Introduction
The port of Rotterdam has been in existence for a considerably long period now with the earliest port-related operations being traced in the 13th Century. Its recognition by the state as an important port of the nation came in mid-14th Century when it was officially opened (Loyern et al. 2003). The port is located in the Netherlands at Rotterdam and used to be regarded as the world’s largest port from 1962 until 2004 when Singapore and later Shanghai overtook it. The port has made Netherlands such an important trading nation in modern times (Ysselsteyn 1908). Since its recognition by the states, the port has been expanded severally, and it is currently under a construction geared towards its expansion.
The main reason for the choice of the port of Rotterdam is the perceived need for an additional terminal. The current terminals are among the most advanced terminals in the world, although they are not sufficient to satisfy the high demand for the port (Lee & Meng 2015). For instance, the port has nine container terminals which are few considering that it provides access to more than 100 million people. The fact that the port is famous and has been in existence for such a long period also provides an additional reason for its choice as there is a huge amount of data available for its research.
Terminal Development at the Port of Rotterdam
Geographical Location
The vital aspects to consider when making a decision regarding the geographical location of a new terminal is the trade routes and the hinterland. The current container terminals have been geographically located to ensure port regionalization by playing the role of intermodal transport. The most unfortunate thing is that as much as they attempt to fill the intermodal gap, they only focus on one intermodal transport link i.e. the sea-rail intermodal link (Ng & Liu 2014). The new terminal should be located in an area where there are roads as opposed to railways so that the port can be perfectly regionalized by having a variety of intermodal options. The new terminal should be an inland terminal where a direct inland connection shall be established between an inland terminal, particularly road, and the port. The proposed terminal should be approximately 15-20 meters draft to accommodate large ships. The terminal should be located at MV2 considering that MV1 has more terminals than MV2, and it would therefore, make little or no sense to add another one on MV1 when there are just a few in MV2.
As pointed out by Notteboom and Rodrigue (2005), it is important to appreciate the fact that port regionalization occurs through terminals. It is not possible to have a port that purports to be regionalized if that regionalization did not take place through its terminals. The port regionalization theory proposes that a perfectly regionalized port should have adequate multimodal connections to connect the port to its hinterland. As such, the proposed terminal is an important aspect of the port of Rotterdam as far as regionalization is concerned considering that it will be the first terminal to connect the port direct to the road as opposed to rail. By locating the terminal in direct connection with the road, the ability to predict when a container will be picked up by truck will be increased. This is important in improving the efficiency of operations and resource allocation in the terminals.
Terminal Configuration
Ideally, the proposed terminal in the port of Rotterdam will appear as depicted in the figure below. The theoretical area occupied by the terminal is large considering that the port of Rotterdam is among the largest ports in the world. Further, this is the only terminal that connects directly to both the road and rail.
Figure 1: Proposed Inland Terminal for the Port of Rotterdam
Source: Author
According to Mckinnon and Acciaro (2013), one of the main considerations that should be made in designing a terminal configuration is the port-centric logistics. This sums up the process of unloading, storage and distribution of cargo from the port itself. In developing this configuration, all these have been factored in. The terminal has a docking area with 350 meters of docking space. This space was proposed to the consideration that the port of Rotterdam has separate special facilities for handling barges. Further, the terminal has a container crane (portainer) area designed for such a large portainer that can perform approximately two movements (loading and unloading) per minute.
The terminal configuration also features a loading/ unloading area where the cranes, storage areas, and containers interact. Five large cranes are enough to ease the congestion in other terminals and to handle all container sizes including the ultra large ones. The port’s management can either decide to use straddles or holsters to facilitate the various operations depending on the efficiency and availability. 20 small straddles are appropriate; small to increase flexibility and ease movement and many to handle the many containers considering that the port is a large one. A container storage area is also evident although it is intended to be a temporary buffer zone with containers taking a maximum of 5 days in the store. The gate is an important feature of the terminal as this is the where trucks queue. The above proposition can accommodate more than 20 trucks at a go considering that the port of Rotterdam is such a large port. Truck drivers are expected to present their documentation at this stage before they proceed for loading (Notteboom et al. 2009). Other features evident in the terminal is the chassis storage, where empty chassis can be stored, administration and repair/ maintenance.
Regionalization Strategies
Notteboom and Rodrigue (2005) noted that the most important element in a port today is regionalization. Modern ports should, therefore, focus on this aspect in their development or re-development. The port model, unlike other models such as the bird’s model, identifies the landside logistics as an important feature in boosting the competitiveness of a particular port. It is important to note that if there is any regionalization in port, this regionalization occurs in terminals.
Having considered the fact that the port has nine other inland terminals that connect the port with the rail, the proposed terminal, as evident in figure 1, seeks to connect the port with the road and the rail. This is one of the major regionalization strategies as the port will not only be regionalized with one intermodal link but two i.e. road and rail. The regionalization theory points out that a perfectly regionalized port must seek to ensure that the port has several intermodal means and intermodal links (Hesse 2008). The availability of links to various modes of transport should not be ignored as an important intermodal element as far as regionalization is concerned. Regionalization happens in the terminals themselves when the port is said to be regionalized. The large size of the port of Rotterdam requires that it should have several terminals with linkage to different modes of transport.
Plan for Value Addition
Every point in the supply chain should hint an addition value point. According to Robinson (2002), competition has grown to be so stiff that the supply chain must consider the value addition in all points. The terminal should not be merely an exit for goods from the port, but should provide an added value point in the port. As evident in figure 1, the proposed terminal has a container storage area. This is an important value addition point as some goods increase in value when they are in storage. Further, it provides an important opportunity for the goods to be inspected hence value addition (Valentine 2005). Similarly, the terminal seeks to adopt customer oriented services (roads) hence value addition, since many customers wish to move their goods from the terminal with trucks rather than train.
Value adding supply chain seeks to balance people, process, and technology. For effective and efficient value addition, the terminal (as part of the large supply chain) must be committed to leadership (through the administration), inspiring and clear terminal vision (that is well aligned with the port vision), strong support culture and sound terminal operation management structure (Lee & Cullinane 2015). All these are in the people’s pillar for a successful value-adding supply chain. A successful and value-adding supply chain is accompanied by eight key processes as proposed for the new terminal proposition which is customer relationship management, customer service management among others. All these processes provide important value addition points. Technology also forms an important aspect of the terminal in value addition. It is proposed that the new terminal uses technology for information exchange, in-transit visibility, terminal automation, and security. Technology leads to value addition in many aspects including improving enterprise integration initiatives.
Related Activities and Organizations that must also be developed
In developing the terminal’s infrastructure, the developers must do it in such a manner that the result is flexible enough to accommodate future changes. Change is inevitable, ship increment and that of loading and unloading material cannot be avoided just like it cannot be predicted. The best manner to treat it is to consider it in the development of the terminal. Flexibility is important because the processes may change either for efficiency or as a result of changes in government regulations (Monios 2014). It is, therefore, proposed that the new terminal allows enough flexibility to ensure that it remains competitive by changing with changes in equipment, rules and regulations and technology. Further, having in mind that this is the first road terminal in the port of Rotterdam, the outcome of its uses is unpredictable. The unexpected may happen, and the management may be compelled to make a few changes.
In controlling the inventory stocked for a maximum of five days, the terminal should seek to adopt the (First in First Out) FIFO storage method where goods that are first to arrive and stored in the terminal should be first to leave. The FIFO theory emphasizes that goods that come latest should be given more time in the docks and they should not be removed unless their owners demand them. This is an important technic in ensuring proper operational flow in the terminal (Dooms 2010). Proper records should be maintained as prove to the owners of the containers that their containers arrived first and in the case of any unpredicted and undesirable congestion, they leave first. The 80/ 20 rule should as well be a key consideration as far as inventory management is concerned. The terminal inventory managers should appreciate that the highly valuable commodities are composed of just a small percentage of the stock, and the terminal should accord them with tight security (Bookbinder 2011).
Conclusion
Bibliography
Bookbinder, J. H. (2011). Global logistics'. New York, NY, Springer.
Dooms, M. (2010). Crafting the integrative value' propositions for large transport infrastructure hubs: a stakeholder management approach. Brussels, VUB Press.
Haralambides, H. E. (2014). Port management. http://www.palgraveconnect.com/doifinder/10.1057/9781137475770.
Hesse, M. (2008). The city as a terminal: the urban context of logistics and freight transport. Burlington, VT, Ashgate.
Lee, C.-Y., & Meng, Q. (2015). Handbooks of ocean container transportation logistics: making global supply chains effective. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&scope=site&db=nlebk&db=nlabk&AN=927815.
Lee, P. T.-W., & Cullinane, K. (2015). Dynamics' Shipping and Port Development in the Globalized Economy: Volume 1: Applying Theory to Practice in Maritime Logistics. https://nls.ldls.org.uk/welcome.html?ark:/81055/vdc_100026717375.0x000001.
Loyen, R., Buyst, E., & Devos, G. (2003). Struggling for Leadership: Antwerp-Rotterdam Port Competition between 1870 -2000. Heidelberg, Physica-Verlag HD. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-57485-6.
Lun, Y. H. V., Lai, K.-H., & Cheng, T. C. E. (2010). Shipping and logistics management. New York, Springer.
Monios, J. (2014). Institutional challenge(s) to intermodal transport and logistical governance in port regionalisation and hinterland integration. Farnham, Ashgate.
Ng, K. Y. A., & Liu, J. J. (2014). Port-focal logistics and global supply chains. http://www.palgraveconnect.com/doifinder/10.1057/9781137273697.
Notteboom, T. (2011). Current issues in shipping, ports and logistics. Antwerp, UPA University Press Antwerp.
Notteboom, T., Ducruet, C., & Langen, P. W. D. (2009). Ports in proximity competition and coordination among adjacent seaports. Farnham, England, Ashgate Pub. http://public.eblib.com/choice/publicfullrecord.aspx?p=476248.
Plunkett, Jack W. (2008). Plunketts' Transportation, Supply Chain' & Logistics' Industry Almanac 2008 the Only Comprehensive Guide to the Business of Transportation, Supply Chain, Logistics Management. Plunkett Research Ltd.
Song, D.-W., & Panay ides, P. M. (2012). Maritime logistics': complete guides to effective shipping and port management'. London, Kegan Page.
Sudalaimuthu, S., & Raj, A. S. (2009). Logistics management' for international businesses: text and cases. New Dehli, Prentice Hall of India.
Valentine, V. (2005). Free trade zone and port hinterland development. Bangkok, UN. Economics and social commissions' for Asia' and the Pacific' (ESCAP).
Ysselsteyn, H. A. V. (1908). The port of Rotterdam. Rotterdam, Nijgh.
Zijm, W. H. M., Klumpp, M., Clausen, U., & Ten Hompel, M. (2016). Logistics and supply chain innovation: bridging the gap between theory and practice. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-22288-2.
