Alignment of port policy to the context of the Physical Internet

Figures & data

Figure 1. Evaluating the effectiveness of the six policy areas for four PPIs in four scenarios.

Figure 2. Research process.

Figure 3. Scenario logic for PI ports.

Table 1. Port performance indicators with respective descriptions.

Port Performance Indicator (PPI)	Description
A. Port Operations (PO)	The overall quality and efficiency of operations regarding container and vessel handling within the port boundaries. This includes factors such as speed, capacity, reliability, agility, flexibility, responsiveness, safety, security, and sustainability.
B. Costs	The costs from the perspective of the port users. These costs include transshipment costs and seaport duties.
C. Digital Connectivity (DC)	The degree to which a port is digitally connected with its own community stakeholders and with other stakeholders of the FTL chain, in both fore- and hinterland.
D. Physical Network Connectivity (PNC)	The degree to which a port is physically connected with its fore- and hinterland. A higher degree of (intermodal) PNC leads to an increased degree in reliability, agility, flexibility, and responsiveness of the overall FTL chains in which a port takes part.

Table 2. Importance of port performance indicators in the different scenarios.

Figure 4. Weighted directed graph with respective credal rankings of the Institutional PI scenario.

Table 3. Policy areas with respective descriptions.

Policy area	Description
A: Transport Infrastructure	In improving a port’s attractiveness, a PA could invest in the transport infrastructure to enhance the (multi-modal) accessibility of the port, both by land and sea, and increase its capacity (Montreuil et al. 2018). This includes investments, such as the enlargement of the rail shunting yard capacity and the deepening of the waterside access channel to ease draft restrictions so that larger vessels can berth but also beyond the physical port boundaries in terms of developing the hinterland infrastructure, inland- and dry terminals, extended gates, (integrated) rail, offshore and Hyperloop terminals (DP World 2020), and airports. This policy area could contribute to achieving synchromodality.
B: (PI) Standardization	This policy area includes the development of standards, required for, for example, interoperable information systems (ISs), the digitalization of the Bill-of-Lading and customs declarations, nautical standards, physical and digital interfaces, protocols, synchromodality, and modular (PI) containers. PAs could contribute to setting these standards by leading its coordination with other organizations. Once particular standards are chosen and adopted, PAs could further stimulate their implementation and adoption by means of incentives and rules in concession agreements, access regulation, and pricing strategies (Lam and Notteboom 2014; Van der Lugt, de Langen, and Hagdorn 2017; Aregall, Bergqvist, and Monios 2018; Notteboom and Lam 2018).
C: Advanced Terminal Areas	For ports to be capable of conducting smart, real-time dynamic decisions on the container consolidation and synchromodal operations (Montreuil et al. 2018), PAs could invest in the development of dedicated advanced terminal areas. Within these, the automated, and later autonomous, (re)positioning and crossdocking of the PI containers could take place (Fahim et al. 2021a; Fahim et al. 2021c).
D: ICT Hardware	Advanced ICT Hardware in ports will be necessary to achieve the desired level of connectivity, visibility, and synchormodality in the PI (Fahim et al. 2021b). Additionally, sensors and wireless communication technologies, enable fast- and fact-based exchange of information, which allows ports to become more agile, dynamic, and responsive (Montreuil et al. 2018). The technological readiness of edge- and cloud computing plays a critical in the effectiveness of these decentralized systems (Wang and Sarkis 2021).
E: Information Systems and Platforms	For the enablement of hyperconnectivity and synchromodality to facilitate seamless informational and financial flows, interoperable digital platforms are a prerequisite. PAs are required to integrate their own ISs and stimulate the integration of ISs throughout the supply chain. The PA could improve the smart functionalities of its ISs by applying AI, IoT, and big data analytics (Hasan et al. 2020; Ahmad et al. 2021). Additionally, the PA could play a facilitating role by developing a neutral digital information platform, i.e. PCS, to provide “single version of the truth” informational services. Furthermore, these ISs and platforms could be connected with the fore- and hinterland to digitally integrate ports within a global PI.
F: Sustainability Management	Sustainability management is the policy area that aims to address the negative externalities. PAs can take measures to comply with, among others, environmental regulation and working conditions, while also developing monitoring systems to maintain safety, air quality, water quality, and control nuisances (Lam and Notteboom 2014; Di Vaio, Varriale, and Alvino 2018). Additionally, emergent digitalization and information technologies are expected to bring opportunities that positively impact the environmental supply chain sustainability (Sarkis, Kouhizadeh, and Zhu 2021). Furthermore, PAs can encourage other port stakeholders to prioritize sustainability, for example, by incentives and rules in the concessions, access regulation, and pricing strategies.

