THE INTERNET OF THINGS IN

THE PORT OF ROTTERDAM

LITERATURE REVIEW ABOUT INTERNET OF THINGS

ERASMUS UNIVERSITY ROTTERDAM

Erasmus School of Economics

Department of Economics

Supervisor: M.Streng

Name: Sander van Kersbergen

Student number: 358980

[email protected]
 Abstract
A literature review has been done to investigate the influence of the Internet of Things
development on the efficiency of container transport. Further on these changes will be
applied to the Port of Rotterdam, giving their influences on the changed competitive
position.
By conducting a literature review applications of the Internet of Things will be identified. This
will contribute to increased efficiency. Main focus will be on changes influenced by the
opportunities for improvement in Port Community system and Intelligent containers. These
efficiency changes will be applied to the current competitive position of the Port of
Rotterdam. Part of this analysis will come from a conducted interview.
The first application is the real-time tracking of containers. Secondly, container information
can be used for optimal stacking. Thirdly, the Internet of Things eases the transition to
automated terminals. Fourthly, the handling time customs need can be shortened. Finally,
the increased data exchange gives the possibility to optimize and change the supply chain.
However, there are three major threats that can endanger the implementation of the
Internet of Things in the port of Rotterdam. These are security risks, support for changes and
shifts in the economic spectrum.
Summarizing, the potential influence of the five aforementioned IT developments has
profound consequences for the efficiency of container shipping in the port of Rotterdam if
the three threats can be tackled. Leading parties in the development should be The Port of
Rotterdam Authority and Portbase. By stimulating other parties to keep up with the
evolution of the Internet of Things they can help make Rotterdam the most attractive port
compared to its two main rivals, Hamburg and Antwerp. Rotterdam’s exquisite geographical
location contributes here as well.

1
 Table of contents
Abstract ................................................................................................................................................................... 1
Introduction ............................................................................................................................................................ 3
Introduction ........................................................................................................................................................ 3
Research Question .............................................................................................................................................. 3
Structure of this research ................................................................................................................................... 4
Literature Review .................................................................................................................................................... 5
Container transport: ........................................................................................................................................... 5
Seaports as hubs............................................................................................................................................. 5
Players in container transportation................................................................................................................ 6
Port competition ................................................................................................................................................. 7
Port Efficiency ................................................................................................................................................. 7
IT-development .................................................................................................................................................. 9
Internet of Things ........................................................................................................................................... 9
Port Community System ................................................................................................................................. 9
Rotterdam .................................................................................................................................................... 11
Changes due to the Internet of Things ............................................................................................................. 12
Security benefits ........................................................................................................................................... 13
Monitoring benefits...................................................................................................................................... 14
Methodology ......................................................................................................................................................... 14
Empirical Analysis:................................................................................................................................................. 15
Competitive position ........................................................................................................................................ 15
Implementation of Changes ............................................................................................................................. 16
Port-level: ..................................................................................................................................................... 16
Supply Chain Level ........................................................................................................................................ 17
Threats for development ...................................................................................................................................... 20
Security Risk ...................................................................................................................................................... 20
Support ............................................................................................................................................................. 20
Economic shifts ................................................................................................................................................. 21
Conclusion ............................................................................................................................................................ 22
Recommendations: ........................................................................................................................................... 23
Limitations ........................................................................................................................................................ 24
Further Research .............................................................................................................................................. 25
List of References .................................................................................................................................................. 26
Appendices ............................................................................................................................................................ 31
Appendix 1: Classification of the services according to target group and market sector ................................ 31
Appendix 2: Terminal statistics ......................................................................................................................... 32
Appendix 3: Interview questions H.Rook .......................................................................................................... 33

2
 Introduction
Introduction
The Netherlands is the home of the largest port of Europe: the port of Rotterdam. This is
also the largest container port in Europe, with an annual throughput of 12.304.876 TEU’s in
2014 (Port Of Rotterdam, 2015). However, it’s global position is becoming less important.
From once being the largest port Rotterdam now has become the twelfth largest port
worldwide, with rivals coming close to overtake this position (Vossers, 2015). One can
conclude that Rotterdam is not able to compete anymore with ports worldwide. Its position
as largest port of Europe is at risk also. Hamburg and Antwerp are firm competitors in the
race for market share. Losing a lot of market share is not an option; the port is accountable
for 3.5 percent of the Dutch economy (Vossers, 2015). It is one of the most important
economic hubs in the Netherlands, so losing its strong position would mean a decrease in
the whole Dutch economy. Keeping ahead of the rivals is an important matter.
Another trend in the last 15 years is the upcoming use of the internet. Since the
implementation during the 90’s it became an essential source, influencing almost everything
around us. It became an indispensable factor in the logistics-sector, ports included.
According to some scientists we are upon a new revolution, called the Internet of Things. An
Internet of Things society is a place where every physical object is connected and exchanging
information with other objects in a network. Less than one percent of its potential is as yet
implemented. The total potential is estimated to be 1.5 trillion objects (DHL & Cisco, 2015).
It can also be applied to the logistics and supply chains. It is estimated that the Internet of
Things can create a value of 1.9 trillion dollars in this sector (DHL & Cisco, 2015). One can
conclude that the potential of this future trend is enormous. This paper aims to give insight
in the influence of implementation of the Internet of Things to container transportation, and
more specifically the efficiency of container transportation. The effects on efficiency on
ports itself will be examined, and in addition two major changes in the supply chain will be
covered in this research. Chosen is to apply the changes to the port of Rotterdam.
This research paper will focus on container transport for numerous reasons. Since it has
been the fastest growing commodity in the port of Rotterdam, it is socially and economically
relevant to study developments in this field (De Langen & Nijdam, 2012). Furthermore it has
some practical reasons. Containers are the commodity where implantation of new
information technology can be applied most easily due to its nature. Its standardized size
and fixed walls make it easy to attach sensors. In this way containers will probably become
the precursor when implementing these new technologies.

Research Question
This paper will be answering the following question
What is the influence of the Internet of Things-development on the efficiency of container
transportation?

3
 Structure of this research
Due to the lack of data available this paper will consist of a literature review.
The research will cover three major parts. The first part will be the literature review.
Container transport will be introduced and the role of ports in container chains will be
discussed. The main players in container ports as well as main port determinants for
container carriers will complement the container stage. It continues with the Internet of
Things development. This topic will be introduced, when two key elements will be discussed:
the Intelligent container and the Port community system.
The second part will be the empirical analysis, in which the benefits of the IoT
developments will follow, giving the applications of the development. When the benefits are
discussed they will be applied to the current situation of Rotterdam. Also the risks will be
examined, giving a veracious view.
The conclusion will consist of the most important risks and benefits of implementation.
Furthermore an attempt will be made to predict if Rotterdam is able to hold its competitive
position, with a recommendation for the development of IoT in Rotterdam.

4
 Literature Review
Container transport:
During the 1950’s an American truck-company owner named Malcom McLean started using
containers as a method of shipping. By using a specially customized ship he was able to
transport 35 containers around the east coast of the United States, hereby avoiding the
jammed roads (Curry, 2013). In 1966 a company called Sea-Land was the first to use
containers for transatlantic shipment. By sailing from Port Elizabeth, U.S.A., to Rotterdam in
the Netherlands the first international container journey became reality. Due to the extreme
costs of investments involved with adjusting material to container usage a lot of carriers did
not change immediately to container shipment. However, later on, it turned out the
investments costs were worth their while. The shipping costs of a container compared to
traditional break-bulk shipment were lower, making it possible for companies like Sea-land
to make extraordinary profits (World Shipping Coucil, 2015). However, container
transportation was still far from ideal. Due to differently sized containers used by different
companies the transportation cycle was not optimized. During the 1960’s a standardized size
was introduced in container shipment. The twenty foot equivalent unit, TEU for short,
became the standard unit for a container. One TEU equals 20 x 8 x 8 feet. Nowadays most
containers used are equal to 2 TEU (Levinson, 2006). The standardized dimensions have
since caused a boost in the use of containers. This was accountable for making intermodal
transportation more easy. Also, it replaced the need of handling all cargo piece by piece. This
resulted in a more efficient way of transportation (Baalen, Zuidwijk, & Nunen, 2009).
Seaports as hubs
Seaports are an important hub in multiple global transportation networks. According to
Veenstra (2006) ports serve three main purposes. Firstly, ports are transhipment points.
Secondly, ports are logistic centres in supply chains. These logistic centres are specialized in
value adding activities such as transforming and re-packaging cargo. Distribution centres
near ports are a good example of such activities. Thirdly, ports serve as industrial areas.

