrow, Gatwick, Manchester, Birmingham, Immingham, Belfast and Portsmouth (UK) Port of Singapore (Singapore) Ports of Finland(Finland)

c

b

a

Community Network Services (CNS) Portnet Portnet

1 2 1 2

Ports of Marseilles (France) Ports of Korea (Containers Terminals) (Korea) Port of Bremen (Germany) Dubai Ports World (Containers Terminals) (United Arab Emirates UAE)

Available measurement by June 2019. C: Container, B: Bulk, GC: General Cargo 1: Europe, 2: Asia Middle East and Pacific, 3: Africa, 4: Americas SY: Start year

2 1

Dubai Trade Portel

1

Port of Antwerp (Belgium)

Dakosy SOGET Le Havre PCS MCP plc’s Destin8 Port Community System Port of Antwerp Community System MGI KL Net DBH Dubai Trade

PCS name

1 1 1

Continentb

Port of Hamburg (Germany) Ports of Le Havre (France) Ports of Felixstowe and others (UK)

Port/Terminal

Table 1 PCS inventory 1st wave.

60% 13%

12%

16% 32%

8% 100% 1% 100%

49%

62% 28% 26%

C

5% 0% 36% 0%

12%

15% 0% 17%

GC

35% 64%

74%

5% 24%

15%

70% 66% 2%

88% 0% 63% 0%

39%

23% 72% 57%

B

Cargo distributiona

Developed Developed

Developed

Emerging Developed

Developed Emerging Developed Emerging

Developed

Developed Developed Developed

Market

Yes No

No

Yes No

No No No No

No

No No No

Adapted PCS?

1997 2000

1997

1995 1995

1989 1994 1995 1995

1986

1982 1983 1984

SYc

325,39% 74,99%

50,18%

44,24% 44,83%

44,00% 48,88% 43,54%

111,00%

44,53% 45,14% 53,99%

Trade index by SY

Eurostat (2019)

Eurostat (2019)

Eurostat (2019) KL-Net (2019) Eurostat (2019) DP WORLD (2019) Eurostat (2019) Eurostat (2019)

Eurostat (2019)

Eurostat (2019) Eurostat (2019) Eurostat (2019)

References

A. Moros-Daza, et al.

Transportation Research Part A 133 (2020) 27–46

Transportation Research Part A 133 (2020) 27–46

A. Moros-Daza, et al.

period of extreme economic or political instability. Furthermore, regarding technological development we borrow from Heilig et al. (2017) and Venkatraman (1994) their framework for worldwide evolution of information systems in the maritime industry, shown on the right hand of Fig. 1 with a set of technological transformational stages that help define the PCS waves along the y-axis of the chart. Some of the transformation stages outlined in the y-axis also include the introduction of new environmental paradigms. Next, we describe each of the four PCS waves with its corresponding main features.

• First Wave: From 1982 (first PCS) - 2000. Regarding the political and legal aspect, this wave is heavily influenced by the

•

•

•

establishment of the European Model EDI agreement, which required the industry to change and introduced a new business model based on paperless procedures, in turn leading to the creation of the first PCS in Hamburg, Germany (Dakosy - 1982). In terms of environmental change, the world was adopting an industrial ecology and there was more need for a transformation to paperless procedures. Regarding the technology evolution, at the core of the PCS original version was the prevalent technological standard for information systems of the times, wide spread distributed systems with an architectural middle tier between the client and the server called the application server provider (ASP) and associated middle-ware. Moreover, all countries adopting a first-wave PCS exhibited at the time a trade index over 40% of their GDP (Ortiz-Ospina et al., 2018). Such trade dynamics demanded for an increased productivity of their foreign trade transactions (Ortiz-Ospina et al., 2018), thereby paving the way for PCS. All the PCS from this wave were implemented in developed countries in Europe and Asia (to be further detailed in Table 1). Second Wave: From 2001 to 2011. Regarding political and legal aspects, main influences of this wave includes the creation of Paperless Trading Initiatives (United Nations, 2006), the European Directive for a vessel traffic monitoring system (European Maritime Safety Agency, 2002), and a Regulation for shared IT (European Parliament and of the Council, 2002). On the environmental factor, the world was changing to a green concept (paperless procedures within information systems), which was supported by the technological aspect. This aspect had a technological transformation from multi-tier distributed computer systems to decentralized web-based distributed systems, and then to Service-oriented architectures (SOA). Similar to the first wave, the trade index percentage of the countries who were adopting a PCS was over 45%. Those PCS were adopted in emerging countries in Europe and Asia (to be further detailed in Table 2). Third Wave: From 2012 to 2017. The third wave is featured by the introduction of directives to law adoptions, like the eCustoms EU Law (European Commission, 2012) and the EU Law for paperless customs (United Nations, 2006; European Commission, 2014). In terms of technology, in this period the world was changing from Web-Services to Online-Services on the web and mobile applications. Also, it moved from automated procedures to smart procedures (agents-intelligent systems with the ability to execute themselves based on a set of rules and algorithms defined by their parties (Kirstein, 2018), which pushed as well for the environmental factor to change to a smart green concept. The third wave was characterized by the development of PCS in African and Asian countries with emerging and frontier economies (to be further detailed in Table 3). As in the former waves, the trade index in those countries was over 45%. Fourth Wave: From 2018 -. The Fourth Wave is an ongoing wave. We pose this wave started in 2018, with the evolution of the PCS based on the new multimodal service offer, as well with the creation and evolution of the SmartPort concept. Based on the assumption that this wave is still going and will still be open in the next years, we propose that this wave will be featured by the adoption of new concepts, like Blockchain to support security issues and safer transactions (Battrick, 2018; Foroglou et al., 2015; Jabbar et al., 2018; Yang et al., 2018); Industry 5.0 to improve PCS technical-operational and co-ordination efficiency (Kirstein, 2018); Artificial Intelligence (AI) to improve prediction and decision making on maritime and land transport operations, as well as to automate repetitive (though sensitive) manual transactions, i.e., cargo introduction/extraction (Miró, 2018); Virtual reality to support more effective operations, analyze operational flows, pinpoint possible barriers as well as define enhancements, and simulate and assess various scenarios of design and throughput (Kanellopoulos et al., 2018); and intermodal services to optimize time and cost, and to enrich the legacy PCS with a new added value service (Zlatanova and Beetz, 2012; Zuidwijk, 2015). We also expect in terms of technological features a change to cloud-services and micro data centers (Dignan, 2019). The environmental aspect will change to a digitalized ecosystem (Rosenfield, 2018). Moreover, the most recent PCS has been adopted in American and African countries, with emerging, standalone and frontier economies (to be further detailed in Table 4), with a trade index over 45%, excluding USA. This means that the future could be the development of PCS in more American and African countries, as proposed by Mendes-Constante and Lucenti (2019a,b) and the evolution of the current operating PCS (Ahn, 2018).

Building on the above-mentioned PCS evolution framework, and to complement its description, we present a detailed inventory of PCS worldwide distinguished by the former PCS waves in the Tables 1–4. Each of the following tables is composed of 11 columns. The first two columns refer to the geographical location, including the port or terminal where the PCS operates. The third column stands for the PCS name. From columns four to six the cargo distribution per Port/Terminal is presented, yet it does not necessarily reflect the same type of cargo handled by the PCS in each port/terminal. Column seven refers to the type of market2 in which the PCS is operating. Column eight signals to whether the PCS was custom-made or adapted from an existing PCS. Although mostly all of the current PCS are part of the same international association (IPCSA, 2019), they come from different vendors, each with different architecture and custom-made characteristics. Column nine is the start year of the PCS and column ten exposes the trade index of the country in that year. Finally, column eleven notes the literature references. From the wave definitions on Fig. 1 and the PCS inventory in Tables 1–4, it can be inferred that PCS is a trending topic in the port 2

The (MSCI Inc., 2018) categorization. 30

31

1-Stop PCS e-puertobilbao SIPG PCS Pentant Port of Ravenna PCS UIRNet Piattaforma Logistica Nazionale (PLN) Dalian Portnet Valenciaport PCS Israel Port Community System (IPCS)

2 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 2 3

Port of Dalian (China) Port of Valencia (Spain) Port of Israel (Israel)

Port of Sines (Portugal) Port of Tuticorin (India) Port of Cotonou (Benin Terminal) (Benin, West Africa)

c

b

a

1-Stop PCS 1-Stop PCS

2 2

Available measurement by June 2019. C: Container, B: Bulk, GC: General Cargo 1: Europe, 2: Asia Middle East and Pacific, 3: Africa, 4: Americas SY: Start year

Port of Sines JUP Kale Logistics SEGUB

Portbase

PCS name

1

Continentb

Port of Rotterdam and Amsterdam (Netherlands) Port of Lyttelton (New Zealand) Ports of Australia (Containers Terminals) (Australia) Port of Manila (Containers Terminals) (Philippines) Port of Bilbao (Spain) Port of Shanghai (China) Ports of Dover, Portland, Poole and Scrabster (UK) Port of Ravenna (Italy) Ports of La Spezia, and ports Genoa (Italy)

Port/Terminal

Table 2 PCS inventory 2nd wave.

10% 2% 100%

37% 67% 80%

9% 46%

14% 71% 2%

100%

45% 100%

22%

C

68%

9%

0%

0% 0%

2%

GC

10% 11%

90% 0% 32% 0% 0%

63% 22% 90%

75% 16% 54%

77% 29% 30%

0%

55% 0%

76%

B

Cargo distributiona

Developed Emerging Frontier

Emerging Developed Developed

Developed Developed

Developed Emerging Developed

Emerging

Developed Developed

Developed

Market

No No No

Yes No No

No No

No No No

Yes

Yes No

No

Adapted PCS?

2008 2009 2010

2005 2006 2007

2005 2005

2003 2003 2004

2002

2002 2002

2002

SYc

71,96% 46,78% 60,99%

62,21% 55,66% 81,96%

49,41% 49,41%

53,11% 51,08% 49,51%

102,44%

62,66% 41,57%

114,71%

Trade index by SY

FSOO (2019) Eurostat (2019) State of Israel - Ministry of Transport (2019) Eurostat (2019) Shaikh (2018) Bollore Ports et al. (2019)

Eurostat (2019) Eurostat (2019)

Eurostat (2019) Port of Shanghai (2019) Eurostat (2019)

-Stop (2018)

Deloitte (2018) -Stop (2018)

Eurostat (2019)

References

A. Moros-Daza, et al.

Transportation Research Part A 133 (2020) 27–46

32

c

b

a

JUP Cargonaut Portic Abu Dhabi Ports’ Maqta Gateway PCS Portall Port of Prince Rupert PCS

4 1 1 2 2 4

1 1 3

Portnet SOGET (MPCS) SOGET (DR of Congo Port Community System) Ports of Trieste PCS Sinfomar PPL 33–35 SEGUB Togo

Port of Montréal PCS Djibouti port community system DPCS SOGET POS

4 3 3 3 3 3

ILCS

PCS name

2

Continentb

Available measurement by June 2019. C: Container, B: Bulk, GC: General Cargo 1: Europe, 2: Asia Middle East and Pacific, 3: Africa, 4: Americas SY: Start year

Ports of Morocco (Morocco) Port of Louis (Mauritius) Ports of Kinshasa, Boma, Goma, Kinsagani, Mati (Congo) Ports of Trieste (Italy) Port of Odessa (Ukraine) Ports of Togo (Togo Terminal, Lomé) (West Africa) Port of Santos (Brazil) Port of Amsterdam (Netherlands) Port of Barcelona (Spain) Abu Dhabi Ports (United Arab Emirates UAE) Port of India (Containers Terminals) (India) Port of Prince Rupert (Canada)

Port of Jakarta (Containers Terminals) (Indonesia) Port of Montréal (Canada) Port of Djibouti (Djibouti) Port of Abidjan (Ivory Coast)

Port/Terminal

Table 3 PCS inventory 3rd wave.

26% 3% 53% 70% 100% 39%

5% 15% 100%

14% 48% 11%

41% 80% 42%

100%

C

5% 1% 2%

1% 0% 39%

0%

GC

47% 28% 92% 5% 41% 6% 30% 0% 0% 55% 7%

85% 10% 85% 0% 0%

81% 51% 87%

58% 20% 19%

0%

B

Cargo distributiona

Emerging Developed Developed Emerging Emerging Developed

Developed Standalone Frontier

Frontier Frontier Frontier

Developed Frontier Frontier

Emerging

Market

No No No No No No

No No Yes

Yes Yes Yes

No No Yes

No

Adapted PCS?

2015 2016 2016 2016 2017 2017

2014 2014 2014

2013 2013 2013

2013 2013 2013

2012

SYc

26,95% 153,82% 62,88% 176,75% 40,64% 64,06%

55,76% 100,69% 107,42%

80,02% 109,97% 142,06%

61,97% 92,00% 80,13%

49,58%

Trade index by SY

Porto de Santos (2019) Eurostat (2019) Eurostat (2019) Abu Dhabi Ports (2018) IPCSA (2019) Port of Prince Rupert (2018)

Eurostat (2019) PortSEurope (2019) Ports (2019)

Port Montreal (2019) Port De Djibouti (2019) Port Autonome D’Abidjan (2018) ANP (2018) MPA (2018) World Bank Group (2015)

Hutchison Ports (2019)

References

A. Moros-Daza, et al.

Transportation Research Part A 133 (2020) 27–46

33

c

b

a

2 4 4 4

Continentb PCS 1x Port Optimizer eModal PCS Jamaica PCS SOGET

PCS name

Available measurement by June 2019. C: Container, B: Bulk, GC: General Cargo 1: Europe, 2: Asia Middle East and Pacific, 3: Africa, 4: Americas SY: Start year

Port of India (members of the Indian Ports Association) (India) Port of Los Angeles (US) Long Beach, California Terminal (US) Kingston Freeport Terminal Limited (KFTL) and Kingston Wharves Limited (KWL) (Jamaica)

Port/Terminal

Table 4 PCS inventory 4th wave.

20% 58% 59% 63%

C

GC

50% 50% 4% 39% 41% 0% 37%

B

Cargo distributiona

Emerging Developed Developed Standalone

Market No No No Yes

Adapted PCS?

2018 2018 2018 2018

SYc

40,64% 26,58% 26,58% 77,06%

Trade index by SY

IBEF (2018) The Port of Los Angeles (2018) Port of Long Beach (2018) The Port Authority of Jamaica (2018)

References

A. Moros-Daza, et al.

Transportation Research Part A 133 (2020) 27–46

Transportation Research Part A 133 (2020) 27–46

A. Moros-Daza, et al.

industry, especially in the maritime industry from European and Asian countries. Furthermore, PCS creation and evolution seemingly relates to the developments and requirements of the industry and the world (PORTEL, 2009). It is observable for the analyzed countries to have a trade index lower threshold over 45% by the time of PCS adoption, which antecedes PCS implementation. Moreover, with the development of the global market and the introduction of new technologies, countries around the world have been increasingly required to evolve their tools in order to facilitate the exchange of information and enable new value-added solutions (Carlan et al., 2016; PORTEL, 2009). Notwithstanding, the PCS concept in terms of business model, design and services remains inert (PORTEL, 2009; Miró, 2018), featuring an apparently static industry that has not effectively managed to respond to its technological and socio-economic context, meaning that countries from the former waves have been developing PCS or evolving the existing ones from a legacy PCS but with minor variations (PORTEL, 2009). PCS literature seems to follow the lines of PCS industry, since despite the PCS worldwide spreading, it is challenging to find documentation on PCS development, best practices or barriers to develop a PCS. In spite of the fact that there is absence of prior technical literature on PCS, this did not prevent PCS implementation from spreading. Furthermore, there is scarce literature available on the subject of developing and/or implementing PCS. The most relevant literature about PCS emphasize its benefits and expose successful examples of it around the world (Carlan et al., 2016; Van Oosterhout et al., 2007; Duran and Cordova, 2012; Cuadrado et al., 2004; Srour et al., 2008). Motivated on the former shortages, this article introduces a structured literature review (SLR) (Massaro et al., 2016) to analyze the literature surrounding the PCS deployments, in search of promising research gaps. Our research is based on the following questions:

• RQ1: What are the major themes that have been developed within PCS research? • RQ2: What is the focus and critique of PCS research? • RQ3: What is the future of PCS research? In order to answer the above-mentioned questions, this paper is comprised of the following sections: Section 2 includes the review methodology with its taxonomy about PCS. Section 3 includes a descriptive data analysis of the distribution of the articles with a subsequent discussion on several implications arising from the analysis. Section 4 discusses possible areas for future research and our view on PCS future. We end with the closing remarks and conclusions of the paper. 2. Literature review methodology According to Massaro et al. (2016), it takes a 10th-step protocol for making a SRL. We have applied this protocol on the literature that directly or indirectly relates to supply chain collaboration in port communities, with a specific focus in PCS. The purpose is to determine the major themes that have been developed within PCS and to explore the focus and critique of PCS research. To accomplish the former purpose, different academic journals, conference proceedings, book chapters, and lecture notes were selected as literature sources comprising a set of topics such as supply chain management in port communities, electronic collaboration platforms, maritime logistics, business models, and design and development for product and services. The literature examination was carried out using the keywords: “port communities (PC),” “port community systems,” “single windows,” “regulation and policies in PC,” “information systems (IS) in PC,” “product and services development in PC.” Our initial queries were performed in Google Scholar3, in order to broadly search for scholarly literature published in multiple bibliographic databases, including articles from variated journals and book chapters. After that, to broaden our search while assuring we not miss relevant works, we directly inquired within several databases: Web of Science, Scopus, ScienceDirect, ABI/Inform and Academic Search, Taylor and Francis, Emerald, Science Direct, IEEE Xplore, and Springer Link. All the papers directly related to PCS were taken into account for our study. However, because our keywords also relate to more general information systems in port communities, after reading the abstracts of those papers we filtered and discarded the ones lacking explicit PCS focus. The SRL is based on 28 articles on the previously mentioned topics reported in the literature from 2001 to 2019. Each article was carefully revised in order to organize them accordingly into our proposed taxonomic classification. This group of papers deals with topics such as the development of PCS, their income models, as well as problems and improvements related to their processes. Taxonomic classification In order to systematically organize the published research on PCS, we introduced a taxonomy classification of themes based on the model made by Venkatraman (1994), which has been widely used in the last decades to categorize and analyze transformations in organizations that are driven by new enabling IT/IS solutions (Heilig et al., 2017). In general, the model is divided into five levels to categorize the functionalities of IT/IS solutions: localized exploitation, internal integration, business scope, business network and business process. For our taxonomy, we group such levels into two big frames: Business frame and Integration frame. The first refers to the redesign and evaluation of the business model (IPCSA, 2015; Heilig et al., 2017). The second is about IT functionality specifications and interconnectivity, and interoperability of PCS. The Business frame consists of three of the former levels, namely: business scope, business network and business process. Business scope 3 Google Scholar is an open bibliographic database, an accessible web search engine that indexes the full text or metadata of scholarly literature across an array of publishing formats and disciplines. See: https://scholar.google.com/scholar/about.html.

34

Transportation Research Part A 133 (2020) 27–46

A. Moros-Daza, et al.

Table 5 Journals and conferences coding. Journal/Conference Tittle

J/C Code

Erasmus Universiteit BLED eConference - Humanzing Technology for a Sustainable Society 2006 Transportation Research Record Transportation Research Board 87th Annual Meeting Third International Conference on Convergence and Hybrid Information Technology World Customs Journal Pomorstvo/Journal of Maritime Studies Supply Chain Manag Collab Pract Ekonomski vjesnik: Review of Contemporary Entrepreneurship, Business, and Economic Issues Proceedings of the European Conference on Shipping & Ports Promet-Traffic & Transportation 22nd International Conference on Production Research 37th International Convention on Information and Communication Technology, Electronics and Microelectronics World Conference on Transport Research Society Maritime Policy & Management International Journal of Digital Accounting Research International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Operations Management International Conference on Software Quality Research in transportation business & management, International Conference on Dynamics in Logistics Estudios de Economía Aplicada International Journal of Engineering Business Management Transportation Research Proceedia Supply Chain Forum: An International Journal Lecture Notes on Computer Science

EU BLED TRR TRB ICCHIT WCJ P/JMS SCMCP EV/RCEBEI ECSP PTT ICPR ICICTEM WCTRS-SIG2 MPM IJDAR IEOM ICSQ RTBM ICDL EEA IJEBM TRP SCFIJ LNC

refers to all the activities a PCS should be engaged in, taking into account the type of cargo handled around the world in the different foreign trade activities (Venkatraman, 1994). Business network of PCS refers to the establishment of mutually beneficial relationships with all the stakeholders of a port community (Venkatraman, 1994). In addition, business process is the set of activities and tasks that, once completed, will accomplish the PCS goals (Venkatraman, 1994). This frame was used to analyze and categorize the PCS operating conditions and PCS deployment barriers. Subsequently, the Integration frame comprises the two remaining levels: localized exploitation and internal integration. Localized exploitation provides with IT functionality specifications from a PCS reference case (Heilig et al., 2017; Venkatraman, 1994), taken from current examples of PCS around the world (Heilig et al., 2017). Such practice is supported by the International Association of Port Community Systems which recommends to analyze existing cases before developing a new one (IPCSA, 2015). This aspect points out the importance of properly evaluating the performance criteria before deploying the IT applications (Venkatraman, 1994). Internal integration refers to the technical interconnectivity and organizational integration (business process interdependence) (Heilig et al., 2017; Venkatraman, 1994). The technical integration deals with the interconnectivity and interoperability of the different systems and applications through a PCS platform. The organizational integration refers to the interdependence of organizational roles and responsibilities across distinct functional lines. Neither type of integration alone is sufficient (Venkatraman, 1994). The integration frame was used to analyze the existing PCS around the world and to identify the best PCS practices. However, taking into account the specifications made by IPCSA (IPCSA, 2015) on how to develop a PCS, we considered it necessary to add another frame to our taxonomy to deal with political, legal, and to some extent social external factors that the design and implementation of a PCS needs to comply with. We propose the term Legal frame, and refers to the evaluation and interaction of governance models for port IT systems, the existing authority figures and the PCS, and the need for awareness of cargo security, especially in emerging and frontier economies (CEPAL, 2016). For the development of PCS, this is one of the most important and controversial aspects around the world (IPCSA, 2015; Doerr, 2016; Sánchez and Pinto, 2015), since the legal and authority figure definitions are in constant change over the years and they differ from country to country, or between regions (Doerr, 2016; Sánchez and Pinto, 2015). There are as well incidences of smuggling, robbery, bribery, and other illegal acts that happen in emerging port communities, however they are not explicitly considered in the regular PCS design (CrimsonLogic, 2015). Moreover, a code for the taxonomy was developed in order to classify each paper. Table 5 presents the coding for the journals, Table 6 shows the code for the type of paper classification, Table 7 shows the code for the themes classification, and Table 8 presents Table 6 Type of paper coding. Type of paper

Code

Dissertation Proceedings Full Paper Report

D P FP R

35

Transportation Research Part A 133 (2020) 27–46

A. Moros-Daza, et al.

Table 7 Theme coding. Theme

Code

Business Frame Integration Frame Legal Frame

BF IF LF

Table 8 Approach coding. Type of approach

Code

Descriptive approach Quantitative approach Practical approach

DA QA PA

the code for the type of approach that the paper is using. In addition, the code developed in Tables 5 to 8 is later used in Table 9 and 10. Furthermore, the categorization of each scientific research regarding PCS is presented in Table 9 based on the coding mentioned above. Table 9 is comprised of 8 columns. The first column gives the authors’ surname and year of publication of the work. Column 2 refers to the impact of the research based on the quantity of citations it has. Columns 3 and 4 show the type of paper and the journal. Columns 5–7 are used to classify the papers based on the themes presented above. Finally, Column 8 is associated with the scholar reference to each work. 3. Results and discussion In this section, we use descriptive statistics and commentary to answer the first two research questions:

• RQ1: What are the major themes that have been developed within PCS research? Table 9 Research framework. Authors

Citations

Type

J/C Code

Theme BF

Grizell (2001) Diaz (2003) Rodon and Ramis-Pujol (2006) Gustafsson (2007) Srour et al. (2008) Keceli et al. (2008) Long (2009) Tijan (2009) De la Guia and Llop (2010) Posti et al. (2011) Bezic et al. (2011) Polydoropoulou et al. (2011) Tsamboulas et al. (2012) Tijan et al. (2012) Córdova et al. (2013) Tijan and Aksentijevic (2014) Carlan et al. (2015) Aydogdu and Aksoy (2015) Bisogno et al. (2015) Moros-Daza et al. (2016) Spagnolo et al. (2016) Carlan et al. (2016) Meyer-Larsen and Müller (2018) Nabais et al. (2018) Nota et al. (2018) Moros-Daza et al. (2018) Fedi et al. (2019) Moros-Daza et al. (2019)

5 7 56 5 49 24 34 6 2 13 4 4 13 7 3 6 7 23 17 0 4 35 4 4 2 0 1 1

D R P FP P P FP FP R FP FP P FP FP P P P FP FP P P FP P FP FP P FP P

EU BLED TRR TRB ICCHIT WCJ P/JMS SCMCP EV/RCEBEI ECSP TRR PTT ICPR ICICTEM WCTRS-SIG2 MPM IJDAR IEOM ICSQ RTBM ICDL EEA IJEBM TRP SCFIJ LNC

x x x x

x x

x

x x x x

36

IF x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x

Approach LF

DA

x

x x x x x x x x x

x

x x

x

x x x

x x

x

QA

Reference PA x

x

x x x

x x x x x x x x x

x x x x x

x x x x x x x x x

Grizell et al. (2001) Diaz (2003) Rodon and Ramis-Pujol (2006) Gustafsson (2007) Srour et al. (2008) Keceli et al. (2008) Long (2009) Tijan et al. (2009) De la Guia and Llop (2010) Posti et al. (2011) Bezic et al. (2011) Polydoropoulou et al. (2011) Tsamboulas et al. (2012) Tijan et al. (2012) Córdova et al. (2013) Tijan and Aksentijević (2014) Carlan et al. (2015) Aydogdu et al. (2015) Bisogno et al. (2015) Moros-Daza et al. (2016) Spagnolo et al. (2016) Carlan et al. (2016) Meyer-Larsen et al. (2018) Nabais et al. (2018) Nota et al. (2018) Moros-Daza et al. (2018) Fedi et al. (2019) Moros-Daza et al. (2019)

Transportation Research Part A 133 (2020) 27–46

A. Moros-Daza, et al.

Table 10 Main results. Category

Variables

Results

Journals, Conference Proceedings, Authors, years

Journals Authors Papers per Author Authors per paper Co-Authors per paper Collaboration Index Years FP PP RP DP

13 12 2 1

14 71 0.394 2.54 3 2.79 2001–2019

Paper Approach

DA QA PA DA + PA QA + PA DA + QA QA + PA + DA

17 13 10 6 4 2 1

61% 46% 36% 21% 14% 7% 4%

Location

Italy Spain Greece Vietnam Colombia The Netherlands South Korea Croatia China Brazil Sweden Turkey Finland Germany France

5 5 4 3 3 3 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

19% 18% 14% 11% 11% 11% 7% 7% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4%

Type of economy

Developed Emerging Frontier Standalone

17 7 4 0

61% 25% 14% 0%

Themes

BF IF LF

11 27 3

39% 96% 11%

Themes integration

BF + IF IF + LF LF + BF LF + BF + IF

9 1 1 1

35% 4% 4% 4%

46% 43% 7% 4%

• RQ2: What is the focus and critique of PCS research? The data reported in Table 10 and Figs. 2 and 4 form the basis for this section, along with further analysis that delves beyond the descriptive results to complement the discussion. In addition, the statistical results from Table 10 and Figs. 2 and 4 is based on the manual coding presented in Section 2, by means of using a software capable of analyzing unstructured data, while improving research pace and reducing subjectivity. The above is referenced as a bibliometric analysis and the software used to develop such analysis was “RStudio4”. 3.1. Evolution of the literature This subsection presents the results related to RQ1 by providing insights into how the PCS literature is evolving and comparing it 4 RStudio is an integrated development environment (IDE) for R. It includes a console, syntax-highlighting editor that supports direct code execution, as well as tools for plotting, history, debugging and workspace management. It is used in this paper for bibliometric purposes.

37

Transportation Research Part A 133 (2020) 27–46

A. Moros-Daza, et al.

Fig. 2. PCS waves vs scientific researches.

with the industry evolution by using the PCS wave classification. The number of papers, leading journals and most cited authors will answer this research question. Fig. 2 shows that the first PCS was created in 1982. Since then, more countries have been developing PCS or evolving the existing ones, making PCS a marked trend in the port industry. However, the first scientific research on PCS occurs in 2001. Subsequently, the period with the largest number of PCS studies is in the second wave of PCS, which coincides with a noticeable surge of PCS implementations in this same wave. After this peak, both PCS studies and implementations had kept steadily growing but with notable deceleration on the third wave, with continuity of this trend on the onset of the fourth. Taking into account Fig. 2 it was possible to obtain the first implication:

• Implication number 1: The industry is ahead of scientific research, featuring a gap between PCS researchers and practitioners. In addition, Table 10 shows that 46% of the research are full papers (journal indexes), 43% are proceedings, 7% are reports and 4% are dissertations. Moreover, 61% have a descriptive approach, 46% a quantitative approach, and 36% a practical approach. In more detail, 7% of the papers consider at the same time descriptive and quantitative approaches, 21% descriptive and practical, 14% quantitative and practical, and only 4% descriptive, practical and quantitative. Considering that the majority of the studies present a descriptive approach, the second implication is created:

• Implication number 2: Lack of scientific relevance: showcasing that in the majority of the cases, PCS research conclusions are overly simplistic with not much scientific value.

Furthermore. the most cited research was published in 2006 by Rondon and Ramis-Pujol (Rodon and Ramis-Pujol, 2006), with 56 citations in total, followed by Srour et al. (2008) with 49 citations. Both studies were published in proceedings of international conferences, and until today are the core research studies on PCS. There is only one journal with more than one publication on PCS, the TRR with two publications. However, the impact of the papers is not high, taking into account that the total citations of each paper are 5 and 13, much fewer than the leading research. The above leads to the third implication:

• Implication number 3: Average amount of practical relevance: meaning that the most relevant works on PCS were published in proceedings of international conferences, where there is probably a higher interaction with practitioners.

In addition, the bibliometric analysis presented in Table 10 shows that the average amount of papers per author is 0.394, which means that in average an author contributs in less than one paper, producing a lack of concentration on the topic. Similarly, Table 10 shows the collaboration index, which is the number of authorships per articles, with a value of 2.79 indicating that the average number of authors who sign the articles is close to 3. Only 14% (4) of the articles are signed by one author, so the majority of articles have multiple authorship. Moreover, Table 10 shows that only a few groups of authors contribute more than once to the body of knowledge on PCS, namely, Moros-Daza et al. (2018, 2019), Tijan et al. (2009, 2012), Moros-Daza et al. (2016), Tijan and Aksentijević (2014), which leads to the fourth implication: 38

Transportation Research Part A 133 (2020) 27–46

A. Moros-Daza, et al.

Fig. 3. Quantity of PCS vs scientific research (economical and geographical distribution).

• Implication number 4: Few authors have high specialization on the topic while most authors in average contribute less than once to the body of knowledge. Furthermore, most articles are written by multiple authors, meaning that a large flow of researchers temporarily work on the research subject, but do not persist in it.

3.2. Location and economy distribution Table 10 shows that the majority of the research studies come from Europe and from developed economies, not surprisingly since this is where the original PCS was developed, and also these are the continents where the majority of PCS currently operates. Extending from Table 10, Fig. 3 shows the distribution of papers per PCS wave classification and per type of market. Table 10 and Fig. 3 show that 61% of the published research on PCS around the world comes from developed economies; more specifically, from Spain and Italy. Fig. 3 shows that despite the change of PCS-wave the majority of research is from developed markets. Furthermore, 25% of the studies come from emerging economies, like Colombia, Greece and Brazil. 14% come from frontier economies, like Vietnam and Croatia, countries with currently no PCS on use but with present adoption plans (Tijan et al., 2012; Tijan and Aksentijević, 2014). According to Table 10 and Fig. 3, there are no scientific studies originating from standalone economies. From the above we make the following implications:

• Implication number 5: PCS research geographically distributes asymmetrically, with several areas in the world in need to be studied more deeply, while others might be over-analyzed.

• Implication number 6: From a geo-economical standpoint, PCS research originates predominantly from developed economies, a

trend that remains unchanged over time and waves. This suggests that several areas in the world, in particular issues related to localized exploitation, might need to be studied more deeply; while legacy PCS from developed countries and globally widespread, might be over-analyzed.

Moreover, Fig. 3 shows that despite the decrease in the total amount of research per PCS-wave, the research productivity per year increased per wave, which leads to the next implication:

• Implication number 7: PCS research rises at an increasing rate for each upcoming wave, which implies that PCS research grows exponentially per year.

3.3. Themes distribution Fig. 4 and Table 10 show that 39% of the studies about PCS focus on the BF, 96% on the IF, and only 11% on the LF. Note that the percentages do not add up to 100% since a single study may fall into several categories, and all percentages shown are expressed in terms of the overall number of studies. Fig. 4 also denotes several subcategories within each frame termed as themes, each one with a representative name of the central topic of its constituent papers (i.e., IF: functionalities, barriers, benefits; BF: design, services; LF: policies). In detail, the topic “functionalities” refers to all studies about the purpose of PCS and how PCS works. The PCS research studies on the topic “barrier” are about the obstacle that prevents PCS implementation and development worldwide. Similarly, the topic “benefit” refers to all the PCS studies on the advantages or profits gained from PCS implementation and developments. The PCS research studies that are on the 39

Transportation Research Part A 133 (2020) 27–46

A. Moros-Daza, et al.

Fig. 4. Article themes distribution.

topic “design” propose PCS features and distinctive attributes or aspects of PCS. The papers into the topic “services” refer to PCS modules supplying a new stakeholder need. Finally, the research studies into the topic “policies” are about a course or principle of action adopted or proposed by PCS organizations or countries in order to enable PCS adoption. The results show that the focus of PCS research lies in the IF, more specifically in its functionality, followed by the BF and in less proportion by the LF (see Fig. 4). As said, some of the papers approached more than just one frame, i.e. 35% of those papers focused on both the BF and the IF, 4% on the IF and the LF, and 4% on the LF and the BF at the same time. Additionally, just 4% of the papers directly related to PCS has approached the three frames at the same time (Srour et al., 2008), though none of the former publications formally define or address such frames. However, Srour et al., 2008 puts together some of their aspects i.e. the PCS design, some of their barriers, functionalities benefits and policies, not covering in depth their interactions. Moreover, PCS must ensure harmonized and coordinated services and stakeholders, in order to simplify the complexities of day to day trade (Morton, 2012). This makes PCS a highly complex system of systems that enables network of network effects (Morton, 2012), and in need to be studied from a systemic point of view, which leads to the following implications:

• Implication number 8: Lack of holistic PCS research studies, meaning that most studies approach PCS under a simplistic

functional, economical, or technical point of view, neglecting the systemic nature of a PCS that should take into account interconnected topics concurrently.

• Implication number 9: Lack of diversity, meaning that there are few varying topics within the literature and a high concentration of articles on a single topic, in particular on PCS functionalities.

From Fig. 4 the most analyzed theme is PCS functionalities with 26 articles that represent 93% of the overall sample. The second most analyzed theme is PCS benefits with 7 articles that represent 25% of the overall sample. Both themes are part of the IF, stressing that the focus of PCS research is on the IF. Furthermore, it was found that only 7% of the research studies focus on barriers related to the development and implementation of PCS, and concluded that a way to overcome such barriers is through policies, regulations and laws. As mentioned on the themes classification, an important factor for the development and adoption of PCS is the legal framework in each country regarding technology transformation (Carlan et al., 2017). However, Fig. 4 shows that only 11% of those studies are related to policy adoptions for PCS and none of them detail which policies are for PCS adoption, making the LF the theme least explored in the literature. Moreover, none of the studies evaluates the applicability of regulations, or explore alternatives to overcome PCS development and implementation barriers. In addition, it was found that the themes of the BF were PCS design and services, representing only 10% and 4% of the sample, which conveys the following implication:

• Implication number 10: Lack of investigation for promoting the adoption and development of PCS. Furthermore, each paper was classified depending on its type of contribution (Table 11), so as to measure the extent to which it has innovation and the type of innovation it has. By innovation, we refer to research contributions in the form of new theories, services, frameworks, or models in PCS. Table 11 shows that 18% of the papers present a new framework, 14% a new model, 4% a new theory, and 4% a new service as type of innovation. Since the last column denotes the presence of any form of innovation in the paper, this implies that collectively, 40

Transportation Research Part A 133 (2020) 27–46

A. Moros-Daza, et al.

Table 11 Type of innovation. Authors Grizell (2001) Diaz (2003) Rodon and Ramis-Pujol (2006) Gustafsson (2007) Srour et al. (2008) Keceli et al. (2008) Long (2009) Tijan (2009) De la Guia and Llop (2010) Posti et al. (2011) Bezic et al. (2011) Polydoropoulou et al. (2011) Tsamboulas et al. (2012) Tijan et al. (2012) Córdova et al. (2013) Tijan and Aksentijevic (2014) Carlan et al. (2015) Aydogdu and Aksoy (2015) Bisogno et al. (2015) Moros-Daza et al. (2016) Spagnolo et al. (2016) Carlan et al. (2016) Meyer-Larsen and Müller (2018) Nabais et al. (2018) Nota et al. (2018) Moros-Daza et al. (2018) Fedi et al. (2019) Moros-Daza et al. (2019) Total %

New theory

x

New service

New framework

x x

x

x

4%

New model

4%

Innovative contribution

x x x x

x

x

x x

x x

x x

x

x

x

x

18%

14%

10%

only 10% of the papers about PCS introduce innovation; or equivalently, moves further the research limits of the field. Based on the above, it was possible to identify one more implication regarding PCS research:

• Implication number 11: Lack of innovation, meaning that the literature presents a high concentration of papers on a limited group of topics and a small number of them have innovative contributions.

4. The future for PCS disclosure research This section deals with most probable future PCS research avenues. In order to determine such PCS research future, we have taken into account a contrast of current unexplored or under-explored topics around PCS deemed as relevant, in light of being considered of use to current PCS practitioners and/or newcomers, and additionally considering potentially impacting new PCS functionalities facilitated with the advent of recent technological advances, as well as in prospective trends of the industry. We consider underexplored topics as the research topics that are still important and not appropriately addressed in the PCS literature, or new ones not sufficiently addresed. In addition, we consider unexplored topics as the research topics that are not discussed at all in the PCS literature. Hence, this section seeks to answer the third research question:

• RQ3: What is the future of PCS research? 4.1. Areas for future research After the results of Section 3, we found that the focus of PCS research is on its IF, more specifically PCS functionalities. However, PCS research lacks practical relevance, with research conclusions that are oftentimes simplistic and that do not add much useful value. Considering this shortcoming, we propose a new focus for future research, considering unexplored or under-explored topics but with relevance for practitioners. Table 12 shows the match between the literature themes from previous Section 3.3 and incipient but meaningful trends for the maritime industry, to be considered as potentially relevant future areas of research. Table 12 also denotes the unexplored or under- explored combination of a given theme with each trend. Table 12 shows that regarding the BF theme, future research areas should consider topics like design, services, and business model. Each of those topics are current trends in the literature but there is still room for improvements. For example, the usual attribute for decision making is the economical factor, but not the only important one and certainly not sufficient for many practical settings; there are other relevant factors not commonly taken into account, i.e.: service (intermodality - multimodality, B/L for inland destinations (Heilig and Voß, 2017; Van Baalen et al., 2009), time (less transactions per period, yet with increased items per transaction (Eurostat, 41

Transportation Research Part A 133 (2020) 27–46

A. Moros-Daza, et al.

Table 12 Areas for future research. Frame

PCS Research Themes

BF

Design

Services Business Model LF

IF

Underexplored

x x

Policies IT governance

x

Barriers

x x

Benefits

x

Unexplored

Trends with practical potential

x

∗New Technologies: IoT, big data, smart personal devices, smart connected things (SCoT), 5G networks and Celular IoT, Internet of Vehicles (IoV), cyber-security and cyber-resilience, Port 4.0, Blockchain ∗Ports as information centers ∗Environmental management system ∗B/L for inland destinations ∗Intermodality - Multimodality ∗Less transactions per period, yet with increased items per transaction ∗Shift of cost burden from seaside to land-side

x x x x x x

∗Cost-based pricing vs. commercial/strategic pricing ∗Regulatory issues from governments ∗Higher number of regulatory measurements and environmental requirements ∗Last minute decisions ∗Automation - Strong unions ∗Bundling and synchronizing flows ∗Environmental impacts

x

2019), financial (shift of cost burden from seaside to land-side), infrastructure (new technologies (Battrick, 2018), sustainability (environmental management system (Gupta et al., 2005), and others. From former Implication number 6, the current business models for PCS are focused on developed markets. PORTEL (2009) argues on the differences between developed and emerging markets, not sharing the same set of needs and even with some radical differential features for the emerging ones (MSCI Inc., 2018). This creates the necessity to innovate business models with policies addressing overlooked needs and business features of emerging markets. Nonetheless, is not only a need for emerging economies, ever-changing technology drives for the incorporation and supplemental use of promising advances; e.g. blockchain technology5 (Battrick, 2018; Foroglou et al., 2015; Jabbar et al., 2018; Yang et al., 2018), IoT6 (Kirstein, 2018), and the use of AI7 (Miró, 2018), virtual reality (Kanellopoulos et al., 2018), automation (Kirstein, 2018), intermodal and synchronized services (Zlatanova and Beetz, 2012; Zuidwijk, 2015), which could extend PCS processing capabilities to more local and decentralized operational settings, opening new research areas and increasing PCS research studies for the following years (Battrick, 2018; Foroglou et al., 2015; Jabbar et al., 2018; Yang et al., 2018; Zlatanova and Beetz, 2012; Zuidwijk, 2015; Dignan, 2019). Similarly, Table 12 shows that the LF has some under-explored topics, i.e. policies and IT governance. The LF is the theme least explored in the literature, which opens the possibility for new research focuses that can be co-worked and further developed with practitioners; i.e., on topics like the possible impact of new regulations and laws and environmental requirements on PCS (ESPO, 2018; Homeland Security Today, 2012; MHC, 2018; Ministerio de Economía, 2007), the possible impact of new regulatory issues from governments (Papavisas et al., 2019; Ubbels, 2005), the evolution of port authority figures in countries with emerging economies (Laxe, 2008), and the creation of new policies taking into account cost-based pricing vs. commercial/strategic pricing (Notteboom, 2012). Moreover, Table 12 shows that even if the IF is the current focus of the PCS research, it still offers possibility to embark on the under-explored or unexplored inside the IF, like research about PCS barriers (carriers last minute decisions (Midoro et al., 2005) and benefits. A new focus could be on the quantification of barriers and proposed solutions to overcome them, while taking into account the industry trends in bundling and synchronizing flows (Heilig and Voß, 2017; Van Baalen et al., 2009), and automation and its impact on strong unions (Degryse, 2016; Spencer, 2018). Furthermore, a future area of research could be related to the quantification of PCS benefits and profits, while considering the trends regarding environmental impacts on the maritime industry. 4.2. The way forward Considering specifically the way forward in PCS research, the paper draws some implications. First, Implication number 1: The industry is ahead of scientific research, meaning that there is a gap between research and stakeholders of research, and showing that scholars should move forward in developing pragmatic research. Secondly, Implication number 2: Lack of scientific relevance: it has been shown that in the majority of the cases, PCS research conclusions are overly simplistic and lacking scientific value. Finally, Implication number 11: Lack of innovation, meaning that the literature presents a high concentration of papers on a limited group of topics and a small number of them have innovative contributions. Based on Implication number 1, 2, and 11 the answer of RQ3, is that the future of PCS research should aim for a set of new focuses. Furthermore, former new focuses should be defined over the 5

