Drivers and barriers for truck

appointment systems at container

terminals
A business model perspective
Master’s thesis in the program Quality and Operations Management

REBECCA ERICSSON
PHILIP SVENSSON

DEPARTMENT OF TECHNOLOGY MANAGEMENT AND ECONOMICS

DIVISION OF SERVICE MANAGEMENT AND LOGISTICS

CHALMERS UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY

Gothenburg, Sweden 2022
www.chalmers.se
Report No. E2022:081
 REPORT NO. E2022:081

Drivers and barriers for truck appointment

systems at container terminals

A business model perspective

REBECCA ERICSSON
PHILIP SVENSSON

Department of Technology Management and Economics

Division of Service Management and Logistics
CHALMERS UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY
Gothenburg, Sweden 2022
Drivers and barriers for truck appointment systems at container terminals
A business model perspective
REBECCA ERICSSON
PHILIP SVENSSON

© REBECCA ERICSSON, 2022

© PHILIP SVENSSON, 2022

Technical report no E2022:081

Department of Technology Management and
Economics
Chalmers University of Technology
SE-412 96 Gothenburg
Sweden
Telephone + 46 (0)31-772 1000

Gothenburg, Sweden 2022

Drivers and barriers for truck appointment systems at container terminals
A business model perspective

REBECCA ERICSSON
PHILIP SVENSSON

Department of Technology Management & Economics

Chalmers University of Technology

SUMMARY
An increasing demand for global freight transportation by sea as well as increasing competition
within the sector require that container terminals re-evaluate their current operations. Inefficient
container transactions between a terminal operator and trucking companies negatively impacts
the two actors as well as social and environmental performance. The truck appointment system
has been forwarded by several academic researchers as an alternative solution to capacity
expansion; Rather than stressing limitations in capacity the system facilitates the efficiency of
container transactions. Although the system was conceived already in the early 2000s and is
associated with multiple benefits in academic literature, it has only been implemented in a few
container terminals. This indicates a misalignment between the drivers and barriers forwarded
in literature and those perceived in practice as well as a lack of know-how among terminal
operators on how to realize the system’s benefits in practice.
This master thesis report aims to address the drivers and barriers of different truck appointment
systems seeking to facilitate the service of container transactions and hence terminal
competitiveness. A qualitative research strategy has been deployed in the study. Concurrent to
a literature review, semi-structured interviews have been conducted in the frames of a multiple-
case design.
The contributions of this study include: a framework compiling, categorizing, and clarifying the
different TAS components and options; compilations and clarifications of different drivers and
barriers; a compilation and clarification of the relations between overlying drivers and barriers
and truck appointment system components and options; identification and clarification of
positive and negative relations between different overlying drivers and barriers and hence the
necessity to consider the constraints and objectives of both terminal operators and trucking
companies when designing and operating a truck appointment system; and an analytical
business model framework based on TASs considering the constraints and objectives of both
terminal operators and trucking companies. These contributions are meant to increase terminal
operators’ know-how regarding the truck appointment system and how to reinforce the drivers
respectively mitigate the barriers of the system through the related design as well as their
business model.

Keywords: terminal appointment system, truck appointment system, gate appointment

system, business model
Acknowledgement
This thesis was conducted as a part of the master’s program Quality and Operations
Management at Chalmers University during the Spring 2022. The project was conducted in a
collaboration with the research institute SSPA as a part of the research project DREAMIT 2.0
that focus on effective access management in seaport terminals.

We would like to give our first gratitude to our supervisor, Gunnar Stefansson, Associate
Professor at the Division of Service Management and Logistics at Chalmers University who has
guided and supported us throughout the research process.

Secondly, we want to thank SSPA and the participants of DREAMIT 2.0. A special thanks to
our co- supervisors Per Wide, Sara Rogerson, and Vendela Santén for giving us the possibility
and the trust in the project and all valuable insights that you have contributed with during the
project.

Lastly, we would like to thank all the interviewees that took their time to participate, contributing
with valuable knowledge needed to realise the project.

Thank you all for making the thesis possible!

Rebecca Ericsson & Philip Svensson

Gothenburg, June 2022
1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................1
1.1 Background.................................................................................................................1
1.2 Problem areas .............................................................................................................3
1.3 Aim and Research questions ......................................................................................4
1.4 Delimitations ..............................................................................................................5
1.5 Disposition of the report .............................................................................................5

2 Theoretical framework ....................................................................................................7

2.1 Container transactions between a terminal operator and trucking companies............7
2.1.1 Container terminals’ operations..........................................................................7
2.1.2 Trucking companies’ operations ........................................................................9
2.2 The basic truck appointment system design .............................................................10
2.3 Drivers and barriers related to the basic truck appointment system design..............13
2.3.1 Drivers related to the basic truck appointment system design .........................14
2.3.2 Barriers related to the basic truck appointment system design .........................18
2.4 Developments of the basic truck appointment system design ..................................22
2.4.1 Developed options of the basic truck appointment system’s components .......26
2.4.2 Developed components of the truck appointment system ................................33
2.4.3 Integrating the truck appointment system with the yard operations .................36
2.5 Business models in the freight transportation sector ................................................39
2.5.1 The Business model canvas framework ...........................................................40

3 Methodology....................................................................................................................42
3.1 Research strategy and philosophical assumptions ....................................................42
3.2 Research design and sampling strategy ....................................................................42
3.3 Literature review and research questions .................................................................44
3.4 Research method ......................................................................................................45
3.4.1 Sampling strategy and sample size ...................................................................45
3.4.2 Data collection ..................................................................................................47
3.4.3 Data analysis .....................................................................................................48
3.5 Quality criteria ..........................................................................................................49
3.6 Ethical considerations ...............................................................................................50
3.7 Societal and ecological considerations .....................................................................50

4 Empirical findings ..........................................................................................................52

4.1 Case descriptions ......................................................................................................52
4.1.1 Description of case A .......................................................................................52
4.1.2 Description of case B........................................................................................52
4.1.3 Description of case C........................................................................................53
4.2 Drivers forwarded by the cases ................................................................................54
4.2.1 Drivers related to ‘demand and capacity matched against each other’.............55
4.2.2 Drivers related to ‘scheduling of capacity’ .......................................................56
4.3 Barriers forwarded by the cases................................................................................56
4.3.1 Barriers related to ‘vague information’ ............................................................58
4.3.2 Barriers related to ‘lack of buy-in & sense of responsibility’...........................58
4.3.3 Barriers related to ‘limited appointment availability & accessibility’ ..............59
4.3.4 Barriers related to ‘increased administration’...................................................60
4.3.5 Barriers related to ‘lack of incentives’ .............................................................61
4.4 Drivers and barriers forwarded by a truck appointment system developer ..............61

5 Analysis............................................................................................................................63
 5.1 Drivers related to all identified components and options of truck appointment
systems .................................................................................................................................63
5.2 Barriers related to all identified components and options of truck appointment
systems .................................................................................................................................66
5.3 Relations between the overlying drivers and barriers...............................................73
5.4 Options considering relations between the overlying drivers and barriers ...............75
5.5 A Business model perspective on truck appointment systems incorporating the dual
perspective ............................................................................................................................77

6 Discussion ........................................................................................................................82
6.1 Research question 1 ..................................................................................................82
6.2 Research question 2 ..................................................................................................82
6.3 Research question 3 ..................................................................................................83
6.4 Recommendations for terminal operators.................................................................85
6.5 Limitations and future research ................................................................................86

7 Conclusion .......................................................................................................................88

References ...............................................................................................................................90

APPENDIX A .........................................................................................................................95
Table of figures
Figure 1 A general layout of the areas at a container terminal ................................................ 9
Figure 2 The components and options constituting the basic TAS design ............................ 12
Figure 3 Illustration of a block appointment system (BAS) ................................................. 13
Figure 4 Illustration of an individual appointment system (IAS) .......................................... 13
Figure 5 Drivers related to the basic TAS design .................................................................. 15
Figure 6 Different ratios of dedicated lanes for trucks with appointment versus without and
their relation to the proportion of trucks using the system ...................................................... 18
Figure 7 Barriers related to the basic TAS design ................................................................. 19
Figure 8 The components and options constituting the basic and developed TAS designs .. 23
Figure 9 Drivers related to the basic as well as developed TAS designs .............................. 24
Figure 10 Barriers related to the basic as well as developed TAS designs............................ 25
Figure 11 The drivers related to the component of window duration and its related options 27
Figure 12 The drivers related to the component of quota strategy and its related options .... 28
Figure 13 The drivers related to the component of quota strategy and its related primary and
secondary options .................................................................................................................... 30
Figure 14 The drivers related to the component of scheduling strategy and its related options
................................................................................................................................................. 31
Figure 15 The drivers related to the component of collaborative scheduling and its related
options ..................................................................................................................................... 33
Figure 16 The drivers related to the component of penalty fee and its related options ......... 34
Figure 17 The drivers related to the component of suspension and its related options ......... 34
Figure 18 The drivers related to the component of grace period and its related options ....... 35
Figure 19 The drivers related to the component of peak period fee and its related options .. 36
Figure 20 The drivers related to the component of container stacking and its related option 38
Figure 21 The TAS design marking phase 1 deployed by case B ......................................... 53
Figure 22 The TAS design deployed by case C .................................................................... 54
Figure 23 Barriers related to the basic- and developed TAS designs as well as the
experiences of two of the case companies ............................................................................... 57
Figure 24 Drivers related to all identified components and options of TASs ....................... 64
Figure 25 Components related to the driver ‘consideration of fluctuating capacity’ (QD1) . 66
Figure 26 Components related to the driver ‘scheduling of capacity’ (TD1) ........................ 66
Figure 27 Barriers related to all identified components and options of TASs....................... 68
Figure 28 Barriers covered and excluded in the study .......................................................... 71
Figure 29 Components relating to the barrier ‘lack of incentives’ (TB1) ............................. 72
Figure 30 Components related to the barrier ‘limited appointment availability &
accessibility’ (QB6) ................................................................................................................. 72
Figure 31 Components related to the barriers ‘increased administration’ (TB3) .................. 73
Figure 32 Interrelations between the overlying drivers and barriers ..................................... 74
Figure 33 Business model for TAS ....................................................................................... 78

List of Tables
Table 1 Description of interviewees ......................................................................................47
GLOSSARY
Dwell time The time a container is waiting within the
container terminal before being picked up by the
next transport carrier.
External trucking company Is an independent external trucking company
performing container movements to and from the
container terminal.
No-show When a truck driver misses or skips a booked
appointment at the terminal.
Truck transaction time The time a truck spends within the outer entry
gate and exit gates
Truck turnaround time The time a truck spends within the outer entry
gate and exit gates (truck transaction time) as well
as outside the outer entry gate.
ACRONYMS
BAS Block appointment system
DAS Dynamic appointment system
IAS Individual appointment system
STAS Static appointment system
TAS Truck appointment system
TC Trucking company
TO Terminal operator
TTT Truck turnaround time
1 Introduction
In this chapter the aim of the study is motivated and outlined. The introduction is presented as
following: In section 1.1 the background to the situation at container terminals are described.
Then in section 1.2, the problem areas related to truck appointment systems are described.
based on the problem areas the aim and research questions are presented in section 1.3
followed by the delimitations in section 1.4. Lastly, the disposition of the upcoming chapters of
the study are presented in section 1.5.

1.1 Background
The transportation of goods is essential for today’s global economies to operate (European
Commission, 2011; Rodrigue et al., 2006); The transportation sector accounts for a significant
amount of jobs and provides governments with tax revenue that enable economic development
(Giuliano & O’Brian, 2007). While globalization on the one hand has significantly increased
the demand for global logistics (Jacobsson et al., 2017; Namboothiri & Erera, 2008), traffic on
the other hand needs to be shifted from road to train or sea, to be able to reach the EU goal of
reducing emissions of greenhouse gases (European Commission, 2011). Ocean shipping is also
gaining attention because of its high returns to scale (Giuliano & O’Brian, 2007). The
increasing importance of transportation by sea for global trade has not only implied an increased
market share for ports with capacity for large ships or those situated nearby or with great
transport connections to an attractive consumer market but has also opened for increased
competition between ports (Giuliano & O’Brien, 2007; Van der Horst & De Langen, 2008).
Container terminals, handling perhaps the most important cargo flow of many ports, are
especially prone to such competition (Van der Horst & De Langen, 2008).
The increasing demand and competition put pressure on terminal operators (TOs) to partially
allow for a greater throughput, partially provide improved services (Baccelli & Morino, 2020;
Jacobsson et al., 2017; Namboothiri & Erera, 2008). To increase throughput, TOs target greater
sizes of container vessels which leads to higher traffic loads at container terminals’ gate entries
or container storage blocks, challenging the terminal operation’s productivity and sustainability
(Chen et al., 2013b; Covic, 2017; Phan and Kim, 2015; Van der Horst & De Langen, 2008). As
the role of container terminals has developed from a drop-off and pick-up point to a service
hub, their role in the information network has become more important (Baccelli & Morino,
2020). However, some challenges arise with such information sharing (Marchet et al., 2012;
Perego, et al., 2011); The intermodal node of the seaport is complex as different actors with
different transportation modes interact (Bisogno et al., 2015).
When seeking to enable flexibility for the trucking companies (TCs), some container terminals
allow trucks to arrive at any time throughout the terminals opening hours (unscheduled access)
(Namboothiri & Erera, 2008). Limited opening hours combined with unscheduled access to the
terminal, results in peak and off-peak hours (Covic, 2017; Juang & Liu, 2003; Namboothiri &
Erera, 2008; Van der Horst & De Langen, 2008). While peak hours imply that terminal capacity
is fully utilized, off-peak hours imply some level of overcapacity (Covic, 2017; Huynh &
Walton, 2008; Namboothiri & Erera, 2008). The prevalence of off-peak hours implies that there
are periods when the terminal resources are under-utilized resulting in a waste of resources. At

1
the same time, when the terminal’s capacity is fully utilized, it gives rise to queues and
congestion (Covic, 2017; Phan & Kim, 2015). As a result, TCs experience longer truck
turnaround times (TTT) which reduce the number of requests that can be performed without
increasing the fleet size meanwhile local air pollutions become condensed, ultimately causing
increasing health and environmental related problems (Chen et al., 2013b; Covic, 2017;
European Commission, n.d.; Huynh & Walton, 2008; Namboothiri & Erera, 2008; Phan & Kim,
2015; Torkjazi, 2020).
Keeping the TTT at its minimum is an important element to ensuring a high throughput as a
functioning landside operation is key to attract large vessels (Van der Horst & De Langen,
2008). When improving the efficiency of landside operation, also the business of stakeholders
up-stream in the supply chain is facilitated; on-time delivery at the end-customer's location is
ensured when the TO facilitates the operations of TCs (Torkjazi, 2020). Moreover, successful
positioning in the shippers’, forwarding agents’ and shipping lines’ mind, not only increase
terminals’ competitiveness against other container terminals, but also the competitiveness
against other means of transportation and hence entire transportation chains (Kotler et al., 2017;
Van der Horst & De Langen, 2008). Although the scope of this master thesis does not include
an analysis of the potential effects of improved landside operations on a supply chain level, the
benefits of intermodal shipping, is a well-researched topic in academia (see for example
Frémont, 2013).
Limitations regarding terminal capacity and more specifically, the gate- and yard area,
equipment (for example internal trucks and cranes), and personnel (Covic, 2017), imply that
the landside operations must be planned and organized to not undermine attempts to increase
the competitiveness and sustainability (Van der Horst & De Langen, 2008). The increased
demand for terminal transactions in combination with an unchanged terminal capacity means
that peak hours grow in duration, hence causing more idling trucks to wait and to wait longer.
Increasing stacking heights of containers is yet another issue deriving from an increased
demand for storing in a limited yard area (Kemme, 2013), amplifying the problems with long
TTT and fluctuations in capacity utilization. Stacking multiple containers on top of each other
ultimately prolongates the TTT and decreases capacity utilization as then the number of
redundant crane lifts (shuffle moves) increases during retrieval operations (Covic, 2017).
Researchers in the field have primarily targeted the problem of congestion in container
terminals using two different approaches, gate capacity expansion and management of truck
arrivals (Chen et al., 2013b). According to Guan and Liu (2009) the former approach has two
primary downsides, the first being that the possibilities to expand land and resources might be
limited and the second one being that expanding gate capacity without streamlining or
expanding yard capacity simply moves the congestion to the inside of the gate entries. In the
latter approach the truck arrival rate is managed through economic incentives, operational
methods, or both, to limit the number of arrivals throughout the day or to minimize the
occurrence of high truck arrival rates (Chen et al., 2013b).
Well recognized in academic literature as well as in the business community (Phan & Kim,
2015), the truck appointment system (TAS) constitutes an attempt to manage truck arrivals
(Covic, 2017; Lange et al., 2020; Phan & Kim, 2015). The specifics of the TAS vary and depend

2
partially on the terminal’s intended use case of the TAS. Covic (2017) defines two use cases of
the TAS; The first use case implies improving information on trucks’ arrival time (in
comparison to when unscheduled access is deployed) to schedule terminal capacity and thereby
increase yard operations efficiency. The second use case implies that schedules, limiting the
number of trucks that arrive during certain time intervals throughout the day, are imposed to
level truck arrivals and thereby increase terminal operations efficiency. The second use case is
typically referred to in academic literature on the TAS and the former is only scarcely covered
(Covic, 2017). As the second use case also implies improved information on truck arrivals in
comparison to when unscheduled access is deployed, it also facilitates scheduling of terminal
capacity. Furthermore, the second use case entailing levelling of truck arrivals, implies
additional benefits which advocate for such system; By limiting the maximum number of truck
arrivals during certain time intervals the terminal’s capacity utilization rate is further enhanced
as well as the waiting times for idling trucks (Covic, 2017; Phan & Kim, 2015).

1.2 Problem areas

Huynh et al. (2016) emphasize that TAS is rapidly evolving and the advancement in
technological capabilities between container terminals are differing. In practice, some TOs
have implemented the TAS while many have not, for example APM terminals have
implemented TAS in 26 out of their 75 terminals (APMT, n.d.). The inconsistent
implementation across container terminals might be due to a lack of knowledge on how to
design the TAS to maximize its effectiveness, how to integrate the TAS into the main service
it seeks to facilitate, or due to different perceptions regarding the system’s effectiveness,
resulting in a lack of buy in, sense of responsibility, and prioritization of the system (Morais &
Lord, 2006).
For any purposeful system to be perceived a sensible investment for the investors, the drivers
legitimizing an implementation of the system must be recognized and realizable. Moreover, the
barriers mirroring the drawbacks of a system that can potentially hinder the realization of the
drivers, must also be recognized and manageable. The direct costs related to the implementation
and operation of a system, as well as indirect costs related to mitigating barriers, must not
exceed the earnings of the system. Recognition of the drivers and barriers as well as knowledge
of how to reinforce the drivers and how to mitigate the barriers, is therefore important when
evaluating a TAS potential effectiveness. Lack of knowledge among TOs about the TAS should
imply several negative consequences; Firstly, lack of knowledge about its effectiveness may
cause TOs to distance themselves from an important business opportunity. Secondly, lack of
knowledge about how to design the system and integrate it into the service it seeks to facilitate,
may hinder realization of the drivers, or even undermine the business.
Academic literature on the drivers and barriers and how to reinforce respectively mitigate them
by adjusting the system design is relatively rich (see for example Huynh et al., 2016 and
Torkjazi, 2020). However, findings regarding how a generic TAS or different TAS designs
affect the business model of TOs when incorporated to facilitate the service of container
transactions between a TO and TCs, are scarce. Without some sort of analytical business model
framework considering theoretical as well as empirical findings on the TAS, the system’s
effectiveness is not likely to reach its full potential. This is because the TAS enforces certain

3
requirements on the main service it seeks to facilitate which necessitates alignment between the
two and hence modifications to the current business model (Veile et al., 2019). The business
model in turn is a source for strategic and operational objectives and the system properties must
therefore be reflected by its content. Deliberate modifications of the business model hence
ensures that drivers are reinforced and that barriers are mitigated when a TAS is put into
practice.

1.3 Aim and Research questions

The inconsistent implementation of TAS in different container terminals indicates that there are
certain ambiguities surrounding the system. To address such ambiguity, this study seeks to
present different components and options of TAS designs, that can be applied when designing
the system. As the different design decisions come with their own drivers and barriers, they are
important to understand when designing a TAS as well as to understand the potential
effectiveness of the system. Furthermore, the TAS needs to be reflected in the business model
of a container terminal as the business model highly influences the service of container
transactions of which the TAS seeks to facilitate. Information on how to align the two seems to
be lacking in academic literature. Therefore, the aim has been formulated as following:
To improve the understanding of the drivers and barriers of truck appointment
systems’ components and options and how they affect the content of terminal
operators’ business models.
To achieve the aim of the study three research questions have been formulated. The first
research question is formulated with the intention of understanding the drivers incentivizing an
adoption of a TAS. Previous studies have investigated the drivers of the TAS both from a
system perspective and from lower-level perspectives focusing on the drivers resulting from
adjusting the system design in terms of components and options. Although literature on the
drivers is relatively rich it is rather scattered and lack a holistic view on the drivers as well as
their interrelations and causes. Moreover, few attempts have been made to compile the many
developments that have been made to the TAS components and hence options and to
collectively relate them to the drivers. The lack of a clear and holistic depiction of the drivers
and their dependence on the system design might be the reason for why the system has only
been adopted in some container terminals. Therefore, the first research question is formulated
as the following:
RQ1: What components of truck appointment systems are related to perceived
drivers of TAS?

The second research question aims to improve the understanding of the barriers that may affect
the possibility to realize the drivers of the TAS. As with the drivers, previous studies have
investigated the barriers of the TAS both from a system perspective and from lower-level
perspectives, but their interrelations and dependence on the TAS components and hence
options, are lacking. The inconsistent implementation of TAS across container terminals might
therefore also be a consequence of the lack of a clear and holistic depiction of the barriers.
Therefore, the second research question is formulated as the following:

4
 RQ2: What components of truck appointment systems are related to perceived
barriers of TAS?

Lastly, the purpose with the third research question is to investigate how the TAS affects the
content of TOs’ business model when incorporated to facilitate the service of container
transactions between a TO and TCs. When implementing a TAS, certain elements reflecting
the systems’ prerequisites should influence the service and hence the content of the business
model. Academic literature on how to align the business model and hence existing service with
the TAS to reinforce the drivers and mitigate the barriers, seems to be lacking. While previous
research has mostly taken a narrow theoretical approach by optimizing certain components or
options of the TAS design to improve the operations of either the TCs or the TOs, such approach
will be futile if it is not reflected by the strategic and operational objectives. Therefore, the third
research question is formulated as the following:

RQ3: What elements should be considered in a business model to address the

perceived drivers and barriers of TAS?

1.4 Delimitations
Prior to the study one delimitation was established to narrow the scope of the study; Only
container terminals’ landside operations related to the service of container transactions between
a TO and TCs will constitute the study object. This is because of the different characteristics of
train, sea, and truck shipment (Jacobsson, 2020), which most likely influence the range of
drivers, barriers and thereby ways to realize the drivers or manage the barriers.
Throughout the study additional delimitations have been made. Presentation and analysis of
different algorithms or mathematical models that are used in literature to enable or facilitate
different options of TAS components have been excluded from the study. Also excluded from
the study are identification and analysis of the technologies or programming interfaces that
must be established to enable information sharing between actors using a TAS. Lastly, the
purpose of the study is not to measure and compare the effects of different TAS components
and options, but instead to understand from a qualitative perspective how they relate to different
drivers and barriers.

1.5 Disposition of the report

Below the structure of the report for the upcoming chapters is presented. This provides an
overview of the aim with the upcoming chapters; each chapter is described separately.
Theoretical framework: aims to present a current state of research related to different TAS
designs and how decisions regarding the design affect system outcome. A framework is
presented in terms of components and options constituting earlier TAS designs as well as
developed TAS components and options followed by identification of drivers and barriers
related to such systems. Lastly, business models in the freight transportation sector are
presented.
Methodology: presents the researchers’ philosophical standpoint which has influenced the
research, strategy, design, and methods. Methodological choices and processes such as the
method for data collection and data analysis are in this chapter described in detail. Lastly, the

5
applied quality criteria are discussed followed by a discussion regarding ethical, societal, and
ecological considerations.
Empirical findings: presents a description of the three cases studied as well as the empirical
findings regarding the TAS designs deployed and the related perceived or experienced drivers
and barriers. The data presented was mainly collected from conducted interviews, however,
some information was gathered from external documents.
Analysis: is the chapter in which the empirical as well as theoretical data are analysed according
to the three research questions. Research question three is analysed using the framework
business model canvas developed by Osterwalder and Pigneur (2010).
Discussion: aims to answer the three research questions concisely based on the results presented
in the analysis. Lastly, recommendations for future practitioners as well as limitations of the
study are discussed with suggestions for future research.
Conclusion: serves the purpose of shortly summarizing and emphasizing the findings of the
study with the aim of the study acting as a reference. The chapter highlights the most important
contributions of the study.

6
2 Theoretical framework
In this chapter the theoretical data is presented. The theoretical framework is presented as
following: In section 2.1 a brief overview of container terminals’ operations and trucking
companies’ operations related to terminal transactions is given. In section 2.2, the basic TAS
design is presented and in section 2.3 the drivers and barriers related to the basic TAS. In
section 2.4, developed TAS components and options and their respective drivers and barriers
are outlined. Finally in section 2.5, business models in the freight transportation sector are
discussed.
Since the conceptualization of the TAS in the beginning of the 21st century (Torkjazi, 2020),
several TAS designs have been developed in academic literature as well as in practice. Such
developed designs primarily represent attempts to add to or optimize certain components of the
TAS or attempts to integrate the TAS, that primarily target the gate operations, with the yard
operations. While a TAS refers to any truck appointment system a TAS design in this report
refers to a specific TAS that constitute a certain set of components and options; the options
more specifically represent different ways to realize a specific component.
Although the different TAS designs often are related to the same drivers and barriers, a specific
TAS is also characterized by individual drivers and barriers. Moreover, a specific design can
be a solution to the barriers relating to another design but at the same time relate to barriers
possible to mitigate through yet another design. Because of the multiple developed TAS designs
that partly relate to certain drivers and barriers, partly represent attempts to mitigate barriers
identified in previous designs, it is appropriate to distinguish these designs when presenting the
theoretical data on drivers and barriers. Furthermore, as many of the early designs are similar
(they largely constitute the same set of components and options) and to a large extent share the
same drivers and barriers, these can be presented as a benchmark to the designs that have been
developed subsequently. Such early designs (hereafter referred to as the basic TAS design)
hence enable identification of the fundamental drivers and barriers of the TAS.
The theoretical framework will be structured according to the logic presented in the previous
paragraph; Applying such chronological perspective entails a holistic but also detailed view on
the different TAS designs and their individual as well as collective drivers and barriers.

2.1 Container transactions between a terminal operator and

trucking companies
The main actors that are involved in the container transactions are the container TO that can
either be an external company or the port authority, and the TC that exchange information and
goods (Torkjazi, 2020). If the port authority does not operate the terminal, they most often own
the port being responsible for larger infrastructural investments at the port (Morais & Lord,
2006). By understanding the relations between these different actors in terms of the information
exchange, business relations and the physical flow of goods, it is possible to identify how TAS
would affect each actor to design an effective TAS (Huynh et al., 2016).

2.1.1 Container terminals’ operations

The terminal operations involve different operations that need to operate in conjunction with
each other to produce an efficient container flow through the container terminal (Morais &

7
Lord, 2006). According to Morais and Lord (2006), Abdelmagid, et al. (2022), Huiyun et al.
(2018), Torkjazi (2020) the terminal can normally be divided into three main operations that
each perform specific tasks that can be described as:
The gate area: is the first area that a truck driver arrives to when about to perform a container
transaction at the terminal. The gate area can consist of one or many gate lanes that the truck
driver must pass through before entering the yard aera. In this area the truck driver interacts
with the TO, performing operations such as security, container checking availability and storage
location.
The yard area: is the interface between the berth area and the gate area. One primary operation
in this area is to perform container transactions by loading or unloading full or empty containers
to or from trucks that are either being exported or imported (Huynh & Walton, 2008).
Additional activities that may take place is inventory management, or container tracking.
Morais and Lord (2006) mention that the yard can contain different container handling
equipment to manage and organize the containers at the yard, for example automated stacking
cranes, straddle carriers, reach stackers, forklift trucks, or top pick handlers.
The berth area: is the entry point for vessels to enter and exit the terminal. The main activity in
the area is to load and unload full or empty containers to/from ships by ship-shore cranes and
to identify container information.
A typical layout of a container terminal is illustrated in figure 1. Huiyun et al. (2018) pinpoint
that these three areas need to be considered due to interrelations between the areas that cause a
complex system to coordinate. However, Huynh and Walton (2008) advocate that balancing
operational resources between the areas can be difficult and that ship-to-shore transactions in
the berth area often are prioritized over road operations which can result in resources such as
cranes are being moved from the gate area to support the berth area. Hence, decreasing the
terminals capacity to perform container transactions to serve incoming trucks.

8
Figure 1

A general layout of the areas at a container terminal

Note. From Truck Appointment at Container Terminals: Status and Perspectives, by Huiyun et al.,
2018.

2.1.2 Trucking companies’ operations

The operation for a typical TC starts at a depot with each truck performing a predetermined
number of tasks each day. The number of tasks can vary depending on for example the distances
to the different locations. The truck usually ends its shift back at the depot once it is finished
for the day (Ioannou et al., 2006). Pickup or drop-off orders are normally received from either
a shipper or a cargo owner that wants to move goods. Once the orders have been accepted by
the TC a dispatcher compiles the orders, incorporating certain routes for each truck driver. Those
schedules can include orders other than the once to and from the container terminal (Torkjazi,
2020). However, one of the tasks for some TCs is to pick up or drop off containers at the
terminal. During this process the truck drivers interact with the terminal’s processes when
performing the container transaction (Zhang & Zhang, 2017). When the truck arrives at the
terminal, the first destination is at the inbound gate area where the arrival is confirmed and then
processed (Ioannou et al., 2006). Depending on if the truck brings an export container or picks
up an import container, the truck either goes to the export- or the import yard. Beyond these
two separate flows it is also possible to perform dual transactions which for the import flow
means that a truck arrives with a container and unload it and pick up another container before
leaving the terminal at the outbound gate. For the export flow, a dual transaction implies that
the TC unloads the export container before picking up another import or empty container before
leaving the terminal through the outbound gate. Once a transaction in the container terminal is
performed, usually the next step is to reach the destination at a certain time point to deliver or
pick up a container.

9
2.2 The basic truck appointment system design
In this study, the basic TAS design equals the TASs studied and reported by Giuliano and
O’Brien (2007) and Morais and Lord (2006). These were among the earliest implemented and
studied TASs. In their study, conducted in the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach, Giuliano
and O’Brien (2007) evaluated the reduction in TTT and port related truck emissions in nine
container terminals having implemented a TAS. Albeit the external pressure to implement the
TAS, no directions were given to the terminals regarding the design of the system according to
the authors. Ultimately it meant that each of the nine terminals were given complete freedom
in structuring the TAS. Similarly, Morais and Lord (2006) studied the effects of TASs, and
other solutions implemented in six North American west coast container terminals on the TTT
and greenhouse gas emissions. The terminals belonged to the Ports of Los Angeles, Long
Beach, Oakland, and Vancouver. In all six of the terminals the structuring of the design were
determined with complete freedom and hence alike what was reported by Giuliano and O’Brien
(2007). However, the TAS designs deployed across the different container terminals were rather
similar and did not only share components but also to a large extent the same options.
The components and their related options reported by Giuliano and O’Brien (2007) and Morais
and Lord (2006) to be present in the studied TASs, are listed and explained below and illustrated
in figure 2 with their dependencies. Both the components and options are categorized based on
their dependence on other components and options. ‘Primary components’ refer to components
that are independent on other components and options. ‘Secondary components’ on the other
hand are components that are independent on other secondary components but dependent on
primary components and certain primary options. The components and options constituting the
basic TAS design, are further illustrated in figure 2. In the figure, the components and options
dependence of other components and options are marked with lines.
Primary components
Scheduling strategy: According to what scheduling strategy, individual appointment system
(IAS) or block appointment system (BAS), appointments are provided (Abdelmagid et al.,
2022). The different strategies are explained in a separate paragraph.
Obligation: Whether the TAS is optional, mandatory, or mandatory for import containers.
Information required from the TC: Whether the TC makes an appointment based on container-
ID or truck-ID. The former option implies that the TC specifies the container and hence
transaction (Torkjazi, 2020) meanwhile the latter option implies that the TC can book several
appointments per transaction.
Primary booking technology: The technology marketed at first hand for booking an
appointment. Appointments are mainly booked by calling the terminal or by using the web-
based port community information system.
Missed appointment handling and re-scheduling: Whether a missed or skipped appointment
(no-show) implies that a new appointment must be booked or if the truck may queue in the non-
appointment lanes (walk-ins) (derives from the component of ‘obligation’ and the option of
‘optional’ as a mandatory TAS implies that a new appointment is required) (Maguire et al.,

10
2010). However, for the sake of simplicity this component will be regarded a primary
component in this study.
Appointment lead-time: The breaking point for when it at latest is possible to book a transaction
(Huynh et al., 2016; Zhao & Goodchild, 2013) which can be either the same day or the day
before. The appointment lead-time is used to enable scheduling of capacity.
Secondary components
Dedicated lanes: Whether the TAS is coupled with separate lane(s) at the gate entry or not
(derives from the component of ‘obligation’ and the option of ‘optional’ as a mandatory TAS
implies that all lanes are used for appointments) (Huynh et al., 2016). The dedicated lanes
ensure that trucks with appointments get access to their booked appointment window while
trucks without appointments get access whenever terminal capacity is not fully utilized (Huynh
& Walton, 2008).
Information provided by the TO: Whether the information on cargo availability is provided or
not (if a container is ready to be picked up) when the TC books an appointment (derives from
the component of ‘Information provided by the TC’ as container status can only be provided
through container identification) (Huynh et al., 2016).

11
Figure 2

The components and options constituting the basic TAS design

The component of scheduling strategy and its two options of IAS and BAS require further
explanation other than already made. Different designs of TAS can be categorized into different
types and two of the most common types are: Individual Appointment Systems (IAS) and Block
Appointment System (BAS) (Abdelmagid, et. al., 2022). Although it was not stated by neither
Giuliano and O’Brien (2007) nor Morais and Lord (2006) which one of the two systems that
was used in the different terminals, the general description of the TASs indicated that BASs
were deployed in all the container terminal.
One major difference between the different IAS and BAS is how they are controlled where IAS
is the simplest system and is based on estimated arrival times, communicated by the TC to the
TO. Contrary to BAS, which is a system in which the control is shifted, and the TO decide the
booking conditions. The booking conditions between the systems can easily be explained that
in IAS only one appointment is booked for each truck and in BAS, appointments are divided
into blocks with multiple trucks being served within the same appointment window
(Abdelmagid, et. al., 2022). The parameters that IAS consist of is the start of the first
appointment, number of trucks at the beginning of the day, the interval between each

12
appointment, and a buffer between each appointment to handle walk-ins and no-shows. The
interval between each appointment is based on the average processing time required to serve
each truck at the gate (Huynh, 2009). In contrast, BAS is built on several blocks that each have
a separate appointment interval during the opening hours at the terminal where the trucks are
allowed to arrive whenever within the timespan. Each truck that arrives within the block is
served first come first served. What distinguishes BAS is that the allowed number of trucks for
each block is decided based on the capacity and expected walk-ins/no-shows (Böse, 2011).
Figure 3 illustrates a block in a BAS between 10-11 o clock where six trucks are allowed to
arrive at the gate, each grey box represent an available appointment. As no prioritization
between the trucks is established, the first truck that arrive will be served. In contrast figure 4
illustrates an individual appointment system with an interval of ten minutes between
appointments.
Figure 3 Figure 4

Illustration of a block appointment system (BAS) Illustration of an individual appointment system (IAS)

Huynh (2009) simulated how IAS and BAS compared in relation to turn time in the container
yard and yard crane utilization. Different scenarios were simulated by changing the variables
of no-shows, late arrivals, and walk-ins. The results showed that the use of IAS was preferable
for the truck drivers as it lowered the turn times compared to the control simulation, thus
punctuality from the trucks without too many walk-ins are important to obtain the positive
results, otherwise, the intervals between bookings need to be extended. However, BAS
increased the yard crane utilization since the trucks arrive in blocks, it is almost always some
trucks in line to be served by the yard cranes. Although the increase in yard crane utilization it
did increase the turn times.

2.3 Drivers and barriers related to the basic truck appointment

system design
In this section the drivers and barriers related to the basic TAS design will be presented. In
academic literature, the TAS has generally been advocated as a sufficient means for improving
TCs’ and TOs’ operations efficiency as well as local air quality. However, Giuliano and
O’Brien (2007) and Morais and Lord (2006) reported various barriers in their independent
studies that affected the performance of TAS when implemented in different container
terminals. According to Torkjazi (2020), TAS designs (and hence related drivers and barriers)

13
reflect the degree of consideration to the objectives of the TCs respectively the TOs. Hence, in
this section it is appropriate to make a distinction between the drivers and barriers perceived by
the studied TOs that operated the TASs, and the drivers and barriers perceived by the TCs that
used the TASs, in the two studies.

2.3.1 Drivers related to the basic truck appointment system design

In this section the drivers related to the basic TAS design, components and options are
presented. In figure 5 the drivers related to the basic TAS design, and their identified
interrelations are illustrated; The white cells with bold lines mark the drivers perceived by the
TCs and the grey cells mark the drivers perceived by the TOs. The cells in grey with bold lines
mark the drivers perceived by both actors. The hierarchy has been compiled according to the
following logic: If underlying yet same-level drivers are perceived by different actors, their
shared overlying driver is perceived by both actors.

14
Figure 5

Drivers related to the basic TAS design

15
Terminal operators’ perspective
Two primary incentives for implementing the TASs were reported by Giuliano and O’Brien
(2007) and Morais and Lord (2006) and are commonly cited when the TAS is dissected in
subsequent academic literature: reduction of truck emissions within or in connection to the
container terminal and reduction of TTT. The first driver was the main intention with the TASs
implemented in the terminals studied by Giuliano and O’Brien (2007). Extensive queueing at
terminal gates implying a concentration of idling trucks had by that time become alarming;
while idling trucks on the one hand emit more emissions than moving trucks (Torkjazi, 2020),
high diesel engine emissions on the other hand cause health- and environmental issues
(Namboothiri & Erera, 2008). Giuliano & O’Brien (2007), however, found no evidence for
reduced truck emissions. In contrast, Morais and Lord (2006) reported significant reductions in
truck emissions in the container terminals they studied that had implemented the TAS. The
latter results have been supported by subsequent studies on the effects of TAS as several
independent studies have reported reduced congestion and queueing at gates and especially
during peak hours. The explanation repeatedly cited is that the TAS enable the terminal to level
truck arrivals throughout the terminal’s opening hours (Abdelmagid et al., 2022; Giuliano &
O’Brien, 2007; Heilig & Voß, 2017; Huynh & Walton, 2008; Ioannou et al., 2006; Maguire et
al., 2010; Morais & Lord, 2006; Namboothiri & Erera, 2008; Torkjazi, 2020; Zhang & Zhang,
2017; Zhao & Goodchild, 2013). A side effect from leveling truck arrivals is lesser congestion
on the roadways system and hence reduced truck emissions in the nearby communities
(Giuliano & O’Brien, 2007; Maguire et al., 2010).
Another significant incentive for container terminals to implement a TAS is the possibility to
predict and hence better manage the demand of container transactions in relation to gate- and
yard capacity (Giuliano & O’Brien, 2007; Morais & Lord, 2006; Torkjazi, 2020). When
predicting workloads, labor, and equipment both in the gate operations as well as in the yard
operations can be better scheduled, creating efficiency wins at the terminal through improved
resource utilization (Huynh & Walton, 2008; Maguire et al., 2010; Namboothiri & Erera, 2008;
Torkjazi, 2020). Ultimately, information on the number and frequency of truck arrivals
contributes to improving resource utilization, gate- and yard efficiency, operational costs, and
accelerated throughput (Morais & Lord, 2006).
Trucking companies’ perspective
The second incentive cited by Giuliano and O’Brien (2007) and Morais and Lord (2006) as well
as in subsequent literature, reduction of TTT (Huynh & Walton, 2008), has shown not only to
be a source for reducing truck emission due to reduced idling, but also for improving truck
operations efficiency. TTT is usually applied to explain the time a truck spends within the outer
entry gate and exit gates (truck transaction time) as well as outside the outer entry gate (gate
wait time) (Giuliano & O’Brien, 2007; Huynh & Walton, 2008). However, according to Huynh
and Walton (2008) the term is insufficient when viewing TTT as a function of yard capacity
utilization which is the essence of TAS. That is because delays caused by inefficient gate
processes up until the inner gate entry, which have nothing to do with yard capacity utilization,
is then reckoned. The term truck transaction time is therefore often applied as it only considers
the time a truck spends between the inner gate entry to the exit gate (Zhao & Goodchild, 2013).
When leveling truck arrivals at the terminal gates, queues are targeted resulting in reduced TTT.

16
According to Ioannou (2006), a TAS enabling decreased fluctuations in queuing time, implies
that TTT is more predictable and hence improve the conditions for scheduling trucks as well as
for complying to such schedules. An immediate effect for the TCs is hence gained trust among
current as well as potential end-customers. Furthermore, a greater proportion of transportations
carried out on time enable TCs to better adapt to the Just-In-Time principle that increasingly
gains attention in the freight transportation sector. Moreover, a shorter TTT implies that more
customer demand requests can be served per truck and therefore tractors and drivers can be
better utilized to minimize operating costs (Namboothiri & Erera, 2008; Torkjazi, 2020). An
apparent benefit for the TCs is hence increased productivity.
According to Giuliano and O’Brien (2007) and Morais and Lord (2006) the TTT is strongly
dependent on the proportion of trips carried out with appointments. Hence, to ensure a short
TTT the TAS must be designed to incentivize usage. In an optional TAS dedicated lanes for
trucks with appointments is used for this purpose. The dedicated lanes ensure that trucks with
appointments get access to their booked appointment window while trucks without
appointments get access whenever terminal capacity is not fully utilized (Huynh & Walton,
2008). However, assuming that trucks are served according to the first-in-first-out principle,
trucks will queue with other trucks sharing the same appointment window. Thereby, the use of
dedicated lanes requires that enough lanes are applied so that truck drivers with appointments
always have a shorter TTT than trucks without appointments queuing at the non-appointment
lanes. Then there will be few appointments to fill with trucks without appointments which will
further be subject to high waiting times (Huynh & Walton, 2008). Hence, there is an apparent
negative network effect related to the TAS; the more users the TAS receives, the less
incentivized are truck drivers to use the TAS (Øverby & Audestad, 2021) unless additional
lanes dedicated for trucks with appointments are applied. As the system gains users TTT will
decrease if there are enough lanes dedicated to appointments users and finally stabilize when
all trucks use appointments, and all lanes are dedicated for appointments. This relation explains
why a mandatory system implies a reduction in the TTT. In the case of a mandatory TAS no
such negative network effects will arise as then all lanes are dedicated for appointments.
However, the primary incentive for TCs in that scenario is to ensure passage through the gate
(Torkjazi, 2020).
Figure 6 illustrates the network effects prevalent in an optional TAS where different proportions
of dedicated lanes for trucks with appointments (grey areas) versus without appointments
(white areas), occurs. The different scenarios a) to d) also highlight how the level of TAS usage
evolves if the dedicated lanes for trucks with appointments are expanded to meet such demand.
In scenario a) and c) trucks are incentivized to use the TAS as they access the gate faster. In
scenario b) and d) more lanes dedicated to trucks with appointments are necessary as otherwise
trucks will be incentivized to not use the TAS as then they access then they access the gate
faster. Hence, to ensure that a high proportion of trips are carried out with appointments enough
lanes must be dedicated to trucks with appointments to ensure that the TTT is minimized.

17
Figure 6

Different ratios of dedicated lanes for trucks with appointment versus without and their relation to the
proportion of trucks using the system

Both Giuliano and O’Brien (2007) and Morais and Lord (2006) reported that all terminals that
they studied had incorporated information on container availability in their TAS design. When
TAS provide TCs with container status and more specifically cargo availability and -readiness
(Zhao & Goodchild, 2013), another benefit deriving from the application is that unnecessary
trips to the port is eliminated (Heilig & Voß, 2017). This is because of that absence of cargo
status risk that truck drivers arrive at the terminal only to find that the container is not available
or ready for pick-up (Morais & Lord, 2006). Moreover, by eliminating uncertainties regarding
container status, unnecessary activities related to finding out about container status are reduced
(Morais & Lord, 2006) meanwhile planning is improved (Giuliano & O’Brien, 2007). Fewer
trips to the terminal also imply reduced queues and hence reduced TTT and emissions related
to port traffic.
2.3.2 Barriers related to the basic truck appointment system design
In this section the barriers related to the basic TAS design, components and options are
presented. In figure 7, the barriers and their identified interrelations are illustrated; The white
cells with bold lines mark the barriers perceived by the TCs and the grey cells mark the barriers
perceived by the TOs. The cells in grey with bold lines mark the barriers perceived by both
actors. The hierarchy has been compiled according to the following logic: If underlying yet
same-level barriers are perceived by different actors, their shared overlying barrier is perceived
by both actors.

