Advertisement

Methods of Rating Assessment for Terminal and Logistics Complexes

  • Oksana Pokrovskaya
  • Roman FedorenkoEmail author
Conference paper
  • 29 Downloads
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 1116)

Abstract

The transport and logistics market make high demands on the speed of decision making and their economic feasibility. In the conditions of a dynamically developing market of transport and logistics services, decision-making must be carried out quickly, on the one hand, and reasonably on the other. The adoption of such decisions in complex terminal systems for the delivery of goods requires the use of methods that allow such a comprehensive assessment. Obviously, the methodology should be objective and consider many factors of the work of the terminal and logistics complexes. This circumstance determines the relevance and purpose of this work - the development of methods for integrated assessment of the parameters of the terminal and logistics complexes based on the total rating. To achieve the goal and approbation of the methodology, we used programming tools in the Scilab environment, as well as methods of systems theory, terminalistics, logistics, economics, organization and planning of railway transport operation, expert assessments, SWOT analysis, calculation of parameters of freight fronts, score ratings, linear and dynamic programming. The practical significance of the results obtained in the study is to develop applied assessment tools for conducting an express analysis of the activities of terminal and logistics complexes on several key parameters. The subject of future research may be to solve the problem of reducing the subjectivity of evaluation by this method.

Keywords

Logistics infrastructure Samara region Terminal and logistics complex Rating assessment 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The reported study was funded by RFBR and FRLC according to the research project № 19-510-23001.

References

  1. 1.
    Pokrovskaya, O.: Terminalistics as the methodology of integrated assessment of transportation and warehousing systems. MATEC Web Conf. 216 (2018).  https://doi.org/10.1051/matecconf/201821602014CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Pokrovskaya, O., Fedorenko, R., Khramtsova, E.: Study of the typology of logistic entities using functional and logistic approach. In: The European Proceedings of Social & Behavioural Sciences GCPMED 2018. International Scientific Conference “Global Challenges and Prospects of the Modern Economic Development” (2019).  https://doi.org/10.15405/epsbs.2019.03.123
  3. 3.
    Pokrovskaya, O., Fedorenko, R.: Evolutionary-functional approach to transport hubs classification. Adv. Intell. Syst. Comput. 1, 356–366 (2019).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-19756-8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Dybskaya, V., Vinogradov, A.: Promising directions for the logistics service providers development on the Russian market in times of recession. Transp. Telecommun. 19(2), 151–163 (2018).  https://doi.org/10.2478/ttj-2018-0013CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Popov, P., Miretskij, I.: Methodology for constructing the region’s logistics infrastructure. Econ. Reg. 15, 483–492 (2019).  https://doi.org/10.17059/2019-2-13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Lukinykh, V., Pyzhikova, N., Shvalov, P.: Development of logistics infrastructure in Yenisey Siberia. IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci. 315(2), 022058 (2019).  https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/315/2/022058CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Nguyen, L., Notteboom, T.: Public-private partnership model selection for dry port development: an application to Vietnam. World Rev. Intermodal Transp. Res. 6(3), 229–250 (2017).  https://doi.org/10.1504/WRITR.2017.086208CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Notteboom, T., Rodrigue, J.-P.: The corporate geography of global container terminal operators. Marit. Policy Manag. 39(3), 249–279 (2012).  https://doi.org/10.1080/03088839.2012.671970CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Rodrigue, J.-P.: The Geography of Transport Systems, 4th edn. Routledge, London (2017). https://transportgeography.org/wp-content/uploads/GTS_Third_Edition.pdfGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Higgins, C., Ferguson, M.: An Exploration of the Freight Village Concept and its Applicability to Ontario. McMaster University, Hamilton (2011). https://macsphere.mcmaster.ca/bitstream/11375/18911/1/MITL_Freight_Villages_January.pdf
  11. 11.
    Monios, J.: Integrating intermodal transport with logistics: a case study of the UK retail sector. Transp. Plan. Technol. 38(3), 347–374 (2015).  https://doi.org/10.1080/03081060.2015.1008798CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Záhumenskáa, Z., Gašparík, J.: Supporting the connection the logistics centers to rail network. Procedia Eng. 192, 976–981 (2017).  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2017.06.168CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Gogas, M., Adamosa, G., Nathanail, E.: Assessing the performance of intermodal city logistics terminals in Thessaloniki. Transp. Res. Procedia 24, 17–24 (2016).  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trpro.2017.05.061CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Wang, T., Cullinane K.: The efficiency of European container terminals and implications for supply chain management. In: Port Management. Palgrave Readers in Economics. Palgrave Macmillan, London (2015).  https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.mel.9100151CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Leriche, D., Oudani, M., Cabani, A., Hoblos, G., Mouzna, J.: Simulating new logistics system of Le Havre Port. IFAC-PapersOnLine 48(3), 418–423 (2015).  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ifacol.2015.06.117CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Emperor Alexander I St. Petersburg State Transport University (PGUPS)St. PetersburgRussian Federation
  2. 2.Samara State University of EconomicsSamaraRussian Federation

Personalised recommendations