CONCEPTUAL MODEL FOR DIFFERENTIATING TECHNOLOGICAL AND LOGISTICS PROCESSES IN THE TRANSPORT SECTOR BASED ON A PRODUCT-CENTRIC APPROACH

Abstract

The article examines the problem of the correct terminological distinction between “technological” and “logistical” processes/operations in the transport sector amid the active penetration of logistics terminology into transport science and education. It is demonstrated that the uncritical transfer of definitions originating from materialproduction industries leads to the emergence of pseudo-logistics terms, terminological inconsistencies, and semantic distortions-particularly in the interpretation of cargohandling, transport, and service operations. Using a product-centred approach, the study substantiates that the key criteria for differentiating logistical and technological processes are the nature of the resulting output (material goods vs. immaterial transport service) and the entity exercising end-to-end control over the material flow. It is shown that transport operations generate an immaterial service, which is consumed simultaneously with its provision and cannot be accumulated, and that most operations considered “logistical” in industrial logistics possess a technological nature in transport, as they form the transport service and involve cargo as the object of transport work. The study proposes a conceptual model describing the transformation of the status of a material product (cargo) throughout its movement (goods → cargo → cargo flow → transport service) and the shift of the flow-control responsibility between actors. A system of methodological principles-product-centricity, functional role, contextuality, and actor-based applicability-is introduced to ensure a scientifically sound terminological differentiation between technological and logistical processes. Based on the analysis of international standards and documents (ISO, UNECE, UNCTAD, IMO), the article demonstrates the absence of any practice of describing transport technological operations as “logistics”, which confirms the incorrect use of widespread pseudologistics expressions. The paper formulates recommendations for education, research, and professional practice related to terminology standardization, the revision of educational programmes, and the refinement of professional standards. The proposed model is integrated into the analytical framework “paradigm – doctrine – concept – strategy” and may serve as a methodological foundation for further research and sector-wide standardization within the transport domain.