october 6th, 2016 - efleefle.eu/blog/wp-content/uploads/efle2016-christa-sys.pdf · 2016...
TRANSCRIPT
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 ([email protected])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 [email protected]