Yard crane scheduling at container terminals: A comparative study of centralized and decentralized approaches

Yard crane scheduling at container terminals: A comparative study of centralized and decentralized approaches

This article presents a comparative study of two contrasting approaches for modeling the yard crane scheduling problem: centralized and decentralized. It seeks to assess their relative performances and factors that affect their performances. Our analysis shows that the centralized approach outperfor...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Maritime economics & logistics 2012-06, Vol.14 (2), p.139-161
Hauptverfasser: Sharif, Omor, Huynh, Nathan
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Business and Management
Comparative analysis
Comparative studies
Cranes & hoists
Design of experiments
Emissions
Integer programming
Logistics
Motor carriers
Operations Management
Optimization
Original Article
Ports
Scheduling
Studies
Trucks
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 161
container_issue 2
container_start_page 139
container_title Maritime economics & logistics
container_volume 14
creator Sharif, Omor
Huynh, Nathan
description This article presents a comparative study of two contrasting approaches for modeling the yard crane scheduling problem: centralized and decentralized. It seeks to assess their relative performances and factors that affect their performances. Our analysis shows that the centralized approach outperforms the decentralized approach by 16.5 per cent on average, due to having complete and accurate information about future truck arrivals. While it underperforms the centralized, the decentralized approach can dynamically adapt to real-time truck arrivals, making it better suited for real-life operations. Overall, our analysis suggests that the two approaches offer complementary features that could be integrated into a hybrid approach.
doi_str_mv 10.1057/mel.2012.1
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_1011132750</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2652498891</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c426t-f941529bca092fbae5e40da1c2af2c092381d6b1f71d14dc6da07636f979dfcc3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNplkE1rHDEMhoeSQDebXvoLDL2l7May56OTWwj5JNBLAunJaG15M2G-ansDm18fTbYsLT3IEq8fvbKVZV9BLkEW1WlH7VJJUEv4lM0gr-qFqvOng32t4XN2FOOLlKwXepZ1vzA4YQP2JKJ9Jrdpm34tMAk79AmbnoJIFLqmxzaeiXOWuxEDpuaVG9LGbcXghaU-BWybN3ICeycc_aOMYxiQzeNxdujZh778yfPs8ery4eJmcf_z-vbi_H5hc1Wmha9zKFS9sihr5VdIBeXSIViFXlnW9A9w5Qp8BQ5yZ0uHsip16euqdt5aPc--7Xx58O8NxWRehk2YvmBAAoBWVSGZOtlRNgwxBvJmDE2HYcuQmdZpeJ1mWqcBhu92cKCR7J4cseVMtjWvRiPkfGw5Ppo0NlPJMU53ujZQgnlOHZt935lF9unXFP5-33-j3wFBwpIF</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1011132750</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Yard crane scheduling at container terminals: A comparative study of centralized and decentralized approaches</title><source>RePEc</source><source>SpringerNature Complete Journals</source><creator>Sharif, Omor ; Huynh, Nathan</creator><creatorcontrib>Sharif, Omor ; Huynh, Nathan</creatorcontrib><description>This article presents a comparative study of two contrasting approaches for modeling the yard crane scheduling problem: centralized and decentralized. It seeks to assess their relative performances and factors that affect their performances. Our analysis shows that the centralized approach outperforms the decentralized approach by 16.5 per cent on average, due to having complete and accurate information about future truck arrivals. While it underperforms the centralized, the decentralized approach can dynamically adapt to real-time truck arrivals, making it better suited for real-life operations. Overall, our analysis suggests that the two approaches offer complementary features that could be integrated into a hybrid approach.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1479-2931</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1479-294X</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1057/mel.2012.1</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>London: Palgrave Macmillan UK</publisher><subject>Business and Management ; Comparative analysis ; Comparative studies ; Cranes &amp; hoists ; Design of experiments ; Emissions ; Integer programming ; Logistics ; Motor carriers ; Operations Management ; Optimization ; Original Article ; Ports ; Scheduling ; Studies ; Trucks</subject><ispartof>Maritime economics &amp; logistics, 2012-06, Vol.14 (2), p.139-161</ispartof><rights>Palgrave Macmillan, a division of Macmillan Publishers Ltd 2012</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c426t-f941529bca092fbae5e40da1c2af2c092381d6b1f71d14dc6da07636f979dfcc3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c426t-f941529bca092fbae5e40da1c2af2c092381d6b1f71d14dc6da07636f979dfcc3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1057/mel.2012.1$$EPDF$$P50$$Gspringer$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/10.1057/mel.2012.1$$EHTML$$P50$$Gspringer$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,4008,27924,27925,41488,42557,51319</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttp://econpapers.repec.org/article/palmarecl/v_3a14_3ay_3a2012_3ai_3a2_3ap_3a139-161.htm$$DView record in RePEc$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Sharif, Omor</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Huynh, Nathan</creatorcontrib><title>Yard crane scheduling at container terminals: A comparative study of centralized and decentralized approaches</title><title>Maritime economics &amp; logistics</title><addtitle>Marit Econ Logist</addtitle><description>This article presents a comparative study of two contrasting approaches for modeling the yard crane scheduling problem: centralized and decentralized. It seeks to assess their relative performances and factors that affect their performances. Our analysis shows that the centralized approach outperforms the decentralized approach by 16.5 per cent on average, due to having complete and accurate information about future truck arrivals. While it underperforms the centralized, the decentralized approach can dynamically adapt to real-time truck arrivals, making it better suited for real-life operations. Overall, our analysis suggests that the two approaches offer complementary features that could be integrated into a hybrid approach.</description><subject>Business and Management</subject><subject>Comparative analysis</subject><subject>Comparative studies</subject><subject>Cranes &amp; hoists</subject><subject>Design of experiments</subject><subject>Emissions</subject><subject>Integer programming</subject><subject>Logistics</subject><subject>Motor carriers</subject><subject>Operations Management</subject><subject>Optimization</subject><subject>Original Article</subject><subject>Ports</subject><subject>Scheduling</subject><subject>Studies</subject><subject>Trucks</subject><issn>1479-2931</issn><issn>1479-294X</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2012</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>X2L</sourceid><sourceid>8G5</sourceid><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><sourceid>GNUQQ</sourceid><sourceid>GUQSH</sourceid><sourceid>M2O</sourceid><recordid>eNplkE1rHDEMhoeSQDebXvoLDL2l7May56OTWwj5JNBLAunJaG15M2G-ansDm18fTbYsLT3IEq8fvbKVZV9BLkEW1WlH7VJJUEv4lM0gr-qFqvOng32t4XN2FOOLlKwXepZ1vzA4YQP2JKJ9Jrdpm34tMAk79AmbnoJIFLqmxzaeiXOWuxEDpuaVG9LGbcXghaU-BWybN3ICeycc_aOMYxiQzeNxdujZh778yfPs8ery4eJmcf_z-vbi_H5hc1Wmha9zKFS9sihr5VdIBeXSIViFXlnW9A9w5Qp8BQ5yZ0uHsip16euqdt5aPc--7Xx58O8NxWRehk2YvmBAAoBWVSGZOtlRNgwxBvJmDE2HYcuQmdZpeJ1mWqcBhu92cKCR7J4cseVMtjWvRiPkfGw5Ppo0NlPJMU53ujZQgnlOHZt935lF9unXFP5-33-j3wFBwpIF</recordid><startdate>20120601</startdate><enddate>20120601</enddate><creator>Sharif, Omor</creator><creator>Huynh, Nathan</creator><general>Palgrave Macmillan UK</general><general>Palgrave Macmillan</general><scope>DKI</scope><scope>X2L</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7TN</scope><scope>7WY</scope><scope>7WZ</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>87Z</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FG</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>8FL</scope><scope>8G5</scope><scope>ABJCF</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BEZIV</scope><scope>BGLVJ</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>BKSAR</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>F1W</scope><scope>FRNLG</scope><scope>F~G</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>GUQSH</scope><scope>H96</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>K60</scope><scope>K6~</scope><scope>L.-</scope><scope>L.G</scope><scope>L6V</scope><scope>M0C</scope><scope>M2O</scope><scope>M7S</scope><scope>MBDVC</scope><scope>PCBAR</scope><scope>PQBIZ</scope><scope>PQBZA</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PTHSS</scope><scope>Q9U</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20120601</creationdate><title>Yard crane scheduling at container terminals: A comparative study of centralized and decentralized approaches</title><author>Sharif, Omor ; Huynh, Nathan</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c426t-f941529bca092fbae5e40da1c2af2c092381d6b1f71d14dc6da07636f979dfcc3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2012</creationdate><topic>Business and Management</topic><topic>Comparative analysis</topic><topic>Comparative studies</topic><topic>Cranes &amp; hoists</topic><topic>Design of experiments</topic><topic>Emissions</topic><topic>Integer programming</topic><topic>Logistics</topic><topic>Motor carriers</topic><topic>Operations Management</topic><topic>Optimization</topic><topic>Original Article</topic><topic>Ports</topic><topic>Scheduling</topic><topic>Studies</topic><topic>Trucks</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Sharif, Omor</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Huynh, Nathan</creatorcontrib><collection>RePEc IDEAS</collection><collection>RePEc</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Oceanic Abstracts</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Collection</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global (PDF only)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Technology Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Research Library (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Materials Science &amp; Engineering Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>AUTh Library subscriptions: ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest Business Premium Collection</collection><collection>Technology Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Earth, Atmospheric &amp; Aquatic Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>ASFA: Aquatic Sciences and Fisheries Abstracts</collection><collection>Business Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global (Corporate)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>Research Library Prep</collection><collection>Aquatic Science &amp; Fisheries Abstracts (ASFA) 2: Ocean Technology, Policy &amp; Non-Living Resources</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Business Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Business Collection</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Professional Advanced</collection><collection>Aquatic Science &amp; Fisheries Abstracts (ASFA) Professional</collection><collection>ProQuest Engineering Collection</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM global</collection><collection>ProQuest research library</collection><collection>Engineering Database</collection><collection>Research Library (Corporate)</collection><collection>Earth, Atmospheric &amp; Aquatic Science Database</collection><collection>One Business (ProQuest)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Business (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>Engineering collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><jtitle>Maritime economics &amp; logistics</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Sharif, Omor</au><au>Huynh, Nathan</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Yard crane scheduling at container terminals: A comparative study of centralized and decentralized approaches</atitle><jtitle>Maritime economics &amp; logistics</jtitle><stitle>Marit Econ Logist</stitle><date>2012-06-01</date><risdate>2012</risdate><volume>14</volume><issue>2</issue><spage>139</spage><epage>161</epage><pages>139-161</pages><issn>1479-2931</issn><eissn>1479-294X</eissn><abstract>This article presents a comparative study of two contrasting approaches for modeling the yard crane scheduling problem: centralized and decentralized. It seeks to assess their relative performances and factors that affect their performances. Our analysis shows that the centralized approach outperforms the decentralized approach by 16.5 per cent on average, due to having complete and accurate information about future truck arrivals. While it underperforms the centralized, the decentralized approach can dynamically adapt to real-time truck arrivals, making it better suited for real-life operations. Overall, our analysis suggests that the two approaches offer complementary features that could be integrated into a hybrid approach.</abstract><cop>London</cop><pub>Palgrave Macmillan UK</pub><doi>10.1057/mel.2012.1</doi><tpages>23</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 1479-2931
ispartof Maritime economics & logistics, 2012-06, Vol.14 (2), p.139-161
issn 1479-2931
1479-294X
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_journals_1011132750
source RePEc; SpringerNature Complete Journals
subjects Business and Management
Comparative analysis
Comparative studies
Cranes & hoists
Design of experiments
Emissions
Integer programming
Logistics
Motor carriers
Operations Management
Optimization
Original Article
Ports
Scheduling
Studies
Trucks
title Yard crane scheduling at container terminals: A comparative study of centralized and decentralized approaches
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-28T07%3A19%3A40IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Yard%20crane%20scheduling%20at%20container%20terminals:%20A%20comparative%20study%20of%20centralized%20and%20decentralized%20approaches&rft.jtitle=Maritime%20economics%20&%20logistics&rft.au=Sharif,%20Omor&rft.date=2012-06-01&rft.volume=14&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=139&rft.epage=161&rft.pages=139-161&rft.issn=1479-2931&rft.eissn=1479-294X&rft_id=info:doi/10.1057/mel.2012.1&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2652498891%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1011132750&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true