18
Figure 7

Barriers related to the basic TAS design

19
Terminal operators’ perspective
Giuliano and O’Brien (2007) found no evidence for reduced waiting times or truck emissions
in their study. The authors attributed the poor performance of the TAS to the circumstances
under which it was implemented where an external legislator was the main prosecutor. This,
they advocated, consequently resulted in a lack of buy-in and strategic commitment from the
TOs which led to few or no attempts to streamlining the current operations. Giuliano and
O’Brien (2007) more specifically reported that it was not compulsory for the TCs to use the
TAS and no incitements or punishments were applied nor accomplished to encourage such
usage. Some of the terminals coupled the TAS with a priority system at the gate through
dedicated lanes to reduce the TTT, however, no priority was given to truck drivers using the
TAS once inside the terminal, contrary to what was expected by the TCs.
The local regions’ dependence on the terminals for international trade, according to Giuliano
and O’Brien (2007) implied that the legislation did not enforce any further regulations on the
container terminals. This, they advocated, risked being perceived negatively by the port and
terminals who already had a general perception that the TAS did not relate to nor improve the
terminal operations.
Giuliano and O’Brien (2007) presented several reasons for why the container terminals did not
consider the TAS an effective operational strategy. Firstly, in many of the cases neither the port
authorities nor the TOs considered the congestions and air pollutions related to port traffic to
fall under their responsibility. Rather they viewed it as an increase in the data burden. Secondly,
the TAS was considered an insufficient approach to improving information flows and reduce
vehicle emissions compared to technology improvements such as optical character recognition
and Global Positioning System. The benefits of the TAS were also seen as subordinate other
measures already taken by the terminals; information regarding container availability was
already integrated in the current information systems and investments in cleaner dock vehicles
had led to significant reductions in vehicle emissions. Thirdly, the terminals did not regard the
drayage TCs as customers and reducing TTT was therefore not considered an objective. Rather,
they served shipping lines and major shippers and resources were hence allocated according to
such contracts. Lastly, the TOs reported that an increase in the proportion of appointments
would imply an increase in TTT for trucks with an appointment as then the queues would shift
from one lane to another.
According to Morais and Lord (2006), the TAS showed significant performance levels but
relied on extensive collaboration between the actors; Difficulties for TCs in predicting the
arrival time at the container terminals implied problems with overbooking. This also followed
as the systems were set-up so that several pick-ups could be booked for a single container. This
allowed for the TCs to reserve multiple appointments to ease scheduling. Such system and
uncollaborative set-up resulted in a high proportion of cancelled or missed appointments and
ultimately in unoccupied gates intended for trucks with appointments; At the same time traffic
lanes intended for trucks without appointments showed significant queues.
Trucking companies’ perspective
As the terminals studied by Giuliano and O’Brien (2007) neither adjusted their yard operations
to prepare containers for trucks with appointments to reduce the transaction time nor achieved

20
noticeable reductions in waiting times at the gate entry, the TCs’ expectations of the TAS were
not met. According to Giuliano and O’Brien (2007) the main failure of the TAS was the fact
that it did not provide any clear incentives or benefits for the TCs. Huynh (2016) state that an
optional TAS could negatively affect the time savings of the system. Likewise, Morais and
Lord (2006) argued that to achieve buy-in from the TCs, clear benefits, and incentives to use
the system must be provided. Although some of the terminals studied by Giuliano and O’Brien
(2007) coupled the TAS with a priority system at the gate, the scant usage of the system meant
that it was impossible to observe any positive effects of the TAS on the TTT; Ultimately the
lack of benefits resulted in an overall negative perception of the TAS and insignificant use of
the non-compulsory system. While most of the TCs used the system, it was to an insignificant
proportion of their total amount of trips. Morais and Lord (2006) reported the same correlation
between the proportion of appointments and transaction time; with a low level of usage in
combination with dedicated lanes for the appointment trips, capacity limitations even resulted
in an increase in the transaction time. They also explained a low level of usage as insufficient
buy-in from the TCs.
While lacking the benefits expected by the TCs, using the TAS implied additional constraints
for the TCs and required complying with rules regarding appointment lead-time and booking
procedures (Giuliano & O’Brien, 2007). In addition to the appointment window constraints
sometimes already prevalent at the containers’ destination or pick-up point, the TAS, according
to Namboothiri and Erera (2008), implies multiple constraints for the TCs. TCs scheduling and
routing decisions according to Covic (2017) are based primarily on the dispatcher or recipients
demand request in the absence of a TAS. The rollout of a TAS, however, implies that routing
and scheduling must also be determined based on the availability and design of the TAS which
may obstruct for the TCs to satisfy customer demands (Torkjazi, 2020). As multiple TCs are
competing for specific appointments that relate to the container terminals peak hours, the TCs
will have an especially difficult time in booking appointments based on productivity-
maximization. As the TCs’ revenue stream is based on a fixed price per move, but the drivers
are paid by the hour, waiting times between container moves will hence increase the operating
cost per move. To benefit rather than being obstructed by the constraints related to the basic
TAS design TCs must carefully plan and organize its operations (Namboothiri & Erera, 2008).
As reported in the article, the selection of appointments must be made with care as otherwise
trucking operations productivity will suffer.
Although the TASs evaluated by Giuliano and O’Brien (2007) did not require from TCs to book
a new appointment when an appointment was missed or cancelled, the system was perceived
by TCs as insufficient, especially when scheduling several transactions in one day. This was
perceived negatively as one delay then would cascade into the subsequent transactions resulting
in several missed appointments. Zhao and Goodchild (2010) highlight that static time windows
are often missed both because of foreseeable and unforeseeable external events. Morais and
Lord (2006) also highlighted the insufficiency for TCs to book a appointment 24 hours in
advance. According to the authors planning an exact arrival time in advance is difficult when
there are multiple transactions taking place during the day each carrying individual constraints
and circumstances which are difficult to plan for. Such circumstanced relate to traveling times,
transaction times, and potential congestion, which ultimately imply great uncertainties for the

21
truck driver. According to Morais and Lord (2006), for the TCs serving multiple container
terminals this also meant keeping track on yet another information system (deriving from the
lack of a consolidated information system across the container terminals).

2.4 Developments of the basic truck appointment system design

Ever since the studies by Giuliano and O’Brien (2007) and Morais and Lord (2006) were
published, many alternative designs have emerged, both in practice and in academic literature.
The development of alternative designs mainly derives from different perspectives on the TOs’
responsibility and necessity regarding facilitating the TCs’ operations. Abdelmagid et al. (2022)
use the term truck appointment scheduling problem to describe the problem of applying TAS
to on the one hand improve the performance of the terminal operations by managing the truck
arrivals at the container terminal, while on the other hand considering and managing the
constraints it enforces on the TCs as well as the TOs. The TAS problem is further complicated
by the fact that the components of the TAS design usually benefits one of the actors while
disadvantaging the other (Torkjazi, 2020), which will be elaborated upon in this section.
Consequently, it is difficult to determine a solution that integrates the objectives of the
stakeholders while still offering the TOs, who usually invest in the system, enough benefits.
According to Torkjazi (2020) an effective TAS requires that the objectives, capacity, and
constraints of both TOs and TCs are incorporated. This difficulty highlight why literature on
the TAS predominantly focus on the drivers and barriers of one of the two stakeholder.
Figure 8 visualizes the basic TAS design (black cells) combined with the developed TAS
components and options (white cells) incorporated in developed TAS designs. Both the
components and options are categorized based on their dependence on other components and
options and the lines in figure 8 highlight such dependencies. In figure 9 the drivers related to
the basic as well as developed TAS designs, and their interrelations are illustrated; The white
cells with bold lines mark the drivers perceived by the TCs and the grey cells mark the drivers
perceived by the TOs. The cells in grey with bold lines mark the drivers perceived by both
actors. The cells with black text mark the drivers related to the basic TAS design and the cells
with green text mark the drivers related to the developed TAS designs. Similarly, figure 10
illustrates the barriers related to the basic as well as developed TAS designs and their
interrelations. In the figure the cells with black text mark the barriers related to the basic TAS
design and the cells with red text mark the barriers related to the developed TAS designs. Both
hierarchies have been compiled according to the following logic: If underlying yet same-level
drivers or barriers are perceived by different actors, their shared overlying driver or barrier is
perceived by both actors.

22
Figure 8

The components and options constituting the basic and developed TAS designs

23
Figure 9

Drivers related to the basic as well as developed TAS designs

24
Figure 10

Barriers related to the basic as well as developed TAS designs

25
In this section the developed TAS designs presented in academic literature with the purpose of
reinforcing fundamental drivers; mitigating fundamental barriers; or providing additional
drivers, will be the sole topic. To enhance the presentation of the developed designs these will
be divided into three categories that focus on: developed options, developed components; and
integration with the yard operations.

2.4.1 Developed options of the basic truck appointment system’s components

According to Huynh and Walton (2008) the studies performed by Giuliano and O’Brien (2007)
and Morais and Lord (2006) highlighted container terminals lack of technical know-how
regarding the components of the basic TAS design and their influence on the objectives of TOs
respectively trucking operations. In this section subsequent literature that have sought to
optimize components of the basic TAS design with the aim of incorporating the objectives of
the two actors, are reviewed. Such components are appointment window duration, quota
strategy, quota, scheduling strategy, and collaborative scheduling.

2.4.1.1 Developed options of the component appointment window duration

To level the arrivals throughout the opening hours, TOs provide TCs with arrival schedules.
More specifically TOs divide the opening hours into several subsequent appointment windows
based on a pre-determined timely duration of the appointment windows (Zhao & Goodchild,
2013). The application of a time window rather than a precise time, aims to account for
disturbances the truck may encounter upon the appointment which otherwise would cause a
delay (Torkjazi, 2020). This arrival schedule is then made available to the TCs who are expected
to book usually one of the appointment windows (Abdelmagid et al., 2022).
Namboothiri and Erera (2008) evaluated TCs’ productivity levels when applying three different
window durations (30, 60, and 120 minutes). Window duration according to Namboothiri and
Erera (2008) affects both terminal operations productivity as well as trucking operations
productivity. According to the authors, shorter window duration enables better predications of
trucks’ arrival times for TOs but decrease productivity for TCs. Short time windows imply that
TOs can better even out the terminal related traffic to improve resource utilization (Ioannou,
2006). However, shorter time windows also imply that TCs must increase their fleet size to
meet them which adds to their costs (Ioannou, 2006) In their study the authors concluded that
applying a window duration of 120-minutes enabled the TCs to serve more customers with a
lesser fleet size. When reducing the window duration by 50% they proved that a 4% increase
in fleet size was required to achieve the same service level. Although the authors advocate that
TOs should consider the window duration from the TCs’ point of view, they admit that the
implications of a shorter window duration might not be too detrimental for the TCs’
productivity levels.
Likewise, Torkjazi (2020) investigated how appointment window duration affected TCs’
operating costs when TOs applied window durations spanning from 30 to 300 minutes. The
authors concluded that narrower time windows resulted in higher drayage costs for the TCs and
vice versa. In their study, testing a wider set of durations, they also proved that the impact of
time window duration on trucking operations productivity levels were more decisive in the
lower span and completely faded once the window duration exceeded 120 minutes. They,
however, also emphasized that while shorter time windows imply higher drayage operating

26
costs it also provides TOs with greater control over the arrival patter of trucks. Lastly, the
authors highlighted the importance of a wider time window duration to minimize the number
of missed appointments caused by travel time variation due to highway congestions. In figure
11 the drivers related to the component of window duration and its related developed options
are illustrated. The cells with black text mark drivers already identified through the basic TAS
design and the cell with green text mark a driver emerging from the related developed option.
Figure 11

The drivers related to the component of window duration and its related options

2.4.1.2 Developed options of the component quota strategy

Having determined an arrival schedule, a ceiling on the number of trucks allowed into a single
appointment window is set (Torkjazi, 2020). This ceiling is referred to as quota and mirrors the
number of trucks that can maximally be served by the available yard cranes. As the yard cranes
also serves other operations such as vessel-, rail- and warehouse operations, the quota is also
set to avoid conflicts across the different operations. When the quota is filled, TCs must choose
a different appointment window.
According to Abdelmagid et al. (2022) there are mainly three different strategies for setting
quotas: quotas are provided equally throughout the opening hours (hereafter referred to as static
quota strategy); quotas are only provided within certain peak periods (hereafter referred to as
dynamic quota strategy); and appointment windows and quotas are provided depending on the
berthing schedules of vessels (Vessel Dependent Time Windows, VDTWs). While the two
former strategies relate to whether quotas in a TAS should be static or dynamic, VDTW is
forwarded as an alternative to the TAS. According to Chen et al. (2013b) the purpose and
benefit of the VDTW is that it can more easily be integrated with the terminal operations than
a TAS. As alternative solutions to improve the performance of the gate- and yard is out of the
scope in this thesis report, only the former two will be presented. In figure 12 the drivers related
to the component of quota strategy and its related developed options are illustrated. The cell
with black text mark a driver already identified through the basic TAS design and the cells with
green text mark drivers emerging from the related developed option.

27
Figure 12

The drivers related to the component of quota strategy and its related options

According to Huynh (2016) the strategy of setting fluctuating appointment quotas throughout
the day offers greater flexibility to the TCs than a flat quota across all appointment windows;
The dynamic quota strategy enables the container terminal to schedule resources based on the
peak periods. However, the strategy also enables the terminal operations to take into
consideration the available equipment and staffing level which varies throughout the workday.
Although he states that static quotas imply less administrative work and better levelling of
equipment and staff for the TO, such strategy he advocates is suboptimal; the fluctuations in
container-volume resulting from vessel scheduling and seasonal trends, require a more realistic
approach to the determination of appointment quotas. Moreover, as different types of
transactions require different gate- and yard operations, processing time vary depending on the
type of transaction. Consequently, the number of transactions possible to perform within an
appointment window of a certain length must be reflected by the quota.
Focusing on the TCs’ scheduling problems when utilizing the TAS, Namboothiri and Erera
(2008) developed an optimization model for planning routing (pickup and delivery sequences)
and scheduling based on the available set of appointments and for picking the best suited
appointments. The aim with the model is to ensure maximum revenue for the TCs by enabling
them to serve as many customer requests as possible while reducing the operating costs by
minimizing the vehicle fleet size. When developing the model, Namboothiri and Erera (2008)
found that the number of customer requests that can be served by a truck during a day is highly
determinant of small variations in quota; In their study they found that truck productivity
increases linearly with total quota (the sum of quotas set throughout the day), and that fleet size
decrease linearly with an increase in total quota. Applying a total quota below the number of
requested appointments implies that customer requests cannot be met. Increasing the total quota
in that scenario implies the greatest rate of increase in customer requests that can be served.
Conversely, applying a total quota above the number of requested appointments implies that
the rate of increase in customer requests that can be served is lower. These relations hold to a

28
large extent disregarding whether a static or dynamic quota strategy is deployed (assuming a
window duration of 60 min). The authors therefore state that the minimum total quota should
reflect the number of requested appointments. This relation was also confirmed by Torkjazi
(2020) who varied the ratio of quotas to the requested appointments from 3:1 to 0.8:1. He
proved that when decreasing the ratio from 3:1 to 1.5:1 only a slight linear increase in the TCs
operating costs was evident. However, decreasing the ration from 1.5:1 to 1:1 implied a
significant linear increase in the operating costs. When decreasing the ratio from 1:1 to 0.8:1
customer request is no longer possible to satisfy and hence the operating costs decrease
(assuming a window duration of 60 min).
Torkjazi (2020) further proved that TCs’ ability to perform dual transactions benefit from
higher quotas; When more appointments are available for booking then the possibility to
perform dual transaction increase. Dual transactions imply a lowered operational cost and the
rate of cost decrease is greater the more dual transactions that are performed. However,
Namboothiri and Erera (2008) concluded that truck drivers driving shorter distances and hence
more locally, are less affected by total quota in ensuring high productivity levels than TCs
acting less locally. This they advocate, likely derive from the fact that truck drivers driving
short distances tend to achieve a higher proportion of dual transactions
Huynh and Walton (2008) evaluated the reduction in TTT and crane utilization when imposing
different quotas in the Port of Houston’s Barbours Cut Container Terminal. Imposing quotas in
the time windows would apart from leveling the truck arrivals at the container terminal, mean
that the TOs could schedule the terminal resources and capacity to maximize terminal efficiency
and enable increased throughput (Huynh & Walton, 2008; Torkjazi, 2020). According to Huynh
and Walton (2008), quotas positively impacted on both objectives up to a certain point after
which the opposite effects were promoted; deploying very low quotas had negative effect on
both TTT and crane utilization. The authors explain increased TTT to be a result if capacity
exceeds the demand while not budging from the quotas. Such practice leaves the trucks waiting
until the next appointment meanwhile the cranes are being underutilized and throughput is
being undermined (Huynh & Walton, 2008; Torkjazi, 2020). High quotas, on the other hand,
implies that resources can be fully utilized during peak-hours but at the expense of higher
congestion (Torkjazi, 2020).
Huynh and Walton (2008) proposed a methodology that allows TOs to establish the optimum
number of quotas regarding both TTT and crane utilization and hence both actors’ objectives.
The methodology was developed with the intention of being applied daily (thereby considering
the appointment lead-time) to in a dynamic fashion match demand against available resources.
This methodology more specifically implied maximizing the quota while not exceeding the
resources of the terminal operations. Furthermore, the methodology bases the calculation of
optimum quotas on the probability that certain proportion of no-shows, which allows for some
slack. The authors however admitted that the methodology somewhat prioritized the terminal
operations efficiency over trucking operations efficiency as a maximum TTT ensuring a certain
service quality were not included in the methodology. In figure 13 the drivers related to
component of quota strategy and its related developed primary and secondary options are

29
illustrated. The cells with black text mark drivers already identified through the basic TAS
design and the cell with green text mark a driver emerging from the related developed option.
Figure 13

The drivers related to the component of quota strategy and its related primary and secondary options

2.4.1.3 Developed options of the component scheduling strategy

According to Abdelmagid (2022) two additional scheduling strategies have arisen in literature
to solve the truck scheduling problem, namely static appointment system (STAS) and dynamic
appointment system (DAS). When comparing STAS and DAS, there are some differences
between the two systems. The first major difference is that in STAS the TO provides the final
appointment schedule and in DAS the system assists the truck driver to make appointment in
uncongested periods (Chen et. al., 2013a). The second difference is that the booking in a STAS
must be done a day in advance which affects the flexibility of the system (Torkjazi, 2020; Chen
et. al., 2013a). Once all truck drivers have assigned a preferred arrival time, the algorithm
optimize the appointments for the upcoming day to achieve as low average waiting time with
as few changed appointments as possible in relation to the set quota for each appointment
window (Chen et al., 2013a). DAS on the other is an provides an algorithm that make it possible
for the TC to make same day appointments. DAS provides an algorithm that calculate the
waiting times for each appointment instead of being limited by quotas as it is in STAS which
give the TCs more appointment opportunities (Chen et al., 2013a). What happens in practice in
a DAS is that the TCs log in to the online system and make a request for a suitable appointment.
The appointment is then evaluated and if the suggested appointment result in a long queue or
waiting times depending on the terminals current conditions, the suggested appointment will be
declined, and another request will have to be made by the truck driver. However, since data is
updated in real time, the system can assist the drivers to pick a relevant appointment based on
the current situation at the terminal (Torkjazi, 2020). Therefore, the suggested appointment will
vary depending on which appointments that have been confirmed prior to the booking. (Chen
et al., 2013a). In figure 14 the drivers related to the component of scheduling strategy and its
related developed options are illustrated. The cells with black text mark drivers already

30
identified through the basic TAS design and the cells with green text mark drivers emerging
from the related developed options.
Figure 14

The drivers related to the component of scheduling strategy and its related options

2.4.1.4 Developed options of the component collaborative scheduling

The lack of built-in flexibility in TAS designs and hence consideration for the TCs’ constraints
and objectives, is a recurring issue when dissecting early as well as recent academic literature
on the TAS. While the issue has been one of the main reasons for optimizing the appointment
window duration as well as quota, the more recent and pervasive method includes incorporating
some level of collaboration between the TO and the TCs (Ioannou, 2006; Torkjazi, 2020). Such
approach opens for other alternatives than simply having to accept or reject an appointment
(Torkjazi, 2020). Hence, in this section different approaches aiming to improve the TAS, is
presented.
Ioannou (2006) suggested a mandatory TAS, and an optimization algorithm based on the
Traveling Salesman Problem with Time Windows (TSPTW) to achieve cooperative time
windows. When coupled, the algorithm optimizes the time windows of the TAS by considering
the objectives and constraints of both the TCs and the TOs. The optimization algorithm
specifically evaluates the level of feasibility and operational costs when TCs include different
wide time windows suggested by the TO (in the study these were four hours long) to different
truck routes. Thereby it enables the TC to decide on a single narrow time window within any
of the wide time windows (in the study this was two hours long) based on their constraints such
as travel time, hours of operation, and time windows at the customer location. The narrow time
window which is container-based and not truck-based, is then forwarded by the TC and the
truck that performs the transaction to the minimal operational costs is chosen. The TO then
modifies the narrow time window based on terminal resource limitations and the congestion in
the terminal, and final time windows are forwarded to the TCs. If a TC does not consider any
of the wide time windows operationally feasible, not economical, or both, it may negotiate for
another set of wide time windows or reject them all.
The author tested the TAS, and optimization algorithm based on data collected in several
terminals by Giuliano and O’Brien (2007) and evaluated the effects on the container flows

31
outside and within the entry gates through simulation models. In their study they found that
when deploying the approach, both the ques within and outside the gate entries were reduced
while terminal operations efficiency increased. Ultimately, the system solution enables TCs to
meet customer requirements to a minimum operating cost while imposing a TAS with
appurtenant time windows to improve terminal operations efficiency.
Torkjazi (2020) advocates that the negotiation process between TCs and TOs regarding
appointments such as that proposed by Ioannou (2006), is not only impractical but implies
unfair handling of different TCs. Instead, he proposes a TAS and a mathematical model in
which TCs request an appointment the day before that is either confirmed or replaced with
another mandatory appointment by the TO. Although altered mandatory appointments may
require rescheduling and rerouting of trucks, the suggested TAS is forwarded as an optimal and
equitable approach; According to the author, the objective of reducing TTT through
appointment quotas and the objective of reducing TCs operating costs, are conflicting
objectives that need to be balanced. Experimental results carried out by the author showed that
the number of vehicles necessary decreased as well as the operating costs of TCs when the
proposed TAS was applied. The operating costs were reduced by 11,5% through the proposed
TAS in comparison to TASs that only focuses on minimizing the TTT. The study is based on a
port setting like the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach (evaluated by both Giuliano and
O’Brien (2007) and Morais and Lord (2006)) and the TAS was further experimentally tested
based on real port data.
When evaluating all the appointment requests for a specific day, the mathematical model
incorporates non-uniform appointment quotas reflecting daily fluctuations in terminal
resources, labour, and expected operations. Thereby it considers the objectives and constraints
of the TO related to gate- and yard congestion. However, the TAS and model also respects the
objectives and constraints of the individual TCs as it considers the appointment windows at the
end-customers location; The TAS design is integrated with the drayage scheduling model
developed by Shiri and Huynh (2016) which considers the time for carrying out different
activities related to import and export transactions. The suggested TAS and mathematical model
considers the trucking operating costs of waiting in queues at the gate entry, of changing desired
appointments, and of changing one or more of consecutive appointments carried out with the
same truck. By considering the time-gap between two consecutive appointments when making
changes to an appointment request, the risk of missed appointments due to a too short time-gap
is minimised. Moreover, the algorithm limits the increase in trucking tour costs deriving from
changes being made to the preferred appointment; this is enabled through a cost ceiling which
is further determined on a company-individual basis. A TC scheduling several appointments at
the container terminal earns a lower cost ceiling than a low-volume TC. High-volume TCs are
in this way incentivised and prioritized as a greater proportion of the appointment requests are
met. Segmentation and targeting of high-volume companies more specifically strengthens such
relations as the value proposition is then enhanced which ultimately strengthens the TOs
competitiveness (Kotler et al., 2017). In figure 15 the drivers related to the component of
collaborative scheduling and its related developed options are illustrated. The cells with black
text mark drivers already identified through the basic TAS design and the cells with green text
mark drivers emerging from the related developed options.

32
Figure 15

The drivers related to the component of collaborative scheduling and its related options

2.4.2 Developed components of the truck appointment system

This section aims to provide an overview of additional TAS components identified in literature
other than the ones already highlighted from the basic TAS. Such components are penalty fee,
suspension, grace period, and peak-period fee. Each component will be described together with
its options and how it relates to the drivers and barriers.
Penalty fee: One component is penalty fee that can be built into the agreements of business
rules (rules that define how the operations should be performed) (Huynh et al., 2016). Penalty
fees are set to reflect if the expected service level is not met from neither the TCs nor the
terminal to cover loss in productivity for the other actor. The fee for TCs (hereafter referred to
as required penalty fees) can be charged for cancellations of appointments, no-shows, or the
TO could be charged (hereafter referred to as provided penalty fees) for not performing within
the expected service level, working as an incentive to meet commitments. The fees are generally
more acceptable if the TO is open with how the generated revenue will be used (Huynh et al.,
2016; Maguire et al., 2010). Since an appointment is an agreement between the terminal and
the TCs, TCs battle to have penalties for both actors if compliance is not met and not only for
the TCs (Huynh et al., 2016). When designing the required penalties, it is important to base the
criteria on premises that the actors can control, for example to count the arrival of a truck in the
beginning of the queue instead of at the gate since the truck driver cannot control the queue
time. Port of Vancouver and port of Sydney are two ports that comply to a two-way penalty
system. The TO in port of Vancouver compensates the truck drivers by providing a penalty fee
if the turn time within the terminal is more than 90 minutes. TCs on the other hand cancel their
appointments prior to the cut off time (where it is accepted to make cancellations), to avoid a
penalty fee (Huynh et al., 2016). In figure 16 the drivers related to the developed component of
penalty fee and its related options are illustrated. The cells with black text mark drivers already

33
identified through the basic TAS design and the cells with green text mark drivers emerging
from the developed component and its related options.
Figure 16

The drivers related to the component of penalty fee and its related options

Suspension: Another non-economical penalty if compliance is not met by TCs is to restrict a

customer from making new appointments due to example unpaid fees, missed appointments or
other oversteps (Huynh et al., 2016). In figure 17 the drivers related to the developed component
of suspension and its related options are illustrated. The cells with black text mark drivers
already identified through the basic TAS design and the cell with green text mark a driver
emerging from the developed component and its related option.
Figure 17

The drivers related to the component of suspension and its related options

Grace period: is described as a period outside of the time window in which the TCs do not have
to pay any penalties, giving the TCs a longer appointment window to arrive within (Huynh et
al., 2016). This safety margin allows the TCs to retain flexibility in their arrivals that might not
be as precise due to disruptions that could occur during the trips. The grace period is decided
by the TO and is adapted differently by different terminals; it can differ in length, number of
periods, and how trucks that arrive within the grace period are prioritized compared to those
who arrive within their assigned appointment window. By not applying any grace period the

34
narrower time windows will enhance the possibilities for TOs to schedule their capacity based
on more precise arrival patterns (Torkjazi, 2020). In figure 18 the drivers related to the
developed component of grace period and its related options are illustrated. The cells with black
text mark drivers already identified through the basic TAS design and the cell with green text
mark a driver emerging from the developed component and its related option.
Figure 18

The drivers related to the component of grace period and its related options

Peak period fee: Peak period fees are used for charging TCs that arrive during peak periods
while other times being free of charge to encourage TCs to arrive during off-peak periods
(Maguire et al., 2010; Huynh et al., 2016). Morais and Lord (2006) describe the Pier pass
program that was introduced in 2005 and that aimed to reduced truck congestion at peak
periods. The terminal offered pick-up and drop-offs of containers at weekends and during
nights. Financial incentives were enforced for container transactions that took place during off-
peak hours to incentivise cargo owners to move goods during nights and weekends. According
to Huynh et al. (2016), the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach implemented peak period fees
and it resulted in less traffic during peak hours since the traffic was shifted to nights and
weekends. However, the traffic during peak hours did not decrease to the extent as expected.
The peak period fee was introduced for every weekday between 08.00-17.00, hence not
managing peak periods in the morning and afternoon peak periods. The truck drivers’
perceptions of the success of peak period fees differed and an explanation to the different
perceptions related to if the TCs could increase their earnings for off-peak periods or not. If not,
they were left with longer working hours without increased earnings (Giuliano & O’Brien,
2008). In figure 19 the drivers related to the developed component of peak period fee and its
related options are illustrated. The cell with black text mark a driver already identified through
the basic TAS design and the cells with green text mark drivers emerging from the developed
component and its related options.

35
Figure 19

The drivers related to the component of peak period fee and its related options

2.4.3 Integrating the truck appointment system with the yard operations
As Giuliano and O’Brien (2007) identified the lack of consideration taken to the yard operations
when implementing the TAS, it opened for a new research area which several authors have
tackled. This research area primarily focuses on the operational methods and effects when
utilizing TAS to improve yard operations. In this section such methods and effects will be
presented.
Actions that aim to reduce unnecessary activities performed in periods of peak hours when the
capacity is fully utilized, are, according to Covic (2017) vital. Maguire et al. (2010) state that
TOs must vouch for and harness the TAS by organizing yard operations to minimize truck
transaction time. Re-marshalling implies that re-stacking of containers take place in down-time
periods to match the container stacking sequence against truck arrival sequence. Thereby, re-
marshalling aims to minimize the number of shuffle moves during container retrieval
operations. To improve yard crane productivity and to reduce truck transaction time for import
transactions, Zhao and Goodchild (2013) incorporated the TAS with a container location
assignment algorithm. By feeding the algorithm with truck arrival information gathered by the
TAS, the stacking sequence is matched against the sequence of truck or truck group arrival.
Similarly, Covic (2017) proposed and experimentally tested the approach of combining a TAS
with an algorithm to solve the re-marshalling problem for import container transactions.
According to the author the re-marshalling problem (RMP) typically occurs in a yard block
where systems of Rail-Mounted-Gantry-Cranes (RMGCs) are used. The algorithm and TAS
was therefore tested through a simulation model of a yard block with different RMG-systems.
In the approach the TAS provide with improved and increased information regarding trucks’
appointment times which are fed into the algorithm to determine the retrieval sequence and
hence the stacking sequence of containers. The algorithm then provides the RMGCs with a re-
marshalling schedule that are added to other jobs performed by the RMGCs such as retrieval-,
storage-, and shuffle moves. The deployed TAS design further lacks the component of quota
with the aim of maintaining flexibility for the TCs.

36
Covic (2017) tested the effectiveness of his approach against yard block productivity by
measuring truck transaction time respectively crane workload by measuring fluctuation in truck
transaction time. In comparison to category stacking which, according to the author is the
typical way of stacking in theory and practice, the approach enabled significant reductions in
shuffle moves and appreciable reductions in re-marshalling moves due to improved information
quantity and quality. By reducing the number of unproductive moves during retrieval operations
by re-marshalling during off-peak hours, reductions in truck transaction times are achieved and
thus the approach showed significant improvements in yard block productivity. Moreover, the
approach showed important improvements regarding fluctuations in truck transaction times
because of performance improvements in yard productivity. These conclusions were likewise
drawn by Zhao and Goodchild (2010) in their former study (when assuming that trucks are
served according to a first-in-first-out principle). According to Covic (2017) this implies that
crane workload can be balanced without imposing quotas to improve yard block productivity
while still ensuring flexibility for the TCs. Significant reductions in truck transaction time
combined with preserved flexibility, the authors advocate should incentivize TCs to utilize such
system. The appointment lead-time can be utilized to ensure that the booked import transaction
can be prepared. In figure 20 the drivers related to the developed component of container
stacking and its related option are illustrated. All cells have green text marking that none of
them emerged from the basic TAS design but instead entirely emerge from the developed
component and its related option.

37
Figure 20

The drivers related to the component of container stacking and its related option

Different TAS designs were tested by both Zhao and Goodchild (2013) and Covic (2017) to
optimize the information fed into the yard operations. They combined their approaches with
various settings regarding the proportion of on-time truck arrivals, the obligation to book
appointments, the appointment window duration, and the appointment lead-time. This enabled
assessment of their respective influence on the proposed algorithms’ performance.
Obligation: In order to minimize the shuffle moves and the number of re-marshalling moves to
do so, it was concluded that the algorithm benefitted the most from maximizing the proportion
of booked appointments, however, not necessarily containing reliable information (Covic,
2017); When the system use is not characterized by significant deviations nor a large number
of no-shows, having information at all was stated as more important than it being reliable.
According to Zhao and Goodchild (2013), the benefits of the system are entailed even when
arrival information is only gathered from a partition of the trucks. Reliable information entail
stacking containers in a sequence that to a larger extent correspond to the arrival sequence.

38
While the authors for these reasons advocate for a mandatory TAS they state that the apparent
benefits for the TC with the system should be enough motivating.
Appointment window duration: The performance of the algorithm varied somewhat depending
on the RMG-system deployed as they exhibit different capabilities regarding handling very
precise information (Covic, 2017). Overall, the window duration and hence the truck arrival
precision, did not show any significant effects. A window duration of half a day based on an
average dwell time (the time a container is waiting within the container terminal before being
picked up by the next transport carrier) of five days, was generally enough to reduce the number
of shuffle- and re-marshalling moves when aiming to preserve system flexibility. Especially for
low resource RMG-systems lacking crossing capability, this held true. In their previous study,
Zhao and Goodchild (2010) likewise proved that only deploying two windows throughout the
opening hours of the container terminal, imply significant improvements in the received truck
arrival information that is utilized to manage container rehandling. According to Zhao and
Goodchild (2013), minimizing the duration of the appointment time window implies a positive
influence on the system performance while dwell time is short. However, high dwell time
reduce the effect of the window duration and hence no significant performance effects are
achieved.
Appointment lead-time: Zhao and Goodchild (2013) concluded that maximizing the
appointment lead-time have a positive influence on yard crane productivity and correlate with
dwell time. As forwarded by Covic (2017) only extreme lead-times that are not realizable in
practice as the planning horizon for TCs is limited, had any significant effect on the
performance indicators. Assuming a five-day average dwell time, the author stated that an
appointment lead-time of 12-24 hours is sufficient for re-marshalling to ensure maintained
flexibility for the TCs.
Arrivals deviating from the appointment window and no-shows: All experimental tests carried
out by Covic (2017) showed that truck arrivals deviating from their respective appointment
window affected the performance of the system; Higher deviations spiralize the negative effects
by inducing the number of unproductive moves caused by insufficient potential for re-
marshalling. Ultimately, they increase the truck transaction time while implying increased crane
workload. The authors therefore recommend that no-show should be discouraged. Zhao and
Goodchild (2013) evaluated the robustness of the system by incorporating varying levels of
inaccurate truck arrival information. The authors showed that the algorithm does not require
the exact sequence of truck arrival information to obtain the desired benefits and only 20-40
percent of complete sequence of trucks were needed to maximize the rehandling operations.
Desirable yard crane productivity and truck transaction time is accomplishable disregarding a
50% proportion of inaccurate truck arrival information if trucks do not arrive more than four
hours in advance or after the appointment.

2.5 Business models in the freight transportation sector

A business model can be used to conceptualize or exploit a future business opportunity(Zott &
Amit 2010). To design and re-create the current business model is a difficult task but still
important to remain competitive. The business model mainly focuses on a focal firm, but it
extends the boundaries to include other stakeholders as partners, suppliers, or customers.

39
Therefore, activities both inside the focal firm as well and partners’ activities need to be
addressed in the business model. The port community consist of interdependent operational
companies that share activities and information, becoming stakeholders in a system that enable
global trade (Córdova & Durán, 2014). Together these stakeholders need to develop and
integrate solutions to pursue operational excellence and create a port community that is
competitive and can compete against other national and international ports. Furthermore, not
all the stakeholders in the community are directly affected by the service and hence the business
model. However, these stakeholders are a part of the logistic chain and need to create a
collaborative system by sharing strategic and operational data required by other to improve
their performance.
Van den berg (2015) investigated if the port is a two-sided market but could conclude that a
seaport does not meet the criteria for being a two-sided market. Instead, the author describes
the seaport as a multiproduct company that vertically provide the supply chain members with
products and services. Important to notice is the pricing structure at a seaport where all charges
are typically influencing the transport cost that is transferred to the end customer (the importer
or exporter), and that there are no formal business relations between the stakeholders at the
seaport. This strengthens the vertical relation between the seaport and the stakeholders.
According to Iivari et al. (2015), even if business models most often are applied to a specific
company’s offerings, it also serves a wider purpose in an ecosystem to understand the external
environment. As an ecosystem is integrated between different firms, it is important to notice
co-dependent processes and how value is co-created to diffuse the individual firm’s business
model into a co-developed business ecosystem.

2.5.1 The Business model canvas framework

Business model canvas is a framework commonly used to innovate the business model and to
visualize how to capture value in one-sided markets with a buyer and a seller perspective
(Taipale-Erävala et al., 2020). What the business model canvas does is that it presents nine
different aspects that should be considered when setting a company’s business. The aspects of
the business model canvas are described by Taipale-Erävala et al. (2020) as follows:
Key partners: are important stakeholders in cooperation or collaborations that can make the
business model feasible or strengthen it. They can be suppliers or other partner that can share
resources or optimize the operations.
Key activities: are the activities needed to run the operations and to achieve the wanted value
proposition to ultimately satisfy the customer demands.
Key resources: are the resources that make it possible to achieve the value proposition and to
perform the key activities that makes the business model feasible.
Value proposition: is the value that the combinations of products and services add to the
customers. By expressing a customer need the value proposition is there to solve those needs
and to differentiate from other solutions.
Customer relationships: describe the relationships to the customer segments and influence the
customer experience. The relationships often aim to increase sales or to retain or gain
customers.

40
Channels: are the interfaces where the company interact with the customer to deliver the value
proposition, for example sales, distribution, or communication channels.
Customer segments: are the different customer segments that need to be understood and
incorporated into the business model.
Revenue streams: are the revenue that the products or services generate for the company
providing the offer. Revenues are typically supposed to be maximized by identifying how much
the different customer segments are willing to pay for the offering.
Cost structures: describe the costs related to the proposed business model and is usually aimed
to be minimized.

41
3 Methodology
In this chapter the methodology for the study is presented. In section 3.1 the research strategy
and philosophical assumptions are presented followed by the research design and sampling
strategy in section 3.2. In section 3.3 the process of conducting the literature review and
formulation of the research questions are outlined. The research method is given a thorough
description in section 3.4. In section 3.5 the consideration of the quality criteria are discussed.
Lastly, ethical considerations are addressed in section 3.6 followed by the societal and
ecological considerations in section 3.7.

3.1 Research strategy and philosophical assumptions

Bell et al. (2019) describe research strategy as an overarching strategy of how researchers
conduct research. The differences between the qualitative and the quantitative research strategy,
run deeper than that quantitative research applies quantitative measurements and that the other
does not. Their differences also lie in the relations between theory and research, ontology, and
epistemology. Ontology refers to how reality is interpreted and is interconnected with
epistemology that incorporates how reality can be understood to create knowledge and theory.
Quantitative researchers mainly rely on a deductive approach towards theory and research
where theories are tested (Bell et al., 2019). This approach can be explained by the ontological
assumptions of objectivism, viewing reality as objective, with the epistemology of positivism
that reality consist of theories that is out there to observe and discover. This differs from a
qualitative research strategy applying an inductive approach towards theory and research,
meaning that theory can be built and created based on reality. This relates to the ontology of
constructivism, that theory can be shaped by the researcher and the epistemology interpretivism
meaning that theory can be created based on social interactions and differences between people
without one single truth (Bell et al., 2019). The research questions involve generation of theory
based on peoples’ opinions which, according to Bell et al. (2019), relate to the qualitative
research strategy, designs, and methods. The latter strategy of qualitative research constitutes
the applied research methodology and further reflects the philosophical assumptions made by
the authors of this master thesis.

3.2 Research design and sampling strategy

Bell et al. (2019) describe how the multiple-case study approach implies detailed and intensive
analysis of two or more cases. Stake (1995) adds to such description by highlighting its
outcomes and drivers which include to understand, highlight, and compare the nature and
complexity of the cases. Moreover, according to Eisenhardt (1989) examining multiple cases
rather than one case benefit the theoretical analysis as the context then to a greater extent is
incorporated into the analysis. These qualities and characteristics of the multiple-case study
design were considered to fit well with the aim and research questions of the study; In the thesis
project a narrow but rather unexplored matter was under study which was considered to benefit
from analyzing multiple cases.
When selecting the multiple-case study approach as research design the research aim and
questions thus partially acted as outset. Although the co-supervisors had initially requested a
multiple-case study design, this was not definitively decided upon until a more specified

42
research aim had been formulated. However, as the project is shaped according to the co-
supervisors` preference for a multiple-case study approach, the formulation of the research
questions was naturally influenced by that preference through adherence to the co-supervisors.
According to Bell et al. (2019) either one of the directions are common and can be applied
although the approach in which research questions influence the selection of the research design
receive greater attention than the approach in which the selection of research design influences
the formulation of research questions.
The unit of analysis constituted container terminals where landside operations related to the
service of container transactions between a TO and TCs take place. According to Heilig and
Voß (2017) the design and operation of TAS has tended to fall under the responsibility of TOs
or port authorities. TCs are instead users of the system. When addressing the research questions,
TOs and TCs hence represented the primary source for data collection
Dyer and Wilkins (1991) express critique towards the multiple-case study design by advocating
for an overly focus on the comparison between cases over examination of the individual cases.
This, they suggest, undermines the qualitative approach where the open end and intensive
examination represent main objectives. Such critique was considered in the project by
emphasizing the individual analysis of cases rather than the collective one. The primary
limitation of the case study design in general, Bell et al. (2019) highlight is heavily related to
its idiographic approach; most researchers agree that the findings deriving from case study
research is not generalizable over time and space. Adhering to such stands, the findings derived
from this thesis project do not claim to provide a single solution to be generalizable to other
cases, instead they are intended to improve the understanding by providing important
information that needs to be considered when designing a TAS. Also, for this reason, other
criteria than those concerning external validity and quantitative research in general, was applied
when evaluating the quality of the applied research design. This is further elaborated upon in
section 3.5. However, to improve the validity of the study each case was described in as much
detail as possible to provide an understanding for the context at each terminal without revealing
the anonymity of each case.
According to Stake (1995) maximization of learning should be the primary reason for selecting
a specific case. Hence, criteria for selecting cases with the highest potential in maximizing the
learning outcome regarding the research questions were developed. By first relating the
research questions to the different aims of the five types of cases proposed by Yin (2003), an
initial set of criteria were established. The research questions were considered best represented
by the aims of the unique case and the revelatory case; the research questions address state-of-
the-art TASs, and the inductive research approach implies an intent of presenting theory not yet
presented in the related field of research. However, before any cases were identified and
sampled, an opportunity relating to the co-supervisors’ current relations with TOs were
considered. Because of the considerable timeframe of the project such current and established
relations were highly valuable to make the process of collecting data efficient. Through the
application of the categorization of cases by Yin (2003) and the project opportunity, several
potential cases were identified, and relevant persons were contacted for an interview request.

43
The criteria of uniqueness and revelation derived from the categorization of cases proposed by
Yin (2003) were, however, further refined before initiating the definitive sampling. As the
research questions and aim deals with the process of designing a TAS, both a case facing the
transition as well as cases having undergone the transition, were considered two important
groups to incorporate in the study. By ensuring high inter-variation between the two groups of
cases in terms of the application of state-of-the-art TAS, new theory answering to the research
questions would be enhanced. However, aspects of high intra-variation within the groups were
overseen because of the objective to conduct thorough analysis rather than comparing aspects
of variation. While the latter category of cases (those having implemented a TAS) were subject
to sampling through related criteria, the former was decided upon based on the project context;
As the thesis project had been initiated by the co-supervisors based on that specific case, no
other cases and hence no additional criteria were considered.
The cases in the latter category were identified and sampled based on criteria relating to the
prevalence of a container terminal and a TAS. These criteria were drawn on from the research
questions and thus replaced the criteria derived from the categorization of cases proposed by
Yin (2003); The criteria are considered more specific yet comprising the important aspects of
Yin’s definitions.

3.3 Literature review and research questions

The literature review was conducted in a narrative approach. Bell et al. (2019) advocate that a
narrative review is suitable for interpretive researchers, aiming to improve the understanding
of the research area. With a somewhat wider scope, the narrative review allows the researcher
to be less constrained by explicit inclusion or exclusion criteria which enables including
relevant theories during data collection that were not initially anticipated.
The literature review toke place both concurrently with the development of research questions,
until a final set of research questions had been formulated, as well as after they had been
formulated, as a means for addressing them. Reviewing current literature is an essential part of
confirming the importance of the research questions and to identify gaps in the literature (Bell
et al., 2019). Although a general research topic and a preliminary aim with the study were
presented by the co-supervisors at the project outset, its direction needed further specification
to align with the project constraints. Furthermore, the initial literature review acted to gain
essential knowledge about the industry and related problems. Hence, initially a broad range of
literature addressing the preliminary aim and topic were reviewed. Apart from using a wide list
of related key words when searching for literature, snowballing was employed with regards to
references and citations of relevant sources of literature.
When having received significant insights into previous research in the area, a first set of
research questions were formulated. These have undergone several iterations of refinement
based on the findings in the literature and after consultation with the co-supervisors. Bell et al.
(2019) highlight that it is a general strategy within qualitative research to start with a set of
broader research questions and then to gradually specify them in parallel with data collection.
The research aim and questions appear in section 1.3.

44
Another round of literature review was conducted, however, in a more structured manner to
address the research questions more efficiently. To answer the research questions, relevant
theoretical data according to Bell et al. (2019) should be collected and presented accordingly.
In this study a certain width was sought for and hence both a holistic as well as a detailed view
of the different TAS designs were of interest. For this reason, significant key words were
deployed in the search for literature. Bell et al. (2019) advocate that using key words enhances
a relevant and bounded literature set. At the initial stage of the research project, the involved
key words were rather generic and primarily included topics at a certain level of analysis. The
following keywords were to find relevant articles:

• Business model
• Gate appointment system
• Terminal appointment system
• Truck appointment system

3.4 Research method

As previously mentioned, the case study design according to Bell et al. (2019) is often coupled
with qualitative research methods as they collectively greatly enhance the purpose of qualitative
business research. Furthermore, qualitative research methods are helpful as they provide with
details and nuances which enable a rightful presentation of the nature and complexity of cases.
Moreover, to ensure good quality of the theoretical reasoning and thus the theoretical analysis
which, according to the authors constitute critical steps of the inductive approach, attention was
highly focused on the procedures related to data collection.
Semi-structured interviewing was selected as the method for data collection in this thesis
project. According to Bell et al. (2019) semi-structured interviewing is commonly preferred
over unstructured interviewing when the qualitative research project has a rather clear focus at
the outset as it enhances addressing of specified research questions. Moreover, the authors argue
that in multiple-case studies some degree of structure is necessary to enable comparison
between cases.
According to Bell et al. (2019) qualitative interviewing has both merits and demerits in relation
to other qualitative methods. Out of these some are of greater relevance to this thesis; Among
the merits with interviewing is firstly the possibility to detect aspects of motives, perceptions,
and attitudes that may not be detected through observation. Secondly, interviewing is a lot more
time-efficient and hence also less intrusive on the participants. Thirdly, interviewing has a
greater breadth of coverage than observations which may only be possible to perform within
certain groups of, for example, occupations. On the other hand, demerits related to qualitative
interviewing in relation to other qualitative methods include greater lack of naturalism, greater
reactive effects, and lesser flexibility in handling unanticipated but important topics that may
arise during data collection.

3.4.1 Sampling strategy and sample size

Having chosen semi-structured interviews as the research method, potential interviewees were
then identified and sampled. When sampling interviewees generic purposive sampling and
more specifically snowball sampling were applied. According to Bell et al. (2019) such

45
sampling methods incorporate different perspectives when addressing the research questions
and the inclusion of snowball sampling implies an approach that is sequential and contingent.
The application of snowball sampling in turn derives from uncertainties regarding what
occupations and roles that have the primary responsibility and competence regarding the
aspects under study. According to Bell et al. (2019) the snowball sampling method constitutes
the only feasible alternative when a clear sampling frame does not exist. Moreover, the
sampling method is useful not only to enhance data collection but to reveal networks of
individuals.
Bell et al. (2019) argue that the generic purposive sampling strategy is a common approach in
business research when different roles and perspectives are of interest. That is, to address the
research questions, interviewees may be effectively and efficiently sampled in a way that
ensures high inter-variation. Such approach was therefore considered appropriate to sample
interviewees possessing relevant knowledge within the different case companies.
The initial criterion for identifying interviewees was based upon occupation. However, because
of uncertainties regarding organizational roles and responsibilities, the criterion of occupation
was rather viewed as a means for initiating data collection; The criterion of occupation involved
three levels of occupations for the TO: operations manager, business developer and planner.
Relevant occupations for the TCs were TC owner or TC production managers. As the role of
the port authority was somewhat unanticipated, there were no criteria for occupation but the
occupations that were involved with the TAS in this case were the IT-manager and the
operations manager.
After having set up the criterion, the contact person at the TO at case A was contacted via e-
mail to setup a meeting. After an online interview with the contact in which the aim of the
project and the developed criterion was discussed, contact information to several employees
within the container terminal was received, both to employees meeting the criterion and
employees that do not. For case B and C, the approach was different; Both case companies
wanted to reply to all questions in in a single interview. Hence, no further contact information
to potential interviewees were obtained. Furthermore, at the end of each interview in case A,
the interviewees were asked about other potential interviewees to incorporate other important
perspectives. However, to focus the data collection on individuals that showed to possess
relevant and significant insight into the studied topics, the criterion was developed concurrently
with the interviews which aligns with the contingent sampling approach (Bell et al., 2019).
A total of nine interviews were conducted and table 1 summarizes all the interviewees together
with their respective occupation and organizational belonging as well as the duration of each
interview. Two interviews were held with interviewees in pairs, this was requested by the
interviewees to save time. The interviewees interviewed in pairs were A:4 and A:5; B:1 and
B:2. According to Bell et al. (2019) the required sample size in qualitative research greatly
depends on the specifics of the research. Although the authors state that a commonly accepted
minimum sample size does not seem to exist, Warren (2011) remarks that the number of 20-30
interviews seems to be accepted as the lower limit in published qualitative research. The author,
however, state that the number of interviews necessary increase with the width of the qualitative
scope and the intended level of comparison. As comparison does not represent the main

46
objective in this thesis project (as advocated in section 3.2), a lower number of interviews will
be considered acceptable.
Table 1

Description of interviewees

Interviewee Occupation Organization Duration

A:1 Gate Manager TO 30 min

A:2 Salesman - railway TO 45 min
A:3 Customer partner TO 30 min
A:4 Production manager TC 45 min
A:5 Production manager TC 45 min
A:6 Owner TC 45 min
A:7 Yard planner TO 30 min
A:8 Dispatcher manager TO 30 min
B:1 Operations manager Port authority 90 min
B:2 Information technology (IT) manager Port authority 90 min
C:1 Project manager for TAS implementation TO 60 min

It was difficult to find participants in relatively small and strategically important groups of
occupations further willing to commit and share important data. This ultimately made it difficult
to achieve a large number of interviews. According to Bell et al. (2019) clarity regarding the
data collection procedures, such as choice of sampling method and argumentation for the
number of interviews held, is to prefer over many interviews. In a thesis project the authors
further state that the quality and detail of the collected interview data is to prioritize above
reaching an accepted minimum number of interviews. Thus, to compensate the small number
of interviews a certain level of comprehensiveness was sought for, both when preparing and
conducting the interviews; The former by preparing several extensive questions and the latter
by ensuring long durations of the interviews, which were planned to take 60-90 minutes each.

3.4.2 Data collection

Prior to each interview, a study information sheet was distributed to each of the interviewees
from case B and C, containing some background information about the project and the
interviewees potential contribution if choosing to participate in the data collection. The
participants in case A were well informed about the research project beforehand and were hence
not provided any additional excessive information about the study from the authors of this
thesis. The respondents were further informed about their right to take part of the results once
the research project was to be completed. An interview guide was prepared comprising written
text to guide the interviews. The questions in the interview guide reflected the research
questions but at a lower level of analysis. The business model canvas framework developed by
(Osterwalder & Pigneur, 2010), acted as the basis for each question and the presentation of the
results. Some general introductory questions were formulated for each interviewee. The general
interview guide can be seen in appendix A.

47
As elaborated upon in chapter 3.4, the interviews were semi-structured and were further carried
out via the digital meeting platform Microsoft Teams. Bell et al. (2019) describe online personal
interviewing as an efficient method for both the interviewee and the researcher. It is also more
flexible than face to face interviews and could result in a higher rate of participation. Some
drawbacks that are mentioned by the authors is that a stable internet connection as well as
transcription is needed, which is not the case in online text-based interviews. To be able to
transcribe the content from the interviews each interview was audio recorded if accepted by the
interviewee. All respondents except one accepted to be recorded. For that interview extensive
notes were taken. All the interviews were discussed and summarized by the authors of this study
directly after the interviews were completed to confirm a common understanding of the results.
Additional data was collected from different documents and websites. Documents can be used
for different purposes in research. One purpose that documents can serve is to provide context
of the cases which can help to understand issues and better relate and analyse the data collected
from, for example, interviews (Bowen, 2009). Another reason to use documents can be to
provide supplementary data to the knowledge base. Document analysis was applied to
secondary sources as manuals of TAS, to identify drivers or barriers and issues that can appear
when using a TAS and how they can be resolved. The websites of the three cases were a main
input to describe the cases with relevant background information, hence providing a context to
each case.

3.4.3 Data analysis

While qualitative interviewing enhances thick descriptions of investigated topics its
unstructured element give rise to an ambiguous analytical path (Bell et al., 2019). However,
some analytical strategies do exist, according to the authors, that guides the qualitative analysis.
In this thesis project a thematic analysis strategy, which constitutes a common approach to
qualitative data analysis, was applied to enable analysis of the collected data. According to Bell
et al. (2019), a thematic analysis necessitates a more interpretative approach to coding than
other analytical strategies but, however, consequentially might have a greater potential in
revealing latent content in the collected data.
The gathered data was, however, managed before applying a thematic analysis to it by
producing transcriptions which were further checked for flaws. Bell et al. (2019) advocate that
managing data flaws is an important step before initiating coding and is further enhanced
through transcription. The transcriptions were manually coded in parallel to the data collection.
According to Bell et al. (2019) starting off the coding process early on entails better
understanding of the data and the impression of a heavy workload is often somewhat reduced.
The identified codes were further compared to find links. Descriptive first-order categories were
initially identified and then expanded or collapsed to formulate analytic categories. From such
categories it was then possible to develop themes. Reducing and hence, making sense of the
data through codes, and further linking them to each other through categories, Bell et al. (2019)
advocate is necessary to interpret data and to make theoretical inferences.
The identified themes contributed to a theoretical understanding of the gathered data which was
applied to address the research questions. More specifically this process of interpretation, where
various themes were identified from the data, meant that themes were screened based on their

48
presence in theories discovered through the literature review. However, some themes relating
to theories not identified through the literature review were developed by focusing the
subsequent literature review on such themes before further analysis. Themes that on the other
hand related to theories identified in the literature review, were subsequently applied to address
the research questions. According to Bell et al. (2019) the screening of themes is greatly
connected to the inductive research approach. The authors state that although connecting
themes to prevalent theories is sought for in the inductive logic of inquiry, practical as well as
conceptual constraints limit the possibility to do so. They further comment that inclusion of too
many themes may hinder the depth of analysis in favor of width. Hence, in screening themes,
both the timeframe and research questions were considered and only those that were considered
most valuable to the research project were incorporated into the analysis.

3.5 Quality criteria

The appropriateness of applying the more common quantitative quality criteria of reliability,
replicability, and validity to the case study research design and qualitative research designs in
general, is, according to Bell et al. (2019) an ongoing debate among business researchers.
Because of the ambiguity surrounding the relevance of quantitative quality criteria in qualitative
research, they, according to the authors, are often bypassed in qualitative research. Nonetheless,
Bell et al. (2019) persist in that the application of quality criteria is important to evaluate the
quality of the conducted research. Lincoln and Guba (1985) have defined four quality criteria
of trustworthiness - credibility, transferability, dependability, confirmability - and one of
authenticity they argue are better suited for qualitative research. Hence, in this report, these five
qualitative quality criteria will be employed to enhance the quality of the applied research
methodology.
Bell et al. (2019) argue that the five quality criteria somewhat parallel some of the quantitative
quality criteria, however, that their differences necessitate some new or different ways to meet
them; Firstly, to entail credibility of the findings the researchers should adhere to good practice.
For this reason, literature on research methodology was reviewed and applied in a transparent
manner. Secondly, to entail transferability data collection should be characterized by a thick
description. Hence, the criterion was especially considered in all procedures following from the
interviews. Thirdly, to adhere to the criterion of dependability peer auditing of the research
procedures should be ensured at least at the end of the research process but preferably also
concurrently. Hence, by granting the supervisor as well as the co-supervisors access to rich
documentation of the conducted procedures, this was entailed during the research process.
Moreover, a purposive auditing in the form of an opposition held at the end of the research
project, allowed for peer auditing. Fourthly, to entail confirmability, objectivity should be in
the forefront during all procedures of the research process as well as in the presentation of the
findings. Hence, personal opinions and values will be suppressed to the highest possible degree.
Fifthly, to adhere to the criterion of authenticity various stakeholders with different perspectives
involved in the social setting should be emphasized in the collection of data as well as in
subsequent research procedures. The intent, the authors advocate, is to encourage participants
and involved stakeholders to actively engage in changing the studied social setting for the
better. To provide authenticity, the authors collected data from different occupations and roles
within the TOs, the port authority, and the TCs. Unfortunately, all different roles were not

49
interviewed in each case which made complete authenticity difficult to achieve. The authors
will further seek to disseminate the findings to the entire port community to encourage all
stakeholders of the port community to engage in the studied social setting.

3.6 Ethical considerations

Bell et al. (2019) discuss four ethical considerations in business research, namely, harm to
participants, lack of informed consent, invasion of privacy, and deception. These four principles
have acted as the foundation when mapping ethical considerations during this thesis project.
Research that could cause harm to participants are intuitively unacceptable, but the concept of
harm involves several different aspects. Harm could be for example physical harm, stress, or
harm for a participant’s future career (Bell et al., 2019). The aspect of harm with the highest
risk off occurrence in this study was concluded to be harm for future careers; how the
participants formulate their replies in the interviews could potentially affect their prospects.
Thus, anonymity was addressed both to enable credible answers and to minimize the risk for
participants to be judged based on their opinions (Bell et al., 2019). To still differentiate
between the different interviewees and hence highlight their contrasting perspectives when
writing up the report, every interviewee was presented with an interviewee-number and their
occupation. However, according to Bell et al. (2019) this might undermine anonymity efforts
since a job position may be possible to track down to a single individual. Therefore, this
information was carefully considered.
Informed consent is about giving the participants enough relevant information about the study
to allow them to take an informed decision regarding participation (Bell et al., 2019). All
interviewees in the study were informed about the aim of the study, interview techniques,
recording equipment, and that participation is voluntary. To protect the privacy of the
participants, only necessary information about the participants were collected which is the main
suggestion forwarded by Bell et al. (2019). Also, interviewees had the possibility to refuse
answering questions that they felt were intruding private realms which according to the authors
is another important measure. Bell et al. (2019) mention that it is impossible for the researcher
to identify sensitive topics beforehand, instead they suggest handling each interviewee
respectfully, allowing them to withdraw at any time. Lastly, the participants were well informed
about the project and intentions which were forwarded in a transparent manner to ensure that
deception was not part of the study. This represents the main recommendation provided by Bell
et al. (2019) regarding deception.

3.7 Societal and ecological considerations

The societal and ecological considerations of the research project have also been analyzed.
First, the results of the study should have an indirect positive effect on environmental
sustainability. In an implementation of such system, which should improve the TTT and
decrease congestion at the container terminal area, the combustion of air pollutions and green-
house gases will be reduced according to the International Energy Agency (2019). The research
process was not considered to give rise to any substantial effects on the environment, especially
since the data collection were conducted remotely, and transportation therefore was not
necessary.

50
The societal considerations do not bring any remarks. The study partially aimed to investigate
the potential to decrease the TTT through a TAS at container terminals, which Jacobsson (2020)
mention could further minimize the emotional stress for drivers. Moreover, reduced emissions,
because of shorter TTT, would decrease related health issues for all individuals passing through
or being stationed at the container terminal as well as residents of the local regions (European
Commission, n.d.). Decreased TTT could also result in strengthened terminal competitiveness
resulting in increased market shares (Baccelli & Morino, 2020). By increasing the throughput
in the terminal, it should give more job opportunities and provide the regional government
increased tax revenue (Giuliano & O’Brian, 2007). Moreover, the findings of the study could
result in lowering the barriers for implementing a TAS at container terminals. In the long run
this could result in an increased need for certain competences within IT to develop new IT
solutions that integrate the information from TAS in the operations.

51
4 Empirical findings
In this chapter the empirical data is presented. In section 4.1, each of the three cases are
described. In section 4.2 and 4.3 the drivers respectively, barriers forwarded by the cases are
presented. Lastly, in section 4.4 drivers and barriers forwarded by a truck appointment system
developer are outlined.

4.1 Case descriptions

All three cases will be given a brief description to give an understanding of the context at each
terminal. No additional components or options were identified from the cases other than TAS
components and options already compiled in figure 8. Components and options of TAS that
were used in case B and C will be presented and since case A has not implemented a TAS to
level truck arrivals, the current situation of how trucks are managed will be described.

4.1.1 Description of case A

Case A is a port with one TO managing the container terminal. Approximately 800 000 twenty-
foot equivalent units are transferred through the terminal each year. The container yard is
managed with manual straddle carriers and other non-automated internal trucks and an
automated gate has been implemented for trucks entering the terminal. Import containers are
usually stacked two in height at the truck yard. The trend in the container terminal is that more
and more cargo is shipped by train, yet the volumes going by truck are increasing.
The terminal currently does not have a TAS, but it is mandatory for all TCs to pre-notify the
terminal which day they will arrive and which container to pickup to receive a visit code that
allow them into the terminal. Bookings are primarily done via a web interface or an app, in
which cargo availability is also provided. All trucks with a valid pre-notification are allowed to
come to the terminal at any time of the day and the trucks are served according to the first come
first served principle and there are no quota limiting how many trucks that can be served each
day. When it comes to the lead-time, a pre-notification can be performed if the container
number is available.

4.1.2 Description of case B

Case B is a port consisting of two different TOs operating one terminal each. Both terminals
together handle 3,4 million twenty-foot equivalent units each year. The stacking heights in the
terminals varies, three in height in the manual terminal and five in the automated terminal. A
TAS is to be implemented in both terminals. The system implementation has been divided into
three phases where the first phase (which is currently implemented), includes the IT
infrastructure to handle all bookings via a web interface or mobile app. Figure 21 describes the
TAS components and options that have been implemented in phase one by case B. The black
cells mark the components and options already identified from the basic TAS design and the
white cells mark the components and options already identified from the developed components
and options. Booking an appointment is mandatory for all truck drivers visiting the terminal
and the opening hours are divided by a BAS. No quota is set for each appointment window,
meaning that all appointments will be confirmed and there are also no obligations for the truck
drivers to comply with the booked appointments. The window duration is one hour but the truck
drivers are allowed to arrive within an additional grace period of one hour time frame before

52
and after the time window, resulting in a three-hour allowed arrival window. A simple graph is
provided for truck drivers visualizing the terminals capacity, booked appointments at each time
appointment window, and completed transactions in each appointment window. Bookings are
done with container-id and can be done two weeks in advance up until immediately before the
appointment.
In the second phase truck drivers will have to comply with their appointments and TCs will
receive feedback on how well they comply with their appointments. If necessary, the terminals
can then restrict the TCs access by for example limiting the number of appointments TCs can
book if they misuse the TAS. In the third phase, the terminal will also implement a quota that
limit the number of available times in each appointment window. The quota will be set
dynamically to follow the available capacity at the terminal.
Figure 21

The TAS design marking phase 1 deployed by case B

4.1.3 Description of case C

Case C is a large port with two terminal operators that together handle approximately nine
million twenty-foot equivalent units in the four container terminals. The studied TO operates
three of the four container terminals and some of the terminals have more automated yard
operations than others. The TAS that have been implemented share the same features for all
three terminals
Illustrated in figure 22 are the components and options used by case C. The black cells mark
the components and options already identified from the basic TAS design and the white cells
mark the components and options already identified from the developed components and

53
options. The TAS is mandatory for all transactions at the terminals and a booking can be
performed up until the start of the appointment if an appointment is available. The window
duration is one hour with a safety span of 30 min at both sides of the appointment window
resulting in a 2-hour appointment window in which the truck driver receives priority one and
can usually procced immediately to the gate. Priority two is obtained if the truck driver arrives
in the intervals one hour before or after the booked appointment window for priority one.
Priority two is only proceeded if capacity utilization allows it. If an appointment has been
confirmed but the truck driver is not able to comply with the appointment, it needs to be
canceled and a new booking is required. All no-shows and canceled appointments are
summarized by the terminal and if the rules are misused, the TCs’ access are restricted for the
upcoming week by limiting the number of possible appointments that can be booked by the TC.
The quota is dynamic and varies between different appointment windows across the day
depending on available terminal capacity.
Figure 22

The TAS design deployed by case C

4.2 Drivers forwarded by the cases

No additional drivers other than the ones already identified from the theoretical data were found
in the empirical data. However, many of the already identified drivers were present in the

54
empirical findings and some of the data will be presented in this section to give an overview of
what drivers that were discussed by the interviewees.

4.2.1 Drivers related to ‘demand and capacity matched against each other’
Matching demand and terminal capacity against each other was one of the highest-level drivers
that was perceived in all three cases. Even if case A had not implemented a TAS, it was still
perceived to be a main driver if congestion at peak hours becomes a problem. The same
reasoning holds for case B which had not yet levelled the truck arrivals in phase one. However,
case C had implemented a TAS to level truck arrivals due to the long queues that sometimes
could cause congestion even at the motorways. The main driver for implementing a TAS was
described by interviewee C:1, project manager for TAS as:
I think the main driver was to equalize a bit this peak situation… it was to even
out the peaks and as a consequence also to reduce traffic like, let's say, like
jams. Before all truck drivers came at 8:00 o'clock and we had quite some jam
going back to the motorway sometimes. So, it's therefore a kind of consequence,
less traffic, less jam, less pollution.
If the TAS improved congestion was not straightforward and was advocated to be very
dependent on the situation. In general interviewee C:1 said that the situation was improved
during normal conditions:
Yeah, I think we have less jams. You know we had the jams even before the
terminal, like going over the bridge to the motorway. And these jams we don't
have anymore.
There was a common agreement that long waiting times for the TCs at the gate limits the
number of transactions the truck drivers can perform. Some of the TCs in case A have come to
an agreement with the cargo owners/shippers that if the truck driver must wait for more than
30 minutes at the gate, a port delay fee is added to compensate for their loss in productivity.
The delay fee is then forwarded to the cargo owner/shipper, but it is not even near a
compensation for the loss in reputation and customer satisfaction. Interviewee A:5, production
manager at a TC stated that:
On the whole, it does not cover anything when you have upset customers and
you have trucking companies that are upset. It is a patch on the wounds, but it
is not enough. The big loss is in customer service and that we cannot keep it up.
It is hard to put an economical number on it but to keep the service is
considerably more important than to charge a port delay fee.
However, different TCs did differently, and some had decided to include the waiting time cost
in the prices offered to the customers. In none of the investigated cases the TOs had any business
relations directly with the TCs and did hence not offer any compensation for delays.
The most prominent driver to implement a TAS by all three cases was to avoid unacceptable
queues and waiting times at the gate during peak periods. For case A the TTT was usually
approximately 30 minutes and was not seen as a major issue and was the reason why a TAS
has not been prioritized. If the situation would have been different interviewee A:2, salesman
at the TO described that “If it would be standing trucks outside for 2-3 hours every day, then

55
of course we have to look at something else but for now, it runs good and if something is
working, you might not put in the extra effort.”

4.2.2 Drivers related to ‘scheduling of capacity’

Being able to plan the capacity at the terminal was one of the motives to implement a TAS
mentioned by several of the interviewees in case A. The information gathered from TAS could
have been used to improve the scheduling of labor and equipment, hence improving resource
utilization. Many of the interviewees in case A confirmed this and an example was interviewee
A:8, dispatcher manager at the TO who described what benefits a TAS could have as:
I can see enormous advantages from a terminal perspective because it would then
in a different way allow us to forecast how much work we have for the upcoming
day and days, but then we can plan our resources in a whole different way of
course. So, I see only benefits from a terminal perspective.
Elimination of uncertainties for TCs were perceived as a driver for the TOs to implement a TAS
in Case A and B. Interviewee B:1 from the port authority described that the TCs at their
terminals preferred to wait not knowing if the terminal can serve them instead of booking an
appointment knowing that there are available resources to serve them, something that the
interviewee could not understand since it is a waste of time. Interviewee A:2, salesman at the
TO shared the same opinion that a TAS would ensure that the resources at the terminal are
available to serve the TCs when they arrive.

4.3 Barriers forwarded by the cases

Figure 23 illustrates the barriers and their interrelations related to the basic and developed TAS
designs as well as one experienced or perceived by the case companies. The white cells with
bold lines mark the barriers perceived by the TCs and the grey cells mark the barriers perceived
by the TOs. The cells in grey with bold lines mark the barriers perceived by both actors. The
cells with black text mark the barriers related to the basic- or developed TAS designs and the
cell with red text mark an additional barrier experienced by case companies B and C. The
hierarchy has been compiled according to the following logic: If underlying yet same-level
barriers are perceived by different actors, their shared overlying barrier is perceived by both
actors. The five top level barriers identified in the empirical data and how they were described
by the interviewees will be presented in the upcoming chapter. Each one of the barriers from
the literature review were not mentioned in the empirical data, however one additional barrier
was identified in terms of small TCs’ difficulties to comply with the added administration
required when adopting a TAS.

56
Figure 23

Barriers related to the basic- and developed TAS designs as well as the experiences of two of the case companies

57
4.3.1 Barriers related to ‘vague information’
As the TO in case A said that they had not planned to implement TAS, it quickly became evident
that the efforts to fully design a TAS had not been prioritized. More specifically implementing
a TAS has not been a top priority due to short or no queues at the gate during normal conditions.
This was supported by interviewee A:1, gate manager at the TO, who said that a design has not
been discussed. A similar reasoning is described by interviewee A:2, salesman at the TO who
said that TAS has been up for discussion several times over the years but that it has been hard
to find a system that is balanced and fair to everyone involved. Since it has not been their top
priority, they haven’t put in the extra effort. However, interviewee A:6 and owner of a TC
confirms that TAS has been up for discussion but described a contrasting view of how a TAS
could work:
Yes, it has been discussed for maybe 10 years and the truck drivers have been
very against it because the port, they want to assign us a slot when we can
arrive. We want to do the opposite, when we are addressing a container, we
should give the port a slot when we are arriving.
From all the interviews it became evident that designing a TAS with business rules that are fair
and efficient for all the actors is not a very straight forward process. Many different factors need
to be taken into consideration and one solution does not fit all. Interviewee A:2, salesman at the
TO gave an example of how unfairness could occur if priority lanes were implemented:
It is really difficult because it becomes a lot of unfairnesses, and things like that
also, it is not really solved yet, but we are discussing in those terms… Then it is
also like this that it can be misused a bit and we are not really there with a
solution because we have like I said more local trucks that need to get in and
out and cannot wait two hours or that happens very seldom. But if it would at
the same time be as it works now, it would take about half an hour for a truck
to enter and leave and faster is not possible and if there are no queues it does
not matter if you have a vip or not because it goes just as quick anyway.
Although case A had not yet actively discussed the potential TAS design, interviewee A:3
though that the system was going to be important to consider in the future due to its potential
to improve the efficiency in the terminal. One component that was mentioned is the window
duration. Interviewee A:3, customer partner at the TO said that:
It is nothing that has been discussed actively, not that I know of at least more
than that we have had it in our minds when planning ahead because somewhere
I even believe that it might be the future but how the setup should look like. I
mean it does not have to be hourly slots, it could be half day-slots because that
would still help or that sometimes of the days are time slots. The setup could
look in different ways depending on how we want to use it.
4.3.2 Barriers related to ‘lack of buy-in & sense of responsibility’
One barrier that has been mentioned is lack of buy-in and sense of responsibility. If TTT is not
a problem for the TCs, it can be difficult to create the urgency needed to develop and implement
a TAS. This was highlighted by many sources in case A that said that a TAS has not been
prioritized since the TTT is in general low and within acceptable limits. Combining a low TTT

58
and the TCs’ resistance to TAS, the TO in case A has prioritized the TCs’ flexibility over their
own interests. However, case B also had acceptable TTT of approximately 30 minutes, but the
port authorities saw this as an opportunity to prepare and implement a system before it becomes
an issue. Interviewee B:1, operations manager at the port authority said:
Now, we have no problems with queues. And I think that it is the best moment
to introduce a system now because we have no problems with our queues, now
our queues usually are 20 minutes, 30 minutes.
4.3.3 Barriers related to ‘limited appointment availability & accessibility’
A common barrier that was highlighted by both TOs and TCs was the need for TCs to find
available appointments on short notice to not limit the flexibility for the TCs to plan and
optimize their routes. Three prominent factors were mentioned for why this is important.
Firstly, TCs can receive transport bookings with a short notice. Secondly, the data that is needed
to perform a booking needs to be available for TCs before an appointment at the terminal can
be booked. Thirdly, TCs face uncertainties such as traffic or external events that they cannot
control and therefore want to inform the TO about their arrival as late as possible when their
actual arrival is less uncertain. However, bookings seemed to be received approximately three
days in advance in case A, but the detailed route planning was done one day in advance. This
way of planning was described by Interviewee A:5, Production manager at a TC that said:
Most bookings are received three days in advance, maybe three days before we
should be there, but some bookings can be received the day before. On average,
it is three days in advance… The day before, the final planning is done and two
days ahead, a rough scheduling can be done.
Interview A:6, owner of a TC that mainly works with export containers have a similar
experience that transport bookings can be received in a wide-ranging timespan: “We receive
bookings… and sometimes it is very short notice, it can be the same morning and it can be three
months in advance”. Since the necessary container information are first available once the
container is loaded onto the truck, this can make it difficult for the TCs to notify and book
appointments for export containers a long time in advance. This differs from import containers
that can be notified to the terminal as soon as the transport booking is received by the TC since
it consists of the necessary container information. Interviewee A:6, owner of a TC said that:
They e-mail us… that this container number is loaded, and they include the
container number it has, and we make the announcement since we cannot do it
before we receive the container number… On the other hand, import containers
can be notified earlier since the container number is included in the booking.
Lastly Interviewee A:2, one of the interviewees that highlighted the dilemma that the trucking
operations are unpredictable, said that: “Should you book an hour before or should you book
the day before?... The trucks can get a puncture or must refuel then you might not find your slot
and then what do you do?”
Quota was a recurring theme in the interviews and that gained much attention in some of the
interviews. There was a common conception between the TO and the TCs in case A that TAS
could limit the capacity in the terminal and that this could make it hard for the TCs to book a
suitable time that fit their schedule if all suitable times are taken. Interviewee A:5, Production

59
manager at a TC know some truck drivers that drive to a port which has implemented a TAS,
and those drivers have had bad experiences of the system:
Yes, we have been talking about it and it has been up for discussion throughout
the years and the view from the truck drivers, our subcontractors, and our
transport leaders here is negative. What we see that the truck appointment
system in (…), as for example, I have some truck drivers there from time to time
sometimes and it is cumbersome to even get a slot time down there since it is
fully booked.
The same interviewee described that they totally understand the benefits that it would give the
terminal in terms of preparing and sorting the containers in advance if they knew when a
container was to be picked up. A system that limits the truck drivers from making appointments
is not feasible, but the interviewee presents an idea that the truck drivers can notify the terminal
about their planned arrival but without any obligations to rebook the appointment if the time is
missed.
This suggestion from interviewee A:5 aligns with how case B has designed the TAS in phase
one. Phase one consists of a mandatory appointment system, but the TCs book an appointment
window with the intention of arriving at that time but if the appointment is missed, the truck
driver is still allowed into the terminal without the need for a rebooking. However, even if there
are no obligations for the TCs to arrive during the booked appointment window, interviewee
B:1, operations manager at the port authority estimated that the TCs comply with the time
booking principles to a 50-60 percent ratio.

4.3.4 Barriers related to ‘increased administration’

Issues that surfaced during some of the interviews are the extra administration as well as use of
some sort of digital system to book appointments that follows in an implementation of TAS.
Interviewee C:1, Project manager for the TAS implementation provided a view that small TCs
can have more difficulties in adapting to new ways of working than larger firms.
So I think well for really small companies, I understand this might be sometimes
a bit difficult, but the bigger companies they also see the advantages of the
system like, I can book a slot I'm sure to come there and to enter the premises
and to have operation there. So it's really from very positive to very negative
view.
In case B a similar view is presented by interviewee B:1, operations manager at port authority
that said that:
Most of the trucking companies say that it's not interesting because they are
paid and they prefer to wait at the gate and not introduce electronic systems or
intelligence to develop and take advantage of them now. And when they think
that they have to introduce more developers and more developing systems,
usually they are not comfortable because they have no knowledge about it. Only
big companies think that they can, like introducing it in their own systems. They
know how to manage and how to take profit.

60
What was apparent from all the cases is how the larger TCs are better prepared to cope with the
administration and technology that a digital system requires. The larger TCs therefore also seem
to have better potential to integrate new ways of working and to take advantages of a TAS.

4.3.5 Barriers related to ‘lack of incentives’

In none of the cases that had implemented a TAS, the information gathered from the TAS had
yet been integrated into the yard operations due to different reasons. In case C, the information
was too uncertain to base the yard operations on since there were too many cancellations, no
shows, and too unprecise arrivals. Interviewee C:1, project manager for TAS at the TO
explained it as “At the moment we don't do well. We use the information that is delivered by
truck but not the time stamp or something because it's changing so often. It´s not really good
to use it for the yard operation.” Case B which had not yet applied any obligations for the truck
drivers to comply with their reserved appointments and did not yet have any routines at the
terminals to use the arrival information to improve the terminal operations. Interviewee B:1,
operations manager at the port authority described it as:
That could be no doubt it will be the future. But not today. You have to think that
we have one manual terminal and the other one is fully automatic in the yard… If
you have information on what will happen. It could be that you can plan the next
movement. To try to take advantage of this information, for instance, if you at night
in the automatic yard put in the right order of all the data that you have for the next
hour. So, the first hour of the day you know and take advantage of the night to be
more operational.
4.4 Drivers and barriers forwarded by a truck appointment system
developer
Some data regarding setting up business rules were gathered from an online TAS manual from
a system developer of terminal operating systems. In the TAS manual some issues that can arise
when deploying a TAS and what can be done to manage them, are described. In Navis (2003)
it is mentioned that the issues related to TAS exist when demand exceeds the supplied number
of appointments. When the TCs can book appropriate appointments, it is less likely to become
a problem. However, the goal with the business rules is to create a fair system with a balanced
service level for different actors. The system needs to be designed for large TCs and small. The
administrator is the one responsible for making changes to create a fair system and might have
to make exceptions or punish actors who intentionally try to cheat and take advantage of the
system.
In a scenario when demand exceeds the supply of appointments, one problem that could occur
is that TCs make several bookings even if they are not sure they will be used because of the
shortage of appointments (Navis, 2003). TCs then either don’t show up, rebook, or cancel the
appointments, affecting other users and the terminal negatively. Alternative solutions to this
could be to require more information to make an appointment, increasing the threshold to book
appointments on chance. The number of possible bookings for a driver could further be limited
or how much in advance appointments can be booked. The system could also allow
appointments not to be changed at a certain time, for example, one day prior to the booking or
a penalty fee for cancelations or missed appointments can be charged.

61
It is not uncommon that the TAS is paid for by the TCs as an appointment system should allow
the TCs to perform more transactions each day, hence increasing their revenue (Navis, 2003).
The fee for using the TAS can differ in amount and how it is charged, sometimes it is charged
per transaction or by a monthly subscription fee. The added cost for TCs can sometimes be
forwarded to their customers that is also benefitting from the increased predictability. As the
cost for the system is charged equally by all users, it does not affect the competition among
TCs. Regardless, two essential factors for a successful implementation of TAS is first, to have
a TAS that is well-integrated in the terminal operating system because the information on the
available terminal capacity needs to be transferred to the TAS. Second, a TAS cannot be
successful without the commitment from its users.

62
5 Analysis
In this chapter the drivers and barriers of truck appointments systems’ components and options
are analyzed as well as how they affect the business model of container terminals. In section
5.1 and 5.2 the drivers respectively barriers related to all identified components and options of
truck appointment systems are dissected. In section 5.3 relations between overlying drivers and
barriers are analyzed. Then in section 5.4 options considering such relation are construed.
Finally, in section 5.5 truck appointment systems incorporating the dual perspective are
analyzed from a business model perspective.

5.1 Drivers related to all identified components and options of

truck appointment systems
Identification of the basic TAS components and options enabled further identification of
different fundamental drivers related to the TAS perceived by both TOs as well as TCs and
their interrelations, see figure 5. As several authors in academic literature have developed the
basic TAS design to benefit any of the two actors or both, either by developing the components,
developing the options, or by integrating the TAS with the yard operations, some additional
drivers have emerged. These drivers and their interrelations were illustrated in figure 9. The
empirical data, gathered from the interviews with the three cases as well as the TAS manual,
did not lead to identification of any additional drivers wherefore the hierarchy illustrating the
drivers related to the basic and developed components and options in figure 9, still holds. The
additional drivers related to the developed components and options almost exclusively represent
attempts to mitigate the barriers related to the basic TAS components and options; Only a few
of the drivers represent incentives for implementing a TAS. For this reason, only the drivers
representing incentives for implementing a TAS will be discussed in this section and those
aiming to mitigate barriers will be left for section 5.2.
The hierarchy depicted in figure 9 descends from one primary driver (PD): ‘improved
information on truck arrivals’. PD in turn leads to two secondary drivers (SD): ‘information on
cargo availability’ and ‘prediction of the demand of transactions’. As the former driver is
commonly entailed without a TAS the latter one (hereafter referred to as SD) and its implication
has been the primary topic in academic literature on the topic and will for these reasons be the
topic in this section. Excluding the former driver from the analysis enables depiction of the
drivers according to figure 24. In figure 24 the drivers related to the basic as well as developed
TAS designs, and their interrelations are illustrated; The white cells with bold lines mark the
drivers perceived by the TCs and the grey cells mark the drivers perceived by the TOs. The
cells in grey with bold lines mark the drivers perceived by both actors. The cells with black text
mark the drivers related to the basic TAS design and the cells with green text mark the drivers
related to the developed TAS designs. The hierarchy has been compiled according to the
following logic: If underlying yet same-level drivers are perceived by different actors, their
shared overlying driver is perceived by both actors.

63
Figure 24

Drivers related to all identified components and options of TASs

64
Two tertiary drivers (TD) can be derived from SD (‘prediction of the demand of transactions’):
TD1) ‘scheduling of capacity’ and TD2) ‘demand and capacity matched against each other’.
TD1 is a consequence of deploying the truck arrival information to schedule yard capacity; By
minimizing and performing unproductive shuffle moves in the form of re-marshalling moves
during yard cranes’ idle times, yard capacity can be streamlined further resulting in reduced
truck transaction time. TD2 is partially resulting from developed components and options
aiming to facilitate trucking operations when implementing a TAS (which will be elaborated
upon in section 5.2) and partially resulting from a more realistic perspective on capacity- and
demand fluctuations. TD2 more specifically leads to two quaternary drivers (QD): QD1)
‘consideration of fluctuating capacity’ and QD2) ‘consideration of truck scheduling’ which will
be evaluated in section 5.2. QD1 implies that demand is not only matched against a forecasted
and roughly estimated capacity level which implies some degree of mismatch between demand
and actual available capacity; Such determination of available capacity also considers
deviations from a generic capacity level which opens for a more realistic approach towards
matching demand against capacity; When considering seasonal, daily, hourly and even
momentary capacity fluctuations, demand is more accurately matched against capacity.
Although demand may not be perfectly levelled it ought to correspond to the available capacity.
Four quinary drivers (QUD): QUD1) ‘enhanced appointment availability & accessibility’,
QUD2 ‘compensation for loss in productivity’ (which both will be elaborated upon in section
5.2 due to their relations with the identified barriers), QUD3) ‘enhanced capacity utilization’
and QUD4) ‘reduced queuing during peak hours’ result from QD1 (‘consideration of
fluctuating capacity’). QUD3 and QUD4 correspond to those related to the basic TAS design
but then again from a more realistic viewpoint deployed when considering fluctuations in
capacity. When analyzing the hierarchy, it is evident that QD1 exerts several important
incentives for both TCs as well as TOs for implementing respectively using a TAS. For TCs,
QD1 implies reduced queuing during peak-hours (QUD4) which culminates in improved
scheduling, improved trust among end-customers, reduced operating costs, and the possibility
to perform more customer requests per truck. For the TOs QD1 implies reduced queuing during
peak-hours (QUD4) which culminates in improved social and environmental footprints and
enhanced capacity utilization (QUD3) which culminates in reduced operating costs and the
possibility to increase throughput.
The different TAS components and options (basic and developed) either generate the new
drivers or reinforce or suppress the existing ones. When observing figure 24 and considering
the overall driver SD (‘prediction of the demand of transactions’) entailing all underlying
drivers, there are two underlying drivers that are of more importance – TD1 (‘scheduling of
capacity’) and QD1 (‘consideration of fluctuating capacity’). QD2 (‘consideration of truck
scheduling’), QUD1 (‘enhanced appointment availability & accessibility’), and QUD2
(‘compensation for loss in productivity’) are drivers that mitigate barriers rather than drivers
for implementing a TAS and will therefore be discussed in section 5.2 (since TD2 (‘demand
and capacity matched against each other’) then only gives rise to QD1 only QD1 will be
considered). If TD1 respectively QD1 are entailed their underlying drivers are also entailed
(there are no conflicts between their respective underlying drivers), therefore these two drivers
are the only drivers that will be considered hereon. Hence, ‘prediction of the demand of

65
transactions’ (SD) enables ‘scheduling of capacity’ (TD1) and ‘consideration of fluctuating
capacity’ (QD1).
The theoretical data enabled identification of a total of 17 components (the empirical data did
not lead to identification of any other components) of which ten were primary components, five
were secondary components, and two were tertiary components. The drivers each of these
components and their respective options give rise to were illustrated in figure 11-20 in section
2.4. Doing so facilitates identification of the components affecting any of the two drivers TD1
(‘scheduling of capacity’) and QD1 (‘consideration of fluctuating capacity’) either by its pure
existence or by adjusting its related option. Such relations are illustrated in figure 25
respectively 26. In the figures, all identified components are listed, however, only the
components written in black influence the related driver; The components written in blue do
not influence the related driver. Both drivers are marked with grey and bold lines as they
contribute to the drivers of both TCs and TOs.
Figure 25 Figure 26

Components related to the driver ‘consideration Components related to the driver ‘scheduling of
of fluctuating capacity’ (QD1) capacity’ (TD1)

5.2 Barriers related to all identified components and options of

truck appointment systems
As with the drivers, identification of the basic TAS designs, components, and options, enabled
identification of the fundamental barriers and their interrelations, which were illustrated in
figure 7. Two additional barriers related to the TAS emerged when developments of the basic
TAS design in the shape of TAS components and options were identified. These barriers and
their interrelations to the other barriers were illustrated in figure 10. Likewise, the empirical
data enabled identification of one previously unidentified barrier and its interrelations to the

66
other barriers identified in theoretical data were illustrated in figure 23. The theoretical data
was further integrated with the empirical data to compile the barriers and their interrelations in
a single illustration. These are highlighted in figure 27 through a hierarchy yet again specifying
the barriers perceived by TOs respectively TCs; The white cells with bold lines mark the
barriers perceived by the TCs and the grey cells mark the barriers perceived by the TOs. The
cells in grey with bold lines mark the barriers perceived by both actors. In the figure the cells
with black text mark the barriers related to the basic TAS design and the cells with red text
mark the barriers related to the developed TAS designs as well as an additional barrier
experienced by case company B and C. The hierarchy has been compiled according to the
following logic: If underlying yet same-level barriers are perceived by different actors, their
shared overlying barrier is perceived by both actors.

67
Figure 27

Barriers related to all identified components and options of TASs

68
The barriers depicted in figure 27 derive from the primary barrier (PB): ‘vague information’.
Although PB was explained in early literature as a result from the system being enforced on the
container terminals by external legislators with little know-how of the system, it also indicates
the container terminals’ insufficient understanding for the drivers and barriers related to the
TAS and how to design it to reinforce the drivers respectively mitigate the barriers. Either way,
PB directly translates into the secondary barrier (SB): ‘lack of buy-in and sense of
responsibility’. According to figure 27, SB gives rise to three tertiary barriers: (TB1) ‘lack of
incentives’, (TB2) ‘inflexible’, and (TB3) ‘increased administration’.

TB1 (‘lack of incentives’) in turn gives rise to four quaternary barriers (QB): QB1)
‘insignificant usage’, QB2) ‘additional cost’ for the TCs, QB3) ‘additional cost’ for the TOs,
and QB4) ‘no integration with yard operations’. While QB2 only arise if additional monetary
fees are applied in the form of required penalty fees or peak period fees to compensate for TOs’
loss in productivity, QB3 only arise if provided penalty fees are applied to compensate for TCs’
loss in productivity. QB1 and QB4 on the contrary, both mirrors the hierarchy depicted in figure
25 related to QB6 (‘consideration of fluctuating capacity’) and hence likewise relate to all
identified components. The reason for this is because if truck arrivals are not levelled against
capacity, no improvements in queuing during peak-hours is achieved. Then no reductions in
TTT and hence no incentives for the TCs to use the system will result. For the TOs insignificant
usage of the system implies little levelling of truck arrivals which culminates in a lack of
reduction in truck emissions as well as lack of improvements in capacity utilization.

TB2 (‘inflexible’) in turn gives rise to two QBs: QB5) ‘difficult for TCs to plan beforehand’
and QB6) ‘limited appointment availability & accessibility’. QB5 mirrors QB6 as difficulties
to plan beforehand implies that appointments must be booked based on great uncertainties
risking that the appointment will be missed and that a new appointment must be booked.
Ultimately this cause delays that in the worst-case cascade into subsequent appointments,
undermining and reducing TCs’ productivity. Enhanced appointment availability &
accessibility would balance the difficulties of planning beforehand. For the TOs difficulties in
planning beforehand implies that TCs are more prone to missing their appointments and thereby
the prediction of demand becomes misaligned with the actual demand which culminates in poor
capacity utilization. Moreover, if the system is optional to use, several missed appointments
cause unbalanced queuing across non-appointment lanes and appointment lanes, which
culminates in increased queuing at the non-appointment lanes.

TB3 (‘increased administration’) has only been vaguely addressed by the identified
components. However, it is self-explanatory that implementing any sort of booking system
should increase the administrative burden for TCs; Adding constraints should increase the time
and effort spent on scheduling and routing meanwhile the booking procedure should require
some level of increased administration. Furthermore, as poor appointment availability and
accessibility increase the risk for missed appointments, it should also increase the
administrative work related to booking new appointments. Moreover, in addition to cooperative
time windows, the different fees should, although not stated, imply some additional
administrative work for the TCs. Thereby TB3 should be affected by all the identified

69
components. However, the underlying drivers of TB3 ‘different rules across container
terminals’ and ‘small firms cannot comply’, have seemingly not been sufficiently addressed by
academic literature and therefore little can be said about their relations to the TAS components.
TB3 will therefore only be addressed on a general level, implying that only the amount of
administrative work will be considered and not the underlying barriers depicted in figure 27.
Hence, the underlying barriers are left out of the analysis but will be approached in section 6.5.

Other barriers that were not directly addressed was the overall barrier namely PB (‘vague
information’) and its direct implication SB (‘lack of buy-in and sense of responsibility’). These
barriers and their insufficient acknowledgement in academic literature, validate the importance
and hence purpose of this report; This report aims to inform TOs about the drivers legitimizing
an implementation of a TAS and how they can be realized. Moreover, the report also aims to
inform TOs about the barriers that can potentially hinder the realization of the drivers and how
they can be managed. Without knowledge on how to design the TAS to maximize its
effectiveness, different perceptions regarding the system’s effectiveness will result in a lack of
buy in, sense of responsibility, and prioritization of the system. The barriers not sufficiently
addressed by the developments presented in academic literature are illustrated in figure 28.
While the cells with orange text mark the barriers of which future research should be focused,
the cells with red text mark the barriers addressed in this study.

70
Figure 28

Barriers covered and excluded in the study

71
To sum up, the barriers to pay attention to when considering different TAS components and
options are: SB (‘lack of buy-in and sense of responsibility’), TB1 (‘lack of incentives’), QB6
(‘limited appointment availability & accessibility’), and TB3 (‘increased administration’). TB1,
QB6, and TB3 and their respective relations to the 17 identified components, are similarly to
the drivers illustrated in figure 29, 30, and 31. Since the barriers reflect some of the identified
drivers (those related to mitigating the barriers – enhanced appointment availability and
accessibility and compensation for loss in productivity) such relations were possible to identify
from figure 11-20 in section 2.4. The relations further concerns whether the components affect
the barriers, either by their pure existence or when adjusting their related option. For the sake
of simplicity, QB2 (‘additional cost’ for the TCs) and QB3’s (‘additional cost’ for the TOs)
simplistic relations to the monetary components are not illustrated separately but will be viewed
as part of the overall barrier TB1 reflecting the barriers of QB1 (‘insignificant usage) and QB4
(‘no integration with yard operations’). In the figures, all identified components are listed,
however, only the components written in black influence the related barrier; The components
written in blue do not influence the related barrier. Two of the barriers are marked with grey
and bold lines as they contribute to the barriers of both TCs and TOs, however, one is marked
with white and bold lines as it only affects the TCs.
Figure 29 Figure 30

Components relating to the barrier ‘lack of Components related to the barrier ‘limited
incentives’ (TB1) appointment availability & accessibility’ (QB6)

72
Figure 31

Components related to the barriers ‘increased

administration’ (TB3)

5.3 Relations between the overlying drivers and barriers

From figure 25, 26, 29, 30, and 31, it is evident that most of the components affecting the drivers
TD1 (‘scheduling of capacity’) and QD1 (‘consideration of fluctuating capacity’) also affect
the barriers of TB1 (‘lack of incentives’), QB6 (‘limited appointment availability &
accessibility’), and TB3 (‘increased administration’). Although there might be a positive
relation between a specific component and these drivers and barriers (component reinforce a
driver while mitigating a barrier) it might also be a negative relation (component reinforce a
driver while reinforcing a barrier, component reinforce a barrier that mitigate a driver, or
component reinforce a barrier that reinforce another barrier). In this study two positive relations
have been identified and five negative between the two drivers and the three barriers which are
illustrated in figure 32. The first positive relation (green arrow (1)) is between TD1 and TB1 as
scheduling of capacity enables reduced truck transaction time which acts as an incentive for
TCs to use the system. The second positive relation (green arrow (2)) is between QD1 and TB1
as matching demand against capacity enables reduced truck transaction time which similarly
acts as an incentive.

73
Figure 32

Interrelations between the overlying drivers and barriers

The first negative relation is between QD1 (‘consideration of fluctuating capacity’) and QB6
(‘limited appointment availability & accessibility’) (red arrow (1)) and goes both ways; A TAS
that is designed to maximize terminal operations efficiency and to minimize queuing during
peak hours, will cause efficiency problems for TCs if the inflexible properties of the TAS
components and options are not completely understood. While a TAS that is designed without
consideration of the objectives and constraints of TCs have direct implications for the TCs, it
also has indirect implications for the TO. A TAS design with limited appointment availability
and accessibility is prone to poor predictions of actual demand and hence scheduling of
capacity; Poor scheduling of capacity further implies problems for the TO in terms of
fluctuations in capacity utilization and increased queuing at non-appointment lanes. As a TAS
design with limited appointment availability and accessibility implies problems regarding
scheduling of capacity a second negative relation arise between QB6 and TD1 (‘scheduling of
capacity’) (red arrow (2)). The third negative relation is between QD1 and TB3 (‘increased
administration’) (red arrow (3)); Introducing a booking system implies increased administration
for the TCs. The fourth negative relation is between TB1 (‘lack of incentives’) and QD1 (red
arrow (4)). A TAS design that lacks incentives for TCs to use the system, implies that demand
is not matched against capacity which hinders the realization of drivers of the TAS. The fifth
negative relation is between QB6 and TB3 (red arrow (5)). A TAS design that is prone to cause
missed appointments imply that re-bookings must be made by the TCs causing increased
administration.
From observing figure 32 some important conclusions can be drawn. Apparently, a TAS design
that considers these barriers and hence the constraints and objectives of not only TOs but also
of TCs, is necessary to realize the drivers of the system; The barriers seemingly limited to the
TCs are, as illustrated in figure 32, also detrimental for the TOs. Moreover, while reinforcing
the driver QD1 (‘consideration of fluctuating capacity’) implies that TB1 (‘lack of incentives’)

74
is mitigated, it also implies that QB6 (‘limited appointment availability & accessibility’) and
TB3 (‘increased administration’) are reinforced. In such instance, QB6 further mitigates the
two drivers and reinforce TB3. Ultimately there is a conflict between the QD1 and QB6 that
needs to be considered by TOs when designing a TAS as well as when integrating it into the
existing business.

5.4 Options considering relations between the overlying drivers

and barriers
The TAS designs, components, and options identified in this study partially incorporate the
drivers and barriers of TOs and partially those of TCs. While some components and options are
developed with the intention of reinforcing the drivers and mitigating the barriers for one of the
stakeholder groups, some seek to balance the barriers and drivers of the two stakeholder groups
(hereafter referred to as dual perspective). That prioritization of the barrier QB6 (‘limited
appointment availability & accessibility’) over the drivers prevails among the developed TAS
components and options, became evident in section 5.1 and 5.2; the drivers forwarded regarding
the components were predominantly drivers related to mitigating QB6 rather than drivers for
implementing a TAS. However, due to the conflicting relation between QD1 (‘consideration of
fluctuating capacity’) and QB6, in such approach QB6 is mitigated at some level of expense of
QD1.
This is where the TAS options come into play; While components have been developed with
the intention of maximizing the effectiveness of the TAS for any of the two stakeholder groups
or both, options have been developed in parallel to the basic TAS components with the same
interest. Ultimately, this implies that components through their related options, can be further
designed to prioritize either QD1 (‘consideration of fluctuating capacity’) or QB6 (‘limited
appointment availability & accessibility’) or both. To identify the components possibility to
deprioritize between these two and hence their possibility to incorporate the dual perspective,
also the different options’ relations to QD1 and QB6 must be identified. Since no additional
options were identified from the empirical data, the theoretical data will act as a basis for the
analysis. Figure 11-20 sufficiently portrayed the relations between the developed options and
the drivers and barriers. In the figures 11-20, each of the developed options were evaluated both
based on the drivers they prioritize and on the drivers they give rise to.
Although the conflicting relation between QD1 (‘consideration of fluctuating capacity’) and
QB6 (‘limited appointment availability & accessibility’) is necessary and critical to address to
realize the drivers of the system, the other two barriers, TB1 (‘lack of incentives’) and TB3
(‘increased administration’), must also be managed and mitigated. As was stated in section 5.2,
ways to mitigate TB3 have not been sufficiently addressed in practice nor in theory and will
therefore only be evaluated in one dimension, namely increased administration, which does not
fully address its two underlying barriers depicted in figure 28. However, the barrier should be
mitigated when QB6 is as well as when fees are absent.
While TB1 (‘lack of incentives’) should not be prioritized over QB6 (‘limited appointment
availability & accessibility’) and TB3 (‘increased administration’), TB1 should precede them.
This is because TB1 has the potential to deteriorate the drivers of TAS ultimately limiting the
effects of measures taken to mitigate QB6 and TB3. Focusing on TB1 implies taking measures

75
to realize TD1 (‘scheduling of capacity’) and QD1 (‘consideration of fluctuating capacity’). For
the component of obligation, the option of mandatory is preferred to realize the drivers of the
TAS. While an optional TAS implies that missed appointments can be filled with trucks without
appointments hence improving appointment accessibility, it is prone to fail in realizing the
drivers of the system further incentivizing TCs not to use the system. To incentivize TCs to
utilize the system enough dedicated lanes ensuring that trucks with appointments are benefitted,
can be deployed. However, as this means that the ratio of dedicated lanes to the non-
appointment lanes will have to increase as the system gains users, the option of mandatory is
the only sustainable option long-term. Such option, however, implies that re-scheduling of
missed appointments must be made as no none-appointment lanes are available. This greatly
affects the flexibility of a TAS if the rest of the system is not designed with this in mind.
When it comes to the second component of the basic TAS design, appointment lead-time, the
option of same day appointment booking mitigates QB6 (‘limited appointment availability and
accessibility’) and hence TB3 (‘increased administration’) but also reinforces the two drivers;
Although a longer appointment lead-time enhances scheduling of capacity the actual demand
will not align with the predicted demand due to uncertainties inherent in the trucking operations
causing missed appointments. Hence, deploying a shorter appointment lead-time enables a
greater share of met appointments and hence alignment between demand and capacity assuming
that scheduling of capacity can be facilitated in other ways such as on historical data.
The seek to balance QD1 (‘consideration of fluctuating capacity’) and QB6 (‘limited
appointment availability and accessibility’) holds for all the components with developed
options which is highlighted by figure 11-20. The options of window duration do so partially
by introducing a long window duration and partially by finding a middle ground between the
options of short and long; thereby the drivers of the TAS are enabled while appointment
accessibility is enhanced. Regarding the quota strategy the system can be balanced in two ways;
In a static system the quota can similarly to window duration be set high or according to a
middle-ground to enhance appointment availability while still enabling demand to be matched
against capacity. In a dynamic system the quota can be altered depending on fluctuations in
available capacity as well as fluctuations in demand, which enhance appointment availability
while enabling a more realistic approach towards demand. The scheduling strategy enables
equilibrium when moving from the options of IAS and BAS to the options of STAS and DAS;
the two latter options in addition to the drivers, incorporate flexibility to different extents. While
STAS through its consideration of truck scheduling enhance appointment availability, DAS
through its use of real-time data enhance both appointment availability and accessibility thus
being more realistic towards internal and external fluctuations. As the name suggest, the
component of collaborative scheduling balance the QD1 and QB6 by incorporating
collaborative options. When applying any of the two developed options of cooperative time
windows or adjusted time windows, QD1 is reinforced meanwhile QB6 is mitigated, however,
to various extents. Moreover, when moving from the former option to the latter, control is
shifted from the TCs to the TOs, and appointment accessibility becomes manipulable by the
TO rather than by the TCs which decrease administration and enable purposeful segmentation
which further increase appointment accessibility for high-volume TCs.

76
In contrast to the developed options, developed components do not necessarily seek to balance
the QD1 (‘consideration of fluctuating capacity’) and QB6 (‘limited appointment availability
and accessibility’). Adding any form of penalty fee (required or provided) to a TAS, does not
affect the appointment availability or accessibility of the system. The same goes for peak-period
fee. Although it can be argued that increasing the cost for TCs during certain time periods affect
their possibility to perform transactions and hence appointment availability and accessibility,
no physical boundaries are set that absolutely limit the operations of the TCs. Hence, the
labelling of fees as incentives rather than limitations. Beyond the barriers, the different fees are
enablers of QD1 and required penalty fees also gives rise to TD1 (‘scheduling of capacity’).
These components can therefore be applied to ensure revenue streams or as additional
incentives to level truck arrivals if needed. Suspension on the other hand has a reversed effect
when it comes to appointment availability; when not applied it enhances appointment
availability for those otherwise being suspended. Although a consequence of applying
suspension might be enhanced appointment availability for those complying with the TAS, it
is assumed to be a relatively small share of the total amount of appointments. However, if
applied, suspension enhance the two drivers. Grace period is the only developed component
seeking to find equilibrium between QD1 and QB6 as its application implies enhanced
appointment accessibility. When grace period is not applied the two drivers are instead
enhanced.
When applying TAS to improve container stacking operations in the yard, scheduling of
capacity is the primary intention rather than matching demand against capacity. Although
fluctuations in truck arrivals are not mitigated, capacity utilization is enhanced from introducing
re-marshalling during yard cranes’ idle times which reduces the number of shuffle moves
performed during container transactions. Thereby re-marshalling reduces TTT and queuing
throughout both peak- and off-peak periods. While targeting both capacity utilization and
queuing, two major drivers of a TAS are satisfied without necessarily matching demand against
capacity. This means that TAS can be designed to prioritize appointment availability and
accessibility over matching demand against capacity thereby suppressing the conflicting
relation between QD1 (‘consideration of fluctuating capacity’) and QB6 (‘limited appointment
availability and accessibility’).
To facilitate the dual perspective some components and options are apparently favorable. While
the components of obligation and re-scheduling should specifically be realized through the
options of mandatory respectively new appointment required to first mitigate TB1 (‘lack of
incentives’), the rest of the components should be applied through options that mitigate QB6
(‘limited appointment availability & accessibility’) and hence TB3 (‘increased administration’).
All these components and related options contribute to the dual perspective as they also
facilitate TD1 (‘scheduling of capacity’) and QD1 (‘consideration of fluctuating capacity’).

5.5 A Business model perspective on truck appointment systems

incorporating the dual perspective
In this section the basic and developed TAS components and options that incorporate the dual
perspective, are analyzed from a business model perspective. By analyzing the influence TAS,
and hence the service of container transactions, has on the business model of container

77
terminals, necessary modifications to align the service and business model should become
apparent.
The business model canvas framework developed by Osterwalder & Pigneur (2010) has been
adopted in this study to perform the analysis of the TAS from a business model perspective.
The framework and its related aspects and interconnection with TASs representing the dual
perspective, is presented in figure 33. The developed analytical framework should be viewed
as a reference when incorporating a TAS of the dual perspective into the service of container
transactions. More specifically, the elements specifying the business model aspects are meant
to act as a reference for container terminals. Having considered the different elements, they
may remain or be removed from the framework depending on their suitability in the specific
terminal. To maximize the performance of a TAS, it needs to be designed and integrated
according to the local condition of that specific terminal.
Figure 33

Business model for TAS

Key Partners Key activities Value propositions Customer Customer

TCs Incorporating relationship segments
TO business rules TCs Self service High-volume TCs
Port authority Truck Available and accessible Collaborative Low-volume TCs
appointment appointments on request appointment Small TCs
scheduling Short TTT scheduling Large TCs
Performing
transactions based TO
on appointment Scheduling of capacity
schedules Match demand against
fluctuations in capacity
Key Resources Channels
Collaboration Port authority Web based
with TCs Improved economical, interface
Know-how of societal, and Mobile
different TAS environmental platforms
designs performance Integrated in
the transport
management
system
Cost structures Revenue Streams
Provided penalty fees Required penalty fees
Investment cost Subscription fees
Operating costs Peak period fee
Terminal rent reduction

Note. Based on the Business model canvas framework from Business Model Generation, by Osterwalder
& Pigneur, 2010.

In this study the aspects constituting business model canvas concern the container terminal and
not the TCs nor the port authority. This is because the container terminal is the stakeholder
typically providing and designing the TAS. Hence, the aspects of ‘Cost structures’ and
‘Revenue streams’ (which are the only aspects that are dependent on the owner of the system)

78
account to the monetary flows from respectively to the TO. However, as the system is
implemented with the intention of improving an existing service rather than with the intention
of adding another service, the aspect of ‘Value propositions’ reflects the added value provided
to all stakeholders when implementing the TAS. More specifically the emphasis on the value
provided to the TO is due to the absence of an additional revenue stream related to the TAS that
otherwise would incentivize the TO to implement the system. In the following sections each of
the aspects and their related elements are discussed in detail.
Key partners
There are three key partners identified that are important to consider when operating a TAS.
No other stakeholders of the port community and within the scope of this report were
forwarded in the data as either directly affecting or being directly affected by the TAS. The
three key partners are the TO, the port authority, and the TCs. The TO is the most common
actor to implement and operate the system. However, the port authority can act as the initiator
and co-designer of the TAS to be implemented by the TO. Lastly, the TCs are the users of
TAS.
Key activities
There are three key activities incorporated with the usage of TAS. The first activity is to
determine business rules related to TAS that need to be present and agreed upon between the
TO and the TCs. Some form of agreement on how the TO and TCs should operate in the
implementation of TAS should exist, even though the business rules might differ between
terminals. The second and most obvious activity is truck appointment scheduling, this activity
is essential and cannot be neglected; The TO must be flexible and might have to adjust
components such as, quotas, appointment windows, and fees. Lastly, performing transactions
based on the appointment schedules implies that re-marshalling is deployed in the yard area.
Although this activity is not required to level demand against capacity it enables TOs to gain
benefits of improved resource utilization which further influences congestion positively.
Key resources
To realize a TAS with the mentioned value propositions, two key resources are important to
consider. Firstly, the TO needs the know-how of how to design the TAS to realize the drivers
respectively mitigate the barriers of the system. If this resource is not available internally,
consultants specialized in TAS could be a solution to support the TO when designing the TAS.
Secondly, input from TCs is a valuable resource needed to design the TAS; TCs committed to
collaborate and to create a fair system is needed for the TO to understand the TCs’ perspective.
Value proposition
The value propositions mainly relate to the TO and the TCs. The two drivers TD1) ‘scheduling
of capacity’ and QD1) ‘consideration of fluctuating capacity’ combined with the three barriers,
TB1) ‘lack of incentive’, QB6) ‘limited appointment availability & accessibility’, and TB3)
‘increased administration’, can be directly translated into the value proposition; In order to
reinforce the drivers respectively mitigate the barriers related to the TAS which have shown to
be vital for the operations of both actors (see figure 32), components and options that
incorporate the dual perspective is necessary to deploy. Ultimately such components and
options balance the objectives and constraints of both actors. This is especially important due

79
to the contradiction between the driver QD1) ‘consideration of fluctuating capacity’ and the
barrier QB6) ‘limited appointment availability & accessibility’; Whereas the other overlying
drivers and barriers can be relatively easily solved by deploying specific components and
options, the contradicting barrier and driver must pervade the entire TAS design and hence the
value proposition to ensure terminal competitiveness. Not respecting the need for system
flexibility will cause great spillover effects on the terminal operations.
The port authority is not the user of the system but can gain indirect benefits. Such indirect
benefits relate partially to reduced emissions and partially to improved competitiveness. If the
port can increase its competitiveness against other ports, it can attract more cargo to pass
through the port. Increased throughput in the port should provide new jobs, increased generation
of tax revenue, and economic growth in the region.
Customer relationship
The customer relationships to emphasize are those to the TCs; Because of the dependencies
between the drivers and barriers, the TO must respect the constraints and objectives of the TCs.
As all components and options constituting the TAS design are related to either the TCs’
objectives or their constraints, these can be chosen accordingly. Thereby, the relationships to
the TCs can be catered to in many ways. The relationship to the port authority is indirectly
improved when facilitating the TCs’ operations; A TAS that effectively manages the different
drivers and barriers enhances the efficiency and hence competitiveness of the terminal while
enabling reduced emissions.
Channels
The two common channels of communication in a TAS are through a web-based interface or a
mobile platform. An additional channel that was identified is to integrate the TAS with the TCs’
transportation management system. As the technical aspects and programming languages to
establish the information system is not within the purpose of this study, no further analysis
regarding drivers and barriers for the different channels have been made.
Customer segments
Two major factors have been identified which combined create four different customer
segments. The factors to be considered is the size of the TCs and the transaction volumes
performed by the TCs. These different customer segments are important to consider since they
operate differently and could benefit or be limited by different components of TAS in different
ways. The understanding is that high-volume TCs spend more of their time waiting at the
terminal because they perform more transactions each day. Hence, if appointments are not
available at request, it can affect many upcoming appointments that could be delayed the same
day. If a truck with many appointments during a day gets delayed, it will require administration
to rebook or cancel upcoming appointments. The scenario is different for low-volume TCs;
Rather than cascading into subsequent appointments, missed appointments risk that the trucks
arrive to their destination point too late. However, low-volume TCs have the possibility to book
appointments before their trucks leave the destination and start driving towards the terminal, as
they usually have a few hours before arriving at the terminal. The second factor is the size of
the TCs. A TAS need to be suitable for both large TCs and smaller once; The smaller TCs have
less resources and/or incentives due to less scaling effects to integrate and administrate a TAS.

80
A TC is not necessarily in only one of the segments as a single company can have drivers both
doing high-volume and low-volume transactions. The distribution of customer segments will
differ between terminals and should be considered in the business model of TAS and
incorporated during the design of the TAS to meet the requirements of the customer segments.
However, everyone will probably not be satisfied, and a reasonable mindset is needed; If most
of the TCs come to an agreement, a single small TC cannot be a dealbreaker for the system.
Cost structure
In addition to the operating costs and the capital investments needed to purchase a TAS, the
main cost for the terminal could be if a penalty system is applied that require the terminal to
pay a penalty fee to the TC if complies is not met regarding the accepted service level. However,
provided penalty fees is probably only relevant in parallel with required penalty fees for TCs;
The provided penalty fee can be an incentive for TCs to accept their required penalties if they
do not comply with their booked appointments. Penalty fees could be a solution if agreed on by
involved actors but can be complicated since in many cases no formal business relations exist
between the TO and the TCs. A key factor is to design business rules that is in the control of
the terminal and the TCs, it can be difficult but is necessary to create a fair system with clear
boundaries for both actors. Something to be consider is that penalties will need additional
administration and could cause more harm than benefits if the rules are unclear.
Revenue streams
There are some identified direct and indirect revenue streams that can be generated from a TAS.
Firstly, an indirect revenue stream in terms of a reduced rental fees for the TO can be a solution
if the port authority wants to incentivize the container terminal to implement a TAS. Secondly,
a subscription fee to the TCs for using the system can be introduced to cover the cost of it. This
can be a fair cost for the TCs as it is the same for everyone and does therefore not affect the
competition between TCs. A small subscription fee could be introduced to increase the
involvement from the TCs in developing the system. Thirdly, peak-period fees can be
introduced as a mean to level out peak periods and to incentivize TCs to make transactions in
off-peak periods. This can generate income for the TO, but the added income is sometimes used
to improve the provided services for example through extended opening hours. Lastly, penalty
fees can be introduced if agreed business rules are not complied with. However, added fees and
costs for the TCs would increase their resistance towards implementing a TAS.

81
6 Discussion
In this chapter the three research questions are answered concisely based on the results
presented in the analysis. In section 6.1, 6.2, and 6.3 each of the three research questions are
specifically and individually addressed followed by section 6.4 addressing recommendations
for practitioners. Lastly, in section 6.5, the limitations of the study are discussed and
suggestions on future research in the related research area are given.

6.1 Research question 1

What components of a TAS design are related to perceived drivers of a TAS?
Several drivers of different levels related to TAS were identified from the theoretical as well as
empirical data. These drivers were therefore compiled to detect their interrelations and thereby
reflections of the terminal operations respectively trucking operations. 17 components
consisting of ten primary components, five secondary components, and two tertiary
components were further possible to distinguish from the same data. For each of the
components a set of options, enabling realization of certain drivers, were detected.
Having clarified the drivers related to each of the options and hence components, the
components were collectively related to each of two overlying drivers. This approach is valid
since realization of an overlying driver implies that all related underlying drivers are achieved.
The two overlying drivers to a large extent enable the same underlying drivers, however,
through different components. These two drivers are TD1 (‘scheduling of capacity’) and QD1
(‘consideration of fluctuating capacity’). While the former driver enables scheduling of yard
capacity which enhances terminal operations efficiency and thereby reduced queuing, the later
driver enhances terminal operations efficiency and reduced queuing during peak hours by
levelling truck arrivals. The components affecting these drivers either positively or negatively
or not at all, were clarified and illustrated and it became evident that all the identified
components affected QD1. More specifically, all the components related to the basic TAS
design (‘obligation’, ‘dedicated lanes’, ‘missed appointment handling’, ‘re-scheduling’,
‘appointment lead-time', and ‘scheduling strategy’) and developed TAS designs (‘penalty fee’,
‘required penalty fee’, ‘provided penalty fee’, ‘suspension’, ‘peak period fee’, ‘window
duration’, ‘grace period’, ‘quota strategy’, ‘quota’, ‘collaborative scheduling’, and ‘container
stacking’), either positively or negatively affect the possibility to match demand against
capacity when considering both fluctuations in terminal capacity as well as fluctuations in
demand over time (QD1). It also became evident from the compilation that only components
influencing the arrival information affect how well terminal capacity can be scheduled to
correspond both with the level of demand as well as timely characteristics of the demand. These
components are more specifically, ‘window duration’, ‘appointment lead-time', ‘grace period’,
‘obligation’, ‘dedicated lanes’, ‘missed appointment handling’, ‘penalty fee’, ‘required penalty
fee’, ‘suspension’, ‘re-scheduling’, ‘scheduling strategy’, and ‘container stacking’. Hence, the
importance of some of the components shift depending on which of the two overlying drivers
that is prioritized by a TO.

6.2 Research question 2

What components of a TAS design are related to perceived barriers of a TAS?

82
Similar to the drivers, several barriers of different levels related to the TAS were identified
from the theoretical and empirical data and were further compiled to detect interrelations and
reflections of different stakeholder perspectives. Also, the barriers were related to each of the
options and hence components to ultimately clarify the relations between each of three
overlying barriers and the collective set of components. The three overlying barriers are
affected by different components and options and have different implications for the TCs
respectively TOs. When an overlying barrier is not mitigated the underlying barriers are not
either. The three barriers are TB1 (‘lack of incentives’), QB6 (‘limited appointment availability
& accessibility’), and TB3 (‘increased administration’). While the first barrier mirrors the driver
QD1 (‘consideration of fluctuating capacity’) by hindering realization of the driver if not
mitigated, the second barrier implies limited appointment availability and accessibility which
hinders realization of both overlying drivers and at the same time reduces and undermines the
trucking operations efficiency. The third barrier implies an increased administrative burden for
TCs.
As was previously stated, the first barrier mirrors QD1 and are therefore affected by the same
set of components (‘obligation’, ‘dedicated lanes’, ‘missed appointment handling’, ‘re-
scheduling’, ‘appointment lead-time', and ‘scheduling strategy’, ‘penalty fee’, ‘required penalty
fee’, ‘provided penalty fee’, ‘suspension’, ‘peak period fee’, ‘window duration’, ‘grace period’,
‘quota strategy’, ‘quota’, ‘collaborative scheduling’, and ‘container stacking’). The second
barrier and its relation to the components were possible to identify through the drivers;
Establishment of the drivers related to each component and related options, illuminated that
most of the drivers were not drivers for implementing a TAS but rather drivers addressing that
specific barrier. All components affect QB6 except for those related to fees since they do not
restrict trucks from arriving at the terminal. The components that either positively or negatively
affect QB6 are more specifically ‘obligation’, ‘dedicated lanes’, ‘missed appointment
handling’, ‘re-scheduling’, ‘appointment lead-time', and ‘scheduling strategy’, ‘suspension’,
‘window duration’, ‘grace period’, ‘quota strategy’, ‘quota’, ‘collaborative scheduling’, and
‘container stacking’. The third barrier is affected by all the identified components as it relates
to appointment booking and re-booking as well as handling of fees; The correlation between
the level of re-booking and the level of appointment availability and accessibility (QB6) implies
that TB3 derives from the same set of components. At the same time, it is affected by the
components related to fees which constitute the remaining components. As with the drivers, the
importance of some of the components shift depending on which barrier that is targeted.
However, such components are only limited to fees which highlights the importance of
evaluating most of the components from different perspectives and hence the dual perspective.

6.3 Research question 3

What elements should be considered in a business model to address the perceived drivers and
barriers of TAS?
To enable alignment between the TAS and the service it seeks to facilitate, a business model
perspective has been applied. Applying a business model perspective to the TAS ultimately
enables incorporation of the constraints and objectives of both a TO and TCs into the business
model of the TO. As have been outlined throughout this study, the drivers and barriers related

83
to the TAS reflect the constraint and objectives of both actors and must therefore be greatly
considered by TOs when designing as well as when operating a TAS; The deployed TAS design
consist of TAS components and options that each has multiple relations to the drivers and
barriers and thereby they become a concern for both actors. To realize the system drivers and
enable increased terminal competitiveness, the components and options must therefore be
selected with great knowledge about their properties. By deploying components and option
characterized by a dual perspective this should be ensured. In this study the TAS components
and options that incorporates the dual perspective has been directly translated into elements in
an analytical business model framework. The elements suggested to consider when
incorporating a TAS to facilitate the service of container transactions have been presented in
an analytical business model framework based on the business model canvas framework. The
framework enables TOs to consider important aspects of their business model in terms of a TAS
and hence the service of container transactions.
The elements that have been presented hence partly derive from the aspects of the business
model canvas framework, partly derive from all the drivers and barriers which corresponds to
the dual perspective. Since both TOs and TCs objectives and constraints need to be considered
according to the dual perspective, they both represent key partners in the business model. The
port authority indirectly gains value from an effective system and such gains coincide with the
those of TOs and should therefore be included in the business model. Key activities include
establishing business rules together with TCs, scheduling appointments, and performing gate-
and yard operations according to such schedules; These activities include handling of the
components and options constituting the dual perspective. The key resources constitute know-
how about the components and options and how they relate to the drivers and barriers.
Collaboration with TCs is important to ensure that the system succeed in targeting the drivers
and barriers. The value proposition highlights the drivers of the system but also the conflicting
relation between the objectives of a TO and TCs; The element ‘Available and accessible
appointments on request’ mirrors the barrier ‘limited appointment availability and accessibility’
that if not mitigated, hinders realization of the drivers. Also, the value provided to port
authorities are highlighted in the business model. The dual perspective is also clearly reflected
by the elements related to the aspect ‘Customer relationship’. Although TCs perform some level
of self-service both at the terminal as well as back in the depot, the key activities should include
some level of collaboration depending on the system design. A system that is designed with
consideration to the TOs objectives and constraints may not require scheduling to be performed
in extensive collaboration and vice versa. This argument also holds for the aspect of ‘Customer
segments’; To effectively target the drivers and barriers related to the TAS, variables such as
transaction volume and company size should be taken into consideration. This is mainly
because the administration as well as limitations in appointment availability and accessibility
will struck different segments differently and thereby require segmentation. The components
and options should therefore be chosen with this in mind. The channels in which the information
exchange should take place have been delimited from this study, however, some existing
channels have been identified throughout the study. Whether these sufficiently reflect the dual
perspective is a topic for future research. Neither have revenue streams and cost structures been
the focus of this study. Rather than providing an additional revenue stream as is the purpose

84
with the services provided by the terminal, the system seeks to facilitate the service of container
transactions. However, the aspect ‘Revenue streams’ highlights two important considerations:
1) by adding peak period fees TOs can facilitate the dual perspective through a less restrictive
TAS given that TCs are willing to pay for it and 2) by providing improved value to port
authorities lowered rental expenses can be entailed. The remaining revenue streams may act as
tools to adjust the system’s level of dual perspective.

6.4 Recommendations for terminal operators

An interesting finding that emerged from the empirical data was the insufficient need to match
demand against capacity; Two of the three TOs expressed that they did not experience issues
with TTT and truck emissions. Although there are important drivers related to the TAS other
than reduced TTT and truck emissions, namely improved terminal operations efficiency and all
its related drivers, such scenario opens for a less restrictive TAS design; A less restrictive TAS
design implies built in flexibility for the TCs while at the same time largely enabling the drivers
presented in this study. A less restrictive TAS design can be obtained in different ways, partly
by excluding certain components, partly by choosing certain options that not primarily aim so
match demand against capacity. Moreover, if levelling of truck arrivals to reduce queues or
level the capacity in the terminal is not a top priority, improved information sharing of truck
arrivals which is entailed through a TAS, works to improve the terminal operations. This is
partly due to improvements in scheduling of gate- and yard capacity, partly due to the possibility
to perform re-marshalling in the container yard.
In the above-mentioned scenario, the implementation of an adequate TAS can be done in
phases, with the first phase including gathering of arrival information such as arrival time and
container-id for import containers. This makes it possible for the TO to 1) begin the
implementation and 2) start taking advantage of arrival data to enable improved scheduling of
capacity as well as introduce re-marshalling. The TCs will thereby not be restricted other than
that they must provide with arrival information. This first phase could for example imply that
no missed appointment handling is applied and therefore that TCs can perform transactions
even if they miss an appointment. Also, the quota can either be absent or very unrestrictive to
only limit unrealistically high peaks in demand. The first phase is based on mutual trust and
presumes that TCs do their best to estimate their arrivals. With such system in place, it will be
possible to calculate how accurately the TCs estimate their arrivals but also to validate
improvements in terminal efficiency when applying arrival information. TCs arrival accuracy
is important to measure since 1) it allows the TO to set reasonable window durations and 2) it
increases the transparency because it provides the TCs with real data of how they perform,
instead of basing it on assumptions. Validating how the arrival information have improved the
TO´s operations allows the TO to 1) provide real data of the improvements that can be shared
with TCs to increase their buy-in for using the TAS and 2) adjust or reevaluate the TAS if the
results were not as expected.
With a TAS in place, the terminal is also prepared to move to a second phase of the
implementation which is relevant if the situation changes due to increased demand or if truck
arrival information is inaccurate. To handle increased demand, a quota can for example be
introduced and to manage inaccurate arrival information, appointment handling can for

85
example be applied to incentives the TCs to comply with their appointments. It is, however,
important to bear in mind that moving towards a more restrictive TAS might come at the
expanse of inaccurate data if limitations in appointment availability and accessibility are not
addressed properly by adding or adapting other components and options to mitigate the barrier.

6.5 Limitations and future research

In this study a multiple-case study design was adopted but it became limited by the fact that
few TOs as well as TCs were 1) available for interviews and 2) had implemented a TAS. That
the study was affected by a low number of interviewees in case B and C (only two interviewees
in case B and one in case C) implies that only narrow insights in the two cases were entailed.
Moreover, only reaching a few case companies and employees implied that the TOs did not
have any knowledge or experience with several of the components making it difficult to relate
drivers and barriers in the empirical findings to these components. Such components were for
example penalty fees, peak period fees, and container stacking. Furthermore, some of the TAS
components and options such as ‘collaborative scheduling’ as well as ‘STAS’ and ‘DAS’ are,
as far as the authors of this thesis report are aware of, still only developed at a theoretical level
and could therefore not be observed in the empirical data. Hence, drivers and barriers could
appear different for these TAS components once the components are put in practice.
Also, the business model canvas framework deployed in this study might not have been optimal
for illustrating how a system such as TAS, influence the existing business model of a TO. This
is mainly because the framework typically is deployed to illustrate how a product or service
can be incorporated and not a system seeking to facilitate such product or service. This
deficiency is highlighted by the presence of the aspect ‘Revenue streams’; Generating revenue
is not the direct purpose with the system but rather to provide value to the involved stakeholders.
However, the framework was considered useful since its aspects appropriately reflect the
important characteristics and requirements of TASs incorporating the dual perspective. This is
especially evident for the aspect ‘Value proposition’ as its related elements equal the drivers
related to a TAS that incorporates the dual perspective. Such drivers in turn are collectively
entailed when a TAS consist of components and options that facilitate the dual perspective.
However, future research on the topic may benefit from applying a different business model
framework dealing with a system rather than a product or service.
The barrier related to increased administration for TCs were only addressed in one dimension
in this report, namely the amount of administration. Furthermore, since administration was
insufficiently addressed in the reviewed literature several assumptions were made regarding the
components and options related to the barrier. Future research should therefore partially focus
on such relations as well as on the other dimensions of the barrier and more specifically those
related to its underlying barriers: ‘different rules across container terminals’ and ‘small firms
cannot comply’. Thereby, different segments of TCs would be better emphasized as well as the
practicality of booking appointments.
The technical aspects of the TAS were delimitated from this study and future studies could
therefore focus on this area. By reviewing different information technologies as well as
information systems the entirety of TASs would be better captured.

86
With the contribution of this study, future research should focus on how different TAS
components and options interact and how different combinations on a system level affect the
drivers and barriers of TAS. Then, it would be possible identify if the current TAS components
and options can create a successful and realizable TAS. If not possible, new components and/or
options might have to be developed from the dual perspective to improve the system.
A possible extension of this study could investigate the level of consideration taken to the dual
perspective in TAS designs implemented in different terminals. Thereby it would be possible
to evaluate TOs’ know-how regarding the designs effect on its performance. Another extension
could be to quantitatively evaluate the different components’ and options’ effect on the
overlying drivers and barriers; Doing so would enhance decision-making when seeking to
design a TAS incorporating the dual perspective.

87
7 Conclusion
The aim of the study was: To improve the understanding of the drivers and barriers of truck
appointment systems’ components and options and how they affect the content of terminal
operators’ business models. The aim has been achieved through answers to three research
questions which culminate in theoretical contributions. These contributions both individually
as well as collectively provide as support to terminal operators either planning to implement a
truck appointment system or terminal operators planning to re-evaluate an already implemented
one.
Collectively the contributions inform terminal operators about important decision areas. To
reap the systems’ benefits, terminal operators both must make decisions regarding the system
design as well as decisions regarding its level of reflection in the business model. The first
decision area implies that terminal operators balance their own objectives and constraints
against those of trucking companies. The second decision area implies that terminal operators
transmit such approach and attitude across the operations involved in the service of container
transactions. Individually the contributions target specifics characteristics of the truck
appointment system. Profound understanding among terminal operators regarding the
characteristics that ultimately determine system effectiveness is equally as necessary as
understanding their interplay. Five contributions have been defined based on the results of this
study. Each of these and their theoretical as well as practical implications are outlined in this
chapter.
First, a framework compiling, categorizing, and clarifying the different truck appointment
system components and options as well as their interrelations has been established. The
framework facilitates a standardized way of reasoning regarding different truck appointment
system designs incorporating a certain set of components and options. The framework has
proved useful for clarifying different truck appointment system designs either conceptualized
or deployed as well as for comparison. Moreover, understanding the drivers and barriers in
terms of truck appointment system components and options, is important when designing a
truck appointment system as it enables prioritization of certain drivers and barriers.
The second contribution is similarly a compilation and clarification of the drivers respectively
barriers and their respective interrelations, influencing the effectiveness of a truck appointment
system. These illustrations can contribute to current or potential practitioners of truck
appointment systems by clarifying outcomes when facilitating certain overlying drivers or
barriers. As the illustrations also consider the constraints and objectives of terminal operators
respectively trucking companies, they highlight mutual constraints and objectives through the
identified interrelations.
Third, overlying drivers and barriers realized through different sets of options and hence
components, have been identified. Thereby, the components that need to be considered when
designing a truck appointment system are highlighted.
Fourth, most of these overlying drivers and barriers have further been discovered to affect
operations efficiency of both stakeholder groups through their positive or negative
interrelations. Thus, the relations stress that options must be deployed that reinforce the drivers

88
while mitigating the barriers. Moreover, one of the relations are conflicting and necessitates
some level of balance between that driver and barrier which is achieved by deploying options
incorporating a dual perspective. Thereby, the importance of considering the constraint and
objectives of both terminal- and trucking companies when choosing among different options is
highlighted.
Fifth, based on the dual perspective relevant elements to consider when seeking to incorporate
the truck appointment system to facilitate the service of container transactions between a
terminal operators and trucking companies have been suggested. Such elements enable
alignment between the truck appointment system and the service by suggesting modifications
to the current business model. Emphasizing the truck appointment system and the dual
perspective in the business model is important to ensure that strategic and operational objectives
mirror the constraints and objectives of both the terminal operator and trucking companies.
Increased knowledge about the characteristics of truck appointment systems; how to control
them through its design; and how to ensure alignment with the service it seeks to facilitate,
should increase the sense of urgency for the system as well as unify the perception of truck
appointment system as a system with the capability of entailing strategic and operational
objectives; Since the system entails improved gate- and yard operations efficiency, it enables
terminals to target greater sizes of container vessels without compromising landside operations.
The benefits deriving from a sophisticated truck appointment system are, however, not limited
to container terminals; such benefits are accompanied by other benefits that intertwines with
strategic and operational objectives of trucking companies. Although the level of flexibility
entailed from unscheduled access will not prevail as terminals moves towards scheduled access,
the benefits of reduced truck turnaround times enable more reliable terminal processes and
enhanced resource utilization which are key to enable sustainable business growth. Also, port
authorities and nearby regions are expected to benefit from such system; Improved terminal
productivity and sustainability enhance the development of nearby regions which further
highlights the importance of committing to seemingly futile details of the system design.

89
References
Abdelmagid, A. M., Gheith, M. S., & Eltawil, A. B. (2022) A comprehensive review of the
truck appointment scheduling models and directions for future research, Transport
Reviews, 42(1), 102-126, https://doi.org/10.1080/01441647.2021.1955034
APMT, (n.d.). Strategy presentation. Retrieved February 24, 2022, from
https://www.apmterminals.com/en/about/our-company
Baccelli, O., & Morino, P. (2020). The role of port authorities in the promotion of logistics
integration between ports and the railway system: The Italian experience. Research in
Transportation Business and Management, 35, 100451.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rtbm.2020.100451
Bell, E., Bryman, A., & Harley, B. (2019). Business research methods (5 edition). Oxford
University Press.
Bisogno, M., Nota, G., Saccomanno, A., & Tommasetti, A. (2015). Improving the efficiency
of port community systems through integrated information flows of logistic processes,
International Journal of Digital Accounting Research, 15, 1–31.
https://doi.org/10.4192/1577-8517-v15_1
Bowen, A, G. (2009). Document Analysis as a Qualitative Research Method. Qualitative
Research Journal, 9(2). https://doi.org/10.3316/QRJ0902027
Böse, W. J. (2011). Handbook of Terminal handling. Springer.
Chen, G., Govindan, K., Yang, Z. Z., Choi, T. M., & Jiang, L. (2013a). Terminal appointment
system design by non-stationary M(t)/Ek/c(t) queueing model and genetic algorithm.
International Journal of Production Economics, 146(2).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2013.09.001
Chen, G., Govindan, K., & Yang, Z. (2013b). Managing truck arrivals with time windows to
alleviate gate congestion at container terminals. International Journal of Production
Economics, 141 (1). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2012.03.033
Córdova, F., & Durán, C. (2014). A Business Model Design for the Strategic and Operational
Knowledge Management of a Port Community. Annals of Data Science, 1(2). 191–
208. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40745-014-0014-8
Covic, F. (2017). Re-marshalling in automated container yards with terminal appointment
systems. Flexible Services and Manufacturing Journal, 29(3-4), 433-503.
https://doi.org/10.1007/S10696-017-9278-6
Dyer, W.G., & Wilkins, A. L. (1991). Better Stories, Not Better Constructs, to Generate
Better Theory: A Rejoinder to Eisenhardt. The Academy of Management Review,
16(3), 613-619. https://doi.org/10.2307/258920
Eisenhardt, M. K. (1989). Building Theories from Case Study Research. The Academy of
Management Review, 14(4). https://doi.org/10.2307/258557

90
European Commission (2011), White paper: Roadmap to a single European transport area
towards a competitive and resource-efficient transport system. Retrieved February 24,
2022, from: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52011DC0144&from=EN
European Commission. (n.d.). Clean Air. Retrieved February 14, 2022, from
https://ec.europa.eu/environment/air/index_en.htm
Frémont, A. (2013). Containerization and intermodal transportation. In J. Rodrigue, T.
Notteboom, & J. Shaw (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of transport studies (p. 47-62). 55
City Road: SAGE Publications, Ltd. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446247655.n4
Giuliano, G., & O´Brien, T. (2007). Reducing port-related truck emissions: The terminal gate
appointment system at the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach. Transportation
Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 12(7).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2007.06.004
Giuliano, G., & O´Brien, T. (2008). Extended gate operations at the ports of Los Angeles and
Long Beach: a preliminary assessment. Maritime Policy & Management, 35(2). 215-
235. https://doi.org/10.1080/03088830801956854
Guan, C., & Liu, C, C. (2009). Container terminal gate appointment system optimization.
Maritime Economics & Logistics, 11, 378–398. https://doi.org/10.1057/mel.2009.13
Heilig, L., & Voß, S. (2017). Information systems in seaports: A categorization and overview.
Information Technology and Management, 18(3), 179-201.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10799-016-0269-1
Heilig, L., Lalla-Ruiz, E., & Voß, S. (2017a). Digital transformation in maritime ports:
analysis and a game theoretic framework. NETNOMICS: Economic Research and
Electronic Networking, 18, 227–254. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s11066-017-9122-x
Huynh, N. (2009). Reducing Truck Turn Times at Marine Terminals with Appointment
Scheduling. Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2100(1), 47–57
Huynh, N., Smith, D., & Harder, F. (2016), Truck Appointment Systems Where We Are and
Where to Go from Here, Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2548, 1-9.
https://doi.org/10.3141/2548-01
Huynh, N., & Walton, C. M. (2008). Robust Scheduling of Truck Arrivals at Marine
Container Terminals. Journal of Transportation Engineering, 134(8).
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-947X(2008)134:8(347)
Huiyun, Y., Xin, L., Lixuan, X., Xiangjun, L., Zhihong, J., & Zhan, B. (2018). Truck
Appointment at Container Terminals: Status and Perspectives. The Chinese Control
and Decision Conference, 30, 1954-1960.
https://doi.org/10.1109/CCDC.2018.8407446
Iivari, M. M., Ahokangas. P., Komi, M., Tihinen, M., & Valtanen, K. (2016) Toward
Ecosystemic Business Models in the Context of Industrial Internet, Journal of
Business Models, 4(2), 42-59.

91
International energy agency. (2019). CO2 Emissions from Fuel Combustion,
https://doi.org/10.1787/2a701673-en
Ioannou, P., Chassiakos, A., & Jula, H. (2006). Cooperative Time Window Generation for
Cargo Delivery/Pick up with Application to Container Terminals. University of
Southern California.
Jacobsson, S., Arnäs, P. O., & Stefansson, G. (2017). Access management in intermodal
freight transportation: An explorative study of information attributes, actors, resources
and activities, Research in Transportation Business & Management, 23, 106-124.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rtbm.2017.02.012
Jacobsson, S. (2020). Access management for road hauliers and rail operators in intermodal
freight terminals [Doctoral dissertation, Chalmers University of Technology].
Chalmers Research. https://research.chalmers.se/publication/516958
Kemme, N. (2013). Design and operation of automated container storage systems. Heidelberg:
Physica-Verlag HD. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-7908-2885-6
Kotler, P., Armstrong, G., & Parment, A. (2017). Marknadsföring: teori, strategi och praktik
(2nd ed). Pearson.
Lange, K. A., Kreuz. F., Langkau, S., Jahn, C., & Clausen, U. (2020). Defining the Quota of
Truck Appointment Systems. [Conference Paper]. Data science in maritime and city
logistics: Solutions for Logistics and Sustainability, 30, 211-246. ISBN: 978-3-753123-
47-9. http://dx.doi.org/10.15480/882.3148

Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. (1985). Naturalistic Inquiry. Sage.

Marchet, G., Perotti, S., & Mangiaracia, R. (2012). Modelling the impacts of ICT adoption for
inter‐modal transportation. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics
Management, 42(2), 110-127. https://doi.org/10.1108/09600031211219645
Maguire, A., Ivey, S., Golias, M. M., & Lipinski, M. E. (2010). Relieving Congestion at
Intermodal Marine Container Terminals: Review of Tactical/Operational Strategies.
51st Annual Transportation Research Forum.
https://doi.org/10.22004/ag.econ.207280
Morais, P., & Lord, E. (2006). TERMINAL APPOINTMENT SYSTEM STUDY.
Transportation Development Centre of Transport Canada
Namboothiri, R & Erera, A. L. (2008). Planning local container drayage operations given a
port access appointment system. Transportation Research, 44, 185–202.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tre.2007.07.004
Navis. (2003) Maximize Productivity and Customer Satisfaction with Gate Appointments.
https://www.aapa-ports.org/files/SeminarPresentations/05_OpsIT_Tiemroth_Eric.pdf
Osterwalder, A. & Pigneur, Y. (2010). Business Model Generation. John Wiley Sons Inc.

92
Perego, A., Perotti, S., & Mangiaracina, R. (2011). International Journal of Physical
Distribution & Logistics Management, 41(5), 457-483.
https://doi.org/10.1108/09600031111138826
Phan, M. H. & Kim, K. H. (2015), Negotiating truck arrival times among TCs and a container
terminal, Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, 75,
132-144. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tre.2015.01.004
Rodrigue, J. P., Slack, B., & Comtois, C. (2006). The Geography of Transport Systems,
Routledge, New York, NY.
Shiri, S., & Huynh, N. (2016). Optimization of drayage operations with time-window
constraints. International Journal of Production Economics, 176, 7-20.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2016.03.005
Stake, R. E. (1995). The Art of Case Study Research. Sage.
Taipale-Erävala, K., Salmela, E., & Lampela, H. (2020), Towards a New Business Model
Canvas for Platform Businesses in Two-Sided Markets, 8(3), 107-125.
Torkjazi, M. (2020). New Models for Truck Appointment Problem and Extensions. [Doctoral
dissertation, University of South Carolina]. https://scholarcommons.sc.edu/etd/6014
Van Der Horst, M. R. & De Langen, P. W. (2008). Coordination in Hinterland Transport
Chains: A Major Challenge for the Seaport Community. Maritime Economics &
Logistics, 10(1-2), 108-129. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.mel.9100194
Van den Berg, R. (2015). Strategies and new business models in intermodal hinterland
transport. Technische Universiteit Eindhoven.
Veile. W. J., Kiel, D., Muller M. J., & Voigt, K: I. (2019). Ecosystem 4.0: A Supply Chain
Perspective on Business Model Innovation [Paper presentation]. The ISPIM Innovation
Conference – Celebrating Innovation: 500 Years Since da Vinci, Florence
Warren, C. A. (2011). Qualitative interviewing. In Gubrium, J. F., & Holstein, J. A. (Eds.),
Handbook of interview research (pp. 83-102). Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications.
Yin, R. K. (2003). Case Study Research: Design and Methods. Applied Social Research
Methods, 5.
Zhang, Y. & Zhang, R. (2017). Appointment of Container Drayage Services: A Primary
Literature Review. International Conference on Service Systems and Service
Management, 1-5 https://doi.org/10.1109/ICSSSM.2017.7996142
Zhao, W., & Goodchild, A. (2013). Using the truck appointment system to improve yard
efficiency in container terminals. International Journal of Maritime Economics, 15(1).
https://doi.org/10.1057/mel.2012.23
Zott, C., & Amit, R. (2010). Business Model Design: An Activity System Perspective. Long
Range Planning 43, 216-226. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2009.07.004

93
Øverby, H., & Audestad, J. A. (2021). Introduction to Digital Economics (2nd ed). Springer.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-78237-5

94
APPENDIX A
Interview Guide
Occupation:
Introductory questions
• What do You do in your current role?
• Were You involved in the evaluation and in deciding about the time slot system and if so,
how?
• How do you think that the truck traffic to the container terminal will evolve in the next
years?
• How did your gate- and yard operations work without a truck appointment system?

Main questions – features and design of the truck appointment system

1. How does the time slot system work?
2. What information content is gathered from the TCs/truck drivers or forwarding
agents?
a. How is the arrival information flow communicated?
b. When does the arrival information flow take place?
3. Is it mandatory for TCs to use the time slot system? Why?
4. Does your organization charge extra for the service and if so, how?
5. How is the time slot system marketed to the TCs and forwarding agents?
6. What assets or knowledge have had to be added or expanded to the terminal
operations to make the time slot system work?
7. Does the time slot system have different features for different TCs/truck
drivers/forwarding agents?
8. How have TCs, forwarding agents and port authority/port terminal or any other
stakeholder been involved in designing the time slot system?

Main questions - drivers

9. For what purpose does your organization use the truck arrival information?
10. What drivers did/do you see with a time slot system?
11. What drivers/benefits do you think TCs/truck drivers, port authority/port terminal,
forwarding agents and other stakeholders see with the time slot system?
12. Who proposed/decided on the time slot system?
13. Who have invested in the implementation and operating of the time slot system?

Main questions - barriers

14. What barriers did/do you see with a time slot system?
15. What were/are the main costs related to the implementation and operating of the time
slot system?
16. What barriers do you think TCs/truck drivers, port authority/port terminal, forwarding
agents and other stakeholders see with the time slot system?
17. What is the container flow after they have left the container terminal, for example, do
the trucks usually have an appointment window where they deliver the container?
18. Do the TCs mainly drive short or long distances?

Main questions - solutions

19. How were the barriers mitigated?
20. Were there any barriers that are not considered important to mitigate? Why?
21. What barriers implied/will imply greater costs to mitigate? Why?

95
DEPARTMENT OF TECHNOLOGY MANAGEMENT AND ECONOMICS
DIVISION OF SERVICE MANAGEMENT AND LOGISTICS
CHALMERS UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY
Gothenburg, Sweden
www.chalmers.se

96