Risk Management Framework for Handling and Storage of Cargo at Major Ports in Malaysia towards Port Sustainability

Kadir, Zuritah A.; Mohammad, Roslina; Othman, Norazli; Amrin, Astuty; Muhtazaruddin, Mohd Nabil; Abu-Bakar, Siti Hawa; Muhammad‐Sukki, Firdaus

doi:10.3390/su12020516

Cited by 18 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 18 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…It must have measurement of indicators, external audit and engagement and commitment of all actors involved in the process (Ashrafi et al, 2019;Frantzeskaki et al, 2014;Langenus & Dooms, 2018). The management are fundamental elements that will determine the success or failure of sustainable port operations (Casazza et al, 2019;Borriello, 2013;González Laxe et al, 2017;Kadir et al, 2020). Schipper et al (2017) proposed a model to assess port policies, focusing on sustainability.…”

Section: Environmental Managementmentioning

confidence: 99%

Analysis of industry 4.0 and their impact on port environmental management

Moura

2022

Ind. Jour. Manag. & Prod.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Industry 4.0 (I4.0) is a reality in several business segments worldwide. Technologies (I4.0) collaborate to improve production processes, in manufacturing or in services. The use of these technologies in port operations for container handling can assist in environmental management and allows the service system to be sustainable. This research analyzed the use of technologies from I4.0, applied in port handling operations of containers, to verify their impact on environmental management. Some ports, of great international relevance, were searched for data collection regarding the use of I4.0 technologies and environmental management (port sustainability). These data were analyzed to understand the relationship between those technologies and sustainability in logistics operations (green operation). The focus of this study was to analyses some container terminal operations of five ports, to assess the use of I4.0 technologies and their impact, or not, on sustainable environmental management. The method of carrying out the research was the application of an online questionnaire to five Ports: Los Angeles (USA), Hamburg (Germany), Rotterdam (Netherlands), Singapore (Singapore) and Busan (South Korea) exclusively for container terminals. Public materials available on the websites of each port were also used. The questionnaire was developed by reviewing the literature on the topic (Digital Business – I4.0 and Sustainability – green operations). An online survey to collect information took place between September-2019 to June-2020, which was complemented with publicly accessible material on the internet. The collected data were treated statistically for analysis of the research information applied in the ports (mean, standard deviation, significance level, Kolmogorov-Smirnov Test, critical statistical value, correspondence analysis and relative frequency). Overall information was collected from 20 container terminals. Experts (managers and supervisors) responded the online survey.

show abstract

Section: Environmental Managementmentioning

confidence: 99%

Analysis of industry 4.0 and their impact on port environmental management

Moura

2022

Ind. Jour. Manag. & Prod.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Based on the 204 selected articles, we identified all the risk factors found, and we tried to classify them into different categories of risk factors: 1/ risk factors that can be caused by human factors, such as the lack of professional skills (Hsu, 2015), unsuitable reaction to errors (Pallis, 2017) or not following some procedures (Klockner and Toft, 2015); 2/ risk factors that can cause negative influence on the environment (Langella et al, 2016); 3/ risk factors that can be classified in the frame of security, such as smuggling (Loh et al, 2017;Pallis, 2017), terrorism attacks (A John et al, 2014;John et al, 2016;Loh et al, 2017) or other crimes (Joubert and Pretorius, 2017); 4/ natural risk factors such as floods (Pallis, 2017;Gou and Lam, 2018), strong cross wind (Yan et al, 2018) or earthquakes (A John et al, 2014;John et al, 2016;Pallis, 2017); 5/ organizational factors caused by the lack of good organization procedures like berth congestion (John et al, 2016;A John et al, 2014;Zhao et al, 2017;Wang and Guo, 2018) and storage area congestion (A John et al, 2014) (John et al, 2016) (Loh et al, 2017) (A. Kadir et al, 2020Zhao et al, 2017); 6/ operational risk factors, which contain factors related to the operations of the seaport dry port system, such as failure of equipment (Klockner and Toft, 2015) or transportation good spillage (John et al, 2016); 7/ technical risk factors such as lack of equipment maintenance (John et al, 2014), and 8/ economic risk factors like commercial fraud (Tseng et al, 2015) oil price rise (Zhao et al, 2017) (Hsu, 2015), (Loh et al, 2017), (Bergheim et al, 2015), …”

Section: Risk Factors In the Seaport Dry Port Systemmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…(John et al, 2014), (John et al, 2016), (Pallis, 2017), (Pak et al, 2015), (Gou and Lam, 2018;McIntosh and Becker, 2020;Zhang and Lam, 2015), (Lam et al, 2017), (Chang et al, 2020;Zhu et al, 2020), (Yan et al, 2018), (Klockner and Toft, 2015), (Misnevs et al, 2015), (Wang et al, 2017), (Lagadec et al, 2018), (Binti Sa'adin et al, 2016), (Dindar et al, 2017), (Sanchis et al, 2020 ;Zaili Yang et al, 2018), (Bubeck et al, 2019), (Macciotta et al, 2017;Wang et al, 2020), (Alyami et al, 2019). (John et al, 2014), (John et al, 2016), (Loh et al, 2017), (Kadir et al, 2020;Zhao et al, 2017), (Pallis, 2017), (Zhisen Yang et al, 2018), (Hsu, 2015), (Morgan et al, 2016), (Filtness and Naweed, 2017), (Gong and Liu, 2020), (Wang and Guo, 2018), (Başhan et al, 2020), (Klockner and Toft, 2015), (Tsao et al, 2017), (Joubert and Pretorius, 2017), (Alyami et al, 2019), (Gong and Liu, 2020), (Sunaryo and Hamka, 2017), (Bentaleb et al, 2015b (John et...…”

Section: Noise Pollution Dangerous Goods Transportation Effect On The...mentioning

confidence: 99%

Use of DELPHI-AHP Method to Identify annd Analyze Risks in Seaport Dry Port System

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The dry port concept has recently gained rising consideration in the multimodal transport context from the point of view both of researchers and stakeholders related to the benefits of the seaport dry port system. Given the relevance of the topic, the present paper aims to identify the potential risk factors of the three major parts that constitute the seaport dry port system and present a conceptual framework to facilitate risk factors analysis. Based on a three-step approach, starting with a systematic literature review, which resulted in 204 collected and examined papers, which allowed identifying 181 potential risk factors with an average of 60 risk factors in each major part of the studied system. In addition, we used a survey based on the Delphi technique to ensure a good extraction of data from 12 selected experts related to the seaport dry port system; then, we used the MCDM (Multiple-Criteria Decision-Making) method AHP (Analytic Hierarchy Process) in order to: 1) present a hierarchy that simplifies the complexity of the studied system in an organized structure; 2) analyze and assess risk factors based on the identified criteria. A case study involving the Moroccan seaport dry port system of Casablanca illustrates that the seaport part is critical and any major risk factor in this part can even paralyze the operations of the whole system, especially if that risk factor belongs to the human factors category or economic risk category, which is also considered in the study as a critical category.

show abstract

“…Setting up the context involves identifying the constituents, the environment of the system, and the various risk criteria for the rest of the process. As mentioned in [33], several steps are necessary to identify and process risk:…”

Section: Risk Management Toolmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Multicomponent Distributed Framework for Smart Production System Modeling and Simulation

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In order to control manufacturing systems, managers need risk and performance evaluation methods and simulation tools. However, these simulation techniques must evolve towards being multiperformance, multiactor, and multisimulation tools, and this requires interoperability between those distributed components. This paper presents an integrated platform that brings interoperability to several simulation components. This work expands the process modeling tool Papyrus to allow it to communicate with external components through both distributed simulation and cosimulation standards. The distributed modeling and simulation framework (DMSF) platform takes its environment into consideration in order to evaluate the sustainability of the system while integrating external heterogeneous components. For instance, a DMSF connection with external IoT devices has been implemented. Moreover, the orchestration of different smart manufacturing components and services is achieved through configurable business models. As a result, an automotive industry case study has successfully been tested to demonstrate the sustainability of smart supply chains and manufacturing factories, allowing better connectivity with their real environments.

show abstract

Risk Management Framework for Handling and Storage of Cargo at Major Ports in Malaysia towards Port Sustainability

Cited by 18 publications

References 18 publications

Analysis of industry 4.0 and their impact on port environmental management

Analysis of industry 4.0 and their impact on port environmental management

Use of DELPHI-AHP Method to Identify annd Analyze Risks in Seaport Dry Port System

A Multicomponent Distributed Framework for Smart Production System Modeling and Simulation

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About