To that end, terminal managers throughout the ports industry seem to have something of an uneasy relationship with their software providers, especially when it comes to off-the-shelf packages. Martin Szakal, manager of ABP's Exxtor Terminal at the Port of Immingham, for example, believes that software providers are mainly interested in terminals buying what is on offer, rather than adapting existing programmes to individual needs and requirements.

“In my experience, they are very poor at listening,” he says. “If we ask our software provider for anything slightly unusual, they are more than happy to oblige. However, they levy a flat fee of £13,000 ($25,000); this appears to be a standard charge, but not one that accurately reflects the real cost of providing us with what we want!” he says.

Indeed, the relationship between terminal and software provider has become something of a captive market for the latter. Furthermore, feedback from the terminal as to how the software package could be improved seems to be neither wanted not acted upon, he says.

“Certainly, no programmer has ever asked me exactly what I need to help improve terminal productivity, despite an absolute willingness on our part to provide feedback. Not enough systems analysts are listening to the operators, so the tools we need are not always incorporated into terminal software packages. The programme we currently use, for example, doesn't address all of the everyday issues we encounter on the terminal.”

International Container Terminals Services Inc (ICTSI) terminals get round this problem by running their own proprietary IT programmes, which allows managers to know what is happening across a broad range of activities at any given moment. This extends across vessel handling, yard operations and gate movements, explains Andy Andrews, the company's senior manager overseeing operations in Georgia, Syria and Poland.

“It's always possible to measure productivity, although spotting problems as they are happening is initially often down to gut instinct. Later, you can review the statistics and analyse when productivity started going south, as well as seeing the effectiveness of measures you took to resolve the problem,” he says.

ICTSI, says Mr Andrews, is very hot on productivity issues, because good productivity allows a terminal to do more with existing assets. By increasing productivity, greater volume can be attracted, which in turn boosts bottom line performance. Terminal managers therefore have to continually look for ways to improve operations or things stagnate, he says.

As volumes increase, part of the overall cost base will also logically rise, but because a terminal is doing more with the same equipment, it is working more profitably. The all important unit costs are being driven down, he says.

“We can track productivity in a very detailed manner. We start by looking at simple vessel productivity, but this information can also be broken down in terms of crane productivity as well as by individual crane operator, if necessary. The feedback on the cranes is known in real time, but that on operators retrospectively. Gate productivity is also retrospective, being about 12 hours behind actual operations,” explains Mr Andrews.

He nevertheless cautions against an over-reliance on statistics, either those generated in real time, or retrospectively. “In reality, it is pretty easy to identify a productivity problem; you pick it up virtually straight away by walking round the terminal. A good terminal manager won't be stuck behind his desk, he'll be out there fixing problems as they occur.”

Once remedial action is implemented as a means of overcoming a productivity glitch, there is really nothing IT can do to help you work out how quickly you will make a positive return, he adds. You see the effectiveness, or not, only after the fact. Fortunately, he notes, you can solve most customer-related issues by throwing money or equipment at them.

“In these types of situation, cost effectiveness is not the main issue. Making sure the customer is happy is the main factor driving decisions. What you have to do is make sure you never get in the same predicament again with that customer. That is where experience counts for a lot.”

Analysing what went wrong does involve a lot of looking back to determine why forward planning did not work. However, a lot of short-term productivity issues are a function of delayed vessel calls, which are ultimately beyond the control of the terminal manager, who nevertheless has to work out how best to deal with them as part of his every day remit, says Mr Andrews. In these types of situations, rapid fixes invariably won't be cost effective.

Productivity monitoring in forestry product handling is also very much a fact of life. Shippers want to know where their consignments are as they move throughout the logistics chain. Vessels plying between Scandinavia and the UK, for example, are routinely tracked, as are hauliers undertaking deliveries.

The Port of Hull's Finland Terminal acts as a regional hub for Finnish paper products. When it was created in 2000, the licensees that form its main customer base asked for an electronic data interchange (EDI) link to Finland to be installed. Unfortunately, the terminal's stevedoring company was unable to fund investment of an appropriate off-the-shelf package; as an alternative, an existing system already used by one of the licensees was adopted. Danny Carmichael, who manages the facility on behalf of Associated British Ports (ABP), explains that this IT package is nowadays used extensively to also track terminal productivity, with results monitored in real time.

The majority of the traffic arriving at the Hull terminal is conveyed by ro-ro vessels, so the speed at which trailers are moved from ship to shore is viewed with great interest. A lot of sto-ro cargo is handled, with consignments loaded onto Mafi trailers inside the vessel.

“We monitor how many of these are taken off the vessel and how long it takes, which in turns makes it possible to work out an hourly discharge rate,” says Mr Carmichael.

Stevedores make use of radio frequency (RF) terminals to transfer vehicle loading data to the main IT system, which will follow the progress of individual work gangs during their shifts. So called shunt gangs load road haulage trailers for some licensees via a planned system, while live gangs handle ad hoc calls from customers coming to the terminal to pick up their own particular consignments. Calculating the productivity of the shunt gangs is much easier since the EDI link warns the terminal in advance of what to expect once the vessel has arrived. Live gangs, by their very nature, have to locate the outbound consignment in the storage area with no prior warning.

“Each live gang and each shunt gang can have their productivity monitored right down to individual commodities involved: panels, reels, boards or timber bundles,” sasy Mr Carmichael. “Thanks to RF technology, the system knows when someone has picked up a job, is doing the job, and has completed the job.”

Vessel productivity is calculated retrospectively and is less scientific. The terminal management systems knows what tonnage is conveyed by each vessel, plus where each commodity is located on which deck level. Since real time monitoring takes place of deck and commodity discharge, it is relatively easy to work out the overall productivity rate in terms of tonnes or cubic metres of products moved per hour.

Because of the sheer amount of real time data collected, it soon becomes clear when productivity bottlenecks are emerging. However, given the mix of forestry products being handled, finding quick fixes is not always so easy.

“Paper reel decks on some vessels can contain a variety of sizes and diameters, as well as being stored in different ways relative to other cargoes. So productivity can vary widely and it is therefore difficult to make like-for-like comparisons between individual vessels. However, because we have lots of data available to us, we can see whether a dip in productivity is peculiar to one vessel, or whether we have spotted a trend in the overall forestry products industry.”

Finland Terminals agrees key performance indicators with each licensee. These are highly detailed, often setting out productivity targets for each deck and each vessel.

“Whenever we spot a productivity bottleneck, working out what the financial return will be on any remedial action taken, tends to be based on our experience; software tools in this area don't really help,” says Mr Carmichael. He cites a recent case involving an industry trend towards larger reels, which prompted the terminal to shell out for a second large reel handling vehicle. Operating with just one meant it was available either to unload vessels or liaise with road haulage operators, but not both. Because the industry trend towards larger reels had been spotted by the IT system, it became a no-brainer to invest in the second handler.

On other occasions, productivity issues had suggested certain remedial measures, which in turn highlighted other issues, prompting a rethink of the original policy.

“Before we start monitoring productivity, our initial estimates on what we can achieve derive mainly from our experience. It is only when we begin to monitor the process that we can produce figures that back up that original judgement,” says Mr Carmichael.

He points out that the original IT system adopted by the terminal does require further development. Over the past 12 months, for example, it has become clear that greater productivity could be squeezed out of the RF terminals themselves on certain procedures. Consignments entering warehouses are counted by hand, but scanned automatically on their way out. Scanning both in and out would have a positive impact, but requires existing software to be updated.