Scales and economy
It’s not how much you have but what you do with it
Comparing terminal features can be thankless and the results underwhelming, argues Stevie Knight
Supposed “economies of scale” may not be fully living up to their billing but it is very hard to know, since terminals are extremely reluctant to say.
To start with, defining terminal capacity is like asking “how long is a piece of string”, says Ben Hackett of Global Port Tracker, and trying to get a straight answer from the port and terminal operators about theirs, he says, is like asking for the state secrets – and complicated by the fact that civil engineers might point to quay length and cranes while execs will point to maximum moves. Truth is, it seems no-one really wants to be compared, and it’s an entirely human trait to get away from being pinned down if you think it might be used to your detriment.
But, he points out, at the end of the day, it’s not how much you have but what you do with it. “Most of the Key Performance Indicators are measures of individual terminals and often cannot be compared across the industry - much as we might like to.”
Although the equipment may be capable of doing something faster or more efficiently, it doesn’t always translate to a direct capability within the port. Taking one example, a terminal can have the latest tandem lift cranes, but other factors play a part, not least that things get “fiddly” trying to position the trucks underneath and there’s still some doubt if this particular economy of scale really gives what it says on paper. Further, if the maintenance and repair is not up to scratch it won’t add to productivity.
Another side is that a large software programme may well have been put in place, but it is not much good if labour and management cannot make full use of it. How many of us just know the corner of the programmes we use all the time – with the rest being an unearthed mystery?
One developer says that bringing over certain processes to software automation “is a nice idea but I’d have to say the larger part of the functionality isn’t actually used”. It seems that if a terminal’s staff simply settle for just using the basics, they might not get to look beyond these.
“After all, if it’s a simple, one-on-one system, you can feel confident about exploring, mucking things up and just hitting the reset,” he says. “If it is a bigger tool like a whole operating system, you might be one of a team of up to 12 people operating it on a 24/7 shift rota so there’s less room to experiment, plus there always the sneaking suspicion – however wrong – that you could break it.” All of which means there’s another economy of scale that might not be living up to its capability.
And does the adage of “economies of scale adding up to more environmentally friendly operations” really work when it means larger ships needing deeper water – and so more transhipment and feeder operations? Yes, there may be one boat 50m longer taking twice the amount of cargo, but what about the rising number of smaller lifts and transfers?
Mr Hackett also points out another issue linked with this particular upscaling and terminal productivity: that is, feeder services are, in some places, moved to a different terminal to the incoming large ships, keeping the big, deepwater berths free. And as the distance between the deepwater berths and the others with less draught gets larger, this might become a pressing question for more ports who will be differentiating themselves more and more on their deepwater capacity.
Mr Hackett says: “Mixing ships means quay utilisation goes down - but is it efficient to move the goods to separate area for feeders? It’s a very interesting question: however, it is hard to get anyone to comment on whether it is more efficient to take this option or not.“
Images for this article - click to enlarge
Unless otherwise stated, all images copyright © Mercator Media 2012. This does not exclude the owner's assertion of copyright over the material.