Table 4. Impact of policy areas on the PPIs in the different scenarios.

Table 5. Overall effectiveness of policy areas in the different scenarios.

Table A1. Expert interviewees.

Function	Affiliation
Full Professor of Freight and Logistics	Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands
Full Professor of Global Supply Chains and Ports	Erasmus University Rotterdam, The Netherlands
Full Professor of Supply Chain and Logistics	Georgia Institute of Technology, USA
Innovation Manager	Groningen Seaports, The Netherlands
Full Professor of Maritime Logistics	Kedge Business School, France
Full Professor of Logistics	Kühne Logistics University, Germany
Full Professor of Industrial Engineering and Supply Chain	Mines Paris Tech, France
Innovation Manager	Port of Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Innovation Manager	Port of Algeciras, Spain
Strategist	Port of Rotterdam, The Netherlands
Innovation Director	Port of Valencia, Spain
Full Professor of Transport, Logistics and Ports	University of Antwerp, Belgium
Assistant Professor of Operations and Supply Chain	University of Groningen, The Netherlands
Full Professor of Industrial Engineering	University of Groningen, The Netherlands

Table B1. Survey respondents BWM I.

Function	Affiliation
Associate Professor of Operations and Supply Chain Management	Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands
Full Professor of Freight and Logistics	Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands
Full Professor of Multi-Machine Operations and Logistics	Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands
Researcher of Maritime Ports	Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands
Innovation Manager	Groningen Seaports, The Netherlands
Associate Professor of Maritime Logistics	Kedge Business School, France
Full Professor of Logistics	Kühne Logistics University, Germany
Consultant	Maritime shipping consulting company, The Netherlands
Innovation Manager	Port of Algeciras, Spain
Project Manager	Port of Hamburg, Germany
Strategist	Port of Rotterdam, The Netherlands
Full Professor of Transport, Logistics and Ports	University of Antwerp, Belgium
Assistant Professor of Operations and Supply Chain	University of Groningen, The Netherlands
Full Professor of Industrial Engineering	University of Groningen, The Netherlands

Table B2. Survey respondents BWM II.

Function	Affiliation
Associate Professor of Operations and Supply Chain Management	Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands
Full Professor of freight and logistics	Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands
Full Professor of Multi-Machine Operations and Logistics	Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands
Researcher of Maritime Ports	Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands
Full Professor of Global Supply Chains and Ports	Erasmus University Rotterdam, The Netherlands
Full Professor of Ports and Transport Economics	Erasmus University Rotterdam, The Netherlands
Innovation Manager	Groningen Seaports, The Netherlands
Consultant	Independent maritime shipping consultant, Denmark
Associate Professor of Maritime Logistics	Kedge Business School, France
Full Professor of Logistics	Kühne Logistics University, Germany
Consultant	Maritime shipping consulting company, The Netherlands
Innovation Manager	Port of Algeciras, Spain
Innovation Manager	Port of Barcelona, Spain
Project Manager	Port of Hamburg, Germany
Strategist	Port of Rotterdam, The Netherlands
Head of Strategy & Analytics	Port of Rotterdam, The Netherlands
Innovation Director	Port of Valencia, Spain
Full Professor of Transport, Logistics and Ports	University of Antwerp, Belgium
Assistant Professor of Operations and Supply Chain	University of Groningen, The Netherlands
Full Professor of Industrial Engineering	University of Groningen, The Netherlands
Full Professor of Operations Research and Management	University of Groningen, The Netherlands

Table C1. Nine-point scale with linguistic variables

Scale number	Linguistic variable
1	Equally important
3	Moderately more important
5	Strongly more important
7	Very strongly more important
9	Extremely more important
2, 4, 6, 8	Intermediate values

