Strategic analysis of the automation of container port terminals through bot (business observation tool)

Camarero Orive, Alberto; Parra Santiago, José Ignacio; Esteban-Infantes Corral, María Magdalena; González-Cancelas, Nicoletta Article Strategic analysis of the automation of container port terminals through bot (business observation tool) Logistics Provided in Cooperation with: MDPI – Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute, Basel Suggested Citation: Camarero Orive, Alberto; Parra Santiago, José Ignacio; Esteban-Infantes Corral, María Magdalena; González-Cancelas, Nicoletta (2020) : Strategic analysis of the automation of container port terminals through bot (business observation tool), Logistics, ISSN 2305-6290, MDPI, Basel, Vol. 4, Iss. 1, pp. 1-14, https://doi.org/10.3390/logistics4010003 This Version is available at: https://hdl.handle.net/10419/310098 Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen: Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden. Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen. Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. Terms of use: Documents in EconStor may be saved and copied for your personal and scholarly purposes. You are not to copy documents for public or commercial purposes, to exhibit the documents publicly, to make them publicly available on the internet, or to distribute or otherwise use the documents in public. If the documents have been made available under an Open Content Licence (especially Creative Commons Licences), you may exercise further usage rights as specified in the indicated licence. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ logistics Article Strategic Analysis of the Automation of Container Port Terminals through BOT (Business Observation Tool) Alberto Camarero Orive * , JoséIgnacio Parra Santiago , María Magdalena Esteban-Infantes Corral and Nicoletta González-Cancelas Department of Transport Engineering, Urban and Regional Planning; Universidad Politécnica de Madrid, 28040 Madrid, Spain; [email protected] (J.I.P.S.); [email protected] (M.M.E.-I.C.); [email protected] (N.G.-C.) *Correspondence: alberto.camar[email protected] Received: 18 December 2019; Accepted: 31 January 2020; Published: 4 February 2020   Abstract: The port system is immersed in a process of digital transformation towards the concept of Ports 4.0, under the new regulatory and connectivity requirements that are expected of them. As a result of the changes that the industrial revolution 4.0 is imposing, based on new information technologies and the change of energy model, the electrification of modes of transport from alternative energies and the total digitalization of the processes is occurring. This conversion to digital, intelligent, and green ports requires the implementation of the new technologies offered by the market. The inclusion of these enabling tools has allowed the development of automated terminals under a functional approach. This article aims to offer the responsible entities a new methodology (BOT) that allows them to successfully undertake the automation of terminals, taking into account the reality of the conditions of the environment in which they are developed. By quantifying the factors that facilitate or impede implementation, it will be possible to determine the strategy to be followed and the necessary measures to be adopted in the project; constituting, therefore, a novel management and planning tool. Keywords: container automated terminals; BOT; strategy; automation 1. Introduction Automated container port terminals have proliferated since the Europe Container Terminals (ECT) in Rotterdam, which began to be automated in 1984 [ 1 ]. Automation carried out in existing and operational terminals (brownfield) and in new terminals (greenfield), such as Total Terminal International (TTI) Algeciras, inaugurated in 2010, found a solution adopted in the Global Container Terminal (New York/New Yersey). Thus, there are currently around 60 automated terminals in the world, mainly in Europe and Asia, with forecasts to reach 200 in the next 5 years [ 2 ], among which are the new container terminal at the port of Valencia and the incorporation of eight automated RTG (Rubber Tyred Gantry Crane) in the container terminal of Belfast (BCT), turning it into a semi-automated terminal. Although the automation process is not exclusive to container terminals, the intrinsic characteristics of these terminals, such as their high degree of specialization and standardization (both in the transport element and in the way of handling the goods), and technological advances have protected the development of a high degree of automation in the equipment and processes of these facilities [ 3 ]. These characteristics, together with the increase in competition in the port industry, have encouraged the development of automated terminals with the aim of reducing operating costs (OPEX), mainly in terms of labor, and seeking improvements in terms of productivity, safety, and environmental sustainability. Logistics 2020,4, 3; doi:10.3390/logistics4010003 www.mdpi.com/journal/logistics Logistics 2020,4, 3 2 of 14 However, it is also true that in some terminals the productivity can be reduced after automation due to inadequate phase-in. Therefore, the objectives of this article are to use a methodology (Business Observation Tool (BOT)) to help automated terminals develop their short- and long-term strategies and to answer research-related questions, such as “What characteristics are needed to be considered for the implementation of automation in a terminal?”. 2. Types of Automated Terminals The first step of the digital transformation (first generation) was taken in the 1980s with the emergence of electronic data interchange (EDI) systems and the development of the first terminal operating systems (TOS) [ 4 ], laying the foundation for automated terminal planning. The adoption by operators of new handling technologies (sensors and laser technologies) and the integration of data obtained from them led to the establishment of automated terminals in the 1990s and in 2000 (second generation) [ 5 ]. The performance of the ports of Hong Kong and Singapore is close to meeting the definition of fifth generation criteria. On the contrary, in light of the majority of the evaluation criteria’s performance, the ports of Busan and Shanghai are still behind the 5GP stage [6]. The concept of “automated terminal” was coined after the commissioning, in 1993, of ECT Delta Terminal in the Port of Rotterdam, referring to the terminal in which operations relating to yard movements, storage equipment, and quay–patio interconnection have been automated [7]. According to the different degrees of automation of the main movements (yard, dock-yard) the terminals are classified into automated, semi-automated and manual terminals. A semi-automated terminal will be one in which the storage or interconnection equipment is automated. However, the term “semi-automatization” is also associated with the management of equipment by assisted control or the systematization of some of the functions of the equipment by means of minor or partial automatizations [3]. Following this classical classification, Figure 1presents the main automated terminals, which are numbered according to the chronological order of operation. Based on this chronology, Table 1shows the automation technology and the handling equipment used by them, such as ARMG (Automated Rail Mounted Gantry), C-ARMG (Cantilever ARMG), ASC (Automated Stacking Crane), ARTG (Automated Rubber Trued Gantry Crane), or AGV (Automated Guide Vehicle). The terminal column represents the name (company) and country of the study terminal; the equipment column represents the set of equipment that make up the terminal; and the type column represents the type of terminal according to its degree of automation, (A) being the fully automated and (S) being the semi-automated. The traditional conception of an automated terminal responds to the use of automated equipment mainly in the storage subsystem and in the interconnection subsystem. However, the delivery and reception system is where the highest degree of automation has been implemented, particularly in processes such as container and truck identification or weighing [8]. Finally, the loading and unloading system, in which the docking subsystem may be included, is the least automated. Although there are terminals that use STS cranes (Ship To Shore gantry crane) in the ship-to-shore operation, as is the case in the Rotterdam World gateway and APM Terminal Maasvlakte II terminals in Rotterdam [ 9 ]. Similarly, mooring is also subject to the replacement of moorers through the use of vacuum systems or adhesion to the hull, an example of this system was installed, for the first time in Europe, in 2013 in a mineral terminal in the port of Narvik, Norway. Logistics 2020,4, 3 3 of 14 Figure 1. Main automated and semi-automated terminals in the world. Logistics 2020,4, 3 4 of 14 Table 1. Main automated (A) and semi-automated (S) terminals in chronological order. Terminal Equipment Type ECT Europa Container Terminal –Rotterdam. Delta Terminal (1993) 137 ARMG /AGV A PSA International—Singapur. Pasir Panjang Terminal (1997) 15 OHBC Manual tractor (M.T.) +chassis S* Hutchison Ports UK (HPUK)—London Thamesport (2000) 18 ARMG M.T. +chassis S HHLA—Hamburgo. CT Altenwerder (CTA) (2001) 52 ARMG /AGV A Patrick