Analysis of seaports development strategies: science, technology, education and marketing

Authors

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.15587/2312-8372.2018.133938

Keywords:

transport infrastructure, world port market, competitive market map, conditions of deregulation

Abstract

The paper investigates the development of domestic and foreign seaports in conditions of growth of global competition, implementation of aggressive policies and strategies by competitors. The most problematic aspects in improving the performance of modern functions by seaports (integration, service, image) are: ignorance of interests of key stakeholders, insufficient use of all development factors, lack of understanding of global trends and competitive conditions for infrastructure development and its interconnections with land infrastructure; which are incorporated in strategies.

The research study of scientific and analytical works and strategies for seaports’ development at the level of industry and enterprises, used methodology for constructing competitive map of global port market, systematization of factors and generalization of modern techniques for studying trends and features of seaports’ development, and micro- and macroeconomic indicators of their activities.

As a result, the list of stakeholders of seaports’ development was defined, a matrix of developmental factors was offered and competitive maps of world port market with positions of countries and ports were constructed. The analysis of competitive maps revealed significant asymmetries in dynamics and size of market segments of seaports and countries, which results from implementation of unique national, regional and local strategies. The key factor of their development is the active use of public-private partnerships, scientific and educational, technological and marketing factors. Global trends (containerization, ecologization and decentralization) are revealed and recommendations on key development indicators are proposed:

  • revision of the role of the state;
  • consideration of interests of stakeholders;
  • deregulation;
  • joining of systematic and individual approaches to each port;
  • improving the quality of monitoring and developing interrelations with the scientific and educational systems;
  • application of marketing tools. Their implementation in developmental strategies will improve efficiency of use of seaports in Ukraine and related industries.

Author Biographies

Denys Ilnytskyy, Kyiv National Economic University named after Vadym Hetman, 54/1, Peremogy ave., Kyiv, Ukraine, 03057

Doctor of Economic Sciences, Associate Professor

Department of International Economics

Sergii Zinchenko, Mariupol Institute of the Interregional Academy of Personnel Management, 62, Gromovoy str., Mariupol, Ukraine, 87556

PhD

Department of Personnel Management and Labor Economics

Oleksandr Savych, Kyiv National Economic University named after Vadym Hetman, 54/1, Peremogy ave., Kyiv, Ukraine, 03057

PhD, Associate Professor

Department of Marketing

Oleksandr Yanchetskyy, Azov Maritime Institute of the National University «Odessa Maritime Academy», 19, Chernomorskaya str., Mariupol, Ukraine, 87517

Postgraduate Student

Department of Sea Transportation

References

  1. Readiness for the Future of Production Report 2018. (2018). World Economic Forum, 266. Available at: http://www3.weforum.org/ docs/FOP_Readiness_Report_2018.pdf. Last accessed: 18.01.2018.
  2. Lagoudis, I. N., Jr, J. B. R., Salminen, J. B. (2014). Port Investment Strategies under Uncertainty: The Case of a Southeast Asian Multipurpose Port. The Asian Journal of Shipping and Logistics, 30 (3), 299–319. doi: http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajsl.2014.12.003
  3. Lachininskiy, S. S., Semenova, I. V. (2015). Pozitsionirovanie mirovogo primorskogo goroda Sankt-Peterburga v Baltiyskom regione. Baltiyskiy region, 3, 62–75.
  4. Kim, D. (2012). A Comparison of Efficiency with Productivity Criteria for European Container Ports. The Asian Journal of Shipping and Logistics, 28 (2), 183–202. doi: http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajsl.2012.08.003
  5. Aerts, G., Grage, T., Dooms, M., Haezendonck, E. (2014). Public-Private Partnerships for the Provision of Port Infrastructure: An Explorative Multi-Actor Perspective on Critical Success Factors. The Asian Journal of Shipping and Logistics, 30 (3), 273–298. doi: http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajsl.2014.12.002
  6. Ahn, W., Lee, C., Han, J. (2014). A Study on the Securement of the Competitiveness of Gyeong-In Port. The Asian Journal of Shipping and Logistics, 30 (2), 243–264. doi: http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajsl.2014.09.006
  7. Fremont, A., Gressier, C., Van Cornewal, P. et al. (2017). Ports strategy and logistics challenges: What are the levers for long term vitality? Five guidelines for improving the competitiveness of French seaports – TDIE – Document presented during the Conference of 11 October 2016: «Ports strategy and logistics challenges: what are the levers for long term vitality». TDIE Research Council, 56. Available at: http://tdie.eu/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/Ports-strategy-and-logistics-challenges-TDIE-report-Oct.-2016.pdf. Last accessed: 15.01.2018.
  8. Sayareh, J., Alizmini, H. R. (2014). A Hybrid Decision-Making Model for Selecting Container Seaport in the Persian Gulf. The Asian Journal of Shipping and Logistics, 30 (1), 75–95. doi: http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajsl.2014.04.004
  9. Hanaoka, S., Regmi, M. B. (2011). Promoting intermodal freight transport through the development of dry ports in Asia: An environmental perspective. IATSS Research, 35 (1), 16–23. doi: http://doi.org/10.1016/j.iatssr.2011.06.001
  10. Galvao, C. B., Wang, G. W. Y., Mileski, J. (2016). Public-Private Interests and Conflicts in Ports: A Content Analysis Approach. The Asian Journal of Shipping and Logistics, 32 (1), 13–22. doi: http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajsl.2016.03.002
  11. Jeevan, J., Salleh, N., Loke, K., Saharuddin, A. H. (2017). Preparation of dry ports for a competitive environment in the container seaport system: A process benchmarking approach. International Journal of e-Navigation and Maritime Economy, 7, 19–33. doi: http://doi.org/10.1016/j.enavi.2017.06.003
  12. Notteboom, T., Yang, Z. (2017). Port governance in China since 2004: Institutional layering and the growing impact of broader policies. Research in Transportation Business & Management, 22, 184–200. doi: http://doi.org/10.1016/j.rtbm.2016.09.002
  13. Ilnytskyy, D. O., Zinchenko, S. H. (2017). Poshuk idealnoi modeli transportno-tekhnolohichnoi systemy portu: kompetentnisnyi vymir. Visnyk Odeskoho natsionalnoho universytetu. Seriia «Ekonomika», 22 (5 (58)), 87–97.
  14. Song, D.-W., Lee, S.-W. (2017). Port governance in Korea: Revisited. Research in Transportation Business & Management, 22, 27–37. doi: http://doi.org/10.1016/j.rtbm.2016.11.002
  15. Hamzah, S., Adisasmita, S. A., Harianto, T., Pallu, M. S. (2014). Private Involvement in Sustainable Management of Indonesian Port: Need and Strategy with PPP Scheme. Procedia Environmental Sciences, 20, 187–196. doi: http://doi.org/10.1016/j.proenv.2014.03.025
  16. Chen, S.-L., Jeevan, J., Cahoon, S. (2016). Malaysian Container Seaport-Hinterland Connectivity: Status, Challenges and Strategies. The Asian Journal of Shipping and Logistics, 32 (3), 127–138. doi: http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajsl.2016.09.001
  17. Sugawara, J. (2017). Port and hinterland network: a case study of the Crescent Corridor intermodal freight program in the US. Transportation Research Procedia, 25, 916–927. doi: http://doi.org/10.1016/j.trpro.2017.05.466
  18. Calderon, M., Illing, D., Veiga, J. (2016). Facilities for Bunkering of Liquefied Natural Gas in Ports. Transportation Research Procedia, 14, 2431–2440. doi: http://doi.org/10.1016/j.trpro.2016.05.288
  19. Thomson, H., Corbett, J. J., Winebrake, J. J. (2015). Natural gas as a marine fuel. Energy Policy, 87, 153–167. doi: http://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2015.08.027
  20. Exports of goods and services. Worldbank Statistics database. World Bank Group. Available at: https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NE.EXP.GNFS.ZS. Last accessed: 17.01.2018.
  21. Manginas, V., Manoli, S., Nathanail, E. (2017). Enhancing sustainable mobility: A business model for the Port of Volos. Transportation Research Procedia, 24, 275–279. doi: http://doi.org/10.1016/j.trpro.2017.05.118
  22. Bogusz, W., Artur, K. (2016). Conditions for Developing a Port City Transport Infrastructure Illustrated with the Example of Szczecin Agglomeration. Transportation Research Procedia, 16, 566–575. doi: http://doi.org/10.1016/j.trpro.2016.11.053
  23. Libardo, A., Parolin, A. (2012). Multicriteria Analysis Evaluating Venice Port Development. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 48, 2545–2554. doi: http://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.06.1225
  24. Awad-Nunez, S., Gonzalez-Cancelas, N., Camarero-Orive, A. (2014). Application of a Model based on the Use of DELPHI Methodology and Multicriteria Analysis for the Assessment of the Quality of the Spanish Dry Ports Location. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 162, 42–50. doi: http://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.12.184
  25. Gogas, M., Adamos, G., Nathanail, E. (2017). Assessing the performance of intermodal city logistics terminals in Thessaloniki. Transportation Research Procedia, 24, 17–24. doi: http://doi.org/10.1016/j.trpro.2017.05.061
  26. Esmemr, S., Ceti, I. B., Tuna, O. (2010). A Simulation for Optimum Terminal Truck Number in a Turkish Port Based on Lean and Green Concept. The Asian Journal of Shipping and Logistics, 26 (2), 277–296. doi: http://doi.org/10.1016/s2092-5212(10)80006-9
  27. Review of Maritime Transport 2017. (2017). United Nations Conference on Trade and Development. Available at: http://unctad.org/en/pages/PublicationWebflyer.aspx?publicationid=1890. Last accessed: 18.01.2018.
  28. Financial statements. Ukrainian Sea Ports Authority. Available at: http://www.uspa.gov.ua/en/financial-statements. Last accessed: 19.01.2018.
  29. Sutomo, H., Soemardjito, J. (2012). Assessment Model of the Port Effectiveness and Efficiency (Case Study: Western Indonesia Region). Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 43, 24–32. doi: http://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.04.074
  30. Saxon, S., Stone, M. (2017). Container shipping: The next 50 years. Travel, Transport & Logistics, 36. Available at: https://www.safety4sea.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/McKinsey-Container-shipping-The-next-50-years-2017_10.pdf. Last accessed: 20.01.2018.
  31. Trade and tariff data. The World Trade Organization (WTO). Available at: https://www.wto.org/english/res_e/statis_e/statis_e.htm. Last accessed: 19.01.2018.
  32. Rudjanakanoknad, J., Suksirivoraboot, W., Sukdanont, S. (2014). Evaluation of International Ports in Thailand through Trade Facilitation Indices from Freight Forwarders. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 111, 1073–1082. doi: http://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.01.142
  33. Seo, J., Ha, Y. (2010). The Role of Port Size and Incentives in the Choice of Location by Port Users: A Game-Theoretic Approach. The Asian Journal of Shipping and Logistics, 26 (1), 49–65. doi: http://doi.org/10.1016/s2092-5212(10)80011-2
  34. The Port-city Universities League Secretariat. Yokohama National University. Available at: http://www.pul.ynu.ac.jp. Last accessed: 20.01.2018.
  35. Bagocius, V., Zavadskas, K. E., Turskis, Z. (2013). Multi-Criteria Selection of a Deep-Water Port in Klaipeda. Procedia Engineering, 57, 144–148. doi: http://doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2013.04.021
  36. Ambrosino, D., Sciomachen, A. (2014). Location of Mid-range Dry Ports in Multimodal Logistic Networks. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 108, 118–128. doi: http://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.12.825
  37. Bellsola Olba, X., Daamen, W., Vellinga, T., Hoogendoorn, S. P. (2015). Simulating the Port Wet Infrastructure: Review and Assessment. Transportation Research Procedia, 10, 683–693. doi: http://doi.org/10.1016/j.trpro.2015.09.022
  38. Gianfranco, F., Claudia, P., Patrizia, S., Paolo, F. (2014). Port Cooperation Policies in the Mediterranean Basin: An Experimental Approach Using Cluster Analysis. Transportation Research Procedia, 3, 700–709. doi: http://doi.org/10.1016/j.trpro.2014.10.049
  39. Urbanyi-Popiolek, I., Klopott, M. (2016). Container Terminals and Port City Interface – A Study of Gdynia and Gdansk Ports. Transportation Research Procedia, 16, 517–526. doi: http://doi.org/10.1016/j.trpro.2016.11.049
  40. Comprehensive Annual Financial Report. (June 30, 2017 and 2016). Port of Los Angeles, 115. Available at: https://www.portoflosangeles.org/Publications/Annual_Financial_Report_FY_2016-17.pdf. Last accessed: 20.01.2018.
  41. The experts – CMA CGM ACADEMY: An in-house university with its sights set on the future. (2017/2018). CMA CGM. Available at: https://www.cma-cgm.com/media/magazine-article/26/the-experts-cma-cgm-academy-an-in-house-university-with-its-sights-set-on-the-future. Last accessed: 20.01.2018.
  42. Lindstad, H., Eskeland, G. S. (2015). Low carbon maritime transport: How speed, size and slenderness amounts to substantial capital energy substitution. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 41, 244–256. doi: http://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2015.10.006
  43. Merk, O. (Ed.). The Competitiveness of Global Port-Cities: Synthesis Report. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. Available at: https://www.oecd.org/cfe/regional-policy/Competitiveness-of-Global-Port-Cities-Synthesis-Report.pdf. Last accessed: 18.01.2018.
  44. Li, J., Jiang, B. (2014). Cooperation performance evaluation between seaport and dry port; case of Qingdao port and Xi'an port. International Journal of e-Navigation and Maritime Economy, 1, 99–109. doi: http://doi.org/10.1016/j.enavi.2014.12.009
  45. Merchandise: Total trade and share, annual. UNCTADSTAT. Available at: http://unctadstat.unctad.org/wds/TableViewer/tableView.aspx?ReportId=92. Last accessed: 16.01.2018.
  46. ScienceDirect. Available at: https://www.sciencedirect.com. Last accessed: 18.01.2018.
  47. Xu, M., Chin, A. T. H. (2012). Port Governance in China: Devolution and Effects Analysis. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 43, 14–23. doi: http://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.04.073
  48. Jeon, J. W., Wang, Y., Yeo, G. T. (2016). SNA Approach for Analyzing the Research Trend of International Port Competition. The Asian Journal of Shipping and Logistics, 32 (3), 165–172. doi: http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajsl.2016.09.005
  49. Berestovoy, A. M., Zinchenko, S. G., Khlopetskaya, L. F. (2016). Problemy ekspluatatsii i remonta obektov transportno-tekhnologicheskoy sistemy morskogo porta v usloviyakh ego razvitiya. Sudovozhdenie, 26, 175–182.
  50. Kazanskaya, L. F., Bogomolova, A. V. (2012). Povyshenie effektivnosti gruzovykh perevozok na fone rosta konkurentsii. Sbornik Peterburgskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta putey soobshheniya «Sotsial'no-ekonomicheskie problemy», 4, 157–165.
  51. Otdelkin, N., Kostyunichev, D., Sikarev, S. (2008). Ekologo-ekonomicheskoe obosnovanie parametrov portovykh otkrytykh skladov dlya sypuchikh gruzov. Ekologicheskie sistemy i pribory, 6, 60–64.
  52. Klepikov, V. P. (2016). Logisticheskaya infrastruktura Azovskogo morskogo regiona v novikh usloviyakh. Logistika i upravlenie tsepyami postavok, 1, 69–79.
  53. Noskov, A. (2017). Portovaya infrastruktura stran Severnoy Afriki i ee vliyanie na integratsiyu v Sredizemnomor'e. Aziya i Afrika segodnya, 5, 21–25.
  54. Klepikov, V. P. (2018). Analiz mul'timodal'nykh perevozok v tsepyakh postavok nefti evropeyskikh stran regiona Atlantiki, Severnogo i Baltiyskogo morey. Logistika i upravlenie tsepyami postavok, 1, 3–18.
  55. Kuznetsov, A. L., Galin, A. V. (2015). Genezis modeley razvitiya portov v sovremennoy transportnoy nauke. Vestnik Gosudarstvennogo universiteta morskogo i rechnogo flota im. admirala Makarova, 2 (30), 141–153.

Downloads

Published

2018-01-23

How to Cite

Ilnytskyy, D., Zinchenko, S., Savych, O., & Yanchetskyy, O. (2018). Analysis of seaports development strategies: science, technology, education and marketing. Technology Audit and Production Reserves, 3(4(41), 10–24. https://doi.org/10.15587/2312-8372.2018.133938

Issue

Vol. 3 No. 4(41) (2018): Economics of enterprises

Section

Economics and Enterprise Management: Original Research

License

Copyright (c) 2018 Sergii Zinchenko, Denys Ilnytskyy, Oleksandr Savych, Oleksandr Yanchetskyy

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

The consolidation and conditions for the transfer of copyright (identification of authorship) is carried out in the License Agreement. In particular, the authors reserve the right to the authorship of their manuscript and transfer the first publication of this work to the journal under the terms of the Creative Commons CC BY license. At the same time, they have the right to conclude on their own additional agreements concerning the non-exclusive distribution of the work in the form in which it was published by this journal, but provided that the link to the first publication of the article in this journal is preserved.