The Maturity Model as a Tool for Assessing Transportation Systems on the Example of Inland Navigation

Abstract

The development of inland waterway transport systems is crucial to achieving sustainable transportation by reducing environmental impact, improving safety, and supporting economic efficiency. However, the varying geographic, climatic, and infrastructure conditions between regions make it challenging to evaluate and compare these systems. This study aims to address this gap by proposing a maturity model for assessing transport systems using the example of inland navigation, designed to evaluate and benchmark transportation systems based on key parameters such as fleet characteristics, infrastructure, and management processes. The proposed model identifies five maturity levels, ranging from basic to advanced functionality. Using this model, the Polish inland waterway transport system was analyzed as a case study to assess its current maturity and identify areas for development. The results indicate that while the Polish system demonstrates strengths in certain aspects, such as the coherence of its linear infrastructure, there are significant gaps in fleet modernization and the integration of advanced technologies. This study highlights the potential of the maturity model as a strategic tool for planning and decision-making in the inland waterway transport sector. Future work will focus on refining the model to enhance its applicability and comprehensiveness.

1. Introduction

The concept of sustainable development integrates environmental, social, and economic aspects in order to meet the needs of current generations without compromising the same ability of future generations. Sustainable development, for clear reasons, also applies to the transport of people and goods. In the context of transport, the key assumptions of sustainable development include (i) minimizing the negative impact on the environment (including reducing emissions of harmful substances and particles into the atmosphere, increasing energy efficiency), (ii) accessibility and social integration (mainly related to the transport of people), (iii) user safety (including actions to minimize the risk of accidents), (iv) spatial coherence and urban planning (mainly related to city planning and human mobility), and (v) economic profitability and innovation (including the transport of large volumes of cargo over long distances using the scale effect, the development of autonomous vehicles or intelligent traffic management systems). These aspects are addressed in political documents, scientific reports, and strategies of international organizations such as the UN, the OECD, and the EU. For example, the EU White Paper on Transport [1] defines the objectives of the European Union’s transport policy, emphasizing the reduction in emissions, increased efficiency, and integration of transport. One of the goals described in the White Paper on Transport refers directly to waterborne transport. Goal 3: “Thirty percent of road freight over 300 km should shift to other modes such as rail or waterborne transport by 2030, and more than 50% by 2050, facilitated by efficient and green freight corridors”.

Inland waterway transport fits the aforementioned assumptions of sustainable transport thanks to aspects that distinguish it from other modes of transport. Minimizing the negative impact on the environment is achieved by a lower energy demand per unit of cargo (and per ton-kilometre) than other modes of transport. Because rivers do not intersect at the same level as the roads of other modes of transport, and especially with conventional passenger transport, they pose a much smaller threat to the safety of other traffic users. Inland waterway navigation is characterized by a low accident rate. Spatial coherence and urban planning are not disturbed by inland waterway navigation because its linear infrastructure is mainly carried out on existing riverbeds. Economic profitability results directly from the specificity of this branch (ships carry large masses of cargo). Additionally, innovation of autonomous vehicles or intelligent traffic management systems is also found in this branch.

Inland navigation is strongly dependent on the geographical and climatic conditions of a given region (or country). For this reason, intra-industry integration over large areas may be difficult. This can be observed in Europe, where the level of use of inland navigation and its development differs significantly between individual countries, but also (for reasons of climate or environment, among others) within one region, on different rivers [2]. Therefore, it is difficult to compare the inland waterway systems of different countries (areas) based on simple factors (e.g., length of waterways, volume of transport, share in domestic transport). For this reason, a model that assesses the system in terms of its maturity rather than the absolute values of performance indicators is an appropriate tool for comparing inland navigation systems in different areas or countries.

Researchers make various attempts to compare systems. One of the tools that has attracted attention in recent years is maturity models. Maturity models are a tool for assessing systems and comparing them, but also for planning development. Initially, they were used to evaluate organizations in the context of their ability to achieve strategic and operational goals. Their first use dates back to the 1970s [3]. They were used for research on improving management processes, especially in the IT industry and quality management. The breakthrough was the development of the Capability Maturity Model (CMM) in 1990 [3], which focused on software development processes. Since then, maturity models have been adapted to various sectors and fields, and they have developed over the years. Maturity models, through changes in their use, have become more adapted to specific industries and management areas. Modern models take into account the variability of the environment and the need for continuous improvement (e.g., the Agile Maturity Models).

In principle, maturity models assess the level of advancement or development of an organization, processes, or system, usually in the form of stages. Maturity models usually cover 3 to 5 levels, e.g., from basic to advanced. Various aspects can be assessed according to the purpose and assumptions of the model creator. The use of the model assumes (i) identification of the criteria being examined and determination of the individual levels of their fulfilment, (ii) assessment of the system/organization in relation to the defined criteria, (iii) based on compliance with the guidelines for individual levels, it is determined at what stage of development the assessed system or process is (the maturity level of the entire system is considered to be the lowest of the levels obtained in the considered criteria), (iv) knowing the level of fulfilment of the criteria, gaps are identified, and actions necessary to achieve a higher level are determined.

