Synchro-Modality and Slow Steaming: New Business Perspectives in Freight Transportation
Abstract
:1. Introduction
- Holistic approach: a methodology based on a comprehensive vision covering all relevant aspects, both managerial and technical, is crucial for developing commercially viable solutions allowing both providers and users to benefit in a win-win scenario.
- Methodology innovation: a stakeholder-driven iterative approach, supported by the adoption of a lean business methodology named “GUEST” and developed by a pool of researchers of the Politecnico di Torino [11,12] is used to analyze stakeholders requirements from the early phases to the different stages of the of development. Knowing these requirements, the development can be steered so as to meet stakeholders in terms of business model and operational aspects. This leads to higher market acceptance of the outputs, which, in turn, supports the creation of new collaborative business models.
- Technical innovation: provide a cloud-based eco-net of advanced optimization, simulation and decision support modules, which enable slow steaming strategies and a complex synchro-modal supply chain operations to be planned and optimized effectively, both at the strategic level and in real time. Through this solution, the different stakeholders can:
- –
- quickly analyze and calculate the impacts of slow/smart steaming and synchro-modality on the whole supply chain;
- –
- easily implement the preferred slow steaming strategy and corresponding synchro-modal operations to actually achieve the projected benefits (i.e., reduced emissions, de-stressed supply chain, lower costs and increased customer service).
2. Methodology
- Go: a full description of the company profile, its current behavior and business development status, its environment, the external actors in the system and their interactions.
- Uniform: the knowledge of the system must be assessed in a standard way to obtain a shared vision of the MACS. In this phase, the governance and the business models are explicitly described by means of the Business Model Canvas [13] and the Value Proposition Canvas [14]: two tools used to define which are the customer needs and how to address them. The Value Proposition Canvas is a visual tool used to match, for each type of stakeholder involved in the process, the actual needs with the developed solutions, keeping into account also the potential gains and pains affecting the user in his daily activity. The Business Model Canvas is a lean startup tool developed to highlight how the proposed solutions enable the creation of value for the different types of stakeholders involved in the process. The main strengths of Business Model Canvas and Value Proposition Canvas rely on the capability to show, in an easy and comprehensible way, how the proposed solutions can deal with the user needs, and how users can gain benefits from these solutions.
- Evaluate: the governance and the business models are assessed in a series of actions. The full structure of the costs and revenues is explicitly described in order to evaluate the goals of the initiative. Moreover, a series of problems and opportunities are identified as well as the actions necessary to manage them, and the Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) to measure the effectiveness of the actions.
- Solve: given the specific problems and the actions highlighted to cope with them, a list of operational models is proposed.
- Test: the actions are implemented in case studies and their performance evaluated. The findings are released according with the Results Dissemination Plan.
- Go: in this phase, a preliminary analysis of the stakeholders requirements is conducted through a survey. The aim is to gather information about the stakeholder profiles in terms of their self-assessed needs.
- Uniform: for the two main relevant previous projects in the supply chain optimization and slow steaming fields, a Value Proposition Canvas is derived (Section 3). Then, a deep analysis and comparison of the two canvases is performed, bringing out the main similarities and differences compared with the SYNCHRO-NET project. The Value Proposition Canvas is a tool proposed by [14] to support the definition of the value proposition that fits the needs and wants of each stakeholder involved in the project. This tool is composed of two blocks: the stakeholder profile and the value map. The stakeholder profile describes the stakeholder in a structured way, defining their jobs (what stakeholders want to get done through their activities); pains (bad outcomes, risks and obstacles related to the jobs) and gains (outcomes or concrete benefits that stakeholders want to achieve). The value map defines the value proposition that a company has to offer to each stakeholder according with its profile composition. It is articulated in products and services around which the proposition is created, pain relievers and gain creators that describe how the bundle of products and services respectively reduce the pains or create gains for stakeholders. The fit between the two parts occurs if the the project generates pain relievers and gain creators that combine with one or more of the most important jobs, pains and gains for the stakeholder. For more details about the building blocks of the Value Proposition Canvas, see [14].
- Evaluate: given the outcomes of the two previous phases Go and Uniform, the Value Proposition Canvas and the Business Model Canvas of the SYNCHRO-NET project are shown (Section 5 and Section 6). The Business Model Canvas is the other tool proposed by [13]. In this application, it is used to demonstrate how SYNCHRO-NET creates value for different stakeholders and how it captures value in return. This tool summarizes the value proposition, the characteristics of the demand side and finally, the resources, activities and partnerships needed to implement the business model.
2.1. Stakeholders Needs and Desiderata Analysis
- Details about the respondents and their organization. In the firsts two sections, some generic identifying information was collected (e.g., name, job title of the respondent, organization category).
- Details on the supply/logistics chain. This section gathers, by means of a Likert-scale response format, information about the logistics needs that the respondent organization meets and its perception of challenges faced (e.g., uncertainty in the supply chain leading to over-stocking key products, pressure to reduce the company’s environmental impact, etc.). In particular, respondents had to rate on a scale from 1 to 5 their level of agreement with four statements. Responses are interpreted as follows: a low score (1—not at all accurate or 2—not accurate) implies disagreement. A value of 3 implies uncertainty. The values of 4 (accurate) or 5 (extremely accurate) represent the respondent’s agreement with a certain concept. The four statements are:
- –
- I am under constant pressure to reduce my company’s environmental impact but the logistics chain is too hard to manage.
- –
- I believe there are better, lower cost, lower emission transport options available but I do not have time to find them.
- –
- I over-stock key products due to uncertainties in the supply chain.
- –
- I do not risk using rail movements for high priority shipments because I am not confident they will arrive on time.
- Intermodal freight logistics research projects. This part of the survey has the aim to investigate on the respondent’s awareness about projects on synchro-modality.
- Assessing the role of inter-modal logistics solutions and Future needs. Through a Likert scale, the respondent has to assess the importance of two lists of respectively current and future needs, including 18 factors as reliability, timeliness, sustainability, etc. For each of the factors, the stakeholders assigned a score ranging from 1—not at all important—to 5—extremely important.
- Final thoughts and Solutions to logistics problems. These two sections offer to the respondent the opportunity to present any logistics problems they perceive, which are not included in the previous lists and to propose solutions and express further views on the topic.
- Further participation. Through this section, the respondents can make themselves available to be contacted in order to provide further input and to participate in the ongoing development of synchro-modal solutions.
3. State-Of-The-Art
3.1. e-Freight Project
- Compliance officers, who review and evaluate the compliance issues and monitor the impact of regulations.
- Port authorities, responsible of the efficient use of infrastructures and supporting transport users by providing information about the available infrastructure and the schedules of arrival and departure times of different ships.
- Customs, which provides different services related to the security of the transportation flow.
- Transport users (i.e., Freight carriers, Logistics service providers and Shippers), which manage the cargo at the operative level.
- Intra-European trade is complicated due to the disconnections and vulnerability of the logistic chains.
- Safety and security particularly in establishing efficient collaboration between authorities and transportation stakeholders to improve the development of capabilities for proactive and remedial measures to protect the environment as well as the security of freight transport networks.
- Unharmonized and inefficient freight information exchange in the context of multimodal transport.
- Vision of a paperless and standard framework for the freight transport process where an electronic flow of information is linked to the physical flow of goods, resulting in a leaner freight information exchange that encompasses all modes.
- Simplification and harmonization of regulatory requirements.
- “Single Window” (single access point) for administrative procedures in all modes.
- Introduction of an Information highway for co-modality, assisting transport operators to establish a common end-to-end transportation processes including compliance and intelligent monitoring.
- Improvement of the efficiency of the whole supply chain considering both economic and environmental impacts.
3.2. e-Mar Project
- Freight forwarders.
- Freight integrators, shipping agents and multi-modal transport operators.
- Infrastructure managers and port authorities.
- the eMAR Optimisation System (EOS), which provides the maritime stakeholders with a tool for the optimal planning and scheduling of their operations using real-time data.
- SafeSeaNet, Port Community System (PCS) and Port Single Window (PSW), facilities that improve the exchange of information through standardization and secure processes.
- Simplification and automation of information exchanges between administrations and maritime operators to achieve quantum improvements in maritime safety, security, customs control, environmental protection and cost savings for logistics operators.
