Submitted Successfully!
To reward your contribution, here is a gift for you: A free trial for our video production service.
Thank you for your contribution! You can also upload a video entry or images related to this topic.
Version Summary Created by Modification Content Size Created at Operation
1 -- 1769 2023-09-05 16:24:14 |
2 layout Meta information modification 1769 2023-09-06 02:56:35 |

Video Upload Options

Do you have a full video?

Confirm

Are you sure to Delete?
Cite
If you have any further questions, please contact Encyclopedia Editorial Office.
Pereira, G.R.B.; Guimarães, L.G.D.A.; Cimon, Y.; Da Silva Barreto, L.K.; Hermann Nodari, C. Assessing Logistics Maturity in Smart City Dimensions. Encyclopedia. Available online: https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/48840 (accessed on 16 June 2024).
Pereira GRB, Guimarães LGDA, Cimon Y, Da Silva Barreto LK, Hermann Nodari C. Assessing Logistics Maturity in Smart City Dimensions. Encyclopedia. Available at: https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/48840. Accessed June 16, 2024.
Pereira, Glauber Ruan Barbosa, Luciana Gondim De Almeida Guimarães, Yan Cimon, Lais Karla Da Silva Barreto, Cristine Hermann Nodari. "Assessing Logistics Maturity in Smart City Dimensions" Encyclopedia, https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/48840 (accessed June 16, 2024).
Pereira, G.R.B., Guimarães, L.G.D.A., Cimon, Y., Da Silva Barreto, L.K., & Hermann Nodari, C. (2023, September 05). Assessing Logistics Maturity in Smart City Dimensions. In Encyclopedia. https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/48840
Pereira, Glauber Ruan Barbosa, et al. "Assessing Logistics Maturity in Smart City Dimensions." Encyclopedia. Web. 05 September, 2023.
Assessing Logistics Maturity in Smart City Dimensions
Edit

The advancement of new technologies and the increasingly inseparable presence of logistics systems in the daily life of cities, industries, companies, and society has been modifying how logistics processes are implemented in these environments based on technological innovations, internet, virtual businesses, mobility, and the use of multi-channel distribution.

logistics maturity smart city smart city dimensions

1. Introduction

The growth of cities has been influenced over the last decades by social, economic, and technological transformations, resulting in the formation of urban spaces adjusted to the social dynamics of movement guided by the intense use of the internet and technological innovations, which have influenced the flow and mobility of people, transport, objects, services, and information in cities.
From this context, the search for solutions focused on logistics, mobility, infrastructure, business, environment, society, pollution, quality of life, and city management, under the smart city theme’s prism, has attracted experts’ and scientists’ attention. The topic of smart cities is linked, among other aspects, to the treatment given to its six dimensions: smart economy, smart environment, smart governance, smart life, smart people, and smart mobility, as highlighted by Taniguchi (2001), Giffinger et al. (2007), Cohen (2012), Dameri (2017), and The Smart City Model (2018). These axes are fundamental to be considered for developing cities with smart initiatives and their relationship with urban logistics (Giffinger et al. 2007; Fernández-Güell et al. 2016; Dameri 2017).
In recent years, the increased flow of cars in urban areas has resulted in traffic congestion, environmental, air and noise pollution, traffic accidents, and greenhouse gas emissions (Dameri 2017). Forecasts show that the activities of transport companies concerning 2005 will have grown by around 40% in 2030 and over 80% in 2050. At the same time, passenger transport could also increase by 34% in 2030 and 51% in 2050. With the advancement of this mobility pattern, the problem could be even bigger in 2050, when passenger cars can contribute more than 60% of the total passenger transport (Kiba-Janiak 2016).

2. Logistics in the Smart City Dimensions

The review of some scientific works observed in the research by Cheshmberah and Beheshtikia (2020) in the area of supply chain management, a field of study related to logistics, has categorized the dimensions of maturity with the dimensions presented here. The research by Cheshmberah and Beheshtikia (2020) identifies, among other dimensions, human resources, environment, social responsibility, logistics, and planning (policy making). While Gonzalez-Feliu et al. (2020) presented in their study an analysis of the elements that must be included in the design of an urban logistics maturity model, which are practices, processes, stakeholders, and their relationships, and issues related to information flow management and physical, which can help in the planning and decision-making process. In this way, these studies can contribute to and expand the understanding of the dimensions embarked on in this work on smart cities, which seeks to discuss a model of logistical maturity in dimensions related to the economy, environment, governance, quality of life, mobility, and people.
The logistics approach applied to the smart economy concept arises from the smart mobility project, specific to the city for the movement of people and industrial and commercial goods, and urban transport, supported using the internet, digitalization, and automation of transport processes (Kumar and Dahiya 2017). In the study by Moustaka et al. (2017), some correlations between smart economy and logistics are pointed out, highlighting the financial concern of stakeholders with the local government budget, the existence of urban planning for mobility, and its aspects related to the city, and organization and control of activities related to the area of logistics, transport, and urban mobility.
Applying the smart city concept in some cities is not an isolated phenomenon but an integral part of a broader transition to a digital economy. The dimensions of smart cities were created based on aspects related to their needs, limitations, challenges, and growth prospects related to mobility, economy, governance, environment, people, and quality of life (Giffinger et al. 2007; Caragliu et al. 2011; Dameri 2017).
Within the smart environment dimension, some aspects of urban life stand out, linked to efficiency and sustainability supported by technologies. For example, smart sensors help identify levels of air pollution caused by traffic and are equally used to solve the problem of garbage collection and recycling through route optimization and efficient use of container space of collection trucks, reducing traffic pollution (Giffinger et al. 2007; Giffinger and Gudrun 2010; Caragliu et al. 2011; Nam and Pardo 2011; Meeus et al. 2011; Cohen 2012; Neirotti et al. 2014; Angelidou 2017; Dameri 2017).
Regarding the objective of smart governance, researchers seek to build public governance with a digital perspective, making the offer of public services dynamic and providing access to documents and public information simply and transparently (Giffinger et al. 2007; Giffinger and Gudrun 2010; Caragliu et al. 2011; Lombardi et al. 2012; Neirotti et al. 2014; Dameri 2017). To Kumar and Dahiya (2017), Albino et al. (2015), and Dameri (2017), there are other aspects of smart governance linked to logistics factors, which are: (i) local, national, and global regulations that affect city logistics (passenger and cargo traffic, environmental protection, road safety, etc.); (ii) transparency of public investments in logistics, transport, and mobility; and (iii) e-government.
The quality of life in the context of logistics in a smart city stands out for (i) the promotion of collective or ecological individual transport among citizens; (ii) the promotion of ecological cargo transport between transport and logistics companies; (iii) the application of digital transport monitoring systems, intelligent transport systems; and (iv) monitoring of future trends in the field of city logistics (Kiba-Janiak 2016; Cohen 2012). From the people’s (smart people’s) point of view, some other aspects are found in the literature, which are: (i) social aspects, such as those related to safe road transport, availability of personnel, experience, and knowledge; (ii) the experience of the city’s logistics stakeholders in the implementation of ideas and solutions that allow the improvement of passenger and cargo traffic; (iii) the residents’ inclination to use environmentally-friendly transport in a city; for example, the use of eco-friendly vehicles, or bicycles for commuting (Kiba-Janiak 2016).
Mobility is among the most discussed components in the smart city field. In this sense, Albino et al. (2015) define smart mobility as “the use of information and communication technology in modern transport technologies to improve urban traffic”. Vanolo (2014) refers to smart mobility as “local accessibility, availability of Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs), modern, sustainable, and safe transport systems”. The topic of mobility is an important aspect of growing cities. Transporting people and goods within the city is crucial for developing the economy and everyday life. This issue makes the concept of mobility greater than transport or traffic (Graser et al. 2019). The role of logistics in smart mobility is to rationalize traffic and better manage the fleet of different modes to organize the distribution of products and materials efficiently, seeking to alleviate the intense flow attributed to urban centers due to the growth of cities in decades (Thorne and Griffiths 2014; Albino et al. 2015; Caragliu et al. 2011). To Dameri (2017), smart mobility also seeks to achieve the following objectives: 1. reduce pollution; 2. reduce traffic congestion; 3. increase people’s safety; 4. reduce noise pollution; 5. improve transfer speed; 6. reduce transfer costs.
In recent years, the smart city theme has aligned with the proposal of solutions to problems identified in cities due to their rapid growth, pointed out by various city sectors. In this sense, creating evaluative models that best meet these needs has become a challenge for most specialists and researchers. Some models aligned with this theme are found in the works by Caragliu et al. (2011), entitled ‘Smart Cities in Europe’, Giffinger et al. (2007), in ‘The role of rankings in growing city competition’, and Cohen (2012), with ‘The smartest cities in the world 2015: Methodology’.

3. Maturity Models

Maturity models are increasingly popular frameworks to support assessment and guide organizational improvement. Most maturity models have their roots in the quality management movement, particularly in Deming’s (1993) plan-make-check-act cycle. This conceptual model was originally conceived by Crosby, who suggested a five-level structure to assess the quality of organizational processes (Crosby 1979). In the same vein, using this five-level framework as a basis, one of the first and most widely recognized maturity models was the capability maturity one developed for software, known as the ‘capability maturity model’ (CMM), developed by researchers at Carnegie Mellon University (Paulk et al. 1993). Based on the maturity model introduced by the Capability Maturity Model (CMM) concept, maturity models have proliferated across a multitude of domains (De Bruin et al. 2005).
The use of maturity models serves to identify the ideal path for the evolution of a process from an early stage to a more advanced stage, passing through several intermediate stages (Becker et al. 2009; Wendler 2012). These stages should be sequential and represent a hierarchical progression (Wendler 2012). At the earliest and least advanced stage, performance can be quite poor. As the stages progress, activities are carried out more systematically and are better defined and managed (Gimenez et al. 2017). Maturity approaches have been used in different fields, such as quality, processes, management, or software, showing the different purposes they can have (Fraser et al. 2002).
Another characteristic of a theoretical maturity model is that it aims to improve the efficiency and qualification of processes, systems, and activities through indicators and translate indicators into strategic information for interested agents (stakeholders). They can also assist in deciding how, why, where, and when to invest and help identify the cause and effect of changing an organization or field of inquiry; they also help in the evaluation and understanding of current resources to strategically identify the desired resources and determine the improvement activities that will allow the realization of these capabilities (Duncan et al. 1998).
Among the main advantages of using maturity models is the development of a governance structure, standardization, and integration of processes, use of performance metrics, control and continuous improvement of processes, commitment to project management, project prioritization and alignment with organizational strategy, use of criteria for continuation or termination of projects, measure the maturity of the organization’s project, program, and portfolio management. Gimenez et al. (2017) state that a maturity model can help public or private companies, industries, governments, or cities better understand their relationship with their external environment and stakeholders.
Regarding the development of smart cities and considering the activities related to transport logistics, theoretical maturity models can contribute to the activities qualification of the organizations’ logistics system in interface with the smart city dimensions to better improve and balance the urban space dynamics and the efficiency of the logistics services offered in the cities, addressing more accurate decision-making for managers regarding investment strategies, positioning, and adequacy of logistics activities to the built scenarios from the perspective of smart cities (Burger et al. 2011; Jin et al. 2014; Gonçalves Filho and Waterson 2018). This way, progressing paths from current maturity levels to desired levels form a clear roadmap for closing existing gaps.

References

  1. Taniguchi, Eiichi. 2001. City logistics. Infrastructure Planning Review 18: 1–16.
  2. Giffinger, Rudolf, Christian Fertner, Hans Kramar, and Evert Meijers. 2007. City-ranking of European medium-sized cities. Centre of Regional Science Vienna UT 9: 1–12.
  3. Cohen, Boyd. 2012. What Exactly Is a Smart City? Fast Co. Exist 19. Available online: https://www.fastcompany.com/1680538/what-exactly-is-a-smart-city (accessed on 13 September 2018).
  4. Dameri, Renata Paola. 2017. Smart City Implementation. Progress in IS. Genoa: Springer.
  5. The Smart City Model. 2018. European Smart Cities. Available online: http://www.smart-cities.eu/model.html (accessed on 10 July 2018).
  6. Fernández-Güell, José-Miguel, Silvia Guzmán-Araña, Marta Collado-Lara, and Victoria Fernández-Añez. 2016. How to incorporate urban complexity, diversity and intelligence into smart cities initiatives. In International Conference on Smart Cities. Cham: Springer, pp. 85–94.
  7. Kiba-Janiak, Maja. 2016. Key success factors for city logistics from the perspective of various groups of stakeholders. Transportation Research Procedia 12: 557–69.
  8. Cheshmberah, Mohsen, and Safoura Beheshtikia. 2020. Supply chain management maturity: An all-encompassing literature review on models, dimensions and approaches. LogForum 16: 103–16.
  9. Gonzalez-Feliu, Jesus, Mario Chong, Jorge Vargas-Florez, Irineu de Brito Jr., Carlos Osorio-Ramirez, Eric Piatyszek, and Renato Quiliche Altamirano. 2020. The maturity of humanitarian logistics against recurrent crises. Social Sciences 9: 90.
  10. Kumar, Vinod, and Bharat Dahiya. 2017. Smart economy in smart cities. In Smart Economy in Smart Cities. Singapore: Springer, pp. 3–76.
  11. Moustaka, Vaia, Athena Vakali, and Leonidas G. Anthopoulos. 2017. CityDNA: Smart city dimensions’ correlations for identifying urban profile. Paper presented at the 26th International Conference on World Wide Web Companion, Perth, Australia, April 3–7; pp. 1167–72.
  12. Caragliu, Andrea, Chiara Del Bo, and Peter Nijkamp. 2011. Smart cities in Europe. Journal of Urban Technology 18: 65–82.
  13. Giffinger, Rudolf, and Haindlmaier Gudrun. 2010. Smart cities ranking: An effective instrument for the positioning of the cities? ACE: Architecture, City and Environment 4: 7–26.
  14. Nam, Taewoo, and Theresa A. Pardo. 2011. Conceptualizing smart city with dimensions of technology, people, and institutions. Paper presented at the 12th Annual International Digital Government Research Conference: Digital Government Innovation in Challenging Times, College Park, MD, USA, June 12–15; pp. 282–91.
  15. Meeus, Leonardo, Eduardo De Oliveira Fernandes, Vitor Leal, Isabel Azevedo, Erik Delarue, and Jean-Michel Glachant. 2011. Smart Cities Initiative: How to Foster a Quick Transition towards Local Sustainable Energy Systems. Fiesole: European University Institute.
  16. Neirotti, Paolo, Alberto De Marco, Anna Corinna Cagliano, Giulio Mangano, and Francesco Scorrano. 2014. Current trends in Smart City initiatives: Some stylised facts. Cities 38: 25–36.
  17. Angelidou, Margarita. 2017. The role of smart city characteristics in the plans of fifteen cities. Journal of Urban Technology 24: 3–28.
  18. Lombardi, Patrizia, Silvia Giordano, Hend Farouh, and Wael Yousef. 2012. Modelling the smart city performance. Innovation: The European Journal of Social Science Research 25: 137–49.
  19. Albino, Vito, Umberto Berardi, and Rosa Maria Dangelico. 2015. Smart cities: Definitions, dimensions, performance, and initiatives. Journal of Urban Technology 22: 3–21.
  20. Vanolo, Alberto. 2014. Smartmentality: The smart city as disciplinary strategy. Urban Studies 51: 883–98.
  21. Graser, Kathrin, Dominik Krimpmann, and Georg Dehnhardt. 2019. Digital Disruption in Freight and Logistics. Ready to Roll? Available online: https://www.accenture.com/_acnmedia/pdf-53/accenture-digital-disruption-freight-logistics.pdf (accessed on 10 April 2019).
  22. Thorne, Claire, and Catherine Griffiths. 2014. Smart, smarter, smartest: Redefining our cities. In Smart City. Cham: Springer, pp. 89–99.
  23. Deming, William Edwards. 1993. The New Economics. Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Cambridge: Center for Advanced Engineering Study, p. 240.
  24. Crosby, Philip Bayard. 1979. Quality Is Free. New York: McGraw-Hill.
  25. Paulk, Mark Chrissis, Weber Charles, and Mary Beth. 1993. Capability Maturity Model for Software. Version 1.1. Pittsburgh: Software Engineering Institute, Carnegie-Mellon.
  26. De Bruin, Tonia, Michael Rosemann, Ronald Freeze, and Uday Kaulkarni. 2005. Understanding the main phases of developing a maturity assessment model. In Australasian Conference on Information Systems (ACIS). Sydney: Australasian Chapter of the Association for Information Systems, pp. 8–19.
  27. Becker, Jorg, Ralf Knackstedt, and Jens Pöppelbuß. 2009. Developing maturity models for IT management: A procedure model and its application. Business & Information Systems Engineering 1: 213–22.
  28. Wendler, Roy. 2012. The maturity of maturity model research: A systematic mapping study. Information and Software Technology 54: 1317–39.
  29. Gimenez, Raquel, Leire Labaka, and Josune Hernantes. 2017. A maturity model for the involvement of stakeholders in the city resilience building process. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 121: 7–16.
  30. Fraser, Peter, James Moultrie, and Mike Gregory. 2002. The use of maturity models/grids as a tool in assessing product development capability. IEEE International Engineering Management Conference 1: 244–249.
  31. Duncan, W. Jack, Peter M. Ginter, and Linda E. Swayne. 1998. Competitive advantage and internal organizational assessment. Academy of Management Perspectives 12: 6–16.
  32. Burger, Thomas, Walter Ganz, Giuditta Pezzotta, Mario Rapaccini, and Nicola Saccani. 2011. Service development for product services: A maturity model and field research. In 2011 RESER Conference Productivity of Services Next Gen-Beyond Output/Input. Hamburg: Fraunhofer, vol. 7.
  33. Jin, Jiong, Jayavardhana Gubbi, Slaven Marusic, and Marimuthu Palaniswami. 2014. An information framework for creating a smart city through internet of things. IEEE Internet of Things Journal 1: 112–21.
  34. Goncalves Filho, Anastacio Pinto, and Patrick Waterson. 2018. Maturity models and safety culture: A critical review. Safety Science 105: 192–211.
More
Information
Contributors MDPI registered users' name will be linked to their SciProfiles pages. To register with us, please refer to https://encyclopedia.pub/register : , , , ,
View Times: 208
Revisions: 2 times (View History)
Update Date: 06 Sep 2023
1000/1000
Video Production Service