Available via license: CC BY-NC-ND 3.0
Content may be subject to copyright.
113
Cross-Border Capacity-Building for Port Ecosystems
in Small and Medium-Sized Baltic Ports
TalTech Journal of European Studies
Tallinn University of Technology (ISSN 2674-4619), Vol. 11, No. 1 (33)
doi: 10.2478/bjes-2021-0008 TalTech Journal of European Studies
Tallinn University of Technology (ISSN 2674-4619), Vol. 11, No. 1 (33)
Cross-Border Capacity-Building for Port
Ecosystems in Small and Medium-Sized
Baltic Ports
Christopher Meyer
Hochschule Wismar
University of Applied Sciences:
Technology, Business and Design
Philipp-Müller-Str. 14
Wismar 23966, Germany
Tallinn University of Technology
Ehitajate tee 5
Tallinn 19086, Estonia
Email: christopher.meyer@hs-wismar.de
Laima Gerlitz
Hochschule Wismar
University of Applied Sciences:
Technology, Business and Design
Philipp-Müller-Str. 14
Wismar 23966, Germany
Email: laima.gerlitz@hs-wismar.de
Lawrence Henesey
Blekinge Institute of Technology
Biblioteksgatan 4
Karlshamn SE-37424, Sweden
Email: lhe@bth.se
Abstract: One of the key challenges related to the threat posed
by the COVID-19 pandemic is preservation of employment and
protecting sta who are working in port operations and struggling
to keep ports operating for ship calls. These activities performed
by port labour are deemed to be crucial for the EU and European
ports, since 75% of the EU external trade and 30% of intra-EU
transport goods are moved by waterborne transport. As a response
to the global lockdown and the vulnerability of global supply chains,
the majority of international organisations and maritime ports
networks have shortlisted measures necessary to keep the severe
114
Christopher Meyer
Laima Gerlitz
Lawrence Henesey
TalTech Journal of European Studies
Tallinn University of Technology (ISSN 2674-4619), Vol. 11, No. 1 (33)
eects of the lockdown to a minimum. One of the key measures
identied is how to limit physical interaction. As an eect, millions
of people and organisations across the globe have had to use and/
or increase their deployment of digital technologies, such as digital
documentation, tracing information systems and digital group-
working platforms. Hence, blockchain and data-enabling systems
have become to be recognised as a core element maintaining the
uninterrupted ow of goods and services at ports.
In pursuing uninterrupted trade and keeping ports open and
running, this research paper addresses how the current situation
aicts the small and medium-sized ports located on the Baltic Sea
which are argued to be critical actors of the port-centric logistics’
ecosystem. Given the topicality of this research and addressing the
research gap, the authors suggest a conceptual capacity-building
framework for port employees. This suggested framework is based
on empirical insights: primary and secondary data collected from
the project Connect2SmallPorts, part-nanced by the Interreg
South Baltic Programme 2014–2020 from the European Regional
Development Fund (ERDF). The conceptual framework aims towards
a practical training programme dedicated to ll in the missing skills
or expand the limited competence of human resources and ports’
capacity when adapting or advancing digitalisation in the ports’
ecosystems. In particular, specic areas of capacity building are
addressed and individual solutions suggested to foster a digital
transformation of ports. The conceptual training framework is
designed as a training tool indicating opportunities to help ports
upgrade their competences with the blockchain technology, and
to advance their transportation, environmental and economic
performance with improved digitalisation. For this purpose,
the conducted research employed mixed methods and applied
concepts and approaches based on the eld of management.
For example, the construct of absorptive capacity, organisational
learning, transformation, resource-based view and the concept of
dynamic capabilities are included in the ecosystem discourse and
are linked with open innovation and service design. The research
presented in this article provides both theoretical and practical
contributions, in which the aected stakeholders can test and
utilise the developed tool as well as transfer it to other regions.
Keywords: blockchain, capacity building, digital transformation,
digitalisation, small ports, the Baltic Sea, training
115
Cross-Border Capacity-Building for Port Ecosystems
in Small and Medium-Sized Baltic Ports
TalTech Journal of European Studies
Tallinn University of Technology (ISSN 2674-4619), Vol. 11, No. 1 (33)
1. Introduction
Seaports in the Baltic Sea Region (BSR) as key regional nodes and gateways
of economic and social interactions play a key role in the distribution of
goods and services. Thus, millions of people are dependent on the seaports
for the provision of critical resources, such as food, energy, raw materials for
manufacturing, medical supplies and equipment, etc. As one of the top seas
worldwide in maritime trafc (Czermański, 2017), the BSR and its seaports
are also facing the consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic. According to
a position paper of the Baltic Ports Organisation (BPO, 2020), ports are
expecting a noticeable decrease in areas of operations, such as vehicle
logistics as a result of the shutdown of manufacturing plants or container
and passenger trafc. Especially small and medium-sized ports of the BSR
are more exposed in this regard than big ports. One reason for this high
exposure is that the small and medium-sized ports are mainly located at the
periphery of the key nodes and centres of economic and social interaction,
such as the southern coasts of the BSR, for example, in Denmark, Sweden,
the northern part of Germany, the Polish coasts as well as the western
coastal region of Lithuania. These small and medium-sized ports, being only
partly members of the European TEN-T network, make up around 66% of
the total number of ports in the BSR (see European Commission, 2014).
They are characterised by smaller freight volumes, missing specialisation,
outdated infrastructure, lack of investments and demand for new business
models that might accelerate growth and innovation based on diversied
and different portfolios (Feng & Notteboom, 2013).
