Journal of Marine Engineering & Technology

ISSN: 2046-4177 (Print) 2056-8487 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tmar20

A practical application of ‘Six Sigma’ to port

operations

S T Ung & Y T Chen

To cite this article: S T Ung & Y T Chen (2010) A practical application of ‘Six Sigma’ to port
operations, Journal of Marine Engineering & Technology, 9:2, 13-21

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/20464177.2010.11020232

Published online: 01 Dec 2014.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 615

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

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=tmar20
UNG_JMET April.qxd 4/27/10 2:56 PM Page 13

A practical application of ‘Six Sigma’ to port operations

A practical application of ‘Six Sigma’

to port operations
ST Ung and YT Chen, Department of Merchant Marine, National Taiwan Ocean University,
Keelung, Taiwan

The quality of the services provided by a port is important. However, few ports evaluate and
improve the quality of services using scientific quality assurance methods based on customer
satisfaction. In this paper, a study based on a systematical quality assurance framework,
namely, Six Sigma, is conducted. The methodology is applied to demonstrate its practicality
using a real case study. Based on Six Sigma, the quality of current performance can be meas-
ured and appreciated. By virtue of the process capability analysis, the process centering and
process variation can be determined and any unusual patterns or trends in the data can then
be located.The levels of dispersion and centeredness of the process can also be evaluated.
In addition, a successful Six Sigma application to ports requires the identification of the meas-
uring indices based on the attributes of services provided and establishment of a thorough
data collection regime.

AUTHORS’ BIOGRAPHIES
ST Ung is currently assistant professor in the Department of
Merchant Marine, College of Maritime Science and Management,
National Taiwan Ocean University, Taiwan. He received his PhD
in Marine Technology at Liverpool John Moores University, UK.
Dr Ung’s research interests are maritime safety, risk assessment,
port operations and quality assurance methods.
study is to introduce the quality assurance concept to the port
industry and demonstrate its practicality using a real case
study. The factors crucial for a successful Six Sigma applica-
tion to the port industry is identified and addressed, seeking
to encourage the industry to adopt such a scientific method to
port operations for quality assurance.

YT Chen is currently a research assistant employed by Dr Ung LITERATURE REVIEW

in the Department of Merchant Marine, College of Maritime
Science and Management, National Taiwan Ocean University,
Taiwan. Ms Chen’s research interests are port operations and
quality assurance methods.
INTRODUCTION
Quality is a crucial element for many industries. The quality
level of products or services can be defined by the extent to
which customers are satisfied by such products or services
offered by manufacturers or providers. The higher the quality
level provided, the better. Therefore, some notable quality
management methods including Total Quality Management
(TQM), International Organization for Standardization (ISO)

T
he port industry is a competitive business. The prior-
ity of each port is to attract more and more customers
by providing better and better services. Therefore, the
quality of the services offered is important and the
better the quality the more competitive the port.
However, there are few ports that evaluate and improve their
quality using scientific-based quality assurance methods on the
basis of customer satisfaction. In this paper, a study based on a
systematical quality assurance framework, Six Sigma, is
proposed and applied to port operations. The objective of this
9000 series and Six Sigma have been developed and proven
to be useful for enhancing the quality of products or services.
Among such approaches, TQM highlights a customer-ori-
ented activity that relies on continuous dedication to quality
improvement throughout the whole company. On the basis of
TQM, quality improvement can be fulfilled for companies and
have subsequent impacts on financial performance.1, 2 The ISO
9000 series are the standards that establish the need to system-
atise and formalise an entire series of business processes into
procedures. Conformity with ISO 9000 indicates that a series of

No. A17 2010 Journal of Marine Engineering and Technology 13

UNG_JMET April.qxd 4/27/10 2:56 PM Page 14
A practical application of ‘Six Sigma’ to port operations
standardized and documented procedures are consistently used
for producing products or services that clients purchase.3, 4
However, the quality improvement using TQM and the
ISO 9000 series is sometimes questioned due to the lack of a
reliable and objective technical basis.5 Six Sigma, on the
other hand, is a data-driven method that focuses on customer
satisfaction and scientifically leads companies to attain the
best quality level. Six Sigma was originated at Motorola in
1987 and was widely adopted by General Electric (GE) in
1995 as a quality improvement tool. It is becoming accepted
by many companies suffering from the costs of rework and
other aspects of poor quality. It contains four components,
namely, TQM, Statistical Process Control (SPC), customer
satisfaction and customer needs analysis, and a new paradigm
of total customer satisfaction.6
From the statistical point of view, the term Six Sigma is
defined as having less than 3.4 defects per million opportunities
(DPMO) or a success rate of 99.9997% where sigma is a unit
used to represent the variation about the process average.7 From
the business point of view, however, it is defined as a business
strategy used to improve business profitability, the effective-
ness and efficiency of all operations to meet or exceed customer
needs and expectations.8 The significance of Six Sigma, in
comparison with TQM and ISO, is the capability of quality
quantification through which the quality level and the degree of
improvement can be measured and appreciated based on cus-
tomer satisfaction. Such a methodology has been widely and
successfully applied to improve the performance quality.
The quality management concept has been embraced by a
number of ports, most of which apply the ISO 9000 series.
These include the Port of Virginia and Port of Oakland in the
USA, Port of Ventspils in Latvia, Port of Tallinn in Estonia,
Port of Nacala in Mozambique, Port of Klaip e& da in Lithuania
and Port of Klang in Malaysia. However, the Six Sigma
approach has not been advocated by any port authorities. The
sole related research is a Six Sigma framework using a test
case of a transport process of ship stores for demonstration of
the applicability.9 The literature provides a positive starting
point by introducing quality assurance approaches on a scien-
tific and quantitative basis to the port industry.
In this study, a real and practical application of the Six
Sigma concept to port operations is conducted. A variety of port
operations can be considered for demonstrating the practicality
of the Six Sigma methodology. The operation mode of the case
study selected is the container cargo handling performance of a
container terminal in the Port of Keelung in Taiwan during
2008. The data gathered is the time of the cargo handling oper-
ation spent for each vessel calling at the terminal associated
with the number of the containers loaded and unloaded. The
factors crucial for a successful Six Sigma application to the port
industry will be identified and addressed. Thus, this research
can be regarded as a pioneer study that applies the scientific
quality assurance approach to the port industry.
METHODOLOGY
This research is conducted based on Six Sigma to establish a
scientific-based quality assurance study. Two types of Six
Sigma methodology inspired by Plan-Do-Check-Act cycle
14
are commonly applied, namely, DMAIC and DMADV.10 The
DMAIC methodology includes the steps of define, measure,
analyse, improve and control, whereas DMADV stands for
define, measure, analyse, design and verify, respectively.
DMAIC is used for projects aimed at improving an existing
business process; however, DMADV is used for ones aimed
at creating new product or process designs.10
Since the case study to be conducted is a cargo handling
process, the type of the framework selected in this research
is DMAIC. The ‘define’ step of the methodology includes
the definition of the measuring unit, establishment of the
Critical to Quality (CTQ) based on customer satisfaction,
and elucidation of the defect applied in this study. The
objective of the ‘measure’ step is to realise the current qual-
ity level of the container terminal in question. This will be
achieved by measuring the average time spent in handling a
container. The mission of the ‘analyse’ step is to evaluate
the current process capability of meeting the specifications
established by customers. Therefore, the process centering
and process variation can be determined and any unusual
patterns or trends in the data can then be located. The levels
of dispersion and centeredness of the process can also be
evaluated. The fourth step is to improve the quality level if
the current performance is too low to be accepted, by iden-
tifying the main causes and introducing measures. In order
to maintain the enhanced quality level, the final step is to
control performance of the container cargo handling at the
requested level.
Definition of the measuring unit, CTQ and defect
of the quality with regard to the container cargo
handling process
The first mission of this step is the definition of the measuring
index in a container terminal. Since the duration vessels stay
in port is crucial for shipping companies, cargo handling capa-
bility becomes an important issue in this respect. Thus, the
measuring index in this study is set to the time the terminal
under consideration spends in handling a container.
Subsequently, the CTQ will be established based on the inter-
view with the customer. The CTQ in this study can be
explained as the time the customer is willing to accept. It is
noted that in general CTQs include upper specification limit
(USL) and lower specification limit (LSL). However, the CTQ
in this study only contains USL. This is because the measur-
ing unit in this case study is time, thus the smaller the value
the better. A cargo handling process of which the time is
beyond the CTQ established can be regarded as an unaccept-
able performance ie, a defect.
Measurement of current performance and the quality
level of the container cargo handling process
The objective of this step is to measure the quality level of the
process and appreciated its current performance. It is acquired
by first obtaining the number of containers handled and the
duration consumed. Subsequently the average number of con-
tainers operated per hour can be realised. Consequently, the
mean time the terminal under consideration spends in han-
dling a container will be appreciated.
Journal of Marine Engineering and Technology No. A17 2010
UNG_JMET April.qxd 4/27/10 2:56 PM Page 15
A practical application of ‘Six Sigma’ to port operations
Since the characteristics of the data in this study will be
continuous, when calculating Z values and performing
process capability analysis, it is important that the data con-
figuration is required to be a normal distribution. Thus, the
data collected will be examined whether the distribution is
normally distributed. Under circumstances where the distri-
bution of the information gathered appears to be non-normal,
data transformation methods such as the Box-Cox regression
model will be deployed to convert such information into nor-
mal approximation.11, 12 Once the data is normally distributed,
the Z values of USL and LSL will be acquired based on the
normal distribution theory. The successful probability that the
process is able to meet the customer needs will then be
obtained using a Standard Normal Probability Distribution
Table. Thus, the probability that the process fails to satisfy the
customers will be appreciated. Consequently, DPMO will be
acquired and the current performance in terms of process
sigma metric will be obtained. The procedure aforementioned
can be progressed using the following calculations.
1. Calculation of the values of Mean (␮) and Variance (S)
of the sample data gathered using Equations (1) and (2).
X =
n
1
( 1 n
)
X 1 + X 2 + .......... + X n = ∑ X i
n i =1
( )
n 2
∑ Xi − X
S = i =1
n−1
2. Transformation of USL and LSL into the Z format
ZUSL =
(USL − X )
S where UCLX, CLX and LCLX denoted upper control limit, cen-
Z LSL =
( LSL − X )
S trol limit for R charts; X is the mean of the obsered values in
( ) ( ) ( )
P Z satisfied = P ZUSL − P Z LSL
where ZUSL is the converted value derived from USL,
ZUSL is the converted value derived from LSL,
P(Zsatisfied) is the probability that the performance of the
process satisfies the customers
P(ZUSL) is the probability that the performance is
within the upper specification limit, and
P(ZLSL) is the probability that the performance is
within the lower specification limit
3. Calculation of the probability that the process perform-
ance fails to satisfy the customers, which is regarded as
the defect rate, P(Zdefect).
P( Z defect ) = 1 − P( Z satisfied )
4. Acquirement of DPMO
DPMO = P( Z defect ) × 1, 000, 000
5. Obtainment of the current performance in terms of
process sigma metric using DPMO-to-Process Sigma
Conversion Table.
No. A17 2010 Journal of Marine Engineering and Technology
Analysis of the current process capability
i. Determination of the process centering and process
variation and locate unusual patterns or trends in
the data
It is at this stage that the current process capability is to be
analysed. Process capability is the ability of a process to pro-
duce products or provide services capable of meeting the
specifications established by customers or designers.13 The
control chart method will first be applied in this study due to
its strength of determining the process centering and process
variation and locating any unusual patterns or trends in the
data.13, 14, 15 Furthermore, X-R charts are utilised since the sam-
ple size of this case study is relatively small in comparison to
the manufacturing industries.16, 17 In addition, such an
approach is capable of examining whether the process is
stable for further process capability analysis. Thus, the
following calculations are needed.
Control limits for X charts:
UCL X = X + E2 R (8)
CL X = X (9)
(1)
LCL X = X − E2 R (10)
Control limits for R charts:
(2) UCLR = D4 R (11)
CLR = R (12)
(3)
LCLR = D3 R (13)
(4)
ter line and lower control limit for X charts; UCLR, CLR and
LCLR denoted upper control limit, center line and lower con-
the sample, X, ie, the center line; R is the range between the
(5) observed values in each subgroup; R is the mean of the
range; and E2, D3 and D4 are control chart factors.
It is noted that the relationship between the size of each
subgroup in the sample and the aforementioned control chart
factors can be appreciated based on Table A1 of the Appendix.
Any processes in which more than 25 consecutive points
do not have any of the conditions described below can be
judged as the statistical control operations:17
 one point outside the 3␴ limits,
 two out of three consecutive points more than 2␴ away
from the mean on one side, or four out of five consecutive
points more than 1␴ away from the mean on one side,
 seven consecutive points on one side of the mean or six
consecutive points trending up or down, and
(6)  fourteen consecutive points alternating up or down.
ii. Process capability analysis for evaluating the levels of
(7) dispersion and centeredness
Once the process is statistically stable, process analysis can then
be conducted. Variations affect process and may prevent the
process from producing products or services that meet customer
15
UNG_JMET April.qxd 4/27/10 2:56 PM Page 16
A practical application of ‘Six Sigma’ to port operations
specifications. Thus, reducing process variability and creating
consistent quality increases the viability of predictions of future
process performance. Process capabilities can be expressed
quantitatively to enable customers or designers to realise the
ability of the process more explicitly. This is achieved by the
introduction of process capability indices which are mathemat-
ical ratios quantifying the ability of a process to produce prod-
ucts or services within specifications. Three process indices are
adopted in this study, namely, capability of accuracy, capability
of precision and capability of process.
First, capability of accuracy (Ca) expresses the difference
between the mean of sample products or services and
the process target value. The smaller the value is, the higher the
level of consistence is between the mean of the samples and the
process target value. It can be expressed using Equation (14).
X−μ
Ca = × 100% (14)
T /2
where T is the difference between upper specification limit
and lower specification limit,
X is the mean of samples, and
␮ is the proccess target value.
Secondly, capability of precision (Cp) is the ratio between
natural and specification tolerances. The value of Cp takes into
account the level of the sample standard deviation. The greater
the value is, the better the process is capable of meeting the
specification limits. Equation (15) can be applied in circum-
stances where both USL and LSL exist, whereas Equations
(16) and (17) are utilised when only USL or LSL is considered.
USL − LSL
Cp = (15)
6σ̂
USL − X
Cp = (16)
3σ̂
X − LSL
Cp = (17)
3σ̂
where CP is the capability of precision
σ̂ is the estimating value of the standard deviation of
population based on samples and
R the cargo handling, loading and unloading facilities and track
σ̂ = ⋅ d2
d2 can be acquired from Table A1 in Appendix.
Thirdly, capability of process (Cpk) is the ratio that is
applied to evaluate the levels of dispersion and centeredness
as shown in Equation (18). In other words, it considers the
factors of Ca and Cp. The greater the value is, the better the
quality is. It is noted that there is no quantitative rules to
judge whether the process capability is acceptable due to the
absence of the threshold established for this type of terminal
operations in the port industry. However, in the manufactur-
ing industry if the value of the capability of process is less