Using maturity models, benchmarking can be performed, comparing the maturity level in different organizations or sectors to identify best practises. Another use of models is strategic planning; models help organizations define long-term development goals and transformation strategies. Risk assessment can also be supported by maturity models using them to assess operational risk and compliance with regulations or industry standards.

The support for the development of inland waterway transport is of paramount importance due to its potential to facilitate long-distance freight transport, especially in light of increasing congestion in road and rail networks. Inland waterways possess substantial untapped capacity and offer a significantly reduced environmental impact compared to road transport, both in terms of emissions and energy consumption. This aligns with sustainable development goals and the imperative to curtail the adverse effects of the transport sector on the natural environment. The European Commission’s Transport White Paper [1] substantiates this rationale, articulating the objective that, by 2030, 30% of road freight over 300 km should be transferred to alternative modes such as rail or ships.

Based on that context, this paper aims to propose a maturity model for inland waterways transport systems that would assess the maturity level in the areas addressed, provide a developing path, and allow comparison of different inland waterways transport systems. This paper consists of (Section 2) a review of the parameters of evaluation in the context of transport systems, including inland waterway transport systems; (Section 3) a presentation of the transport systems maturity model and its adjunction to the specific branch of inland waterway transport; (Section 4) the use of the proposed model to assess inland waterway transport of Poland and its results; and (Section 5) conclusions and plans for further developing the tool of a maturity model for transport systems.

2. Factors Assessed in the Context of Transport Systems

Transport systems can be described by many parameters, which is why their assessment requires the use of tools that allow for the examination of many parameters in one procedure. Tools that allow for making decisions based on many variables belong to the group of Multi-Criteria Decision Making (MCDM) methods. These methods are based on calculations and take into account weights, so their assessment is unambiguous and can indicate the best solution from the set. Therefore, when assessing two or more transport systems, methods from this group can be used, but maturity models are more purposeful because they facilitate the comparison of systems by (i) indicating clear maturity levels defining the state of a given system (e.g., from basic to advanced), (ii) covering both technical aspects (e.g., the fleet and infrastructure) and organizational aspects (procedures and regulations), enabling a comprehensive assessment, and (iii) indicating the development path (what should be performed to reach a higher level), and (iv) enabling the ongoing monitoring of the system state.

In scientific publications, maturity models are presented most often in the context of information technology and project management. In the area of transport, maturity models are not widely used (the Web of Science database [4] gives only 14 answers when asked about the ‘maturity model’ in the topic and category of transportation) and not for assessing the whole system. Nevertheless, there are several publications that describe maturity models of some aspects of transport systems. For example, the authors of [4] in a maturity model refer to the safety of the transport system. The model consists of five levels: A—informal arrangements, B—defined, C—managed, D—assured, and E—optimized. The authors of ref. [5] refer to safety management and also presents five levels of maturity. The levels are defined a bit differently: 1—initiating, 2—planning, 3—implementing, 4—managing and measuring, and 5—continuous improvement. Both models highlight the importance of safety procedures.

In a similar context, the risk maturity model of maritime is proposed in [6]. Seventeen risk management attributes are described on five levels: 1—inadequate, 2—reactive, 3—compliant, 4—proactive, and 5—optimal. This publication on safety and risk draws attention to the resources management and system’s condition current assessment. Ref. [7] presents a maturity model of rail cybersecurity risk. The model proposes maturity levels starting from 0—not performed, 1—initiated, 2—performed, 3—managed, and 4—proposed. Although the model concerns security and risk, it also highlights users’ participation in system operation.

It can be noticed that maturity models for transport systems are used by scientists in the matter of safety. But apart from that, the maturity model presented in [8] considers the development of an urban cycling plan. The model, among the 15 examined aspects, emphasizes the continuity of the linear infrastructure and connections with other branches of transport. Other aspects are also taken into account in [9]. The described maturity model regards the driving culture. The model proposes five levels of maturity: 1—vulnerable, 2—emerging, 3—developing, 4—maturing, and 5—advanced. This model, apart from cultural aspects, highlights the importance of a clear division of responsibilities for process performance. In addition, some aspects of technology can be assessed using maturity models. Ref. [10] presents a maturity of smart aspects of maritime ports. Five levels (here called phases) of maturity are presented: 1—fragmented, 2—defining smart port enablement, 3—defined and digitizing smart port, 4—managed, measured, and intra-connected smart port, and 5—optimized and continually improved inter-connected smart port system. On this level, five aspects are assessed (port operations, synchro-modality, safety and security, energy and environment, and capability.

Although maturity models are not commonly used in the context of transportation systems, system characteristics are assessed much more broadly. There are publications that attempt to evaluate transport systems as such without precisely defining or limiting the modes of transport (e.g., [11,12,13]). The key factors evaluated are those that have the strongest impact on the system’s operation (related to safety, e.g., [14,15,16] and efficiency, e.g., [17,18,19]), but in the context of the purpose of this article, i.e., assessing the maturity of entire systems, it is worth analyzing the broader context of the factors being analyzed.

A number of publications describe technical aspects of transport systems elements. Vehicle and their features are described in [14,15] by referring to locomotive electrification. Ref. [16] describes 4.0 technologies applied to inland waterway transport. Ref. [17] assesses the navigation of autonomous ships. Ref. [18] analyses the possibility of employing intelligent technologies in urban rail transit. Ref. [19] concerns limiting the influence of ships’ navigation on waterways.

Some of the above-mentioned papers refer also to the technology used for infrastructure supporting (i.e., [16,18]). Ref. [20] refers to railroad capacity. The development of waterways was also examined (i.e., [21,22,23,24]). Ref. [25] describes an interconnection of waterways and the presence of terminals. In [26], the problem of financing the infrastructure is examined.

Another group of papers considers the process of transporting goods; in particular, the authors of [27] describe transport management. An intermodal rail freight transport was presented in [20]. Ref. [28] analyzes the performance of a supply chain. Refs. [29,30] point out that inland navigation can be engaged in the transport services of seaports. The importance of personal training of a crew is also under researchers’ consideration (e.g., [31]).

A characteristic feature of inland navigation is the study and description of its connections with the natural environment. Refs. [19,32,33] concerns a ship’s influence on the waterway environment. Ref. [34] assesses flood risk for navigated rivers. Rivers operating parameters are considered in [21,35,36,37]. Also, the modernization of navigation infrastructure and intramodality is the subject of scientific research [38,39,40,41,42]. Safety and consideration of the specifics of ship traffic have also been studied [43,44,45]. Research on inland navigation also includes water platooning and efficiency [46,47,48].

The evaluation of transport systems is relatively often described in the scientific literature. Despite this, due to the complexity of the systems and the multitude of its parameters, it is difficult to find a publication describing and assessing the system in its entirety. For this reason, building a maturity model that helps to assess transport systems as such and the possibility of comparing them with each other is an innovative approach.

3. Maturity Model for Transport System Assessment

A maturity model for each branch of transport systems assessment was already proposed by the author of this publication in [49]. The model was divided into three groups of parameters, and each of them had sub-parameters. These were as follows:

(1)

Fleet:

a.

Age (I, exceeds the world average; II, exceeds the European average; III, corresponds to the European average; IV, is lower than the European average; V, is significantly lower than the European average).

b.

Equipment (I, does not meet the lowest international standard; II, meets the lowest international standards; III, slightly exceeds the lowest international standards; IV, exceeds international standards; V, meets the highest international standards).

c.

Number (I, number and type significantly exceeds or falls below market needs; II, number or type meets market needs, but the other factor significantly exceeds or falls below market needs; III, number and type is slightly below or slightly above market needs; IV, number or type meets market needs, but the other factor is slightly above or below market needs; V, number and type meets market needs in the long term).

d.

Crew (I, number and competency of fleet and process staff do not meet the demand; II, number or competency of fleet and process staff does not meet demand; III, number and competency of fleet and process staff are slightly below demand; IV, number or competency of fleet and process staff is slightly below demand; V, number and competency of fleet and process staff meet the demand).

(2)

Infrastructure:

a.

Financing (I, funds allocated for infrastructure maintenance do not cover current needs; II, funds allocated for infrastructure maintenance cover current needs; III, funds allocated for infrastructure maintenance cover current needs and minor preventive measures; IV, funds allocated for infrastructure maintenance cover current needs and investments; V, funds allocated for infrastructure maintenance cover current needs and large-scale investments).

b.

Linear infrastructure (I, does not create a network; II, creates a network with certain limitations; III, creates a coherent network and connects to the network of another region; IV, creates a coherent network and connects with networks of other regions; V, creates a coherent network and connects with all neighbouring networks).

c.

Point infrastructure (I, insufficient and does not allow for inter-branch transshipment; II, insufficient but allows for some inter-branch transshipments; III, sufficient and allows for some inter-branch transshipments; IV, sufficient and allows for inter-branch transshipment; V, fully integrates available transport modes).

d.

Operation of security services (I, administration and security services do not operate to the appropriate extent; II, administration or security services do not operate to the appropriate extent; III, administration and security services operate to the extent that allows maintaining the current status quo; IV, administration and security services operate to the extent that allows for the improvement of the current situation; V, administration and security services ensure the development of the system).

