Short Paper

chapter6.pdf

Home >Engineering homework help >Short Paper

6. Container terminal handling quality Bart Wiegmans, Peter Nijkamp and Piet Rietveld

6.1 INTRODUCTION

In the container terminal handling market, quality is important in attract- ing and retaining customers. In Europe, container carriers do have choices between different container ports that can meet their demand. For the ter- minal operator, this results in increasing importance of quality of services and the need to know the needs of (potential) customers. A favourable network position and well-organized processes are no longer sufficient to attract container volumes. Meeting customer needs and delivering high quality (speed, reliability, and so on) for low costs are critical factors. Currently, adoptions of innovative handling systems to improve operations (and thus quality) have not been signalled in the European container ter- minal market (Bontekoning 2002). This might be due to the fact that these systems are not cheap and their added value is not recognized by terminal operators so far.

Transport research in the EU (Intermodal Quality 1997; European Commission 1997; TERMINET 1998) shows the following important quality elements concerning transport: time, reliability, flexibility, qualification, acces- sibility, control, handling price, frequency, speed, long-term planning, man- agement, and safety and security. Dedicated quantitative information on container terminal handling quality is hard to find in the literature. Container terminals are monitoring their quality levels (mainly internal processes), but the results are not made public. Therefore, a more general literature survey forms the main input for this chapter combined with 14 interviews with ter- minal operators.

The aim of this chapter is to offer an approach for measuring container terminal service quality and to determine critical performance conditions. For this purpose, the well-known SERVQUAL model is used. This model has been adapted to container terminals and presents an ‘operational’ view on the judgement of service quality of container terminals by terminal operators (Parasuraman et al. 1991). The focus is on container terminals,

Konings, R., Priemus, H., & Nijkamp, P. (2008). The future of intermodal freight transport : Operations, design and policy. ProQuest Ebook Central <a onclick=window.open('http://ebookcentral.proquest.com','_blank') href='http://ebookcentral.proquest.com' target='_blank' style='cursor: pointer;'>http://ebookcentral.proquest.com</a> Created from apus on 2021-02-25 18:53:40.

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 0 8 . E

d w

a rd

E lg

a r

P u b lis

h in

g L

im ite

d . A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

because the terminal is an important link in the total intermodal transport chain (change of transport mode, collection, distribution, and so on). In the next section characteristics of services are explored and adapted to the container terminal market. Next the service quality of maritime terminals and continental terminals is analysed. The chapter ends with conclusions.

6.2 THEORY ON SERVICE QUALITY AND CONTAINER TERMINALS

Service Production Process

In the service process, usually the front office of a service organization interacts directly with customers. This direct interaction is conceded to be ‘the moment of truth’ for the service organization. The conventional service triangle consists of three actors (de Vries et al. 1994):

1. the service organization (back office); 2. its contact personnel (front office); 3. its customers.

The production process of a service can be based on a customer-orientation, a competitor-orientation or a market-orientation. In a customer-orientation, the main objective of the producer of the service may be to fulfil customer needs. He can strive to provide a better price–quality service than his competitor (competitor-orientation), or he can provide his service as both customer- and competitor-oriented (market-oriented) (Narver and Slater 1990; Slater and Narver 1994a and 1994b; Slater and Narver 1995). A rela- tively newly distinguished orientation is process-oriented. In this case, the service is seen as part of the whole supply chain and there is an extensive exchange of information between actors in the supply chain in order to be able to perform all services smoothly. This seems a suitable approach for ter- minal services, because they form part of an integrated transport chain.

The terminal service buying process can be divided into three activities:

1. pre-purchase phase (problem definition, information collection and evaluation of alternatives);

2. consumption of the terminal service; 3. post-purchase phase (evaluation of the terminal service).