5
 Due to the nature of container transport the first two purposes are most relevant. The port
of Rotterdam is mainly used as transhipment hub (Notteboom & Rodrigue, 2005).

Figure 1: (Baalen, Zuidwijk, & Nunen, 2009)

Players in container transportation

There are five types of organizations involved in the shipping of containers in the global
transportation networks. These are customer groups, organizing groups, physical groups,
authorization groups and financial groups (Wagenaar, 1992).
The customer groups are the senders and the receivers of the final container. The organizing
group consists of the companies which arrange the transportation of the container.
Nowadays companies outsource the transportation to specialized companies whose core
business is transportation. Examples are freight forwarders and logistic service providers.
The physical group is the group which actually handles the container and takes physical care
of the container. This group is responsible for the actual transport. Terminal operators and
carriers are examples of physical group actors. The fourth group is the authorization group,
which consists in an extended way of the government. This group sets and maintains rules in
the port, like customs and port authorities. The final group is the financial group, with banks
and insurance companies as most important actors. The financial group is responsible for the
financial actions between different groups. This research will focus on the organizing,
physical and authorization group since it focusses on the actual handling and transferring of
containers in the supply chain.
The main investors in terminal facilities for the transhipment of containers can be found in
the physical group. There are two different types of investors. The first type consists of
shipping companies with pre-destined routes. These companies are vertically integrated in
multiple chains. The shipping companies want to have their own terminals to load and
unload their own ships. Their terminals are determined for own or partner use only. The
second type of investors are the independent terminal operators. Independent terminal
operators are specialized in the loading and unloading of vessels. They have multiple

6
 customers who make use of their facilities.
The authorization group can also be seen as a main investor in port-related activities.
Contrary to the physical group investors their investments are more of a facilitating nature.
Their function is to make the port environment as interesting and safe as possible for all
actors in the port, creating a competitive playing field for private port actors.

Port competition
While the tonnage of containers that is transported is growing over time, the number of
container transfer points is also increasing (Veldman & Bückmann, 2003). This results in a
more fierce competition in the container market than other commodities. This level of
competition is caused by the nature of containers, which can be easily shifted between
ports. Port shifting will be more easy for independent carriers due to their lack of investment
in terminal facilities (De Langen & Nijdam, 2012). The shipping companies with own terminal
facilities are more conservative decision makers who will not change ports often. This is
displayed by the fact that more than 80 percent of shipping companies will not shift to other
ports if the current port is performing satisfactorily, even if other ports show a better
performance (Tongzon, 2002). Part of this nature of non-active changing between ports
consists of long-term contracts between port-authorities and shipping companies. These
contracts are making it impossible for shipping companies to change ports on a short-term
base.
The port selection process of carriers and shipping companies is influenced by multiple
factors. However, the influencing factors do not coincide in all research. Of these factors
three will be looked at more closely as main determinants for port choice: geographical
location, monetary costs and port quality.
Malchow (2004) considers geographical location as the most important factor of influence.
Port accessibility, hinterland accessibility and distance to location are parts this factor is
based on. Port accessibility will be mainly determined by the draft of a port. Due to
economies of scale that occur the size of container vessels is growing over time (Cullinane &
Khanna, 1999). In 2006 the largest vessels had a capacity of 15500 TEU, but the first 20000
TEU vessels have already been ordered (Shen, 2015). Not all ports are able to receive the
largest vessels anymore due to draft problems, so the accessibility of ports can be an
advantage. The second important determinant is monetary costs (Ng, 2006). Port charges
and terminal fees are components of this determinant. The last main factor for port choice
will be port quality (Ng, 2006). Port quality consist of multiple components. Important
factors are shipping frequency, port efficiency, port infrastructure, service quality and a good
reputation related to cargo handling (Tongzon, 2002).
Port Efficiency
This research will focus on the efficiency of ports. According to PWC & Panteia (2013) port
efficiency can be described as the correct mix and standard of port services provided with
the minimum use of resources. Time can be considered as one of these resources. The
efficiency can be determined for every distinct chain, like terminal handling or custom
handling, but also for ports altogether.

7
 As stated above, port efficiency is one of the determinants of port quality according to
Tongzon (2012). Although he argues that there is no ranking in importance of aspects of port
quality, other research debunks this. According to Clark, Dollar and Micco (2004) the most
important quality determinant is port efficiency. They found that an increase in efficiency
from 25th to 75th percentiles can lower the shipping costs with over 12%, which will result in
declining costs. This relationship is confirmed by Sanchez et al. (2003), who show a
significant relationship between port efficiency and transportation costs. So one can say that
increased efficiency leads to fewer costs.
Efficiency will also influence the environmental impact of container transportation.
Environmental issues are becoming more important in ports the last decades. This can be
displayed by the fact that in 85% of port award contracts an environmental clause is
included (PWC & Panteia, 2013). Companies are more aware of their environmental
responsibilities. Efficiency-increase can help companies in this field by making their
operations less harmful to environment and more sustainable.

8
 IT-development
Information Technology (IT) has been of vital importance for the supply chains all over the
world. Since the increased possibilities of information exchange IT has changed supply chains
radically. It starts with the exchange of data electronically, the so-called EDI, and hereby
replaces paper forms. This can be developed into whole platforms made from data exchange
between different organizations, an inter-organizational system (IOS).
Internet of Things
A major development in the IT-sector is the Internet of Things (IoT). The Internet of Things is
an environment in which all kinds of objects will communicate with each other. The IoT is a
global development which is not just applicable for port use. The potential of the IoT in
general is enormous, as it can generate a value equal to 4.6 trillion dollars for the public
sector and 14.4 trillion dollars for the private sector over the next 10 years (Bradley,
Reberger, Dixit, & Gupta, 2013). Part of this added value can be generated in ports, and
more specifically in the container transport.
The IoT environment which will be relevant for the container handling will connect all the
different parts of the supply chain via the internet. This will be the machinery, the terminals,
the containers themselves, but also human beings or inland freight transporters (Xia, Yang,
Wang, & Vinel, 2012). All these parts will provide information about their current status,
which will be retrieved by its owner. However, the extra value will be created when the
information of multiple parties is exchanged. This information exchange will happen via a
Port Community System (PCS), which is already facilitating the exchange of data in ports. If
all the data from the whole supply chain will be exchanged via a PCS, the port will become
an information hub where an enormous amount of information will be exchanged. This can
result in increased port- or terminal efficiency and an increased level of security.
Port Community System
A Port Community system (PCS) is a central platform which connects different actors in a
port community with each other. It is a standardized platform for communication in a port.
Exchanging data via a PCS will increase the efficiency of the port actors’ systems (IPCSA,
2015).
The centralized approach of using a PCS instead of different actors who operate by
themselves to exchange data has three major advantages. Firstly, the PCS will be a central
place where information exchange will occur. Multiple companies will be connected to the
PCS, hereby creating a multilateral web of connections. This avoids problems with bilateral
contact between two actors in the port community since all companies are connected via
the PCS.
The second advantage is that there is no need to retype data for specified systems. All PCS-
applications are using the same language for all actors. This means that all data that is
available in the central storage of a PCS can be used immediately, without the need to be
rewritten. It also replaces the physical documentation since only digital information is
allowed on a PCS. The electronical exchange of documentation without the need for
rewriting results in a reduction of errors and processing costs.