(3)

Management system:

a.

Regulations (I, local regulations do not correspond to supra-local regulations; II, local regulations correspond to supra-local regulations to a minimum extent and are introduced with a delay; III, local regulations are adapted to supra-local regulations with a slight delay; IV, local regulations are constantly being adapted to supra-local regulations; V, local regulations set the directions for creating supra-local regulations).

b.

Procedures (I, regulations and procedures governing the fleet and transport process are unclear and unenforced; II, regulations or procedures governing the fleet and transportation process are unclear and unenforced; III, regulations and procedures governing the fleet and transportation process are complicated; IV, regulations and procedures governing the fleet and transportation process are clear; V, regulations and governing the fleet and transportation process are clear and as simple as possible).

c.

Information flow (I between system elements is very difficult, II between some system elements is hindered, III between system elements is efficient, IV most information flows between system elements occurs online, V between system elements occurs online).

As a result of further work on the topic, the model was refined. Due to the specifics of each of the transport branches, the model required adjustment, in this case, to inland navigation. Therefore, some clarifications and adjustments were made to use the model for inland waterways transport systems assessment. The maturity model for assessment of inland waterways transport systems is presented in

Table 1. The maturity model for assessment of inland waterways transport systems. Source: own work based on [49].

Parameters		Maturity Level
		I	II	III	IV	V
Fleet	Age	Most of the fleet is over 20 years old	Most of the fleet is over 15 to 20 years old	Most of the fleet is over 10 to 15 years old	Most of the fleet is over 5 to 10 years old	Most of the fleet is 5 years old or less
	Navigation equipment	No navigation equipment	Paper maps and GPS	Level II and radar, AIS, and ECDIS	Level III and ERI, autopilot, and steering assistance	Level IV and automatic steering, and collision prevention equipment
	Number	Fleet number and type significantly exceeds or falls below market needs	Fleet number or type meets market needs, but the other factor significantly exceeds or falls below market needs	Fleet number and type are slightly below or slightly above market needs	Fleet number or type meets market needs, but the other factor is slightly above or below market needs	Fleet number and type meet market needs in the long term
	Crew	Number and competency of fleet and process staff do not meet the demand	Number or competency of fleet and process staff does not meet demand	Number and competency of fleet and process staff are slightly below demand	Number or competency of fleet and process staff is slightly below demand	Number and competency of fleet and process staff meet the demand
Infrastructure	Financing	Funds allocated for infrastructure maintenance do not cover current needs	Funds allocated for infrastructure maintenance cover current needs	Funds allocated for infrastructure maintenance cover current needs and minor preventive measures	Funds allocated for infrastructure maintenance cover current needs and investments	Funds allocated for infrastructure maintenance cover current needs and large-scale investments
	Linear infrastructure	Linear infrastructure does not create a network	Linear infrastructure creates a network with certain limitations	Linear infrastructure creates a coherent network and connects to the network of another region	Linear infrastructure creates a coherent network and connects with networks of other regions	Linear infrastructure creates a coherent network and connects with all neighbouring networks
	Point infrastructure	Point infrastructure is insufficient and does not allow for inter-branch transshipment	Point infrastructure is insufficient but allows for some inter-branch transshipments	Point infrastructure is sufficient and allows for some inter-branch transshipments	Point infrastructure is sufficient and allows for inter-branch transshipment	Point infrastructure fully integrates available transport modes
	Maintenance	Reactive maintenance	Prevent maintenance	Condition-based maintenance	Predictive maintenance	Proactive maintenance
System operations	Operation of safety and security services	Administration and security services do not operate to the appropriate extent	Administration or security services do not operate to the appropriate extent	Administration and security services operate to the extent that allows maintaining the current status quo	Administration and security services operate to the extent that allows for the improvement of the current situation	Administration and security services ensure the development of the system
	Regulations	Local regulations do not correspond to supra-local regulations	Local regulations correspond to supra-local regulations to a minimum extent and are introduced with a delay	Local regulations are adapted to supra-local regulations with a slight delay	Local regulations are constantly being adapted to supra-local regulations	Local regulations set the directions for creating supra-local regulations
	Procedures	Regulations and procedures governing the fleet and transport process are unclear and unenforced	Regulations or procedures governing the fleet and transportation process are unclear and unenforced	Regulations and procedures governing the fleet and transportation process are complicated	Regulations and procedures governing the fleet and transportation process are clear	Regulations for governing the fleet and transportation process are clear and as simple as possible
	Information flow	Information flow between system elements is very difficult	Information flow between some system elements is hindered	Information flow between system elements is efficient	Most information flows between system elements occur online	Information flow between system elements occurs online

.