Table D1. Driving forces with external factors

Driving force	External factor	Author(s)
Technological development	Internet of Things (IoT)	Delenclos, Rasmussen, and Riedl (2018); Inkinen, Helminen, and Saarikoski (2021); Meindl et al. (2021)
	Artificial intelligence (AI)	Delenclos, Rasmussen, and Riedl (2018); Meindl et al. (2021); Wang and Sarkis (2021)
	Blockchain/distributed ledger technology	Hasan et al. (2020); Ahmad et al. (2021); Wang and Sarkis (2021)
	(Big) Data analytics	Delenclos, Rasmussen, and Riedl (2018); Meindl et al. (2021); Wang and Sarkis (2021)
	Digitalization	Chu et al. (2018); Inkinen, Helminen, and Saarikoski (2021); Wang and Sarkis (2021)
	Digital information platforms	Delenclos, Rasmussen, and Riedl (2018); IPCSA (2018); Fahim et al. (2021b); Wang and Sarkis (2021)
	Hyperloop	DP World (2020); Montreuil (2020)
	3D Printing	Inkinen, Helminen, and Saarikoski (2021); Meindl et al. (2021); Wang and Sarkis (2021)
	Robotics	DB Schenker (2021); Inkinen, Helminen, and Saarikoski (2021); Meindl et al. (2021)
	Drones	DB Schenker (2021); DHL (2021); Inkinen, Helminen, and Saarikoski (2021)
	Sensors	Delenclos, Rasmussen, and Riedl (2018); Inkinen, Helminen, and Saarikoski (2021); Meindl et al. (2021)
	Automation	Chu et al. (2018); Inkinen, Helminen, and Saarikoski (2021); Meindl et al. (2021)
	Cloud/Edge computing	Delenclos, Rasmussen, and Riedl (2018); Meindl et al. (2021); Wang and Sarkis (2021)
	Intelligent systems	Delenclos, Rasmussen, and Riedl (2018); DB Schenker (2021); Inkinen, Helminen, and Saarikoski (2021); Meindl et al. (2021)
	5(/n)G network	Delenclos, Rasmussen, and Riedl (2018); Inkinen, Helminen, and Saarikoski (2021); Wang and Sarkis (2021)
Institutional development	Environmental regulations	Sarkis, Kouhizadeh, and Zhu (2021); DHL (2021); Fahim et al. (2021a); Inkinen, Helminen, and Saarikoski (2021)
	Global network integration	DHL (2021); Fahim et al. (2021a)
	Modularity/Containerization	Montreuil, Ballot, and Tremblay (2016); (2018)); DHL (2021)
	(Cyber)security	DHL (2021); Inkinen, Helminen, and Saarikoski (2021)
	(PI) Standardization	Montreuil et al. (2018); Fahim et al. (2021a); Fahim et al. (2021b); 2021c; 2022); Inkinen, Helminen, and Saarikoski (2021)
	(Collaborative) Business models	Treiblmaier et al. (2020); Inkinen, Helminen, and Saarikoski (2021); Meindl et al. (2021); Wang and Sarkis (2021)
	Labour protection	DHL (2021); Meindl et al. (2021)
	Trade agreements	Fahim et al. (2021a); Inkinen, Helminen, and Saarikoski (2021)
	Antitrust policies	Fahim et al. (2021a)
	Willingness to share (data and assets)	Treiblmaier et al. (2020); DHL (2021); Inkinen, Helminen, and Saarikoski (2021)
	Regulatory frameworks	Treiblmaier et al. (2020)
	Legal frameworks	Treiblmaier et al. (2020); Inkinen, Helminen, and Saarikoski (2021)

Montreuil, B., S. Buckley, L. Faugère, R. Khir, and S. Derhami. 2018. Urban Parcel Logistics Hub and Network Design: The Impact of Modularity and Hyperconnectivity. Progress in Material Handling Research: 2018, (Ed.) A. Carrano. Charlotte, NC, USA: MHI.

 Google Scholar

World, D. P. (2020). DP World and Virgin Hyperloop Hail Decision that Brings Hyperloop Systems One Step Closer to Reality. Accessed on https://www.dpworld.com/news/releases/dp-world-and-virgin-hyperloop-hail-decision-that-brings-hyperloop-systems-one-step-closer-to-reality/

 Google Scholar

Lam, J. S. L., and T. E. Notteboom. 2014. “The Greening of Ports: A Comparison of Port Management Tools Used by Leading Ports in Asia and Europe.” Transport Reviews 34 (2): 169–189. doi:10.1080/01441647.2014.891162.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Van der Lugt, L. M., P. W. de Langen, and L. Hagdorn. 2017. “Strategic Beliefs of Port Authorities.” Transport Reviews 37 (4): 412–441. doi:10.1080/01441647.2016.1245685.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Aregall, M. G., R. Bergqvist, and J. Monios. 2018. “A Global Review of the Hinterland Dimension of Green Port Strategies.” Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment 59: 23–34. doi:10.1016/j.trd.2017.12.013.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Notteboom, T. E., and J. S. L. Lam. 2018. “The Greening of Terminal Concessions in Seaports.” Sustainability 10 (9): 3318. doi:10.3390/su10093318.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Fahim, P. B. M., U. Martinez de, M. Alvarez de Sotomayor, J. Rezaei, A. Van Binsbergen, M. Nijdam, and L. Tavasszy. 2021a. “On the Evolution of Maritime Ports Towards the Physical Internet.” Futures 134: 102834. doi:10.1016/j.futures.2021.102834.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Fahim, P. B. M., R. An, J. Rezaei, Y. Pang, B. Montreuil, and L. Tavasszy. 2021c. “An Information Architecture to Enable track-and-trace Capability in Physical Internet Ports.” Computers in Industry 129: 103443. doi:10.1016/j.compind.2021.103443.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Fahim, P. B. M., J. Rezaei, R. Jayaraman, M. Poulin, B. Montreuil, and L. Tavasszy. 2021b. “The Physical Internet & Maritime Ports: Ready for the Future?” IEEE Engineering Management Review 49 (4): 136–149. doi:10.1109/EMR.2021.3113932.

 Google Scholar

Wang, Y., and J. Sarkis. 2021. “Emerging Digitalisation Technologies in Freight Transport and Logistics: Current Trends and Future Directions.” Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review 148: 102291. doi:10.1016/j.tre.2021.102291.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Hasan, H. R., K. Salah, R. Jayaraman, I. Yaqoob, and M. Omar. 2020. “Blockchain Architectures for Physical Internet: A Vision, Features, Requirements, and Applications.” IEEE Network 35 (2): 174–181. doi:10.1109/MNET.021.2000442.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Ahmad, R. W., H. Hasan, R. Jayaraman, K. Salah, and M. Omar. 2021. “Blockchain Applications and Architectures for Port Operations and Logistics Management.” In Research in Transportation Business & Management, 100620.

 Google Scholar

Di Vaio, A., L. Varriale, and F. Alvino. 2018. “Key Performance Indicators for Developing Environmentally Sustainable and Energy Efficient Ports: Evidence from Italy.” Energy Policy 122: 229–240. doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2018.07.046.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Sarkis, J., M. Kouhizadeh, and Q. S. Zhu. 2021. “Digitalization and the Greening of Supply Chains.” Industrial Management & Data Systems 121 (1): 65–85. doi:10.1108/IMDS-08-2020-0450.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Delenclos, F. X., A. Rasmussen, and J. Riedl (2018). To Get Smart, Ports Go Digital. Boston Consulting Group – Shipping Industry, Logistics, Digital Transformation. https://www.bcg.com/publications/2018/to-get-smart-ports-go-digital

 Google Scholar

Inkinen, T., R. Helminen, and J. Saarikoski. 2021. “Technological Trajectories and Scenarios in Seaport Digitalization.“ Research in Transportation Business & Management 41: 100633.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Meindl, B., N. F. Ayala, J. Mendonça, and A. G. Frank. 2021. “The Four Smarts of Industry 4.0: Evolution of ten Years of Research and Future Perspectives.” Technological Forecasting and Social Change 168: 120784. doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2021.120784.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Chu, F., S. Gailus, L. Liu, and L. Ni (2018). The Future of Automated Ports. McKinsey & Company – Travel, Transport & Logistics. Accessed on https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/travel-transport-and-logistics/our-insights/the-future-of-automated-ports

 Google Scholar

IPCSA. 2018. November “Sustainable Freight Transport in Support of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.” In UNCTAD Multiyear Expert Meeting on Transport, Trade Logistics and Trade Facilitation, 21–23. Geneva: UNCTAD.

 Google Scholar

Montreuil, B. (2020). The Physical Internet: Shaping a Global Hyperconnected Logistics Infrastructure. IPIC 2020 International Physical Internet Conference, Keynote Speech 2020/11/18, Shenzen, China, https://www.picenter.gatech.edu/sites/default/files/ipic2020-keynotehyperconnectedlogisticsinfrastructure_20201116_web.pdf

 Google Scholar

Schenker, D. B. (2021). Volocopter and DB Schenker Announce First Blueprint for VoloDrone Operations. https://www.dbschenker.com/global/about/press/volocopter-and-db-schenker-announce-first-blueprint-for-volodrone-operations-708858

 Google Scholar

DHL. 2021. Logistics Trend Radar. Accessed 22 March 2021. https://www.dhl.com/global-en/home/insights-and-innovation/insights/logistics-trend-radar.html

 Google Scholar

Montreuil, B., E. Ballot, and W. Tremblay. 2016. Modular Design of Physical Internet Transport, Handling and Packaging Containers, Material Handling Research, 03-16-2016, Charlotte, NC, USA.

 Google Scholar

Fahim, P. B. M., J. Rezaei, B. Montreuil, and L. Tavasszy. 2022. “Port Performance Evaluation and Selection in the Physical Internet.” Transport Policy 124: 83–94. doi:10.1016/j.tranpol.2021.07.013.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Treiblmaier, H., K. Mirkovski, P. B. Lowry, and Z. G. Zacharia. 2020. “The Physical Internet as a New Supply Chain Paradigm: A Systematic Literature Review and a Comprehensive Framework.” International Journal of Logistics Management 31 (2): 239–287.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar