An Application of AHP on Transhipment Port Selection: A Global Perspective

  • Tai-Cherng Lirn
  • Helen A. Thanopoulou
  • Malcolm J. Beynon
  • Anthony K. C. Beresford
Chapter
Part of the Palgrave Readers in Economics book series (PRE)

Abstract

The research presented in this paper applies the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) to reveal and analyse transhipment port selection by global carriers. Forty seven relevant service attributes were recorded from a literature review. Two rounds of Delphi surveys — followed by brainstorming sessions — were conducted among experts in industry and academia, in order to narrow their number to four main service attributes/criteria comprising 12 sub-criteria. An AHP designed questionnaire survey was distributed to 20 port users which covered the total population of global ocean container operators and to 20 transhipment service providers (port operators/authorities). The results of the AHP analysis revealed that both global container carriers and port service providers had a similar perception of the most important service attributes for transhipment port-selection. However, the AHP weight ranking of the sub-criteria involved was not identical between the two surveys providing scope for further adaptation of service providers to users’ priorities. Differences in the performance ranking of six major container ports by global carriers, as revealed in the AHP survey, were then combined with the calculated weights for the 12 transhipment port selection sub- criteria to explore critical attributes where transhipment market strategy could focus.

Keywords

Analytic Hierarchy Process Liner Shipping Technical Infrastructure Multiple Criterion Decision Making Port Operator 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Aaker, DA and Day, GS. 1980: Marketing Research: Private and Public Sector Decisions. Wiley: Toronto, Canada.Google Scholar
  2. Addison, T. 2003: E-commerce project development risks: evidence from a Delphi survey. International Journal of Information Management 23: 25–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Alphaliner, 2014a: Alphaliner TOP 100, Operated fleets as per 08 June 2014. Available at http://www.alphaliner.com/topl00/, accessed on June 10 2014.
  4. Alphaliner, 2014b: Alphalin er Weekly Newsletter, 05, p. 1.. Available at http://www.alphaliner.com/liner2/research_files/newsletters/2014/no03/Alphaliner%20 Newsletter%20no%2005%20-%202014.pdf, accessed on June 08 2014.
  5. Azani, H and Khorramshahgol, R. 1990: Analytic Delphi Method (ADM): A strategic decision making model applied to location planning. Engineering Costs ana Production Economics 20: 23–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Baird, AJ. 1999: Analysis of Private Sector Seaport Development: the Port of Felixstowe. Journal of Transport Policy, 6: 109–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Baird, AJ. 2000: Port privatisation: Objectives, Extent, Process and the U.K. Experience, International Journal of Maritime Economics 2: 177–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Baird, AJ. 2002a. The Economics of Transhipment. In: Grammenos, C. (ed). The Handbook of Maritime Economics and Business. Llloyd’s of London Press; London.Google Scholar
  9. Baird, AJ. 2002b: The Economics of Container Transhipment in Northern Europe. International Journal of Maritime Economics 4: 249–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bodin, LandGass, SI. 2003: On teachingthe analytic hierarchy process. Computers & Operations Research 30: 1487–1497.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Brooks, M. 1985: An alternative theoretical approach to the evaluation of liner shipping Part II. Choice criteria. Maritime Policy and Management 12: 145–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Brooks, M. 1995: Understanding the ocean container market — a seven countries study. Maritime Policy and Management 22: 39–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Brooks, M. 2000: Sea Change in Liner Shipping — Regulation and managerial decisionmaking in a global industry. Elsevier Science Ltd: Oxford, U.K.Google Scholar
