Available via license: CC BY 4.0
Content may be subject to copyright.
Article 1
The Re-Conceptualization of the Port Supply Chain 2
as a Smart Port Service System: The Case of the Port 3
of Salerno 4
Antonio Botti1, Antonella Monda 2,*, Marco Pellicano 3, Carlo Torre 4
5
University of Salerno – DISA – MIS; abotti@unisa.it (A.B.); pellicano@unisa.it (M.P.); ctorre@unisa.it (C.T.) 6
* Correspondence: anmonda@unisa.it 7
8
9
Abstract: This paper proposes a re-conceptualization of the port supply chain as a smart service 10
system, according to the theory of the Service science. Starting from a short literature review about 11
the port supply chain approach and the Service science, a new comprehensive framework is 12
provided to better understand the seaport dynamics and the creation of competitive port supply 13
chains. The methodology used is the case study approach. The authors examined the port of Salerno 14
(Italy), and re-conceptualized it as a smart port service systems. Both theoretical and practical 15
implications are provided to enrich the literature about the port supply chain and to support the 16
port operators. 17
Keywords: Smart service systems, Service systems, Service Science, Port Supply Chain Management 18
19
1. Introduction 20
The growing importance of the role of the seaports in the supply chain made the port as a 21
principal actor capable to create value both for the stakeholders involved in the process of the port 22
supply chain and for the country where the port operates [1]. The port is increasingly viewed as a 23
network of actors, resources and activities, which interact to co-produce value by promoting a 24
number of interdependencies within the port supply chain [2]. This integrated port supply chain 25
approach is in line with some recent theories that focus on the importance of the relationships among 26
the actors of a network, by considering the interaction and the cooperation the basis of a value co-27
creation process [3,4,5,6,7,8]. Among these theories, one of the most important perspective is the 28
Service Science [9], that focuses on the combination of human and technology knowledge, by 29
highlighting the role of the information technologies (IT). According to this view, every service could 30
configure a service system, that is the result of the interaction of a series of integrated elements. 31
Moreover, the advancement in technologies provides “smarter” solutions to manage the service 32
systems. This is the reason why nowadays they are called smart service systems [10]. 33
Although a few authors conceptualize the port as a network of actors sharing resources [11,12], 34
little research considers the port supply chain as a complex system [13]. 35
This paper aims to fill this gap, by trying to answer the need to implement a logistic frameworks, 36
through the re-conceptualization of the port supply chain according to the lens of the Service Science 37
perspective. The authors intend to reconfigure the port as a smart service system, providing a new 38
comprehensive framework to better understand the seaport dynamics and the creation of competitive 39
port supply chains. In particular, the case study of the port of Salerno is analyzed. This port adhered, 40
Preprints (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 3 April 2017 doi:10.20944/preprints201704.0002.v1
Peer-reviewed version available at Systems 2017, 5, , 35; doi:10.3390/systems5020035
2 of 10
a year ago, to the smart tunnel project: an intelligent platform of services with the aim of support 41
the chain of port logistics and road transport of goods, mainly in the urban area. 42
The paper offers both theoretical and practical implications. Theoretical implications enable to 43
enrich the literature about the re-conceptualization of the port supply chain, according to the Service 44
Science perspective, and support many reflections for future research, in particular on how the use 45
of ICT make the port supply chain efficient. Moreover, this paper entails practical implications for 46
the port operators. 47
2. Theoretical background 48
2.1. The theory of the Service Science 49
Service Science represents a multidisciplinary approach that concerns computer science, 50
operational research, industrial engineering, management and social sciences and regards the study 51
of the planning, distribution and evaluation of services. Thus, the Service Science deals with the 52
development of that kind of expertise needed by an economy based on services [14]. 53
Spohrer and Maglio [15], in fact, affirm that the goal of Service Science is to focus on the 54
continuous and evolving research of three components: effectiveness, efficiency and sustainability. 55
