It is obvious that not only the management system or model itself, but also a number of other factors determine the ability of seaports, as traditional links in transport chains in land-sea relations, to adapt to the role of efficient and effective links in the system of global maritime supply chains, managed effectively by a single operator external to them.
Modern seaports, as centers of production for a wide package of transport, logistics, commercial, and other derivative services operating under strong competitive pressure, must constantly adapt in technical and technological aspects to the requirements of shippers and transport-logistics operators at the cost of huge capital expenditures. They must often satisfy the highly individualized needs of their clients, relating both to cost and handling time requirements, as well as their organization and information standards regarding the comprehensive handling of transport means and cargo. However, not all ports, even those well-equipped technically and connected by a dense transport network with their hinterland and foreland, can meet the high expectations of their clients. An absolute requirement in this case is not only the adaptation of the port’s real sphere (technical-production processes and work organization) to existing needs, but also its regulatory sphere, that is, the administration and management system. Sometimes this second aspect plays a dominant role and is the deciding factor in the port’s success – its competitive position on the market and its place in the global supply chain system.
It seems, at first glance, that it is easier and faster to adapt a port management system with its typical port authority operating model to the challenges generated by its environment. However, as practice shows, in most cases, it is exactly the opposite. The implementation of new technologies and the modernization of production processes occur faster than the introduction of new organization and management forms in ports. As a result, in some ports, there is a significant gap on one hand between the management and administrative sphere and the operational one; and on the other, between the functions, tasks, and goals of the port management entity and the operators of global supply chains, who are interested in their flexible and effective management.
One cannot overlook the fact that port operators, especially private ones, are generally more strongly oriented towards all market challenges and – consequently – the requirements of global supply chain operators. They are more receptive to innovations and new organizational solutions, more flexible and willing to take operational risks than port authorities, which in effect leads to their faster integration into the supply chain system. For this reason, in many ports, supply chain operators focus mainly on the operational sphere – in essence, only on selected terminal operators, sometimes bypassing port authorities, especially when they focus excessively on intra-port (vertical) relations.
This type of situation creates a number of negative consequences for the port authority and the port as such, as well as for the supply chain operator. However, it is particularly unfavorable for the port, which in such circumstances may irreversibly lose previously gained competitive advantages. Hence, wanting to avoid such consequences, ports strive hard to effectively adapt to the requirements of the supply chain manager, adjusting their management systems and business organization models not only to their internal, operational needs, but above all to external ones, determined by SCM standards.
Such a strategy, oriented towards developing the best possible position in the supply chain network system, as a natural and only long-term orientation for these facilities, can, however, be effectively implemented only by so-called fourth-generation ports (Table 2).
Other ports that have not yet reached this stage of development, mainly so-called first and second-generation ports (Table 2), are absolutely incapable of implementing it. In turn, third-generation ports, which still function to a large extent in a traditional way and are unable to fully adapt to the standards created by global supply chain operators, can already apply this strategy, but without a guarantee of success (Table 2).
Taking into account the fact that, with the exception of the world’s leading container ports in Asia, North America, and Europe, which concentrate the bulk of unitized cargo flows and actually function as global logistics platforms, most European ports classified as “A” category ports can be classified at most into the III generation port group (Table 2). Many of them, however, are still below this threshold and are realistically II generation ports, and thus in practice very far from the needs and expectations of logistics operators and entities managing supply chains. To meet these expectations (JIT, ECR, SCM requirements) at least to a minimal degree, they must make significant changes in all areas of their activity.
The article comes from the magazine “Logistyka” 2/2010.