Another example of attempts at supply chain horizontal integration for planning purposes. Various ports are getting on board.
Tacoma, Seattle ports agree on final Northwest Seaport Alliance details | The News Tribune.
Bold step: Ports of Seattle, Tacoma vote to formally launch The Northwest Seaport Alliance
Federal Maritime Commission approves Seattle-Tacoma port alliance
The Northwest Seaport Alliance just became the third-largest cargo gateway in the U.S.
When is an alliance too big? Here’s a possible example. Some members seem to be doing well, but others are losing out. And the deal lasts only till 2016.
G6 alliance members hit choppy water as they struggle to find tradelane synergies – The Loadstar.
Coalitions are always tricky because they lose their advantage when some members drop out. On average the deal might make sense. But life is stochastic– random fluctuations can cause some of the members to suffer while others prosper. And these specific realizations of events may cause participants to wonder if it’s to their advantage to continue. Add a short contract time, and where’s the motivation to stay in the coalition?
It is so hard to form these coalitions that they need to be thought through carefully beforehand, and attention paid to how the random fluctuations will be handled.
Moshe Dror and I have a series of papers dealing with such problems in the inventory pooling context, but cooperative games are equally applicable in any pooling of resources.
http://www.supplychainbrain.com/content/nc/logisticstransportation/rail-intermodal/single-article-page/article/memo-to-megaports-these-guys-want-your-business/ These ports are very competitive. Not all can survive to provide economic development for their area. Cooperation will be needed in the long run.
Supply Chain Digest Port Technology International Marine Link
Supply Chain and Logistics 