Ann Oper Res

DOI 10.1007/s10479-015-1912-7

Priority control of berth allocation problem in container

terminals

Evrim Ursavas1

© The Author(s) 2015. This article is published with open access at Springerlink.com

Abstract This paper presents a decision support system for the core problem of berth allo-
cation decision in a container terminal. The allocation of berths to the calling vessels is
complex with the fact that different service level requirements are required for different ves-
sels. Terminal managers demand for effective decision support systems that would aid them
with the allocation problem considering service priorities. Consequently, this study provides
a DSS, built by a dynamic discrete-event simulation model embedded with an optimization
tool that determines the priority controls for the berth allocation to the calling vessels. To
show the practical application of the DSS, a comprehensive case study from a Turkish con-
tainer terminal considering the current state and future expansion plans that also provides an
indication of the usability aspect of the program on other ports around the world has been
conducted. Further experiments are conducted based on data from the Port of Rotterdam. The
DSS presented in this study may help port authorities in determining more efficient allocation
decisions within a container terminal.

Keywords Port management · Simulation optimization · Berth allocation · Container

terminal operations

1 Introduction

With the high demand of sea trade, container transportation has been the core of modern
logistics, and container terminals are considered as key nodes of international transportation.
Container terminals are complex dynamic systems intertwined with many activities. Among
those operations berth allocation problem can be considered as one of the major issues as it is
this operation that drives the whole port management process. When a vessel arrives at a port,
it must be anchored at a specified berth by the terminal planners. In Multi-User Terminals

B Evrim Ursavas
[email protected]
1 Department of Operations, Faculty of Economics and Business, University of Groningen, Groningen,
The Netherlands

123
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
 Ann Oper Res

(MUT) where berths are dynamically allocated to calling vessels and are not always assigned
to specific berth locations such as in Dedicated Terminals (DT), berth planning becomes the
root of all operations. An inefficient decision in the berth allocation phase affects all the
other applications connected to this and may increase the service period and costs. Existing
literature has demonstrated that employing flexible vessel-berth-order allocation without
taking into account the First-Come-First-Served (FCFS) rule, higher productivity can be
obtained (Imai et al. 2008). Following the FCFS rule and treating every vessel without any
differentiated priority may have severe results up to the loss of current leading customers.
Terminal managers are therefore enforced to operate their berths under intelligent strategies.
In practice, vessels with high container volume prefer to be given priority over small vessels.
In general the ship priority depends on the total throughput per shipping line. Accordingly, the
ship size can be regarded as a variable for the priority index which is often closely correlated
to the significance of the shipping company (Imai et al. 2003). However, terminal operators
must also consider the issue of smaller vessels where they may be dominated by large vessels
having much higher handling times. From the above discussions, it is apparent that a decision
support tool that would help terminal operators in making efficient berth allocation decisions
under dynamic terminal settings is of high necessity.
The contribution of this article consists of providing terminal managers a decision support
tool, convenient for use in different type of berth layouts, for the berth allocation problem
considering service level differentiations amongst vessels. The DSS employs an architec-
ture to generate solutions for the user intervened problem cases. Given the importance of
stochastic nature of the container terminal operations, a discrete event simulation model,
with an embedded optimization module based on meta-heuristics, is developed for the core
component of the decision support system.
The remainder of this paper is organized as follows: Following section will put forward
the related literature. The problem will be explained in detail in Sect. 3. Next, proposed
system structure will be presented. Subsequently, system applications and analysis will be
presented. Finally, the last section will be devoted to concluding remarks and future work.

2 Literature review

The need for effective decision making strategies for managing container terminal operations
has become certainly obvious and therefore the area has attracted many researchers into the
subject (Carlo et al. 2013; Vis and Koster 2003; Steenken et al. 2004; Stahlbock and Voß
2008). In this review, studies handling berth allocation problem considering vessel priorities
will be summarized first. Next, studies that capture the stochastic nature of the problem will
be put forward. Last, previous literature on decision support systems developed for use in
container terminals will be presented.
With regard to the studies dealing with the berth allocation problem and together consider-
ing different levels of vessel priorities, Imai et al. (2003) employed a genetic algorithm based
heuristic to solve the nonlinear problem by defining priorities through assigning weights to
the vessels related by their handling volumes within the objective function. Hansen et al.
(2008) imposed ship dependent premiums and penalty costs for handling priority issues and
aimed to minimize total costs made up of waiting, handling, earliness and lateness costs.
In Imai et al. (2007), a bi-objective berth allocation problem where weights are employed
to distinguish between the dissimilar vessel priorities minimizing vessel delays and total
service time is presented. Saharidis et al. (2010) categorized the vessels as preferential or

123
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Ann Oper Res

non-preferential and have considered the maximization of preferential customer satisfaction

to be more important than port’s total throughput. They used hierarchical optimization frame-
work, using hierarchical structure that distinguishes between two contradictory objectives
port managers come across for the berth allocation problem. Guan et al. (2002) assigned
weights to the vessels according to their sizes which were used within the objective function
where the aim was to minimize the total weighted completion time of vessel service. Guan
and Cheung (2004) defined a weight coefficient for each vessel and they optimized the total
weighted flow time using a method that combines tree procedure and a heuristic. Study by
Cordeau et al. (2005) is based on multi depot vehicle routing problem with time windows in
which the objective is the minimization of the total weighted service time. Boile et al. (2006)
linearized the berth allocation formulation presented by Imai et al. (2003) and proposed
heuristic solutions to solve large instances of the problem with the objective to minimize the
weighted total service time. Golias et al. (2006) introduced time window service deadlines
with the aim to minimize late vessel departures and maximize early/timely departures of
vessels using two separate objective functions. Subsequently, Boile et al. (2007) presented
a multiobjective optimization approach where customers were differentiated by the use of
a different objective function for each customer. Lai and Shih (1992) proposed a heuristic
algorithm for berth allocation problem considering a FCFS policy for more efficient terminal
usage in the HIT terminal of Hong Kong. Imai et al. (2008) studied BAP at a terminal where
the berth capacities are very limited. They considered berth allocation at the restricted space,
which gives the possibility of allocating some ships to another terminal. This study con-
tributes to the literature on berth allocation by extending the work on priority considerations
through a decision tool for determining priority controls based on simulation optimization.
The priority controls are studied in further detail by considering additional factors such as
berth-vessel link and different terminal configurations.
One crucial aspect of container terminal operations is the presence of uncertainty. The
positioning problem of the vessels in the decision space without overlapping each other and
while satisfying several constraints is in the class of NP. In such problems, it may not be
possible to find short-time optimal solutions for the problems arising from the complicated
practice situations. Instead, the objective becomes to find satisfactory results within reason-
able time. This need has led to a significant stimulation in the development of heuristic solution
methods. Indeed, heuristics and simulation are the methods widely used for the solution of
the berth allocation problem. Studies reflecting the presence of uncertainty whilst planning
the container terminal operations are relatively few. For the berth allocation problem, Zhou
and Kang (2008) have used the genetic algorithm to search through the solution space and
compared it with the greedy algorithm. The procedure of the algorithm is designed so as
to reduce the search space based on the characteristics of the optimal solution. Constraints
of the stochastic model are considered in the processes of individuals coding, initializing,
crossover and mutation operations and also within the fitness function by employing suf-
ficient punishment value. The genetic algorithm proposed has significantly improved the
greedy algorithm solutions. Golias et al. (2007) proposed a conceptual formulation and four
solution approaches for the berth allocation problem: Markov Chain Monte Carlo Based
Heuristic, Stochastic Online Scheduling Based Heuristic, Deterministic Based Heuristic and
Genetic Algorithm Based Approach. Han et al. (2010) worked on the problem with stochastic
arrival and handling times. A simulation based genetic algorithm search procedure is applied
to generate schedules proactively. The procedure applies a genetic algorithm framework, and
incorporates a simulation module using Monte Carlo sampling to evaluate the performance
of each single chromosome. The search procedure terminates when the maximum number of
generations is achieved. Several researchers have applied the simulated annealing heuristic

123
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
 Ann Oper Res

for solving the quayside related problems (Zhen et al. 2011; Du et al. 2010; Rajeeva and
Chung 2006). The Simulated Annealing is based on cooling behavior of heated solid metal
(Kirpatrick et al. 1983). Discrete-event simulation is also utilized to tackle the problem under
stochastic nature (Yun and Choi 1999; Kim et al. 2003; Parola and Sciomachen 2005; Vis
2006; Pietro et al. 2008). Vis (2006) compared the performance of manned straddle carriers
and automated stacking cranes in container terminals by means of a simulation study. The
data used in the study by Pietro et al. (2008) is based on Gioia Tauro Container Terminal
in Italy. First, a queuing network model is proposed and described for the berth allocation
problem. Due to the complexity of the problem and the need for dynamic evaluation of
decision policies using an analytical approach to the solution the model is discouraged and
discrete-event simulation model is performed.
Subsequently, decision support systems that deal with the operations and planning of
containers developed by researchers in the field will be presented. Bandeira et al. (2009)
developed a decision support system that considers the flow of full containers together with
the flow of empty containers. The case modelled as a multiple-depot vehicle scheduling
problem is tackled in two interconnected stages where first allocation and movement of
containers are determined and then this static solution is unfolded in a time schedule. Murty
et al. (2005) proposed a decision support system where numerous interrelated daily decisions
at a container terminal are handled. The aim of the DSS use is to minimize the berthing time of
vessels, the resources needed for handling the workload, the waiting time of customer trucks,
and the congestion on the roads and at the storage blocks and docks inside the terminal as
well as to make the best use of the storage space. Ngai et al. (2007) presented the development
of a prototype system in a container depot with radio frequency identification capabilities.
Shen and Khoong (1995) proposed a decision support system using network optimization to
model empty container repositioning.
This study aims to fill a gap in the literature by further incorporating real life aspects during
actual implementation of the berth allocation problem. In summary, this study contributes to
the literature on decision support systems with the following features:

• A novel dynamic priority control structure is embedded within the system which is
designed for use in container terminal operations reflecting practical restrictions.
• Uncertainty in vessel arrivals and handling times are reflected to provide practically mean-
ingful results.
• The DSS is convenient for use in different type of berth layouts such as peninsula type
layouts, continuous quays or indented berth structure that is used for fast-handling of
mega-container ships.
• Berths of different types working with individual productivity rates can be entered into
the system.
• Definition of vessel classes can be based on different features such as vessel size and TEU
(twenty-foot equivalent unit) volume.

These new features lead to a novel system for the berth allocation problem. The proposed
model-driven decision support system is evaluated through an extensive case study in the
container terminal in Izmir, Turkey and data from the Port of Rotterdam in the Netherlands.
Real-world features to be included are put forward by the port decision makers and on
site observations. High flexibility is attained by a good level of parameterization enabling the
decision maker to use the DSS under numerous settings that may appear in practice. The DSS
is then validated by the users and the practical usability is found satisfactory and suitable.
The next section is dedicated to explaining the details of the studied problem.

123
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Ann Oper Res

Time

Handling
time

Quay
Length
Berthing
position

Fig. 1 Berth allocation problem

3 Berth allocation problem

Berth Allocation Problem in a container terminal can be described as the problem of allocating
berth space to vessels. It aims to optimally assign vessels to berthing space along a quay.
Figure 1 illustrates the problem in a two-dimensional space.
The strategy used when determining the berth-vessel link directly affects the port per-
formance indicators. There are different strategies that may be followed; where the most
common ones are first come first served, largest vessel first and shortest job first policies.
Port authorities state that more sophisticated strategies require the use of efficient decision
support tools and strategies that allow for differentiating service levels for different customer
classes are considered as an essential support for effective use of berth facilities.
In world terminals, different types of terminal layouts in terms of berth characteristics
may be observed. A major difference affecting the berth allocation strategy to be followed
is the existence of dissimilarities among handling equipment, proximity to storage spaces
and facilities between berths. Overall, these have an effect on the handling time of vessels
serviced at specific berths. It may also be the case that berths in a container terminal has
approximately similar handling rates. This is more common in terminal layouts where a
peninsula shaped land space is used for berthing. Figure 2 depicts a layout of a terminal
with a peninsula structure. This type of layout can often be observed in terminals around the
world which gives the advantage of having longer quay space and similar proximity to the
container storage yard which is typically placed in the centre. For instance, this layout can
be seen in the ECT Container Terminal within the Port of Rotterdam in the Netherlands and
at the Port of Izmir in Turkey.
As vessels of different types enter into the port they are directed to berths where there
is available space. In case of congestion, they are held at the port horizon until they are
directed to the quay queues following terminal planner instructions. In practice, the vessels
are accompanied by tug boats and terminal personnel to the determined quay where they are
soon to be berthed. Here, the terminal planner needs the support of a DSS to decide where
to direct the vessels. Accordingly, the proposed DSS incorporates the following allocation
strategies and priority control procedures for use in different terminal settings.

123
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
 Ann Oper Res

Fig. 2 Peninsula shaped

terminal layout

Procedure A Dedicated terminal configuration where specific berths are exclusively

reserved for specific shipping companies are used. This strategy is straightforward to apply in
practice, however it is still included within DSS features to allow for comparison of different
polices for tactical decisions.
Procedure B Vessels kept at the port horizon are directed to the first available berth from
a single queue. Vessel arriving first will be served first.
Procedure C Vessels with the shortest processing time waiting at the port horizon will be
served first.
Procedure D In case of congestion, vessels are directed to the quay queues with the least
number of waiting vessels. The waiting line of quays is organized by a priority control
mechanism where the priority of each vessel is increased dynamically through time based
increments with regard to its vessel class. Priority control is managed by the optimization
module using scatter search methodology which determines priority increase index during
the waiting period of each type of vessel class to maximize the total throughput of the system.
Let us define pr k (t) as the instantaneous priority index for class k vessel at time t. At time
t + Δt the priority index will be incremented by the amount computed through the system.
Accordingly, vessels with longer waiting times will have priority over the vessels of the same
class. However, it is possible for a vessel j of class k arriving at time t + Δt to have higher
priority over the previously arrived vessels within lower class.
Procedure E In case of berths with different handling rates, the handling rate of each berth
class should also be considered when directing the vessels toward quays. Vessels are held at
the port horizon until total number of vessels in quay queues of different handling rate levels
meet certain levels computed by preference index π j of vessel j. Users have the option of
assigning π j values through the user interface. Vessels are then directed towards the quay
where they are soon to be serviced. The quay that the vessel will be assigned to is controlled
by the priority control mechanism. Operators will keep track of the number of vessels waiting
in the waiting line for each berth class. When a defined threshold level for the berth class is
met, the vessel will be allowed to enter the quay. These threshold levels are dependent on the
vessel and berth classes and are determined through the optimization module using scatter
search methodology. Let us define τkm as the threshold level for vessel class k and berth class
m. Then, a vessel j within class k will enter the quay when the number of vessels waiting
will meet τkm .

123
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Ann Oper Res

The first three policies A, B and C are more general and commonly used by container
terminal planners. Policies D and E proposed by this study are more complex and require
the additional support of decision support systems. The obtained critical levels through those
polices has a critical impact on container terminals’ performance indicators. Studies focusing
on manufacturing companies’ production capacity levels have also underlined the need for
such strategies with different characteristics (Shi et al. 2014; Zhou et al. 2007, 2009). Figure 3
illustrates the overall system view of the mentioned polices where arrival rate for a class–k
vessel is denoted by λk and service rate at class-m berth is indicated by μm .
Following section is devoted to the explanation of the developed system’s architecture
that embraces the aforementioned policies.

4 System architecture

The model-driven DSS is a software designed to run in a PC environment under Microsoft

Windows. It employs an architecture to generate solutions for the user intervened problem
cases. Major components of the DSS contain the user interface for input parameters, report
visualization, the database management system for storing the data related with the terminal
and the core of the DSS where the model is solved in compliance with the solution algorithm.
Microsoft Access is used for the database. The procedures and the interaction with the
simulation based optimization algorithm are developed by Visual Basic 6.0. Simulation is
developed with Rockwell Software Arena 11.0. Figure 4 illustrates the main components of
the model-driven DSS.

4.1 Simulation optimization

The solution methodology is built upon simulation and optimization modules that interact
together exchanging model output results and decision variable values. Figure 5 depicts the
procedure. The optimization module feeds the simulation module by supplying trial values
for decision variable values. The solution value is computed through the execution of the
simulation model. The generated output is returned to the optimization module to guide in
the selection of a new trial solution. The process is repeated until a termination criterion is
met. The solution with the best fitness value is returned to the user.

4.2 Simulation model

Figure 6 shows the simulation process view of events and activities. The system is initiated
by the arrival announcements of vessels belonging to different classes. This is provided by
the input data. To aid decision makers in analysing a situation the model is designed to
provide a high degree of flexibility with a good level of parameterization. Primarily, the input
of the DSS consists of parameters related with vessel classes, vessel size, container loads,
arrival schedules, terminal physical characteristics, berth types and handling rates. Further
parameters are related with preference indexes π defined for vessels. Altering one or more
of these parameters will have an impact on the whole system and consequently on the results
reported to the user.
Vessel classifications may be based on vessel size or TEU volumes. Vessel size is often
closely correlated by the significance of the company. Hence, port managers may opt for
giving higher priority to more powerful companies. On the other hand, as mentioned by port
authorities, TEU volumes handled within the port may also be used as an indication for the

123
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
 Berth Class 1
Allocaon policy Service at Berth
Waing for available berth
Arrival to the Port Policy A:

• Dedicated terminal configuraon .

123
• Specific berths are reserved for specific .
companies .
. μ1
Class 1
Policy B:
Vessel(s)
.
λ1 • Vessels kept at the port horizon are
directed to the first available berth from
.
Class 2 a single queue.
Vessel(s) Service Time depends on:
Arrival Policy C: .
λ2
announcement .
• Quay Crane availability
• Vessels kept at the port horizon are
. • Yard condions
Class 3 directed to the first available berth from
• Yard Crane specificaons
Vessel(s) a single queue.
λ3 . • Container storage space locaon
. Policy D: • Container volume

. • Vessels are directed to the quay queues .

with the least number of waing vessels
. . Berth Class m
• The waing line of quays is organized by
Class k a priority control mechanism where the .
priority of each vessel prk (t) is
Vessel(s) λk τ km prk (t)
increased dynamically through me .
πj based increments with regard to its .
. μm
vessel class
Vessel classes may be based on .
Policy E
• Container volume
Waing line managed by:
• Preference index πj • Vessels are held at the port horizon unl
• Vessel size total number of vessels in quay queues • Dynamic priority control based
of different handling rate levels meet on vessel class and me
certain levels computed by preference increments- prk (t)
index π j of vessel j. • Threshold level rule where
• When a defined threshold level τ km for when the threshold level τ km
the berth class is met, the vessel will be for the berth class is met, the
allowed to enter the quay. vessel will be allowed to enter
the quay.

Fig. 3 System view of allocation policies

Ann Oper Res

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Ann Oper Res

DBMS
Parameters /System
data

Programming
Application
Simulation- DSS Core
Optimization
module

User interface

Parameters Reports

Fig. 4 DSS architecture

Fig. 5 Solution methodology

preference index. In this case, although less influential, terminal managers may still favour
smaller shipping companies with high TEU volumes handled within the port. The vessel
preferences based on the classification type used are managed by user input preferences and
the model priority control mechanism. Users have the option of assigning preference weights
to vessel classes through the user interface.
Following the arrival announcements, vessels are directed to their quays depending on the
berth allocation policy. The berth allocation policy is determined through user options. The
handling time of the vessel is dependent on the berth being served, container volumes of the
vessels and yard conditions. Vessels completing the service can be unmoored from the berth
and depart to the next port of destination. This ends the simulation for the entity.

123
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
 Ann Oper Res

Arrivals for vessels of No

Berth allocation policy Is berth available? Wait in queue
Arrival announcement all classes

Yes

Handling operations

Departure

End

Fig. 6 Berth allocation process model

4.2.1 Model validation

In the context of computer models it is essential to check the accuracy of the model’s rep-
resentation of the real system with respect to its intended application (Sargent 2005). For
the developed DSS, historical real data are used to obtain targets that are used as a measure
to compare the model’s outputs within 95 % confidence intervals. Explicitly, weekly vessel
arrival and departure data in 2011 at the Port of Izmir are examined. Table 1 shows the vessels
with actual arrivals and departures for the week of November 7.
Current berth allocation strategy is generally based on dedicated terminal configuration
(Procedure A) and allocation of berths according to the arrival sequence (Procedure B).
More specifically, for particular shipping companies dedicated berths are utilized. These are
carefully detected within the data for accurate evaluations. Average time between the arrival
and the departure of a vessel is 19.96 hours distributed with gamma. Consequently, similar
input setting is applied through the model to obtain an average service time through the model
from 100 model replications. In 95 % of repeated trials of the simulation model, the sample
mean is reported as 20.39 within the interval ±1.73 half width. Accordingly, to assess the
validity, the model estimate of the service time are compared to the past data of μ0 : 19.96
hours. Comparison of the upper and lower control limits of the estimated data to the past data
are 2.16 and 1.3, respectively. These differences are less than the established epsilon values,
given as the maximum difference between the estimate and the real data to allow decisions
to be based on simulation outputs.

4.3 Optimization module:

The priority control indexes and threshold levels within the system are managed by an
optimization module in OptQuest. Microsoft Visual Basic 6.0 is used for the programming
interfaces. The module uses the scatter search methodology to find the optimum set of values
for the decision variables by executing the simulation model through running several scenarios
for each set of inputs in order to maximize the objective function. The scatter search meta-
heuristic is similar to Genetic Algorithms in the sense that they both operate on a set of
solutions that is maintained from iteration to iteration. The algorithm seeks to find an optimal

123
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Ann Oper Res

Table 1 Vessel arrival and departure data of Port of Izmir

Ship id Ship name Arrival time Departure time

1 MSC1 November 7th, 06:15 November 7th, 23:15

2 NPT November 7th, 17:00 November 9th, 00:30
3 MRS1 November 8th, 00:30 November 8th, 16:15
4 HMS1 November 8th, 00:00 November 8th, 15:15
5 WW1 November 8th, 01:50 November 8th, 11:55
6 KPE1 November 8th, 02:25 November 9th, 00:15
7 VDB1 November 8th, 08:50 November 8th, 21:00
8 ORK1 November 8th, 17:30 November 9th, 22:15
9 WND1 November 8th, 18:30 November 9th, 15:10
10 LYQ1 November 8th, 21:50 November 9th, 08:20
11 MAR1 November 9th, 02:00 November 9th, 22:45
12 MSC2 November 9th, 03:15 November 9th, 17:00
13 MRS2 November 9th, 16:30 November 10th, 15:40
14 HMS2 November 10th, 00:40 November 10th, 13:30
15 WW2 November 10th, 18:45 November 12th, 06:00
16 KPE2 November 11th, 05:30 November 12th, 05:40
17 VDB2 November 11th, 10:20 November 12th, 16:45
18 ORK2 November 11th, 15:35 November 12th, 17:00
19 WND2 November 12th, 09:45 November 13th, 02:30
20 LYQ2 November 12th, 10:15 November 12th, 17:25
21 MAR2 November 13th, 07:15 November 14th, 10:30

solution to a problem defined on a set X of bounded variables. Algorithm starts by generating

an initial population of reference points that is a population of X vectors. This includes the
following points
xi = li + (u i − li )/2 for i = 1, . . . , n
where L = (li : i = 1, . . . , n) is the set of lower bound values and U = (u i : i = 1, . . . , n)
is the set of upper bound values for all xi ∈ X . As in the genetic algorithms preserving a
diverse set of solutions within the population is crucial for preventing sub-optimal solutions.
The tolerance value to determine whether the two solutions are equal is set as 0.0001. The
population size is set to 100. The fitness value of each solution is evaluated through the
execution of the simulation model. Next, two reference points are selected from the population
to form four offspring as follows:
X3 = X1 + d
X4 = X1 − d
X5 = X2 + d
X6 = X2 − d
where
d = (X 1 − X 2 )/3

123
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
 Ann Oper Res

Iteration ends by replacing the worst parent with the best offspring. More detailed description
of the scatter search methodology can be seen in Glover et al. (1996).
Within the DSS, these control variables, denoted as xi , are the priority change levels,
that is the difference between prk (t) and prk (t + t) during the waiting period of each
type of vessel class for Procedure D and threshold levels, τkm , for vessel-berth class pairs
in Procedure E. The algorithm searches for best possible values for these variables trying to
maximize the throughput of the system. The objective function calculation for each candidate
solution is calculated through the execution of the simulation model considering to minimize
the expected total service time of vessels with a number of replications for a reliable estima-
tion. The finishing time of vessels will be dependent upon the handling time of the vessels
considering the berth class they are served at. This handling time is based on several factors
such as crane availabilities, yard conditions and storage locations of containers. For Policy
D, the waiting line of berths, represented in the simulation component, is controlled by a
priority control mechanism where the priority of each vessel is dynamically updated. The
optimization module using scatter search methodology will determine those priorities prk (t)
defined on a set of bounded variables considering the best solution obtained within the set.
For Policy E, vessels will be allowed to enter the quay when a defined threshold level τkm for
the berth class is met. These threshold levels are dependent on the vessel and berth classes.
As depicted in Fig. 5, the simulation model will be rerun with a new set of variables until a
termination condition is met. More specifically the simulation will be executed on a set of
bounded variables for the threshold levels and the optimization engine will search for the
best possible set of values considering the overall objective.

5 System applications and analysis

The use of the DSS will be demonstrated through the application of the model in differ-
ent type of container terminal settings. The terminal investigated thoroughly for the DSS
demonstration is the container terminal in the Port of Izmir, Turkey, which actually enables
the model’s behaviour to be evaluated under different settings due to the future expansion
plans that are also considered throughout the experiments. Hence, studying the port of Izmir
will enable the model’s usage to be assessed for more general use in other ports in the world.
Mainly, the current state of the port and the future state where expansion of the port and
the berthing facilities are planned are evaluated. For these two main scenarios, the model’s
behavior will further be assessed under different traffic volumes that will be based on vessel
arrival data of the Uniport Container Terminal within the Port of Rotterdam. This provides
the ability of demonstrating the model’s usage under different arrival volumes that could be
observed in larger ports around the world.

5.1 Current terminal configuration experiments

Currently, the container terminal in the Port of Izmir is divided into several quays, which in
turn are divided into berths. Quays are 600, 400 and 360 m long. Each quay corresponds to
a linear stretch of space in the terminal. The vessels can be berthed along the quay provided
that the vessel length restrictions are met and there is space available after the mooring of
other vessels. The container terminal lies in a peninsula shaped land where the store yard is
positioned in the centre. As stated by the port authorities, the berths are considered to have
similar handling rates. Yard equipment is similarly distributed among berths and the handling
time depends on the container loads of the vessels and vessel restrictions.

123
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Ann Oper Res

For this demonstration the vessels are classified according to their sizes. The three classes
identified are as small (<120 m), medium (between 120 and 200 m) and large (>200 m).
User intervened preference weights for vessel classes are given as 0.6; 0.3 and 0.1 for large,
medium and small vessels, respectively. This was mentioned as a part of the port strategic
policy reflecting agreements between shipping companies and the port. Nonetheless, port
authorities still needed decision tools to guide them for meeting the requirements in the most
efficient way. Policy D, previously explained in Sect. 3 is initially selected for the detailed
explanation of the DSS implementation.
Next, vessel arrival data, vessel size, TEU loads, handling time of vessels should be entered
into the system. When relevant information is put into the system, after the DSS has been run,
the terminal manager will have supporting information as how to manage the allocation of
berths to the incoming vessels. This information will be towards maximizing the throughput
of the port. With regard to entering vessel related data, users have the alternatives of choosing
between entering a fixed schedule considering the expected arrival times of vessels or a past
data that will be used to calculate the appropriate distribution functions to be used for future
arrivals.
To further clarify this input parameter, it should be mentioned that commonly, terminals
operate with weekly Expected Time of Arrivals (ETA) provided by the shipping lines. This
weekly data consisting of expected arrival date and time of each vessel together with TEU
capacities may be supplied into the system through the user interface. These data are usually
stored in common office programs such as MS Excel which can be given as an input into the
proposed system. Alternatively, users may also pass past data related with vessel arrivals and
container volumes.
The following experiments are based on past annual data between 01.01.2011 and
31.12.2011 including vessels’ names, berthing times, departure times, vessel size, and TEU
volume. By entering these data the system will calculate the appropriate distributions used
within the model. It should be noted that ease of use has been one of the important require-
ments stated by terminal planners and accordingly the user does not need to provide the
relevant distribution functions. Nevertheless, for detailed analysis, here, main distributions
calculated by the system but kept optional for the users to check are as follows:
The best fit distribution for inter-arrival times in minutes is found as Gamma distribution
with parameters (349, 1.17). Vessel size is normally distributed with mean 171 and stan-
dard deviation 35.2 m. TEU amounts of vessels fits to the following Erlang distribution
function: 0.999+ ERLA(288,2). TEU distributions for different vessel sizes classified into
three categories and processing time functions based on past data with respect to TEU vol-
umes calculated through regression analysis is shown in Table 2. The need for separating
the processing times for each class has been specifically stated by the terminal managers
due to the fact that different vessel classes may have specific restrictions which affects the
processing times. For instance, number of cranes allocated to vessels is dependent on the
vessel size and agreement between the shipping companies or larger vessels may require
additional assistance and time while mooring.
As a next step, the decision variables, that is, the priority control indexes for vessel types
should be calculated through the optimization module. A terminating condition should first be
determined. For this, several pilot runs are conducted to give an indication of the performance
of the optimization engine. Through trials, it has been observed that after 250 iterations very
little improvement has been obtained. Taking a conservative approach, maximum number
of iterations is set as 300. The best solution obtained at the end of iterations determines the
values of the decision variables. Using the optimization module, the priority control indexes
for vessel types are found as 25, 23 and 20 for large, medium and small vessels respectively.

123
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
 Ann Oper Res

Table 2 TEU amount and processing time distributions

Vessel class TEU volume (in TEUs) Processing times (h)

Large vessels 51 + GAMM(884 + 1,114) 13.0 + 0.0161* TEU

Average vessels 27 + GAMM(876 + 1,15) 7.45 + 0.0267 * TEU
Small vessels 0.99 + GAMM(856 + 1,25) 2.00 + 0.0683* TEU

Fig. 7 Average waiting times under different berth allocation strategies

Further runs realized with 100 replications, setting replication length as 30 days, the
throughput of the system is found as 106 vessels within a month. Average waiting times of
vessels in queue for large, average and small ships are 9.1, 8.6 and 8.1 h. An important fact
that caught the attention of the terminal planners was that by analyzing the relative priority
control indexes for vessel classes although the port authority is in favour of larger vessels, it
is also imperative to pay attention to the small vessels to increase the total throughput of the
terminal.
To exemplify the potential use of the DSS in tactical decision making by the terminal
planners, the effect of using different policies is demonstrated through further experiments.
Figure 7 summarizes the model results of implementing different policies on waiting times
for different vessel classes. Outcomes on waiting times for policies B, C and different con-
figurations of Policy D reveal the effect of using different strategies. Policy B emphasizes
the arrival times of vessels without considering vessel classes. Consequently, more balanced
waiting time duration amongst vessel classes is observed. Policy C favours vessels of smaller
classes giving priority to shortest processing times. Accordingly, shorter waiting times for
smaller vessels are attained, whereas larger vessels are negatively affected by this decision
policy. Policy D considers user intervened user preferences and also works on finding optimal
threshold values for allocating vessels to the berths. The results reveal a balanced distribu-
tion of waiting times amongst vessel classes. To further analyze the effect of user intervened
preferences, Policy D is examined under an additional setting, named D2, where user inter-
vened preferences are omitted. From the results it can be observed that smaller vessels would
benefit more from this strategy. The results comply with the previous study by Zhou and
Kang (2006), where they stated that benefits are attainable in terminals where ship-to berth
assignments are employed without the FCFS basis. The DSS developed in this study, details

123
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Ann Oper Res

these benefits and provides the terminal planners an environment to analyze the outcome of
different strategies. It is then up to the decision maker to implement a strategy that would be
in line with the port strategy and support their agreements with shipping companies.

5.1.1 Increased traffic volume

It is also important to consider the use of the DSS in larger ports in the world, such as
within the Port of Rotterdam. Further experiments are based on vessel traffic density between
01.01.2013 and 01.06.2013 for the Uniport Container Terminal within the Port of Rotterdam.
This corresponds to approximately twice as many vessel arrivals compared to the container
terminal in Izmir. The inter-arrivals are distributed with Gamma (173,1.15). Similar berth
characteristics are assumed in order for the terminal planners to predict future state with
increased traffic. The user intervened preference weights are given as equal for each of the
vessel classes which implies that there is no user preference weight for different vessel classes.
In this setting, running the optimization module gives the values of priority increases
for vessel classes as 95, 30 and 5 for small, medium and large vessels respectively. The
average throughput of the system is increased to 213 vessels. Average waiting times are
recorded as 8.47, 16.67 and 37.81 h for small, medium and large vessels respectively. One
important difference as compared to the previous experiment is that with the absence of user
intervened preference factors for each vessel class, relative priority control indexes show
higher variations. According to the results, it can be seen that giving more preference to
smaller vessels is more beneficial for maximizing the throughput of the system. However, it
is still important to check the system’s behaviour under each different terminal setting and
parameter values.

5.2 Expansion of the port facilities

Subsequently, further experiments are conducted under different terminal settings. Expansion
plans of the port of Izmir are considered. Total value of investments is calculated approxi-
mately as 170 million US dollars. An important aspect with respect to the berthing decisions
with the expansion of the port is that due to the additional quays that will be constructed
outside the peninsula formed space, berths are expected to have different handling times
with different equipment used and dissimilar distances to the container storage yards. This
leads to changes in the service time and parameters. This terminal type refers to terminals
where there are clear differences among berths. In this setting a solution procedure where
different handling times of vessels berthed at different quays should be considered. A vessel
will receive faster service when berthed at faster quays. This type of setting is generally com-
mon among terminals around the world where a continuous quay space structure is present.
The new structure should be handled correctly under the proposed DSS. Policy E, which
considers berth classes, is adopted for the berth allocation strategy.
To further explore the capabilities of the DSS, in the following experiments, vessels are
classified according to their TEU volumes. If a vessel is carrying less than or equal to 500
TEUs it will be referred to as small. Likewise, in case of a TEU volume of between 500 and
1000 TEUs it will be characterized as medium, and for larger volumes it will be called as a
large vessel. User intervened preference weights for vessel classes are given as 0.6; 0.3 and
0.1 for large, medium and small vessels, respectively.
Within the future expansion plans the berths that are expected to have different handling
rates that may be classified as fast, medium and slow. The processing times set by the support
of terminal planners are given in Table 3.

123
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
 Ann Oper Res

Table 3 Processing time for each vessel class

Vessel types Fast berth Medium berth Slow berth

Large 15 + 0.0114*TEU 25.2 + 0.0114*TEU 35 + 0.0114*TEU

Medium 1 + 0.0372*TEU 2.06 + 0.0372*TEU 5 + 0.0372*TEU
Small 3 + 0.0292*TEU 6.15 + 0.0292*TEU 9 + 0.0292*TEU

With the increased quay space, testing the model under current traffic of the Port of Izmir,
leads to no significant waiting times of vessels. Nearly all vessels may be served without the
occurrences of waiting lines. Due to this already anticipated result, further experiments are
realized under the increased traffic volume given in the earlier experiments.
Basically, with the existence of berths with different classes, all vessels will try to enter the
berths with the fastest processing times. However, in case of congestion, waiting lines will
occur and priority control mechanism must be applied for berth planning. Each vessel class
will have to wait at the port horizon until the determined threshold level for the vessel class
has been met. This will be determined through the user intervened vessel class preferences.
Subsequently, waiting lines of the queues will be managed by the use of the berth-class pair
threshold values computed through the optimization model. Execution of the optimization
algorithm provides the threshold values for berth-vessel class pairs, named v1 through v9
as 3,6,10,5,8,11,7,11,12, respectively. These values correspond to number of vessels waiting
in the queues. For instance a medium class vessel will get serviced at a fast berth if the
number of vessels in the fast class queue is less than or equal to the threshold value of v4.
It will be serviced at a medium berth if the number of vessels in the fast queue is larger
than v4 and number of vessels in the medium queue is less than or equal to v5. Finally,
it will be serviced at a slow berth if number of vessels in the fast queue is larger than v4
and number of vessels in the medium queue is larger than v5 and number of vessels in
the slow queue is less than or equal to v6. The experiment results show that together with
the preference of the large vessels the DSS balances the allocation of berths among vessel
classes.
Using policy E, average service times including waiting and processing durations are
found as approximately 39.5, 33.54 and 27.88 h for large, medium and small vessels. To
evaluate the effect of berth allocation policy on these outcomes experiments are continued
with adopting Policy C where differences among vessel and berth classes are not considered
during allocation phase. Comparison data are shown in Table 4. Outcomes reveal that waiting
times of vessels classes of large and medium are increased when Policy C is implemented.
This is mainly due to the fact that Policy C favours small vessels without considering priority
preferences among vessels. Smaller vessels are first released from the queue and allocated
to the first available berth without considering berth rate differences. The results suggest
that adopting different strategies will lead to changes in port performance figures. Developed
DSS allows terminal managers to experiment different strategies and aid them through the
decision of implementing the most suitable strategy.

5.3 Experimentation summary

The experiments are conducted on Intel I5 processor with 2.53 GHz clock. The response time
of the DSS varies between 2 and 7 min for the presented experiments. It should be noted that as
simulation is incorporated in the evaluation phase of the scatter search procedure and several

123
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Ann Oper Res

Table 4 Model outcomes for

Vessel types Waiting time (h) Processing time (h)
Policy C and E
Policy C Policy E Policy C Policy E

Large 37.81 4.04 42.73 35.47

Medium 16.67 5.68 27.70 27.86
Small 8.46 15.14 13.82 12.75

Fig. 8 Algorithm processing display

number of replications are required to obtain a reliable estimate of the objective function, the
complexity of the simulation model plays an important role in the running time of the model.
Higher running times are observed when for instance complex yard configurations are set.
Figure 8, shows the user interface where the processing of the algorithm can be observed
dynamically during the progress of the program. As an option, the user may interrupt the
process and obtain the best results obtained so far in case immediate results are required. In
the main, the running times are found to be reasonable and acceptable for practical use by
the terminal operators of the port.
Experimentations show that possible reductions in vessel service times are possible
through the use of berth allocation policies. Specific to the terminal configuration the results
suggest more efficient use of berthing facilities and allow the users to control the customer
service levels with respect to the shipping companies.
It should be noted that with the complexity of the system and the stochastic nature of the
arrival and service rates it may be misleading to make straightforward assumptions on the
behaviour of the system. Any change made in the preference weights, vessel arrivals or berth
handling rates will certainly affect these results. Accordingly the DSS model results should
be analyzed for each container terminal setting. Consequently, the aim of the experiments
demonstrated here is to demonstrate the usage and show the capabilities of the DSS. Although
we have realized extensive observations at the Port of Izmir the two different types of terminals
studied here are generic for other ports in the world as well. Furthermore, analysing the
model’s use in higher traffic enables the observation of the capabilities of the DSS in larger
ports around the world.

6 Conclusion

Today, importance of ports is increasing along with the increase of global trade volume.
This situation makes the efficiency of port management under the capacity constraints a
critical issue. Accordingly, berth allocation problem has become further significant due to

123
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
 Ann Oper Res

being the root of all operational problems within a port. With its complexity, port authorities
demand for effective decision support tools to support this decision making process. Due to
this necessity, a DSS is designed for the BAP, in collaboration with the port authorities. The
problem focused is the BAP considering vessel preferences and port objectives.
The literature is extended by developing a DSS that manages the priority control mech-
anism reflecting the practical considerations and needs. A new model is designed using
simulation and optimization techniques. Embracing further facts linked with the berth allo-
cation problem and service priorities adds to the body of knowledge making the model more
convenient for real-world use. The DSS is designed to provide a high degree of flexibility with
a good level of parameterization allowing users to work under different terminal scenarios
and analyse situations in depth. Terminal planners can use the DSS for tactical and strate-
gic level decisions. The effects of changes in the terminal infrastructure can be investigated
through the use of the model.
The expansion of the DSS to include yard operations is an opportunity for a future work. A
model that will consider priority factors for the storage space allocation of containers within
the yard will enable the storage resources to be used more efficiently. In this scene, the priority
control mechanism can be enhanced to consider the detailed analysis of container movements
connected with the external gateways. This will enable the port authorities to obtain general
improvements in performance figures. However, remarkably increased complexity will be a
challenge to manage in this circumstance.

Acknowledgments The generous assistance and valuable information provided by the employees of Port
of Izmir and especially by Metin Ozyılmaz who provided excellent information and support throughout the
project are sincerely acknowledged.

Conflict of interest The authors decalre that they have no conlict of interest.

Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0
International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use,
distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original
author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were
made.

References
Bandeira, D. L., Becker, J. L., & Borenstein, D. (2009). A DSS for integrated distribution of empty and full
containers. Decision Support Systems, 47(4), 383–397.
Boile, M., Theofanis, S., & Golias, M. (2006, December). Berth allocation with service priorities: A linear
reformulation. In Proceedings of the 5th WSEAS/IASME international conference on system science and
simulation in engineering (ICOSSSE 2006) (pp. 16–18). Tenerife, Canary Islands, Spain.
Boile, M., Theofanis, S., Golias, M., & Coitb, D. (2007). Berth planning by customer service differentiation:
A multi-objective approach. In 11th World conference on transport research.
Canonaco, P., Legato, P., Mazza, R. M., & Musmanno, R. (2008). A queuing network model for the management
of berth crane operations. Computers & Operations Research, 35, 2432–2446.
Carlo, H. J., Vis, I. F., & Roodbergen, K. J. (2013). Seaside operations in container terminals: Literature
overview, trends, and research directions. Flexible Services and Manufacturing Journal, 27(2–3), 224–
262.
Cordeau, J. F., Laporte, G., Legato, P., & Moccia, L. (2005). Models and tabu search heuristics for the berth-
allocation problem. Transportation Science, 39(4), 526–538.
Du, Y., Xu, Y., Chen, Q. (2010). A feedback procedure for robust berth allocation with stochastic vessel delays,
Center for Logistics Technology, Nankai University, Tianjin 300071, P. R. China.

123
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Ann Oper Res

Glover, F., Kelly, J. P., & Laguna, M. (1996). New advances and applications of combining simulation and
optimization. In: J. M. Charnes, D. J. Morrice, D. T. Brunner, & J. J. Swain (Eds.), Proceedings of the
1996 winter simulation conference (pp. 144–152).
Golias, M., Boile, M., & Theofanis, S. (2006). The berth allocation problem: a formulation reflecting time
window service deadlines. In Proceedings of the 48th transportation research forum annual meeting.
Boston (MA): Transportation Research Forum.
Golias, M., Boile, M., & Theofanis, S. (2007). The stochastic berth allocation problem. In Proceedings of the
international conference on transport science and technology (TRANSTEC 2007) (pp. 52–66).
Guan, Y., & Cheung, R. K. (2004). The berth allocation problem: Models and solution methods. OR Spectrum,
26(1), 75–92.
Guan, Y., Xiao, W. Q., Cheung, R. K., & Li, C. L. (2002). A multiprocessor task scheduling model for berth
allocation: Heuristic and worst-case analysis. Operations Research Letters, 30(5), 343–350.
Han, X. L., Lu, Z. Q., & Xi, L. F. (2010). A proactive approach for simultaneous berth and quay crane scheduling
problem with stochastic arrival and handling time. European Journal of Operational Research, 207(3),
1327–1340.
Hansen, P., Oğuz, C., & Mladenović, N. (2008). Variable neighborhood search for minimum cost berth allo-
cation. European Journal of Operational Research, 191(3), 636–649.
Imai, A., Chen, H. C., Nishimura, E., & Papadimitriou, S. (2008). The simultaneous berth and quay crane
allocation problem. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, 44(5), 900–
920.
Imai, A., Nishimura, E., & Papadimitriou, S. (2003). Berth allocation with service priority. Transportation
Research Part B: Methodological, 37(5), 437–457.
Imai, A., Nishimura, E., & Papadimitriou, S. (2008). Berthing ships at a multi-user container terminal with
a limited quay capacity. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, 44(1),
136–151.
Imai, A., Zhang, J. T., Nishimura, E., & Papadimitriou, S. (2007). The berth allocation problem with service
time and delay time objectives. Maritime Economics & Logistics, 9(4), 269–290.
Kim, K. H., Lee, K. M., & Hwang, H. (2003). Sequencing delivery and receiving operations for yard cranes
in port container terminals. International Journal of Production Economics, 84(3), 283–292.
Kirpatrick, S., Gelatt, C. D., & Vecchi, M. P. (1983). Optimization by simulated annealing. Science, 220,
671–681.
Lai, K. K., & Shih, K. (1992). A study of container berth allocation. Journal of Advanced Transportation,
26(1), 45–60.
Moorthy, R., & Teo, C. P. (2006). Berth management in container terminal: The template design problem. OR
Spectrum, 28, 495–518.
Murty, K. G., Liu, J., Wan, Y. W., & Linn, R. (2005). A decision support system for operations in a container
terminal. Decision Support Systems, 39(3), 309–332.
Ngai, E. W., Cheng, T. E., Au, S., & Lai, K. H. (2007). Mobile commerce integrated with RFID technology
in a container depot. Decision Support Systems, 43(1), 62–76.
Parola, F., & Sciomachen, A. (2005). Intermodal container flows in a port system network: Analysis of possible
growths via simulation models. International Journal of Production Economics, 97(1), 75–88.
Saharidis, G. K. D., Golias, M. M., Boile, M., Theofanis, S., & Ierapetritou, M. G. (2010). The berth scheduling
problem with customer differentiation: A new methodological approach based on hierarchical optimiza-
tion. The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, 46(1–4), 377–393.
Sargent, R. G. (2005, December). Verification and validation of simulation models. In Proceedings of the 37th
conference on winter simulation (pp. 130–143). Winter Simulation Conference.
Shen, W. S., & Khoong, C. M. (1995). A DSS for empty container distribution planning. Decision Support
Systems, 15(1), 75–82.
Shi, J., Katehakis, M. N., Melamed, B., & Xia, Y. (2014). Optimal continuous replenishment for inventory
systems with compound poisson demands and lost-sales. Operations Research, 6(5), 1048–1063.
Stahlbock, R., & Voß, S. (2008). Operations research at container terminals: A literature update. Or Spectrum,
30(1), 1–52.
Steenken, D., Voß, S., & Stahlbock, R. (2004). Container terminal operation and operations research—A
classification and literature review. OR spectrum, 26(1), 3–49.
Vis, I. F. (2006). A comparative analysis of storage and retrieval equipment at a container terminal. International
Journal of Production Economics, 103(2), 680–693.
Vis, I. F. A., & De Koster, R. (2003). Transshipment of containers at a container terminal: An overview.
European Journal of Operational Research., 147, 1–16.
Yun, W. Y., & Choi, Y. S. (1999). A simulation model for container-terminal operation analysis using an
object-oriented approach. International Journal of Production Economics, 59(1), 221–230.

123
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
 Ann Oper Res

Zhen, L., Lee, L. H., & Chew, E. P. (2011). A decision model for berth allocation under uncertainty. European
Journal of Operation research, 212(2011), 54–68.
Zhou, P., & Kang, H. (2008). Study on Berth and Quay-crane allocation under stochastic environments in
container terminal. Online English Edition of The Chinese Language Journal SETP, 2008(28), 161–169.
Zhou, B., Katehakis, M. N., & Zhao, Y. (2009). Managing stochastic inventory systems with free shipping
option. European Journal of Operational Research, 196(1), 186–197.
Zhou, B., Zhao, Y., & Katehakis, M. N. (2007). Effective control policies for stochastic inventory systems
with a minimum order quantity and linear costs. International Journal of Production Economics, 106(2),
523–531.

123
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Terms and Conditions
Springer Nature journal content, brought to you courtesy of Springer Nature Customer Service Center
GmbH (“Springer Nature”).
Springer Nature supports a reasonable amount of sharing of research papers by authors, subscribers
and authorised users (“Users”), for small-scale personal, non-commercial use provided that all
copyright, trade and service marks and other proprietary notices are maintained. By accessing,
sharing, receiving or otherwise using the Springer Nature journal content you agree to these terms of
use (“Terms”). For these purposes, Springer Nature considers academic use (by researchers and
students) to be non-commercial.
These Terms are supplementary and will apply in addition to any applicable website terms and
conditions, a relevant site licence or a personal subscription. These Terms will prevail over any
conflict or ambiguity with regards to the relevant terms, a site licence or a personal subscription (to
the extent of the conflict or ambiguity only). For Creative Commons-licensed articles, the terms of
the Creative Commons license used will apply.
We collect and use personal data to provide access to the Springer Nature journal content. We may
also use these personal data internally within ResearchGate and Springer Nature and as agreed share
it, in an anonymised way, for purposes of tracking, analysis and reporting. We will not otherwise
disclose your personal data outside the ResearchGate or the Springer Nature group of companies
unless we have your permission as detailed in the Privacy Policy.
While Users may use the Springer Nature journal content for small scale, personal non-commercial
use, it is important to note that Users may not:

1. use such content for the purpose of providing other users with access on a regular or large scale
basis or as a means to circumvent access control;
2. use such content where to do so would be considered a criminal or statutory offence in any
jurisdiction, or gives rise to civil liability, or is otherwise unlawful;
3. falsely or misleadingly imply or suggest endorsement, approval , sponsorship, or association
unless explicitly agreed to by Springer Nature in writing;
4. use bots or other automated methods to access the content or redirect messages
5. override any security feature or exclusionary protocol; or
6. share the content in order to create substitute for Springer Nature products or services or a
systematic database of Springer Nature journal content.
In line with the restriction against commercial use, Springer Nature does not permit the creation of a
product or service that creates revenue, royalties, rent or income from our content or its inclusion as
part of a paid for service or for other commercial gain. Springer Nature journal content cannot be
used for inter-library loans and librarians may not upload Springer Nature journal content on a large
scale into their, or any other, institutional repository.
These terms of use are reviewed regularly and may be amended at any time. Springer Nature is not
obligated to publish any information or content on this website and may remove it or features or
functionality at our sole discretion, at any time with or without notice. Springer Nature may revoke
this licence to you at any time and remove access to any copies of the Springer Nature journal content
which have been saved.
To the fullest extent permitted by law, Springer Nature makes no warranties, representations or
guarantees to Users, either express or implied with respect to the Springer nature journal content and
all parties disclaim and waive any implied warranties or warranties imposed by law, including
merchantability or fitness for any particular purpose.
Please note that these rights do not automatically extend to content, data or other material published
by Springer Nature that may be licensed from third parties.
If you would like to use or distribute our Springer Nature journal content to a wider audience or on a
regular basis or in any other manner not expressly permitted by these Terms, please contact Springer
Nature at

[email protected]