Abstract
Low investment activity in waterway transport sector can be explained by mismatched interests and actions of participants of investment process. This requires the development of a mechanism to substantiate investment choices. Multi-criteria method is used, which supports decision-making under uncertainty and provides for systematic coherence among all actors involved. In order to formalize the task, it is suggested to classify problem situations, link those to the investor’s approach to settlement of the problem, correspond those to the relevance of the generalized criteria for choice and rank the priority for parameters of multi-criteria choice that are part of generalized ones. In addition, for each type of situation a ratio of generalized criteria of choice reflecting the logic of the investor’s behaviour is developed. The procedure of investment choice comprises formulation of rating matrix through preliminary definition of evaluation criteria (that represents priorities of the interested parties) and alternative ways for assessment, which shall relate to the basic proposals from different parties of interest. Creation and use of common investment space contributes to transparency of the investment choice procedure. Use of digital technologies improves transparency of investment choice as a tool for decision-making, which facilitates actors to choose the investment project. In this respect, related parties reconcile their interests and reach system integration. This has a direct impact on the increase in investment activity in the industry.
Keywords
- Waterway transport
- Investment process
- Stakeholders
- Investment choice
- Multi-criteria analysis
- Common information space
- Digitalization
- Digital technologies
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsReferences
Xionghui, W.: Research on financing methods of china’s shipbuilding theoretical. Econ. Lett. 8(14), 3116–3140 (2018). https://doi.org/10.4236/tel.2018.814194
Bignon, E., Pojani, D.: River-based public transport: why won’t Paris jump on board? Case Stud. Transp. Policy 6(2), 200–205 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cstp.2018.05.002
Laurent, D., Cenk, Y.: Ship finance practices in major shipbuilding economies. OECD Sci. Technol. Industry Policy Papers (2019). https://doi.org/10.1787/e0448fd0-en
Shibata, T., Nishihara, M.: Investment timing with incentive-disincentive contracts under asymmetric information. Technol. Invest. 3(2), 74–86 (2012). https://doi.org/10.4236/ti.2012.32011
Nishihara, M., Fukushima, M.: Evaluation of firm’s loss due to incomplete information in real investment decision. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 188(2), 569–585 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2007.03.046
Chi, S., Bunker, J.: An Australian perspective on real-life cost-benefit analysis and assessment frameworks for transport infrastructure investments. Res. Transp. Econ. 88, 100946 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.retrec.2020.100946
Bock, K., Trück, S.: Assessing uncertainty and risk in public sector investment projects. Technol. Invest. 2(2), 105–123 (2011). https://doi.org/10.4236/ti.2011.22011
Jafarizadeh, B., Khorshid-Doust, R.R.: Method of project selection based on capital asset pricing theories in a framework of mean-semideviation behaviour. Int. J. Project Manage. 26(6), 612–619 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2007.09.004
Bardal, K.G.: Contradictory outcomes of cost-benefit analyses – Findings from Norwegian public-investment projects. Res. Transp. Econ. 82, 100874 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.retrec.2020.100874
Flyvbjerg, B.: Quality control and due diligence in project management: getting decisions right by taking the outside view. Int. J. Project Manage. 31, 760–774 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2012.10.007
Kleiner, G.B.: Sistemnaya perezagruzka rossiyskoy ekonomiki: klyuchevyye napravleniya i perspektivy. Nauchnyye trudy Vol’nogo ekonomicheskogo obshchestva Rossii 223(3), 111–122 (2020). https://doi.org/10.38197/2072-2060-2020-223-3-111-122
Shchepetova, S.: System research of socio-economic sphere: assumptions, components, methods. Collection: System analysis in economics - 2018. In: Proceedings of the V International Research and Practice Conference-Biennale, pp 108–109 (2018). https://doi.org/10.33278/SAE-2018.eng.108-109
Trukhinova, O.: A systematic approach to solving the problem of lack of competitiveness of the Russian manufacturers in the shipbuilding industry. Collection: System analysis in economics - 2018. In: Proceedings of the V International research and practice conference-biennale, pp. 307–310 (2018). https://doi.org/10.33278/sae-2018.eng.307-310
Drogobytsky, I.N.: Modelirovaniye, planirovaniye i kontrol’ protsessov tsifrovizatsii natsional’noy ekonomiki. Ekonomicheskaya nauka sovremennoy Rossii 2(89), 102–113 (2020). https://doi.org/10.33293/1609-1442-2020-2(89)-102-113
Kleiner, G.B.: Intellektual’naya ekonomika tsifrovogo veka. Tsifrovoy vek: shagi evolyutsii. Ekonomika i matematicheskiye metody 56(1), 18–33 (2020). https://doi.org/10.31857/S042473880008562-7
Wimelius, H., Mathiassen, L., Holmström, J., Keil, M.: A paradoxical perspective on technology renewal in digital transformation. Inf. Syst. J. 31(1), 198–225 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1111/isj.12307
Saaty, T.L., Kearns, K.P.: Analytical Planning: The Organization of Systems. Pergamon1st Edition 216 (1985)
Saaty, T.: Decision making with the analytic hierarchy process. Int. J. Serv. Sci. 1, 83–98 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1504/ijssci.2008.017590
Clemson, B., Tang, Y., Pyne, J., Unal, R.: Efficient methods for sensitivity analysis. Syst. Dyn. Rev. 11(1), 31–49 (1995). https://doi.org/10.1002/sdr.4260110104
Keseru, I., Coosemansac, T., Macharis, C.: Stakeholders’ preferences for the future of transport in Europe: Participatory evaluation of scenarios combining scenario planning and the multi-actor multi-criteria analysis. Futures 127, 102690 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2020.102690
Broniewicz, E., Ogrodnik, K.: Multi-criteria analysis of transport infrastructure projects. Transp. Res. Part D: Transp. Environ. 83, 102351 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2020.102351
Żak, J., Firek, S., Kruszyński, M.: Evaluation of different transportation solutions with the application of macro simulation tools and multiple criteria group decision making/aiding methodology. Proc. - Soc Behav. Sci 111, 340–349 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.01.067
Sirikijpanichkul, A., Winyoopadit, S., Jenpanitsub, A.: A multi-actor multi-criteria transit system selection model: a case study of Bangkok feeder system. Procedia 25, 3736–3755 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trpro.2017.05.228
Gagatsia, E., Giannopoulosa, G., Aifantopouloua, G., Charalampous, G.: Stakeholders-based multi-criteria policy analysis in maritime transport: from theory to practice. Transp. Res. Procedia 22, 655–664 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trpro.2017.03.062
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2022 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this paper
Cite this paper
Trukhinova, O. (2022). New Approaches to Substantiating Investment Choices in Water Transport Using Digital Technologies. In: Manakov, A., Edigarian, A. (eds) International Scientific Siberian Transport Forum TransSiberia - 2021. TransSiberia 2021. Lecture Notes in Networks and Systems, vol 403. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-96383-5_72
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-96383-5_72
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-96382-8
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-96383-5
eBook Packages: EngineeringEngineering (R0)