- Facilitation of commercial transactions [20].
4. Results
- Logistics operators. They manage freight, picking up it on ships, trains and trucks and moving it across long distances. In particular, they are responsible of the safety and the efficiency of the delivery.
- Firms. They are the companies that will use the platform to coordinate the transportation of their goods (both for final products and raw materials) across Europe, benefiting from better planning of the delivery process.
- Public authorities. They are responsible of the maintenance of public infrastructure and they set regulations and requirements for the other actors.
- Port authorities. They can be both public or private authorities that manage ports and related activities.
- Research institutions. Mainly universities and researchers working to improve the current system.
- Trade associations. They are organizations founded and funded by businesses that operate in a specific industry.
4.1. Challenges in Meeting Current Logistics Needs
- Logistic operators and research institutions believe that there are better, lower cost, lower emission transport options available but there is not enough time to find them.
- Firms are concerned about the effectiveness of the rail transport system and about environmental impact.
- Public and port authorities are under pressure to reduce the environmental impact and find it hard to manage the logistics chain.
- Trade associations report distrust in the rail system and over-stocking due to uncertainties in the supply chain as key concerns.
4.2. Awareness of Other Research Projects
- TENT-T.
- B2MOS.
- Ifreightmed.
- MOS4MOS.
4.3. Assessing the Role of Intermodal Logistics Solutions for Current and Future Needs
- Time and reliability factors.
- Costs and sustainability factors.
- Management and risk factors.
- Customer, quality and other factors.
- Compliance with regulations and standards, particularly for pharmaceutical products.
- Traceability/lead time.
- Communication/information flows and forecasting.
4.4. Assessment of Logistics Needs, Challenges and Perceived Solutions
- Lack of information available online. Logistics operators use online information sources extensively, but many carriers do not put detailed information online.
- Managing the information from the field to improve responsiveness and service levels.
- Regarding multi-modal platform: speed and reliability of transportation if put in context of the service capabilities required for an express courier to be competitive.
- Fluctuation of the transport market between industrial and fresh produce sector.
- Stocking model in the current warehouse not reflecting business needs.
- Reliability, flexibility, costs, forecasting, etc.
- Single window implementation.
- Supply chain management.
- Flexibility of the labor market in relation to dockworkers.
- Increased need for storage areas and higher turnover of goods.
5. Value Proposition of the SYNCHRO-NET Project
6. Business Model of the SYNCHRO-NET Project
- Platform/website. Single tool to communicate and to interface with all the partners and stakeholders of the project. It represents the main source of information about the project, providing multi-modal maps, timetables and data.
- Community newsletter. It is a common direct channel of information sent to the members in order to provide periodic updates about services.
- Events and exploitation. These are intended to build a community and to increase the awareness and knowledge of services offered by SYNCHRO-NET. It also contributes to a better understanding of emerging needs and improvements, according to the stakeholder-driven framework adopted in the project.
- Dissemination. Intended to achieve a critical mass of interest required for the self-perpetuating of the project. Includes contributions to the literature, to create initial awareness and dissemination of results throughout the projects. The focus is on journals and conferences in transportation, logistics, and slow steaming fields.
- Customer Relationships Management system (CRM). Required to manage business relationships, data and information of the partners and stakeholders.
- Marketing activities. Marketing efforts to make the full solution available for commercial implementation and develop the platform to become a reference tool in the freight transportation industry.
- Community membership and Information sharing among members. The Community represents a powerful tool for the communication and the exploitation of results and thus for the co-creation of value for the stakeholders and end-users. Moreover, the Community can interact through a SYNCHRO-NET web portal, which provides information, training material, discussion groups and networking opportunities for participants.
- Business development. A deliberate process needed to ensure the success of the project and the adoption of the platform by stakeholders.
- Membership fees. Different levels of membership can be offered depending on the needs of the participants. “Contributors” or “Champions” pay subscription fees, one-off licenses and consulting fees to the SYNCHRO-NET consortium, in order to access to advanced training programmes or services.
- Revenues from certification of external supply chains.
- Revenues from supporting third parties campaigns to implement a sustainable transportation.
- Licenses for platform use. Payment for use of the platform and the related tools, designed for the business market.
- SYNCHRO-NET platform. This single tool is the main resource due to its role in realizing the project and guaranteeing the usability of the services in the long term.
- Human resources. They are the members of the Consortium that automatically become SYNCHRO-NET partners. They have commercial and voting interests, together with other external participants of the Community, which are at the same time sources of information.
- Sales unit. It is composed by the personnel directly involved in the realization, improvement and commercialization of the project solution.
- Research and Development (R&D) unit. A key resource to maintain SYNCHRO-NET in a competitive and useful position in the market and to increase its value added by improving its knowledge content.
- Freight transportation data and multi-modal maps.
- Information gathering on the freight transportation environment, in order to implement a solution taking into account the specific policies, rules, constraints and methods for the freight management of each country involved and to create a sustainable freight transportation system.
- Information sharing. It is the most important activity to achieve a common tool useful for all the partners.
- Planning of freight deliveries. This activity concerns all the operations needed to provide real-time planning of the routes and synchro-modal logistics optimization.
- Externalities management. Activities related to the management of risks and externalities, and the revision of the previous solutions if necessary.
- Green certification. Provides assessment and certification of the eco-sustainability of logistics operations.
- Business development. Business support to recruit new Community members and to disseminate platform developments among existing members to ensure the sustainable success of the project in the long term.
- Customer Relationships Management (CRM). It includes all activities to communicate with, assist and take care of existing Community members.
- Big data and analytics management. Includes the collection of information by the SYNCHRO-NET platform, which can be used for further research and development.
- Cloud and ICT management. This activity concerns the management and maintenance of the technical environment in which the SYNCHRO-NET platform works, in order to guarantee the performance of the different functionalities.
- Shipping companies. They perform regular transportation of goods overseas.
- Terminal operators. They ensure the safety and the efficient movement of goods in the terminals.
- Technological partners. They are responsible of the maintenance and the updating of the technology, providing also support to the parts in the long term.
7. Conclusions
Acknowledgments
Author Contributions
Conflicts of Interest
References
- WTO. Trade Recovery Expected in 2017 and 2018, Amid Policy Uncertainty. 2017. Available online: https://www.wto.org/english/news_e/pres17_e/pr791_e.htm (accessed on 10 October 2017).
- Halim, R.A.; Kwakkel, J.H.; Tavasszy, L.A. A strategic model of port-hinterland freight distribution networks. Transp. Res. Part E 2016, 95, 368–384. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bonney, J. Carriers Move Full Speed into Slow Steaming. JOC 2010. Available online: http://www.joc.com/maritime/carriers-move-full-speed-slow-steaming (accessed on 10 October 2017).
- Lee, C.Y.; Lee, H.; Zhang, J. The impact of slow ocean steaming on delivery reliability and fuel consumption. Transp. Res. Part E 2015, 76, 176–190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Crainic, T.; Perboli, G.; Rosano, M. Simulation of Intermodal Freight Transportation Systems: A Taxonomy; Technical Report, CIRRELT-2017-51; CIRRELT: Montreal, QC, Canada, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Perboli, G.; De Marco, A.; Perfetti, F.; Marone, M. A new taxonomy of smart city projects. Transp. Res. Procedia 2014, 3, 470–478. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bol Raap, W.; Iacob, M.E.; van Sinderen, M.; Piest, S. An architecture and common data model for open data-based cargo-tracking in synchromodal logistics. In Proceedings of the OTM Confederated International Conferences “On the Move to Meaningful Internet Systems”, Rhodes, Greece, 24–28 October 2016; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2016; pp. 327–343. [Google Scholar]
- Li, L.; Negenborn, R.R.; De Schutter, B. Distributed model predictive control for cooperative synchromodal freight transport. Transp. Res. Part E 2017, 105, 240–260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kapetanis, G.N.; Psaraftis, H.N.; Spyrou, D. A simple synchro—Modal decision support tool for the piraeus container terminal. Transp. Res. Procedia 2016, 14, 2860–2869. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- SYNCHRO-NET. Project Web Site. 2016. Available online: http://www.synchronet.eu (accessed on 10 October 2017).