Each maturity level (I–V) is defined to reflect the gradual development and sophistication of the transport system. Level I (basic) contains minimum criteria, such as lack of modern navigation equipment or outdated rolling stock, which reflect basic functionality and lack of investment. Levels II–III (intermediate) are based on the gradual introduction of technologies and processes, such as radar, AIS, or regular preventive maintenance, which signals the beginning of systematic development. Levels IV–V (advanced) are criteria indicating the full implementation of innovative technologies (e.g., automatic control or proactive maintenance), which represents a high level of system efficiency and coherence.

The criteria were assigned based on an analysis of the scientific literature and existing models (e.g., the Capability Maturity Model) and their application in the context of transport infrastructure and systems management.

The maturity model for the assessment of inland waterway transport systems presented in Table 1 encompasses several groups of parameters, such as fleet characteristics, infrastructure, and operations, to holistically assess the system’s progress. The division into levels was made based on the degree of technological advancement, operational efficiency, and compliance with standards in the field of infrastructure, fleet operation, and legal regulations. Maturity level I corresponds to the lowest level of criterion functioning in inland waterway navigation, and maturity level 5 is a reference to the highest standards found. Intermediate levels represent gradual development through the implementation of modern technologies, improvement of the quality of management and integration with transport systems of other regions. Further, an interpretation of these dimensions and their transformation across the maturity levels is provided.

The first parameter group is the fleet, divided into four sub-parameters, which are as follows:

(1)

Age. The age of the fleet reflects technological and operational advancements. In each transport branch, the division of fleet age into levels will be different. Regarding inland navigation ships, at the lowest level, fleets consist of outdated vessels over 20 years old (Level I), which limits efficiency and competitiveness. Progressing through the levels, the fleet undergoes systematic renewal, with a majority of vessels becoming less than five years old at the highest level (Level V), signalling technological leadership.

(2)

Navigation equipment. Navigation systems evolve from a complete absence (Level I) to the integration of advanced tools (Level V), demonstrating cutting-edge operational capabilities.

As this parameter strongly depends on the transportation branch and may not be familiar to specialists for other branches, it needs a more specific description. Level I refers to the absence of electronic or automated tools for navigation. In this scenario, navigation relies solely on the crew’s expertise, environmental observations, and basic manual methods. Level II includes paper maps and GPS (Global Positioning System). It integrates traditional paper-based nautical charts with modern satellite-based positioning systems. GPS provides precise geospatial coordinates, allowing mariners to determine their exact location. The combination of paper maps and GPS ensures redundancy and reliability, especially when electronic systems are unavailable or malfunctioning. Level III ads radar, AIS (Automatic Identification System), and ECDIS (Electronic Chart Display and Information System). This level introduces advanced navigation aids. Radar is a system using radio waves to detect and display objects, such as other vessels even in low visibility conditions. AIS (Automatic Identification System) is a communication system that transmits and receives real-time vessel information (e.g., position, speed, and heading) to enhance situational awareness and collision avoidance. ECDIS (Electronic Chart Display and Information System) is a computer-based system that integrates electronic charts, GPS data, and other navigational tools to provide a comprehensive situational overview and automate route planning. Level IV introduces further automation and data integration and ads ERI (Electronic Reporting for Inland Navigation), Autopilot, and Steering assistance. ERI (Electronic Reporting for Inland Navigation) is a system for electronically submitting mandatory vessel reports to relevant authorities, streamlining communication and compliance. An autopilot is a device that automatically maintains a vessel’s course without manual input, enhancing operational efficiency during long voyages. Steering assistance is an advanced feature that aids in precise course adjustments, particularly useful in narrow or complex waterways. At Level V, navigation is highly automated. It adds automatic steering and collision prevention equipment, which consists of fully autonomous control of the vessel’s course based on pre-programmed routes or real-time inputs from sensors and navigation systems and systems that utilize data from radar, AIS, and other sensors to predict and prevent potential collisions by issuing alerts or automatically adjusting the vessel’s course and speed.

(3)

Number. This sub-parameter was not changed nor specified. The assessment relies on the professional experience of the assessing expert. Alignment with market needs is a crucial aspect of fleet size and composition. At Level I, there is significant misalignment, either exceeding or falling short of market demands. By Level V, fleets are optimized to meet both short-term and long-term market requirements, ensuring sustainability and economic efficiency.

(4)

Crew. This sub-parameter has not been clarified in relation to the base form of the model. The assessment also relies on the professional knowledge of the assessing expert. The competency and number of crew members improve in tandem with the fleet’s modernization. From inadequate staffing levels and skills at Level I to a fully qualified and sufficient workforce at Level V, this parameter highlights the importance of human resources in achieving operational excellence.

The second of the main parameters is the infrastructure. It also consists of four sub-parameters, which are as follows:

(1)

Financing. Infrastructure financing evolves from insufficient allocation, unable to meet basic maintenance needs, to robust funding at Level V that supports large-scale investments and long-term sustainability. This progression underscores the importance of financial planning in infrastructure development.

