See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/349376311

Port Community Systems – Supply Chain App stores of the future?

Article · February 2021

CITATIONS READS

0 402

2 authors:

Ralf Elbert Ruben Tessmann

Technische Universität Darmstadt Technische Universität Darmstadt
333 PUBLICATIONS   458 CITATIONS    3 PUBLICATIONS   4 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Darmstädter Logistics Summit View project

Urban Freight Transport View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Ruben Tessmann on 19 February 2021.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

INTERNATIONAL Logistics

Port Community Systems –

Supply Chain App stores of
the future?
Comparison of recent trends of international Port
­Community Systems
Port Community Systems, Multiple Case Study, Digital Platform, Business model

Port Community Systems (PCS) are locally-bound digital platforms to connect the port community. Using
a multiple case study, we compare recent developments in service offer, involved stakeholders, service
development strategy and data governance aspects of four PCS. The studied PCS show diverging busi-
ness model developments. The Ports of Singapore and Antwerp choose an open, app-store like innova-
tion platform approach, creating a one-stop trade and logistics ecosystem. Other ports such as
Rotterdam or Le Havre choose to keep PCS more closed off, limiting their range of available functions.

Ralf Elbert, Ruben Tessmann

P
ort Community Systems (PCS) are
local inter-organizational, multi-
sided platforms that connect vari-
ous stakeholders of a port, thereby
enabling efficient information exchange as
well as commercial and value-added ser-
vices [1, 2]. They reach back to 1982 when
the Port of Hamburg introduced the first
PCS run by Dakosy [3]. In the early years,
the focus was mainly on the digitalization of
previously manual and paper-based com-
munication processes between port mem-
bers, i.e., Electronic Data Interchange
(EDI). Amid the Covid-19 pandemic, even
more ports around the world rely on or plan
to utilize the contactless exchange of data
amongst businesses (B2B) as well as between
companies and governmental agencies
(B2G) [4]. Nowadays, most ports with a PCS
have all of their regulatory and port-coordi-
nation communication digitalized. With
increasing data traffic that was exchanged,
computing capacity became an issue in
some PCS. Therefore easily scalable cloud-
based Software as a Service (SaaS)
approaches were employed, which enabled
together with other technological innova-
tions such as RFID first value-added ser-
vices (VAS) such as track and trace of con-
tainers within the port [3].
With ever-increasing amounts of data
shared through PCS, the question arises,
how PCS operators position their platforms.
Do they leverage available data alone or do
they integrate more stakeholders as well as
additional services? How do existing port
stakeholders react to sharing “critical” busi-
ness information with an extended group [2,
5, 6]. This paper aims to shed light on recent
developments of business models of inter-
national PCS. We will focus our analysis on
the upper two-thirds of the well-established
business model canvas [7, 8] since both
information on cost structures and revenue
streams are not available publicly. The fol-
lowing research questions will guide us:
• Which value-added services are offered
by modern PCS and which stakeholders
are involved? (Value Proposition, Key Part-
ners, Customer Segments, Key Activities)
• How are value-added services created
and offered and how is data governance
handled? (Key Resources, Channels, Cus-
tomer Relationships)
We will try to answer these questions by
adopting a comparative multiple-case study
using publicly available primary and sec-
ondary sources on international PCS. We
compare Singapore Customs’ Networked
Trade Platform (NTP), Port of Antwerp’s
NxtPort and C-Point platforms, Port of Rot-
terdam and Amsterdam’s Portbase and Le
Havre’s SOGET S)ONE platform. These
PCS were selected based on the active users,
monthly transactions as well as the availa-
bility of primary and secondary sources cov-
ering topics relevant to the above-stated
questions. We searched for information on
the four PCS on the most widely used search
engines for scholarly and non-scholarly
searches (Google Scholar and Google). We
manually screened the first 50 search engine
results, stopping at 50, as we did not find any
relevant results from the 40th result
onwards. This procedure has recently been
applied in a similar context [9].
Service offer of modern PCS
A wide range of value-added services (VAS)
are available on the studied PCS platforms.
We identified seven categories of services
offered. These are: Communication ser-
vices, Logistical VAS, Logistical Chain VAS,
Port management & safety VAS, Naviga-
tional VAS, Cargo booking services, Finan-
cial VAS, and Insurance & Compliance VAS.
Table 1 presents an overview of the services
that each of the four PCS platforms cur-
rently offers. The PCS with the most
advanced services per category was given a
full Harvey ball and the remaining PCS
were evaluated compared to these services.
Communication services cover a wide
range of regulatory, port-related and com-
mercial exchange needs of the involved
stakeholders. While deviations between the
four PCS exist due to differences in local
legislation and stakeholder composition, all
four cover a wide variety of services to con-
nect the various stakeholders. Similarly, all
PCS offer advanced logistical VAS, such as

40 Internationales Verkehrswesen (73) 1 | 2021


Track and Trace of containers within the
port, estimated time of arrival (ETA) calcu-
lations or dangerous goods reporting and
handling [11, 17, 26, 33].
Logistical chain VAS include pre- and
post-port supply chain entities, such as hin-
terland warehouses or dry ports into the
platform’s information exchange. An inte-
gration of hinterland transport into a plat-
form’s planning capabilities can be found in
all studied PCS. Singapore’s NTP addition-
ally includes services such as ASCENT’s
iSPOT Electronic Cargo Tracking System,
which works independently of the port’s
premise and therefore enables users of NTP
to track and trace their containers through-
out the whole transport chain from the
same platform that allows them to fulfill
customs requirements at Singapore [35].
Similarly, Port of Antwerp’s NxtPort plat-
form includes the LOGIT ONE service,
aiming to provide end-to-end shipment
­
insights [36].
Port management and safety VAS include
services that either help the port operator
(i.e., often the port authority) to optimize
their in- and out-of-port processes, for
example, through truck or barge appoint-
ment systems, or to increase the port’s secu-
rity by improved gate access procedures,
based on digital registration of trucks and
drivers or optical character recognition of
container codes, to make sure only verified
trucks, drivers and containers can enter the
port’s premise. Navigational VAS are mostly
based on improved visibility of vessels
within the port area, which helps to find
better routing and navigation. We could not
find any evidence, that truck guidance sys-
tems have been implemented yet. [37, 38]
E-commerce booking services are ser-
vices that do not have a coordinating func-
tion for the port itself. E.g., truck or barge
appointment systems are booking services
but have a coordinating function for the
port, while a cargo transport booking ser-
vice does not. S)ONE for example offers in
cooperation with Click2Rail a cargo train
booking service directly through the PCS
[29]. On NTP, HAKOVO offers ocean freight
booking [39], Haulio offers trucking
arrangement services [40] and janio offers,
amongst other shipping solutions, last-mile
delivery [41], which means that all modes of
transport can be booked right out of the
NTP portal. Port of Rotterdam offers multi-
ple planning tools, amongst them “Navi-
gate”, with which multi-modal transports
between any origin and destination via Port
of Rotterdam can be looked up. The tools
are not integrated with Portbase though and
do not have any booking capabilities [42].
Electronic invoicing is available in all PCS,
Services\PCS NTP
Communications services
Logistical VAS
Logistical Chain VAS
Port management & safety
VAS
Navigatonal VAS
E-commerce services
Cargo booking services
Financial VAS
Inurance & Compliance
VAS
Table 1: Overview of services offered. Own compilation based on information from PCS websites
and secondary sources (NTP: [10–14]; NxtPort/C-Point: [15–22]; Portbase: [23–28]; S)ONE:
[29–34])
S)ONE and C-Point (through Twikey [17])
additionally offer dedicated payment solu-
tions. NTP offers advanced financial VAS as
on top of payment systems, Supply Chain
Financing platforms (such as Culum Capital
[43]) are integrated. Lastly, NTP is the only
platform that offers its members access to
insurance (e.g., CHUBB’s single shipment
insurance services [44]) as well as compli-
ance services (e.g., PurpleTRAC for the mit-
igation of money laundering and terrorist
financing risks [45]).
In conclusion, we can ascertain that Sin-
gapore’s NTP currently offers the broadest
range of services, with an especially strong
offer of e-commerce services. As the next
step of our analysis, we will take a closer
look at which stakeholders are involved and
how the different PCS create and offer their
respective services.
Stakeholders of PCS
All studied PCS show a tendency to expand
their stakeholder groups. Portbase still
mostly concentrates on the core PCS stake-
holders as partners and customers (Figure 1).
NxtPort/C-Point and S)ONE extend the
involved stakeholders by opening up their
respective platforms to external developers
and platforms [20, 29, p. 2]. None of these
three platforms include what we call the
“E-commerce enabler group”, i.e., addi-
tional service and platform developers,
banks and insurances. In all three cases,
financial VAS, for example, are offered by
the PCS operator. While banks might be
included in the port setup and processing
due to payment services, they are neither
active members nor visible to the PCS users
[23, 27]. Singapore’s NTP addresses the most
extended set of stakeholders. It integrates
Logistics  INTERNATIONAL
NxtPort/C- Portbase S)ONE
Point
the “E-commerce enabler group” and offers
them direct access to the PCS data. Those
e-commerce services on the PCS require
the deeper integration of formerly external
PCS partners to provide services such as
Supply Chain Financing or (single) ship-
ment insurance.
PCS architecture and service
development
All of the studied platforms share similar
basic technical architectures (Figure 2). The
platform is either based on a (local) central
database (e.g., Portbase [26]) or utilizes a
cloud platform (e.g., S)ONE [32]), where all
PCS data is processed. The core platform
provides common facilities for all services
and is developed and maintained by the
platform operator. This core platform offers
a certain set of modular services, facilitating
the continuous addition of new services. All
of these services are accessible through a
user interface (i.e., a website), EDI or API
connection to the PCS and users can choose
precisely those services (i.e., applications),
that they want to use. [26]
The four PCS under study show different
approaches to the development of new ser-
vices though. Portbase, for example, devel-
ops all of the services offered on its platform
itself or through non-user-visible contracted
software developers. It provides interfaces
(either EDI or API) to its data and services
to registered software suppliers [26]. These
software suppliers can use the data available
through Portbase to develop value-added
services [26]. In other words, Portbase
restricts itself to a basic PCS platform archi-
tecture (Figure 2) and accordingly does not
offer additional, independently developed
services through its platform. It instead acts
Internationales Verkehrswesen (73) 1 | 2021 41
INTERNATIONAL Logistics
Figure 1: PCS stakeholders. Own depiction inspired by and partially based on [23]
Figure 2: Simplified model of PCS platform architecture development. Own depiction inspired
by [26]
as an information and data supplier for
external, independent VAS providers. S)
ONE chooses a different path, as the exam-
ple of integrating the Click2Rail platform
shows. S)ONE utilizes an extended PCS
platform architecture, where the core plat-
form connects with an external platform (in
this example of Click2Rail), which offers the
additional services. Not all of the external
platform’s services necessarily have to be
available from the PCS interfaces, though
(see Service 2.3 in Figure 2). Both Portbase
and S)ONE use highly formalized partner-
ship agreements. S)ONE, for example, does
not make interfaces available publicly and
Portbase requires a software supplier to
already have a PCS user as a customer
before signing up as such [26].
NxtPort’s “API and applications market”
goes one step further than S)ONE. The core
platform is provided by C-Point (formerly
Antwerp PCS), while NxtPort is acting as
the connected platform for external ser-
vices, which integrates services by third-
party developers into the PCS (such as
LOGIT ONE [36]). Still, it also openly mar-
kets its own and C-Point’s internal data and
