Dodo6/Topic_Modelling_using_LDA

1Article2 3Strategic Analysis of the Automation of Container4Port Terminals through BOT (Business Observation5Tool)6Alberto Camarero Orive *, José Ignacio Parra Santiago, María Magdalena Esteban‐Infantes7Corral and Nicoletta González‐Cancelas8Department of Transport Engineering, Urban and Regional Planning, Universidad Politécnica de Madrid,928040 Madrid, Spain; joseignacio.parra.santiago@alumnos.upm.es (J.I.P.S.);10magdalena.estebanic@gmail.com (M.M.E.‐I.C.); nicoleta.gcancelas@upm.es (N.G.C.)11* Correspondence: alberto.camarero@upm.es12Received: 18 December 2019; Accepted: 31 January 2020; Published: 4 February 202013 14Abstract: The port system is immersed in a process of digital transformation towards the concept15of Ports 4.0, under the new regulatory and connectivity requirements that are expected of them.16As a result of the changes that the industrial revolution 4.0 is imposing, based on new information17technologies and the change of energy model, the electrification of modes of transport from18alternative energies and the total digitalization of the processes is occurring. This conversion to19digital, intelligent, and green ports requires the implementation of the new technologies offered by20the market. The inclusion of these enabling tools has allowed the development of automated21terminals under a functional approach. This article aims to offer the responsible entities a new22methodology (BOT) that allows them to successfully undertake the automation of terminals,23taking into account the reality of the conditions of the environment in which they are developed.24By quantifying the factors that facilitate or impede implementation, it will be possible to25determine the strategy to be followed and the necessary measures to be adopted in the project;26constituting, therefore, a novel management and planning tool.27Keywords: container automated terminals; BOT; strategy; automation28 291. Introduction30Automated container port terminals have proliferated since the Europe Container Terminals31(ECT) in Rotterdam, which began to be automated in 1984 [1]. Automation carried out in existing32and operational terminals (brownfield) and in new terminals (greenfield), such as Total Terminal33International (TTI) Algeciras, inaugurated in 2010, found a solution adopted in the Global34Container Terminal (New York/New Yersey). Thus, there are currently around 60 automated35terminals in the world, mainly in Europe and Asia, with forecasts to reach 200 in the next 5 years36[2], among which are the new container terminal at the port of Valencia and the incorporation of37eight automated RTG (Rubber Tyred Gantry Crane) in the container terminal of Belfast (BCT),38turning it into a semi‐automated terminal.39Although the automation process is not exclusive to container terminals, the intrinsic40characteristics of these terminals, such as their high degree of specialization and standardization41(both in the transport element and in the way of handling the goods), and technological advances42have protected the development of a high degree of automation in the equipment and processes of43these facilities [3]. These characteristics, together with the increase in competition in the port44industry, have encouraged the development of automated terminals with the aim of reducing45Logistics 2020, 4, 3; doi:10.3390/logistics401000346 47www.mdpi.com/journal/logistics48 49Logistics 2020, 4, 350 512 of 1352 53operating costs (OPEX), mainly in terms of labor, and seeking improvements in terms of54productivity, safety, and environmental sustainability.55However, it is also true that in some terminals the productivity can be reduced after56automation due to inadequate phase‐in.57Therefore, the objectives of this article are to use a methodology (Business Observation Tool58(BOT)) to help automated terminals develop their short‐ and long‐term strategies and to answer59research‐related questions, such as ʺWhat characteristics are needed to be considered for the60implementation of automation in a terminal?612. Types of Automated Terminals62The first step of the digital transformation (first generation) was taken in the 1980s with the63emergence of electronic data interchange (EDI) systems and the development of the first terminal64operating systems (TOS) [4], laying the foundation for automated terminal planning. The adoption65by operators of new handling technologies (sensors and laser technologies) and the integration of66data obtained from them led to the establishment of automated terminals in the 1990s and in 200067(second generation) [5]. The performance of the ports of Hong Kong and Singapore is close to68meeting the definition of fifth generation criteria. On the contrary, in light of the majority of the69evaluation criteria’s performance, the ports of Busan and Shanghai are still behind the 5GP stage70[6].71The concept of ʺautomated terminalʺ was coined after the commissioning, in 1993, of ECT72Delta Terminal in the Port of Rotterdam, referring to the terminal in which operations relating to73yard movements, storage equipment, and quay–patio interconnection have been automated [7].74According to the different degrees of automation of the main movements (yard, dock‐yard) the75terminals are classified into automated, semi‐automated and manual terminals. A semi‐automated76terminal will be one in which the storage or interconnection equipment is automated. However, the77term ʺsemi‐automatizationʺ is also associated with the management of equipment by assisted78control or the systematization of some of the functions of the equipment by means of minor or79partial automatizations [3].80Following this classical classification, Figure 1 presents the main automated terminals, which81are numbered according to the chronological order of operation. Based on this chronology, Table 182shows the automation technology and the handling equipment used by them, such as ARMG83(Automated Rail Mounted Gantry), C‐ARMG (Cantilever ARMG), ASC (Automated Stacking84Crane), ARTG (Automated Rubber Trued Gantry Crane), or AGV (Automated Guide Vehicle).85The terminal column represents the name (company) and country of the study terminal; the86equipment column represents the set of equipment that make up the terminal; and the type column87represents the type of terminal according to its degree of automation, (A) being the fully automated88and (S) being the semi‐automated.89 90Logistics 2020, 4, 391 923 of 1393 94Figure 1. Main automated and semi‐automated terminals in the world.95Table 1. Main automated (A) and semi‐automated (S) terminals in chronological order.96Terminal97ECT Europa Container Terminal –Rotterdam. Delta Terminal (1993)98PSA International—Singapur. Pasir Panjang Terminal (1997)99Hutchison Ports UK (HPUK)—London Thamesport (2000)100HHLA—Hamburgo. CT Altenwerder (CTA) (2001)101Patrick Steevedoring—Brisbane. Fishermans Island Terminal (2002)102Wan Hai—Tokyo. Ohi Terminal (2003/06)103Evergreen Marine Corporation—Kaoshiung. Evergreen Marine Terminal (2005)104DP World—Amberes .Antwerp Gateway (2007)105Virginia International Terminal (VIT)—Portsmouth. VA Virginia int. Gateway106(2007)107Pusan East Container Terminal—Busan. Korean Express Brusan CT (2007)108ECT Europa Container Terminal—Rotterdam. Euromax terminal (2008)109Tobshima container berth (TCB) company—Nagoya. Tobishima Pier South (2008)110Hanjin Newport—Hyundai Merchant Marine—Busan. Pusan Newport (2009/10)111Pusan Newport Co (DP World)—Busan. Pusan Newport (2009/12)112TTI Hyunday—Algeciras. Isla Verde (2010)113TPCT—Taipei Port Container Terminal (2010)114Yang Ming+Evergreen—Kaoshiung. Kao Ming Container Terminal (2010/11)115HHLA—Hamburgo. CR Burchardkai (CTB) (2010/17)116AD Terminals—Abu Dhabi. Khalifa Container Terminal (2012)117Hutchinson Port Holdings—Barcelona. BEST (2012)118DP World—London Gateway 1,2/3 (2013/2016)119Global container Terminal—New York/New Jersey. Global Terminals (2014)120Trapac Inc ‐ Long Beach. Trapac (2014)121 122Equipment123137 ARMG / AGV12415 OHBC125Manual tractor (M.T.) +126chassis12718 ARMG128M.T. + chassis12952 ARMG / AGV13027 Auto SC / Auto SC1318 CARMG132M.T. + chassis1336 CARMG134M.T. + chassis13514 ARMG / ShC manual13630 ARMG137Manual cassettes1386 ARMG139M.T. + chassis14058 ARMG / AGV14112 ARTG142AGV14341 + 36 ARMG144M.T. + chassis14532 + 38 CARMG146M.T. + chassis14732 ARMG / ShC manual14840 CARMG149M.T. + chassis15022+40 dual CARMG151M.T. + chassis15215—12 ARMG153SHC manual15442 ARMG / ShC15548 ARMG / ShC15640 + 20 ARMG / ShC15720 ARMG158ShC15927 ARMG/ ShC160 161Type162A163S*164S165A166A167S168S169S170S171S172A173A174S175S176S177S178S179S180S181S182S183S184A185 186Logistics 2020, 4, 3187 1884 of 13189 190Terminal191SSA—Colón Manzanillo Int. Terminal (2014)192Xiamen International Port Corp—Xiamen. Halcang + Fuijang (2014)193DP WOrld—Brisbane (2014)194HPH—Brisbane Container Terminal (2014)195SICT HPH—Sydney Inter. Container Terminal (2014)196Lamong Bay Terminal/Petikemas Semarang—Surabaya. Pelindo III (2014/16)197DP World—Dubai. Jebel Ali Container Terminal 3/4 (2014/18)198APM Terminal—Rotterddam. APMT Maaskvlakte II (2015)199DP/World—Rotterdam World Gateway (2015)200Patrick Steevedoring—Sydney Autostrad (2015)201Port of Singapur Authority—PSA PPT 3‐1a T%, 3‐1b, 3‐2b (2015/2016)202Long Beach CT Inc. ‐. CT Middle Harbor (2016)203SSA Mexico—Tuxpan Port Terminal (TPT) (2016)204Hanjin Incheon Container Terminal– Incheon (2016)205APM Terminals ‐ Veracruz Lázaro Cárdenas T2 (2016)206Peel Ports—Liverpool2 (2016)207VICTCL/ICTSI—Melbourne. Victoria Int. CT (2016/17)208Shangai International Port Group—Shangai. Yangshan Fase 4 (2017)209QQCTN—Qingdao. Qianwai CT (2018)210APM Terminals—VADO. Liguere (2019)211APM Terminals—Tanger Med 2 (2019)212 213Equipment21422 ARMG21516 ARMG / 18 AGV21614 ARMG / ShC21712 ARMG / ShC21812 ARMG / ShC21920 ARMG + 11 ARTG22060 + 35 ARMG22154 ARGM22236+Lift AGVs22332 ARMG / AGV22444 AutoSC / AutoSC22522+34+72 CARMG226M.T. + chassis22732 ARMG2288 ASC / M.T. + chassis22914 ARMG23022 ARMG23122 CARMG23232 ARMG / 11 AutoShC23340 ARMG / 50 AGV23438 ARMG / 38 AGV23521 ARMG236M.T. + chassis23732 ARMG / ShC238 239Type240S241A242S243S244S245S246S247A248A249A250S*251A252S253S254S255S*256A257A258A259S260S261 262* Ports with semi‐automatic terminals but with equipment they use for experiments. Source: Own263elaboration with data from “Puertos del Estado”.264 265The traditional conception of an automated terminal responds to the use of automated266equipment mainly in the storage subsystem and in the interconnection subsystem. However, the267delivery and reception system is where the highest degree of automation has been implemented,268particularly in processes such as container and truck identification or weighing [8].269Finally, the loading and unloading system, in which the docking subsystem may be included,270is the least automated. Although there are terminals that use STS cranes (Ship To Shore gantry271crane) in the ship‐to‐shore operation, as is the case in the Rotterdam World gateway and APM272Terminal Maasvlakte II terminals in Rotterdam [9]. Similarly, mooring is also subject to the273replacement of moorers through the use of vacuum systems or adhesion to the hull, an example of274this system was installed, for the first time in Europe, in 2013 in a mineral terminal in the port of275Narvik, Norway.276A paper investigates crane scheduling problems for a new type of automated container277terminal system, which is based on multi‐storey frame bridges. For the new design concept, the278paper studies how to schedule two types of cranes, i.e., quay cranes and bridge cranes that transfer279containers between different storeys [10]. Another paper makes an explorative study to identify the280challenges and opportunity for it to be applied in transshipment hubs [11].281Most of the operational problems in container terminals are strongly interconnected. A paper282study of the integrated Berth Allocation and Quay Crane Assignment Problem in seaport container283terminals can be found in [12].2843. Methodology285The analysis and diagnosis of automated container terminals has been approached using the286BOT (Business Observation Tool) model. It is a management tool, an alternative to PESTEL287(Political, Economic, Social, Technological, Ecological, Legal), which allows, through observation,288for the initiation and recognition of those minimum elements that must be considered to formulate289and implement the business idea.290The model is based on the establishment of four main scenarios: Motivations and Capacities291(resources) to advance, Establishment of the working group, Characterize and understand the292 293Logistics 2020, 4, 3294 2955 of 13296 297development environment, and Macro‐environment analysis; through which, the boundary is298obtained and the conditions of the BOT analysis are carried out, identifying the conditioning factors299of the automation in the terminals and requirements that must be raised to achieve automation in300the ports.301In this article, the BOT. methodology has been used as an alternative to traditional analyses302such as PESTEL or the development of the SWOT (Strength‐Weaknesses‐Opportunities‐Threats)303matrix. The use of this tool allows us to establish the current scenario on which to act to achieve a304correct implementation of port terminals, addressing and considering both micro and macro305environmental aspects.306This article is the first inclusion of the BOT methodology in the port sector. The possibility of307being used as a tool for strategic decision making has been cited in the hotel sector to study its308economic and financial viability [13] and to analyze the inherent risks; and in the construction of an309entrepreneurial culture in Ecuador [14].310The BOT. is a tool that is widely used in the business sector, but can be applied to any sector,311provided that the methodology defined by the BOT. is used correctly. It is therefore applicable in312the port sector when terminal operators make decisions to automate (to a greater or lesser degree)313their port terminals.3143.1. Step 1: BOT Analysis315Based on the state of the art, description of the BOT analysis in a figure, with the four qualities316to be studied within the analysis and how they relate to each other (Figure 2).3173.1.1. Motivations and Resources to Advance318Motivations and resources are usually the most important scenarios. Therefore, they usually319allow the viability of the project and to be able to execute it with a high impact. The development of320the project requires determining the motivation to opt for such a solution and the study of available321resources for which the following questions must be answered: What is the motivation to develop322the project and do it with a high impact? What resources are available to develop this project?3233.1.2. Establishment of the Working Team324Through the analysis of the composition of the labour network, taking into account both the325knowledge and skills of each agent involved (port operators and agents related to port operations)326and the shortcomings they may have to carry out the plan, the work teams are configured,327determining the needs and requirements of the team members, in order to achieve the success of328the project. In other words, this scenario must respond to What are and how can the talents of each329team member be harnessed in favor of the project?3303.1.3. Characterize and Understand the Development Environment331The understanding of the environment, thanks to the determination of those external factors332that indicate its implementation and development, facilitates the establishment of the333implementation mechanism and strategies. Their determination is addressed by answering the334following question: What external characteristics to the project can alter decisions and strategies335formulated in the future?3363.1.4. Macroenvironment Analysis337The study of the macroenvironment, also known as the generic environment, is based on338obtaining those technological, socio‐cultural, economic, political and environmental factors that339may condition or intervene in the achievement of the project: What characterizes the observed340environment; and; How it can be used to favor the project?341 342Logistics 2020, 4, 3343 3446 of 13345 346Figure 2. Business Observation Tool (BOT) Analysis. Source: own elaboration based on347slideshare.net Álvaro Morales.348 3493.2. Step 2: Selection of Indicators350Once the scenarios that make up the analysis have been completed, the indicators with the351greatest impact on the business model are selected to measure the activity of the automated352operations.353Table 2 presents the indicators selected to characterize the four scenarios.354Table 2. Definition of the characterization indicators based on BOT scenarios.355Scenarios356 357Indicator358 359Institutional360support361Economic agents362Enabling tools363Experience364 365Definition366Increased productivity, thanks to a better occupation and layout of the yard and the367development of methodical and orderly operations. Faced with these improvements, the368little flexibility they present requires the establishment of mechanisms to facilitate369decision‐making in unscheduled situations.370Reductions in operating costs should allow the high initial investment required to be371amortized.372The elimination of the human factor makes it possible to reduce errors in the handling of373goods, and therefore, an increase in safety.374Sustainability criteria established in the port system, need to decouple the growth of the375sector with the negative effects on the social environment and the environment376Organisms and public entities advocate for the transformation and incorporation of new377technologies in order to achieve a more competitive system.378Cross investment confluence379Availability in the market of the necessary technology.380Personnel not equipped with experience in the performance of new roles381 382Formation383 384Inadequate and obsolete in the face of new needs385 386Information387 388Lack of access to correct information389 390Motivations391 392Operational393improvement394Economic395profitability396Safety397 398Knowledge399 400Resources401 402Sustainability403 404Work405Team406 407Skills408 409Flexibility410Goods handling411Incident412management413Implication414Communication415 416Difficulty adapting, reacting and responding.417The flexibility comes from a cooperative agreement between the terminal operator and418the liner shipping company [15].419Interference of operations. Automation allows to reduce the number of housekeeping420movements.421Align people with the strategy, communication between the various members and422between all levels of the organization423Inclusion and internalization of the project424Align people with the strategy, communication between the various members and425between all levels of the organization.426 427Logistics 2020, 4, 3428 429Socio‐cultural430 431Technological432 433Place434 435People436 437History438 439Scenarios440 4417 of 13442 443Indicator444Information445processing446Paradigm shift447Ports 4.0448Technological449Incorporation450Multiplicity of451agents452Acceptance of453change454Collaboration455between agents456Link in logistics457chains458Maturity of the459port system460Transparency461Technological462maturity463Obsolescence464Implementation465mechanisms466Research467Training of468personnel469Support for trade470union strength471Reconversion472Safety473 474Environmental475 476Decarbonization477 478Reduction of479externalities480 481Economical482 483Political484 485Energy efficiency486Institutional487Impulse488Regulatory489requirements490Lobbies491Financing492Community aid493 494Definition495Exchange of documents in physical and digital format, with a multitude of interfaces496between sender and recipient497Evolution of the ʺPortʺ concept498Digital, intelligent and smart ports499Transposition of technology applied to other sectors (blockchain)500Port community conformed of private and public agents.501Opposition of stevedoring personnel to automation502Disparate objectives that do not converge, resulting in a conflict of interest [16]503Acceptance of the port as a node in the logistics chain, eliminating bottlenecks.504Consolidation of ports505System opacity506Solid fundamentals and verified developed solutions507Emergence of new technologies as a result of research508Lack of protocols and methodology to facilitate the implementation of technology509Research initiatives must be accompanied by pilot tests certifying their adequacy.510Unskilled personnel511The current union strength in the ports and their reluctance to change is a handicap for512the adoption of automated terminals.513The change in the management model of the terminals implies a reconversion of the514workers to technological profiles515The elimination of the human factor in operations means an increase in safety, however,516in many terminals today people interact with automated and manual equipment,517increasing the probability of error518The European Environment Agency (EEA) [17] estimates that shipping has increased its519greenhouse gas emissions by 22% from 1990 to 2016. Faced with this increase, the OECD520(Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development) has established measures521supported by the use of new technologies to achieve the decarbonization of maritime522transport by 2035 [5].523Negative externalities, such as congestion, accidents and pollution (atmospheric,524acoustic, and visual) can be mitigated with the implementation of automated terminals525due to the more rational use of space, the use of electrical equipment, and the526programming of removal operations in such a way that they do not intervene in the527operation of the terminal.528Many ports and terminals endeavor to enhance energy efficiency as energy prices have529increased through years and climate change mitigation is a key target for the port530industry [18].531Organisms and public entities advocate for transformation.532Hardening of regulations533Faced with the possibility of a new economic slowdown and the risk of implementing534automated terminals, investments have been reduced.535Search for alternative financing536European funding with high requirements for its granting.537 538Source: Own elaboration.539 5403.3. Step 3: Qualitative‐Quantitative Analysis541Qualitative‐quantitative analysis will be carried out on the basis of the selected indicators.542Depending on the scope or level of the achievement of each indicator considered, each indicator543will be scored qualitatively and quantitatively. These scores will be made by a group of experts in544the sector in which they score the indicator according to the ratio and impact required for545automation:546 547Logistics 2020, 4, 3548 549550551552 5538 of 13554 555High degree of achievement: “High”—5556Medium range: “Medium”—2.5557Low range: “Low”—1558 559The quantification of each indicator and, therefore, of each scenario, through its weighting,560forms the basis on which strategic decisions must be taken for the implementation and achievement561of objectives.5624. Expected Results and Discussion5634.1. BOT Analysis5644.1.1. Motivations and Resources to Move Forward565Ports are subject to new requirements in terms of sustainability, costs, safety, and efficiency. In566order to meet these requirements and maintain their competitiveness, they must evolve and move567towards the concept of Port 4.0. This conversion involves, among other measures, the automation of568processes.569The automation of port terminals is motivated by the benefits obtained from this process, such570as a reduction in operating costs (OPEX), mainly due to a reduction in the workforce, an increase in571terminal safety, or environmental benefits, as these are terminals with a higher density of containers572that make better use of space and operate with electrical equipment.573Additionally, there are high investment costs associated with automation compared with to574traditional settings.575In order to carry out the automation of the processes, institutional support is available, as well576as the desire of the Port Authorities and national and international bodies required to implement577them, the interest of economic agents and operators in investing in new developments, and the578tools and enabling technologies that the market offers to undertake the project.5794.1.2. Establishment of the Working Group580The achievement of the objectives lies in the involvement of the many agents, both public and581private, in the fluidity of the data transmission between them, and in the processing and handling582of this information. This requires a reconversion of the labor network, since the personnel do not583have the necessary qualification and experience for the new technological developments.5844.1.3. Characterize and Understand the Development Environment585Since 2010 we have been in the third generation, which is based on a more efficient exchange of586information and the integration of intelligent procedures, allowing a conversion of the concept587ʺSmart portʺ to ʺPorts 4.0ʺ. (Connected ports with high digitalization and sensorization).588The transformation of the port system requires greater transparency [19] and collaboration589between the agents involved, starting by assuming and internalizing the need for change and590regeneration.5914.1.4. Macro‐environment Analysis592593 594595 596Technological. The automation and rationalization of port procedures has been made possible597by digitalization and the integration of information technologies (IT) and innovative598information systems (IS). The dynamism of the technological industry requires the599establishment of implementation mechanisms that allow the inclusion of the new tools600available and adaptation to new developments arising from research, such as the inclusion of601autonomous vessels [20].602Socio‐cultural. In a sector with an important trade union strength, the automation of the603terminals causes a social conflict, as it implies a reduction in the traditional required labor604force.605 606Logistics 2020, 4, 3607 608609 610611612 6139 of 13614 615Economical. The Spanish port system has established a plan to boost entrepreneurship for616innovation in the port sector, endowed with a fund of 25 million euros [21]. On the other hand,617the European Sea Ports Organization, ESPO, has developed the ʺConnect Europeʺ program618(2021‐2028), with the aim of financing new port developments. Within this program, it is619estimated that European ports will have investment needs of around 48,000 million euros620between 2018 and 2027, caused by external factors such as the growth of trade flows, new621trends in the maritime industry, decarbonization, digitalization, automation, urban622development, and security [22].623Political. Political actors and institutions advocate the incorporation of automation in maritime624transport.625Environmental. The European Union aims to reduce greenhouse gas emissions [23] through a626change in energy models, so decarbonization will be a key element for maritime transport [24].627 6284.2. Qualitative‐quantitative Analysis629Based on the observed reality, we proceed, taking into account the degree of implementation,630to score each selected indicator (Table 3).631Table 3 represents the score made in the Delphi panel by a group of six experts in the field,632which is made up of members of the public, private, and R+D+i company. The experts had to score633from 1 to 5 the importance of the indicator according to its importance within the study.634Table 3. Score of the indicators.635 636STAGE637Motivations638 639Resources640 641Knowledge642 643Skills644 645Work Team646 647History648 649Place650 651People652 653Technological654 655Indicator656Operational improvement657Economic profitability658Safety659Sustainability660Institutional support661Economic agents662Enabling tools663Experience664Formation665Information666Flexibility667Goods handling668Incident management669Implication670Communication671Information processing672Paradigm shift673Ports 4.0674Technological Incorporation675Link in logistics chains676Maturity of the port system677Transparency678Multiplicity of agents679Acceptance of change680Collaboration between agents681Technological maturity682Obsolescence683Implementation mechanisms684 685Qualitative686Medium687Medium688Low689Medium690High691Medium692High693Low694Low695Low696Low697Medium698Low699Low700Low701Medium702Medium703Low704Medium705High706High707Low708Medium709Low710Low711High712Medium713Low714 715Quantitative7162.57172.571817192.572057212.5722572317241725172617272.57281729173017312.57322.573317342.57355736573717382.57391740174157422.57431744 745Logistics 2020, 4, 3746 747STAGE748 749Socio‐cultural750 751Economical752Political753Environmental754 75510 of 13756 757Indicator758Research759Training of personnel760Support for trade union strength761Reconversion762Safety763Lobbies764Financing765Community aid766Institutional Impulse767Regulatory requirements768Decarbonization769Reduction of externalities770Energy efficiency771 772Qualitative773Medium774Low775Low776Low777Low778Medium779Medium780Medium781High782High783Low784Medium785Medium786 787Quantitative7882.578917901791179217932.57942.57952.57965797579817992.58002.5801 802Source: Own elaboration.803 804Figure 3 presents the results obtained for each scenario, which allows us to identify the aspects805that require more attention.806 807Figure 3. BOT analysis results. Source: Own elaboration based on slideshare.net Álvaro Morales.808 8095. Conclusions810In this article, the BOT methodology has been used as an alternative to traditional analyses,811such as PESTEL or the development of the SWOT matrix. The use of this tool allows us to establish812the current scenario on which to act to achieve a correct implementation of port terminals,813addressing and considering both micro‐ and macro‐environmental aspects.814The motivations and available resources are the fundamental axes for executing the project.815Within this central scenario, a greater participation of economic agents must be achieved through816 817Logistics 2020, 4, 3818 81911 of 13820 821transparency, so that, together with a regeneration of the personal scenario, the benefits derived822from automation can be obtained.823The critical point of successful implementation is in socio‐cultural factors. Complete824automation will only be possible through dialogue and communication with trade unions,825involving them in the project, and providing them with the information and training necessary for826their retraining, so that workers acquire the necessary skills according to their capabilities.827As a conclusion, a global perspective map of the aspects considered in the implementation of828automation in the terminals is presented. It indicates the current degree of incidence and the829desired degree to carry out the project successfully. All this is presented in Figure 4.830It is clear that cybersecurity is a primary issue in the short term, while transparency is831considered in the longer term.832Decarbonization (the responsible consumption of fossil fuels and the reduction of CO2 and833greenhouse gas emissions), which is now a policy issue across Europe, is increasing over time and834is becoming increasingly important.835It should also be noted that collaboration is an important issue when automating a container836terminal, as from the private perspective (the terminal operator) there has to be communication and837willingness on the part of the port authority (public party), as without a good understanding it838cannot benefit the operation.839In addition, collaboration between the parties is essential, as the exchange of data is a basic840pillar of automated operations. Therefore, Figure 4 shows that collaboration should increase as time841goes by or as it is planned.842 843Figure 4. Map of perspective. Source: Own elaboration.844Author Contributions: Study conception and design, A.C.O., J.I.P.S., M.M.E.‐I.C. and N.G.C.; material845preparation, data collection and analysis, A.C.O., M.M.E.‐I.C., N.G.C. and J.I.P.S.; writing—original draft846preparation, J.I.P.S.; writing—review and editing, A.C.O., J.I.P.S., M.M.E.‐I.C. and N.G.C. All authors read and847approved the final manuscript.848Funding: This research received no external funding.849Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.850 851References8521.853 854Vis, I.F.; De Koster, R. Transshipment of containers at a container terminal: An overview. Eur. J. Oper. Res.8552003, 147, 1–16.856 857Logistics 2020, 4, 3858 8592.8603.8614.862 8635.864 8656.8667.8678.8689.86910.87011.87112.872 87313.874 87514.87615.87716.87817.879 88018.88119.882 88320.884 88521.886 88722.888 88923.890 89112 of 13892 893Alho, T. Latest Automation Technology Developments for Ports and Terminals. In Proceedings of the894ANESCO Automation Coference, Madrid, Spain, 19 February 2019.895Martín‐Soberón, A.M.; Monfort, A.; Sapiña, R.; Monterde, N.; Calduch, D. Automation in Port Container896Terminals. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 2014, 160, 195–204.897Boer, C.A.; Saanen, Y.A.; Gunther, H.O.; Kim, K.H.; Kopfer, H. Testing, tuning and training terminal898operating systems. A modern approach. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Logistics and899Maritime Systems (LOGMS), Bremen, Germany, 22–24 August 2012; pp. 25–35.900Heilig, L.; Schwarze, S.; Voss, S. An Analysis of Digital Transformation in the History and Future of901Modern Ports. In Proceedings of the 50th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Hawaii,902HI, USA, 4–7 January 2017.903Lee, P.T.‐W.; Lam, J.S.L.; Lin, C.‐W.; Hu, K.‐C.; Cheong, I. Developing the fifth generation port concept904model: An empirical test. Int. J. Logist. Manag. 2018, 29, 1098–1120.905Camarero, A.; González, N. Cadenas Integradas de Transporte; Fundación Agustín de Betancourt: Madrid,906Spain, 2006.907Camarero, A.; González‐Cancelas, N. Logística y Transporte de Contenedores; Fundación Agustín de908Betancourt: Madrid, Spain, 2007.909Geerlings, H.; Van Duin, R. A new method for assessing CO2‐emissions from container terminals: A910promising approach applied in Rotterdam. J. Clean. Prod. 2011, 19, 657–666.911Zhen, L.; Hu, H.; Wang, W.; Shi, X.; Ma, C. Cranes scheduling in frame bridges based automated912container terminals. Transp. Res. Part C Emerg. Technol. 2018, 97, 369–384.913Zhen, L.; Lee, L.H.; Chew, E.P.; Chang, D.‐F.; Xu, Z.‐X. A Comparative Study on Two Types of914Automated Container Terminal Systems. IEEE Trans. Autom. Sci. Eng. 2011, 9, 56–69.915Iris, Ç.; Pacino, D.; Røpke, S.; Larsen, A. Integrated Berth Allocation and Quay Crane Assignment916Problem: Set partitioning models and computational results. Transp. Res. Part E Logist. Transp. Rev. 2015,91781, 75–97.918Solórzano, M.C.; Fernández, R.I.; Zambrano, D.C.; Administrativa, V. Plan de marketing en Pymes. In919Estrategias Exitosas Para Empresas Comerciales; Universidad Laica Eloy Alfaro de Manabí: Manabí, Ecuador,9202018.921Dorado Gómez, S. Proyecto y Estudio de Viabilidad Económico Financiero y Riesgos de Complejo Hotelero y922Resort; Universidad Internacional de la Rioja (UNIR): Logroño, Spain, 2014.923Iris, Ç.; Christensen, J.; Pacino, D.; Ropke, S. Flexible ship loading problem with transfer vehicle924assignment and scheduling. Transp. Res. Part B Methodol. 2018, 111, 113–134.925Morrall, A.; Rainbird, J.; Katsoulakas, T.; Koliousis, I.; Varelas, T. E‐Maritime for Automating Legacy926Shipping Practices. Transp. Res. Procedia 2016, 14, 143–152.927Agencia Europea Medio Ambiente, Emissions of Air Pollutants from Transport. 2019. Available online:928https://www.eea.europa.eu/data‐and‐maps/indicators/transport‐emissions‐of‐air‐pollutants‐8/transport‐929emissions‐of‐air‐pollutants‐6 (accessed on 26 May 2019).930Iris, Ç.; Lam, J.S.L. A review of energy efficiency in ports: Operational strategies, technologies and energy931management systems. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2019, 112, 170–182.932Meyer‐Larsen, N.; Müller, R. Enhancing the Cybersecurity of Port Community Systems. In Pharmaceutical933Supply Chains‐Medicines Shortages; Springer Science and Business Media LLC: Bremen, Germany, 2018; pp.934318–323.935Resolución del Parlamento Europeo, de 15 de enero de 2019, sobre la conducción autónoma en los936transportes937europeos938(2018/2089(INI)).939Available940online:941http://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/TA‐8‐2019‐0005_ES.html (accessed on 6 March 2019)942Fondo Puertos 4.0. 2019. Available online: https://www.europapress.es/economia/transportes‐94300343/noticia‐puertos‐espanoles‐crean‐fondo‐25‐millones‐euros‐promover‐proyectos‐innovadores‐944logisticos‐20190408210157.html. (accessed on 24 May 2019).945O’Reilly, E.; ESPO. The Infraestructura Investement needs and financing challenge of European Ports. In946Port947Investments948Study;949Brussels,950Belgium,9512018.952Available953online:954https://www.espo.be/media/Port%20Investment%20Study%202018_FINAL_1.pdf955(accessed956on9573958February 2020).959Venturini, G.; Iris, Ç.; Kontovas, C.A.; Larsen, A. The multi‐port berth allocation problem with speed960optimization and emission considerations. Transp. Res. Part D Transp. Environ. 2017, 54, 142–159.961 962Logistics 2020, 4, 3963 96424.965 96613 of 13967 968OECD. Descarbonising Maritime Transport: Pathways to Zero‐Carbon Shipping by 2035. 2020. Available969online: https://www.oecd‐ilibrary.org/transport/decarbonising‐maritime‐transport_b1a7632c‐en (accessed970on 31 January 2020).971 972© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open973access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons974Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).975 976