The small and medium-sized ports of the BSR appear to be under more
pressure to quickly respond to and adopt port operations and business
models to the ever-changing situation. The focus on digital technologies
enabling easier adaptation is regarded as a promising approach, since it
provides small and medium-sized ports with improved exibility due to the
upgrade of knowledge and skills as well as enabling better transnational
connecting by sharing and integrating services. As a result, such digital
technologies as blockchain, blockchain distributed ledger technology (DLT)
and data enabling technologies have become crucial for small and medium-
sized ports. Small and medium-sized ports are suggested to be more agile and
exible in dealing with the new market challenges (see Feng & Notteboom,
2013) and also digital transition, but are also limited in their human capital
and crucial employee skills, which are most effectively developed and
increased within the port environment (see Feng & Notteboom, 2013). This
116
Christopher Meyer
Laima Gerlitz
Lawrence Henesey
TalTech Journal of European Studies
Tallinn University of Technology (ISSN 2674-4619), Vol. 11, No. 1 (33)
contradiction forms the research problem of a missing conceptual capacity-
building framework for the digital transformation of the port sector.
In general, seaports increase their interconnection (Edler & Infante, 2019)
as well as digital performance as gateways between different countries
and their respective hinterland. Thus, new challenges may arise for the
port community which requires capacity-building frameworks beyond
port operations, engineering and management, while considering also the
skills and knowledge of general business, logistics and, especially, digital
transformation (Thai, 2012). With regard to the new roles and developments
of seaports as important actors in regional development and innovation
strategies (Emova & Gapochka, 2020; Philipp et al., 2020), to multimodal
nodes to break contact for economic and social welfare (Benassi et al., 2015;
Llano et al., 2017) and a multiport gateway for transnational connections
(Feng & Notteboom, 2013), the conceptual framework in this paper is based
on a cross-border perspective. Sweeney and Evangelista (2005) already
concluded back in 2005 that a cross-border approach is a more efcient
method for learning needs analysis, training design and implementation
for port communities, but to date there is no record of published research in
the particular eld nor consideration of these factors for deducing potential
cross-border capacity-building frameworks. This clearly postulates the
addressed research gap of this research.
Furthermore, Chen et al. (2017) analysed capacity-building activities in
small ports suggesting the approach of learning from others for an efcient
and successful improvement of the ports’ human resources. Therefore, this
article provides a theoretical contribution by lling the research gap of the
lack of cross-border concepts for the capacity building of port communities
in small and medium-sized ports with a focus on the BSR, by posing the
research question of how to structure an adoptable cross-border capacity-
building framework for the digital transformation of small and medium-
sized port ecosystems based on their actual skills and needs.
In addition, the article contributes by assisting practical research in the eld
as a rst step to develop a cross-border framework to be transferred and
offered to small and medium-sized ports as well as considering individual
regional preferences. Thus, the paper serves as a practical conceptualisation
of the implementation of capacity building to be directly transferred into a
running course programme for increasing the competitiveness of small and
medium-sized ports in the BSR and beyond.
117
Cross-Border Capacity-Building for Port Ecosystems
in Small and Medium-Sized Baltic Ports
TalTech Journal of European Studies
Tallinn University of Technology (ISSN 2674-4619), Vol. 11, No. 1 (33)
By tackling this research question, the research objective of the current
article also contributes to the Blue Growth Strategy for the BSR (European
Commission, 2017) and the European Green Deal of the European Commission
(COM/2019/640 nal) by improving the conditions for the competitiveness
of small and medium-sized ports. Hence, the conducted research supports
European Blue Economy in line with Regional Innovation Strategies on
Smart Specialisation (RIS3), which is also seen as a crucial policy approach
for the implementation of the EU Green Deal (Gianelle et al., 2020; Larosse et
al., 2020). Besides research and development as well as networking, training
is seen as a key enabling procedure to foster and implement the smart
specialisation approach (Prause, 2014), underlining the importance of this
research article and its impact on the Baltic Sea and European development.
The article is structured as follows: the next chapter provides the theoretical
context with a focus on existing concepts and published research for small and
medium-sized ports as well as cross-border capacity building frameworks.
Following the introduction of the applied research methodology, a demand-
side analysis is provided by examining the particular digital needs of ports
and their human capital. In the fth chapter, the actual capacity-building
framework on cross-border perspective is developed and introduced, followed
by a conclusion and discussion of research results.
2. Theoretical background
In the eld of research and business, there is no unied denition on what
a small port actually is (PAC2, 2014). One policy used for classication is
that of the TEN-T network, which identies a port as small if it belongs
to the network as a comprehensive port or does not even belong to the
network. Feng and Notteboom (2011) developed applicable criteria as an
additional approach for dening a small port by means of transport volume,
international connectivity, relative cluster position, hinterland capture area
as well as the GDP of the port city and hinterland. Another approach to frame
small and medium-sized ports is classication according to their specic
main functionalities: (i) enhancing blue economy competitiveness; (ii) actors
in regionalisation processes and (iii) the key capacity to set up multiport
gateway regions (Notteboom, 2005; 2010; Feng & Notteboom, 2013).
In line with the development and digital transformation of small and medium-
sized ports, the term ‘smart ports’ is increasingly used in research papers
118
Christopher Meyer
Laima Gerlitz
Lawrence Henesey
TalTech Journal of European Studies
Tallinn University of Technology (ISSN 2674-4619), Vol. 11, No. 1 (33)
and studies (Philipp, 2020), dened as a fully automated port connected
via the internet of things (IoT) (Yang et al., 2018). Despite attempts to
benchmark smart ports (Molavi et al., 2019; Philipp, 2020; Rodrigo González
et al., 2020), no unied framework can be identied yet (Molavi et al., 2019).