9
 The last advantage of a PCS is the transparency of the data. The data available will
automatically be synchronized with the latest information companies have. This will result in
the availability of up-to-date data. This data can be used perfectly for testing the efficiency
of systems and the tracking and tracing of goods. Furthermore, there will be no
misunderstandings with the usage of older data (Baalen, Zuidwijk, & Nunen, 2009).
System Architecture
A PCS generally focusses on three key factors: data capturing, data organization and data
processing.
Data Capturing
The first step of a communication system is the retrieving of relevant data. This information
can be provided by the container itself, such as location information, or facilities used for the
transportation, like terminals. The data can be obtained in two ways. Firstly, the data can be
received from other organizations and be used for further implementation. It can occur that
this information needs to be rewritten to be of any value, which can lead to processing costs.
The second option is that the organization itself retrieves the data from the container. The
data can be retrieved by barcodes or radio frequency identification (RFID), complied of small
chips with antennae for sending signals. RFID is hereby the most favourable option. In
contrast to barcodes it does not need to be positioned precisely beneath a scanner to be
read (Technovelgy, 2013). Furthermore it does not need human intervention, which is an
unpredictable factor and thus a risk in the container flow (McFarlane & Sheffi, 2003).
Another advantage of RFID is the option to write extra information on the tag. While a
barcode contains a certain amount of information an RFID tag is capable of containing even
more relevant information, which can be retrieved at a next stop.
An evolution going hand-in-hand with the development of the Internet of Things is the
evolution of a container into an intelligent object. Intelligent objects are able to
communicate and participate in systems. There are five main factors which need to be
present for an object to be considered intelligent. These requirements are that (1) it has its
own unique identity, (2) it can communicate with its environment in an effective way, (3) it is
able to contain and exchange information about itself, (4) it is capable of deploying a
language to show its current status and (5) it has the capacity to influence decisions about its
destination (Zaharudin, et al., 2002). Containers are able to contain all five of these
requirements.
The most attainable improvement in intelligent containers lies in the tracking abilities of
containers. Real-time updates of the current positioning of containers can have huge value
for the transportation of containers. These give the possibility to increase the port efficiency,
while at the same time a change in the supply chain in general of container transport may
be caused (Baalen, Zuidwijk, & Nunen, 2009) (UPS Supply Chain Solutions, 2005).
Furthermore, the real-time tracking can also be beneficial for the container security (Tsai,
2006).Intelligent containers can also be equipped with e-seals. E-seals are electronic seals
which will register whether the seal is broken or not. In combination with real-time location
data this is useful information for customs (Tenacent, 2014).

10
 Data Organization
Next from the data capturing is the exchange of data between different organizations. There
is a need to establish connections between the different actors. This can be done in various
ways. The most straightforward way is via a network with a lot of bilateral connections.
However, in a bilateral system there are a lot of connections that need to be made if one
wants to create a well-connected port community. Therefore, the solution is to create a hub.
A hub is a central platform to which all different actors are connected . In this way there are
less connections needed since an actor is able to connect to the network with just one
connection to the hub. There are multiple forms of hubs, such as private hubs or central
hubs. The characteristics of the hub are of great importance for the communication system
that is created. A private hub means the network is controlled by one strong party, while an
independent operator is the stronghold of a central hub. The central hub is thought to be
the most efficient in communities without a dominant party (Baalen, Zuidwijk, & Nunen,
2009).
Data Processing
The last part of the Port Community system is the processing of the retrieved and
communicated data. The processed data can be used for the planning of container transport.
There are four manners of planning by data from IOS. This can be done in a range varying
from intra-organization to inter-organization. It might seem that the further the cooperation
reach the more successful the planning would be, but this is not true; due to the changing
organizations in the supply chain and the fact that various organizations participate in
multiple supply chains, which involves taking a lot into account, the intra-port planning turns
out to be the most effective (Baalen, Zuidwijk, & Nunen, 2009).
Rotterdam
At the start of the 20th century the port of Rotterdam began implementing the first
universal communication system within the port. Before this date one can hardly speak of a
successful information exchange within the port. In 2002 Port Infolink was established with
as main focus the replacement of paper forms by electronic messages, resulting in both time
and monetary benefits. In 2009 Portbase was introduced, a central hub system originated
from Port Info link and the Amsterdam’ system Port Net. Both systems where used to create
a new universal system for both ports with the goal to get nationwide coverage. Up until
today Portbase is being used as communication platform for various actors in the port. There
are two shareholders, Port of Rotterdam and Havenbedrijf van Amsterdam, who made
Portbase a neutral actor without the need to generate profit. Its Advisory Board is formed by
representatives of many sectors in the port, hereby creating an independent company with
support of the port actors. This created a structure which let Portbase grow into one of the
most successful PCS in the world.
Portbase consists of three different layers; an application layer with a variety of specific
services being provided (Appendix 1), a general level which provides general facilities and a
database where all collected data comes together and are stored. In 2014 there were 72
million messages sent electronically via Portbase (Wolf, 2015).

11
 Changes due to the Internet of Things
The Internet of Things has the potential to influence the level of information-exchange via
the PCS. The main fields where the Internet of Things will lead to improvement are the data
capturing and the processing of the available data. This will lead to changes in the efficiency
level of ports, the security level and the possibilities of monitoring the transportation.
Port Efficiency
The efficiency-increase by the IoT can be gained at different stages during the supply chain.
Firstly, the real-time status of actors increases the planning possibilities and reliability. This
will be beneficial for all actors in the supply chain, and will cause an increase in time
efficiency and efficient use of facilities available during the transportation of containers.
The real-time positioning of container vessels which are planning to call in at the port gives
more information about the vessels' estimated time of arrival. The physical group, like
terminal operators, can prepare the upcoming arrival and make sure everything is set to
unload a ship when necessary. When something goes wrong en route, this information will
be transferred directly to the terminal operator. This insight in delays more early on in the
supply chain gives terminal operators the option to free up handling capacity, which will
result in an up-to-date list to align supply and demand for their facilities. The extra space
which became available by the delay can be used by other barges, which will lead to a more
efficient use of terminal resources, and hereby reduce costly downtime (Kim & Lee, 2015).
The hinterland transporters will also benefit from the status updates provide. In the same
way they can adjust their schedules to changes earlier on and hereby reduce unexpected
waiting time.
The real-time information exchange will also effect the level of congestion. Congestion is a
side-effect which can occur when an increased number of TEU is being processed at the port
of Rotterdam. Increased efficiency makes it possible for more ships to call in at the port,
causing more congestion. However, the expanded possibilities to make a reliable planning
provide possibilities to prevent congestion as well.
Congestion can happen at both terminal level and at port level. Congestion at port level
occurs when there are too many vessels or vehicles in the port, which are taking up space
needed by others. When implementing factors as traffic jams and weather forecasts into the
PCS one can predict whether an inland freight transporter is able to pick up its containers as
agreed and hereby shorten their stay in the port. By only giving access to the actors that
need to be in or around the port it should be less congested. Providing real-time updates
about processing status gives inland freight transporters the ability to adjust schedules in
time, reducing unnecessary waiting time in the port (SAP, 2014). The harbour master can
give access to those only who need to unload within a certain timespan, making it less busy.
Congestion at terminal level is caused by the rising number of TEU that needs to be
processed due to the increased number of ships that will be calling in at a port. What's more,
the trend of increased vessel capacity causes a higher peak demand for terminal operators
to process. By making terminal facilities more efficient, their capability to handle a certain
number of TEU in one hour increases without expansion of physical capacity, hereby

12
 preventing congestion. To cope with the higher peak demand without creating more
congestion a better terminal planning is needed. Part of this terminal planning deals with the
stacking of containers by terminal operators, which is the second field which suits
improvement by the Internet of Things.
The stacking planning can be optimized with information about expected pick-up time and
the modality being used for further transhipment. With containers giving signals about
destination and the modality of further transport, terminal operation systems could
implement these factors in their stacking planning. This implementation will lead to fewer
unnecessary moves by terminal cranes, making stacking facilities more efficient (Henriksson,
2015). It also makes the handling faster, resulting in a time advantage (Nextlogic, 2015).
This handling efficiency will also improve? when implementing automation in port terminals.
The Internet of Things can contribute to the development of automated terminals, which is
the third application. The increased level of data being exchanged gives unmanned terminals
more information to use with their execution. It gives feed back to the system, so it can
adjust when something may go wrong (Chui, Löffler, & Roberts, 2010). Terminals become
even faster and more predictable when they are automated (TBA, 2009). Automation in
terminal facilities can happen at three levels; ship-to-shore (STS), automated guided vehicles
(AGV) and automated stacking cranes (ASC). Automation at these level will cause more
predictability, less pollution and in the long run significantly more efficiency compared to
humanly operated terminals (City of Los Angeles Harbor Department, 2014). This will all
result in lower costs per move, giving a monetary advantage.
Security benefits
The fourth efficiency increase lays in the handling by the authorization. This increase will
most likely be obtained by the handling of customs, who can save a lot of time by better
provision of information. Nowadays almost all information forms of companies based in the
port of Rotterdam are exchanged via Portbase. This saves both time and paper and increases
reliability of the documentation. The PCS creates an opportunity to send the loading and
unloading lists before entering the port to Rotterdam based customs without the need to
hand them in by person. In this way time is saved, but also the reliability of the forms is
increased since they are written in a language which is understood by the PCS. There is no
need to retype the forms and information will be stored on a central database for further
use.
Not only will the IoT increase the time efficiency of the handling by customs, it will increase
the reliability of security. Information about whether a container has been opened can be
provided by the implementation of E-seals. Data from an E-seal is, in combination with its
location path, important information for custom services. When this information is provided
the authorization group can make better estimations about risks and the possible need of
further inspection. For example, customs are able to identify risky events during the path of
a container. The main risky events are the loading and unloading of containers,
complemented with a container which is on hold during its path (Baalen, Zuidwijk, & Nunen,
2009). E-seals and GPS trackers are able to provide information to identify these risks,
hereby creating a more secure container environment which is also time effective (Kim,
Deng, Gupta, & Murphy-Hoye, 2008).

13
 Monitoring benefits
The third key feature of a PCS is the database. This database consists of all data that has
been implemented in the PCS. Real time updates will also keep the data relevant. There are
two ways of benefitting from this situation. Governments have the possibility to gain all
information exchanged on the PCS by just joining the PCS-system themselves. Previously it
was necessary to collect data from all companies individually, making it a long process to get
a good view on port performance. It took up to six months for the CBS to give good insight in
performances of the Port of Rotterdam. By accessing the PCS database they are able to
shorten this interval to 1 month (Rook, 2015), while this information is again more reliable
due to less errors.
The shorter interval allows governments to intervene at a shorter notice if necessary, and
thus intervene in a more reliable way.
Not only governments benefit from the database storage of information. Companies
themselves have access which enables them to gain insight in processes in progress. They
can look for more efficient ways of transporting, with is the fifth efficiency benefit of the
Internet of Things. However, not all companies are willing to give that much transparency in
their confident business information.

Methodology
This research will identify the influence of the efficiency results on the competitive position
of the port of Rotterdam. Chosen is to obtain results by a literature review. There is a lack of
available data that is useful to conduct a quantitative research. This is caused by the lack of
data which is publicly available. Furthermore, the data which is available faces multiple
limitations. A lot of productivity and efficiency research focusses on single factors in the
supply chain. They ignore the efficiency and productivity between the chains, which is
something the Internet of Things could provide with improvement. Research focussing on
port efficiency in general also faces limitations. Academic research is scarce, due to the
difficulty of obtaining enough data to make statistically relevant influencing factors in
efficiency results. In addition, port efficiency research compares ports in different life-time
stages. Ports approaching their maximum capacity will be considered more efficient due to
their maximisation of output with given facilities. However, these ports may also face
congestion problems. New ports will not be considered efficient, due to their surplus in
facilities and their limited outcome (PWC & Panteia, 2013)
The empirical analysis will start with outlining the current competitive position of the Port of
Rotterdam. The quality of services will be covered, as well as the current involvement in
Internet of Things-related activities. This will be based on literature found. Thereafter, the
application of the efficiency changes due to the IoT will be adjusted to the port of
Rotterdam. This will also be based on findings from qualitative research. The empirical
analysis will be strengthened with an interview with Hans Rook, Senior Business
Development Consultant at Portbase and Chairman Standards and Technologies at the
IPCSA.

14
 Empirical Analysis:

Competitive position
Rotterdam is the largest European port for container transportation. Twenty eight percent of
total European container shipments go via Rotterdam. Its largest rivals are Antwerp and
Hamburg, which are respectively responsible for a market share of 24.2 and 22.5 percent
(Port Of Rotterdam, 2015). These three ports have at least 10 percent more market share
than their next rival, Bremerhaven, so one can speak of the three largest container ports in
Europe. Rotterdam can be characterized with the presence of all transport modalities. Most
used transport modality is by barge shipping. Because of its location barge shippers can use
both the Rhine and the Maas for inland shipping. This results in 40 percent of containers
being processed further by barge (Wu, 2011).
Rotterdam is one of the 5 ports in Western-Europe that is attainable by the largest
containerships due to the new Maasvlakte II, together with Bremen, Felixstowe, JadeWeser
Port and Gdansk (Rook, 2015). With the economies of scale which appear in container
transport these ports will be its largest rivals . Antwerp and Hamburg are ports that are more
likely to lose market share if the trend of growing vessels will continue. The port of Hamburg
has relatively old cranes, limited space and has a need to deepen the Elbe every now and
then, which will result in a less efficient handling of the containerships (JOC Port
Productivity, 2014). The port of Antwerp has problems with its attainability for the largest
ships due to the Schelde river that connects the port with open water and is facing
congestion problems (Rook, 2015). However, this change in the spectrum will be a long term
process, since shipping companies are under contract or do not see the instant need to
change. In the short-term, competition can be fierce which can be seen by the growth in
container handling of the port of Antwerp compared to Rotterdam. This growth is 2.5 times
larger than the growth in the port of Rotterdam(Barnard, 2015).
Like every big port in Europe both Antwerp and Hamburg have developed their own PCS.
The system in Antwerp is called APCS, while the Hamburg version is called Dakosy. APCS is
an older system, which will not be ready for the full implementation of an Internet of Things
environment. This lack of capability has resulted in the Port of Antwerp having chosen to
continue with its system a decade ago and not renewing the system (Rook, 2015). Dakosy on
the other hand is more comparable to PCS. It’s PCS is advanced and renewed, so it will be
able to implement all changes necessary. Furthermore, the company does not only provide a
system for ports; also airports are provided with Dakosy systems. This can be beneficial for
their development since they can implement multiple modalities in their systems.
Both ports are also active in implementing the IT-changes as much as possible (Rook, 2015).
Hamburg is the leader in this case. Together with Cisco they are planning to make Hamburg
a smart city. Since Cisco is a partner of Hamburg Port Authority they will use their
development in the port also (Cisco, 2014). Knowledge gained with other implementations
of IoT can help them make the port information system even better. Cisco started a project
called Seatropolis, which will link the port and the city to one smart hub (Elfrink, 2014).

15
 However, the implementation is still limited to urban services but it shows their eagerness in
becoming the first smart hub in the world.

Implementation of Changes

Port-level:
The five efficiency increases will influence multiple stages in the port itself:
The real time exchange of container status updates will increase the reliability of plannings
that are made by port actors. These improved plannings can reduce the level of congestion,
which is a serious problem. In 2013 the unloading of more than half of the large container
vessels worldwide had a delay of more than 12 hours. Nearly a quarter made do with more
than 24 hours of delay (JOC Port Productivity, 2014). The port of Rotterdam is no exception.
It can happen that sometimes three or four vessels are moored, waiting for a berth to
become available (Port of Rotterdam Authority, 2013). This leads to unnecessary waiting
time. Vessels arriving in Rotterdam are sometimes forced to wait up to 92 hours (Port
Strategy, 2015). This congestion can be prevented by better exchange of information.
Diminishing of downtime will also lead to an increased efficiency. The downtime between
two ships is now at least six hours (Port of Rotterdam Authority, 2013). With better
information available, this interval can be shortened by adapting to most recent
developments.
The second change will have effect at terminal level. The increased information can lead to
an adjusted stacking order of containers and hereby increase efficiency. In 2013 Rotterdam
had the 3rd and 4th most efficient terminals (EuroMax Terminal Rotterdam ECT and APM
Terminal) of Europe, Africa and the Middle-East, measured by moves per ship per hour
(Appendix 2). Both terminals reached a level of respectively 100 and 99 moves per ship per
hour. The lead in this division was taken by terminals in the United Arab Emirates, which are
able to execute up to 119 moves per hour. When comparing these numbers it shows that
some Arab terminals are able to make 20 percent more moves compared to the top
Rotterdam terminals. This shows a huge potential for improvement for terminal operators in
Rotterdam. This margin for improvement becomes even larger if one compares the top
terminals in Rotterdam to the most efficient terminals in the world: the Asian APM
Terminals in Yokohama. These terminals are able to reach a berth productivity level of 163
moves per hour. In comparison this is more than 50 percent more productive than
Rotterdam terminals.
This increase in efficiency of terminal handling can also be obtained by the usage of
automated terminals. Unmanned terminals are more predictable than human operated
terminals. They give more reliable information, such as the estimated time of departure,
which can be used for further planning. In addition, the unmanned terminals that can be
implemented have the potential to become more efficient compared to human operated
terminals. Furthermore, their production is more consistent over the long compared to
human operated terminals. This will lead to an increased efficiency-ranking. Rotterdam
currently has an almost completely automated terminal in use: the newly built APM
Terminal at Maasvlakte II. This terminal is not integrated in the efficiency ranking since it was

16
 opened only this year. The unmanned terminal should be able to compete with the top-
terminals in the world, and book better results compared to Rotterdam’s manually operated
terminals. This can cause a lead on Antwerp and Hamburg, of which only Hamburg has a port
in the most efficient terminals in the Europe/Middle East/Africa range (Eurogate terminal in
Hamburg). The most competitive rival in the Hamburg-La Havre range when considering
terminal efficiency is Bremerhaven. Bremerhaven has two ports in the top list.
Fourthly, time can be saved by the formal handling of the freight documentation by the
authorization group. Whilst Portbase is the standard communication platform for Dutch
based companies, not all ships calling in at Rotterdam are using Portbase. They do not
experience the benefits of the use of the PCS yet since they do not use it (Rook, 2015). This
can be avoided by making the use of Portbase mandatory for foreign ships, so they will
experience the same benefit as Rotterdam-based companies. Furthermore, the Rotterdam
based companies will benefit from other information transferred via the PCS. The Portbase
usage is already mandatory when entering the newly built Maasvlakte II. The terminal
facilities in this part of the port of Rotterdam, the RWG- and APM-terminal, obligates
customers to make use of the system. There are no service desks available for handing over
the forms manually. This decision by the terminal operators was an enormous boost for the
PCS, which is reflected by the increase of the number of messages that were exchanged via
Portbase. In addition to the boost it is also good marketing for its usage. The companies that
use the system are the ones who need to convince carriers to make use of the system as well
(Rook, 2015). Satisfied users will spread the word of the advantages of the use of Portbase.
As well as the documentation benefit for customs, the handling efficiency of the
authorization group can also be increased. Risk-profiles can be made more accurate due to
information about container content, container routes and the opening of containers.

Supply Chain Level

The IoT not only has the potential to change processes within the port. The increased
monitoring possibilities caused by the implementation of the IoT can also contribute to a
change in the supply chain of container transport. Two main trends at supply chain level can
benefit from the developments, which are synchro-modality and the usage of hinterland
ports.
Synchro-modality is an upcoming trend in logistics. A customer signs a contract for
transportation to a certain place without determining the modalities that will be used. It
gives the organizing group, freight forwarders and third party logistics (3PL) the ability to
choose between a range of transport modalities at any given time. The transport can be
done by multiple modalities. The organizing group will make their transport choices based
on costs- and environmental efficiency, as well as time (Walker, 2013). It gives them more
freedom to optimize the efficiency of transportation. This will also reflect on their option to
bundle cargo from multiple customers. This will make synchro-modality a more sustainable
way of transporting (BCI, 2012). In addition, it reduces the unnecessary transportation of
empty containers. This transportation of empty containers is estimated to be equal to 25
percent of the total inland transportation of containers (Port of Rotterdam, 2013). Reducing

17
 this amount will result in more sustainable and environmental friendly changes.
Not only the sustainability will increase when using synchro-modal transport. The usage of
different modes of transportation can result in significant cost benefits. A case study of
Maersk showed a costs saving from seaport to customer of 6 percent (Altena, 2013).
However, there are some factors that need to be implemented before synchro-modality will
become beneficial and more widely used. At first, Information needs to be able to primarily
handle multimodal transportation. Secondly there is a need for new collaboration between
parties for transport. Finally. there is the need for complete visibility of products during their
transportation, so customers can see where their product is (Daalhuisen, 2014). With two
out of three factors being related to Internet of Things-development, its crucial role - the
success of synchro modal transport - is being underlined.
Increased synchro-modal transport will have influence on the hierarchy in the port itself
(Rook, 2015). Shipping lines with determined routes and terminals will face more
competition, which will result in a less important role in a port environment. The
organizational group and independent terminal operators will become more influential at
port level since they face more opportunities to gain market share. When being more
profitable than transportation between traditional shipping lines they can become influential
players in the port environment.
Not only will the competition within ports become more fierce, the competition between
ports will also rise. Characteristic of the synchro-modal transportation is the lack of long
term contracts, since it is able to use each modality if necessary. Freight forwarders and
3PL’s have the freedom to use whatever route they want and are not obligated to make use
of predetermined shipping routes (Rook, 2015). This will result In more uncertainty of port
demand, and a larger market to attract.

This independent port choice could lead to another trend in container supply chain; the
usage of inland ports, also called dry ports. Dry ports are inland terminals which are directly
connected to one or multiple seaports with high capacity transport means. Customers are
able to leave/pick up their units at a dry port as if it is a seaport, making the dry ports an
extended gateway to the seaport (Leveque & Roso, 2002). The usage of dry ports has
multiple benefits. It is beneficial for the ecological environment, it prevents congestion at
the main port by dividing traffic between places, secures hinterland markets, provides better
services to carriers and transport operators and enables ports to expand business without
the actual need to expand physically (Roso, Woxenius, & Lumsden, 2009). Furthermore it
can be cost saving; storage at inland ports can be up to 58 percent less expensive compared
to deep-sea ports. It also provides containers where needed for export. Both effects can
cause cost savings of 10 percent on total transportation costs (Altena, 2013).
IoT-development is essential for efficient hinterland connections and the success of dry-
ports. Information like the time containers given free and cargo specific information needs
to be shared when one wants to implement an efficient network (Veenstra, Zuidwijk, &
Asperen, 2012). Portbase could be a solution. With its nationwide usage all terminals are
operating via the system, making the information exchange possible.

18
 When looking at the three needs that are required to be fulfilled in order to make synchro-
modality successful one can see that both the first and the third need are port related to the
IT-development given above. When implementing these increased functions synchro-
modality can benefit. By having an excelling PCS with a lot of information being visible
Rotterdam can become an interesting option as first unloading point, since Information is
critical for freight forwarders to make their planning. Furthermore Rotterdam has all
hinterland transportation modalities available so there are multiple options for further
transportation. Another advantage is the nationwide covering of Portbase, making it able to
exchange information needed for the successful usage of dry-ports. All success factors for a
good starting point of a renewed supply chain are available in Rotterdam. It would be a good
option to implement strategies in its ports. The first steps are already being set with the ECT
Gateway Service, which provides multiple gateways across the Netherlands, Belgium and
Germany.

If these two trends become reality it will cause the port to change in function. Next to the
transformation to an information hub it will also lose its function as a logistic node. Instead
its function as transhipment point will become increasingly important (Veenstra, Zuidwijk, &
Asperen, 2012). Ports will focus again on its original function as transhipment point. Due to
the increased inland shipping and the use of hinterland ports, the distribution parks around
the port area will relocate themselves to hinterland locations due to their closeness to
customers. This change will alter the hierarchy of port actors.

19
 Threats for development

There are multiple factors which can be seen as a risk in the implementation of an Internet
of Things and the development of the Port of Rotterdam to an information hub.

Security Risk
When implementing an IoT-environment and creating an information hub one should
seriously consider the security risks. The nature of the data that will be exchanged is
confidential company information. In the wrong hands, this information could form a serious
security risk. For example, stacking and destination information can be used by criminals to
open containers which are at terminal facilities. Falsified e-seals would be an ideal way of
smuggling goods without extra control by customs. Furthermore there is the threat of a port
shutdown, which will have enormous consequences for the economic world. An example of
these threats can be found in Antwerp, where criminals hacked Antwerp’s port community
system in 2012 (Robertson & Riley, 2015)
Actors in the port are aware of the possible security risks. If a port wants to rely on an
internet based network it should make sure it is secure. In this way it will convince the users
of the system that it is working well and that it will not cause trouble. However, creating an
information hub results in the increase of the information being transferred, whilst also
making it harder to protect (Li Cain, 2015).

Support
The Port of Rotterdam can influence port changes to a certain level, but the willingness to
change port for actors can make or break the implementation. These actors need to
implement the services and make the investments required to make it happen. This can be
difficult since the port culture is a conservative world. Many companies are not easily
persuaded to change already working systems (Visscher, 2015). Furthermore, not all
outcomes can be beneficial for them. An example is that increased transparency in supply
chains removes the possibility of using spare time for transport. This creates a smaller
margin to operate in, especially in case of delays or events unaccounted for (Rook, 2015).
These changes in container transportation will most likely change supply chains in a way not
all port actors will applaud. The transparency can force certain companies to work faster.
They are not able to maintain spare time since customers will not accept this (Rook, 2015)
Most port actors will need to be convinced to shift to the new technology. The easiest way
to get them to make new investments is by showing them the added value of the services.
This added value can be displayed by the use of working pilots. When implementing a small
pilot successfully, it is easier to convince port actors and gain support for the change to new
development. However, one should take the financial position of actors into consideration.
Deep-Sea carriers are often larger companies than barge shippers. They need to make the
same adjustments to make the system really work. However the financial position of both
modalities are different, with heavier charges on the hinterland shipping actors. This
different proportion of income spent in investment needs to be taken into consideration
when implementing new systems.
Another important factor in gaining support is Portbase. They need to let their platform and

20
 applications convince more customers. The structure of the company can be beneficial for
them; since Portbase is neutral and advised by representatives all over the port it can be
seen as an independent, non-profit facilitator of the PCS. Due to its Advisory Board it also
knows exactly which applications are demanded and which problems actors are facing using
Portbase (Rook, 2015) .
The automation of ports can also cause a decrease of the number of jobs in the port itself.
The AMP terminal at Maasvlakte II is calculated to replace 200 jobs, which causes insurgence
at the FNV trade union (ANP, 2015). Further automation will lead to even fewer jobs in the
port, which can cause more resistance by trade unions.

Economic shifts
The port changes that may be made in the future are supposed to make Rotterdam a more
attractive port. However, the economic centre of Europe is changing to Eastern and Central
Europe (Paardenkooper-Suli, 2014). Rotterdam is able to reach these hinterland markets but
there are competitors in this region. Germany has two ports able to receive the largest
containerships and so does Poland (Polish Press Agency, 2013). Furthermore, the extended
Suez-canal shortens waiting time with 11 hours, making a route through the Mediterranean
more attractive (Smal, 2015). Combined with investment in southern-European ports, the
port of Rotterdam can be bypassed to supply eastern and middle-Europe (Pagni, 2015). This
costs market share which is bad for the competitiveness and the Dutch economy.
Furthermore it will discourage other companies to invest in the port. They do not want to
make large investments in declining markets, hereby creating a slowly descending circle
since the lag can only be fixed by keeping up with the technology or inventing a new
innovation.
The invention of a 3D-printer should also be considered when talking about economic shifts.
3D Printers make it possible to manufacture at relatively low costs in almost every place,
which can potentially cause a serious decline in trade volume (Wile, 2014). Ocean container
business faces a potential loss of 37 percent if 3D-printing becomes a good alternative for
traditional manufacturing (Schmahl, Tipping, & Duiven, 2015).

21
 Conclusion

Conclusion
The Internet of Things can have a major influence on the efficiency of container transport.
This paper argues that there are five applications of the Internet of Things which can
influence the efficiency level of container transportation. The first application is the real-
time tracking of containers. Secondly, container information can be used for optimal
stacking. Thirdly, the Internet of Things eases the transition to automated terminals.
Fourthly, the handling time customs need can be shortened. Finally, the increased data
exchange gives the possibility to optimize and change the supply chain.

These applications will result in improved efficiency in all ports. The real-time tracking gives
the possibility to port actors to optimize their planning. Live updates about container status
can help terminal operators make their schedules as efficient as possible, averting
downtime. Furthermore, the adjusting of plannings with real-time data can prevent
congestion. The increased information will lessen the unnecessary waiting-time and hereby
prevent congestion. This real-time information will be reused when making the stacking
planning. By implementing risk factors for delays into the system one can adjust the
stacking-order. This will result in fewer unnecessary crane moves. Thirdly, the IoT can boost
the implementation of unmanned terminals. The extra information that will be available will
help the system develop itself into a more efficient terminal compared to ones operated bu
humans. Fourthly, time can be spared by the authorization group. The usage of a PCS allows
customs to receive all documentation before the actual entering of the port of Rotterdam.
This saves time and reduces the risk of errors. An e-seal, in combination with location path,
gives the authorization group a much better possibility to indicate the security risk involved
with a container and hereby allocating their time more efficiently. In addition, the increased
security indication will not only make the custom handling time more efficient; it will
increase the general level of security as well. Finally, the increased monitoring possibilities
can cause a change in the supply chain itself. New trends as synchro-modal transport and
the usage of hinterland ports benefit from enhanced information exchange. If they both
become reality in the supply chain they lead to more efficient and sustainable transportation
of containers.
Specifically for the port of Rotterdam, which can be characterized as the largest container
port of Europe, with a draft allowing the largest vessel to access 24 hours a day, availability
of all transport modalities, and the use of a PCS which is operating nationwide, the increased
efficiency can lead to a more competitive position in the worldwide spectrum. Rotterdam is
the only one out of the three with Antwerp and Hamburg which is able to receive the largest
vessels. Due to the increased vessel sizes this will influence the choice of port. Furthermore,
Rotterdam becomes more attractive when considering synchro-modal transport and the use
of hinterland ports. All transport modalities are highly available in the ports, giving freight
organizers multiple options. Portbase, with its nationwide coverage, provides the benefits of
the PCS in Rotterdam all across the Netherlands.
These changes will also alter the port function of Rotterdam. The port will revert back to its

22
 original function as transhipment node instead of a logistic node. Distribution centres will
relocate to hinterland ports, closer to the hinterland market. This functional change will
influence the hierarchy in the port itself.
However there are threats which need to be overcome before IoT can run its course at full
potential. There is a need of capable security of all systems. Non-sufficient security measures
can be dangerous for both the economy aswell as for the safety of the inhabitants. Another
implication is the support for changes. The port environment is a conservative world, but
without support from actors in the port the implementation of the system will not be a
success. The necessary development needs to find enough support within the port itself.
This can be a tough challenge, since the hierarchy may change. Companies do not want to
lose market power, while unmanned terminals can cause stir for labourers due to their
potential unemployment.
The last threat is the change in the economic spectrum. New hinterland markets further
from Rotterdam can cause a loss in market share. The competition is also fierce, with
competitors at a close range, closer to the largest growth markets. Furthermore, 3D printers
can influence the amount of manufactured goods being shipped in containers drastically by
replacing the need to ship these goods.
In sum, the potential influence of the five aforementioned IoT developments has profound
consequences for the efficiency of container shipping in the port of Rotterdam if the three
threats can be tackled.

Recommendations:

The Internet of Things in the port of Rotterdam can make the port more efficient. This will
make the port more attractive for vessels. Furthermore, the port of Rotterdam has a good
position when looking at the implementation of synchro-modality and hinterland transport.
Due to its competitive position it should focus on these changes, and try to become the
flagship of the changed container chain and port function. A first step can be the obligation
of the use of Portbase for all ships calling in at the Port of Rotterdam. This should be done by
the Port Authority. The obligation is an example of a measure where short-term results can
be booked. Furthermore, it will boost the usage of Portbase by foreign companies. They will
experience the benefits and will become more enthusiastic about Portbase and the
increased level of information exchange.

The efficiency upgrades are obtained by the usage of new technology by the port actors
themselves. As said, this can be hard due to the conservative nature of port companies. One
way to create more support among port companies is the use of pilots. The implementation
itself should start on a small scale. It gives port actors insight in the technology and the
added value of certain services. When pilots prove to be of increased value it is more easy to
persuade the companies to make the new investments needed.
Due to the rapidly changing level of IT-development it is essential for Rotterdam to keep

23
 innovating. Good ways to innovate are to cooperate with Dutch universities as Delft and
Eindhoven to build applications and analyse where the system can be upgraded. The port of
Rotterdam Authority is essential in this process. They need to stimulate innovation and
development. Good examples of projects is their participation in World Hackleton and the
RDM Centre of Expertise (Inn010, 2015), which are programs in which students and start-ups
will be supported to think about innovations in the Port. These groups may help to find new
start-ups which will keep the innovation moving. Once again these innovations can be
implemented by the use of pilots. Pilots will give feedback about the current state of
development and potential problems.
A central role in the future change is being played by Portbase. Portbase needs to be ready
to handle the increased amount of data that will be transferred. Furthermore, it should be
technically able to work with new applications. It should listen well to its Advisory Board.
Since its Advisory Board consists of different actors in the port, they know what changes will
be implemented and what inefficient fields are where improvement can be booked.
There also is a stimulating function for Portbase. Due to its neutral company structure it
should be able to suit a coordinating function in the implementation of the Internet of
Things. By consulting with companies in different stages of the supply chain it can address
the need of certain innovation in companies to gain increased value for the whole system.
However, it is dubious whether Portbase has enough power to obtain results. That is why a
collaboration with the port of Rotterdam authority should not be excluded, since it has more
power to effectuate results.

If Rotterdam is able to provide an information exchange network which is outstanding

compared to such networks in the rest of the world it should be able to stay competitive. It’s
two biggest opponents on IT-development will be Antwerp and Hamburg which are currently
the second and third largest container ports in Europe. APCS, Antwerp’s PCS, is becoming
obsolete. More competition can be expected from Hamburg. The port is innovative with the
launching of Seatropolis, the first step towards an Internet of Things society on port level.
However both ports face difficulties due to geographic location. Out of these three ports
Rotterdam is the only one which is able to receive the largest vessels. Furthermore the more
inland locations of both other ports result in less efficiency due to tide and congestion
problems. This would be an opportunity for Rotterdam, being the most advanced port and
able to receive the largest vessels. Its hinterland connections for rail, barge and road
transport make it an ideal environment for a shift towards an information hub and
transhipment node, making Rotterdam the most attractive port of Europe.

Limitations
The nature of this research is to examine future development and influence. This leads to
some limitations. Firstly, the prediction of certain trends and innovations can be made.
However, due to its predicting nature there is no certainty this development will ever
happen. The conclusions that are made can be seen as well explained concepts. However,
there is still uncertainty if it will all develop as outlined.
In this thesis, the largest limitation is the lack of quantitative research involved. Since most
developments that are named are relatively new it has as yet not been possible to collect

24
 data and compare the results. A lot of empirical resources are being used, which could be
supported better with more quantitative research.
Furthermore it is hard to prove the trends of influencing the supply chain without all the
necessary data being available. Yet again, the conclusions that have been made are mainly
based on qualitative research, while quantitative sources would have given a better
foundation .
The last limitations are the limited resources available about other PCS systems. Therefore
the conclusion on their performances are based on one resource, the interview with H.
Rook. Since he is from Portbase it is not the most reliable source. However, since it is an
important part of this research the choice has been made to include it.

Further Research
The goal of this paper was to give an overview of all the relevant influences that could occur
when implementing the IT-development related to Internet of things and intelligent
containers. However, there is a wide range of subjects that can be influenced. The scope of
this interview was set to give an overview of these influences, without focussing on one in
particular. However, all of the influences are worth their while as the main subject for
further research. Especially supply chain changes (hinterland ports and synchro-modality)
can have significant influence on the container transportation. Their effects could be
examined to predict the changes that will occur. Furthermore there is an opportunity for
quantitative research to the efficiency increases that are given. There was not much
research done to investigate quantitative results from improvements. Case studies can be an
outcome to identify the improvements

25
 List of References
Altena, E. (2013). Optimization of modal shift and container (re-)positioning at Maersk Line.
Delft: TU Delft.
ANP. (2015, April 24). Mijlpaal voor Rotterdam; maasvlakte 2 officieel van start. Retrieved
from Z24: http://www.z24.nl/ondernemen/mijlpaal-voor-rotterdam-maasvlakte-2-
officieel-van-start-556392
Baalen, P. v., Zuidwijk, R., & Nunen, J. v. (2009). Port inter-organizational information
systems: Capabilities to service global supply chains. Foundations and Trends in
Technology, Information and Operations Management (2), 81-241.
Barnard, B. (2015, Juni 20). Antwerp container volume growth double Rotterdam's. Retrieved
from JOC: http://www.joc.com/port-news/european-ports/port-antwerp/antwerp-
container-volume-growth-double-rotterdams_20150720.html
BCI. (2012, Januari 16). Synchromodaal transport biedt nieuwe kansen voor logistieke
bedrijven en logistieke regio's. Retrieved from BCI:
http://www.bciglobal.com/nieuws_detail.asp?cat=5006&dc=26280
Bradley, J., Reberger, C., Dixit, A., & Gupta, V. (2013). Internet of Everything: A $4.6 Trillion
Public-Sector Opportunity. San Jose: Cisco.
Cisco. (2014, April 30). City of Hamburg and Cisco Launch Plans for Smart City of the Future
and Lay Foundation for a Partner Ecosystem. Retrieved from Cisco Newsroom:
http://newsroom.cisco.com/press-release-
content?type=webcontent&articleId=1414144
City of Los Angeles Harbor Department. (2014, March). Container Terminal Automation.
Retrieved from Port Of Los Angeles:
http://www.portoflosangeles.org/Board/2014/April/042014_item5_Transmittal_3.p
df
Clark, X., Dollar, D., & Micco, A. (2004). Port efficiency, maritime transport costs, and
bilateral trade. Journal of development economics, 75(2, 417-450.
Cullinane, K., & Khanna, M. (1999). Economies of scale in large container ships. Journal of
transport economics and policy, 185-207.
Curry, A. (2013, Juli 25). The Box That Build The Modern World. Retrieved from Nautilus:
http://nautil.us/issue/3/in-transit/the-box-that-built-the-modern-world
Daalhuisen, G. (2014, November 4). Synchro-Modality. The Future or a Flex too far for the
Supply Chain? Retrieved from Kewill: http://www.kewill.com/blog/2013/11/04/draft-
blog-post-synchro-modality-future-flex-far-supply-chain/
De Langen, P., & Nijdam, M. (2012). Port Economics, Policy and Management, Erasmus
University Rotterdam, revised version September 2012. Rotterdam: Erasmus
University Rotterdam.

26
 DHL & Cisco. (2015). Internet of Things in Logistics. Retrieved from DHL:
http://www.dhl.com/content/dam/Local_Images/g0/New_aboutus/innovation/DHLT
rendReport_Internet_of_things.pdf
Elfrink, W. (2014, May 13). Hamburg’s Quest to Become the First Smart Seatropolis.
Retrieved from Cisco Blogs: http://blogs.cisco.com/news/hamburgs-quest-to-
become-the-first-smart-seatropolis
Ha, M. (2003). A comparison of service quality at major container ports: implications for
Korean ports. Journal of transport geography 11(2), 131-137.
Henriksson, B. (2015). Automated container terminals are taking off . Retrieved from ABB:
http://new.abb.com/marine/generations/technology/automated-container-
terminals-are-taking-off
Inn010. (2015, February). Havenbedrijf als incubator voor start-ups. Retrieved from Inn010:
(http://inn010.com/nieuws-overzicht/start-ups/item/33-havenbedrijf-als-incubator-
voor-start-ups).
IPCSA. (2015, May). How to develop a port community system. Retrieved from International
Port Community System Association (IPSCSA):
http://www.ipcsa.international/armoury/resources/ipcsa-guide-english-2015.pdf
JOC Port Productivity. (2014). Berth Productivity; The Trends, Outlook and Market Forces
Impacting Ship Turnaround Times. JOC Group.
Kewill. (2014, December 17). Trends in de logistieke sector voor 2015. Retrieved from Kewill:
http://www.kewill.com/nl/press_releases/trends-de-logistieke-sector-voor-2015-2/
Kim, K., & Lee, H. (2015). Container Terminal Operation: Current Trends and Future
Challenges. New York: Springer.
Kim, S., Deng, G., Gupta, S., & Murphy-Hoye, M. (2008). Intelligent Networked Containers for
Enhancing Global Supply Chain Security and Enabling New Commercial Value.
Communication Systems Software and Middleware and Workshop (pp. 662-669).
Verona: Comsware 2008.
Leveque, P., & Roso, V. (2002). Dry port concept for seaport inland access with intermodal
solutions. Gothenburg: Chalmers University of Technology.
Levinson, M. (2006). The Box: How the Shipping Container made the World Smaller.
Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Li Cain, S. (2015, April 13). Does the Internet Of Things Pose new Security Threats. Retrieved
from MakeTechEasier: https://www.maketecheasier.com/internet-of-things-security-
threats/
Malchow, M. B.–3. (n.d.).
McFarlane, D., & Sheffi, Y. (2003). The Impact of Automatic Identification on Supply Chain
Operations. The international journal of logistics management, , 1-17.

27
 Nextlogic. (2015, May). Eight Information Exchange Clusters. Retrieved from Nextlogic:
http://www.nextlogic.nl/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Factsheet-2015-Clusters-
Nextlogic-UK-site.pdf
Ng, K. (2006). Assessing the attractiveness of ports in the North European container
transhipment market: an agenda for future research in port competition. Maritime
Economics and Logistics 8(3), 234-250. Retrieved from Ng, K. Y. A. (2006). Assessing
the attractiveness of ports in the North European container transhipment market: an
agenda for future research in port competition. Maritime Economics and Logistics,
8(3), 234-250.
Notteboom, T., & Rodrigue, J. (2005). Port regionalization: towards a new phase in port
development. Maritime Policy & Management: The flagship journal of international
shipping and port research, 297-313.
Paardenkooper-Suli, K. (2014). The Port of Rotterdam and the maritime container: The rise
and fall of Rotterdam’s hinterland (1966-2010). Rotterdam: Erasmus School of
History, Culture and Communication (ESHCC).
Pagni, J. (2015, June 4). Privatised Piraeus port terminal hailed as success. Retrieved from IHS
Maritime 360: http://www.ihsmaritime360.com/article/18166/privatised-piraeus-
port-terminal-hailed-as-success
Polish Press Agency. (2013, August 28). Container terminals in Poland – a new European
trade hub? Retrieved from Polish Economy: http://msp.gov.pl/en/polish-
economy/economic-news/4676,Container-terminals-in-Poland-a-new-European-
trade-hub.html
Port Of Rotterdam. (2015). Haven in Cijfers. Retrieved from Port Of Rotterdam:
https://www.portofrotterdam.com/nl/de-haven/feiten-en-cijfers-over-de-haven
Port Strategy. (2015, March 30). Congestion surcharge hits Rotterdam. Retrieved from Port
Strategy: http://www.portstrategy.com/news101/world/europe/congestion-
surcharge-hits-rotterdam
Robertson, J., & Riley, M. (2015, July 7). The Mob's IT department. Retrieved from
Bloomberg: http://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-mob-technology-
consultants-help-drug-traffickers/
Rook, H. (2015, Augustus 6). De toekomst van portbase. (S. v. Kersbergen, Interviewer)
Roso, V., Woxenius, J., & Lumsden, K. (2009). The dry port concept: connecting container
seaports with the hinterland. Journal of Transport Geography, 338-345.
SAP. (2014, November 13). Internet of Things at Hamburg Port Authority: Reality Beats
Guesswork. Retrieved from SAP News Centre : http://www.news-sap.com/hamburg-
port-authority-internet-of-things/

28
 Schmahl, A., Tipping, A., & Duiven, F. (2015). 2015 Commercial Transportation Trends.
Retrieved from Strategy&: http://www.strategyand.pwc.com/perspectives/2015-
commercial-transportation-trends
Shen, C. (2015, April 1). Six 20,000 teu containerships on order for OOCL. Retrieved from
LLoyd's List: http://www.lloydslist.com/ll/sector/containers/article459548.ece
Smal, E. (2015, Juni 13). Nieuwe Suezkanaal over twee maanden af. Retrieved from NRC:
http://www.nrc.nl/nieuws/2015/06/13/nieuwe-suez-kanaal-over-twee-maanden-af/
TBA. (2009, August). Euromax: a new standard in Container handling. Retrieved from TBA:
https://www.tba.nl/resources/press+section/publications/euromax,
_a_new_standard_in_container_handling.pdf
Technovelgy. (2013). What is RFID. Retrieved from Technovelgy:
http://www.technovelgy.com/ct/technology-article.asp
Tenacent. (2014). Why E-seal. Retrieved from Tenacent: http://www.tenacent.net/why-e-
seal.html
Tongzon, J. (2002). Port Choice Determinants in a Competitive Environment. Annual
Conference and meeting of the international association of maritime economists.
Tsai, M. (2006). Constructing a logistics tracking system for preventing smuggling risk of
transit containers. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice 40(6), 526-
536.
UPS Supply Chain Solutions. (2005). Demystifying RFID; An Overview of the Promise and
Pitfalls. Retrieved from UPS SCS: https://www.ups-
scs.com/solutions/white_papers/wp_RFID.pdf
Veenstra, A. (2006). The role of ports in global supply chains. Rotterdam: Port of Rotterdam
Authority.
Veenstra, A., Zuidwijk, R., & Asperen, E. v. (2012). The extended gate concept for container
terminals: Expanding the notion of dry ports. Maritime Economics & Logistics, 14-32.
Veldman, S., & Bückmann, E. (2003). A model on container port competition: an application
for the West European container hub-ports. Maritime Economics & Logistics, 5(1), 3-
22.
Visscher, R. (2015, Februari 20). Robots rukken op in de haven. Retrieved from Kennislink:
http://www.kennislink.nl/publicaties/robots-rukken-op-in-de-haven
Vossers, A. (2015, January 19). Drie dingen die vandaag belangrijk zijn voor de Rotterdamse
haven. Retrieved from NRC Q: http://www.nrcq.nl/2015/01/19/drie-dingen-die-
vandaag-belangrijk-zijn-voor-de-rotterdamse-haven
Wagenaar, R. (1992). Business network redesign-Lessons from the Port of Rotterdam
Simulation game. Proceedings Conference on interorganizational systems in the
global environment, 390-404. Retrieved from Wagenaar, R. W. (1992, September).

29
 Business network redesign-Lessons from the Port of Rotterdam Simulation game. In
Proceedings Conference on interorganizational systems in the global environment
(pp. 390-404).
Walker, I. (2013, Februari 2). The future will be ''open, automated and synchro-modal''.
Retrieved from The LoadStar: http://theloadstar.co.uk/the-future-will-be-open-
automated-and-synchro-modal/
Wile, R. (2014, September 4). This Technology Could Have The Biggest Impact On American
Jobs Since Offshoring. Retrieved from Business Insider:
http://www.businessinsider.com/how-3d-printing-will-affect-manufacturing-jobs-
2014-8?IR=T
Wolf, I. V. (2015, Juli 8). Is het internet of things ook uw toekomst? Retrieved from PortBase:
https://www.portbase.com/is-het-internet-of-things-ook-uw-toekomst/
World Shipping Coucil. (2015). History of Containerization. Retrieved from World Shipping
Coucil: http://www.worldshipping.org/about-the-industry/history-of-
containerization
Xia, F., Yang, L., Wang, L., & Vinel, A. (2012). Internet of Things. International Journal of
Communication Systems, 1101-1103.
Zaharudin, A., Wong, C., Agarwal, V., McFarlane, D., Koh, R., & Kang, Y. (2002). The intelligent
product driven supply chain. Cambridge: Auto ID-centre.

30
 Appendices
Appendix 1: Classification of the services according to target group and market sector
Ongeldige bron opgegeven.

31
 Appendix 2: Terminal statistics
Top global terminals based on average 2013 container moves per-ship, per-hour on all vessel
sizes. (JOC Port Productivity, 2014)

32
 Appendix 3: Interview questions H.Rook

1. Wat is Portbase en wat voor functie heeft het in de haven?

2. Hoe is Portbase ontstaat?
3. Wat is de organisatie structuur van Portbase?
4. Wat zijn de exacte voordelen die bedrijven halen uit werken met Portbase
5. Hoe denkt u over een Internet of Things-wereld in de haven
6. Hoe denkt u dat de bedrijven in de haven daar op reageren
7. Hoe gaat Portbase op deze ontwikkeling inspelen?
8. Wat zijn de grootste gevaren van deze ontwikkeling?
9. Wat zijn de grootste concurrenten van Rotterdam?
10. Wat voor invloed heeft een PCS en IoT op de concurrentiepositie van de haven?

33