Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Dr. Thomas Vitsounis University of the Aegean & Advisor to the Secreatry General of Ports and Port Planning, Ministry of Development, Competitiveness and Shipping
Demings Wheel
Governance model (input) Defined by external factors Defined by firm (PA) governance decisions Structure
Post-reform Environment
FIT
Strategy
Eectiveness
External (perceived) Performance (e.g. stakeholders satisfaction)
! According to Brooks et al. (2011) ! Port efficiency = Doing Things Right ! Port effectiveness = Doing the Right Things
Port eciency
! Measurement of efficiency directly related to the measurement of productivity ! A terminal or a port is regarded as efficient or highly productive:
! if it is able to produce a maximum output for given inputs or uses minimal inputs for the production of a given level of output (Notteboom et al., 2000).
Port Eciency
! Frontier approach: Efficient units operating on the cost or production frontier
! Data Envelopment Analysis ! Total Factor Productivity ! Stochastic Frontier Models
DEA
Performance Indicators
Performance indicators quantify and simplify information for decision-makers and other stakeholders to assess how activities and operations affect the direction and magnitude of change in terms of social economic, governance and environmental conditions.
Performance Indicators
! ! ! ! ! Easily available Goals that are challenging yet realistic Easily quantifiable Strategically relevant Customer focused
Benchmarking
! ! ! ! ! Works well in airport industry High level of difficulty: Need for common set of questions Need for accurate sample of port users Frequency
Utilisation KPIs
KPIs - Utilisation rate Abbreviation Indicator (Average)
Berth occupancy (General cargo) Berth occupancy (Containers) Labor utilisation rate
BOR(1)
BOR(2)
LUR
26
Port of RoQerdam
! We conduct an employee satisfaction survey every two years. In the May 2010 survey a score of 7.7 was achieved, our initial target for 2010 was a score of 7.3, the score in 2008 was 7.2. ! We carried out a customer satisfaction survey at the beginning of 2010. The score for general customer satisfaction levels was 7.2, similar to the 2007 result. The target for 2009 was a score of 7.4.
Darwin Port
! Overall Satisfaction with services ! Overall satisfaction with communications
The exception
! Cruise Ports!
! Royal Caribbean International ! Best First-Turn award for customer satisfaction
Dover Port
Why?
! Performance Measurement is common in other industries:
! For ports only limited information is available: ! Measuring the performance of the port industry is relevant for interaction with policy makers and other stakeholders. It also can assist port development initiatives and contribute to the competitiveness of EU ports.
! Tonnes of cargo handled ! Number of passengers
Objectives
PPRISM aims to identify a key list of sustainable and feasible indicators to monitor the overall performance of the EU port system and assess its impact on the society, environment and the economy of the EU
! quantification is possible in time series in the long term ! measurement of the performance on EU level (not on a port level) ! precisely defined and collected in a coherent manner for different seaports
The PP Dashboard
Stakeholder relevance
! For (EU) policy makers: relevant information on the performance of the EU port system. ! For stakeholders of the port industry: indicators that respond to stakeholder concerns (e.g. Environmental performance, safety, employment). ! For the port industry: contribution to quality of port policies and societal acceptance of port activities. ! For port authorities: Next to the above mentioned effects, an opportunity to benchmark against EU average (taking into account port specificity, cf. typology indicator)
External Stakeholders
Categories of Indicators
1) Market trends and structure 2) Socio-economic impact 3) Environmental performance 4) Logistic chain& operational performance 5) Governance ! Interrelated and ! Produce an overall picture of the European Port Sector
Academic partners Academic partners and ESPO Port authorities, through ESPO committees (1st phase) Port authorities, through ESPO committees (2nd phase) Multi-stakeholder response panel assessment FINAL SELECTION
39 Indicators
45 Indicators
42 Indicators
Delphi Methodology
! ! ! ! 2 Rounds Combination of qualitative and qualitative data ESPO Technical Committees ESPO Executive Committee
Output of assessment
5.00
4.50
4.00
Feasibility (Mean)
MT VT S. HHI CS AV DC MS TEUH
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
4.00
4.50
5.00
Acceptance (Mean)
4.60
4.40
Acceptance
4.20
4.00
3.80
Feasibility
4.60
4.40
Acceptance
3.80
3.60
Feasibility
Results
Field of expertise
Member of a local community adjacent to a port 2% NGO 3% Trade union 2% Other (please specify) 10%
Terminal operator 7%
N=338
3.65
Market Share
3.71
3.72
Degree of Containerization
3.88
Modal Split
3.93
Vessel Traffic
3.97
Maritime Traffic 3.10 3.20 3.30 3.40 3.50 3.60 3.70 3.80 3.90 4.00
4.02 4.10
Socio-Economic Impact
Financial Health 3.47 Training per FTE 3.55
3.62
Investments
3.67
3.73
Indirect Employment
3.78
Direct Employment
3.93
Direct Gross Value Added 3.20 3.30 3.40 3.50 3.60 3.70 3.80 3.90
Environmental Indicators
Total Water Consumption Amounts of Waste Produced Reference to ESPO Code of Practice in Port Policy Carbon Footprint Existence of an Inventory of Legislation Ex. of an Environmental Report Ex. of an Environmental Management Programme Ex. of Environmental Training Ex. of Objectives and Targets Ex. of an Inventory of Significant Environmental Aspects Ex. of an Environmental Monitoring Programme Ex. of an Environmental Policy 3.10 3.20 3.30 3.40 3.50 3.60 3.70 3.80 3.90 3.43 3.59 3.67 3.67 3.78 3.81 3.85 3.86 3.86 3.88 3.98 3.98 4.00 4.10
Maritime Connectivity
3.75
On-Time Performance
3.78
3.82
3.83
Intermodal Connectivity
3.84
3.68
3.70
3.72
3.74
3.76
3.78
3.80
3.82
3.84
3.86
Governance Indicators
Port Authority Employee Productivity 3.36 Integration of Port Cluster 3.46
3.54
Market Openness
3.57
3.62
Autonomous Management
3.67
Levels of Safety
3.93
3.00
3.10
3.20
3.30
3.40
3.50
3.60
3.70
3.80
3.90
4.00
3.93
3.93
3.93
3.97
3.97
3.98
3.98
4.02 4.05
Next steps
! Next steps:
! A pilot, to test data availability and the calculation method ! Recommendations to European Commission on how to establish a working European port performance dashboard
Conclusive remark
! Short term:
! Create a culture of performance measurement ! Getting the indicators right (learning process with stakeholders) ! Design the organizational structure behind the dashboard