(2)

Linear infrastructure. Connectivity is a defining feature of linear infrastructure maturity. At Level I, infrastructure lacks network coherence. As it matures, it forms increasingly integrated networks, culminating in seamless connections with all neighbouring regions at Level V. When it comes to inland navigation, the issue of creating a network of linear infrastructure and the possibility of moving beyond a single waterway is of particular importance.

(3)

Point infrastructure. Intermodal transshipment capabilities develop significantly across levels. The initial stage shows inadequate point infrastructure, limiting operational flexibility. At the highest levels, infrastructure fully supports and integrates multiple transport modes, enhancing logistical efficiency. In inland navigation, this sub-parameter is particularly important because, in very few cases the transport by inland waterways does not require reloading to another mode of transport (executes direct-to-destination deliveries).

(4)

Maintenance. This sub-parameter did not appear in the basic form of the model. However, the way infrastructure is maintained was considered important enough to include it in the assessment of system maturity. Maintenance strategies shift from reactive approaches at Level I to proactive measures at Level V. Reactive maintenance is performed only after a failure has occurred, focusing on restoring functionality; preventive maintenance is scheduled and conducted at regular intervals to reduce the likelihood of equipment failure; condition-based maintenance is based on real-time monitoring of equipment conditions to address issues before failure; predictive maintenance uses data analysis and algorithms to predict and prevent failures; and proactive maintenance aims at identifying and eliminating root causes of potential failures to enhance long-term system reliability. This evolution reflects the growing emphasis on predictive analytics and preventive strategies to ensure infrastructure reliability and longevity.

The last of the main parameters are system operations (previously called management systems). It also consists of four sub-parameters, which are as follows:

(1)

Operation of safety and security services. This parameter was originally included in the infrastructure parameter group, but that group relates more to technical aspects, and safety issues were considered to be more operational issues. This sub-parameter refers to the fact that safety and security services impact system reliability. From inadequate or inconsistent services at lower levels to comprehensive administration and security at Level V, this parameter highlights the role of governance in system operations.

(2)

Regulations. Regulatory frameworks progress from being misaligned to becoming leaders in setting supra-local standards. This refers mostly to international regulations and adapting local laws to them at lower levels of the model or being an inspiration to supra-local laws on Level V. It also concerns adapting local law to changes in the broadly taken environment. The transformation reflects the increasing adaptability and influence of regulations on broader policy development.

(3)

Procedures. The procedures concerning the fleet and covering the transport process, as well as their simplicity and enforceability, affect the service quality. The complexity and clarity of operational procedures evolve significantly throughout the maturity of the system. Early stages are marked by unclear and unenforced procedures. By Level V, procedures become clear, simple, and effectively enforced, reducing operational inefficiencies.

(4)

Information flow. Efficient information flow is a critical component of system integration. At Level I, information exchange is hindered, while at Level V, information flow is streamlined and occurs predominantly online, enabling real-time decision-making and coordination.

The inland waterway transport maturity model adapts to the specifics of systems with different conditions through the relative, rather than absolute, nature of assessed criteria. It does not specify numerical values but refers to the degree of meeting market requirements, e.g., by assessing the adequacy of the number and type of vessels to demand rather than by specifying a fleet size. In terms of linear infrastructure, the model does not indicate the required number of river connections but assesses their efficiency in the context of integration with other transport networks. Similarly, in the area of regulation and management, the model does not impose a uniform legal system but assesses the consistency of national regulations with international standards, taking into account the specificity of a given system. Finally, in terms of technology and operational management, the model does not require the use of specific navigation systems or maintenance methods but classifies their advancement concerning available possibilities and industry standards. Thanks to this, it can be used in countries with different hydrographic conditions and levels of navigation development.

Other methods for assessing transport systems as a whole are unavailable. Therefore, it is not possible to assess the accuracy of the model by comparing the results obtained with different methods. Nevertheless, the credibility of the model is proven by (i) the selection of the determined parameters preceded by a literature review [49], (ii) the expert assessment of the model, which preceded the process of assessing the parameters included in it, and (iii) internal consistency (the assigned maturity levels increase consistently and the criteria at higher levels reflect technological, organizational and infrastructural progress).

Due to the applicability of the transport system maturity model as a method for assessing and comparing different systems, the assessment cannot be too time-consuming. The estimated time of using the model for a person familiar with the assessed system but not familiar with this tool is about 20 min. The proposed factors do not cover all aspects related to transport systems, but they were considered the most important from the point of view of effective use of the system.

In order to better illustrate the interpretation of individual parameters of the inland navigation maturity model, the assessment of inland navigation in Poland using this tool is presented in the following section.

