Business Models and Network Design in Hinterland Transport

  • Peter W. de Langen
  • Jan C. FransooEmail author
  • Ben van Rooy
Part of the International Series in Operations Research & Management Science book series (ISOR, volume 181)


International container transport is the backbone of global supply chains. Hinterland transport, the transport from the port to the final destination and vice versa, is an important component of international container transport. However, academic attention to hinterland transport has emerged only recently. This chapter discusses business models and network design in hinterland transport. Understanding business models is relevant, as many different types of companies (e.g., shipping lines, terminal operating companies and forwarders) play a role in hinterland transport. Their business models influence how they position themselves in the market, their stance concerning cooperation and coordination in hinterland transport, and their scope in network design. Network design is a core issue in hinterland transport. New services need to be designed—and in such a way that they are expected to be profitable. Furthermore, current service patterns only change through deliberate redesign. So competition through the (re)design of transport services is a very important—perhaps the most important—form of competition in intermodal freight transport. One potentially promising innovation in this respect is the extended gate concept, where an inland hub becomes the ‘virtual gate’ of the deep sea terminal.


Supply Chain Business Model Freight Transport Empty Container Global Supply Chain 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Acciaro M, Haralambides HE (2007) Product bundling in global ocean transportation. In: Proceedings of the International Association of Maritime Economists (IAME) Annual Conference, Athens, GreeceGoogle Scholar
  2. Choong ST, Cole MH, Kutanoglu E (2002) Empty container management for intermodal transportation networks. Transp Res E 38(4):423–438CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Clott CB (2000) Non-vessel operating common carriers (NVOCCs) and maritime reform. Transp J 40(2):17–26Google Scholar
  4. Douma A (2008) Aligning the operations of barges and terminals through distributed planning. PhD thesis, University of TwenteGoogle Scholar
  5. Douma AM, Schutten JMJ, Schuur PC (2009) Waiting profiles: an efficient protocol for enabling distributed planning of barge rotations along terminals in the Port of Rotterdam. Transp Res C 17(2):133–148CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Franc P, Van der Horst MR (2010) Understanding hinterland service integration by shipping lines and terminal operators: a theoretical and empirical analysis. J Transp Geogr 18(4):557–566CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. IBM Consulting (2008) Global CEO study: the enterprise of the future, Available at
  8. Jula H, Chassiakos A, Ioannou P (2006) Port dynamic empty container reuse. Transp Res E 42(1):43–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Konings JW (2009) Intermodal barge transport: network design, nodes and competitiveness. PhD thesis, Technische Universiteit DelftGoogle Scholar
  10. Lai KH, Cheng TCE (2004) A study of the freight forwarding industry in Hong Kong. Int J Logistics: Res Appl 7(2): 71–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Langen PW de, Chouly A (2009) Strategies of terminal operators in changing environments. Int J Logistics: Res Appl 12(6):423–434CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Lee HL, Tang CS (1997) Modelling the costs and benefits of delayed product differentiation, Manage Sci 43(1):40–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Limao N, Venables AJ (2001) Infrastructure, geographical disadvantage and transport costs. World Bank Econ Rev. 15:451–479CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Margretta J (2002) Why business models matter. Harvard Bus Rev 80(5):86–92Google Scholar
  15. Midoro R, Musso E, Parola F (2005) Maritime liner shipping and the stevedoring industry: market structure and competition strategies. Marit Policy Manage 32(2):89–106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Notteboom T (2008) The relationship between seaports and the intermodal hinterland in light of global supply chains: European challenges, Discussion Paper No. 2008-10, OECD—International Transport Forum, ParisGoogle Scholar
  17. Notteboom TE, Rodrigue JP (2005) Port regionalization: towards a new phase in port development. Marit Policy Manage 32(3):297–313CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Notteboom T, Rodrigue J-P (2008) Containerization, box logistics and global supply chains: the integration of ports and liner shipping networks. Marit Econ Logistics 10(1–2):152–174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Ostenwalder A, Pigneu Y, Tucci CL (2005) Clarifying business models: origins, present, and future of the concept. Communications of AIS, 15Google Scholar
  20. Shafer SM, Smith HJ, Linder JC (2005) The power of business models. Bus Horiz 48:199–207CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Van der Horst MR, de Langen P.W (2008) Coordination in hinterland transport chains: a major challenge for the seaport community. Marit Econ Logistics 10(2):108–129CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Van Rooy B (2010) Applying hub-and-spoke networks to inland barge transportation: a quantitative and qualitative analysis for a port terminal operator. Master's thesis, Eindhoven University of TechnologyGoogle Scholar
  23. Win A (2008) The value a 4PL provider can contribute to an organisation. Int J Phys Distrib Logistics Manage 38(9):674–684CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Peter W. de Langen
    • 1
    • 2
  • Jan C. Fransoo
    • 1
    Email author
  • Ben van Rooy
    • 3
  1. 1.School of Industrial Engineering, Eindhoven University of TechnologyEindhovenThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Department Corporate StrategyPort of Rotterdam AuthorityRotterdamThe Netherlands
  3. 3.Brabant IntermodalBrabantThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations