Your browser does not fully support modern features. Please upgrade for a smoother experience.
Digital Transformation in Port Logistics: Comparison
View Latest Version
Please note this is a comparison between Version 2 by Jade Zhou and Version 1 by Zhenqing Su.

Digital transformation in port logistics represents a profound and systemic shift in the way maritime trade and supply chain operations are designed, coordinated, and governed through the pervasive integration of advanced digital technologies and data-driven management practices. It extends beyond the mere digitization of paper-based documents into electronic formats and beyond the digitalization of isolated processes with IT tools. Transformation involves reconfiguring organizational structures, decision-making logics, and value creation models around connectivity, automation, and predictive intelligence. In practice, it includes the adoption of smart port technologies such as the Internet of Things, 5G communication networks, digital twins, blockchain-based trade documentation, and artificial intelligence applied to vessel scheduling and cargo planning. It also encompasses collaborative platforms like port community systems that link shipping companies, terminal operators, freight forwarders, customs, and hinterland transport providers into data-driven ecosystems. The purpose of digital transformation is not only to improve efficiency and reduce operational bottlenecks, but also to enhance resilience against disruptions, ensure sustainability in line with decarbonization goals, and reposition ports as orchestrators of trade networks rather than passive providers of physical infrastructure.

  • digital transformation
  • port logistics
  • maritime transport
  • smart ports
  • supply chain management
  • blockchain
  • digital twin
  • resilience
Ports have long been the engines of globalization, serving as gateways for more than eighty percent of the world’s merchandise trade by volume [1]. Their performance shapes trade costs, influences supply chain strategies, and determines the competitiveness of national economies [2]. For most of the twentieth century, port logistics relied heavily on manual labor, mechanized handling equipment, and vast quantities of paperwork that governed the movement of goods [3,4][3][4]. Even after containerization revolutionized cargo handling in the 1960s and 1970s, the administrative backbone of shipping remained dominated by bills of lading, manifests, and clearance documents printed on paper and carried across offices [5]. The first wave of computerization, marked by the spread of electronic data interchange in the late twentieth century, reduced transcription errors and expedited customs declarations but did not fundamentally alter the organizational models of ports [6,7][6][7]. Gradually, community systems were established to centralize communication among port authorities, carriers, and terminal operators, while early automation in container yards introduced automated stacking cranes and guided vehicles [8,9][8][9]. Yet these initiatives often remained fragmented, leaving large parts of the logistics chain disconnected or dependent on legacy procedures [10].
The twenty-first century brought new pressures and opportunities that redefined the digital agenda of ports [11]. Global value chains became longer and more interdependent, requiring synchronized flows of goods across continents [12,13][12][13]. The competitive differentiation of ports was no longer determined solely by location or water depth, but increasingly by the reliability and transparency of their information systems. Emerging technologies such as artificial intelligence, big data analytics, and the Internet of Things offered the promise of real-time situational awareness, predictive planning, and adaptive optimization of resources [14]. At the same time, the challenges of congestion, environmental sustainability, and trade volatility underscored the limitations of paper-based and siloed processes. It is within this context that digital transformation emerged as a strategic imperative rather than a discretionary innovation [15,16][15][16].
The COVID-19 pandemic in 2020 served as an inflection point in this trajectory [17]. As lockdowns disrupted physical operations, labor shortages curtailed port capacity, and sudden shifts in demand produced volatility in shipping schedules, digital solutions were rapidly deployed to maintain continuity [18]. Remote customs clearance, contactless gate operations, blockchain-based health and crew management systems, and AI-driven forecasting of cargo flows became vital instruments of resilience [19,20][19][20]. Far from being temporary improvisations, these applications revealed structural weaknesses in traditional port logistics and accelerated the normalization of digital-first strategies. In the aftermath of the pandemic, digital transformation is increasingly recognized as an indispensable pillar of competitiveness and resilience in global shipping, a recognition reinforced by governments, international organizations, and industry associations alike [21].