The first refers to the right supply of services, the second is about the identification of a set of 56
appropriate activities and the third stands for the capability of establish lasting and strong 57
relationships with the other service systems. 58
Service science aims at filling the two great gaps of service research. The first is represented by 59
the productivity levels of services. In fact, until now, these levels lie below of those guaranteed by the 60
manufacturing sector. The second, instead, concerns the absence of suitable methods of measurement 61
for the effects of investments in services [14]. 62
Consequently, the focus of Service Science is the continuous research of scientific methods for 63
analyzing and finalizing the productivity with the aim to solve the critical issues deriving from the 64
particular connotation of the service (in terms of heterogeneity, intangibility, inseparability and 65
perishability). In other words, the goals is to realize both the engineering and the standardization of 66
the services distribution processes, in line with the present changes of a contest that pay serious 67
attention to the role of knowledge, to the strategic management of the human resources and on the 68
arrangement of the technological tools, able to create and spreading innovation. 69
On this trail, [16] highlight how Service Science, as an interdisciplinary scientific proposal, 70
intends to investigate the dominant factors for the service systems. The emphasis is on the new active 71
role of both the subjects operating in that systems and also of the shared information or technologies, 72
with crucial importance for customers role. Clients are considered not merely participants, but real 73
prominence actors in the production processes. 74
From all these evidences, clearly emerges the focus of the Service Science on the role of 75
knowledge and technologies, as an incitement factor to accomplish the value co-creation and, at the 76
same time, as a results of a process. 77
The theory orients the decision making of companies and organizations toward a stronger 78
cooperation and interaction among the different social actors, characterized by turbulence and 79
uncertainty, in line with the recent markets tendencies [17]. This scenario make more perceptible the 80
importance of the activation of suitable relationships and efficient exchange flows between the 81
stakeholders involved in the processes of value creation. This highlights the relevance of the 82
incitement role of the literature [18] for new information and communication technologies, in creating 83
and developing suitable networks of relationships. In this way, the Service Science become an 84
interdisciplinary approach able to define corporate models founded on network theory [4] and 85
oriented to the creation of real interconnections of relationships and networks, as well as other service 86
research approaches. These networks represent the connections of social resources and techniques 87
that create and spread knowledge value though the relationships [19] (p. 5). 88
Preprints (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 3 April 2017 doi:10.20944/preprints201704.0002.v1
Peer-reviewed version available at Systems 2017, 5, , 35; doi:10.3390/systems5020035
3 of 10
The final goal of these systemic entities is indeed to generate value, by pursuing constantly the 89
improvement of the interactions among the involved actors, to optimize the allocation of the 90
resources and the positive effects deriving by the collaboration and cooperation strategies [20]. 91
2.1.1. From the service systems to Smart service systems 92
Recent evolution of the Service Science emphasizes the role of technology and, in particular, the 93
importance of the ICTs for the implementation of a new vision of the service systems in line with the 94
continuous and persistent changes of the surrounding environment. Spohrer et al. [10] introduce the 95
concept of "smart service systems", focusing on the need to adapt firms management to the changing 96
conditions of the environment in particular the cities where they reside, that become more and more 97
“smart” [21,22]. 98
Thus, the ICTs play the important role to enhance organization’s competitiveness and survival. 99
They are able to reconfigure the old systems of services, by ensuring real-time relations and better 100
learning processes. The development and deployment of such a systems allows to ensure greater 101
participation of the social actors in the creation of services, while ensuring a high level of 102
customization. Besides, ICTs offer the opportunity to improve the reaction to the context changes, as 103
well as leads a higher level of service quality. These implications allow to define the "smart service 104
systems" [10] as systems that can improve the quality of services through a more efficient allocation 105
of resources. At the same time, these systems are able to ensure a more efficient use of resources and 106
to implement more effective business strategies. 107
For these reasons, the smart service systems are so called, because they are able, through 108
appropriate continuous learning process, rational innovation and social responsibility, to enhance 109
the effectiveness of both the outside relationships and the overall management business. Thanks to 110
the spread of smart service systems it is possible to realize any kind of service, (i.e. public, medical, 111
tourism, commercial, etc) in a sustainable and effective way; consequently, to increase the survival 112
chances of firms and organizations. 113
2.2. Port Supply Chain: a brief review 114
During the past years, the concept of the port has evolved from being considered as a single 115
entity of actors and resources to the conceptualization as a network that cooperates to the value co-116
creation [23]. 117
In line with these conceptual changes, the idea of the port efficiency has changed. In fact, 118
traditional indicators of efficiency and performance of the ports are usually oriented to emphasize 119
the connection with access to the sea, rather then to give sufficient prominence to the land-side 120
connections, which also could allow a better coordination to improve the efficiency of port 121
performance [24]. Nowadays, the activities of the ports are generally measured by reference to the 122
load of outgoing goods, the productivity of the overall loading of cargo and, consequently, a whole 123
series of aspects exclusively related to the production function [25]. 124
Several studies [26] propose alternative models to measure the efficiency and the performance 125
of ports, by focusing on the single container terminals. Similarly, also [27] proposes an approach that 126
paid once again attention to the activities of the ports made during loading / unloading of goods, 127
while ignoring all the operations that, before and after, take place in the back of the harbor. Other 128
scholars [28,29] believe that the fragmentation of the management approach for the ports depends on 129
the organizational complexity of port facilities, even if the recent privatization process of the harbor 130
allows to make easier their logistics management. Moreover, according to Fleming and Baird [30] the 131
absence of a real community with a competitive spirit depends on the same lack of an integrated 132
management for the port activities. 133
Preprints (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 3 April 2017 doi:10.20944/preprints201704.0002.v1
Peer-reviewed version available at Systems 2017, 5, , 35; doi:10.3390/systems5020035
4 of 10
Starting from these considerations, it is clear in the literature the awareness to achieve a greater 134
integration for the supply chain. In fact, also Sheffi and Klaus [31] emphasize the importance to 135
achieve an adequate integration of all the actors involved in the supply chain. At the same time, 136
Christopher and Towell [32] highlight the importance of managing in a way, as much as possible 137
harmonic, the entire logistics chain. In light of these considerations, it seems reasonable to believe 138
that the institutional fragmentation characterizing the port facilities make it difficult to achieve 139
satisfactory measurement for the port performance. In this sense, the adoption of a systems approach 140
may help to improve the port management, trying to steer the port activities towards a greater 141
propensity for collaboration and interaction [33]. In this way, the port system, in addition to direct 142
its activities in the transport operation, would also be able to represent a real under-production and 143
logistics system. In fact, in terms of logistics, ports represent important nodes that ensure both 144
intermodal and multimodal transport. Moreover, ports can function as a logistics center for the flow 145
of goods (cargo) and people (passengers). The port acts also as a key site for the management of 146
commercial traffic, as it is able, on the one hand to connect the outside flows and, on the other hand, 147
to create adequate flows within the port itself. Such a shift from a traditional to an integrated 148
management system, allow to highlight the new role played by the port in ensuring a greater ability 149
to link the flows and the commercial channels with the actors operating within itself. 150
3. Research Methodology 151
This study analyzes one of the most active and efficient seaport of the Mediterranean Sea, in 152
which relations and interactions among the actors plays a key role: the port of Salerno. 153
Starting from a short literature review about the port supply approach and the fundamental 154
concepts of Service science, the aim of the paper is to provide a re-conceptualization of the port 155
supply chain of Salerno according to the Service Science’s assumptions. 156
We first collected information about the stakeholders and the dynamics among them within the 157
port of Salerno through secondary source: the official site of the port of Salerno. Afterward, we 158
analyzed the role of every single actor and their interactions with the other members of the port 159
system. Lastly, we identified the similarity within these theories and analyze the port supply chain 160
of Salerno through the lens of the Service Science. 161
This allow us to re-configure the port of Salerno as a smart service system, following the 162
framework of Sporher et al. [10]. Finally, we provided a new framework to better understand the 163
seaport dynamics. 164
This paper is based on a qualitative approach; in particular, it is used the case study 165
methodology [34]. The case study approach allows to better understand the “dynamics present 166
within single setting” [35], examining in depth the phenomenon characteristics within its context. 167
This research strategy can involve many levels of analysis, many cases and many point of view [36], 168
but in this case we consider the only level of analysis of the port as a network within every single 169
actor who collaborate to co-create value [2]. 170
However, the only limit of the case study approach involves concerns the absence of specific 171
procedures to assess validity and reliability in experimental research design [36]. 172
4. The case study: the port of Salerno and the Smart tunnel project 173
The port of Salerno is located in the gulf of the Tyrrhenian Sea and it has a strategic position in 174
the Mediterranean Sea, since it is easily reachable from a lot of middle and southern Italian regions, 175
such as Lazio, Abruzzo, Molise, Puglia and Calabria. This is also the case of so many ports of 176
surrounded Country: Setubal, Bristol, Cork, Esbjerg, Wallhamn, Anversa, Southampton, Malta, Pireo, 177
Izmir, Ashdod, Limassol, Alexandria and so on. 178
The port of Salerno is a commercial harbor and it represents a critical nodal point for the logistics 179
in import export business of several kind of goods. Particularly, new cars produced by the FGA, Fiat 180
Group Automobile, or by other international primary industries. The port has capacity for 181
Preprints (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 3 April 2017 doi:10.20944/preprints201704.0002.v1
Peer-reviewed version available at Systems 2017, 5, , 35; doi:10.3390/systems5020035
5 of 10
storageabout 4000 automobiles. In addition to the traditional port actors (port authority, shipping 182
agencies, container depot, freight forwarder, carriers, customers), the harbor make use of a dry port: 183
Nola interport. The interport is located in peripheral districts and it is assigned to the commercial 184
exchanges. The port of Salerno, together with the corresponding dry port, generates an integrated 185
system in which a railway passageway and a paved road connect each node of the network. 186
To allow a quicker and simpler communication among every actor of the port supply chain, 187
starting from March 2014, Port Authority of Salerno adheres to the project “Smart tunnel: intelligent 188
integrated transport network”. This is an intelligent platform, composed of logistical services, 189
dedicated to the port cities and aimed at the maximization of security and effectiveness of the port-190
dry port passageway (smart port regionalization). Essentially, this project is characterized by the 191
integration of IT technologies and innovative systems of communication and intends to improve the 192
interoperability of information systems, logistics and maritime mobile information systems, urban 193
and road through ICT solutions. Moreover, it concerns the online control of material and intangible 194
goods flow for the urban distribution chain of goods (smart urban freight transport). 195
This project allows Port Authority to remove the inefficiencies of structural and bureaucratic 196
interconnection; this means better levels of efficiency and sustainability of urban transport of goods. 197
Smart tunnel project intend to support the innovation of maritime, urban, road and rail mobility 198
through the development of ICT solutions and technologies. The aim is the improvement of 199
interoperability of logistics systems for maritime information and among maritime, urban and road 200
infomobility systems. 201
The new proposed technologies yearn to improve the service quality and accessibility, to 202
guarantee high standards of interoperability among cloud different systems, to promote the 203
implementation of open source solution, to reduce the costs of the adoption of ICT new technologies 204
by the industries, while incrementing the investment returns and reducing the time to market of their 205
goods/services. 206
Smart tunnel project indeed implements smart software solution to support the participation, 207
collaboration and interoperability among different Port Authority actors through the data 208
accessibility with the heterogeneous point of view of the relative implicated roles. 209
Moreover, this initiative is in agreement with the enter into force of recent italian (Art. 29 DL 210
n.133 of the 12 of september 2014) and european normative (european regulations 65/2010). 211
According to these laws, future port structures will equip innovation tools to manage the sea-heart 212
traffic, while defending a poised balance sheet between safeguard of urban composition and the 213
development of port infrastructure and the logistical transport services, especially of hinterland. 214
5. The re-conceptualization of the port supply chain as a smart port service system 215
Starting from the considerations discussed above, concerning the theoretical development of 216
Service science and the port supply chain approach, it is now possible to configure the port as a smart 217
service system. 218
To do so, first of all we intend to highlight the similarities between these two approaches, namely 219
between the port and the smart service system. Both the service science and the port supply chain 220
approach present a systemic setting. In fact, it is now known that the port represents an integrated 221
system of resources based on partnership and collaboration strategies, in which the parties interact 222
for the co-creation and production of innovation, through the acquisition of new know-how [11]. At 223
Preprints (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 3 April 2017 doi:10.20944/preprints201704.0002.v1
Peer-reviewed version available at Systems 2017, 5, , 35; doi:10.3390/systems5020035
6 of 10
the same time, the concept of smart service system [10] plans to implement the service system [17] by 224
the use of technologies. Therefore, the smart service system acts to integrate all the resources in a 225
whole system of work and with a specific supply chain, to favor the qualification of the expertise, for 226
instance the knowledge, the know-how, the people, the goods, the materials, the finances [15]. 227
One of the common aspect of the port, as a network, and the smart service systems is the 228
adoption of a systematic and holistic approach to the reorganization of the territory and the context 229
within the industry works. This allows the integration, promotion and the instructions to achieve 230
common objectives, solutions and interventions that merely evaluated together can lead to the value 231
co-creation [37]. To make this possible, all the actors that belong to the systems, even if with different 232
roles and decision-making powers, should have equal rights, because of the membership of every 233
company in the supply chains. 234
In both the kinds of system it is possible to highlight the overtaking of inner verticalization of 235
the administration, in favor of a landing place toward the horizontal dimension of government. This 236
allows to interpret in a whole manner and in an harmonized way the different vertical functions (for 237
instance smart energy, smart house or smart building activities, etc.). Lastly, both the approaches are 238
focused on the central role of the ICTs. 239
In light of these convergences, it is possible to combine the four dominant characteristics of 240
service systems (people, organization, shared information and technology) with the port supply 241
chain management. The port supply chain is viewed according a supply chain integration (SCI) 242
perspective [2] in which the organizations communicate through the people who create value, 243
sharing information, by the technology. The port, already configured in literature as a service system 244
[12], in the ICT era, becomes a smart service system, namely a system able to improve the quality of 245
the offered services, smart essentially because of the proactive nature due to the technologies 246
employed, the rational use of the resources and the effectiveness of organization, complying with the 247
planning and the anticipation [38]. 248
The smart port service system is composed by many stakeholders that communicate quicker and 249
with more effectiveness, by activating processes that make the port and the city who host it smart, as 250
shown in figure 1. Every actor of the port is represented in the process of value creation, together 251
with all the other actors, thanks to the ICTs 252
Preprints (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 3 April 2017 doi:10.20944/preprints201704.0002.v1
Peer-reviewed version available at Systems 2017, 5, , 35; doi:10.3390/systems5020035
7 of 10
Figure 1. The Smart Port Service System 253
5.1. The port of Salerno as a Smart service system 254
The port of Salerno can be properly view as an integrated port supply chain. The necessity to 255
make use of an inland port, as confirmed by the literature [39], together with the need to accelerate 256
regionalization processes and the interoperability, in fact, led the port of Salerno to adhere to the 257
aforementioned Smart tunnel project. It is now about a year since the port joined the Smart Tunnel 258
project. During this year, it was realized a first prototype to provide a government tool for future port 259
processes, through the novel perspective of Port-Regionalization. This concept belongs to the 260
segment of P.C.S. (Port Community Systems) and facilitates the interoperability among platform 261
administration (A) and institutional organization (Ag Dogane, Port Authority, Maritime Health, 262
UIRNet), but also business actor platforms (terminal operators and carriers). 263
VITROCISET company realized the prototype and equipped the port with technological 264
structures that actors use to access to the smart tunnel platform, allowing a more efficient 265
communication. 266
The efficiency maximization take place through a greater and quicker information exchange, 267
that allows to eliminate the negative externalities (i.e. reduces the pollution due to the ship parked, 268
improves occupational safety, reduces the energetic waste or ship pollution, prevents and manages 269
accidents or gridlocks on the road transport). 270
The shared information for the port of Salerno, through the massive use of ICT, particularly 271
cloud system, makes the port of Salerno a smart port service system where the interaction supported 272
by the technologies creates new value. As Hakansson [40] said, we can consider the inter-273
organizational relationships as “bridges of value”. This expression implies the strategic relevance of 274
Preprints (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 3 April 2017 doi:10.20944/preprints201704.0002.v1
Peer-reviewed version available at Systems 2017, 5, , 35; doi:10.3390/systems5020035
8 of 10
relationships among the actors of a network and the shared resources among them that strongly 275
contribute to value co-production [41]. 276
6. Implications and Conclusions 277
The conceptualization of the port in literature has recently changed by passing from a 278
fragmentary point of view [28,29], due to the complex organizational structure and management of 279
ports, to a network approach that considers the port as a net of actors that collaborate and share 280
different resources to achieve their goals [2]. The strength of the effectiveness for this kind of 281
organization is the collaboration among the network nodes. “The higher the level of collaboration 282
(integration) among actors, the greater the benefits that they will perceive in promoting 283
interdependencies also among various supply chains.” [42]. 284
This new integrated vision for the port supply chain allows the conceptualization of the port as 285
a service systems [12], according the theories of Service Dominant logic [3] and the Service science 286
(Maglio e Spohrer 2008). This latter theory highlights the growing role of the ICTs in the management 287
of services. In fact, thanks to the contribution of ICTs, services become smart services; thus, the service 288
system converts to smart service system [10]. 289
From all these considerations on service science, together with the recent development of the 290
port supply chain management approach, this paper configured the port as a smart service system. 291
We provided a comprehensive framework for the planning of the creation to making competitive the 292
port supply chains. 293
The present work proposes theoretical and practical implications for the novel framework. It 294
represents both a theoretical progress for the service science literature and for the port supply chain 295
management, given that the port was never configured until now by any other authors as a smart 296
port service system. 297
From a practical point of view, the paper is useful to port operators to understand how the port 298
is a reality in a continuous evolution and how it has a growing relevance in the supply chain. This 299
phenomenon regards not only the stakeholders involved in the process of the port supply chain but 300
also the country where the port operates [1]. 301
Moreover, we highlight the critical role of the ICTs, in particular the cloud computing, that 302
allows every operators to connect with all the other actors of the port system, to reduce the costs per 303
node of the system (actor), through an efficient use and the democratization of the resources, to access 304
in an equitable way to the common resources trough every kind of device [43]. 305
Limitations of this work lie in the methodology. The case study approach, despite of quantitative 306
technique, doesn't allow the maximum soundness in terms of attendibility and reliability [36]. 307
From all these considerations, future works would try to improve the proposed framework to 308
other case studies to prove the advantages of this interpretation of the ports as smart service systems. 309
References 310
1. Song, D. W., Parola, F. Strategising port logistics management and operations for value creation in global 311
supply chains. International Journal of Logistics Research and Applications, 2015, 18(3), 189-192. 312
2. De Martino M., Marasco A., Morvillo A. Supply chain integration and port competitiveness: a network 313
approach. Supply chain innovation for competing in Highly dynamic markets, Challeng and solutions, 2011, 314
62. 315
3. Vargo, S. L., Lusch, R. F. Service-dominant logic: continuing the evolution. Journal of the Academy of 316
marketing Science, 2008, 36(1), 1-10. 317
4. Czarniawska, B.; Hernes, T. Actor-network Theory and Organizing. Copenhagen Business School Press, 318
Copenhagen, 2005. 319
5. Dunne, J. A., Williams, R. J., Martinez, N. D. Food-web structure and network theory: the role of 320
connectance and size. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 2002, 99(20), 12917-12922. 321
6. Perrini, F., Tencati, A. La responsabilità sociale d’impresa: strategia per l’impresa relazionale e innovazione 322
per la sostenibilità. Sinergie Italian Journal of Management, 2011, 77, 23-43. 323
7. Capaldo, A. Lo studio delle capacità relazionali dell'impresa: scelte epistemologiche, impianto teorico ed 324
una proposta metodologica. Finanza Marketing e Produzione, 1999, 19(1), 7-56. 325
Preprints (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 3 April 2017 doi:10.20944/preprints201704.0002.v1
Peer-reviewed version available at Systems 2017, 5, , 35; doi:10.3390/systems5020035
9 of 10
8. Pellicano M., L’impresa relazionale, in Il governo strategico dell’impresa, M. Pellicano (a cura di); Giappichelli,
326
Torino, 2004. 327
9. Maglio, P. P., Spohrer, J. Fundamentals of service science. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 2008, 328
36(1), 18-20. 329
10. Spohrer, J., Piciocchi, P., Bassano, C. Three frameworks for service research: exploring multilevel 330
governance in nested, networked systems. Service Science, 2012, 4(2), 147-160. 331
11. De Martino, M., Morvillo, A. Supply chain management e competitività portuale: nuove prospettive di 332
analisi. Economia e diritto del terziario, 2007, 1, 93-118. 333
12. Troisi, O.; Tuccillo, C. A re-conceptualization of port supply chain management according to the service 334
dominant logic perspective: a case study approach. Esperienze d'impresa 2014, 2, 33-50 . 335
13. Van Gils, M., Gerrits, L. M., Teisman, G. R. Non-linear dynamics in port systems: Change events at work. In 336
Managing Complex Governance Systems: Dynamics, Self-organization and Coevolution in Public Investments; N., 337
Kapucu; Taylor & Francis, 2009, 76-96. 338
14. Cavenago, D., Mezzanzanica, M. Scienza dei servizi: Un percorso tra metodologie e applicazioni. Springer Science 339
& Business Media, 2009. 340
15. Spohrer, J., Maglio, P. P. The emergence of service science: Toward systematic service innovations to 341
accelerate co-creation of value. Production and operations management, 2008, 17(3), 238-246. 342
16. Bitner, R. S., Bunnelle, W. H., Anderson, D. J., Briggs, C. A., Buccafusco, J., Curzon, P., Li, J. Broad-spectrum 343
efficacy across cognitive domains by α7 nicotinic acetylcholine receptor agonism correlates with activation 344
of ERK1/2 and CREB phosphorylation pathways. The Journal of Neuroscience 2007, 27(39), 10578-10587. 345
17. Spohrer, J., Vargo, S. L., Caswell, N., Maglio, P. P. The service system is the basic abstraction of service 346
science. In Hawaii international conference on system sciences, proceedings of the 41st annual, Hawaii, 2008, IEEE, 347
104-104. 348
18. Venkatesh, V., Thong, J. Y., Xu, X. Consumer acceptance and use of information technology: extending the 349
unified theory of acceptance and use of technology. MIS quarterly, 2012, 36(1), 157-178. 350
19. Allee, V. Reconfiguring the value network. Journal of Business strategy, 2000, 21(4), 36-39. 351
20. Castells, M. The network society (Vol. 469). Blackwell, Oxford, 1996. 352
21. Caragliu, A., Del Bo, C., Nijkamp, P. Smart cities in Europe. Journal of urban technology, 2001, 18(2), 65-82. 353
22. Troisi, O. Governance e co-creazione di valore nella PA: una rilettura in ottica service-dominant logic, G 354
Giappichelli Editore, Torino, 2015. 355
23. Spohrer, J., Piciocchi, P., & Bassano, C. Three frameworks for service research: exploring multilevel 356
governance in nested, networked systems. Service Science, 2012, 4(2), 147-160. 357
24. De Martino, M., Errichiello, L., Marasco, A., Morvillo, A. Logistics innovation in seaports: An inter-358
organizational perspective. Research in Transportation Business & Management, 2013, 8, 123-133. 359
25. DETR, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, 2000a. Preparing community 360
strategies: government guidance to local authorities. Cm, 4445. 361
26. Kim, M., Sachish, A. The structure of production, technical change and productivity in a port. The Journal 362
of Industrial Economics, 1986, 209-223. 363
27. Estache, A., González, M., Trujillo, L. Efficiency gains from port reform and the potential for yardstick 364
competition: lessons from Mexico. World Development, 2002, 30(4), 545-560. 365
28. Leonard, W. R., Leatherman, T. L., Carey, J. W., Thomas, R. B. Contributions of nutrition versus hypoxia to 366
growth in rural Andean populations. American Journal of Human Biology, 1990, 2(6), 613-626. 367
29. Alderton, J. Factors Which Facilitate Workplace Learning: Confidence, Challenge and Support, 1999. 368
30. Caude, G. Organisation of ports in the world. Seminar on Port Operation and Management Institute 369
Portuaire du Havre (IPER). Le Havre, France, October, 1998. 370
31. Fleming, D. K., Baird, A. J. Comment some reflections on port competition in the United States and Western 371
Europe. Maritime Policy & Management, 1999, 26(4), 383-394. 372
32. Sheffi, Y., Klaus, P. Logistics at large: jumping the barriers of the logistics function. In Proceedings of the 373
Twenty-sixth Annual Transportation and Logistics Educators Conference, The Ohio State University, 374
Chicago, Illinois, October, 1997; 1-26. 375
33. Christopher, M., Towell, D. R. Supply chain migration from lean and functional to agile and customised. 376
Supply Chain Management, 2000, 5 (4), 206–213. 377
34. Wang, Z. Port System Analysis, unpublished MSc Dissertation. Malmo, Sweden: World Maritime 378
University, 1999. 379
Preprints (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 3 April 2017 doi:10.20944/preprints201704.0002.v1
Peer-reviewed version available at Systems 2017, 5, , 35; doi:10.3390/systems5020035
10 of 10
35. Yin, R. K. Case study research: Design and methods, 3rd ed.; Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, 2003.
380
36. Eisenhardt, K. M. Building theories from case study research. Academy of Management Review, 1989, 14(4), 381
532-550. 382
37. Yin, R. K. Case study research; Sage Publications, Beverly Hills,1984. 383
38. Johanson, J., Mattsson, L.G. Internationalisation in industrial systems—a network approach, Knowledge, 384
Networks and Power. Palgrave Macmillan, UK, 2015; 111-132 385
39. Carrubbo L., La Co-creazione di valore nelle destinazioni turistiche, Rirea, Roma, 2013. 386
40. Notteboom, T. E. Concentration and the formation of multi-port gateway regions in the European container 387
port system: an update. Journal of transport geography, 2010, 18(4), 567-583. 388
41. Hakansson, HY. International Marketing and Purchasing of Industrial Goods: an interaction approach, Wiley, 389
Chichester, 1982. 390
42. Normann, R., Ramirez, R. From Value Chain to Value Constellation: Designing Interactive Strategy, 391
Harvard Business Review, 1993, 71(4), 65-77. 392
43. De Martino, M., Morvillo A., Marasco A. Value Creation Within Port Supply Network : Methodological 393
Issues. Network, 2008. 394
44. Bencivenni, M., Michelotto, D., Alfieri, R., Brunetti, R., Ceccanti, A., Cesini, D., Ronchieri, E. Accessing Grid 395
and Cloud services through a scientific web portal. Journal of Grid Computing, 2015, 13(2), 159-175. 396
© 2017 by the authors; licensee Preprints, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access 397
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons by Attribution 398
(CC-BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). 399
Preprints (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 3 April 2017 doi:10.20944/preprints201704.0002.v1
Peer-reviewed version available at Systems 2017, 5, , 35; doi:10.3390/systems5020035
