Rank and file

Can port productivity be compared ‘apples for apples’ and what constitutes ‘productivity’ compared with ‘port performance’? These are vexed questions that have stirred vigorous debate among the maritime community since the global logistics media company JOC Group recently launched its Port Productivity Database.

The 2012 Top 20 rankings of terminals and ports in the Americas, Europe/Middle East/Africa and Asia are based on berth productivity drawn from 87,000 validated vessel calls to 350 ports and 580 terminals worldwide.

Asian ports dominate the top 20 rankings – mainly Chinese ports, although Busan, Yokohama, Taipei and Kaohsiung also feature. Also included are Jebel Ali, Khor Fakkan and Salalah in the Middle East and Long Beach and Elizabeth in the US. The sole European port in the top 20 is Southampton.

JOC itself was surprised at how much of an edge the best-performing Asian ports have versus ports in the Americas and the Europe/Middle East region. The 24/7 working hours is one big difference in operating practice but still the difference seems large.

Like-for-like

The database, says JOC, is the first global, like-with-like measurement of container port performance.

Based on data provided by a majority of the world’s largest container lines, the database measures container lifts per hour achieved at ports and marine terminals worldwide. Moves per hour (MPH) is a basic indicator of how quickly ships are loaded, unloaded and sent back to sea to continue their service rotations.

The data elements this report is based on are vessel name, terminal name, port city, port country, berth arrival, berth departure and number of moves (including lift-ons, lift-offs and re-stows). Berth arrival and departure refer to ‘lines down’ and ‘lines up’ — that is, the actual arrival and departure of the ship at the berth.

The calculation of moves per hour between these two times is referred to as ‘unadjusted gross berth productivity’.

Interpretation of this data is intended to allow carriers, ports, marine terminals, investors and others to compare productivity in detail within a specific port, country, region or among similar entities, revealing opportunities for improvement.

The reason for producing the database was to foster discussion and analysis that will lead to higher port productivity worldwide, particularly with the threat of bottlenecks as ships get larger and trade grows, according to Peter Tirschwell, JOC Group executive vice president/chief content officer.

Compare and contrast

Speaking with Port Strategy, Mr Tirschwell said the database allows ports and terminals to benchmark and compare their performance against others, establishing clear best-in-class definitions and to foster discussion around productivity improvement.

But if the basic indicator is MPH, how does the database make allowance for the fact that some terminals will have more cranes at work than others? Or that some terminals will handle bigger ships, meaning more cranes can be deployed on the one vessel?

Mr Tirschwell explains that JOC accepts that the rankings measuring gross berth productivity will favour terminals like ones in Asia that work 24/7 and those handling the largest-sized ships with multiple cranes in operation simultaneously. The detailed database breaks down the data by specific ship size as well as call size.

One could assume that an agreed database would be embraced as a way of avoiding questionable announcements from some terminals heralding productivity ‘records’ that may not stack up in terms of independent methodology or align with how other terminals measure their performance. However there have been varied reactions.

Ranking rut

Some transhipment ports dealing with many small feeder ship calls may feel aggrieved at seeing their rankings appear below those of very different port types.

One terminal operator would only say to PS: “We are still reviewing the initial information and have not signed up to subscribe.”

Others have seized on the marketing opportunities that a high ranking naturally brings. The Port of Salalah for example issued a statement underlining its ranking as the sixth top transhipment port and 18^th top port globally, as well as its high position in a number of categories in the Europe/Middle East/Africa geographic class.

“It’s important for all of our employees, customers, government partners and stakeholders to see tangible results and evidence that Port of Salalah is a world-class port,” said Ahmed Akaak, acting-chief executive of Port of Salalah.

LinkedIn

Perhaps the best indication of the level of debate about this issue is the discussion in the Port Strategy forum on LinkedIn.

One commentator told PS that in any debate about the measurement of productivity performance, there has to be a “common sense” approach. He favoured targeting KPIs to give the answers on issues such as turnaround times against contractual agreements with shipping lines, and how many moves per hour a quay crane is capable of doing so its true productivity can be assessed.

“We need KPIs in order to see whether we are being productive and consequently also making a profit,” he said. “Do KPIs assist in the elevation of productivity? Initially yes because by following certain methods related to KPIs you can usually work out where your bottlenecks are and take remedial action, but eventually productivity will plateau… how far can you squeeze a lemon?

“In my opinion the best approach is to make sure you have the relevant [KPI] information at your fingertips. This can be compiled by using computer systems and also looking at your manual processes. Once you have the information you then can make small adjustments and fine tuning to get that extra improvement which may lower some of your costs or boost productivity.

“A well disciplined and conscientious workforce together with correct yard layout, efficient equipment, decent rostering and stevedoring computer system will give you most of the benefits you’re after.”

Phase II

Neil Davidson, senior analyst – Ports and Terminals at Drewry Maritime Research, says that while it’s certainly very interesting to see the JOC data, he hopes that in further phases, the wider picture will be considered. He also suggests that we need to be distinguishing between ‘productivity’ and ‘performance’ (from the customer’s point of view).

“Moves per hour across the ship is a measure of performance levels (or put another way a measure of service levels). As a general rule, higher shipside performance equals higher operating costs because to work a ship faster you have to throw more resource at it – more cranes and/or more straddles or tractor/trailers per crane.

“And so the question is: ‘is the shipping line prepared to pay for that higher performance, because if not, why should the terminal bother providing it?’ It should only bother providing it if it can do it better than its competitors, but still make the same or more money than its competitors.”

JOC has indicated it intends to broaden the base of its data measurement beyond unadjusted berth productivity. The intention is to release more detailed data that is more robust and takes into account other factors of productivity such as crane efficiency and differences between berth and work/operating times. These are currently under development.