than 1.0, the chance and assignable causes should be identi-
fied and the process capability should be improved.17
( ) (
C pk = min C pu ,C pl = 1− Ca × C p ) (18)
USL − X LSL − X
where C pu = , C pl =
3σˆ 3σˆ
16
Improvement of the quality of the container cargo
handling process
This is the stage to identify the factors crucial for causing the
unacceptable performance of the process and introduce meas-
ures to improve the quality. Since the elements contributing to
poor quality are diverse and complex in the container cargo han-
dling domain and may be difficult to identify using statistical
techniques, the method to be employed will be the interviews
with the experienced personnel working in the terminal under
consideration. Therefore, all factors will be identified based on
the interviews conducted. Subsequently, such elements will be
further examined with such professionals based on brainstorm-
ing to distinguish the crucial factors by the use of the Cause-
and-Effect (C&E) diagram method. The C&E diagram, also
known as Ishikawa or fishbone diagram, is one of the most use-
ful tools for qualitative analysis that is capable of analysing
cause and effect relations.18, 19, 20 Once the causes crucial for con-
tributing to the poor performance have been appreciated, the
measures will consequently be identified and implemented.
Control of the improved quality of the container
cargo handling process
The objective of this step is to offer constant performance
supervisions and prevent the quality improved from deterio-
ration provided that the measures have been proposed and
implemented. The X-R chart technique is one of the methods
commonly applied in this step. Such an approach is capable
of examining the stability of the process as aforementioned
and has been adopted and proven to be useful in many indus-
tries. Once the performance is outside the specification limit
or is distributed non-randomly, the operators will be aware
and introduce necessary measures.
CASE STUDY
The case study selected, as aforementioned, is the container
cargo handling performance of a container terminal in Port of
Keelung in Taiwan during 2008. The shipping company leasing
the container terminal under consideration from the port can be
regarded as the customer, whereas the service provider offering
assignment for container transport is the port authority.
Definition of the measuring unit, CTQ and defect of the
quality with regard to the container cargo handling process
The measuring index in this study is the time the terminal
under consideration spends in handling a container. After the
interviews with the experienced personnel the CTQ in this
study is set to three minutes per container handled. Therefore,
the time of a container handling process beyond three minutes
is defined as a defect.
Measurement of current performance and the quality
level of the container cargo handling process
This is the step to measure the quality level of the process
and appreciate its current performance. The data shown in
Journal of Marine Engineering and Technology No. A17 2010
UNG_JMET April.qxd 4/27/10 2:56 PM Page 17
A practical application of ‘Six Sigma’ to port operations
Table A2 of the Appendix is the performance of the container
cargo handling in a terminal in Port of Keelung* during 2008.
The number of sample collected is 51. Fig 1 indicates the
time distribution of the cargo handling process in the period.
Using Equations (1) and (2), the mean time per cargo han-
dling process and the standard deviation associated are 3 and
0.491 minutes, respectively.
Frequency
Time spent per handing (minutes)
Fig 1:Time distribution of the cargo handling process
Subsequently, the data collected are examined whether
it is normally distributed using SPSS and the
Kolmogorov-Smirnov and Shapiro-Wilk tests. Fig 2 is the
normal probability plot of the data distribution in this
study whereas Table 1 contains the results of the
Kolmogorov-Smirnov and Shapiro-Wilk tests. It can be
seen from Fig 2 and Table 1 that the values of significance
for the Kolmogorov-Smirnov and Shapiro-Wilk tests are
0.2 and 0.341, both of which are greater than 0.05.
Therefore, it is reasonable to judge that the data is
normally distributed.
Finally, the Z values of USL and LSL are acquired
using Equations (3), (4) and (5). It is noted that the value of
USL is 3 based on the interview conducted and the value of
LSL is 0 since the measuring unit in this study is the
time spent as aforementioned in the methodology. The
successful probability that the process is able to meet the
customer needs and DPMO are in turn obtained using
Equations (6) and (7), Standard Normal Probability
Distribution Table and DPMO-to-Process Sigma
Conversion Table
* It is noted that allowing for the business competitions, the termi-
nal and the operator are kept anonymous. Nevertheless, the opera-
tor manages a fleet of 90 vessels with a 4.74 million deadweight
tonnage, of which container ships are the mains service force. The
operator transports more than 317 000 TEUs a year.
Kolmogorov-Smirnov
Statistic Degrees of Freedom Significance
Time (minutes) /per container 0.098 50
Table 1: Normality test of the data
No. A17 2010 Journal of Marine Engineering and Technology
Fig 2: Normal probability plot of the data distribution
(USL − X ) = ( 3 − 3.04 ) ≅ −0.0815 ⇒ P ( Z
ZUSL = USL ) ≅ 0.4681
S 0.491
( )
P Z satisfied = P ( ZUSL ) − P ( Z LSL ) = 0.4681 − 0 = 0.4681
P(Z ) = 1 − P ( Z ) = 1 − 0.4681 = 0.5319
defect satisfied
DPMO = P(Z
current ) × 1, 000, 000 = 0.5319 × 1, 000, 000 = 531900
defect
DPMOcurrent = 531,900 means that if the same process was
repeated one million times; it is likely that the number of the
frequency of failing to satisfy the customer needs would be
531,900. According to DPMO-to-Process Sigma Conversion
Table, the process sigma metric in this case study approxi-
mates to 1.42.
Analysis of the current process capability
Having appreciated the current quality level of the process,
the next stage is to realise the process centering and process
variation using the control chart method. This is followed by
conducting the process capability analysis to evaluate the
levels of dispersion and centeredness.
i. Determination of the process centering and process
variation and locate unusual patterns or trends in the
data
The first step is to examine whether the process is statistically
stable and the values of UCLX, CLX, LCLX, UCLR, CLR and LCLR
are obtained using Equations (8), (9), (10), (11), (12) and (13)
based on the X-R chart method and Table A1 of the Appendix.
The values for X and R charts are shown in Table 2. Figs 3 and
4 are the X and R charts plotted for this study using Minitab.
It is noted that in Fig 3, the dash lines denote 1␴ (3.49 and
2.59) and 2␴ (3.94 and 2.14) away from the mean on each
side. Likewise, the dash lines in Fig 4 indicate the values
of 1␴ (0.89 and 0.12) and 2␴ (1.27) away from the mean on
Shapiro-Wilk
Statistic Degrees of Freedom Significance
0.2 0.975 50 0.341
17
UNG_JMET April.qxd 4/27/10 2:56 PM Page 18

A practical application of ‘Six Sigma’ to port operations

each side. Therefore, according to the rule addressed in the estimate is the overall standard deviation for the entire study.
methodology, it can be judge from Figs 3 and 4 that the con- In addition, the Within variation corresponds to the inherent
tainer cargo handling process under consideration is an oper- process variation while Overall variation corresponds to the
ation that has achieved a state of statistical control. In other total process variation.
words, the process is statistically stable. In Fig 4 however, Inherent process variations occur due to common causes
there is one point beyond the 3␴ control limit and the port only. Overall variations take place because of both common and
authority should identify the cause. special causes. Cp, Cpu, Cpl and Cpk express the potential (Within)
capabilities since such values are calculated using the Within
X chart R chart 4
estimate of variation. Pp, Ppu, Ppl and Ppk, on the other hand,
UCLX 4.385 UCLR 1.653
denote Overall capabilities because such factors are acquired
CLX 3.039 CLR 0.506
based on the overall standard deviation of the study. Fig 5 is the
LCLX 1.694 LCLR 0
process capability analysis report for this study based on Fig 1.
It can be seen from the figure that a large part of the data
Table 2: UCL, CL and LSL values for the X and R charts in exceeds the USL and the values of Cpk and Ppk are -0.03 being
this study lower than 1.0. This is an indication that the process capability
is poor and measures are needed to improve the capability.
However, it is noted that utilising the value of 1.0 as the
rule for process capability judgment is based on the experi-
ence from the manufacturing industries. This is because
currently no values have been established as a threshold to
perform such judgment in the port industry. In addition, since
Individual Value

there is neither LSL nor target value in this study, no Cp, Cpl,
Pp, Ppl and Ppm can be acquired in the report.

Observation

Fig 3: X Chart
Moving Range

Fig 5: Process capability analysis for this study

Improvement of the quality of the container cargo

Observation
Fig 4: R Chart
ii. Process capability analysis for evaluating the levels of
dispersion and centeredness
Since the cargo handling process is statistically stable, the
process capability analysis can be conducted. The process
capability in this study is referred to as the ability of the han-
dling process to provide the performance capable of meeting
the specifications established by the shipping company.
Minitab is applied to represent the results of the process capa-
bility analysis. In the software, Within and Overall refer to
different ways of estimating process variation. A Within esti-
mate is based on the variation within subgroups. The Overall
handling process
A container cargo handling process is a complex operation
since it involves a number of participants, including port
authorities, shipping companies, truck sectors and tallies. Fig 6
is the C&E diagram established for this case study based on the
interview conducted. According to the figure, five different cat-
egories of factors are considered; namely, facilities, human,
cargoes, process and environment. The causes in the facility
category are mainly concerned with insufficient maintenance.
The factors falling into the human category mostly include
long hatch, insufficient rest and experience, insufficient work-
force and lack of skills. The handling of Break-Bulk/Over
Gauge (BB/OG) cargoes and container deformations are the
causes contributing to the poor cargo handling performance in
the cargo category. The factors identified during the loading
and unloading process mainly include truck delay, exporting
container delay and hatch lifting, whereas the causes with
regard to the environment category are insufficient space for
container yards and bad weather.

18 Journal of Marine Engineering and Technology No. A17 2010

UNG_JMET April.qxd 4/27/10 2:56 PM Page 19
A practical application of ‘Six Sigma’ to port operations
It is noted that the crucial factors identified by the senior
staff in the container terminal under consideration are long
hatch and truck delay. Long hatch means that the length of
operation time spent in specific cargo holds is too long in com-
parison with the others. This would result in most cargo holds
having the cargo handling accomplished whereas others have
not, thus causing undue delays. Long hatch occurs due to inap-
propriate hold assignments in terms of destinations. This often
results in various workloads for each container crane and thus
different completion time, causing delays for departure. On
the other hand, the factors causing truck delay are insufficient
trucks and heavy traffic, respectively.
Fig 6: Cause-and-Effect diagram of the case study*
Therefore, the measures proposed to improve the quality
of the container cargo handling are the increase of the num-
ber of tracks and development of training courses preventing
and reducing the occurrence of long hatch.
Control of improved quality of the container cargo
handling process
It is in this step where the quality of the cargo handling
process is monitored and controlled. However, due to the
consideration of costs, the measures proposed have not been
implemented by the port authority. Thus, the degree of
improvement cannot be appreciated. Accordingly, the control
of improved quality of the process cannot be implemented.
Nevertheless, if the measures were implemented, the X-R
chart method would be applied to examine and maintain the
stability of the process.
* Facilities: CM (Crane Malfunctions), INSM (Insufficient
Maintenance), OW (Outworn), DLD (Damage of Lifting Devices),
MM (Motor Malfunctions), SCD (Straddle Carrier Damage), INSM
(Insufficient Maintenance), INFP (Insufficient Facilities caused by
Port Authority); Human: CRS (Container Reshuffle), CAE
(Container Assignment Errors), TE (Tally Errors), LH (Long
Hatch), FOP (Facility Operators), INE (Inexperience), USK
(Unskillfulness), INR (Insufficient Rest), WO (Workers), INW
(Insufficient Workforce); Cargoes: BB/OG C (Break-Bulk / Over
Gauge Cargoes), CD (Container Deformations); Process: TD
(Truck Delay), INST (Insufficient Trucks), ECD (Exporting
Container Delay), HL (Hatch Lifting); Environment: CY
(Container Yard), INSS(Insufficient Space).
No. A17 2010 Journal of Marine Engineering and Technology
CONCLUSION
In this research a Six Sigma methodology for ports is
developed and applied to examine the current quality level
of the cargo handling performance in a container terminal.
It can be seen from the case study that the current process
sigma metric acquired is approximately 1.42. The process
capability is also poor with the negative Cpk and Ppk values
(-0.03) although process capability judgment is based on the
experience from the manufacturing industries. This is an
indication that measures proposed should be implemented
to improve the capability, in particular for the factors of
long hatch and truck delay. Therefore, with Six Sigma, the
current performance can be measured and appreciated
based on the opinions from the customer, ie, the shipping
company.
By virtue of the process capability analysis conducted,
the process centering and process variation can be deter-
mined and any unusual patterns or trends in the data can
then be located. The levels of dispersion and centeredness of
the process can also be evaluated. In addition, in the
improvement stage, due to the difficulty of obtaining quan-
titative data with regard to the elements identified, a more
insightful analysis cannot be provided based on rigorous
statistical methods. Also, since Six Sigma is a data driven
methodology, the incorporation of such a quality assurance
framework into ports may not be as easy as it is in the man-
ufacturing industries where there is already a tradition of
recording data on each stage of every single process. Thus,
a successful Six Sigma application to ports requires the
identification of the measuring indices based on the attrib-
utes of services provided and establishment of a thorough
data collection regime.
REFERENCES
1. Wayhan VB and Balderson EL. 2007. TQM and
financial performance: What has empirical research discov-
ered? Total Quality Management & Business Excellence 18:
403–412.
2. Lai KK, Liu TS and Kao FC. 2009. Why is quality
improving continuously? An integrated perspective of insti-
tution theory and the resource-based view of the firm. Total
Quality Management & Business Excellence 20:
1111–1122.
3. Anderson SW, Daly JD and Johnson MF. 1999. Why
firms seek ISO 9000 certification: Regulatory compliance or
competitive advantage? Production & Operations
Management 8: 28–43.
4. Marimon F, Heras I and Casadesus M. 2009. ISO
9000 and ISO 14000 standards: A projection model for the
decline phase. Total Quality Management & Business
Excellence 20: 1–21.
5. Budyansky A. 2009. Improved quality tactic. Total
Quality Management & Business Excellence 20: 921–930.
6. Tennant G. 2001. Six Sigma: SPC and TQM in man-
ufacturing and services. Gower Publishing Limited,
Hampshire. 140pp.
7. Antony J and Coronado RB. 2002. Key ingredients
for the effective implementation of Six Sigma programme.
Measuring Business Excellence 6: 20–27.
19
UNG_JMET April.qxd 4/27/10 2:56 PM Page 20

A practical application of ‘Six Sigma’ to port operations

8. Antony J and Banuelas R. 2001. A strategy for
survival. Manufacturing Engineer 80: 119–121.
9. Ung ST, Williams V, Bonsall S, Wall A and Wang J.
2007. The application of Six Sigma to port security. Quality
and Reliability Engineering International 23: 1–9.
10. De Feo J, Barnard W and Institute J. 2005. JURAN
Institute's Six Sigma breakthrough and beyond - Quality per-
formance breakthrough methods. McGraw-Hill Professional,
Berkshire. 374pp.
11. Box GEP and Cox DR. 1964. An analysis of trans-
formations (with discussion). Journal of the Royal Statistical
Society Series 26: 211–252.
12. Shin Y. 2008. Semiparametric estimation of the
Box–Cox transformation model. Econometrics Journal 11:
517–537.
13. Summers DCS. 2008. Quality management - creat-
ing and sustaining organizational effectiveness. Pearson
Education, Inc, New Jersey. 592pp.
14. Fox R, Nix ABJ and Fielder H. 2005. A comparison
of variability in Papanicolaou and liquid-based cytology
inadequacy rates using Shewhart control charts.
Cytopathology 17: 175–181.
15. Finison LJ. 1993. The use of control charts to
improve healthcare quality. Journal of Healthcare Quality 15:
9–23.
16. Montgomery DC. 2008. Statistical quality control:
A modern introduction (6th edition). John Wiley & Sons,
London. 760pp.
17. Chang KT and Choo PC. 2002. Statistical process
control and its software applications. China Productivity
Center, Taipei. 350pp.
18. Ishikawa K. 1986. Guide to Quality Control
(2nd revised edition). Asian Productivity Organisation, Tokyo.
225pp.
19. Brassard M. 1994. Memory Jogger II: a pocket
guide of tools for continuous improvement. Methuen,
London. 164pp.
20. Schippers WAJ. 1999. The process matrix, a simple
tool to analyse and describe production processes. Quality
and Reliability Engineering International 15: 469–473.

APPENDIX

Size of each subgroup E2, D3 D4 d2

2 2.660 3.267 0 1.128
3 1.772 2.575 0 1.693
4 1.457 2.282 0 2.059
5 1.290 2.115 0 2.326
6 1.184 2.004 0 2.534

Table A1: Relationship between the size of each subgroup and the control chart factors

Operation Operation time

SN TC TF CN NC time (hours) NCPH per container
(minutes)
A 2008/1/8 08:40 2008/1/8 20:30 3 638 12.17 17.47 3.43
B 2008/1/15 08:10 2008/1/15 18:45 3 629 10.58 19.82 3.03
C 2008/1/22 09:10 2008/1/22 17:35 3 658 8.42 26.05 2.30
D 2008/1/29 08:15 2008/1/30 00:30 3 848 16.25 17.39 3.45
E 2008/2/5 02:00 2008/2/5 21:10 3 966 19.17 16.80 3.57
A 2008/2/12 08:30 2008/2/12 15:00 2 198 6.5 15.23 3.94
B 2008/2/19 02:10 2008/2/19 16:30 3 888 14.33 20.66 2.90
D 2008/3/4 00:00 2008/3/4 15:30 3 889 15.5 19.12 3.14
E 2008/3/11 00:10 2008/11/16 16:40 3 834 16.5 16.85 3.56
A 2008/3/18 00:25 2008/3/18 16:20 3 863 15.92 18.07 3.32
B 2008/3/25 00:30 2008/3/25 15:40 3 778 15.17 17.10 3.51
C 2008/4/2 15:10 2008/4/3 03:30 3 779 12.33 21.06 2.85
D 2008/4/8 08:00 2008/4/8 23:10 3 946 15.17 20.79 2.89
E 2008/4/15 00:30 2008/4/15 16:30 3 758 16 15.79 3.80
A 2008/4/23 09:00 2008/4/23 22:10 3 802 13.17 20.30 2.96
B 2008/4/29 00:30 2008/4/29 17:15 3 757 16.75 15.06 3.98
C 2008/5/6 00:01 2008/5/6 16:30 3 899 16.48 18.18 3.30
D 2008/5/12 00:30 2008/5/12 16:20 3 710 15.83 14.95 4.01
E 2008/5/20 08:20 2008/5/20 22:20 3 890 14 21.19 2.83
A 2008/5/27 08:30 2008/5/28 01:30 3 965 17 18.92 3.17
B 2008/6/3 00:10 2008/6/3 15:30 3 860 15.33 18.70 3.21
C 2008/6/10 08:15 2008/6/11 00:40 3 892 16.42 18.11 3.31
Continued Table

20 Journal of Marine Engineering and Technology No. A17 2010

UNG_JMET April.qxd 4/27/10 2:56 PM Page 21

A practical application of ‘Six Sigma’ to port operations

Operation Operation time

SN TC TF CN NC time (hours) NCPH per container
(minutes)
D 2008/6/17 08:20 2008/6/17 20:45 3 834 12.42 22.38 2.68
F 2008/6/23 19:20 2008/6/24 06:30 3 783 11.17 23.37 2.57
G 2008/6/30 20:30 2008/7/1 17:10 3 1014 20.67 16.35 3.67
H 2008/7/8 03:15 2008/7/8 17:40 3 782 14.42 18.08 3.32
I 2008/7/14 20:40 2008/7/15 05:30 3 666 8.83 25.14 2.39
J 2008/7/22 00:40 2008/7/22 14:10 3 798 13.5 19.70 3.05
F 2008/7/29 13:00 2008/7/30 00:00 3 741 11 22.45 2.67
G 2008/8/4 19:45 2008/8/5 06:50 3 750 11.08 22.56 2.66
H 2008/8/11 17:20 2008/8/12 01:30 3 588 8.17 23.99 2.50
I 2008/8/19 00:30 2008/8/19 13:50 3 775 13.33 19.38 3.10
J 2008/8/27 20:00 2008/8/28 06:00 3 704 10 23.47 2.56
F 2008/9/2 09:10 2008/9/2 19:40 3 663 10.5 21.05 2.85
G 2008/9/9 01:30 2008/9/9 14:40 3 675 13.17 17.08 3.51
H 2008/9/15 19:30 2008/9/16 06:50 3 653 11.33 19.21 3.12
I 2008/9/22 20:10 2008/9/23 06:10 3 640 10 21.33 2.81
J 2008/10/1 14:00 2008/10/1 23:20 3 593 9.33 21.19 2.83
F 2008/10/6 22:40 2008/10/7 11:25 3 709 12.75 18.54 3.24
E 2008/10/14 19:15 2008/10/15 05:00 3 615 9.75 21.03 2.85
H 2008/10/20 19:20 2008/10/21 05:25 3 684 10.08 22.62 2.65
I 2008/10/27 17:05 2008/10/28 01:30 3 563 8.42 22.29 2.69
G 2008/11/3 15:10 2008/11/4 03:45 3 787 12.58 20.85 2.88
F 2008/11/11 00:10 2008/11/11 14:45 3 652 14.58 14.91 4.03
G 2008/11/17 23:00 2008/11/18 06:40 3 659 7.67 28.64 2.09
H 2008/11/24 21:30 2008/11/25 05:30 3 603 8 25.13 2.39
I 2008/12/1 23:00 2008/12/2 06:55 3 638 7.92 26.85 2.23
J 2008/12/8 08:25 2008/12/8 13:20 3 344 4.92 23.31 2.57
F 2008/12/15 17:00 2008/12/16 01:05 3 541 8.08 22.32 2.69
I 2008/12/23 08:30 2008/12/23 16:00 3 572 7.5 25.42 2.36
H 2008/12/29 17:00 2008/12/30 04:10 3 564 11.17 16.83 3.56

Table A2:The container cargo handling performance in a terminal in Port of Keelung in 2008

SN: Ship name;TC:Time of commencing;TF:Time of finish; CN: Number of cranes deployed; NC: Number of containers loaded
and unloaded; NCPH: Number of containers per hour handled.

No. A17 2010 Journal of Marine Engineering and Technology 21