- The GUEST Initiative. 2017. Available online: http://www.theguestmethod.com (accessed on 10 October 2017).
- Perboli, G. The GUEST Methodology. 2017. Available online: http://staff.polito.it/guido.perboli/GUEST-site/docs/GUEST_Metodology_ENG.pdf (accessed on 10 October 2017).
- Osterwalder, A.; Pigneur, Y. Business Model Generation. A Handbook for Visionaries, Game Changers, and Challengers; John Wiley and Sons, Inc.: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2010. [Google Scholar]
- Osterwalder, A.; Pigneur, Y. Value Proposition Design: How to Create Products and Services Customers Want; John Wiley and Sons, Inc.: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2014. [Google Scholar]
- ALICE. Alliance for Logistics Innovation through Collaboration in Europe Web Site. 2017. Available online: http://www.etp-logistics.eu (accessed on 4 October 2017).
- Chen, L.; Yip, T.L.; Mou, J. Provision of Emission Control Area and the impact on shipping route choice and ship emissions. Transp. Res. Part D Transp. Environ. 2017, in press. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cariou, P. Is slow steaming a sustainable means of reducing CO2 emissions from container shipping? Transp. Res. Part D 2011, 16, 260–264. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- FLAGSHIP. Project Web Site. 2016. Available online: http://www.flagship.be (accessed on 4 October 2017).
- e-Freight. Project Web Site. 2016. Available online: http://www.efreightproject.eu (accessed on 4 October 2017).
- e-Mar. Project Web Site. 2016. Available online: http://www.emarproject.eu (accessed on 4 October 2017).
- CORE. Project Web Site. 2016. Available online: http://www.coreproject.eu (accessed on 4 October 2017).
- Roso, V.; Piquer, S.; Teraphongphom, N.; Stefansson, G. Drivers and barriers to innovative logistics practices. In Proceedings of the 1st Logistics International Conference, Belgrade, Serbia, 28–30 November 2013. [Google Scholar]
- SYNCHRO-NET Consortium. Grant Agreement; EU Commission: Bruxelles, Belgium, 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Poulsen, R.T.; Ponte, S.; Lister, J. Buyer-driven greening? Cargo-owners and environmental upgrading in maritime shipping. Geoforum 2016, 68, 57–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rahim, M.M.; Islam, M.T.; Kuruppu, S. Regulating global shipping corporations’ accountability for reducing greenhouse gas emissions in the seas. Mar. Policy 2016, 69, 159–170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
e-Freight | e-Mar | |
---|---|---|
Value Proposition | Intelligent Cargo that makes goods self-aware, context-aware, location-aware and connected | e-Maritime platform for easier information exchange and e-Maritime services |
Similarities with SYNCHRO-NET | Synchro-modal system to manage freight transportation in the EU Supply chain optimization and slow steaming Paperless freight solution Single Window concept | Supply chain optimization and slow steaming Paperless freight solution Single Window concept Stakeholder-driven approach |
Differences with SYNCHRO-NET | No commercial and business perspective |
Stakeholders | % of Participation |
---|---|
Logistics operators | 65.2 |
Firms | 15.2 |
Public authorities | 8.5 |
Port authorities | 3.0 |
Research institutions | 3.0 |
Trade associations | 2.4 |
Others | 2.4 |
I am under constant pressure to reduce my company environmental impact but the logistics chain is too hard to manage | I believe there are better, lower cost, lower emission transport options available but I do not have time to find them | I over-stock key products due to uncertainties in the supply chain | I do not risk using rail movements for high priority shipments because I am not confident they will arrive on time | |
---|---|---|---|---|
Overall | 2.79 | 2.80 | 2.51 | 2.91 |
Logistic operators | 2.67 | 2.91 | 2.56 | 2.91 |
Firms | 2.92 | 2.56 | 2.64 | 3.33 |
Public authorities | 3.54 | 2.46 | 2.00 | 2.31 |
Port authorities | 3.40 | 2.00 | 1.40 | 2.40 |
Research institutions | 2.50 | 2.75 | 2.00 | 2.50 |
Trade associations | 2.50 | 2.50 | 3.00 | 3.50 |
Other | 2.50 | 3.75 | 3.50 | 2.75 |
Item | Overall | Logistic Operators | Firms | Public Authorities | Port Authorities | Research Institutions | Trade Associations |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Time and reliability factors | |||||||
Reliability | 4.62 | 4.65 | 4.76 | 4.23 | 5.00 | 4.25 | 4.50 |
Responsiveness | 4.29 | 4.30 | 4.36 | 3.92 | 4.40 | 4.25 | 4.25 |
Timeliness | 4.33 | 4.37 | 4.80 | 3.31 | 3.80 | 3.75 | 4.25 |
Frequency | 4.03 | 4.07 | 4.33 | 3.38 | 4.40 | 3.50 | 3.50 |
Cost and sustainability factors | |||||||
Sustainability | 3.72 | 3.64 | 3.70 | 3.85 | 4.40 | 4.00 | 4.00 |
Simplified paperwork documentation | 4.01 | 4.00 | 4.08 | 4.00 | 4.00 | 3.50 | 5.00 |
Low carbon operations | 3.32 | 3.25 | 3.32 | 3.38 | 4.00 | 3.75 | 2.75 |
Cost efficiency | 4.60 | 4.68 | 4.68 | 4.00 | 4.80 | 4.25 | 4.50 |
Management and Risk factors | |||||||
Liability for carriers | 3.98 | 4.05 | 4.20 | 3.23 | 4.20 | 3.00 | 4.00 |
Container tracking | 3.81 | 3.86 | 3.72 | 3.23 | 4.20 | 3.50 | 4.50 |
Routing flexibility | 3.51 | 3.62 | 3.44 | 2.77 | 3.80 | 3.25 | 2.75 |
Trust coordination between managers | 3.94 | 4.04 | 3.88 | 3.62 | 4.00 | 3.50 | 3.25 |
Risk management | 3.92 | 3.86 | 4.29 | 3.85 | 4.20 | 3.25 | 3.75 |
Consistent transit times | 4.23 | 4.35 | 4.46 | 3.23 | 4.40 | 2.75 | 4.50 |
Customer and Quality factors | |||||||
Customer claims settlement | 3.83 | 3.86 | 3.88 | 3.62 | 4.00 | 2.75 | 4.25 |
Door to door service | 3.96 | 4.01 | 4.00 | 3.23 | 4.40 | 4.00 | 4.25 |
Meeting customer demands | 4.45 | 4.46 | 4.60 | 4.08 | 4.60 | 3.25 | 5.00 |
Item | Overall | Logistic Operators | Firms | Public Authorities | Port Authorities | Research Institutions | Trade Associations |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Time and reliability factors | |||||||
Reliability | 4.73 | 4.75 | 4.83 | 4.38 | 5.00 | 4.50 | 4.50 |
Responsiveness | 4.51 | 4.50 | 4.75 | 4.23 | 4.60 | 4.00 | 4.50 |
Timeliness | 4.49 | 4.51 | 4.92 | 3.77 | 4.40 | 3.50 | 4.67 |
Frequency | 4.29 | 4.34 | 4.50 | 3.77 | 4.75 | 3.00 | 4.50 |
Cost and sustainability factors | |||||||
Sustainability | 4.23 | 4.19 | 4.33 | 4.23 | 5.00 | 4.00 | 4.00 |
Simplified paperwork documentation | 4.34 | 4.31 | 4.54 | 4.15 | 4.60 | 3.50 | 5.00 |
Low carbon operations | 4.09 | 4.06 | 4.21 | 4.00 | 4.80 | 4.00 | 3.25 |
Cost efficiency | 4.73 | 4.81 | 4.83 | 4.38 | 4.60 | 3.33 | 4.75 |
Management and Risk factors | |||||||
Liability for carriers | 4.13 | 4.21 | 4.22 | 3.69 | 4.20 | 3.25 | 4.25 |
Container tracking | 4.16 | 4.20 | 4.04 | 3.77 | 4.60 | 4.00 | 4.50 |
Routing flexibility | 3.95 | 4.01 | 4.00 | 3.31 | 4.20 | 3.75 | 3.75 |
Trust coordination between managers | 4.11 | 4.12 | 4.25 | 4.08 | 4.40 | 3.75 | 3.25 |
Risk management | 4.18 | 4.13 | 4.29 | 4.15 | 4.80 | 3.75 | 4.00 |
Consistent transit times | 4.39 | 4.45 | 4.54 | 3.85 | 4.80 | 3.50 | 4.25 |
Customer and Quality factors | |||||||
Customer claims settlement | 4.16 | 4.21 | 4.08 | 3.77 | 4.40 | 3.50 | 4.75 |