For general blockchain issues and some foundation of the technology see, e.g., Foroglou et al. (2015) and Jabbar et al. (2018). For general IoT issues and some foundation in smart ports see, e.g., Yang et al. (2018). 7 For general Artificial Intelligence issues and some foundation in smart ports see, e.g., Yang et al. (2018). 6

42

Transportation Research Part A 133 (2020) 27–46

A. Moros-Daza, et al.

intersection between the under-explored and unexplored research areas and the PCS industry trends, bridging the research gap between research and practitioners. The new focus should address practical needs (see Table 12), while fostering collaboration among practitioners and scholars. 5. Conclusions The ports industry is an essential element for the economy of a country, particularly for coastal countries, as large amounts of international cargo are handled through them. Ports in emerging economies are especially facing challenges to remain competitive, due to their increasing tendency in foreign trade activities and volume of cargo. As a response, industry and practitioners have offered different technology-based solution approaches, one of them is PCS. In spite of its importance, there is not a proper literature review regarding PCS or even an updated inventory of PCS around the world, our paper aims to fill this gap. After Massaro et al. (2016), we used a Structured Literature Review (SLR) as methodological guidance and protocol for surveying the PCS scientific literature. Our research sought to answer the following questions: RQ1: What are the major themes that have been developed within PCS research? RQ2: What is the focus and critique of PCS research? and RQ3: What is the future of PCS research? The SRL included an analysis of 28 articles from different journals and web databases from 2001 until 2019. Furthermore, we carefully revised each of the articles and classified them accordingly to key themes defined within our taxonomic classification, to produce relevant observations, identifying promising literature gaps and proposing future research on PCS. An initial contribution of this article was the creation of a detailed inventory of PCS around the world, based on a proposed evolution framework of PCS featured in waves. Such PCS waves were defined taking into account variables such as the time of introduction of a PCS, its location, as well as regional variables such as technological and economical development, political environment, local regulations and environmental aspects. Furthermore, PCS waves allowed us to identify common patterns in time and to categorize 48 PCS established around the world (PORTEL, 2009; IPCSA, 2019). Based on that detailed inventory it was possible to determine that with the development of the global market and the introduction of new technologies, PCS had been reactively evolving into a tool that facilitates the exchange of information with some new features, but short of new value-added logistical solutions (Carlan et al., 2016; PORTEL, 2009). Furthermore, our main source of contributions derives from the distinctions we draw from the literature survey on the evolution of the literature, location and economy distribution of the papers, and themes distribution of PCS research. After the descriptive data analysis, from the evolution of the literature analysis it has become evident that research on PCS initiated around 2001 and exhibited a distinctive growth trend until 2009. After that year, it seemed to have reached a more stable phase featuring minor peaks and troughs but without noticeable trends up to present day. However, more detailed analysis show that PCS research actually grows exponentially per PCS wave. The results from the evolution of the literature analysis were condensed in the following implications: (i) Implication number 1: The industry is ahead of scientific research, (ii) Implication number 2: Lack of scientific relevance, (iii) Implication number 3: Average amount of practical relevance, (iv) Implication number 4: Few authors have high specialization on the topic while most authors in average contribute less than once to the body of knowledge. Furthermore, most articles are written by multiple authors, meaning that a large flow of researcherstemporarilywork on the research subject, but do not persist in it. From the location and economy distribution of papers analysis it was found that the majority of published research on PCS around the world comes from developed economies; more specifically, from Spain and Italy. In addition, it was found that despite the decrease in the total amount of research per PCS wave, the research productivity per year increased per wave. The results of the location and economy distribution of papers analysis were condensed in the following implications: (v) Implication number 5: PCS research geographically distributes asymmetrically, (vi) Implication number 6: From a geo-economical standpoint, PCS research originates predominantly from developed economies, a trend that remains unchanged over time and waves, (vii) Implication number 7: PCS research rises at an increasing rate for each upcoming wave, which implies that PCS research grows exponentially in time and per wave. Moreover, from the themes distribution analysis it was found that the Integration frame is the most studied theme in the PCS literature. The Legal frame is the theme least explored in the literature, considering that only 11% of the research universe approached this topic. Aligned with upcoming Implication number 8, since PCS research should be integrative we considered all the intersections between the frames to be as potentially valuable contributions, considering that 35% of the examined works focused on both the Business frame and the Integration frame, 4% on the Integration frame and the Legal frame, and 4% on the Legal frame and the Business frame. Furthermore, we found that only 4% of the PCS research universe has approached the three frames concurrently, which in our view is insufficient. Also, most reviewed articles generally addressed the PCS topic, but there is a lack of investigations that contemplate specific topics of it. In addition, it was found that only 10% of the papers about PCS introduce innovation. As such, the themes distribution analysis introduces the following implications (viii) Implication number 8: Lack of holistic PCS research studies, (ix) Implication number 9: Lack of diversity, (x) Implication number 10: Lack of investigation for promoting the adoption of PCS, and (xi) Implication number 11: Lack of innovation. The above mentioned implications from 1 to 11 answer the research questions RQ1 and RQ2. To conclude, we found that there are many opportunities for future research in PCS, based on the contrast of current unexplored or under-explored topics around PCS deemed as relevant. We considered the (old or new) research topics that are still important for future developments and that are not appropriately addresed in the PCS literature as under-explored topics. Similarly, the unexplored topics are referred as the research topics that are not discussed at all in the PCS literature. In detail, regarding the Business frame theme, future research areas should consider topics like design (e.g. new technologies and ports as information centers), services (e.g. environmental management system and intermodality/multimodality), and business model (e.g. less transactions per period and shift of cost burden from seaside to land-side). It was found some of those topics are current trends in both the industry and the literature 43

Transportation Research Part A 133 (2020) 27–46

A. Moros-Daza, et al.

with multiple opportunities for improvements. Similarly, the Legal frame has some under-explored topics, i.e. policies (cost-based pricing vs. commercial/strategic pricing and regulatory issues from governments) and IT governance (e.g. higher number of regulatory measurements and environmental requirements). Moreover, even if the Integration frame is the focus of PCS research, it has some under-explored and unexplored topics for future research like barriers (last minute decisions and automation - strong unions) and benefits (e.g. bundling and synchronizing flows and environmental impacts). The above mentioned opens the possibility for new research focuses, defined over the intersection between the under-explored and unexplored research areas and the PCS industry trends, bridging the research gap between research and practitioners. We propose the way forward for PCS research is the collaboration among practitioners and scholars in order to address such new focuses that properly address practical needs of PCS, which answers the research question RQ3. References 1-Stop, 2018. The Future of Terminals Battling Increased Capacity, Manila Case Study, Online News. https://www.1-stop.biz/the-future-of-terminals-battlingincreased-capacity-manila-case-study/. Abu Dhabi Ports, 2018. UAE Report 2018 – New maritime dimension, Electronic Document. http://www.seatrade-maritime.com/images/PDFs/uae-combined.pdf. Ahn, K., 2018. Port Community System, https://www.unescap.org/. ANP, 2018. Port Statistics, Web page. https://www.anp.org.ma/En/Services/Pages/Statistics.aspx. Aydogdu, Y.V., Aksoy, S., 2015. A study on quantitative benefits of port community systems. Maritime Policy Manage. 42 (1), 1–10. Banco Mundial, 2008. Doing Business en Colombia, Government document - report. Battrick, R., 2018. Blockchain Port Community System to Enhance Efficiency at Mexican Port. https://businessblockchainhq.com/. Bezic, H., Tijan, E., Aksentijević, S., 2011. Port community systems-economic feasibility evaluation, Ekonomski vjesnik: Review of Contemporary Entrepreneurship. Bus. Econ. Issues 24 (2). Bisogno, M., Nota, G., Saccomanno, A., Tommasetti, A., 2015. Improving the efficiency of port community systems through integrated information flows of logistic processes. Bollore Ports, 2019. PORT OF COTONOU – Benin Terminal, Cotonou, Web page. https://www.bollore-ports.com/en/worldwide-network/africa/port-of-cotonoubenin.html. Carlan, V., Sys, C., Vanelslander, T., 2015. Port community systems costs and benefits: from competition to collaboration within the supply chain, WCTRS-SIG2 (1112/5/2015), Antwerp, pp. 1–27. Carlan, V., Sys, C., Vanelslander, T., 2016. How port community systems can contribute to port competitiveness: Developing a cost–benefit framework. Res. Transp. Bus. Manage. 19, 51–64. Carlan, V., Sys, C., Vanelslander, T., Roumboutsos, A., 2017. Digital innovation in the port sector: Barriers and facilitators. Compet. Regul. Network Ind. 18 (1–2), 71–93. CEPAL (Comisión Económica para América Latina y el Caribe), 2015. Ranking de los puertos: los top 20 de América Latina y el Caribe en el 2015. http://www.cepal. org/es/infografias/ranking-puertos-top-20-america-latina-caribe-2015. Córdova, F., Durán, C., Oddershede, A., 2013. Conceptual design of a knowledge management platform of a port community. In: 22nd International Conference on Production Research, ICPR 2013, International Foundation for Production Research (IFPR). CrimsonLogic, 2015. Case study: Port community system, Report. https://www.crimsonlogic.com/. Cuadrado, M., Frasquet, M., Cervera, A., 2004. Benchmarking the port services: a customer oriented proposal. Benchmarking: Int. J. 11 (3), 320–330. Degryse, C., 2016. Digitalisation of the economy and its impact on labour markets, ETUI Research Paper-Working Paper. De la Guia, J., Llop, M., 2010. Valencia Port Community System Development Strategy & Practice. Autoridad Portuaria de Valencia, Gijon. Deloitte, 2018. Industry insight – New Zealand ports and freight yearbook 2018, Electronic Document. https://www2.deloitte.com/content/dam/Deloitte/nz/ Documents/finance/nz-2018-ports-and-freight-report-final.pdf. Diaz, M., 2003. Port community system–a key component of the future vision for cargo and port security, Government Supply Chain blue papers, Valencia. Dignan, L., 2019. What’s next for data centers? Think micro data centers. https://www.zdnet.com/article/whats-next-for-data-centers-think-micro-data-centers/. Doerr, O., 2016. Modelos de gestíon de gobernanza portuaria. http://www.sela.org/media/2303863/8-modelos-de-gestion-portuaria-y-gobernanza.pdf. DP WORLD, 2019. Jebel Ali Port, Online News. https://www.dpworld.com/what-we-do/our-locations/United-Arab-Emirates/UAE/dp-world-Jebel-ali. Duran, C., Cordova, F., 2012. Conceptual analysis for the strategic and operational knowledge management of a port community. Informatica Economica 16 (2), 35. ESPO - European Sea Ports Organisation, 2018. Position of the European Sea Ports Organisation on the public consultation with regard to Evaluation of the EU framework for taxation of energy products and electricity, Electronic article. https://www.espo.be/media/2018.06.18-ESPO%20position%20on%20energy %20taxation%20consultation.pdf. European Commission, 2012. The EU Single Window environment for customs. https://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/. European Commission, Electronic customs, 2014. https://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/. European Maritime Safety Agency, 2002. Directive 2002/59/EC, http://www.emsa.europa.eu/. European Parliament and of the Council, 2002. Directive 2002/59/EC - Community vessel traffic monitoring and information system, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/. Eurostat, 2019. Maritime transport – goods – detailed annual and quarterly results, Electronic Document. https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/transport/data/ database. Eurostat, 2019. Differences between balance of payments and foreign trade statistics, Electronic Document. https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/. Fedi, L., Lavissiere, A., Russell, D., Swanson, D., 2019. The facilitating role of IT systems for legal compliance: the case of port community systems and container Verified Gross Mass (VGM). In: Supply Chain Forum: An International Journal, vol. 20, Taylor & Francis, pp. 29–42. Foroglou, G., Tsilidou, A.-L., 2015. Further applications of the blockchain. In: 12th Student Conference on Managerial Science and Technology. FSOO, 2019. Dalian Port’s cargo throughput in 2018. Online News. https://www.ufsoo.com/news/detail-61367655-26e2-45b6-a14b-7a8b36b03bbd.html. Grizell, P., 2001. The Economic potentials for a Port community system in the ports of the Netherlands. Ph.D. thesis. Erasmus Universiteit. Gupta, A., Gupta, S., Patil, R.S., 2005. Environmental management plan for port and harbour projects. Clean Technol. Environ. Policy 7 (2), 133–141. Gustafsson, I., 2007. Interaction between transport, infrastructure, and institutional management: case study of a port community system. Transp. Res. Rec.: J. Transp. Res. Board 2033, 14–20. Heilig, L., Voß, S., 2017. Information systems in seaports: a categorization and overview. Inf. Technol. Manage. 18 (3), 179–201. Heilig, L., Schwarze, S., Voss, S., 2017. An analysis of digital transformation in the history and future of modern ports. In: Proceedings of the 50th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, pp. 1341–1350. Homeland Security Today, 2012. House Passes SMART Port Security Act, Electronic article. https://www.hstoday.us/channels/us-coast-guard/house-passes-smartport-security-act/. Hutchison Ports, 2019. Our Ports, Web page. https://hutchisonports.com/en/ports/world/jakarta-international-container-terminal-jict/. IBEF, 2018. India Brand Equity Foundation, Ports, Electronic Document. https://www.ibef.org/uploads/industry/Infrographics/large/ports-infographic-nov-2018. pdf. International Port Community Systems Association (IPCSA), 2015. How to develop a port community system, Tech. rep., International Port Community Systems Association. http://www.ipcsa.international/armoury/resources/ipcsa-guide-english-2015.pdf. IPCSA, 2019. Portall, India, Web page. https://ipcsa.international/views/about/members/asia-pacific/portall-india.php.

44

Transportation Research Part A 133 (2020) 27–46

A. Moros-Daza, et al.

International Port Community Systems Association (IPCSA), 2019. IPCSA Members, https://ipcsa.international/views/about/members/. Jabbar, K., Bjørn, P., 2018. Infrastructural grind: Introducing Blockchain technology in the shipping domain. In: Proceedings of the 2018 ACM Conference on Supporting Groupwork. ACM, pp. 297–308. Kanellopoulos, J., Mininel, S., Daems, F., Nikolopoulou, A., 2018. Port of the future challenges, enablers and barriers. https://ec.europa.eu/. Keceli, Y., Choi, H.R., Cha, Y.S., Aydogdu, Y.V., 2008. A study on adoption of port community systems according to organization size. In: Third International Conference on Convergence and Hybrid Information Technology, 2008. ICCIT’08, vol. 1. IEEE, pp. 493–501. Kirstein, L., 2018. Information sharing for efficient maritime logistics. https://www.itf-oecd.org. KL-Net, 2019. Port Community System, Web page. https://www.klnet.co.kr/clientEn/business1.do. Laxe, F.G., 2008. Port governance: main trends. Revista de Economía Mundial 18, 355–368. Long, A., 2009. Port community systems. World Customs J. 3 (1), 63–67. Massaro, M., Dumay, J., Guthrie, J., 2016. On the shoulders of giants: undertaking a structured literature review in accounting. Acc. Audit. Accountability J. 29 (5), 767–801. Mendes-Constante, J., Lucenti, K., 2019a. What global ports did to become more efficient. https://blogs.iadb.org/integration-trade/. Mendes-Constante, J., Lucenti, K., 2019b. International case studies and good practices for implementing Port Community Systems. https://www.developmentaid. org/. Meyer-Larsen, N., Müller, R., 2018. Enhancing the cybersecurity of port community systems. In: International Conference on Dynamics in Logistics. Springer, pp. 318–323. Ministerio de Hacienda y crédito público (República de Colombia), 2018. Ministerio de hacienda y crédito público (CO) decreto número 349 de 2018, http://es. presidencia.gov.co/normativa/normativa/DECRETO%20349%20DEL%2020%20FEBRERO%20DE%202018.pdf. Midoro, R., Musso, E., Parola, F., 2005. Maritime liner shipping and the stevedoring industry: market structure and competition strategies. Maritime Policy Manage. 32 (2), 89–106. Ministerio de Economía, Fomento y Turismo (Chile), 2007. Estrategia Digital 2007 – 2012, http://www.economia.cl/1540/article-186523.html. Miró, L., 2018. Artificial intelligence: Ports are beginning to take up positions. https://piernext.portdebarcelona.cat/. Moros-Daza, A., Amaya-Mier, R., García-Llinás, G., Voss, S., 2019. Port community system adoption: game theoretic framework for an emerging economy case study. In: Voss, S., Paternina-Arboleda, C. (Eds.), 10th International Conference on Computational Logistics, Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Springer. Moros-Daza, A., Caicedo, N., Amaya-Mier, R., Paternina-Arboleda, C., 2018. A multivariate analysis for the creation of port community system approaches. Transp. Res. Procedia 30, 127–136. Moros-Daza, A., Amaya-Mier, R., García-Llinás, G., Paternina-Arboleda, C., 2016. Assessing the effect of implementing a port community system platform in the response time of an international terminal: the case of a multi-cargo facility at the Colombian Caribbean coast. In: 2016 International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Operations Management (IEOM), IEEE Xplore. Morton, R., 2012. Port community systems: a vital role to play, https://www.porttechnology.org/. Mauritius Port Authority (MPA), 2018. Port Trade Statistics 2018, Web page. http://www.mauport.com/sites/default/files/public/port_trade_statistics_cy2018.pdf. MSCI Inc., 2018. MSCI Market Classification Framework, https://www.msci.com. MSCI Inc., 2018. MSCI Country Classification Standard 2018, https://www.msci.com. Nabais, J.L., Batista, C., Botto, M.A., Lagares, E.R.C., 2018. Computational framework for port community systems towards synchromodal freight networks. Estudios de Economía Aplicada 36 (3), 691–714. Nota, G., Bisogno, M., Saccomanno, A., 2018. A service-oriented approach to modeling and performance analysis of port community systems. Int. J. Eng. Bus. Manage. 10, 1–17. Notteboom, T., 2012. Global economic and trade trends: game changer for ports. In: The International Association of Maritime Economists, IAME, pp. 1–32. https:// events.eventact.com/Ortra/IAPH2012/IAPH2012-Jerusalem-Notteboom.pdf. Ortiz-Ospina, E., Beltekian, D., Roser, M., 2018. Trade and Globalization. https://ourworldindata.org/trade-and-globalization. Papavisas, C., Black, A., Gardner, B.E., 2019. The Government Shutdown’s Effects on the Maritime Industry. Polydoropoulou, A., Lambrou, M., Roumboutsos, A., Kourounioti, I., 2011. Investigating the factors affecting the successful implementation of a port community system. In: Proceedings of the European Conference on Shipping & Ports (ECONSHIP), Chios Island, Greece. Port Autonome D’Abidjan, 2018. Port Statistics, Web page. http://www.portabidjan.ci/en/le-port-dabidjan/port-statistics. Port De Djibouti, S.A., 2019. Statistics, Web page. http://www.portdedjibouti.com/statistics/. PORTEL, 2009. Inventory of port single windows and port community systems (November 2009). http://www.eskema.eu. Port Montreal, 2019. STATISTICS, Electronic Document. https://www.port-montreal.com. Porto de Santos – Autoridade Portuaria, 2019. Porto de Santos supera expectativas de carga movimentada em 20182019, Online News. http://www.portodesantos. com.br/press-releases/porto-de-santos-supera-expectativas-de-carga-movimentada-em-2018/. Port of Long Beach, 2018. Port Statistics, Electronic Document. http://www.polb.com/economics/stats/default.asp. Port of Prince Rupert, 2018. PERFORMANCE REPORTS, Online News. https://www.rupertport.com. Port of Shanghai, 2019. The Port Group (homeport) Throughput, Electronic Document. http://www.portshanghai.com.cn/jtwbs/webpages/server_teu.html. Ports, Bollore, 2019. PORT OF LOMÉ - Togo Terminal. Lomé, Web page. https://www.bollore-ports.com/en/worldwide-network/africa/port-of-lome-togo.html. PortSEurope, 2019. More than 135 million tons of cargoes handled by Ukraine seaports in 2018, Online News. https://www.portseurope.com/more-than-135-milliontons-of-cargoes-handled-by-ukraine-seaports-in-2018/. Posti, A., Häkkinen, J., Tapaninen, U., 2011. Promoting information exchange with a port community system–case Finland. Int. Supply Chain Manage. Collab. Pract. 4, 455–473. Rodon, J., Ramis-Pujol, J., 2006. Exploring the intricacies of integrating with a port community system, BLED 2006 Proceedings 9. Rosenfield, J., 2018. Digital McKinsey Insights - Winning in digital ecosystems. https://www.mckinsey.com/. RStudio, 2019. RStudio Server 1.2.5 (accessed 09 January 2020). Sánchez, R., Pinto, F., 2015. The great challenge for ports: the time has come to consider a new port governance. Shaikh, A., 2018. Blockchain technology to drive port community system by December (August 2018). http://www.dnaindia.com/business/report-blockchaintechnology-to-drive-port-community-system-by-december-2644531. Spagnolo, G.O., Marchetti, E., Coco, A., Scarpellini, P., Querci, A., Fabbrini, F., Gnesi, S., 2016. An experience on applying process mining techniques to the Tuscan port community system. In: International Conference on Software Quality. Springer, pp. 49–60. Spencer, D.A., 2018. Fear and hope in an age of mass automation: debating the future of work. New Technol. Work Employment 33 (1), 1–12. Srour, F.J., van Oosterhout, M., van Baalen, P., Zuidwijk, R., 2008. Port community system implementation: Lessons learned from international scan. In: Transportation Research Board 87th Annual Meeting, Washington DC. State of Israel - Ministry of Transport, - 2019, 2019. Electronic Document. http://asp.mot.gov.il/he/chargers/2002-cargo-2019. The Port Authority of Jamaica, 2018. Statistical Publication 2018, Electronic Document. https://www.portjam.com/stat-report/Monthly_Statistical_Publication_ December_2018.pdf. The Port of Los Angeles, 2018. 2018 FACTS AND FIGURES, Electronic Document. https://www.portoflosangeles.org/business/statistics/facts-and-figures. Tijan, E., Aksentijević, S., 2014. Seaport cluster information systems—a foundation for port community systems’ architecture. In: 2014 37th International Convention on Information and Communication Technology, Electronics and Microelectronics (MIPRO). IEEE, pp. 1557–1562. Tijan, E., Kos, S., Ogrizović, D., 2009. Disaster recovery and business continuity in port community systems. Pomorstvo 23 (1), 243–260. Tijan, E., Agatić, A., Hlača, B., 2012. The necessity of port community system implementation in the Croatian seaports. PROMET - Traffic Transp. 24 (4), 305–315. Tsamboulas, D., Ballis, A., 2013. Port community systems: requirements, functionalities and implementation complications. In: Selected Proceedings of the 13th World Conference of Transport Research, Rio de Janeiro, pp. 1–17. http://www.wctrs-society.com/wp-content/uploads/abstracts/rio/selected/2024.pdf.

45

Transportation Research Part A 133 (2020) 27–46

A. Moros-Daza, et al.

Tsamboulas, D., Moraiti, P., Lekka, A., 2012. Performance evaluation for implementation of port community system. Transp. Res. Rec.: J. Transp. Res. Board 2273, 29–37. Ubbels, B., 2005. Institutional barriers to efficient policy intervention in the european port sector. IATSS Res. 29 (2), 41–49. United Nations, 2006. A Roadmap towards Paperless Trade. https://www.unece.org/. Van Baalen, P., Zuidwijk, R., Van Nunen, J., et al., 2009. Port inter-organizational information systems: capabilities to service global supply chains. Found. Trends Technol. Inf. Oper. Manage. 2 (2–3), 81–241. Van Oosterhout, M.P., Veenstra, A., Meijer, M., Popal, N., Van den Berg, J., 2007. Visibility platforms for enhancing supply chain security: a case study in the Port of Rotterdam. In: Proceeding of the International Symposium on Maritime Safety, Security and Environmental Protection, Athens, pp. 20–21. Venkatraman, N., 1994. IT-enabled business transformation: from automation to business scope redefinition. Sloan Manage. Rev. 35 (2), 73. World Bank Group, 2015. Republic of Congo: Trade Facilitation Intervention, Tech. report. http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/684111495448714514/pdf/ WP-TradeFacilitationEnglishmainweb-PUBLIC.pdf. Yang, Y., Zhong, M., Yao, H., Yu, F., Fu, X., Postolache, O., 2018. Internet of things for smart ports: technologies and challenges. IEEE Instrum. Meas. Mag. 21 (1), 34–43. Zlatanova, S., Beetz, J., 2012. 3D spatial information infrastructure: The case of Port Rotterdam, Usage, Usability, and Utility of 3D City Models–European COST Action TU0801, 03010. Zuidwijk, R., 2015. The value of big data to big ports. RSM Discovery-Manage. Knowl. 2015 (2), 14–16.

46