In the pre-purchase phase, the actors are the terminal operator and the terminal customer. Usually, the terminal–customer personnel, the terminal

90 Intermodal transport operations

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 0 8 . E

d w

a rd

E lg

a r

P u b lis

h in

g L

im ite

d . A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

personnel and the terminal operator consume the terminal service. The ter- minal customer and his personnel evaluate the service. Generally, the cus- tomer’s management does not have an obligation to be present in person. The service delivered to the terminal customers is quite homogeneous and there is no need for participation of the terminal customer’s management in the service production process. Furthermore, the customer service is intangible, there is no need for simultaneous production and consumption, and the (objective) terminal transit time is highly important. However, as long as the needed terminal transit time fits in the total transport solution it does not need to be fast but it needs to be on time.

Costs of Service Quality

Achieving quality services costs money. A useful concept in analysing the cost of terminal service quality may be that of value density, that is, value per unit weight. The value density reflects the relative importance of the container in transit and inventory in the logistics system (Magee et al. 1985). In any business, this suggests that it might be preferable to stock low- value items rather than high-value items. The terminal operator can also use this knowledge: the higher the value of the container the operator is handling, the more important reliability and speed become. Generally, costs of service quality comprise (de Vries et al. 1994):

1. prevention costs, for example training programmes; 2. inspection costs, for example costs of quality tests; 3. internal repair costs, for example costs to repair errors before the

service reaches the customer; 4. external repair costs, for example costs to repair errors after the service

has reached the customer; 5. lost sales, these do not result in direct costs, but may well represent the

highest damage to a company delivering poor service quality.

Delivering good-quality services only requires inspection costs and pre- vention costs, whereas in the case of poor service quality, costs also consist of internal and external repair costs and lost sales. The total container handling service costs should always be placed in the perspective of the total transport channel costs. The terminal handling costs depend – besides the desired quality level – on container characteristics (value of freight), size of shipment (volume), weight, handling difficulty, density, buying of additional terminal services, and transport distance to and from the termi- nal. Therefore, more tailor-made handling services might ‘produce’ more satisfied customers and justify higher prices.

Container terminal handling quality 91

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 0 8 . E

d w

a rd

E lg

a r

P u b lis

h in

g L

im ite

d . A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

Terminal Actors in the Service Process and Quality

The terminal customer provides the terminal operator with requirements concerning the desired terminal service. In particular, flexibility require- ments have been growing in importance during recent years (Kuipers 1999). This requires improvements from terminal operators in order to meet the service demands of their customers. In this respect, much is expected from new-generation terminals in the Continental terminal market (Bontekoning and Kreutzberger 2001). These types of terminals are expected to improve the cost and quality performance of terminal operations (Konings and Kreutzberger 2001). However, so far, no new-generation terminals have been built. In Figure 6.1, the main elements influencing, and following from, terminal service quality are depicted. The terminal customer consists of two elements: the management (back office), and the employees (front office) who are present when the service is produced at the container terminal. The terminal operator also consists of two sub-elements: front office and back office. This results in four groups that may have different expectations and observations about terminal service quality. This means that both the ter- minal customer’s front and back office must judge the quality of the termi- nal service. An additional complicating factor is that for the terminal operator the inclusion of the total supply chain in the quality delivery is extremely important, because it is the channel, not the terminal operator, that actually delivers the products and services to the final customers.

92 Intermodal transport operations

Source: Based on de Vries et al. (1994).

Figure 6.1 Terminal service quality environment

Terminal service quality

Back office Terminal operator

Front office

Quality expectations

Quality perceptions

Back office Terminal customer

Front office

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 0 8 . E

d w

a rd

E lg

a r

P u b lis

h in

g L

im ite

d . A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

Without channel coordination, it may be even harder to achieve an adequate terminal service performance level.

If the focus is placed on terminal customers of both maritime and con- tinental terminals, four main customer groups can be distinguished:

1. container carriers (deep-sea shipping companies); 2. transport companies (rail, road, barge and short-sea transport com-

panies); 3. importers/exporters (intermediaries, such as stevedores, ship brokers,

shipping agents and forwarders); 4. shippers/consignees (companies that send and receive the freight).

The main customer groups must be identified in order to be able to deter- mine the weight that must be placed on the judgements of the different groups. The services that are provided can be grouped according to type of customers, importance of different sales categories, type of container (process) or transport mode (network). Usually, terminal operators are not entirely clear about their customers, and therefore offer a broad package of services for the sake of risk-spreading and widening the operating base (that is many potential customers).

Measurement of Service Quality

Service quality can, in general, be measured on three aspects: search, experience and credence attributes. Search attributes are quality features that can be identified by the customer before the purchase of a certain service. Experience attributes are features that can only be disclosed during or directly after the consumption of a certain service. Finally, credence attributes are features that cannot be identified by customers, neither before nor after the consumption of the service.

Bowersox et al. (1986) view handling as one of the most costly aspects of logistic channel performance, and thus the objective is to reduce handling operations in the logistic chain to an absolute minimum. This creates an extra dimension concerning quality: there is a tendency to minimize termi- nal handling, stressing the importance of quality even more. The distinc- tion between services is necessary in order to be able to determine which services are important or should be important to the terminal operator. At a container terminal the following main activities can be found:

1. ship-oriented services: discharging the ship, loading the ship, direct transshipment, warehousing and storage of container, and container groupage;

2. yard-oriented services;

Container terminal handling quality 93

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 0 8 . E

d w

a rd

E lg

a r

P u b lis

h in

g L

im ite

d . A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

3. other terminal services: manufacturing; renting, leasing and selling ser- vices; collection and distribution of containers; physical transport of containers; container monitoring; and other services.

SERVQUAL to Measure Container Terminal Service Quality

The SERVQUAL model is used as a framework to analyse the terminal service quality. In the SERVQUAL model of Parasuraman et al. (1985), the difference between customer expectations and observations (valuations or judgements) is measured. If the expectation of the customer is greater than his observation, there is a lack of quality. Quality is delivered when the observation is equal to the expectation. More quality is delivered if the observation of the customer is greater than his expectation. The expect- ations must be carefully dealt with, as expectations can be low (which is the case in the container terminal market). In this respect, it is better to focus on the aspirations of customers rather than on expectations. In the termi- nal interviews dealt with later in this chapter, the expectations of terminal operators about terminal customers expectations have been used as a proxy for the important quality elements for terminal services. The ‘general’ objectives of terminal operators may be stated as cost minimization and profit maximization, capacity-oriented and realizing political goals (for example concerning the environment, enhancement of status and role). The terminal operator should translate the customers’ quality expectations into performance statements and define ‘target’ quality levels. The set of SERVQUAL quality questions served as input for the interviews. It has not been possible to interview terminal customers in this chapter. Testing the SERVQUAL model with terminal customers is thus an important item for further research. This would make it possible to compare the terminal oper- ators’ expectations with terminal customer judgements of service quality.

6.3 MARITIME CONTAINER TERMINAL SERVICE QUALITY

Maritime Quality Judgement History

In general, container terminal services have no extensive history concerning quality measurement. Some research has been carried out on quality aspects in the broader field of transport mode comparison and also in the field of logistics. In that field, it has been shown that, in the past, average deliv- ery time was the most important customer service element determining

94 Intermodal transport operations

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 0 8 . E

d w

a rd

E lg

a r

P u b lis

h in

g L

im ite

d . A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

customer satisfaction (see also Table 6.1). This table indicates the impor- tance of different quality aspects to customers. It not only applies to trans- port or logistics companies, but also to terminal operators. If time, availability of service and information are important to customers, these service elements are automatically important to terminal operators as well. Their solutions must fit these requirements in order to be competitive.

Characteristics of Maritime Terminal Services

For the maritime terminal operator, ship services are the most important. All services are offered (ship, yard and other), but the handling service is of prime importance. The container carriers are the main customers and the central focus is on the quality of service that they receive. Maritime termin- als are open 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. The average transit time for a container is between 48 and 96 hours through a maritime terminal. According to terminal operators, in the service production process, the reli- ability of the service is most important for their customers. Compared with the results from Perreault and Russ (1976), ‘average delivery time’, ‘time availability’ and ‘rush service’, have decreased in importance, while ‘relia- bility’ (for example accuracy, action on complaints) has increased in importance. See Table 6.2 for an overview of the terminal interview results.