Door to door service | 4.27 | 4.30 | 4.35 | 3.77 | 4.60 | 3.75 | 4.50 |
Meeting customer demands | 4.59 | 4.57 | 4.83 | 4.38 | 5.00 | 4.00 | 4.75 |
Stakeholder Jobs | ||
Logistics operators | access available storage space in ports and terminals | |
Identify the optimal transport modes in order to | ||
satisfy objectives (cost, time, risk, etc.) | ||
Firms | Plan and monitor the delivery process | |
Public authorities | Monitor freight flows to prevent bottlenecks | |
Port authorities | Monitor freight flows in the port area | |
Optimize management processes, taking into account infrastructures, facilities and personnel availability | ||
Stakeholder Gains | ||
Logistics operators | Increase efficiency | |
Increase the quality of the service provided | ||
Increase awareness of environmental issues | ||
Reduce empty trips | ||
Provide better conditions for workers | ||
Firms | Increase the efficiency | |
Increase the quality of the service provided | ||
Increase awareness of environmental issues | ||
Increase service reliability (reliable delivery times) | ||
Have a single tool to monitor the delivery process | ||
Reduce uncertainty through inter-modal solutions | ||
Public authorities | Increase efficiency (in terms of infrastructure utilization) | |
Increase the quality of the service provided (in terms of infrastructure usage) | ||
Increase awareness of environmental issues (reduce pollution) | ||
Optimize freight flows to reduce congestion | ||
Port authorities | Increase efficiency (in terms of infrastructure utilization) | |
Increase the quality of the service provided (in terms of infrastructure usage) | ||
Increase awareness of environmental issues (reduce pollution) | ||
Anticipate/control uncertainties through better planning of activities | ||
Provide better conditions for workers | ||
Stakeholder Pains | ||
Logistics operators | Difficulties in retrieving information about availabilities and timetables | |
Manage externalities | ||
Uncertainty about custom operations | ||
Wasted time because of infrastructures/facilities/personnel constraints in ports and terminals | ||
Firms | Difficulties in retrieving information about availabilities and timetables | |
Manage externalities | ||
Uncertainty about custom operations | ||
Difficulty in the monitoring process | ||
Delivery time not reliable | ||
Public authorities | Manage externalities | |
Lack of control over infrastructure usage | ||
Port authorities | Manage externalities | |
Uncertainty about custom operations | ||
Temporary constraints in terms of infrastructures/facilities/personnel |
© 2017 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Perboli, G.; Musso, S.; Rosano, M.; Tadei, R.; Godel, M. Synchro-Modality and Slow Steaming: New Business Perspectives in Freight Transportation. Sustainability 2017, 9, 1843. https://doi.org/10.3390/su9101843
Perboli G, Musso S, Rosano M, Tadei R, Godel M. Synchro-Modality and Slow Steaming: New Business Perspectives in Freight Transportation. Sustainability. 2017; 9(10):1843. https://doi.org/10.3390/su9101843
Chicago/Turabian StylePerboli, Guido, Stefano Musso, Mariangela Rosano, Roberto Tadei, and Moritz Godel. 2017. "Synchro-Modality and Slow Steaming: New Business Perspectives in Freight Transportation" Sustainability 9, no. 10: 1843. https://doi.org/10.3390/su9101843
APA StylePerboli, G., Musso, S., Rosano, M., Tadei, R., & Godel, M. (2017). Synchro-Modality and Slow Steaming: New Business Perspectives in Freight Transportation. Sustainability, 9(10), 1843. https://doi.org/10.3390/su9101843