Steevedoring—Brisbane. Fishermans Island Terminal (2002) 27 Auto SC /Auto SC A Wan Hai—Tokyo. Ohi Terminal (2003/06) 8 CARMG M.T. +chassis S Evergreen Marine Corporation—Kaoshiung. Evergreen Marine Terminal (2005) 6 CARMG M.T. +chassis S DP World—Amberes Antwerp Gateway (2007) 14 ARMG /ShC manual S Virginia International Terminal (VIT)—Portsmouth. VA Virginia int. Gateway (2007) 30 ARMG Manual cassettes S Pusan East Container Terminal—Busan. Korean Express Brusan CT (2007) 6 ARMG M.T. +chassis S ECT Europa Container Terminal—Rotterdam. Euromax terminal (2008) 58 ARMG /AGV A Tobshima container berth (TCB) company—Nagoya. Tobishima Pier South (2008) 12 ARTG AGV A Hanjin Newport—Hyundai Merchant Marine—Busan. Pusan Newport (2009/10) 41 +36 ARMG M.T. +chassis S Pusan Newport Co (DP World)—Busan. Pusan Newport (2009/12) 32 +38 CARMGM.T. +chassis S TTI Hyunday—Algeciras. Isla Verde (2010) 32 ARMG /ShC manual S TPCT—Taipei Port Container Terminal (2010) 40 CARMG M.T. +chassis S Yang Ming+Evergreen—Kaoshiung. Kao Ming Container Terminal (2010/11) 22+40 dual CARMG M.T. +chassis S HHLA—Hamburgo. CR Burchardkai (CTB) (2010/17) 15—12 ARMG SHC manual S AD Terminals—Abu Dhabi. Khalifa Container Terminal (2012) 42 ARMG /ShC S Hutchinson Port Holdings—Barcelona. BEST (2012) 48 ARMG /ShC S DP World—London Gateway 1,2/3 (2013/2016) 40 +20 ARMG /ShC S Global container Terminal—New York/New Jersey. Global Terminals (2014) 20 ARMG ShC S Trapac Inc - Long Beach. Trapac (2014) 27 ARMG/ShC A SSA—Colón Manzanillo Int. Terminal (2014) 22 ARMG S Xiamen International Port Corp—Xiamen. Halcang +Fuijang (2014) 16 ARMG /18 AGV A DP WOrld—Brisbane (2014) 14 ARMG /ShC S HPH—Brisbane Container Terminal (2014) 12 ARMG /ShC S SICT HPH—Sydney Inter. Container Terminal (2014) 12 ARMG /ShC S Lamong Bay Terminal/Petikemas Semarang—Surabaya. Pelindo III (2014/16) 20 ARMG +11 ARTG S DP World—Dubai. Jebel Ali Container Terminal 3/4 (2014/18) 60 +35 ARMG S APM Terminal—Rotterddam. APMT Maaskvlakte II (2015) 54 ARGM 36+Lift AGVs A DP/World—Rotterdam World Gateway (2015) 32 ARMG /AGV A Patrick Steevedoring—Sydney Autostrad (2015) 44 AutoSC /AutoSC A Port of Singapur Authority—PSA PPT 3-1a T%, 3-1b, 3-2b (2015/2016) 22+34+72 CARMG M.T. +chassis S* Logistics 2020,4, 3 5 of 14 Table 1. Cont. Terminal Equipment Type Long Beach CT Inc.—CT Middle Harbor (2016) 32 ARMG A SSA Mexico—Tuxpan Port Terminal (TPT) (2016) 8 ASC /M.T. +chassis S Hanjin Incheon Container Terminal—Incheon (2016) 14 ARMG S APM Terminals - Veracruz Lázaro Cárdenas T2 (2016) 22 ARMG S Peel Ports—Liverpool2 (2016) 22 CARMG S* VICTCL/ICTSI—Melbourne. Victoria Int. CT (2016/17) 32 ARMG /11 AutoShC A Shangai International Port Group—Shangai. Yangshan Fase 4 (2017) 40 ARMG /50 AGV A QQCTN—Qingdao. Qianwai CT (2018) 38 ARMG /38 AGV A APM Terminals—VADO. Liguere (2019) 21 ARMG M.T. +chassis S APM Terminals—Tanger Med 2 (2019) 32 ARMG /ShC S * Ports with semi-automatic terminals but with equipment they use for experiments. Source: Own elaboration with data from “Puertos del Estado”. A paper investigates crane scheduling problems for a new type of automated container terminal system, which is based on multi-storey frame bridges. For the new design concept, the paper studies how to schedule two types of cranes, i.e., quay cranes and bridge cranes that transfer containers between different storeys [ 10 ]. Another paper makes an explorative study to identify the challenges and opportunity for it to be applied in transshipment hubs [11]. Most of the operational problems in container terminals are strongly interconnected. A paper study of the integrated Berth Allocation and Quay Crane Assignment Problem in seaport container terminals can be found in [12]. 3. Methodology The analysis and diagnosis of automated container terminals has been approached using the BOT (Business Observation Tool) model. It is a management tool, an alternative to PESTEL (Political, Economic, Social, Technological, Ecological, Legal), which allows, through observation, for the initiation and recognition of those minimum elements that must be considered to formulate and implement the business idea. The model is based on the establishment of four main scenarios: Motivations and Capacities (resources) to advance, Establishment of the working group, Characterize and understand the development environment, and Macro-environment analysis; through which, the boundary is obtained and the conditions of the BOT analysis are carried out, identifying the conditioning factors of the automation in the terminals and requirements that must be raised to achieve automation in the ports. In this article, the BOT. methodology has been used as an alternative to traditional analyses such as PESTEL or the development of the SWOT (Strength-Weaknesses-Opportunities-Threats) matrix. The use of this tool allows us to establish the current scenario on which to act to achieve a correct implementation of port terminals, addressing and considering both micro and macro environmental aspects. This article is the first inclusion of the BOT methodology in the port sector. The possibility of being used as a tool for strategic decision making has been cited in the hotel sector to study its economic and financial viability [ 13 ] and to analyze the inherent risks; and in the construction of an entrepreneurial culture in Ecuador [14]. The BOT. is a tool that is widely used in the business sector, but can be applied to any sector, provided that the methodology defined by the BOT. is used correctly. It is therefore applicable in the port sector when terminal operators make decisions to automate (to a greater or lesser degree) their port terminals. Logistics 2020,4, 3 6 of 14 3.1. Step 1: BOT Analysis Based on the state of the art, description of the BOT analysis in a figure, with the four qualities to be studied within the analysis and how they relate to each other (Figure 2). Figure 2. Business Observation Tool (BOT) Analysis. Source: own elaboration based on slideshare.net Álvaro Morales. 3.1.1. Motivations and Resources to Advance Motivations and resources are usually the most important scenarios. Therefore, they usually allow the viability of the project and to be able to execute it with a high impact. The development of the project requires determining the motivation to opt for such a solution and the study of available resources for which the following questions must be answered: What is the motivation to develop the project and do it with a high impact? What resources are available to develop this project? 3.1.2. Establishment of the Working Team Through the analysis of the composition of the labour network, taking into account both the knowledge and skills of each agent involved (port operators and agents related to port operations) and the shortcomings they may have to carry out the plan, the work teams are configured, determining the needs and requirements of the team members, in order to achieve the success of the project. In other words, this scenario must respond to What are and how can the talents of each team member be harnessed in favor of the project? 3.1.3. Characterize and Understand the Development Environment The understanding of the environment, thanks to the determination of those external factors that indicate its implementation and development, facilitates the establishment of the implementation mechanism and strategies. Their determination is addressed by answering the following question: What external characteristics to the project can alter decisions and strategies formulated in the future? 3.1.4. Macroenvironment Analysis The study of the macroenvironment, also known as the generic environment, is based on obtaining those technological, socio-cultural, economic, political and environmental factors that may condition Logistics 2020,4, 3 7 of 14 or intervene in the achievement of the project: What characterizes the observed environment; and; How it can be used to favor the project? 3.2. Step 2: Selection of Indicators Once the scenarios that make up the analysis have been completed, the indicators with the greatest impact on the business model are selected to measure the activity of the automated operations. Table 2presents the indicators selected to characterize the four scenarios. Table 2. Definition of the characterization indicators based on BOT scenarios. Scenarios Indicator Definition Motivations Operational improvement Increased productivity, thanks to a better occupation and layout of the yard and the development of methodical and orderly operations. Faced with these improvements, the little flexibility they present requires the establishment of mechanisms to facilitate decision-making in unscheduled situations. Economic profitability Reductions in operating costs should allow the high initial investment required to be amortized. Safety The elimination of the human factor makes it possible to reduce errors in the handling of goods, and therefore, an increase in safety. Sustainability Sustainability criteria established in the port system, need to decouple the growth of the sector with the negative effects on the social environment and the environment Resources Institutional support Organisms and public entities advocate for the transformation and incorporation of new technologies in order to achieve a more competitive system. Economic agents Cross investment confluence Enabling tools Availability in the market of the necessary technology. Knowledge Experience Personnel not equipped with experience in the performance of new roles Formation Inadequate and obsolete in the face of new needs Information Lack of access to correct information Skills Flexibility Difficulty adapting, reacting and responding.The flexibility comes from a cooperative agreement between the terminal operator and the liner shipping company [15]. Goods handling Interference of operations. Automation allows to reduce the number of housekeeping movements. Incident management Align people with the strategy, communication between the various members and between all levels of the organization Work Team Implication Inclusion and internalization of the project Communication Align people with the strategy, communication between the various members and between all levels of the organization. Information processing Exchange of documents in physical and digital format, with a multitude of interfaces between sender and recipient History Paradigm shift Evolution of the “Port” concept Ports 4.0 Digital, intelligent and smart ports Technological Incorporation Transposition of technology applied to other sectors (blockchain) People Multiplicity of agents Port community conformed of private and public agents. Acceptance of change Opposition of stevedoring personnel to automation Collaboration between agents Disparate objectives that do not converge, resulting in a conflict of interest [16] Place Link in logistics chains Acceptance of the port as a node in the logistics chain, eliminating bottlenecks. Maturity of the port system Consolidation of ports Transparency System opacity Logistics 2020,4, 3 8 of 14 Table 2. Cont. Scenarios Indicator Definition Technological Technological maturity Solid fundamentals and verified developed solutions Obsolescence Emergence of new technologies as a result of research Implementation mechanisms Lack of protocols and methodology to facilitate the implementation of technology Research Research initiatives must be accompanied by pilot tests certifying their adequacy. Socio-cultural Training of personnel Unskilled personnel Support for trade union strength The current union strength in the ports and their reluctance to change is a handicap for the adoption of automated terminals. Reconversion The change in the management model of the terminals implies a reconversion of the workers to technological profiles Safety The elimination of the human factor in operations means an increase in safety, however, in many terminals today people interact with automated and manual equipment, increasing the probability of error Environmental Decarbonization The European Environment Agency (EEA) [ 17 ] estimates that shipping has increased its greenhouse gas emissions by 22% from 1990 to 2016. Faced with this increase, the OECD (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development) has established measures supported by the use of new technologies to achieve the decarbonization of maritime transport by 2035 [5]. Reduction of externalities Negative externalities, such as congestion, accidents and pollution (atmospheric, acoustic, and visual) can be mitigated with the implementation of automated terminals due to the more rational use of space, the use of electrical equipment, and the programming of removal operations in such a way that they do not intervene in the operation of the terminal. Energy efficiency Many ports and terminals endeavor to enhance energy efficiency as energy prices have increased through years and climate change mitigation is a key target for the port industry [18]. Political Institutional Impulse Organisms and public entities advocate for transformation. Regulatory requirements Hardening of regulations Economical Lobbies Faced with the possibility of a new economic slowdown and the risk of implementing automated terminals, investments have been reduced. Financing Search for alternative financing Community aid European funding with high requirements for its granting. Source: Own elaboration. 3.3. Step 3: Qualitative-Quantitative Analysis Qualitative-quantitative analysis will be carried out on the basis of the selected indicators. Depending on the scope or level of the achievement of each indicator considered, each indicator will be scored qualitatively and quantitatively. These scores will be made by a group of experts in the sector in which they score the indicator according to the ratio and impact required for automation: •High degree of achievement: “High”—5 •Medium range: “Medium”—2.5 •Low range: “Low”—1 The quantification of each indicator and, therefore, of each scenario, through its weighting, forms the basis on which strategic decisions must be taken for the implementation and achievement of objectives.