An Evaluation of ASEAN Port Performance and Efficiency*

Abstract

The overall objective of this paper is to evaluate the performance and efficiency of ASEAN ports. Specifically, it first identifies overseas ports similar to ASEAN ports in terms of nature and roles, port management policies, and infrastructure and operations, using the statistical technique of cluster analysis. Having identified the groupings of similar ports, the paper compares the ASEAN port performances and efficiency with their (similar) overseas counterparts. The results of the 'like for like' comparison show that the ASEAN ports have achieved higher levels of efficiency in the utilization of cranes, berths and storage areas, with the port of Singapore as the top performer. However, they are generally less efficient in terms of timeliness, labour and tug utilization. Charges in ASEAN ports are also significantly higher than those of their (similar) overseas counterparts. Thus, we can say that, although the ASEAN ports are efficient from the port authorities' viewpoint, there is much scope for improving their services to port users, particularly in terms of timeliness and port charges.

The impact of port operations on efficient ship operation from both economic and environmental perspectives

“…For this reason, numerous studies define the ship's time in port as one of the key indicators to measure the efficiency of port operations, especially in the port choice model (Branch 1986;Talley 1994;Preston and Kozan 2001;Vis and de Koster 2003;Turner, Windle, and Dresner 2004;Wilson, Bisson, and Kobia 1986). Regarding this issue, Foster (1978) and Tongzon and Ganesalingam (1994) chose the ship's waiting time in ports as one of the basic factors to analyse the competitiveness of ports themselves. Tongzon (1995) and Notteboom (2006) explained that a ship's delay in port due to inefficient port operations is one of major reasons for increased operating costs.…”

O Nível De Serviço Do Tecon Rio Grande Pela a Ótica De Empresas Da Serra Gaúcha: Um Estudo Logitudinal 2006-2013

“…Em que pese a grande variação no número de critérios utilizado, na escolha desses critérios e no tipo de amostra considerada em cada estudo, pode-se identificar na literatura certa convergência quanto aos critérios de escolha portuária considerados pelos armadores e pelos usuários (exportadores, importadores e agentes de carga). Pela ótica dos armadores, destacam-se, entre outros, critérios como: i) potencial gerador de carga; ii) localização do porto e distância em relação às principais rotas de navegação; iii) capacidade de receber navios de grande porte, considerando-se especialmente o calado; iv) eficiência nas operações de carga e descarga; v) tempos de espera em fundeio; e vi) tarifas portuárias (WILLINGALE, 1984;DALENBERG, 1991DALENBERG, , 1992UNCTAD, 1992;GANESALINGAM, 1994;TIWARI;ITOH;DOI, 2003; ONUT; TUZKAYA; TORUN; 2011).…”

Time Efficiency at World Container Ports

“…cranes, straddle carriers, etc.). Several works have classified ports based on their physical characteristics, since the seminal work of Tongzon (1995) on performance indicators using multivariate analysis, such as Itoh (2002), Wang et al (2003), Joly and Martell (2003), Cullinane and Wang (2006), Herrera and Pang (2006), and Wu and Goh (2010) among many others (see also Talley, 1994;Tongzon and Ganesalingam, 1994 Other works have put more emphasis on economic indicators, although they often remain difficult to access, such as the monetary and added value of cargo throughput (Lemarchand, 2000), or bound to subjective views approached through interviews with port authorities and transport firms (Ng, 2006) as well as shippers, forwarders, and shipping lines (Tongzon, 2002;Tiwari et al, 2003). Other studies included Supply Chain Management (SCM) aspects into port performance analysis (Bichou, 2006), environmental port performance indicators (Wooldridge et al, 2010) 1 , but also indicators about market trends and structure, socioeconomic impact, environmental performance, logistic chain and operational performance, and governance proposed by organizations such as ESPO 2 and the PPRISM 3 project.…”