October 6th, 2016

Port related innovations: The answer to today's constraints and the challenges in seaports 

CHRISTA SYS

Me, myself and I

Christa Sys (christa.sys@uantwerpen.be)University of Antwerp Lecturer ‘Operationele aspecten van maritiem transport’ (Dutch) Chair holder BNP Paribas Fortis Transport, Logistics and Ports C‐MAT Business environment Maritime economics and business Maritime supply chains

HoGent Forwarding II (Maritime transport and inland navigation)University of Ghent Transport Economics

3

Source: own compilation based on Collins Family Foundation

Innovation, a driver of economic growth

Cost

DeliveryFlexibility/Customization

Service

1950s 1990s

Quality

2000s

Sustainability

2016

CO.INNOVATION

A technological or organizational (including cultural as a separate sub‐set) change to the product (or service) or production process that either lowers the cost of product (or service) or production process or increases the quality of the product (or service) to the consumer.” (Arduino et al., 2013)

BCG perspectives – Innovation in 2015

5

6

“the transport sector generally displays poor innovative strength”

International forum on Transport (2010). Transport and Innovation: Unleashing the Potential. Paris: OECD

Maersk Line cancels Daily Maersk

(March, 10th, 2015)Alphaliner Newsletter no 42 - 2009

Technology

Managerial, organizational, cultural

Policy initiativesTechnology, managerial, organizational, cultural – market change 

Technology, managerial, organizational, cultural ‐ business change

CO.Research:  sharing knowledge and experience

I – INTERNATIONAL RESEARCH

• Objective

Understand patterns and characteristics, success factors and failure factors, taking into account the context of the respective challenges which prevailed when they emerged, and the goals they were planned to serve: economic, social and environmental

II– UNIVERSITIES INVOLVED

University of the AegeanUniversity of Genova

University of LisbonUniversity of Southern California

University of Antwerp (coordinator)

Kühne Logistics University

Nanyang Technological University

University of the Aegean

Port AuthoritiesShipyard

Liner Carriers

Shipping agent

Inland terminal

Stevedoring

Logistics

Shippers

Forwarder

Other

(The Netherlands)

(Singapore)(Belgium)

(Portugal)

(Portugal)

(Portugal)

(Italy)

(Greece)

(Singapore)

(Italy)

(Italy)(Belgium)

(Belgium) (Italy)

(Singapore)

(Belgium)

(Belgium)

(Belgium)

Road operator

(Belgium)

Deep sea terminals

Rail operator(Italy)

(Belgium)

(Belgium)

(France)

(Belgium)

Research onsmall barges

(The Netherlands)

(Greece)

(Greece)

Barge operators ICT

(Belgium, the NetherlandsSpain, Finland)

(Belgium)

III – INDUSTRY INVOLVED

H and I‐index

•Evaluates thealignment betweenstrategy and innovation outcome

Cost/Benefit Analysis

System of Innovation Approach

• Assess adoption of innovation

• Identify relations between actors and institutions 

Qualitative Comparative Analysis

• Combines successand failure factors

IV ‐METHODS

13

75 | 30 | 10 | 7• 85%, a mix of technological, administrative, 

organizational and cultural nature• innovation that relates to the cargo flow and ICT 

are high on the agenda. • the majority of initiatives  are instances of 

private commercial innovations. • the mainstream of the cases are examples of 

‘incremental’ innovations 

V– INNOVATION CASES: TYPOLOGY

I Technological ‐ unit change II  Technological ‐market change III Technological, Managerial, Organisational, Cultural –Business Change IV Technological, Managerial, Organisational, Cultural ‐Market Change V Managerial, Organisation, Cultural ‐Market Change VI Policy Initiatives (Managerial, Organisation, Cultural – Market Change) 

CO.Results

Cost/benefit analysis: developing a frameworkCategory Examples Objective Decision 

processNumber of 

cases1 Internal decision, no external incentives or disincentives

Terminal appointment system; Automated stacking cranes

Increase productivity, throughput and efficiency

Firm  21 (28.3%)

2 Strategic internal decision, external incentives or disincentives, no public funding or regulation

Use AF dock equipment as part of green port programme;Restore natural habitat as part of green port programme

Increase public support, pre‐empt regulation, protect business interests

Firm, sometimes with stakeholder input

37 (50%)

3 Responsive decision to public subsidies or regulation (responses to subsidies different from responses to regulation)

Subsidies for short‐haul bargeScrubbers on ships

Reduce externalities, comply with regulatory requirements

Firm, government, other stakeholders

16 (21.6%)

16

The H and I indexes: What?New methodology aiming at assessing strategic alignment between degree of success and strategic importance

But what defines success?• One approach is to consider the strategic objectives of a 

certain innovation action So, an innovation is successful when it is able 

to achieve the strategic objective it is set to target

• But most innovation target multiple objectives Hence, ranking every innovation on the basis of

how important it is to reach a certain objective

17

H/I‐index 

18

Virtual example Was this objective important?

Is this innovation successful?

Cost minimization 5 3Gain market share 2 5Integration withother actors

3 3

H/I‐index: misalignments exist between company strategies and degrees of success Economic objectives appear to be ranked higher in terms of importance than the other objectives• Operation optimisation and service improvements are the most highly 

ranked objectives• Obtaining first mover advantage• Differentiation from competitors 

Social and environmental objectives seem to be achieved, but often are ranked as not important, suggesting that innovation success, when achieved, is often incidental• CO2 reduction instead, being a common metric, is present as a parameter 

in many innovation cases. • Virtually all innovations are successful in Complying with social and 

labour regulation, which is also perceived as an important objective

19

Qualitative Comparitive Analysis (QCA)

Actors

Insti tutions Port Authori tyTerminal  Operators

Shipping LinesFreight Forwarders/ Shippers  etc.

UnionsMunicipa l  Authorities &Society

Innovation Sponsors  (e.g. Manu‐facturers )

Regulators  & Regulations

Standardi ‐sation bodies

Research Insti tutes

Financing Ins ti tutions

Ins ti tutions  with vested interests  (e.g. EC)

Infras tructure

Hard Insti tutions

Soft Insti tutions

Weak Networks

Strong Networks

Capacities

Lock‐in effects

Market DemandCompeti tion (innovation)

Competi tion (Port)

Legend Initiation Development Initiation/Development/ImplementationDevelopment/Implementation Initiation/Development/Implementation

Innovation Champion

Port Actors Immediate  External  Stakeholders Capacity Bui lding Stakeholders

20

Actors and success/failure factors are analysed for any of the three stages through which an innovation initiative usually develops (initiation, development and implementation). 

Input values for each cell are given between ‐3 and +3, where ‐3 means total absence and +3 very strong presence, 0 being the neutral value. 

Qualitative Comparitive Analysis (QCA)‐ With the entire set of 40 cases, no combination of conditionsconsistently leads to success.

‐ Hence, all possible combinations of conditions are tried, and four each lead to a sufficient number of cases that consistentlylead to success:1. Terminal alignment with infrastructure, development and 

implementation phases2. Shipping line alignment with infrastructure, development 

and implementation phases3. Soft‐institutional involvement of innovation champion in 

all three stages4. Innovation champion alignment with infrastructure and 

involvement with hard institutional arrangements in theinititation phase

21

Qualitative Comparitive Analysis (QCA)

22

Terminal Shipping line Soft institutionalChampion infra

+ Hard institutions ‐Autotrakker (S1) ‐ DODO (AF1) ‐Flexible spud wagon (AF3) ‐Van Hool ECO chassis (D4) ‐Leixões Port ‐ 3PL ‐ Primary Gate (H1) ‐Modal shift (K2) ‐Foldable container (N1) ‐APCS (AJ2) ‐Efficiency leadership (X1) ‐Port Single Window (W1) ‐All‐weather terminal (FI) (AG1) ‐e‐transit (F4)

 ‐Truck appointment system (A8)‐All‐weather terminal (BE) (Z1)‐Extended Gate 1.0 (F1)

 ‐EDI (A2) ‐EDI (A2)

 ‐Barge heavy lift ro/ro (E2)  ‐Barge heavy lift ro/ro (E2)

‐All‐weather terminal 2 (NL) (AI2)‐All‐weather terminal 3 (NL) (AI3)

 ‐All‐weather terminal 1 (NL) (AI1)

 ‐Sea45 concept (C2)

‐Dredge pumps  (AF4)

 ‐Tandemlift Operations (A6)‐10.6 feet high container (C1)

 ‐ SEAGHA (AJ1)

 ‐Automated stacking cranes (A4)

 ‐IT Data Exchange (T1)

‐All‐weather terminal (ES) (AH1)

System of Innovation approach

• Conditions in the innovation system that need to be present in order to successfully implement an innovation.  Context analysis

• Why innovation fails, even when the cost‐benefit assessment has justified its implementation or even though it contributes to business strategies.  Pattern analysis

H1: The importance of capacities (external knowledge and financing)H2: The accord of all actors involved,H3: The importance of market push and H4: The ability of the innovation champion to influence actors and outcome. 

23

System of innovation approachTesting Hypotheses

24

1. The importance of capabilities (external knowledge and financing) No financial support Important: knowledge capabilities

2. The importance of market push3. The cooperation of all actors involved4. The ability of the innovation champion to influence 

actors and outcome

But ... Also the type of actors involved...

JOINT LESSONS

• The relativeness of public push• Determinants of innovation success

• the strength of the innovation champion, • mainly terminal operators and shipping lines

• the push by market demand and• the fact that all actors have a common vision

• The predominant role of economic motives: concepts like ‘efficiency’, ‘benefits’,  ‘capacity’ and ‘optimisation’

• Without market demand, no innovation will make it to actual market uptake

Co.Innovation is the key issue!

The port and maritime sector is innovative, but the innovation it produces is not always successful.Very limited quantitative data on costs or outcomes Innovation is a tool that can improve the competitive advantage of port‐related stakeholders Innovation is mainly driven by economic goalsNo unique recipe, but conditions for successActor co‐operation also seems an important trend

27

GENERAL OUTCOME

CO.INNOVATION, A KEY ISSUE

• a new form of innovation where the intention of the parties is to build together new knowledge and create new opportunities for cooperation along maritime supply chains

• a tool that can improve the competitive advantageof port‐related stakeholders

• enables to answer to the challenges (a.o.intermodality, integrated chains and smooth management) facing the sector currently faces

• Supply chain innovation: benefits for smaller companies?

EXAMPLE OF THE INNOVATION MONITOR

29

Thank you for your attention

Prof. Dr. Christa SysBNP Paribas Fortis Chair Transport, Logistics and PortsPrinsstraat 13, 2000 Antwerpen@ www.uantwerpen.be/tpr  > BNP Paribas Chair > BNPPF innovation event christa.sys@uantwerpen.be