The concept of transformation emphasizes that digital technologies must be embedded into the very fabric of logistics operations rather than bolted onto existing practices [22,23][22][23]. Digitization, which converts analog data such as bills of lading into PDFs, improves accessibility but does not change process logic [24,25][24][25]. Digitalization, which uses IT systems to enhance existing workflows such as online booking or RFID-enabled gate entries, increases efficiency but often perpetuates legacy inefficiencies [26]. True transformation occurs when technologies like digital twins enable managers to simulate entire port operations, test alternative policies, and optimize decisions proactively [27]. Similarly, blockchain-based bills of lading do not simply replace paper with digital files but reconfigure trust mechanisms and eliminate courier delays by providing immutable, instantly verifiable records [28]. Artificial intelligence applied to berth allocation does not merely speed up existing scheduling practices but allows for adaptive learning from real-time data, fundamentally altering how resources are assigned [29]. In this sense, digital transformation in port logistics is a reorganization of socio-technical systems encompassing technology, governance, human capital, and regulation.
The drivers of this transformation are multifaceted. From an operational perspective, ports seek to increase berth productivity, reduce vessel turnaround time, optimize yard utilization, and improve gate flows [30]. From a resilience standpoint, digital tools provide the ability to forecast disruptions such as weather events, labor strikes, or equipment failures, and to adjust proactively [31]. From a sustainability perspective, ports and carriers must comply with decarbonization targets set by the International Maritime Organization, requiring new approaches to monitoring, reporting, and verifying emissions [32]. Digital solutions such as IoT-enabled fuel monitoring, AI-powered route optimization, and automated energy management systems are indispensable for meeting these requirements [33]. Finally, from a strategic governance perspective, ports increasingly position themselves as ecosystem orchestrators rather than infrastructure landlords, facilitating collaboration across public agencies, private operators, and logistics service providers through shared platforms and interoperable data systems [34,35][34][35].
Examples from leading ports illustrate the tangible manifestations of digital transformation. The Port of Rotterdam has pioneered the use of digital twin technologies, creating virtual replicas of port operations that integrate meteorological data, vessel positions, and terminal performance metrics to simulate future scenarios [36]. The Port of Singapore has deployed extensive automation and AI-driven scheduling systems to handle record container volumes with high efficiency [37]. The Port of Antwerp has piloted blockchain solutions to secure container release processes, reducing fraud and delays. In China, the Port of Shanghai has leveraged 5G-enabled IoT networks for real-time monitoring of cargo and equipment [38]. These initiatives show that transformation is not theoretical but operational, producing measurable improvements in efficiency, transparency, and resilience [39].
Yet the path toward digital transformation is fraught with challenges. The high capital intensity of automation and advanced digital systems can exacerbate inequalities between major hubs and smaller regional ports, potentially excluding developing economies from the benefits of digital trade [40]. Interoperability remains a persistent issue, as proprietary standards and closed architectures create data silos and vendor lock-in. Cybersecurity risks escalate as more systems are connected, with the 2017 Maersk cyberattack serving as a reminder of the systemic vulnerabilities that can paralyze global shipping [41]. Organizational resistance also impedes transformation, as entrenched practices, lack of digital skills, and misaligned incentives discourage data sharing and collaborative innovation [42]. Addressing these barriers requires coordinated strategies that balance investment in infrastructure with investment in human capital, governance frameworks, and international regulatory harmonization [43].
Digital transformation in port logistics must therefore be understood as both a technological and an institutional project. It is not enough to procure IoT devices or AI software; success depends on cultivating a digital culture that values data-driven decision-making, on creating governance mechanisms that ensure fairness and accountability, and on developing skills across the workforce that bridge the gap between operational technology and information systems [44]. Ports that embrace this holistic perspective are more likely to achieve sustained competitiveness, resilience, and alignment with global sustainability agendas. As the maritime sector moves deeper into the digital era, the transformation of port logistics will not only reshape how goods move across oceans but also how value is created, distributed, and regulated in the global economy [45]. Accordingly, this entry adopts a socio-technical and institutional perspective to examine digital transformation in port logistics, recognizing that technological change is inseparable from governance structures, organizational capabilities, and regulatory environments. The logical structure of the paper is illustrated in Figure 1.

References

  1. Bonacich, E.; Wilson, J.B. Getting the Goods: Ports, Labor, and the Logistics Revolution; Cornell University Press: New York, NY, USA, 2011.
  2. Qi, Y.; Huo, B.; Wang, Z.; Yeung, H.Y.J. The impact of operations and supply chain strategies on integration and performance. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2017, 185, 162–174.
  3. Su, M.; Su, Z.; Cao, S.; Park, K.S.; Bae, S.H. Fuel consumption prediction and optimization model for pure car/truck transport ships. J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2023, 11, 1231.
  4. Goetschalckx, M.; Vidal, C.J.; Dogan, K. Modeling and design of global logistics systems: A review of integrated strategic and tactical models and design algorithms. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 2002, 143, 1–18.
  5. Wu, L. Containerization of Seafarers in the International Shipping Industry: Contemporary Seamanship, Maritime Social Infrastructures, and Mobility Politics of Global Logistics. Doctoral Dissertation, City University of New York, New York, NY, USA, 2024.
  6. Pfeiffer, H.K. The Diffusion of Electronic Data Interchange; Springer Science & Business Media: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2012.
  7. Boss, A.H. The international commercial use of electronic data interchange and electronic communications technologies. Bus. Lawyer 1991, 46, 1787–1802.
  8. Jasim, J.H. Management of Containers by the Use of Automatic Cranes-New Handling Method. Master’s Thesis, Chalmers University of Technology, Gothenburg, Sweden, 2015.
  9. Rodrigue, J.P.; Notteboom, T. Automation in container port systems and management. TR News 2021, 334, 20–25.
  10. Coe, N.M. Missing links: Logistics, governance and upgrading in a shifting global economy. Rev. Int. Political Econ. 2017, 21, 224–256.
  11. Pinder, D.; Slack, B. Shipping and Ports in the Twenty-First Century; Routledge: London, UK, 2012.
  12. Blyde, J.S. Synchronized Factories: Latin America and the Caribbean in the Era of Global Value Chains; Springer Nature: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2014; p. 141.
  13. Gereffi, G.; Lee, J. Why the world suddenly cares about global supply chains. J. Supply Chain Manag. 2012, 48, 24–32.
  14. Notteboom, T.; Yap, W.Y. Port competition and competitiveness. In The Blackwell Companion to Maritime Economics; Blackwell Publishing Ltd.: Oxford, UK, 2012; pp. 549–570.
  15. Meersman, H.; Van de Voorde, E.; Vanelslander, T. Port competition revisited. Rev. Bus. Econ. 2010, 55, 210–232.
  16. Zhou, X. Competition or cooperation: A simulation of the price strategy of ports. Int. J. Simul. Model. 2015, 14, 463–474.
  17. Sun, L.; Wang, Y.; Yang, Y.; Xiong, Y. The volatility in shipping market: Relationship between container freight rates and inflation. Res. Transp. Econ. 2025, 114, 101674.
  18. Notteboom, T.; Pallis, T.; Rodrigue, J.P. Disruptions and resilience in global container shipping and ports: The COVID-19 pandemic versus the 2008–2009 financial crisis. Marit. Econ. Logist. 2021, 23, 179.
  19. Su, Z.; Liu, Y.; Gao, Y.; Park, K.S.; Su, M. Critical success factors for green port transformation using digital technology. J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2024, 12, 2128.
  20. Su, M.; Su, Z.; Bae, S.H.; Li, J.; Park, K.S. An exploration of shipbuilding price prediction for container ships: An integrated model application of deep learning. Res. Transp. Bus. Manag. 2025, 59, 101248.
  21. Mourtzis, D.; Panopoulos, N. Digital transformation process towards resilient production systems and networks. In Supply Network Dynamics and Control; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2022; pp. 11–42.
  22. Mergel, I.; Edelmann, N.; Haug, N. Defining digital transformation: Results from expert interviews. Gov. Inf. Q. 2019, 36, 101385.
  23. Van Veldhoven, Z.; Vanthienen, J. Digital transformation as an interaction-driven perspective between business, society, and technology. Electron. Mark. 2022, 32, 629–644.
  24. Wunderlich, S.; Saive, D. The electronic bill of lading: Challenges of paperless trade. In International Congress on Blockchain and Applications; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2019; pp. 93–100.
  25. Smerichevska, S.V.; Prodanova, L.; Yakushev, O. Digitization of logistics and supply chain management. Intellectualization Logist. Supply Chain Manag. 2024, 26, 113–123.
  26. Legner, C.; Eymann, T.; Hess, T.; Matt, C.; Böhmann, T.; Drews, P.; Mädche, A.; Urbach, N.; Ahlemann, F. Digitalization: Opportunity and challenge for the business and information systems engineering community. Bus. Inf. Syst. Eng. 2017, 59, 301–308.
  27. Park, K.; Kim, M.; Bae, H. A predictive discrete event simulation for predicting operation times in container terminal. IEEE Access 2024, 12, 58801–58822.
  28. Walker, A. Blockchain and the Supply Chain. 2019. Available online: https://wpassets.porttechnology.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/25160842/CSUN.pdf (accessed on 12 January 2025).
  29. Zhu, J.; Fan, F.; Pu, C.; Tai, N.; Huang, W.; Li, C. Multi-Task Trustworthy Learning for Optimal Scheduling of Port Energy-Logistics Integrated Microgrids. IEEE Trans. Ind. Appl. 2025; early access.
  30. Saragiotis, P. Business process management in the port sector: A literature review. Marit. Bus. Rev. 2019, 4, 49–70.
  31. Rane, N.; Choudhary, S.; Rane, J. Artificial intelligence for enhancing resilience. J. Appl. Artif. Intell. 2024, 5, 1–33.
  32. McKinnon, A. Decarbonizing Logistics: Distributing Goods in a Low Carbon World; Kogan Page Publishers: London, UK, 2018.
  33. Zhang, Y.; Su, Z.; Li, J.; Su, M.; Bae, S.H. Doing shipping well with predictions: Machine learning-based port congestion analysis. Marit. Policy Manag. 2025, 1–22.
  34. Su, Z.; Park, K.S.; Liu, Z.; Su, M. Key factors for non-polar use of the Northern Sea Route: A Korean point of view. J. Transp. Geogr. 2025, 124, 104183.
  35. Li, A.; Zhao, J.; Su, Z.; Su, M. Does Industrial Structure Upgrading Promote China’s Outward Foreign Direct Investment (OFDI) in ASEAN Countries? Evidence from Provincial Panels. Economies 2024, 12, 228.
  36. Issa, M.; Rizk, P.; Boulon, L.; Rezkallah, M.; Rizk, R.; Ilinca, A. Smart, connected, and sustainable: The transformation of maritime ports through electrification, IoT, 5G, and green energy. Sustainability 2025, 17, 7568.
  37. Yang, Y.C.; Hsieh, Y.H. The critical success factors of smart port digitalization development in the post-COVID-19 era. Case Stud. Transp. Policy 2024, 17, 101231.
  38. Daamen, T. Strategy as Force: Towards Effective Strategies for Urban Development Projects: The Case of Rotterdam City Ports; IOS Press: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2010.
  39. Bosman, R.; Loorbach, D.; Rotmans, J.; Van Raak, R. Carbon lock-out: Leading the fossil port of Rotterdam into transition. Sustainability 2018, 10, 2558.
  40. Andrade, M.J.; Jiménez-Morales, E.; Rodríguez-Ramos, R.; Martínez-Ramírez, P. Reuse of port industrial heritage in tourist cities: Shipyards as case studies. Front. Archit. Res. 2024, 13, 164–183.
  41. Valenciaport, F. Smart Ports Manual: Strategy and Roadmap; Inter-American Development Bank: Washington, DC, USA, 2020.
  42. Jacobs, W.A.A. Political Economy of Port Competition: Institutional Analyses of Rotterdam, Southern California and Dubai; Academic Press Europe: Nijmegen, The Netherlands, 2007.
  43. Konvitz, J.W. Cities & the Sea: Port City Planning in Early Modern Europe; JHU Press: Baltimore, MD, USA, 2020.
  44. Hein, C.; van Mil, Y.; Momirski, L.A. (Eds.) Port City Atlas: Mapping European Port City Territories: From Understanding to Design; TU Delft OPEN Publishing: Delft, The Netherlands, 2023.
  45. Hsu, C.T.; Chou, M.T.; Ding, J.F. Key factors for the success of smart ports during the post-pandemic era. Ocean Coast. Manag. 2023, 233, 106455.
More
© Text is available under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)
Academic Video Service
Feedback