The research carried out was financially supported by the 'Training of the Researchers-Operational Program "Competitiveness" (PENED--03ED647) research project, co-financed by the General Secretariat for Research and Technology, the Greek Ministry of Development and the Third European Community Support Programme.
LIST OF TABLES
LIST OF FIGURES
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS, ACRONYMS AND CODENAMES
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION
- SETTING THE SCENE
- BACKGROUND TO THE RESEARCH
- ORGANISATION OF THE STUDY
Therefore, the focus of the empirical research is on the perceived value measurement of port users. The empirical research on the perceived value of port users assesses the surprisingly under-researched perspectives on customers' opinions.
CHAPTER 2. THE CONTEMPORARY CONTAINER PORTS
- INTRODUCTION
- THE STRUCTURAL CHANGES OF THE PORT SECTOR
- Maritime transport and global trade
- The importance of containerization
- Vessel specialization and growth
- The role of port informatics
- NEW GOVERNANCE MODELS
- Port models
- Shifting agendas: from ownership to governance
- Measuring the performance of port devolution programmes
- Changing the units of analysis: From port to terminal
- THE SPATIAL CHANGES IN SEAPORTS
- Ports embedded in supply chains
- The need for coordination in the supply chains
- The importance of the hinterland links
- Port foreland and hinterland regionalization
- From economies of scale towards economies of scope
- The Container Terminal Operators
- The Shipping lines
- The Freight Forwarders
- The Port Authorities
- CONTAINER PORTS IN RETROSPECT: THE NEED TO MEASURE PORT PERFORMANCE
- SUMMARY
The result is the decentralization of port services and the connection of the port zone with semi-autonomous (with respect to the port) areas. As already mentioned (Section 2.2), the biggest impact of containerization on ports is the requirement for greater specialization and widespread operational changes of container terminals. Thus, the challenge for port service providers is to connect with the needs of supply chains.
CHAPTER 3. PORT PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT
THEORY, RESEARCH AND PRACTICE
INTRODUCTION
PORT PERFORMANCE AND COMPETITIVENESS
- The characteristics of port research 25
- Port efficiency
- Port Choice
- Port competition
Note: arrows based on citation to/from the different research themes Source: Pallis et al., 2011. 27 The analysis provided extends beyond the 74 papers included in the category "port competition and competitiveness" by Pallis et al. The application of DEA analysis has a number of advantages, but the method is subject to criticism (see: Bonilla et al., 2002).
Total freight transported through docks, revenue derived from the rental of port facilities Notteboom et al. Logit modeling in combination with the container routing problem is used as a tool for assessing port market shares (Veldman and Buckman, 2003; Veldman et al., 2005) . In one of the most influential studies on port choice, Lirn et al. 2004) combined the AHP with the Delphi technique.
A comparison of stated and revealed preferences of shipping lines (Tongzon and Sawant, 2007) or triangulation methodologies (combining quantitative and qualitative) (Mangan et al., 2002) provides inferences about the determinants of port choice. Internally generated data can also be used to assess port competitiveness (Yap et al., 2006; Lam and Yap, 2008).
THE USERS’ PERSPECTIVES MEASUREMENT
First, these studies remain focused on port efficiency, and second, such measurements of port user satisfaction were considered to be largely simplistic and thus quickly abandoned. The need to link performance to objectives is also supported by the Matching Framework theory (Baltazar and Brooks, 2007). In such cases, there is a need to link performance outcomes to customer requirements, while emphasis must be placed on both internal and external integration of a port with other supply chain actors.
Customer-oriented evaluation is occasionally used to improve port competitiveness. 2004) recognize the interaction of multiple organizations in the port community as a vital step towards this goal, since the provision of port services is the result of the complex integration of the many actors of this community. In particular, the study concludes that the differences between ports in terms of the quality35 and cost of the services provided can be explained by a combination of factors: infrastructure provision, co-‐. Shippers' relationships with other members of the supply chain and the level of integration between actors also decisively influence the level of satisfaction.
Furthermore, they only collect data from cargo shipments and shippers with other members of the port community being excluded. The importance of the factors influencing hub port attractiveness (identified from the existing literature) has been under evaluation by major shipping companies.
PPM IN PRACTICE
- The users’ perspectives measurement in practice
Note: 38 of the 42 ports sampled chose to answer the question on measures collected and to whom they reported, and of these, 34 collect performance metrics, so n = 34. Of the 35 ports reporting container operations, 31 chose to answer the question on the measures collected and 30 collect performance measures, so n = 30 for these measures. Ten of the 18 major European container terminals under study measure performance to improve the efficiency and productivity of terminal operations.
Furthermore, the results of the same study clearly show that comprehensive performance measurement programs are limited. However, the scientists argue that these three indicators provide at best a partial measure of a port's performance and importance and argue that due to the ongoing transformation of ports and the relevant port cluster, new port performance indicators should be developed. Incorporating the perspectives of port users into port performance measurement systems is a recent and seemingly emerging trend.
Anecdotal evidence and the author's discussions with PA representatives result in insights into the presence of port authority user satisfaction metrics and port service providers. One of the few examples where some information on these measurements is freely available is that of the port of Bilbao (EASC Committee, 2008).
RESPONDING TO THE NEED FOR REDIRECTING PPM
- Port efficiency studies in retrospect
- Port choice and competition studies in retrospect
- The port users’ perspectives measurements in retrospect
- The need to assess externally generated information
- Port performance: a multidimensional construct
Externally generated information is primarily used to evaluate the selection criteria of port users. As such, they do not provide information on users' perspectives on the port service characteristics they consider vital to enhancing their satisfaction or perceived value. Determinants of choice provide information on port users' decisions about choosing a specific port of use, while determinants of value or satisfaction investigate their views of the services they enjoy.
Summarizing this literature review, a number of studies highlight the need to assess port users' perspectives, but do not aim to develop tools or provide effective methodologies that would enable such measurements. Although they suggest or openly suggest and recommend that port research should focus on an assessment of the perspectives of port users, the application of the latter remains desirable. The theoretical requirements for assessing the perspectives of port users go hand in hand with the recent development at the practical level.
In short, the assessment of the port users' perspectives for measuring port performance (either directly or indirectly) is used significantly less often than the assessment of internally generated information. The performance of the port as a group of economic activities (De Langen and Visser, 2005) is ignored on several occasions.
SUMMARY
CHAPTER 4. MEASUREMENT OF PORT PERFORMANCE BASED ON VALUE ASSESSMENT
- INTRODUCTION
- BUSINESS PERFORMANCE: A BALANCED APPROACH
- BUSINESS PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT (BPM)
- The Definition of the BPM
- The balanced approach
- The implications for (balanced) Port Performance Measurement (PPM) systems
- THE PORT USERS’ PERSPECTIVES: AN EXTENDED APPROACH
- Definitional issues
- THE USERS’ PERSPECTIVES: GOING BEYOND SATISFACTION
- A need for redirection: the emphasis on value
- The relation between customer value, customer satisfaction and behaviour intentions
- The transactional (functional) and relationship value
- The Value through the relationships with the suppliers, the customers and alliance partnering
- The ports’ relationships in network constellations
- The relationship value antecedents
- THE RESEARCH OBJECTIVES
- SUMMARY
The present thesis moves towards this goal and contributes to the inclusion of port users' perspectives in comprehensive PPMs. Details and changes in port-specific activities and directly related activities (i.e. part) have direct effects on the supply chain in which they are embedded (i.e. the whole) and vice versa.42 Detailed port-‐. Perceived customer value (PCV) is conceptualized as a trade-off between benefits and trade-offs (eg, total costs, both monetary and non-monetary) with an emphasis on the specific performance characteristics of products/services (Zeitham, 1988; Gale). , 1994).
The relationships of port users, service providers and port authorities are quite complex and incorporate particular characteristics not common in other industries. The purpose of this thesis is to create knowledge about the port users' . perceived value. Revealing and understanding these factors increases the understanding of port users' strategic decisions and the potential causes of defection.
Assessing the port users' perspectives is the missing link for the development of balanced PPMs. The aim of the current thesis is therefore to generate knowledge about the port users' perceived value.
CHAPTER 5. THE RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY
- INTRODUCTION
- TYPES OF RESEARCH
- BACKGROUND TO THE RESEARCH DESIGN
- Case studies
- Qualitative analysis
- Quantitative analysis
- THE METHODOLOGICAL FRAMEWORK
- The process of the conducted research
- The 7-‐stage adopted research process
Alvesson and Skolberg (1994) call 'abduction' a process that involves a combination of induction and deduction. There are no previous studies dealing with measures of port users' perceived value and, in general, assessment of port users' perspectives is limited (Section 3.5.3). Among the objectives of the present research are the identification and understanding of port users and service providers.
First, it seeks to test the feasibility of the research procedure designed and applied in relation to port users' value measurement (exploratory case study). All these steps constitute a continuous process that increases the reliability and validity of the case study. The present thesis is at the third level, as quantitative research supplements the completed case studies to provide a better understanding of the researched themes.
Four influential frameworks proposed by scholars in port studies, valuation research and case studies guided the design of the process used in this thesis. One of the most commonly used procedures is that proposed by Stuart et al.
Stage 1: Defining the port users and the service providers
The above concepts guided the design of the seven-phase research process adopted and applied in this study (Figure 5.4.4). Notably, the empirical research conducted in the context of this study ends with the conclusion of step 5. Although stages 6 (assessing perceived value) and 7 (defining strategic actions) are included in the framework, these have not been subjected to empirical research.
This is due to the fact that each port user must design its own strategic actions, which in turn are subject to other research results and analyses. The actual scope and potential for generalizations regarding these stages remain to be examined in further research. Therefore, a port service provider is any entity that provides service(s) within a port and is connected through the port to the transportation of goods.
Identifying all potential port users and service providers is beyond the scope of this research. With port limits being more often contested, determining which users and service providers will be included in the analysis is obvious.
Moreover, considering ports as clusters of economic activities, such a task entails considerable complexity.
Stage 3: Defining the port users and the service providers’ relationships Section 4.5.3 outlined the importance of relationships on value measurements in
The exploration of relationships facilitates the interpretation of the results in terms of value drivers of the current research and improves understanding about strategies applied by port actors to increase their value offerings and/or their perceived value.
Stage 4: Identifying value attributes
Stage 5: Finding the importance of the value attributes
Stage 6: Assessment of the perceived value
Stage 7: Defining strategic actions
- The implementation of the methodological framework
- The first phase of the research
- The second phase of the research
- The third phase of the research
- ENHANCING THE QUALITATIVENESS OF THE RESEARCH
- The criteria for judging case studies
- The criteria for judging qualitative analysis 64
- SUMMARY
- INTRODUCTION
- THE PORT USERS’ INTERACTIONS
- Background for understanding the findings
- The different types of interactions
- The Operational Interactions
- The Commercial Interactions
- TWO DISTINCTIVE PORT SETTINGS
- THE COMMON USER TERMINAL SETTING
- The Operational Interactions
- The Commercial Interactions
- THE DEDICATED TERMINAL SETTING
- The Operational Interactions
- The Commercial interactions
During the first phase of the research, the aim was to complete phases 1 and 2 of the research process (defining the port users and service providers; identifying and analyzing their interactions). The interviews with the port authorities had similarities with those of the port users. The second phase of the study included phase 3 and phase 4 of the designed research process.
Furthermore, the second phase of the study allowed the confirmation of the findings of the first. Findings about the interactions and relationships between port users and service providers were further confirmed by interviewees during that phase of the research. The value drivers identified during the first phase of the research were used to design a questionnaire on the value measurement perceived by port users.
In the second phase of the research, no contact was made with the port users and the port authorities of the Greek ports. Based on the results of the analysis of the port users and the service providers. The port users located in the port of Thessaloniki were excluded due to the comprehensive character of the port.
55 The port users of these ports constituted the sample of the first two phases of the current one.