Relative Importance of Maritime Handling Quality Conditions

The importance of maritime container terminal quality – according to terminal operators – has been tested on five quality dimensions. These

Container terminal handling quality 95

Table 6.1 Customer service elements and customer satisfaction

Customer service elements Correlation coefficient1

Average delivery time 0.76 Delivery time availability 0.72 Order status information 0.67 Rush service 0.59 Order methods 0.56 Action on complaints 0.56 Accuracy in filling orders 0.46 Returns policy 0.44 Billing procedure 0.39

Note: 1 Correlation between service element and customer satisfaction.

Source: Perreault and Russ (1976).

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 0 8 . E

d w

a rd

E lg

a r

P u b lis

h in

g L

im ite

d . A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

dimensions are: tangibles – the appearance of the physical facilities; reli- ability – the ability to provide the promised service; responsiveness – the willingness to help customers; assurance – the knowledge of the personnel; and empathy – the caring for terminal customers. The interviewed terminal operators were asked to divide 100 points between the five items (see Table 6.3 for an overview) in order to define relative importance of quality conditions.

The interviews show that ‘reliability’ is of main importance to maritime terminal operators. The main finding for maritime container terminals is that all quality variables are important, but ‘reliability’ is the most impor- tant one.

Maritime Terminal Services and Quality Conditions

Several characteristics of the maritime container terminal service were tested in the interviews. According to terminal operators, maritime terminal customers expect excellent service, therefore quality costs are concentrated at the beginning of the internal service production process. Costs are made in order to prevent internal quality defects. Terminal performances meas- ured by the maritime operators are crane performance, container damage,

96 Intermodal transport operations

Table 6.2 Service characteristics in the maritime terminal market

Variable Characteristic

Kind of services Ship, yard, other Average container terminal transit time 48–96 hours Operating hours 24/7, all year Critical performance condition Reliability

Source: Terminal interviews, 2002.

Table 6.3 Quality importance according to maritime terminal operators

Variable Share (%)

Tangibles 20 Reliability 30 Responsiveness 15 Assurance 20 Empathy 15

Source: Terminal interviews, 2002.

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 0 8 . E

d w

a rd

E lg

a r

P u b lis

h in

g L

im ite

d . A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

straddle carriers performance, and that of other transport modes (besides deep-sea). The percentage of containers that is not handled according to customer requirements is far less than 1 per cent, and the conflicts over false handlings are solved to the maximum extent possible. However, maritime terminal customers are also interested in channel performance, suggesting that terminal operators might start measuring channel performance in add- ition to internal performance. The attitude of maritime terminals should improve from a production-oriented (internal process) to a more customer- and process-oriented attitude. The maritime terminal operators conclude that better-educated personnel, shorter container terminal transit time, better handling performance, and quality measurement may improve the container handling service. However, these items are just facilitators to help the terminal customers with a good transport channel performance.

Conclusion about Maritime Terminals

Several characteristics of maritime terminals have been identified. Ship ser- vices are the most important to maritime terminals, but related services (yard and other) are offered as well. Container carriers are the main cus- tomers and are served 24/7, 365 days per year with an average container transit time through the terminal of 48–96 hours. In the 1990s, the import- ance of speed and time relatively decreased in favour of reliability of the service. According to past transport research, average delivery time was judged to be of main importance. The interviews have proven that this has changed for the container terminal sector in Europe. As transport services are, in general, price-inelastic, container handling price reductions will not generate a dramatically increased demand for container handling. However, the market is very competitive on a port-by-port basis. Quality levels must meet high standards set by the container carriers. Costs incurred by better quality performance cannot be recovered through higher rates. Therefore, the relatively most critical performance condition for their customers – according to maritime container terminal operators – in terms of quality is ‘reliability’. It has not been possible to produce a table with the scores of maritime terminals, concerning the adapted SERVQUAL model, because the response on this part of the questionnaire was insufficient.

However, several tools to improve maritime container terminal services can be developed, based on this research. Current terminal performances measured by operators are crane performance, container damage, straddle carrier performance, and that of other transport modes (besides deep-sea). The maritime operators conclude that better-educated personnel, shorter container terminal transit time, better handling performance, and quality measurement may help improve the container handling service. Handling

Container terminal handling quality 97

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 0 8 . E

d w

a rd

E lg

a r

P u b lis

h in

g L

im ite

d . A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

speed, information and communication are quoted as important tools to improve the quality performance of maritime container terminals. However, faster handling is not important as long as the terminal service fits the total transport solution. Information and communication is what counts in order to improve the terminal operator attitude, the channel per- spective and performance, and the flexibility.

The attitude of maritime terminals should improve from a production- oriented (internal process) to a more customer-oriented attitude. Internal processes are important, but the transport channel of the customer – which the terminal service forms part of – counts. Measuring ‘total’ container channel performance, through an increased number of terminal perform- ance measures, might help to improve the reliability of container terminals. Most maritime container terminals measure performance on the basis of their terminal; container carriers are interested in channel performance: is container X reliably transported from point A to B in the agreed time- frame? Internal terminal performance measures must therefore be extended with external terminal performance measures. These external performance measures measure the container carriers’ on-time performance. A perform- ance improvement for maritime terminals might be ‘flexibility’. Deep-sea ship arrivals are no easy planning task, as weather influences and other problematic developments make the terminal operator’s task more difficult. Through strict contracts, all risks of delays and terminal berth congestion are passed onto the terminal operator. This makes ‘flexibility’ a critical per- formance condition in order to optimally service the terminal customer.

6.4 CONTINENTAL CONTAINER TERMINAL SERVICE QUALITY

Continental Quality Judgement History

Research into Continental terminal services has no extensive history. Research has been carried out on quality aspects in a broader perspective (logistics). In the annual report of RENFE (1998) there is a short section on quality measurement concerning intermodal freight transport including the use of Continental rail terminals (see Figure 6.2 and 6.3 for the main results).

This quality judgement by customers concerns rail services in Spain, including the use of Continental container terminals. Figure 6.2 shows that, according to clients, ‘compliance with terms’ and ‘quality–price rela- tionships’ are the most important quality aspects. ‘Compliance with terms’ may also be stated as ‘reliability’. Figure 6.3 shows that the most important

98 Intermodal transport operations

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 0 8 . E

d w

a rd

E lg

a r

P u b lis

h in

g L

im ite

d . A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

Container terminal handling quality 99

Note: ‘Usual speaker’ refers to usual contact person.

Source: RENFE (1998).

Figure 6.2 Customer judgement of rail service quality conditions

Source: RENFE (1998).

Figure 6.3 Importance of quality elements and corresponding judgements

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%

100%

co m

pl ia nc

e wi

th te

rm s

pu nc

tu al d

el ive

tim e

be tw

ee n

te rm

in al s

ha nd

lin g

of g

oo ds

qu al ity

–p ric

e re

la tio

ns hi p

re gi st ra

tio n

ra te

re fu

nd s/ di sc

ou nt

cla im

te le ph

on e

in fo

rm at

io n

us ua

l s pe

ak er

Quality aspect

Im p

o rt

a n

Importance

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

co m

pl ia nc

e wi

th te

rm s

pu nc

tu al d

el ive

tim e

be tw

ee n

te rm

in al s

ha nd

lin g

of g

oo ds

qu al ity

–p ric

e re

la tio

ns hi p

re gi st ra

tio n

ra te

re fu

nd s/ di sc

ou nt

cla im

te le ph

on e

in fo

rm at

io n

us ua

l s pe

ak er

Quality aspect

1997

1998

Importance

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 0 8 . E

d w

a rd

E lg

a r

P u b lis

h in

g L

im ite

d . A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

quality aspects (‘compliance with terms’ and ‘quality–price relationship’) are not those customers are most satisfied by. The differences between the quality aspects are quite large and especially the most important quality aspects must perform better. In general, it is more important for operators to perform better in aspects that are more important to customers. Below, the interviews with the Dutch container terminals will be discussed.

Characteristics of Continental Terminal Services

Most Continental terminal operators who were interviewed (11 in the Netherlands) have large customer bases, and most of the customers are located close to the terminal. The operating hours for barge terminals show a mixed picture, ranging from 05.00 Monday to 12.00 Saturday every week to 24/7, 365 days a year. The average container terminal transit time for barge terminals is 48 hours and for rail terminals 73 hours. In the service production process, reliability of the service is most important (see Table 6.4 for an overview of the interview results).

Relative Importance of Continental Handling Quality Conditions

Table 6.5 shows that ‘reliability’ is of relatively main importance to both barge and rail terminal operators. Several characteristics of the container terminal service were tested in the interviews. The percentage of containers that is not handled according to customer requirements is less than 1 per cent for rail terminals, and the conflicts over these false handlings are solved where possible. For barge terminals, the false handlings are between 1 and 3 per cent, with one terminal reaching almost 10 per cent (interviews with terminal operators in 2002). Terminal performance measured by the barge

100 Intermodal transport operations

Table 6.4 Service characteristics in the Continental terminal market

Variable Characteristics: barge Characteristics: rail

Kind of services Barge, yard, other Rail, yard, other Average container 48 hours 73 hours

terminal transit time Operating hours Most 24/7, all year 05.00 Mon.-12.00 Sat Critical performance Reliability Reliability

conditions

Note: Most terminals are open 24/7, all year, with few (mainly rail) exceptions.

Source: Terminal interviews, 2002.

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 0 8 . E

d w

a rd

E lg

a r

P u b lis

h in

g L

im ite

d . A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

operators concern barge on-time performance, and customer pre- and end-haulage on-time performance. Rail terminals measure the on-time performance of trains (departures) and trucks (percentage handled within 30 minutes).

Continental Terminal Services and Quality Conditions

The main finding for Continental barge container terminals is that the differences between the quality variables are not large. This means that all quality variables are relatively important, and ‘reliability’ is the most important one. According to Continental rail terminals, customers are strongly focused on ‘reliability’ and relatively less on the other quality aspects. This might be due to the great chance of disruption in the rail trans- port chain. According to terminal operators, barge and rail terminal cus- tomers expect ‘reliability’, ‘good price’ and ‘added value’.

Conclusion about Continental Terminals

Characteristics of Continental terminal service were revealed in the inter- views. Most operators have large customer bases, and most of the cus- tomers are located close to the terminal. The operating hours differ from terminal to terminal. The average container terminal transit time for barge terminals is 48 hours and for rail terminals 73 hours. The percentage of containers that is not handled according to customer requirements is less than 1 per cent for rail terminals and for barge terminals the false handlings are between 1 and 3 per cent. According to terminal operators, barge and rail terminal customers expect ‘reliability’, ‘good price’ and ‘added value’. ‘Reliability’ is a critical performance condition for Continental terminal operators, especially for rail terminals, due to the great likelihood of disruption of the system flow, in the rail part of the transport chain. Barge

Container terminal handling quality 101

Table 6.5 Quality importance in the Continental container terminal market

Variable Barge Rail

Tangibles 13 9 Reliability 25 55 Responsiveness 22 13 Assurance 20 12 Empathy 21 11

Source: Terminal interviews, 2002.

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 0 8 . E

d w

a rd

E lg

a r

P u b lis

h in

g L

im ite

d . A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

terminals, in order to determine their own quality, but also in order to determine the total channel performance, monitor the start and the end of the trip of a container. The differences between the quality judgements (see Table 6.6) are not large. According to terminal operators, this means that all quality variables are relatively important to their customers, and ‘reli- ability’ is relatively important. Better-educated personnel, shorter con- tainer terminal transit time, better handling performance, and quality measurement may enable an improvement in the container handling service. Quality improvements must come down into cost reductions as price increases seem difficult. This is even more complicated as the invest- ment costs for improved quality are concentrated at the terminal, while most advantages occur in the networks (Trip and Kreutzberger 2002).

102 Intermodal transport operations

Table 6.6 Quality judgements of Continental container terminals

Quality dimension Barge Rail Difference: terminals terminals barge–rail

1. Tangibles: equipment 5 5 � 2. Tangibles: facilities 5 5 � 3. Tangibles: clothes 5 5 � 4. Tangibles: promotion 4 5 �1 5. Reliability: promise 7 7 � 6. Reliability: solve 7 7 � 7. Reliability: 1st time 7 7 � 8. Reliability: on-time 7 7 � 9. Reliability: mistakes 7 6 �1

10. Responsiveness: tell 7 6 �1 11. Responsiveness: adequate 7 7 � 12. Responsiveness: always 7 7 � 13. Responsiveness: busy 6 6 � 14. Assurance: behaviour 6 7 �1 15. Assurance: safe 7 6 �1 16. Assurance: careful 6 6 � 17. Assurance: knowledge 7 6 �1 18. Empathy: individual 7 6 �1 19. Empathy: open 5 6 �1 20. Empathy: personal 5 5 � 21. Empathy: customer 7 6 �1 22. Empathy: needs 7 7 �

Note: The quality dimensions on the left-hand side correspond with the extensive described numbers in Table 6.1

Source: Terminal interviews, 2002.

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 0 8 . E

d w

a rd

E lg

a r

P u b lis

h in

g L

im ite

d . A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

Tools to improve the Continental terminal service can be developed based on this chapter. To make the Continental container terminal – and the transport service it forms part of – more competitive it is necessary to offer a total service package, increase the already broad customer base, and have increased quality checks. Single-mode transport is the reference point on which the terminal operators base their price. They must ideally meet the single-mode road transport price, or even better, be cheaper. A tool for improvement for Continental terminal operators is to offer a ‘total service assortment’. The total service, including pre- and end-haulage (logistics solution) is important, not only the container handling. The competitive position of Continental (mainly barge) terminals is stronger than that of maritime and rail terminals. A large customer base and a broad service package offers opportunities to make money. This already good competi- tive position must be retained and enlarged where opportunities exist. Some terminals measure quality performance, and others do not. It is not possible to recover the extra quality control costs through higher prices. Individualized attention and caring for customers may be as good as making the effort to measure quality performance. Due to the limited scale of Continental barge and rail terminals, it is often possible to work without a professional quality performance measurement system. However, if the container terminal grows larger, an automated system to monitor quality performance might be implemented.

6.5 CONCLUSIONS AND FURTHER RESEARCH

Conclusion for Maritime Terminals

Critical internal performance improvement characteristics for terminal operators are information and communication about transport channel per- formance. In past transport research, average delivery time was judged to be of main importance. According to terminal operators, ‘reliability’, in terms of meeting container carriers’ demand, is thus a critical performance condition for maritime container terminals. Measuring ‘total’ container channel performance, through an increased number of terminal perform- ance measures, might help to improve the reliability of container terminals. Most maritime container terminals measure performance on the basis of their terminal. Container carriers are interested in channel performance: is container X reliably transported from point A to B in the agreed timeframe? Internal terminal performance measures must therefore be extended with external terminal performance measures. These external performance measures measure the container carriers’ on-time performance. An external

Container terminal handling quality 103

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 0 8 . E

d w

a rd

E lg

a r

P u b lis

h in

g L

im ite

d . A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

performance improvement characteristic might be ‘flexibility’. Through strict contracts, all risks of delays and terminal berth congestion are passed onto the terminal operator. This makes ‘flexibility’ a critical performance condition.

Conclusion for Continental Terminals

A critical performance condition for Continental terminal operators is to offer a ‘total service assortment’. The total service, including pre- and end- haulage (logistics solution) is important, not the container handling only. The competitive position of Continental (mainly barge) terminals is stronger than that of maritime and rail terminals. A large customer base and a broad service package offers opportunities to make money. ‘Reliability’ is a critical performance condition for Continental terminal operators, especially for rail terminals, due to the great likelihood of dis- ruption of the system flow, in the rail part of the transport chain. Barge ter- minals, in order to determine their own quality, but also in order to determine the total channel performance, monitor the start and the end of the trip of a container. The interviews indicated that the main group of barge terminals may be further advanced in measuring transport channel performance than maritime and rail terminals. It is not possible to recover the extra quality control costs through higher prices. Individualized atten- tion and caring for customers may be as good as making the effort to measure quality performance. Due to the limited scale of Continental barge and rail terminals, it is often possible to work without a professional quality performance measurement system. However, if the container ter- minal grows larger, an automated system to monitor quality performance might be implemented.

Further Research

The container terminal is very important in the transport chain and must thus meet the transport channel requirements. Terminal quality measure- ment should then be focused on the channel performance, besides the inter- nal processes that must be good. Where possible, future quality research might incorporate the transport channel perspective. Several customer groups are involved in terminal services, this might require different services with different quality requirements. These customer requirements must be analysed in future research and confronted with the terminal operators’ judgements.

104 Intermodal transport operations

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 0 8 . E

d w

a rd

E lg

a r

P u b lis

h in

g L

im ite

d . A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

REFERENCES

Bontekoning, Y.M. (2002), Towards New-Generation Terminal Operations: Identifying Implementation Obstacles, Delft: Delft University Press.

Bontekoning, Y.M. and E. Kreutzberger (2001), New-Generation Terminals, Delft: TRAIL.

Bowersox, D.J., D.J. Closs and O.K. Helferich (1986), Logistical Management, New York: Macmillan Publishing Company.

European Commission (1997), Intermodal Quality and Performance Indicators, Deliverable 1, INRETS.

Intermodal Quality (1997), The Quality of Terminals, Executive Summary, Intermodal quality and performance indicators, Brussels.

Konings, J.W. and E. Kreutzberger (2001), Towards a Quality Leap in Intermodal Freight Transport, Delft: TRAIL.

Kuipers, B. (1999), Flexibiliteit in de Rotterdamse Havenregio, Delft: Uitgeverij Eburon.

Magee, J.F., W.C. Copacino and D.B. Rosenfield (1985), Modern Logistics Management Integrating Marketing, Manufacturing, and Physical Distribution, New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Narver, J.C. and S.F. Slater (1990), ‘The effect of a market orientation on business profitability’, Journal of Marketing, 54, October, pp. 20–35.

Parasuraman, A., V.A. Zeithaml and L.L. Berry (1985), ‘A conceptual model of service quality and its implications for future research’, Journal of Marketing, 49, pp. 41–50.

Parasuraman, A., V.A. Zeithaml and L.L. Berry (1991), ‘Refinement and reassess- ment of the SERVQUAL-scale’, Journal of Retailing, 67, pp. 420–50.

Perreault Jr, W.D and F.A. Russ (1976), ‘Physical distribution service in industrial purchase decisions’, Journal of Marketing, 40, p. 8.

RENFE (1998), Annual Report, Madrid: RENFE. Slater, S.F. and J.C. Narver (1994a), ‘Does competitive environment moderate the

market orientation-performance relationship?’ Journal of Marketing, 58, pp. 46–55.

Slater, S.F. and J.C. Narver (1994b), ‘Market orientation, customer value, and supe- rior performance’, Business Horizons, 37, pp. 22–8.

Slater, S.F. and J.C. Narver (1995), ‘Market orientation and the learning organisa- tion’, Journal of Marketing, 59, July, pp. 63–74.

TERMINET (1998), Indicators and Criteria for New-generation Bundling, Terminals and Terminal Nodes, Delft: Delft University of Technology.

Trip, J.J. and E. Kreutzberger (2002), Complex Bundling Networks and New- generation Terminals: A Synthesis, Delft: Delft University Press.

Vries Jr, W. de, H. Kasper and P.J.C. van Helsdingen (1994), Dienstenmarketing, Houten: Educatieve Partners Nederland BV.

Container terminal handling quality 105

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 0 8 . E

d w

a rd

E lg

a r

P u b lis

h in

g L

im ite

d . A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 0 8 . E

d w

a rd

E lg

a r

P u b lis

h in

g L

im ite

d . A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .