ISH Journal of Hydraulic Engineering

ISSN: 0971-5010 (Print) 2164-3040 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tish20

Measuring port performance and productivity

Dayananda Shetty K & G.S. Dwarakish

To cite this article: Dayananda Shetty K & G.S. Dwarakish (2018): Measuring port performance
and productivity, ISH Journal of Hydraulic Engineering, DOI: 10.1080/09715010.2018.1473812

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/09715010.2018.1473812

Published online: 18 Jun 2018.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 257

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=tish20
ISH JOURNAL OF HYDRAULIC ENGINEERING
https://doi.org/10.1080/09715010.2018.1473812

Measuring port performance and productivity

Dayananda Shetty Ka and G.S. Dwarakishb
a
Research Scholar, Department of Applied Mechanics and Hydraulics, National Institute of Technology Karnataka, Surathkal, India; bProfessor,
Department of Applied Mechanics and Hydraulics, National Institute of Technology Karnataka, Surathkal, India

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

Ports provide variety of service activities for the vessels, cargo and inland transport. The degree of Received 25 February 2017
satisfaction obtained by the shippers will indicate the level of port performance achieved. Therefore, Accepted 3 May 2018
the ports have to offer very satisfactory services to vessel operators and at the same time managed KEYWORDS
to provide optimal infrastructure based on the expected vessel type and cargo to be handled. The Port; performance;
port performance thus requires a set of measures related to vessels stay at port, rate of loading/ indicators; productivity;
unloading the cargo and quality storage/inland transport. There exists a strong interrelationship Optimum
between these set of measures and various port performance indicators. In the present paper, an
attempt has been made to establish the relationship between the various observed performance
parameters and the productivity (total traffic handled) of the port. Analysis shows that the number
of vessels handled and the output per hook per shift have a strong positive correlation of 0.975 and
0.967 respectively .The idling time at berth has strong negative correlation of -0.934. The results of
the study is useful in port planning and provide optimum port capacity and infrastructure like
number of berths, quay cranes, tug boats and storage facilities for a port terminal.

1. Introduction ports. Any methods adopted by the port authorities are only
crude and only give an approximate estimate of efficiency of
Ports provide variety of service activities for the vessels,
various activities carried out in the port. The main purpose of
cargo and inland transport. Presently there are rapid
performance measurement is to provide a guide to port man-
changes in sea transportation. Shipping sector has moved
agement for planning and control of port operations.
towards specialized vessels of large size and high speed.
There are two categories of influencing factors in port
These modern ultra large vessels are of high investment
performance, namely customer service issues and freight
and therefore demand increased utilization and decreased
handling capabilities (Murphy. et al. 1991). Performance mea-
idle time of the vessel. The managers and authorities at
surement helps decision makers through capturing perfor-
ports have increasingly been under pressure to improve
mance data. Managers rely on measures as an integral
port performance by ensuring that the port provides ser-
element of planning and controlling processes (Neely et al.
vices on an internationally competitive basis (Simoes and
1997). Generally, port performance is strongly related to fac-
Marques 2010).There have been increasing pressure to
tors such as scope of the hinterland, local product structure,
reduce the loading and unloading time at sea ports. As the
local economic development level, status of the world econ-
demand from the shipping line increased, demand for the
omy, and government policy on supporting trade, landside
rapid service from the ports also increased. This resulted in
infrastructure, population, and culture (Tongzon 2002).
development and modernization of many ports throughout
Performance measurement is important for the efficient and
the world to achieve improved performance. The degree of
effective management of organizations. It reflects on organiza-
satisfaction obtained by the shippers will indicate the level
tion’s objectives, customer requirements and the external
of port performance achieved.
competitive environment (Kennerley and Neely 2002). It can
This means ports need to enhance their planning and
be used to assess the success of organizations. Bruijn (2002)
operation capability by deploying innovative equipment and
discussed how performance measurement can fill a number of
state-of-the-art technology in order to optimize terminal logis-
functions, including transparency, learning, sanctioning,
tic process. In order to optimize port terminal resources, it is
appraising and benchmarking between organizations and
really vital to ensure that port operational flow is well
competitors.
designed/planned. The port performance indicators are simply
In a supply chain context, measuring performance is
a measure of the efficiency of various port activities. Such
managerial tool that assists in planning and organizing
indicators are easy to calculate and simple to analyze and
activities, motivating workpeople, and controlling events
understand by the port managers. They provide reliable
within acceptable parameters (Morgan 2004). Widely
input to the top management in the key areas of port opera-
accepted performance measurements are unavailable,
tions. Port performance measurement is complicated, since
although there is a wide range of measures and indicators
port is a cluster of economic activities where a large number of
for port efficiency and performance, as ports are very dis-
firms provide products and services and together create dif-
similar (Bichou and Gray 2004).The superstructures offer
ferent port products (Langen et al. 2007). There are no uni-
the physical conditions and port facilities for port opera-
versally adopted tools to measure the efficiency of the sea
tions efficiency (Gordona et al. 2005).The volume of trade,

CONTACT Dayananda Shetty K dpunmaya@yahoo.com

© Indian Society for Hydraulics
2 D. S. K AND G. S. DWARAKISH

total value of commodity throughput and port-related 4. Data products and methodology
employment are all possible indicators to assess port
The parameters considered for the present study for estab-
performance.
lishing the relationship between observed performances
Port efficiency as a whole may be understood from
indicators and the Port productivity have been collected
various perspectives and its influence on trade facilita-
from New Mangalore Port Trust. The time series data
tion (Clark et al. 2004). Ports’ managers, planners and
for1990–1991 to 2014–2015 have been collected and tabu-
authorities need a reliable performance measurement
lated in Table 1.
system to assess the efficiency and effectiveness of their
The following are some of the port performance indica-
actions. For this reason, optimization of facilities and
tors measured at the Indian major ports.
operations is the common goal in most current mea-
surement systems. Analytical methods such as queuing
models, stochastic frontier, data envelopment analysis
4.1. Traffic handled (port productivity)
and simulation models have been the most common
measurement approaches used in measuring port Traffic handled is the cargo or goods transported generally
performance. for commercial gain by ship or any other mode of transport.
Cargo handled at the port is the key data of the port as it
reflects amount of port productivity. As the port has to
2. Research gaps and objectives provide different facilities according to the type of the
cargo being handled, it also reflects the utilization of port
Performance measurement is important for better effi-
facilities. Cargo handled during a period is the total of cargo
ciency and effective management of the Organization.
loaded, cargo unloaded and cargo transshipped during that
The port performance thus requires a set of measures
specified period (e.g. Financial Year i.e. from 1st April of a
related to vessels stay at port, rate of loading/unloading
year to 31 March of the next year)
the cargo and quality storage/inland transport. The term
port productivity is defined as the total traffic/cargo
handled per annum expressed in million tons per
4.2. Number of vessels handled
annum (MTPA), both import and export. There exists
a strong interrelationship between port productivity and Vessels handled are the number of ships operated at the
various port performance indicators. The port produc- ports during the financial year between 1 April of current
tivity is thus a function of its performance. In the pre- year and 31 March next year. The number of vessels is
sent paper, an attempt has been made to establish the
relationship between the various observed performance
parameters and the productivity (total traffic handled) of
the port. The interrelationship between the performance
indicators for a given time period is also analyzed and
its relevance in port planning has been established. The
objective of the present study is to establish the inter-
relationship of the port productivity with the observed
port performance indicators and to know the relevance
of performance measurement in port planning and port
management. The results of the present study is useful
in planning of the port, providing optimum port capa-
city and infrastructures like no. of berths, equipment/
heavy machineries, quay cranes, floating crafts and sto-
rage facilities for a port. Thus management of the Port
shall be able to provide efficient and effective services to
the port users with better productivity.

3. Study area
The New Mangalore Port Trust (NMPT), Panambur,
Mangalore, along West Coast of India, with Latitude
12°55ʹN and longitude 74° 48ʹ E, has been selected as
the study area and is shown in Figure 1. NMPT is an all-
weather port, operational throughout the year since
1971. Cargo handled at NMPT during the first year of
commissioning was 0.68 MTPA as against 39.94 MTPA
during the year 2016–2017. It shows that there is 60
times growth rate in last 47 years. The parameters
which are instrumental in selection of study area include
availability of large volume of data, proximity of the port
to the institute, which helps in ground truth data Figure 1. Location of New Mangalore Port Trust, Karnataka, West Coast of India.
collection.
 ISH JOURNAL OF HYDRAULIC ENGINEERING 3

Table 1. Port performance indicators for the year 1990–1991 to 2014–2015 of NMPT.
Traffic Handled Number of Average Pre- Average Turn Average output Idling Time at Average output Per
(In Million Vessels Berthing Delay Round Time (In Per Berthday (In Berth (In Hook Per Shift (In
Particulars Tonnes) Handled (In Days) Days) Tonnes) Percentage) Tonnes)
1990–1991 7.62 400 0.79 4.90 4368 46 202
1991–1992 8.03 457 1.66 5.31 4776 46 200
1992–1993 8.27 492 1.45 6.36 3288 47 204
1993–1994 7.09 453 1.92 5.24 5568 48 190
1994–1995 8.63 482 2.21 5.72 4560 56 204
1995–1996 8.01 514 1.75 5.13 5592 51 224
1996–1997 8.88 505 1.50 4.37 7117 48 259
1997–1998 12.45 644 1.09 4.10 7258 47 284
1998–1999 15.28 729 0.93 3.74 7514 46 341
1999–2000 14.21 724 1.07 3.80 9004 40 391
2000–2001 17.6 749 0.77 2.89 12,190 35 428
2001–2002 17.89 734 0.76 2.73 12,538 33 481
2002–2003 17.50 763 0.65 2.37 15,939 24 487
2003–2004 21.43 832 0.55 2.35 18,048 19 789
2004–2005 26.67 876 0.79 2.96 15,576 18 1041
2005–2006 33.89 1057 0.78 3.00 15,048 18 1069
2006–2007 34.45 1080 0.78 3.00 15,048 18 1069
2007–2008 36.02 1144 0.64 3.21 12,664 19 1143
2008–2009 36.69 1184 0.65 3.00 13,644 16 1442
2009–2010 35.53 1186 0.81 3.06 13,895 19 1433
2010–2011 31.55 1097 0.60 2.71 14,205 19 1229
2011–2012 32.94 1136 0.79 2.95 13,960 16 1356
2012–2013 37.04 1071 1.05 3.30 15,917 16 1495
2013–2014 39.36 1062 0.81 3.18 16,304 18 1485
2014–2015 36.57 1032 0.59 2.46 19,414 14 1823
Source: Management Service division, NMPT

calculated based on vessels actually sailed from the port Average Ship Berth
Day Output
during the financial year. Total Cargo handled by Vessels sailed
¼
Total Stay at Working Berth
4.3. Average pre-berthing waiting time (APBWT)
This is the time taken by a ship from its arrival at the 4.6. Average output per hook per shift
anchorage (reporting station) till it starts its movement to
the working berth i.e. operational berth. If a vessel is It is the total cargo handled divided by total number of
brought into the port and berthed at a non-working hooks deployed per day/Number of shifts per day
berth and vessel is waiting for the availability of working Average Hook Output per day
berth, time spent at the waiting berth is to be included in
pre-berthing waiting time. The average pre-berthing wait- Total Cargo handled
¼
ing time can be obtained by dividing the total pre-berth- Total Number of Hooks deployed per Day
ing waiting time of all cargo vessels sailed from the port
by the number of cargo vessels berthed. Transit time Average Output per Hook per Shift
from reporting station to non-working berth, if any, and Average Hook Output per day
transit time from non-working to working berth are not ¼
Number of Shifts per day3
to be included in pre-berthing waiting time.
Average Pre
Berthing Waiting Time
Total Pre
Berthing Time of Vessels sailed 4.7. Idling time at berth
¼
Total Number of Vessels sailed It is the total non-working time at working & non-working
berths/total number of vessels sailed. It is expressed as a
percentage.
4.4. Turn round time (TRT)
Percentage of Non
working time
Ship’s turn round time (TRT) in the port is the primary Non
working time at Working Berth X 100
¼
indicator to judge the quality of service being given by the Total Stay at Working Berth
port to the ships. TRT is the total time spent by a vessel at
the port from its arrival at reporting station till its departure
from the reporting station.
5. Results and discussion
The different performance indicators measured are com-
4.5. Average output per ship berth day pared with the port productivity (throughput) using
Pearson’s correlation coefficient. It is a measure of the
Average ship berth day output is total cargo handled by
strength of interrelationship between the two variables.
vessel sailed divided by the total stay at working berth
Pearson’s correlation coefficient (R) for continuous data
during the year
4 D. S. K AND G. S. DWARAKISH

ranges from −1 to +1. Positive correlation indicates that crafts, quay cranes, pilotage, tugs, mooring gangs, labor
both the variables increase or decrease together, whereas gangs, storage facilities, etc. The turnaround time of
negative correlation indicates that one variable increases, so vessels calling on to the port is also having a negative
that the other decreases and vice versa. Pearson’s correla- correlation with the productivity of the port (Figure 4). It
tion coefficient when applied to a sample is commonly may be attributed to the increase in the pre berthing
represented as ‘R’. delay, inward movement, outward movement, and delay
Pn   during service time (loading/unloading time).The lesser
i¼1 ðxi
xÞ yi
y the turnaround time more number of vessels can be
R ¼ pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
Pn pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
Pn
i¼1 ðxi
xÞ2 i¼1 ðyi
yÞ2 handled per year and which in turn increases the port
productivity and the port performance. The average out-
where,
put per ship berth day has a very strong positive correla-
n is sample size
tion with the port productivity (Figure 5).This indicates
xi, yi are single samples indexed as with i
the rate of utilization of available berths. The berth idle
x, y are sample mean
time is having negative correlation with the port produc-
Covariance is a measure of degree to which two random
tivity (Figure 6). This indicates non-utilization of avail-
variables(x, y) change together. If the variables tend to show
able berths/infrastructure. The average output per hook
similar behavior, the covariance is positive. In the opposite
per shift has a very good positive correlation with the
case, when the greater value of one variable mainly corre-
port productivity (Figure 7). It is the measure of effi-
sponds to the smaller values of other, the covariance is
ciency of labor/machinery deployed in the loading/
negative. Covariance (C) is calculated as
unloading operations. The higher the efficiency of labor
Pn
ðxi
xÞðyi
yÞ gangs/equipment, higher is the port productivity.
covðX; YÞ ¼ i¼1 The result of analysis for the interrelationship of the port
n
productivity with the observed port performance indicators
Where,
shows that the pre-berthing delay, turnaround time of the
n is sample size
vessel and the idle time at berth have negative correlation
xi, yi are single samples indexed as with i
(−0.678, −0.732 and −0.934) with the volume of the cargo
x, y are sample mean
handled (productivity) at the port. The total number of vessels
Accordingly, scatter plots are drawn for various observed
handled, average output per ship berth day and average output
port performance indicators with the port productivity
per hook per shift are having a positive correlation with the
(total volume of cargo handled per year) as shown in
productivity. The average output per hook per shift has a
Figure 2 to 7. The correlation coefficient and covariance
strong relation (+0.967} with the productivity.
for various performances indicators with respect to the
The covariance of the total number of vessels
productivity are tabulated in Table 2.
handled, average output per ship berth day and average
It is clear that the number of vessels handled has a
output per hook per shift have positive values which
very strong positive correlation with the productivity
indicates the productivity and these indicators move
(Figure 2). The larger the number of vessels handled
together, where as the covariance of pre-berthing delay,
per year, the higher is the port productivity. But it may
turnaround time of the vessel and the idle time at berth
not be always true because the volume not only depends
have negative values indicating that the productivity and
on the number of vessels handled but also on the size of
these indictors move in opposite directions.
vessels and the parcel size of unloaded/loaded cargo from
the vessel in a particular port of call. The average pre-
berthing delay has a negative correlation with the port
6. Conclusions
productivity (Figure 3).The vessel has to wait for want of
infrastructure at the port of call. It may be due to non The interrelationship of the port productivity (total volume
availability of berths for particular type of cargo and port of cargo handled per year) with the observed port

1400

1200
No. of Vessels Handled

1000

800
NO.OF VESSLES
600 HANDLED
Linear (NO.OF VESSLES
400 HANDLED)

200

0
0 10 20 30 40 50
Productivity

Figure 2. No. of vessels handled V/s productivity.

 ISH JOURNAL OF HYDRAULIC ENGINEERING 5

2.5

pre-Berthing waiting time

1.5
PRE-BERTHING DELAY
(IN DAYS
1
Linear ( PRE-BERTHING
DELAY (IN DAYS)
0.5

0
0 10 20 30 40 50
Productivity

Figure 3. Pre-berthing waiting time V/s productivity.

5
Turnaround time

4
TURN ROUND TIME (IN
3 DAYS)
Linear (TURN ROUND
2 TIME (IN DAYS))

0
0 10 20 30 40 50
Productivity

Figure 4. Turnaround time V/s productivity.

25000

20000
output/shift/Berthday

15000
OUTPUT PER BERTHDAY
(IN TONNES)
10000
Linear (OUTPUT PER
BERTHDAY (IN TONNES))
5000

0
0 10 20 30 40 50
Productivity

Figure 5. Output/shift/berth day V/s productivity.

performance indicators for New Mangalore Port Trust are
established in the present study. Study shows that the pre-
berthing delay, turnaround time of the vessel and the idle
time at berth are have negative correlation with the volume
of the cargo handled (productivity) at the port. The total
number of vessels handled, average output per ship berth
day and average output per hook per shift are having a
positive correlation with the productivity. The average
output per hook per shift has a strong relation with the
productivity. The increase in the pre-berthing waiting time
also has a negative correlation with the volume of cargo
handled, it may be due to non-availability of berths for
particular type of cargo or port crafts and hence vessels
have to wait for the want of infrastructure at the port.
Hence, we recommend to the port management to upgrade
the existing general cargo berths (Berth No. 1–7) to handle
6 D. S. K AND G. S. DWARAKISH

60

50

40

berth Idle time

30 IDLING TIME AT BERTH
(IN PERCENTAGE
Linear (IDLING TIME AT
20 BERTH (IN PERCENTAGE)

10

0
0 10 20 30 40 50
Productivity

Figure 6. Berth idle time V/s productivity.

2000
1800
1600
1400
Output/shift

1200
OUTPUT PER HOOK PER
1000 SHIFT (IN TONNES
800
Linear (OUTPUT PER
600 HOOK PER SHIFT (IN
TONNES)
400
200
0
0 10 20 30 40 50
Productivity

Figure 7. Output/shift V/s productivity.

Table 2. correlation coefficients and covariance values. storage facilities for a port. Thus management of the Port
Sl. Correlation Covariance shall be able to provide efficient and effective services to the
No. Port Performance Indictors Coefficient(R) (C)
port users with better productivity. This study can be
1 Number of vessels handled 0.975 3052.560
2 Average pre-berthing delay (in days) −0.678 −3.610 extended to a longer period from the inception of the port
3 Average turnaround time (in days) −0.732 −9.700 to get a better correlation between the port productivity and
4 Average output per berth day (in 0.841 47,617.790 measured performance indicators. The effects of addition of
tonnes)
5 Idling time at berth (in percentage) −0.934 −158.110 the increased infrastructure at specific intervals during the
6 Average output per hook per shift (in 0.967 6038.270 growth of the port can also be studied. The study can
tonnes) also be extended to other major ports of India to
compare the efficiency of infrastructure provided and
the investments made by the government with in the
multicargo/container vessels, as the demand for general major ports of India.
cargo berths are diminishing and containerization of all
the cargo is in the move worldwide. This will have a positive
impact on reducing the pre berthing delay and in turn Disclosure statement
reduces the turnaround time of the vessels calling at the No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
port. To reduce the idle time at berths, high speed/sophis-
ticated wharf cranes may be provided along with effective
utilization of existing labor gangs. Thus, there is relevance References
to the Port planning aspect also. The results of the present
Bichou, K., and Gray (2004). “A logistics and supply chain manage-
study is useful in port planning and providing optimum ment approach to port performance measurement.”.” Maritime
port capacity and infrastructures like no. of berths, equip- Policy and Management, 31(1), 47–67. doi:10.1080/
ment/heavy machineries, quay cranes, floating crafts and 0308883032000174454.

Bruijn, H. (2002). “Performance measurement in the public sector:
Strategies to cope with the risks of performance measurement.” Int. J.
Public Sector Manag., 15(7), 578–594. doi:10.1108/09513550210448607.
Clark, Dollar, D., and Micco, A. (2004). “Port efficiency, maritime
transport costs and bilateral trade.” J. Dev. Econ., 75(2), 417–450.
doi:10.1016/j.jdeveco.2004.06.005.
Gordona, J.R.M., Pui-Mun, L., and Henry, C.L.J.C. (2005). “A
resource-based view of competitive advantage at the Port of
Singapore.” J. Strategic Inf. Syst., 14, 69–86. doi:10.1016/j.
jsis.2004.10.001.
Kennerley, M., and Neely, A. (2002). “A framework of the factors
affecting the evolution of performance measurement systems.” Int.
J. Operations Production Manag., 22(11), 1222–1245. doi:10.1108/
01443570210450293.
Langen, D., Nijdam, M., and van.Der. Horst, M. (2007). “New indica-
tors to measure port performance.” J. Maritime Res., 1, 23–36.
ISH JOURNAL OF HYDRAULIC ENGINEERING 7
Morgan, C. (2004). “Structure, speed, and salience: Performance mea-
surement in the supply chain.” Business . Manag. J., 10(5), 522–536.
doi:10.1108/14637150410559207.
Murphy., P., Daley., J., and Dalenberg., D. (1991). “Selecting links and
nodes in international transportation: An intermediary’s perspec-
tive.” Transportation J., 31(2), 33–40.
Neely, A., Richards, H., Mills, J., Platts, K., and Bourne, M. (1997).
“Designing performance measures: A structured approach.” Int. J.
Operations Production Manag., 17(11), 1131–1152. doi:10.1108/
01443579710177888.
Simoes, P., and Marques, R. (2010). “Seaport performance analysis
using robust nonparametric efficiency estimators.” Transportation
Plann. Technol., 33(5), 435–451. doi:10.1080/03081060.2010.502375.
Tongzon, J. (2002). “Efficiency measurement of selected Australian
ports and other international ports using data envelopment analy-
sis.” Transportation Res. ., 35, 107–122.