  14. Chang, YH and Yeh, CH. 2001: Evaluating airline competitiveness using multi-attribute decision-making. Omega 29: 405–415.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Chou, TY and Liang, GS. 2001: Application of a fuzzy multi-criteria decisionmaking model for shipping company performance evaluation. Maritime Policy and Management 28: 375–392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Chu, R and Choi, T. 2000: An importance-performance analysis of hotel selection factors in the Hong Kong hotel industry: a comparison of business and leisure travellers. Tourism Management 21: 363–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Comtois C. 1994: The evolution of containerisation in East Asia. Maritime Policy and Management 21: 195–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Containerisation International Yearbook, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003. Informa UK Ltd: London, UK. Containerisation International, monthly.Google Scholar
  19. Cullinane, K and Khanna M. 2000: Economies of scale in large container ships: optiamal size and geographical implications. Journal of Transport Geography 8: 181–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Damas, P and Motllery R. 2003: Big port groups, big volumes. American Shippers, May: 18.Google Scholar
  21. Drewry 2013: Global Container Terminal Operators Annual Review and Forecast 2013, London: Drewry Shipping Consultants Limited.Google Scholar
  22. Fleming DK. 2000: A geographical perspective of the transhipment function. International Journal of Maritime Economics 2: 163–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Flynn, M. 2002: P&O chief says privatisation is the key. Lloyd’s List, April 17.Google Scholar
  24. Flynn, M. 2003: The Shape of Things to Come. PortView, May: 4. Available at http://www.psa.com.sg/portview/pv0305/, accessed: June 17, 2003.
  25. Forgionne, GA. Kohlib, R and Jennings, D. 2002: An AHP analysis of quality in AI and DSS Journals. Omega 30: 171–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Frankel, EG. 1992: Hierarchical logic in shipping policy and decision-making. Maritime Policy and Management 19: 211–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Frankel, EG. 2001: Economics of Transhipment in Container Shipping Logistics”, Inaugural International Conference on Port and Maritime R&D and Technology, Singapore: 29–31.Google Scholar
  28. Haralambides, HE. 2002: Competition, Excess Capacity, and the Pricing of Port Infrastructure. International Journal of Maritime Economics 4: 323–347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Heaver TD. 2001: The Evolving Roles of Shipping Lines in International Logistics. International Logistics. International Journal of Maritime Economics 4: 210–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Heymann, E., 2006: Container shipping — Overcapacity inevitable despite increasing demand. Deutch Bank Research, Apr. 25, 2006. Available at http://www.dbresearch.com/PROD/DBR_INTERNET_DE-PROD/PROD0000000000198081. PDF,, accessed: June 08, 2014.
  31. Hill, T. 1993: Manufacturing strategy: the strategic management of the manufacturing function (2nd Edition). Basingstoke: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  32. Inchcape Shipping Services, 2014: PSA SICAL Terminal Tariff. Available at http://www.iss-shipping.com/Microsites/Document%20Library/PSA%20sical%20 Terminal%20Tariff.doc, accessed: June 08, 2014.
  33. Kotier, P and Armstrong G. 2001: Principles of Marketing. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  34. Lim, SM. 1996: Round the world service: The rise ol Evergreen and the lall ol U.S. Lines. Maritime Policy and Management 23: 119–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Lirn, TC. 2003: The Job attractiveness ol airlines to students in Taiwan: An AHP Approach. Journal of the Eastern Asia Society for Transportation Studies 5: 556–571.Google Scholar
  36. Lirn, TC, Thanopoulou, HA, and Bereslord AKC. 2003: Transhipment port selection and decision-making behaviour: analysing the Taiwanese case. International Journal of Logistics — Research and Applications 6: 235–251.Google Scholar
  37. Mangan, J, Lalwani, C and Gardner, B. 2002: Modelling port/leny choice in RoRo freight transportation. International Journal of Transport Management 1: 15–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Martilla, JA and James, JC. 1977: Importance-Performance Analysis. Journal of Marketing. 1977: 77–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Matzler, K, Bailom, F, Hinterhuber, HH, Renzl, B and Pichler, J. 2003 (In Press): The asymmetric relationship between attribute-level performance and overall customer satisfaction: a reconsideration of the importance-performance analysis. Industrial Marketing Management.Google Scholar
  40. Min, H, Mitra, A and Oswald, S. 1997: Competitive benchmarking of health care quality using the analytic hierarchy process: an example from Korean cancer Clinics. Socio-Economic Planning Sciences 31: 147–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. OECD, 2002: Competition Policy in Liner Shipping, Final Report. Paris: OECD.Google Scholar
  42. Oh, H. 2001: Revisiting importance-performance analysis. Tourism Management 22: 617–627CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Peters HJR 2001: Developments in Global Seatrade and Container Shipping Markets: Their Effects on the Port Industry and Private Sector Involvement. International Journal of Maritime Economics 3: 3–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Poh, KL and Ang, BW. 1999: Transportation fuels and policy for Singapore: an AHP planning approach. Computers & Industrial Engineering 37: 507–525.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. PSA (Port Authority of Singapore Co., Limited), 2002: PSA Factsheet 2002 — Financial and operation highlight 2002: 1–8.Google Scholar
  46. Rangone, A. 1996: An analytical hierarchy process framework for comparing the overall performance of manufacturing departments. International Journal of Operations & Production Management 16:104–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Richardson, P. 2002: ‘P&ONedlloyd orders more vessels’, Cargo News Asia, Dec. 9.Google Scholar
  48. Richardson, P. 2003: ‘CSCL places order for giant container ships’, Cargo News Asia, Oct. 20.Google Scholar
  49. Saaty, TL. 1977: A scaling method for priorities in hierarchical structures. Journal of Mathematical Psychology 15: 234–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Saaty, TL. 2000: Fundamentals of Decision Making and priority Theory. RWS Publications: Pittsburgh, P.A.Google Scholar
  51. Saaty, TL. 2001: Decision Making for Leaders (New edition). RWS Publications: Pittsburgh, P.A.Google Scholar
  52. Selly, MA and Forman, EH. 2002: Decision by Objectives. Petersburg, U.S.A.: World Scientific Pub Co. 1st edition. Also available at http://www.expertchoice.com/dbo/, accessed on June 13, 2003.Google Scholar
  53. Sharkey, SB and Sharpies, AY. 2001: An approach to consensus building using the Delphi technique: developing a learning resource in mental health. Nurse Education Today 21: 398–408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Suh, B and Han, I. 2003 (in press): The IS risk analysis based on a business model, Information & Management. Available online 10 May 2003.Google Scholar
  55. Tzeng, GH and Wang, RT. 1994: Application ol AHP and Fuzzy MADM to the Evaluation of a Bus System’s Performance in Taipei City Third International Symposium on the Analytical Hierarchy Process, July 11–13, 1994, George Washington University, Washington, D. C.Google Scholar
  56. UNCTAD (United Nations Conference on Trade and Development), 2001: Review of Maritime Transport 2001. New York: United Nations, (UNCTAD/RMT/2001).Google Scholar
  57. UNESCAP (Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific, 2001). Regional Shipping and Port Development Strategies — Under A Changing Maritime Environment New York: United Nations, (UNESCAP/ ST/ESCAP/2153).Google Scholar
  58. UNESCAP (Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific, 2002). Comparative Analysis of Port Tariffs in the ESCAP Region. New York: United Nations, (UNESCAP/ST/ESCAP/2190).Google Scholar
  59. Van Steenkiste, BC, Jacobs, JE, Verheijen, NM, Levelink, JH and Bottema, BJAM. 2002: A Delphi technique as a method for selecting the content of an electronic patient record for asthma. International Journal of Medical Informatics 65: 7–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Vreeker, R, Nijkamp, P, and Welle, CT. 2002: A multicriteria decision support methodology for evaluating airport expansion plans. Transportation Research PartD. 7:27–47.Google Scholar
  61. West, R. 2002: Regional and International Networks of Maritime Transport. The 2002 Annual IAME Meeting and Conference Panama 2002 Proceedings, November 13–15, 2002. Panama City, Panama.Google Scholar
  62. Woodbridge, C. 2002: The Big Four. Containerisation International, March: 86–91.Google Scholar
  63. Yedla, S and Shrestha, RM. 2003: Multi-criteria approach for the selection of alternative options for environmentally sustainable transport system in Delhi. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice 37: pp. 717–729.Google Scholar
  64. Zimmermann, HJ. 1991: Fuzzy Set Theory and Its Application, Kluwer Academic Publishers, MA.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Editor(s) 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Tai-Cherng Lirn
  • Helen A. Thanopoulou
  • Malcolm J. Beynon
  • Anthony K. C. Beresford

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations