Table 4 Cross-case comparison of... | Emerald Publishing

Table 4

Cross-case comparison of Rotterdam and Hamburg ports

Dimension	Disclosure Evidence		KM interpretation	Comparative insight	Limits of inference
Dimension	Port of Rotterdam	Port of Hamburg	KM interpretation	Comparative insight	Limits of inference
Digitalisation and Digital Twin use	Data-driven port management systems Digital tools for port call optimisation and traffic management Digital Twin integrating logistics and operational processes	SmartPORT digital ecosystem Digital Port Twin used for infrastructure planning and simulation Digital traffic optimisation systems	Public disclosures suggest that both ports represent digital systems as infrastructures for collecting, integrating, and mobilising operational knowledge	Both ports exhibit high levels of digital maturity and rely on digital systems to support operational efficiency	The documents do not allow assessment of how digital knowledge is governed, validated, or reused internally
Cybersecurity governance	Cyber resilience framed as strategic priority Participation in the FERM cyber resilience network Internal awareness initiatives (e.g., code of conduct on phishing risks)	Cybersecurity addressed mainly through sectoral guidelines References to training and awareness initiatives Alignment with international port cybersecurity recommendations	Cybersecurity-related disclosures suggest mechanisms of knowledge codification, awareness building, and inter-organisational knowledge sharing	Rotterdam shows more explicit governance mechanisms and inter-organisational coordination	The difference between the cases concerns disclosure visibility, not necessarily actual organisational capability
KM-related routines and artefacts	Discloses evidence of knowledge sharing through: cybersecurity collaboration networks; information exchange among port stakeholders; Partial codification of cybersecurity knowledge	Discloses knowledge sharing mainly through: smart-port initiatives; digital infrastructure projects; learning processes embedded in operational digitalisation	KM appears as an embedded and indirect dimension of digital and cybersecurity governance, rather than as a formally disclosed KM system	In both cases, KM-related mechanisms are visible mainly through indirect disclosure evidence	Formal KM structures, repositories, learning protocols, and KM metrics are not clearly disclosed
DT-enabled operational knowledge flows	Provides limited information on structured learning cycles, training frequency, KM metrics, and mechanisms for reusing incident-based knowledge KM is mainly inferred from cybersecurity and digital initiatives	Provides minimal disclosure of KM governance structures Learning processes remain mostly implicit in digital projects, with limited reference to formal KM reporting	Under-disclosure of KM operationalisation emerges as a key finding across both cases	Both ports frame DT-enabled data flows as enablers of operational coordination and emissions-relevant decisions	The evidence does not demonstrate that these data flows are embedded in formal KM routines or systematic organisational learning processes
Disclosure of KM operationalisation	Limited information on structured learning cycles Limited detail on training frequency and KM metrics KM mainly inferred from cybersecurity and digital initiatives	Minimal disclosure of KM governance structures Learning processes mostly implicit in digital projects Lack of formal KM reporting	Under-disclosure of KM operationalisation emerges as a key finding across both cases	KM is consistently under-disclosed as a formal capability across both cases	The typology should be read as a disclosure-based heuristic, not as a measurement of actual KM implementation

Dimension	Disclosure Evidence		KM interpretation	Comparative insight	Limits of inference
Dimension	Port of Rotterdam	Port of Hamburg	KM interpretation	Comparative insight	Limits of inference
Digitalisation and Digital Twin use	Data-driven port management systems Digital tools for port call optimisation and traffic management Digital Twin integrating logistics and operational processes	SmartPORT digital ecosystem Digital Port Twin used for infrastructure planning and simulation Digital traffic optimisation systems	Public disclosures suggest that both ports represent digital systems as infrastructures for collecting, integrating, and mobilising operational knowledge	Both ports exhibit high levels of digital maturity and rely on digital systems to support operational efficiency	The documents do not allow assessment of how digital knowledge is governed, validated, or reused internally
Cybersecurity governance	Cyber resilience framed as strategic priority Participation in the FERM cyber resilience network Internal awareness initiatives (e.g., code of conduct on phishing risks)	Cybersecurity addressed mainly through sectoral guidelines References to training and awareness initiatives Alignment with international port cybersecurity recommendations	Cybersecurity-related disclosures suggest mechanisms of knowledge codification, awareness building, and inter-organisational knowledge sharing	Rotterdam shows more explicit governance mechanisms and inter-organisational coordination	The difference between the cases concerns disclosure visibility, not necessarily actual organisational capability
KM-related routines and artefacts	Discloses evidence of knowledge sharing through: cybersecurity collaboration networks; information exchange among port stakeholders; Partial codification of cybersecurity knowledge	Discloses knowledge sharing mainly through: smart-port initiatives; digital infrastructure projects; learning processes embedded in operational digitalisation	KM appears as an embedded and indirect dimension of digital and cybersecurity governance, rather than as a formally disclosed KM system	In both cases, KM-related mechanisms are visible mainly through indirect disclosure evidence	Formal KM structures, repositories, learning protocols, and KM metrics are not clearly disclosed
DT-enabled operational knowledge flows	Provides limited information on structured learning cycles, training frequency, KM metrics, and mechanisms for reusing incident-based knowledge KM is mainly inferred from cybersecurity and digital initiatives	Provides minimal disclosure of KM governance structures Learning processes remain mostly implicit in digital projects, with limited reference to formal KM reporting	Under-disclosure of KM operationalisation emerges as a key finding across both cases	Both ports frame DT-enabled data flows as enablers of operational coordination and emissions-relevant decisions	The evidence does not demonstrate that these data flows are embedded in formal KM routines or systematic organisational learning processes
Disclosure of KM operationalisation	Limited information on structured learning cycles Limited detail on training frequency and KM metrics KM mainly inferred from cybersecurity and digital initiatives	Minimal disclosure of KM governance structures Learning processes mostly implicit in digital projects Lack of formal KM reporting	Under-disclosure of KM operationalisation emerges as a key finding across both cases	KM is consistently under-disclosed as a formal capability across both cases	The typology should be read as a disclosure-based heuristic, not as a measurement of actual KM implementation

Source(s): Authors’ manual content analysis of the European Ports’ Sustainability Reporting and Website Pages (2020–2024)