4. Maturity Model for the Polish Inland Navigation Transport System

The inland waterway transport system in Poland is specific, as it combines good geographical conditions (Poland ranks fifth in Europe in terms of the length of navigable inland waterways [2]) with poor navigation conditions (only 5.5% of navigable inland waterways meet the requirements for international waterways [50]), resulting in low inland waterway transport use (the share of inland waterway transport in total cargo transport in 2022 in Poland was 0.09% [50]).

Theoretically, inland navigation should support a balance in the division of transport tasks between individual modes of transport. However, in Poland, despite these theoretically good conditions, inland navigation has a marginal significance, meaning that the system does not use its full potential. Using the proposed model to assess the level of maturity of the inland navigation system in Poland is important, not only for determining the level of maturity but also due to the possibility of finding areas where improvements would help in the development of the entire system.

Figure 1 presents the maturity levels of each of the examined parameters.

Figure 1 shows that the inland waterway transport system in Poland was assessed at Maturity Level I, the lowest. This is because, despite the fact that three out of twelve parameters were assessed at Level III, another seven were assessed at Level II and two out of twelve were assessed at Level I.

The evaluation of individual parameters is presented below. Regarding the fleet parameters, the following can be observed:

(1)

Age. Level I. The fleets consist of outdated vessels over 20 years old [50].

(2)

Navigation equipment. Level III. Most Polish cargo ships have radar, AIS (Automatic Identification System), and ECDIS (Electronic Chart Display and Information System) functionalities. While these tools are advanced, their implementation on ships is relatively straightforward.

(3)

Number. Level II. The vast majority of Polish cargo fleets are designed to transport bulk goods. The largest quantities transported are metal ores and washed sands. So, the fleet type meets market needs, but the number significantly exceeds market needs due to limited demand.

(4)

Crew. Level II. The competences of Polish ship crews are highly valued in other countries as their number exceeds the low demand for crews in Poland. Poland does not meet the demand for crew members, so the vast majority work in other countries.

The infrastructure was assessed as follows:

(1)

Financing. Level I. The parameters of waterways in Poland are mostly cyclically brought to the designated levels, but the declared parameters are not maintained throughout the season due to, among other things, the inefficient flood and drought prevention systems, which result in frequent low or high water levels. Paradoxically, there are also investments aimed at the condition of the system, but maintaining basic navigation parameters is often not fulfilled.

(2)

Linear infrastructure. Level II. The linear shipping infrastructure in Poland consists primarily of two main rivers (Oder and Vistula). They are interconnected, and this route is a part of the E70 waterway. Thanks to the various shipping channels, it is possible to speak of a network with certain limitations.

(3)

Point infrastructure. Level II. Most of the inland ports that operated in the past are no longer operational, and there are few possibilities for inter-branch transshipments. Nevertheless, interested entities handle transshipments using ad hoc crane assistance or use the few transshipment ports.

(4)

Maintenance. Level II. Most infrastructure is maintained using preventive maintenance. This means that repairs are scheduled and conducted at regular intervals to reduce the likelihood of equipment failure.

The assessment of the parameters of system operations is given below:

(1)

Operation of safety and security services. Level II. In most cases, security services operate to the appropriate extent, but the administration does not (due to, e.g., many difficult procedures and bureaucracy).

(2)

Regulations. Level III. The European Union regulations concerning inland navigation are adapted on time or with a slight delay. Local law is consistent with superior documents and is an integral part of the regulations in force on waterways.

(3)

Procedures. Level III. Regulations and procedures governing the fleet and transportation process in Poland are complicated (among other things, due to bureaucracy) and, at some points, outdated.

(4)

Information flow. Level II. Again, due to bureaucracy, information flow between some system elements is hindered, which is surprising, especially in the era of the Internet and technology 5.0.

Given the discretionary nature of most parameters and the desire to check the reliability of the assessments, the determined levels were compared with the assessments of five other experts in the field of inland navigation (two crew members, two persons from the public administration related to inland navigation, and one scientist related to the subject, all of them Polish and with work experience over 15 years).

The assessments of other experts were not always consistent with the author’s assessments and were not uniform. In two cases, all (including the author) determined the maturity level to be the same. These were (1) fleet: age and (2) system operations: operation of safety and security services.

In half (six of twelve) of the parameters, there were differences observed at one level, but the author’s assessment was the same as the level indicated by the majority of the reference group. The remaining four were as follows:

(1)

Fleet: number. This parameter was assessed once as I, once as II, and three times as III (the author’s assessment was II). These discrepancies may result from the fact that part of the Polish fleet is decommissioned but has not yet been disposed of and the assessment of its availability may be difficult.

(2)

Fleet: crew. The number and competences of the fleet were assessed once as II, twice as III, and twice as V (the author assessed it as II). The discrepancies in the assessment may result from the description of the individual levels and the oversight that in the assessment of the maturity level, the highest level of this parameter means the best fit to demand, not the largest number of competent staff. According to the model’s intention, the number of staff exceeding demand is a problem, not a success.

(3)

Infrastructure: maintenance. This parameter was assessed three times as I, once as II, and once as III (the author assessed it as II). The differences in the assessment of this parameter can be seen in the different experiences of individual experts related to infrastructure maintenance because, for example, the method of maintaining waterways is different from that of hydrotechnical facilities. With experience in only some of these activities, it is difficult to make an objective assessment.

(4)

System operations: regulations. This parameter was assessed twice as I and three times as III (the author assessed it as III). It is difficult to indicate the reason for the discrepancy in the case of this assessment. Perhaps it was a critical approach to the issue of how European law is implemented and enforced in the Polish context (as there are cases where European law is implemented when there are no supporting tools for its application and/or enforcement yet).

The inland navigation system in Poland achieved partial maturity levels ranging from the first to the third levels. In the category of navigation equipment, a maturity level of III was achieved, which reflects significant technological progress, but at the same time, the age of the fleet was assessed as level I, which indicates obsolete vessels, most of which are over 20 years old. In terms of infrastructure financing, allocations do not even include basic maintenance, which highlights systemic inefficiencies.

From these results, it is easy to indicate recommendations for achieving a higher level of system maturity. To increase the maturity of the inland transport system in Poland, it is crucial to take coordinated actions in several areas. First of all, it is necessary to increase expenditure on linear and point infrastructure, especially in the context of improving river parameters and expanding intermodal terminals, which will facilitate integration with other transport sectors. Fleet modernization should focus on replacing units over 20 years of age with more energy-efficient and ecological ships, which is in line with the EU’s sustainable transport strategy. An important aspect is also the improvement of the management and regulatory system—although legal procedures are being adapted to European standards, their complicated administrative and bureaucratic structure may constitute a barrier to the development of the industry. Also, information flow should be improved by using digital tools to ensure real-time coordination between stakeholders. These conclusions are reflected in the analyzed data. For example, the low level of financing translates into the lack of regular infrastructure maintenance, resulting in the shipping network’s discontinuity. Similarly, the low demand for specialists in this sector leads to the outflow of qualified staff to other countries. In the context of international comparisons, the role model of inland transport development in the Netherlands or Germany can be a point of reference for Poland, especially in terms of investment policy and management of water transport corridors.

5. Conclusions

The assessment of Poland’s inland navigation system revealed significant disparities, with the overall system at Level I, despite specific parameters (e.g., navigation equipment and procedures) achieving higher maturity levels. Enhancing the maturity of Poland’s inland navigation system could unlock its full potential, contributing to economic growth, increased transport efficiency, and alignment with EU sustainability goals.

The proposed model stands out for its holistic approach, integrating technical, financial, and organizational aspects, as well as its scalability across various transport sectors. It facilitates the identification of gaps and priority areas for improvement, supporting strategic development planning. However, its reliance on expert judgment introduces a degree of subjectivity, which necessitates further validation and refinement. Addressing this limitation through standardized metrics and automated data collection methods will enhance the model’s consistency and credibility.

The model’s adaptability allows it to be applied to various contexts, whether a national transport branch, transboundary waterways, or even specific rivers within a single country. It serves as a valuable decision-support tool for policymakers, enabling them to identify investment priorities, monitor progress toward sustainability objectives, and compare transport systems across branches and regions to foster integrated infrastructure development.

The parameters of the maturity model for transport systems can be divided into universal and sector-specific categories. Universal parameters, such as regulations, procedures, information flow, financing, and infrastructure maintenance, are applicable across all transport sectors with minimal adjustments. In contrast, sector-specific parameters require adaptation to the unique characteristics of each transport branch. For example, fleet age, fleet equipment, linear infrastructure, and point infrastructure need to reflect the technological and operational context of the respective sector. Finally, parameters such as the operation of safety and security services must align with the specific safety challenges and regulatory environments of each sector. This dual approach ensures the model’s flexibility to address sector-specific needs while maintaining a consistent framework for comparative evaluation across various transport branches.

For Polish inland navigation, the results obtained using the maturity model indicate that most parameters are met at maturity level II out of V. This indicates the poor condition of this transport branch in Poland, suggesting the need for investment (especially in infrastructure).

This maturity model contributes to the field of transport system evaluation by providing a structured, scalable framework that bridges technical, financial, and organizational dimensions, making it applicable to diverse transport modes and regions. Future research will focus on refining the model to address digital maturity in inland waterways navigation, integrate technological advancements, and ensure its relevance in dynamic contexts. By continuously adapting to sector-specific developments, this maturity model has the potential to become a standard framework for evaluating and improving transport systems globally, driving sustainable and efficient logistics networks.