services that third-party developers can
access. As part of their mission statement,
the developers of NxtPort formulate the
42 Internationales Verkehrswesen (73) 1 | 2021
goal that innovative solutions shall be built
based on available information in the port
community [46]. By openly marketing avail-
able data, they encourage potential software
providers to integrate their services with
NxtPort, utilize its data and offer the ser-
vices directly to the port community
through the PCS. Currently, three applica-
tions and multiple APIs from external devel-
opers are offered on the NxtPort platform.
Singapore’s NTP has the most open
approach to the development of new ser-
vices. The former services for B2B (Port-
Net) and B2G (TradeNet) communication
have been integrated into the new “one-stop
trade and logistics ecosystem” [11] and
thereby act as the core of the platform. NTP
actively encourages the development of
VAS by third-party developers by providing
them APIs and sandboxes (i.e., secure and
capsuled development environments). As
discussed earlier, NTP also addresses a
broader range of stakeholders and as a
result, Singapore has over 50 VAS by third-
party entities available.
Data governance
With an extended stakeholder group, data
governance becomes an even more pressing
topic as port stakeholders are generally
skeptical about sharing data that might
profit other companies or even competitors.
Recent research suggests that this can be a
major barrier to PCS adoption [5, 23].
Portbase, for example, defined strict reg-
ulations, policies and procedural approaches
for data governance, which include the
authentication of every single data
exchange, so that only pre-approved
exchanges can take place [23]. Similar rules
were defined for NTP [12]. NxtPort and
C-Point stick out with a novel concept of
data governance. Additionally, Antwerp’s
PCS platform allows stakeholders to allo-
cate a value to the data they share to the
data exchange rules. On top of the usual
transaction, monthly recurring and
onboarding fees for using the platform, Nxt-
Port introduced a so-called “Data fee”,
which is set by the respective data owner
and has to be paid by the data user [18, 19].
They thereby encourage data sharing and
allow data owners to monetarize their data.
Conclusion
While our research was limited to only four
major PCS, we can see from the comparison
that the business models of PCS seem to
diverge. Portbase follows a strategy that is
mostly based on a transactional platform.
Data and information are exchanged on the
platform, certain additional VAS are offered
by the PCS operator, but VAS from inde-
pendent developers are not available
through the platform. The S)ONE platform
seems to stand in the middle between the
more closed-off Portbase approach and the
more open approach of NxtPort/C-Point
and NTP. The latter platform appears to
evolve from a sole transaction platform to
an innovation platform by opening up to
more stakeholders, such as banks, insur-
ances and independent service and platform
developers. In this way, PCS can develop
into one-stop single windows, where port
stakeholders can handle (almost) all of their
transport and supply chain-related pro-
cesses seamlessly end-to-end. They do so by
choosing precisely the needed applications
for their tasks from a marketplace or app
store that is part of the PCS platform. It
comes down to whether a PCS wants to keep
the community data more exclusive and
ensure easier trust-building among stake-
holders. This approach can potentially limit
the breadth of available functions. Open
platforms with an extended stakeholder
group, on the other hand, will have to find
new ways to encourage its members to
actively share valuable data, such as Nxt-
Port’s “Data fee” initiative.
Future research could test our observa-
tions to a broader set of Port and also Air-

port Community Systems such as Dakosy’s
PCS in Hamburg, the Dubai Trade platform
or Cargonaut at Schiphol airport to see how
these platforms are positioning themselves
on the continuum between transactional
and innovation platform. It would also be
interesting to see which effect this major
strategic decision has on the platform’s
future development itself as well as the
respective port and which role data govern-
ance arrangements and standards play.  ■
SOURCES
 [1] EPCSA (2011): How To Develop A Port Community System.. (access:
Feb. 08, 2020). www.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/trade/Trade_Facili-
tation_Forum/BkgrdDocs/HowToDevelopPortCommunitySystem-
EPCSAGuide.pdf.
 [2] Moros-Daza, A.; Amaya-Mier, R.; Paternina-Arboleda, C. (2020):
Port Community Systems: A structured literature review. In: Trans-
portation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, vol. 133, pp. 27–46,
Mar. 2020, doi: 10.1016/j.tra.2019.12.021.
 [3] Dakosy (2020): About us – DAKOSY Datenkommunikationssystem
AG. www.dakosy.de/en/about-us (access: Dec. 16, 2020).
 [4] PortStrategy, (2020): FOCUSING DIGITAL MINDS, Sep. 07, 2020.
www.portstrategy.com/news101/technology/focusing-digital-
minds (access: Dec. 19, 2020).
 [5] Wallbach, S.; Coleman, K.; Elbert, R.; Benlian, A. (2019): Multi-sided
platform diffusion in competitive B2B networks: inhibiting factors
and their impact on network effects. In: Electron Markets, vol. 29,
no. 4, pp. 693–710, Dec. 2019, doi: 10.1007/s12525-019-00382-7.
 [6] Rodon, J.; Pastor, J. A.; Sese, F.; Christiaanse, E. (2019): Unravelling
the dynamics of IOIS implementation: an actor-network study of an
IOIS in the seaport of Barcelona. In: J. Inf. Technol., vol. 23, no. 2, pp.
97–108, Jun. 2008, doi: 10.1057/palgrave.jit.2000131.
 [7] Massa, L.; Tucci, C. L.; Afuah, A. (2017): A critical assessment of busi-
ness model research. In: Academy of Management Annals, vol. 11,
no. 1, pp. 73–104, 2017.
 [8] Osterwalder. A.; Pigneur, Y. (2010): Business model generation: a
handbook for visionaries, game changers, and challengers. New
York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.
 [9] Szopinski, D.; Schoormann, T.; John, T.; Knackstedt, R.; Kundisch, D.
(2020):Software tools for business model innovation: current state
and future challenges. In: Electron Markets, vol. 30, no. 3, pp. 469–
494, Sep. 2020, doi: 10.1007/s12525-018-0326-1.
[10] Gordon, J. R. M.; Lee, P. M.; Lucas, H. C. (2005): A resource-based
view of competitive advantage at the Port of Singapore: In: The
Journal of Strategic Information Systems, vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 69–86,
Mar. 2005, doi: 10.1016/j.jsis.2004.10.001.
[11] NTP (2020): Overview; Government VAS ; Value-Added Services
(VAS): Networked Trade Platform – Overview, 2020. www.ntp.gov.
sg/public/introduction-to-ntp---overview; www.ntp.gov.sg/pub-
lic/browse-govvas-catalogue; www.ntp.gov.sg/public/browse-
vas-catalogue (access: Nov. 06, 2020).
[12] Singapore Customs (2020): Leaning forward: Singapore leverages
digital data to help financial institutions augment trade finance
compliance. In: WCO News 92, Jun. 2020. https://mag.wcoomd.org/
magazine/wco-news-92-june-2020/leaning-forward-singapore-
leverages-digital-data-to-help-financial-institutions-augment-
trade-finance-compliance/ (access: Dec. 18, 2020).
[13] Singapore Customs (2018): Going beyond the national Single Win-
dow. In: WCO News, Oct. 2018. https://mag.wcoomd.org/magazine/
wco-news-87/going-beyond-the-single-window/ (access: Nov. 10,
2020).
[14] The Business Times (2018): Singapore’s new digital trade platform
can help build cross-border linkages. In: The Business Times, Sep.
26, 2018.
View publication stats
[15] Antwerp Port Authority (2015). Product Sheet eServices_LR.pdf,
Aug. 2015. www.portofantwerp.com/sites/default/files/Product%20
Sheet%20eServices_LR.pdf (access: Nov. 10, 2020).
[16] Carlan, V.; Sys, C.; Calatayud, A.; Vanelslander, T. (2018): Digital Inno-
vation in Maritime Supply Chains: Experiences from Northwestern
Europe. Inter-American Development Bank, Apr. 2018. doi:
10.18235/0001070.
[17] C-Point, (2020): C-Point Overview; Electronic payments with Twikey.
www.c-point.be/en; www.c-point.be/en/services/electronic-pay-
ments-twikey (access: Dec. 18, 2020).
[18] Lievens, D. (2017): NxtPort, Oct. 2017.
[19] Moyersoen, L. (2019): Building the Port of the Future, Together Open
Data Backbone enabling Digital Supply Chain through Co-Creation.
In: International Maritime Organization Publications, p. 13, Apr. 2019.
[20] de Wilde, G. (2020): How NxtPort unlocks the potential of sharing
data in the port of Antwerp. worldofanalytics.be/blog/how-nxt-
port-unlocks-the-potential-of-sharing-data-in-the-port-of-ant-
werp (access: Dec. 18, 2020).
[21] Port of Antwerp (2020): Electronic solutions for a clearer supply
chain. www.portofantwerp.com/en/node/14630 (access: Nov. 10,
2020).
[22] Waterschoot, K. (2011): Antwerp Port System. Presented at the WCO,
Seattle, May 13, 2011. www.wcoomd.org/-/media/wco/public/
global/pdf/events/2011/it/day-3/kristof_waterschoot.pdf?la=en
(access: Nov. 10, 2020)
[23] Chandra, D. R.; van Hillegersberg, J. (2018): Governance of inter-
organizational systems: a longitudinal case study of Rotterdam’s
Port Community System. In: IJISPM-Int. J. Inf. Syst. Proj. Manag., vol.
6, no. 2, pp. 47–68, 2018, doi: 10.12821/ijispm060203.
[24] Constante, J. M. (2019): International Case Studies and Good Prac-
tices for Implementing Port Community Systems | Publications.
Inter-American Development Bank, May 2019. https://publications.
iadb.org/publications/english/document/International_case_
studies_and_good_practices_for_implementing_Port_Commu-
nity_Systems_en_en.pdf (access:: May 29, 2019).
[25] de Langen, P. W.; Heij, C. (2014): Corporatisation and Performance: A
Literature Review and an Analysis of the Performance Effects of the
Corporatisation of Port of Rotterdam Authority. In: Transport
Reviews, vol. 34, no. 3, pp. 396–414, May 2014, doi:
10.1080/01441647.2014.905650.
[26] Portbase (2020): How it works; Services; Portbase developer portal;
Through collaboration with Portbase, our software is developing
fast. www.portbase.com/en/port-community-system/; www.port-
base.com/services/; https://developer.portbase.com/; www.port-
base.com/en/klantervaringen/through-collaboration-with-port-
base-our-software-is-developing-fast/ (access: Dec. 16, 2020).
[27] van Baalen, P.; Zuidwijk, R.; van Nunen, J. (2009): Port inter-organ-
izational information systems: Capabilities to service global supply
chains, vol. 2.
[28] van der Horst, M. R.; van der Lugt, L. M. (2011): Coordination mecha-
nisms in improving hinterland accessibility: empirical analysis in
the port of Rotterdam. In: Maritime Policy & Management, vol. 38,
no. 4, pp. 415–435, Jul. 2011, doi: 10.1080/03088839.2011.588257.
[29] Bunker Ports News Worldwide (2019): SOGET and the start-up Click-
2Rail sign a global partnership agreement. Oct. 30, 2019.
[30] FAQ Logistique (2018): MGI and SOGET present the convergence
work of Ci5 and S) ONE: In:Portail Logistique, Transport et Supply
Chain, Mar. 22, 2018. www.faq-logistique.com/CP20180322-MGI-
SOGET-Convergence-Nationale-CCS.htm (access: Nov. 24, 2020).
[31] Joszczuk-Januszewska, J. (2012): The Benefits of Cloud Computing in
the Maritime Transport. In: Telematics in the Transport Environment
Springer: Berlin, Heidelberg, vol. 329, pp. 258–266, doi: 10.1007/978-
3-642-34050-5_29.
[32] Port Strategy (2018): SOGET and Microsoft: a strategic partnership
for a secure digitization of ports in France and worldwide, Oct. 17,
2018. www.portstrategy.com/press-releases/2018/soget-and-
microsoft-a-strategic-partnership-for-a-secure-digitization-of-
ports-in-france-and-worldwide (access: Dec. 16, 2020).
[33] Soget (2020): Le Havre Port Community System. www.soget.fr/en/
customers/france/le-havre-uk.html (access: Nov. 05, 2020).
Logistics  INTERNATIONAL
[34] Soget (2019): SOGET digital platforms handle more than half a mil-
lion secured messages a day. In: Hellenic Shipping News World-
wide, Sep. 11, 2019. www.hellenicshippingnews.com/soget-digital-
platforms-handle-more-than-half-a-million-secured-messages-
a-day/ (access: Dec. 01, 2020).
[35] iSpot (2020): iSPOT Secure Electronic Cargo Tracking by Ascent Solu-
tions. www.ntp.gov.sg/public/browse-vas-catalogue/view-vas-
details?id=5865450 (access: Dec. 18, 2020).
[36] NxtPort (2020): Logit One – Visibility tool. www.nxtport.com/mar-
ket/applications/logit-one (access: Dec. 18, 2020).
[37] Carlan, V.; Naudts, D.; Audenaert, P.; Lannoo, B.; Vanelslander, T.
(2019): Toward implementing a fully automated truck guidance
system at a seaport: identifying the roles, costs and benefits of
logistics stakeholders. In: Journal of Shipping and Trade, vol. 4, no.
1, p. 12, Dec. 2019, doi: 10.1186/s41072-019-0054-5.
[38] Pema (2013): OCR in Ports and Terminals.. www.pema.org/wp-
content/uploads/downloads/2013/01/PEMA-IP4-OCR-in-Ports-and-
Terminals.pdf (access:: Dec. 18, 2020).
[39] Hakovo (2018): HAKOVO on Singapore’s new digital trade platform.
Oct. 01, 2018. www.hakovo.com/hakovo-on-singapores-new-digi-
tal-trade-platform/ (access: Dec. 18, 2020).
[40] Haulio (2018): Haulio and the NTP. Nov. 08, 2018. www.haulio.io/
blog/haulio-and-ntp/ (access: Dec. 18, 2020).
[41] Janio (2020): janio & Bukalapak – Upgrading Indonesian micro-
entrepreneurs to expand regionally.https://janio.asia/about-us/
(access: Dec. 17, 2020).
[42] Port of Rotterdam (2020): All shipping routes via Rotterdam | Navi-
gate planner. Navigate Rotterdam shipping routes – Get a complete
overview of the best connections. https://rotterdam.navigate-con-
nections.com/voyages (access: Dec. 17, 2020).
[43] Culum Capital (2020): Supply Chain Financing by Culum Capital.
www.ntp.gov.sg/public/browse-vas-catalogue/view-vas-
details?id=5805450 (access: Dec. 18, 2020).
[44] CHUBB (2020): Single Shipment Insurance by Chubb- www.ntp.gov.
sg/public/browse-vas-catalogue/view-vas-details?id=5905450
(access: Dec. 18, 2020).
[45] Pole Star (2020): PurpleTRAC powered by Pole Star. www.ntp.gov.
sg/public/browse-vas-catalogue/view-vas-details?id=5935450
(access: Dec. 18, 2020).
[46] NxtPort (2018): Towards a competitive advantage. European Freight
Leaders Forum, 2018. www.europeanfreightleaders.eu/wp-content/
uploads/2018/02/305.-NxtPort-intiative.pdf (access: Nov. 10, 2020).
Ralf Elbert, Prof. Dr.
Professor am Fachgebiet Unterneh-
mensführung und Logistik,
Technische Universität Darmstadt
elbert@log.tu-darmstadt.de
Ruben Tessmann
Doktorand, Fachgebiet Unterneh-
mensführung und Logistik,
Technische Universität Darmstadt
ruben@r-tessmann.de
Internationales Verkehrswesen (73) 1 | 2021 43