Nevertheless, recent literature such as Heilig et al. (2017) and Ilin et al.
(2019) examined the digital transformation of seaports and concluded that
seaports have a high potential to improve productivity and efciency in
logistics by adopting key enabling technologies such as the internet of things,
big data, ICT software and simulations, augmented reality or autonomous
vehicles. However, the lack of awareness of small and medium-sized ports
about tailor-made IT solutions or the existing opportunities to improve
their infrastructure and supply chains still permeate through the industry
(Philipp et al., 2018). Along these lines, Verina and Titko (2019) identied
three main categories for a successful digital transformation: (i) technologies;
(ii) process and management and (iii) people. Despite the positive effects
on digital transformation, the capacity building of port employees/port
community leads to the improvement or success of organisational processes
(Saadat & Saadat, 2016), supply chain integration (Zhu et al., 2018) and port
performances (Meletiou, 2006).
This article focuses in particular on the category of people for a successful
digital transformation mentioned above; thus, the theoretical concepts of
knowledge base and absorptive learning (Cohen & Levinthal, 1990) as well as
collective learning (Bellini et al., 2020) are crucial for organisations to increase
their ability to identify and integrate new digital trends into their business
environment through existing human resources as well as to capitalise on the
competitive market (see Asheim et al., 2017; Barzotto et al., 2019).
Cross-border approaches for knowledge acquisition are seen as effective
learning opportunities capitalising on different skills, expertise and
organisational cultures (Inkpen, 1998; Sweeney & Evangelista, 2005). In
addition, facilitating knowledge creation and positive learning inuences the
internalisation processes of organisations (Bathelt & Li, 2020), underlining
the development of small and medium-sized ports into transnational
gateways (Feng & Notteboom, 2013). Nevertheless, the efciency of
cross-border approaches in learning must meet three key criteria:
learning intent, attractiveness of foreign learning source and the quality
of relationship between the recipient and the source (Pérez-Nordtvedt et
al., 2008). Additionally, cultural variations may inuence the efciency of
cross-border knowledge transfer (Bhagat et al., 2002). Furthermore, Van
119
Cross-Border Capacity-Building for Port Ecosystems
in Small and Medium-Sized Baltic Ports
TalTech Journal of European Studies
Tallinn University of Technology (ISSN 2674-4619), Vol. 11, No. 1 (33)
Tatenhove (2015) emphasised the impact of marine governances for the
particular eld of maritime capacity building. Hence, different governance
policies or frameworks can derail sufcient cross-border capacity building.
Nevertheless, while the governance circumstances may differ between
European seas—namely, the Baltic Sea, the Black Sea, the Mediterranean
Sea and the North Sea—the settings are coherent within the region (Van
Leeuwen et al., 2012), which underlines the geographical research scope of
this article and the developed cross-border capacity-building framework—
the Baltic Sea Region.
3. Methodology
The conducted research is based on inductive perspectives, using audited
ports of the BSR as cases to analyse their needs for capacity building in
the eld of digital transformation. However, the article tries to gain insight
into and explain a phenomenon on the European level with data gathered
from a limited number of actors to develop and justify results applicable and
transferable to actors in the whole BSR.
The conducted research is based on primary data gained from audits
implemented with port representatives. The audit questionnaire was based
on the digital readiness index for ports, developed by Philipp (2020). In
total, 36 ports of the BSR were audited in line of face-to-face meetings or
via an online form. The questionnaire consists of 38 questions, covering
ve different dimensions to evaluate the digital readiness of a port. For
the implemented research, the authors used provided answers of the
dimension ‘Human Capital’ only. However, the conducted research paper
uses a mixed-methods approach with quantitative results of the audits to
derive qualitative conclusions. Furthermore, desk research and case studies
enlarged the scope of research activities.
Five methods were employed to explore the research objectives:
• Research approach: mixed methods, inductive
• Research tool: audits with 36 small and medium-sized ports of the BSR
• Research time scope: 10/2019–07/2020
• Research types: analytical, exploratory, qualitative, quantitative and
practice-based
• Research methods: quantitative—data of implemented audits;
qualitative—case studies, desk research
120
Christopher Meyer
Laima Gerlitz
Lawrence Henesey
TalTech Journal of European Studies
Tallinn University of Technology (ISSN 2674-4619), Vol. 11, No. 1 (33)
Hence, the inductive research and its results are based on the constructivism
and interpretivism of the researchers (see Mertens, 2010; Creswell, 2013,
pp. 15–41). Both perspectives are used in the following chapters to identify
the actually existing needs of small and medium-sized ports based on their
audit inputs. In the process, the needs determine the proposed modules in
the cross-border capacity-building framework, including their classication
as compulsory or optional to foster digital transformation in small and
medium-sized ports.
4. Demand-side analysis of capacity building in ports
In addition to the abovementioned research gap, port representatives
participating in the mentioned audits that were carried out in line with the
Connect2SmallPorts project emphasised a very low score (the average of 1.31
of 6) for the ‘IT Knowledge and Skills’ indicator, underlining the necessity
to devise a new conceptual framework to increase the digital knowledge of
the staff and port employees in small and medium-sized ports of the BSR.
Paradoxically, the score for ‘IT Training and Education Opportunities’ was
evaluated as quite high (the average of 3.97 of 6). This contrast suggests
that the existing training models and opportunities provide educational
content aside from the specic IT needs of small and medium-sized ports. To
minimise this identied opposition, the present research paper introduces
the cross-border conceptual framework of IT trainings for port employees/
community.
In search for a well justied and efcient concept, the researchers developed
a demand analysis for capacity building based on the identied gaps in a
port community. The structure was proposed by Gerlitz (2017), who used an
evaluation system providing a scale of demand for thematic training modules.
Based on the evaluation, the cross-border concept serves as congenial supply
side. Table 1 illustrates the identied capacity-building demands, using the
average score of the respective parameter within the yielded results from
audits with 36 small and medium-sized ports in the BSR. As an evaluation,
four stages showcase the magnitude of demand for the chosen parameters:
0 (none), + (marginal), ++ (average) and +++ (essential).
Based on the answers given by port representatives, several aspects could be
excluded from the demand of capacity building for the port community. Firstly,
the usage of ‘Digital Communication Tools’ for the external dissemination
121
Cross-Border Capacity-Building for Port Ecosystems
in Small and Medium-Sized Baltic Ports
TalTech Journal of European Studies
Tallinn University of Technology (ISSN 2674-4619), Vol. 11, No. 1 (33)
of port-related information is not a required content module for a training
concept. Logically, the responsibility for external communication via online
platforms and social media falls on a certain unit within the port ecosystem.
Secondly, four parameters were evaluated with a marginal demand to be
integrated in the concept of cross-border capacity building: ‘Usage of Drones’,
‘Localisation Technologies’, ‘IT and Data Security’ and ‘Operating Systems
and Processes’. Despite the integration of drone systems as a key technology
for the digital transformation of seaports (see Koroleva et al., 2019; Agatić &
Kolanović, 2020), only marginal demand could be identied in line with the
audits. The reason behind that might be an overall low readiness for such
high digital technologies in small and medium-sized ports (Philipp, 2020).
An opposite argumentation can be provided for localisation technologies.
This parameter’s demand is also evaluated as marginal with the underlying
reason that such technologies have already been used in seaports for a
long time, decreasing the need of capacity building in this particular eld
(Steenken et al., 2004). The demand for operating systems and IT security
is evaluated as being marginal as well. In the case of operating systems,
port employees are often already educated in the ports themselves. For IT
security, the authors do not comply with the yielded results and deduced
marginal demand. Literature such as Jović et al. (2019) indicates increasing
challenges and the importance of digital seaport security. Furthermore,
Urciuoli et al. (2013) identied a gap in common security courses at the
European level, which can be lled by the proposed cross-border concept.
Table 1. Evaluation of training demand parameter
Parameter Evaluation
Innovation Cooperation +++
Digital Business Models and Strategies +++
Usage of Blockchain Technologies +++
Big Data Analytics ++
Autonomous Solutions +++
Robotics and Articial Intelligence +++
Usage of Drones +
Localisation Technologies (GPS, RFID, etc.) +
IT and Data Security +
Internet of Things (IoT) ++
Operating Systems and Processes +
Digital Communication Tools 0
Source: Authors’ data
122
Christopher Meyer
Laima Gerlitz
Lawrence Henesey
TalTech Journal of European Studies
Tallinn University of Technology (ISSN 2674-4619), Vol. 11, No. 1 (33)
Average demand in line with capacity building for port communities can be
identied for the handling of big data and the internet of things. The use of
both technologies is increasing in transport, logistics and maritime industry.
In addition, they are already identied as key enabling technologies for the
digital transformation of seaports (Sarabia-Jácome et al., 2019; Hopkins &
Hawking, 2018).
Essential demand can be identied within ve parameters—‘Innovation
Cooperation’, ‘Digital Business Models and Strategies’, ‘Usage of Blockchain
Technologies’, ‘Autonomous Solutions’ and ‘Articial Intelligence and
Robotics’. Those parameters will be adopted into training modules in line
with the capacity-building framework. Innovation cooperation will be
covered and supported by the cross-border approach of the concept. Articial
intelligence and robotics as well as autonomous solutions will be grouped
under one module, since these are future technologies with an increasing
demand in seaports (Ghaderi, 2017) but do not reect the current challenges
in small and medium-sized ports of the BSR.
In addition to the insights gained from the audits, a COVID-19 related
module will be incorporated as well. De Rooij et al. (2020) indicated the
main training needs of port communities in their business regarding the
impact of the current pandemic situation and regulations. As a result, four
topics with a high training demand were listed: routine vessel inspections,
ill travellers, prevention measures as well as ill and exposed travellers. All
four topics will be incorporated as one module to the cross-border capacity-
building framework.
5. The conceptual framework of cross-border capacity
building
As mentioned in the introduction, the maritime industry is facing new
challenges, but these challenges, in turn, provide opportunities in the
behaviour, interaction of port communities and access to new knowledge
and improved educational offers. The developed cross-border training is
intended as an online course to provide initial access for port representatives
and support the cross-border character. Nevertheless, the framework can be
adapted and implemented as a physical training schedule, but also in short
term.
123
Cross-Border Capacity-Building for Port Ecosystems
in Small and Medium-Sized Baltic Ports
TalTech Journal of European Studies
Tallinn University of Technology (ISSN 2674-4619), Vol. 11, No. 1 (33)
As to the demand-side analysis discussed in the previous chapter, the
following argumentation will provide the corresponding capacity-building
modules as the supply side. Basically, the framework can be divided into
three parts: (i) compulsory modules, (ii) regional modules and (iii) optional
modules. Compulsory modules are directly derived from the indicated
demands (average and essential). Optional modules cover digitalised
technologies, such as handling of autonomous vehicles which can be seen
as pre-education since the small and medium-sized ports in the Baltic Sea
area are currently on a lower digital level. Regional modules reect the
mentioned cross-border approach. The regions and countries face individual
challenges but can also provide specic knowledge and competences in
certain maritime elds. Therefore, an exchange between the regions is a
key part of the framework for efcient learning from each other and sharing
the best practices. This includes as a main requirement an exchange of
Figure 1. Cross-border capacity-building structure
124
Christopher Meyer
Laima Gerlitz
Lawrence Henesey
TalTech Journal of European Studies
Tallinn University of Technology (ISSN 2674-4619), Vol. 11, No. 1 (33)
regional maritime experts as lecturers or presenters in particular topics
in line with the online sessions. In addition, an exchange of expertise—
physical or online—offers high networking potential in the region for further
collaboration in the industry. Figure 1 tries to illustrate this structure with
all the three parts and presents the content covered in the proposed modules.
As mentioned, the compulsory modules are directly derived from the
indicated needs and contain ve main topics: Digital Strategy Development—
Module 1, Blockchain Integration—Module 2, IoT Integration—Module 3, IT
& Data Security—Module 4 and COVID-19—Module 5. For each module, the
main information of the topics requirements are covered by answering the
questions what, why, where, when and how.
The regional module—Module 6—is to be planned, organised and
implemented according to regional needs and competences as a mandatory
part of the training schedule. Since the framework aims to provide a
competence-building concept for the whole BSR, the heterogeneity of the
seaport is considered. This includes their strengths as well as weaknesses
in line with the digital transformation of small and medium-sized ports.
To create synergy effects and foster competitiveness as well as innovation
capacities for the region, the module is based on an exchange of expertise,
such as knowledge, experiences, best practices and/or case studies.
Optional modules mainly cover technologies which require a high level
of digital readiness and necessary infrastructures and can be enlarged
by more modules than illustrated in Figure 1. As explained above, small
and medium-sized ports are currently not in a position to integrate such
technologies. Nevertheless, the modules can be integrated if necessary or a
certain technology shall be implemented in the short-term perspective.
6. Discussion
The audits implemented in line with the European project Connect2SmallPorts
indicated a very low digital capacity of human resources in small and medium-
sized seaports of the BSR although opportunities for digital training were
ranked high by port representatives. The presented concept tackled this gap
in line with a missing collaboration and transregional view. The authors
have addressed both the research gap and objectives by setting up a cross-
border capacity-building framework for small and medium-sized ports as an
125
Cross-Border Capacity-Building for Port Ecosystems
in Small and Medium-Sized Baltic Ports
TalTech Journal of European Studies
Tallinn University of Technology (ISSN 2674-4619), Vol. 11, No. 1 (33)
adoptable and well-justied training structure for the digital transformation
of port ecosystems.
Thus the research adds a new perspective to existing research in the
maritime eld by focusing on human capacity-building in applying digital
technologies in the small and medium-sized ports of the BSR. This differs
from previous researches related to digital transformation in the maritime
sector due to their focus on technological requirements (see Acciaro et al.,
2020; Voorspuij & Becha, 2021).
While the capacity-building framework presented in this paper focuses
on digital content only, it does not yet consider related policies, such as
the environmental impact of small and medium-sized ports as training
modules. Nevertheless, the current structure offers opportunities to add
content-related modules. Thus, special research is needed to justify further
involvement with regard to the needs and requirements of small and
medium-sized ports.
In addition, the framework needs a clear elaboration on its transferability
to other sea regions of the European Union. As Van Tatenhove (2015) has
pointed out, different marine governances can inuence the efciency of
maritime capacity building. Therefore, for transferring the framework to
other regions, for example, the North Sea or the Black Sea, further analysis
and elaboration on the modules has to be done.
Current limitations of the concept indicate a need to be aligned with the
regional module. The regional module requires further analysis. While the
rst four modules may be standardised up to a certain level, the regional
module can only be implemented in an efcient way as a tailor-made offer
for the participants. Therefore, it is necessary not only to analyse the port
demand but also regional challenges and opportunities to devise sufcient
training content for this module.
Nevertheless, the proposed cross-border capacity-building framework
can be implemented initially for port ecosystems to support the digital
transformation of small and medium-sized ports for the BSR. The rst
steps have already been made within the Connect2SmallPorts project in
developing and launching an online course portfolio, using the framework to
set up the required modules. Also, it would be valuable to launch a testing
phase to pilot the concept as physical training at small and medium-sized
ports to gather insights and feedback for concept adjustment.
126
Christopher Meyer
Laima Gerlitz
Lawrence Henesey
TalTech Journal of European Studies
Tallinn University of Technology (ISSN 2674-4619), Vol. 11, No. 1 (33)
7. Conclusion
The article aimed to develop a cross-border capacity-building framework for
port communities with a focus on their digital transformation to overcome
the challenges of small and medium-sized ports in the BSR and increase
their competitiveness using the available human resources.
An analysis of training demands based on the results of the audits showed
which particular elds need a higher focus to be covered in the training
of port communities. Hence, individual topics were deemed justied to be
implemented in compulsory modules in the training framework. In addition,
the authors integrated modules for IT security as well as prevention
measures in port operations due to the current COVID-19 pandemic.
Based on demand analysis, the framework was developed as tailor-
made supply side with three main parts: compulsory modules, a regional
module and optional modules. The cross-border aspect of the framework
is reected in the regional module by supporting the creation of synergy
effects in the BSR by expertise exchanges, for example, an exchange
of knowledge, experiences, lecturers, as well as the best practices and
case studies. Lastly, the digital technologies that require high digital
readiness or certain infrastructure in the ports were added as optional
modules to complete the cross-border capacity-building framework.
Christopher Meyer coordinates several European research projects at
the European Project Center associated with the University of Wismar.
After completing his master’s degree in public economics, he started his
studies as a PhD candidate at Tallinn University of Technology in Estonia,
elaborating the impact of smart specialisation on the blue economy of
the Baltic Sea area.
Laima Gerlitz is a researcher at Wismar University of Applied Sciences:
Technology, Business and Design. She received her PhD focusing on the
elds of project design and transport-related management at Tallinn
University of Technology in 2018. Dr. Gerlitz’s current research interests
are: design and innovation, strategic design management, design
management for enterprises, competitiveness and value creation deriving
from design-driven approaches in organisational settings, particularly
in the context of small manufacturing and high-tech enterprises and
start-ups.
127
Cross-Border Capacity-Building for Port Ecosystems
in Small and Medium-Sized Baltic Ports
TalTech Journal of European Studies
Tallinn University of Technology (ISSN 2674-4619), Vol. 11, No. 1 (33)
Lawrence Henesey is an associated professor at Blekinge Institute of
Technology, Sweden. His work focuses on the applications of technologies
in distributed articial intelligence for improved performances in
logistics and transportation. Dr. Henesey has participated in various
international, European Union and national research projects as
principal investigator (PI), and has 29 years of industrial work
experience, has been employed with various international companies
all over Europe, the US and the Middle East. Dr. Henesey earned
his PhD in computer science from Blekinge Institute of Technology.
References
Acciaro, M.; Renken, K. & El Khadiri, N. (2020), ‘Technological change and logistics
development in European ports,’ European Port Cities in Transition: Strategies
for Sustainability, Cham: Springer, pp. 73–88.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-36464-9_5
Agatić, A. & Kolanović, I. (2020), ‘Improving the seaport service quality by
implementing digital technologies,’ Scientic Journal of Maritime Research,
vol. 34, pp. 93–101. https://doi.org/10.31217/p.34.1.11
Asheim, B.; Grillitsch, M. & Trippl, M. (2017), ‘Smart specialization as an
innovation-driven strategy for economic diversication: examples from
Scandinavian regions,’ in Advances in the Theory and Practice of Smart
Specialization, London & Cambridge: Academic Press, pp. 73–97.
https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-804137-6.00004-8
Barzotto, M.; Corradini, C.; Fai, F. M.; Labory, S. & Tomlinson, P. R. (2019),
‘Enhancing innovative capabilities in lagging regions: an extra-regional
collaborative approach to RIS3,’ Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and
Society, vol. 12, no. 2, pp. 213–232. https://doi.org/10.1093/cjres/rsz003
Bathelt, H. & Li, P. (2020), ‘Processes of building cross-border knowledge
pipelines,’ Research Policy, vol. 49, no. 3, 103928.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2020.103928
Bellini, N.; Lazzeri, G. & Rovai, S. (2020), ‘Patterns of policy learning in the
RIS3 processes of less developed regions,’ Regional Studies, vol. 55, no. 3, pp.
414–426. https://doi.org/10.1080/00343404.2020.1762855
Benassi, F.; Deva, M. & Zindato, D. (2015), ‘Graph regionalization with clustering
and partitioning: an application for daily commuting ows in Albania,’ Regional
Statistics, vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 25–43. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2665523
128
Christopher Meyer
Laima Gerlitz
Lawrence Henesey
TalTech Journal of European Studies
Tallinn University of Technology (ISSN 2674-4619), Vol. 11, No. 1 (33)
Bhagat, R. S.; Kedia, B. L.; Harveston, P. D. & Triandis, H. (2002), ‘Cultural
variations in the cross-border transfer of organizational knowledge: an
integrative framework,’ Academy of Management Review, vol. 27, no. 2,
pp. 204–221. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2002.6588000
BPO (2020), COVID-19’s Impact on the Baltic Port & Shipping Industry – SITRAP,
Tallinn: Baltic Ports Organization & Baltic Transport Journal.
Chen, Y.; Zhou, L.; Zhou, Y. & Shen, R. (2017), ‘Analysis on the core capacity
building of different kinds of ports,’ Chinese Journal of Frontier Health and
Quarantine, no. 2.
Cohen, W. M. & Levinthal, D. A. (1990), ‘Absorptive capacity: A new perspective
on learning and innovation,’ Administrative Science Quarterly, vol. 31, no. 1,
pp. 128–152. https://doi.org/10.2307/2393553
Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the European
Council, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the
Committee of the Regions, The European Green Deal, COM/2019/640 nal,
11.12.2019.
Creswell, J. W. (2013), Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing among
Five Approaches, 3rd ed., Los Angeles: SAGE Publications.
Czermański, E. (2017), ‘Baltic shipping development in maritime spatial planning
aspect,’ Studia i Materiały Instytutu Transportu i Handlu Morskiego, no. 14,
pp. 48–64. https://doi.org/10.26881/sim.2017.4.03
De Rooij, D.; Belfroid, E.; Hadjichristodoulou, C.; Mouchtouri, V. A.; Raab, J.
& Timen, A. (2020), ‘Assessing training needs in infectious disease management
at major ports, airports and ground-crossings in Europe,’ Research Square
Preprint. https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-33249/v1
Edler, J. & Infante, V. (2019), ‘Maritime and other key transport issues for the
future – education and training in the context of lifelong learning,’ Transactions
on Maritime Science, vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 84–98.
https://doi.org/10.7225/toms.v08.n01.009
Emova, E. G. & Gapochka, A. A. (2020), ‘Seaports as drivers of regional economic
development: The case of Saint Petersburg and Leningrad Province,’ Case Studies
on Transport Policy, vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 383–393.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cstp.2019.10.003
European Commission (2014), List of Sea Ports in the Core and Comprehensive
Networks. Retrieved from https://ec.europa.eu/transport/sites/transport/les/
modes/maritime/ports/doc/2014_list_of_329_ports_june.pdf [accessed Feb 2020]
European Commission (2017), Towards an Implementation Strategy for the
Sustainable Blue Growth Agenda for the Baltic Sea Region, Luxembourg:
Directorate-General for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries (European Commission),
ECORYS, S.Pro.
129
Cross-Border Capacity-Building for Port Ecosystems
in Small and Medium-Sized Baltic Ports
TalTech Journal of European Studies
Tallinn University of Technology (ISSN 2674-4619), Vol. 11, No. 1 (33)
Feng, L. & Notteboom, T. (2011), ‘Small and medium-sized ports (SMPs) in
multi-port gateway regions: the role of Yingkou port in the logistics systems
of the Bohai Sea,’ in T. Notteboom (ed.) Current Issues in Shipping, Ports and
Logistics, Brussels: University Press Antwerp, pp. 543–563.
Feng, L. & Notteboom, T. (2013), ‘Peripheral challenge by small and medium
sized ports (SMPs) in multi-port gateway regions: the case study of northeast
of China,’ Polish Maritime Research, Special Issue, vol. 20, pp. 55–66.
https://doi.org/10.2478/pomr-2013-0027
Gerlitz, L. (2017), ‘Design management as a domain of smart and sustainable
enterprise: business modelling for innovation and smart growth in Industry
4.0,’ Entrepreneurship and Sustainability Issues, vol. 3, no. 3, pp. 244–268.
https://doi.org/10.9770/jesi.2016.3.3(3)
Ghaderi, H. (2017), ‘Autonomous technologies in short sea shipping: trends,
feasibility and implications,’ Transport Reviews, vol. 39, no. 1, pp. 152–173.
https://doi.org/10.1080/01441647.2018.1502834
Gianelle, C.; Kyriakou, D.; McCann, P. & Morgan, K. (2020), ‘Smart Specialisation
on the move: reections on six years of implementation and prospects for the future,’
Regional Studies, vol. 54, no. 10, pp. 1323–1327.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00343404.2020.1817364
Heilig, L.; Lalla-Ruiz, E. & Voß, S. (2017), ‘Digital transformation in maritime
ports: analysis and a game theoretic framework,’ NETNOMICS: Economic
Research and Electronic Networking, vol. 18, pp. 227–254. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s11066-017-9122-x
Hopkins, J. & Hawking, P. (2018), ‘Big data analytics and IoT in logistics: a case
study,’ The International Journal of Logistics Management, vol. 29, no. 2,
pp. 575–591. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJLM-05-2017-0109
Ilin, I.; Jahn, C.; Weigell, J. & Kalyazina, S. (2019), ‘Digital technology
implementation for smart city and smart port cooperation,’ in Atlantis
Highlights in Computer Sciences: Proceedings of the International Conference
on Digital Transformation in Logistics and Infrastructure, St. Petersburg,
Russia, pp. 498–501. https://doi.org/10.2991/icdtli-19.2019.87
Inkpen, A. C. (1998), ‘Learning and knowledge acquisition through international
strategic alliances,’ Academy of Management Perspectives, vol. 12, no. 4,
pp. 69–80. https://doi.org/10.5465/ame.1998.1333953
Jović, M.; Tijan, E.; Aksentijević, S. & Čišić, D. (2019), ‘An overview of security
challenges of seaport IoT systems,’ in 42nd International Convention on
Information and Communication Technology, Electronics and Microelectronics
(MIPRO), 20–24 May 2019, Opatija, Croatia.
https://doi.org/10.23919/MIPRO.2019.8757206
130
Christopher Meyer
Laima Gerlitz
Lawrence Henesey
TalTech Journal of European Studies
Tallinn University of Technology (ISSN 2674-4619), Vol. 11, No. 1 (33)
Koroleva, E.; Sokolov, S.; Makashina, I. & Filatova, E. (2019), ‘Information
technologies as a way of port activity optimization in conditions of digital
economy,’ E3S Web of Conferences, vol. 138, 02002.
https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/201913802002
Larosse, J.; Corpakis, D. & Tuffs, R. (2020), The Green Deal and Smart
Specialisation, Friends of Smart Specialisation, EFIS, Version 4, 20.2.2020.
Llano, C.; De la Mata, T.; Díaz-Lanchas, J. & Gallego, N. (2017), ‘Transport-
mode competition in intra-national trade: an empirical investigation for the
Spanish case,’ Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, vol. 95,
pp. 334–355. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2016.10.023
Meletiou, M. (2006), ‘Improved port performance through training: the contribution
of the International Labour Organization,’ in Human Resources and Sea Ports
Performance Proceedings of 22nd International Port Conference, Alexandria,
Egypt.
Mertens, D. M. (2010), Research and Evaluation in Education and Psychology:
Integrating Diversity with Quantitative, Qualitative, and Mixed Methods,
3rd ed., Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Molavi, A.; Lim, G. J. & Race, B. (2020), ‘A framework for building a smart port and
smart port index,’ International Journal of Sustainable Transportation, vol. 14,
no. 9, pp. 686–700. https://doi.org/10.1080/15568318.2019.1610919
Notteboom, T. E. (2005), ‘The peripheral port challenge in container port systems,’ in
H. Leggate, J. Mcconville & A. Morvillo (eds.) International Maritime Transport
Perspectives, New York: Routledge, pp. 173–188.
Notteboom, T. E. (2010), ‘Concentration and the formation of multi-port gateway
regions in the European container port system: an update,’ Journal of
Transport Geography, vol. 18, no. 4, pp. 567–583.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2010.03.003
PAC2 (2014), A Cluster Initiative: Small and Medium Sized Ports as Hubs for
Smart Growth and Sustainable Connectivity, 2 Seas Magazine – Special Focus,
November 2014, ch. 1, pp. 6–15.
Pérez-Nordtvedt, L.; Kedia, B. L.; Datta, D. K. & Rasheed, A. A. (2008),
‘Effectiveness and efciency of cross-border knowledge transfer: an empirical
examination,’ Journal of Management Studies, vol. 45, no. 4, pp. 714–744.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2008.00767.x
Philipp, R. (2020), ‘Digital readiness index assessment towards smart port
development,’ Sustainability Management Forum, vol. 28, pp. 49–60.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00550-020-00501-5
Philipp, R.; Gerlitz, L. & Moldabekova, A. (2020), ‘Small and medium-sized
seaports on the digital track: tracing digitalisation across the South Baltic region
by innovative auditing procedures,’ Proceedings of International Conference on
131
Cross-Border Capacity-Building for Port Ecosystems
in Small and Medium-Sized Baltic Ports
TalTech Journal of European Studies
Tallinn University of Technology (ISSN 2674-4619), Vol. 11, No. 1 (33)
Reliability and Statistics in Transportation and Communication, pp. 351–362.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-44610-9_35
Philipp, R.; Gerlitz, L. & Prause, G. (2018), ‘Regional Häfen auf Digitalisierungskurs:
Intelligentes Wachstum und nachhaltige Wertschöpfung entlang der kleinen
und mittel-großen Häfen des Ostseeraumes,’ in A. Cleve, E. Alde & M. Wißotzki
(eds.) Proceedings of WiWiTa 2018 Conference, Wismar, pp. 77–86.
Prause, G. (2014), ‘Smart specialisation and EU Eastern Innovation Cooperation:
a conceptual approach,’ Baltic Journal of European Studies, vol. 4, no. 1(16),
pp. 3–19. https://doi.org/10.2478/bjes-2014-0001
Rodrigo González, A.; González-Cancelas, N.; Molina Serrano, B. &
Orive, A. C. (2020), ‘Preparation of a smart port indicator and calculation of a
ranking for the Spanish port system,’ Logistics, vol. 4, no. 2, p. 9.
https://doi.org/10.3390/logistics4020009
Saadat, V. & Saadat, Z. (2016), ‘Organizational learning as a key role of
organizational success,’ Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, vol. 230, 3rd
International Conference on New Challenges in management and Organization:
Organization and Leadership, 2 May 2016, Dubai, UAE, pp. 219–225.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2016.09.028
Sarabia-Jácome, D.; Lacalle, I.; Palau, C. E. & Esteve, M. (2019), ‘Enabling
industrial data space architecture for seaport scenario,’ in IEEE 5th World
Forum on Internet of Things (WF-IoT), Limerick, Ireland, pp. 101–106.
https://doi.org/10.1109/WF-IoT.2019.8767216
Steenken, D.; Voß, S. & Stahlbock, R. (2004), ‘Container terminal operation and
operations research—a classication and literature review,’ OR Spectrum, vol.
26, pp. 3–49. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00291-003-0157-z
Sweeney, E. & Evangelista, P. (2005), ‘Port community learning needs: analysis
and design,’ Pomorski zbornik, vol. 43, no. 1, pp. 27–43.
Thai, V.V. (2012), ‘Competences required by port personnel in the new era: conceptual
framework and case study,’ International Journal of Shipping and Transport
Logistics, vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 49–77. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJSTL.2012.044135
Urciuoli, L.; Ekwall, D. & Torstensson, H. (2013), ‘Achieving harmonized port
security training in Europe—a critical review of EU legislative frameworks,’
Journal of Transport and Security, vol. 6, pp. 357–375.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12198-013-0123-1
Van Leeuwen, J.; Van Hoof, L. & Van Tatenhove, J. (2012), ‘Institutional
ambiguity in implementing the European Union marine strategy framework
directive,’ Marine Policy, vol. 36, no. 3, pp. 636–643.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2011.10.007
Van Tatenhove, J. P. (2015), ‘Marine governance: institutional capacity-building in
a multi-level governance setting,’ in M. Gilek & K. Kern (eds.) Governing Europe’s
132
Christopher Meyer
Laima Gerlitz
Lawrence Henesey
TalTech Journal of European Studies
Tallinn University of Technology (ISSN 2674-4619), Vol. 11, No. 1 (33)
Marine Environment: Europeanization of Regional Seas or Regionalization of
EU Policies, Abingdon: Routledge, pp. 35–52.
Verina, N. & Titko, J. (2019), ‘Digital transformation: conceptual framework,’ in
Contemporary Issues in Business, Management and Economics Engineering
2019. International Scientic Conference, 9–10 May, Vilnius, Lithuania.
https://doi.org/10.3846/cibmee.2019.073
Voorspuij, J. & Becha, H. (2021), ‘Digitalisation in maritime regional and
global supply chains,’ in M. Lind, M. Michaelides, R. Ward & R. T. Watson
(eds.) Maritime Informatics, Cham: Springer, pp. 65–80.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-50892-0_5
Yang, Y.; Zhong, M.; Yao, H.; Yu, F.; Fu, X. & Postolache, O. (2018), ‘Internet of
Things for smart ports: technologies and challenges,’ IEEE Instrumentation &
Measurement Magazine, vol. 21, no. 1, pp. 34–43.
https://doi.org/10.1109/MIM.2018.8278808
Zhu, Q.; Krikke, H. & Caniëls, M. C. J. (2018), ‘Supply chain integration: value
creation through managing inter-organizational learning,’ International
Journal of Operations & Production Management, vol. 38, no. 1, pp. 211–229.
https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOPM-06-2015-0372