evaluation of causes of delay in container handling ... · evaluation of causes of delay in...
TRANSCRIPT
International Journal of Accounting and Financial Management (IJAFM) Universal Research Group ISSN: 2322-2107 Vol.5. December 2012
249
Evaluation of Causes of Delay in Container Handling Operation at
Lebanese Container Ports (Case Study Beirut Container Terminal)
Homayoun Yousefi, 1 Hassan Jafari
2, Kazem Rash
3, Behrouz Khosheghbal
4, Abolfazle Dadkhah
5
1 Master Assistant of faculty Economic and Management, Khoramshahr Marine Science and Technology
University (KMSU)
2 M.S Student of Marine Transport, Khoramshahr Marine Science and Technology University (KMSU)
MSc. in Business Management, Ports and Maritime Organization of Abadan. 4 M. S student in Marine Transportation, pardis of Khoramshahr marine science and Technology
University (KMSU) 5 M.S Student of Marine Transport, Khoramshahr Marine Science and Technology University (KMSU)
Abstract- The present research has been conducted to identify and prioritize the inveterate
Causes of delay creation in container loading/unloading operation in Beirut container terminal by
use of FMEA model added to which SIPOC model, Pareto analysis and cause and effect diagram
have been applied as well. For the purpose of this research, the daily census of Beirut container
terminal operations including halts and lags in loading/unloading operations and their relevant
causes as well as the census of vessels traffic to the port during 8 months commencing from 21st
March, 2011 has been used as the main resource of data gathering. The identified main factors
with their pertinent scores have been prioritized as technical malfunction and deficiency of
vertical quay transportation equipment (579), technical malfunction and deficiency of horizontal
quay transportation equipment (579), unpreparedness of port external factors including owners
(483), inelasticity of container yard (451), incompetency of equipments (435) and
incompleteness of documents (408), respectively. Based on the obtained results, technical
deficiency and malfunction of quay horizontal and vertical transportation equipments possess the
highest number of risk priority while document incompleteness has the least number.
Introduction
Expansion of transportation industry is one of the important indicators of economic development
of nations. Nowadays, the influence of transportation on sustainable development is pretty vivid
and undeniable [1].This sector includes economic activities which are widely effective in all
categories of production, distribution, consumption and services [2],[3],[4]. Through the
advantages such as low cost for high volume of cargo shipment, marine transportation as one of
the important bases of this industry plays an essential role in development of nations’ foreign
Corresponding author; Tel: +989365158409
E-mail address: [email protected]
International Journal of Accounting and Financial Management (IJAFM) Universal Research Group ISSN: 2322-2107 Vol.5. December 2012
250
trade[5],[6],[7] Because of special geographic location and accessibility to free waters, Iran has a
particular situation in marine transportation industry. Ports as a significant component of marine
transportation system [8],[9].are one of the rings of global supply chain [10][11],[12]. Since time
and cost are considered as the important factors of competition in the present world, service
complexes which are considered by economists, traders and producers as the infrastructures of
global trade, undertake a significant role in optimization of transportation costs and distribution
of goods [12],[13],[14] In other words, those companies are successful in their job who can
deliver their goods duly to their customers with a lower cost[15],[16]. Therefore owners wish to
expedite passing their goods from ports and decrease transportation tariffs and costs [18]. That’s
why the extent of ports efficiency has an effective role in realization of their wants. Efficiency of
ports can have a remarkable influence on decreasing the period of ships stay in ports, goods
sedimentation period and reduction of the freight taken by shipping companies. Therefore ports
efficiency can result in satisfaction of customers, increase of demand level and more
profitability. Therefore optimization of ports loading/unloading operation is considered as an
important approach to decrease the period of transmission of goods from producer to consumer.
Taking into consideration the importance of this approach for improvement of ports
performance, fulfillment of studies on ports performance - as the country’s main gates of
international trade - appears to be more important than before. The Port of Beirut is the main port
in Lebanon located on the eastern part of the Saint George Bay on Beirut's northern
Mediterranean coast, west of the Beirut River. It is one of the largest and busiest ports on the
Eastern Mediterranean. The port is operated and managed by the Gestion et exploitation du port
de Beyrouth (GEPB) which is French for Port Authority of Beirut. Container terminal operations
are subcontracted to a private consortium called the Beirut Container Terminal Consortium
(BCTC). Since the end of the Lebanese Civil War in 1990, the port has gone through a major
updating and expansion program with the rehabilitation of existing port facilities, the
construction of new administration buildings, and the construction of a new container terminal.
It's an important gateway for transporting freight to Syria, Jordan, Iraq, and the Gulf States. The
Port of Beirut has a total area of 1,200,000m2 and has 4 basins, 16 quays, and a new container
terminal at quay 16 capable of handling 745,000 twenty-foot equivalent units (TEU1) per year. The objective of this paper is identification and prioritization of Causes of delay in container
L/U2 operation in Beirut Container Terminal. This research has been conducted by use of FMEA3
which is one of the most accurate and updated methods of studying performance and efficiency
of systems. Moreover, SIPOC4 model, Pareto analysis and cause and effect diagram have been
applied in this research.
1 Twenty-foot equivalent unit 2 loading/unloading operation 3 Failure Mode and Effect Analysis 4 Suppliers, Input, Process, Outputs and Customers
International Journal of Accounting and Financial Management (IJAFM) Universal Research Group ISSN: 2322-2107 Vol.5. December 2012
251
Research Record
Ports Performance Evaluation Methods
Researchers apply various methods to study and measure the performance of organizations in
view points of efficiency and productivity. DEA5 is one of the common methods which evaluate
the relation between inputs and outputs by use of production function. This method is based on a
series of optimization models of linear programming for measuring the relative efficiency in
similar units. In this method, the efficient frontier curve is arisen from a series of points
determined by linear programming model. After implementing optimization model, the linear
programming method specifies whether the intended decision making unit is located on the
efficiency border or outside. In this way the efficient and inefficient units become separated. For
example Cullinane and others [17] compared Data Envelopment Analysis and Stochastic
Frontier Analysis to estimate the technical efficiency of container ports. The objective of this
research is to study strength and weakness points of these two methods. The total length of quay,
terminal area, the number of Quayside cranes, the number of gantry cranes of port area, the
number of straddle carriers are regarded as the inputs of the research model. On the other hand,
container efficiency or operational power as a very important and peerless indicator has been
considered in the model output. The study has been accomplished on 57 numbers of container
ports or their existing terminals. Hung and others [18] conducted a comparative study on
evaluation of operational efficiency of Asian container ports by application of data envelopment
analysis. Al-Iraqi and others [19].evaluated the efficiency of 22 ports in Middle East and Eastern
Africa by use of data envelopment analysis. The case studies of their research includes ports
from Sudan, Eritrea, Djibouti, Kenya of Eastern Africa and ports from Saudi Arabia, Yemen,
Oman, UAE and Iran from Middle East. The statistical period under the study is from 2000 to
2005. Tongzon discusses the existence of errors in researches of some organizations on the
influence of portion of factors impacting on estimation of port efficiency and performance.[20]
To fill this gap he offers a model by the factors affecting port efficiency and performance. In this
model, he measures the performance of port based on the number of transferred containers
through the port (or operational power) provided that the operational power of port is maximum.
He believes factors such as geographic location, the number of ships’ recourses to the port, port
costs, level of economic activity and efficiency of terminal determine the port efficiency or port
operational power. He thinks that the efficiency of ports is under the influence of container size
(20 or 40 –foot size), working procedures, cranes efficiency and tonnage of entering ships.
Research Model and Methodology
The present case studies the causes of lag and halt in L/U operation in Beirut Container
Terminal. To achieve this objective, the daily censuses of Beirut Container Terminal including
the extent of halts and lags in L/U operation with their pertinent causes as well as the census of
Beirut Container Terminal incoming vessels in the period of 21st March, 2011 to 20th November
2011 have been applied [21]. Added to FMEA, in this research SIPOC, Pareto analysis and cause
5 Data Envelopment Analysis
International Journal of Accounting and Financial Management (IJAFM) Universal Research Group ISSN: 2322-2107 Vol.5. December 2012
252
and effect diagram have been used. The said methods have been explained within the following
lines.
Failure Mode and Effect Analysis
McDermott believes that by using such an efficient tool, the potential modes of failure in system,
process, product and services can be identified and prioritized, as well, the necessary measures to
remove or decrease the extent of potential modes of failure can be defined and determined. [22]
They introduce FMEA as a key tool for improvement of safety, promotion of quality and
attraction of customer satisfaction. FMEA has been defined in educational material of
automobile manufacturing companies as below:
FMEA is a series of systematic activities with the following objectives:
Identification and evaluation of potential failures existing in design of system, product and
process as well as estimation of occurrence of each one of them [23, 24]
- Identification of measures which can decrease or remove the probability of occurrence of
probable failures
- Identification and taking the measures by which the extent of consequent intensity and
tenseness of errors may be decreased as much as possible
- Identification and taking the measures by which the ability of recognition or probability
of unveiling the errors can be increased before reaching to the customers
- Documentation of the processes
The FMEA has two overall goals; one short term and one long term. The short term goal is to
reduce the failures as much as possible and the long term goal is to eliminate all failures. Having
that said the costs of reduction/elimination should of course also be considered. At one point in
time the cost of reducing a failure mode further will probably be higher than the benefit of doing
so. Beside that the rest of the organization should also be considered when evaluating what is
most important; to do a FMEA over again or maybe to do another risk assessment with a new
focus [25, 26]. One of the best features of FMEA is taking proactive instead of reactive measure
in facing the failures [27] In other word, the method focuses on taking proactive measure before
occurrence of the accidents. Because in case of occurrence of a burdensome accident, normally
enormous charges shall be spent to offset the created difficulties and failures while if, for any
reason, an error happens in designing stage, the extent of the coming damage will be maximized
because a variation in designing will cause variations in production tools, costs of product and
process redesigning. Features such as reduction of repeated works and corrective steps, quality
improvement, increase of assurance capability, increase of safety and reduction of the needed
time for deliverance of product to customer are the other features of FMEA [22]. Therefore
FMEA can be deemed as one of the tools of continuous quality improvement of goods and
services in companies. Risk analysis in FMEA table is done through determination of probability
of error modes occurrence (occurrence frequency), the extent of its effect on post occurrence
process (severity) and probability of its identification before influencing the process (detection).
Each one of these cases would be scored by some experts in a scale from 1 to 10. The number 10
shows the most unpleasant influence on the process. These three ranks are multiplied by each
International Journal of Accounting and Financial Management (IJAFM) Universal Research Group ISSN: 2322-2107 Vol.5. December 2012
253
other and constitute the number of risk priority presented in acronym form of RPN6 [27, 24].
Cases with higher extent of RPN attract higher priority in improvement process.
SIPOC Model
SIPOC model is a method for analyzing the working process of an organization. It uses simple
signs and terms. This model displays the existing activities, operations and decisions in a process
plus the relationship among them. Also it provides the possibility of understanding a process or
program with the relationships among its components in the simplest form. Having an immense
look at the process conducts us to the definition of project span and specifies the location of data
gathering [27, 24]. The present research has applied this model to define container L/U process
in Beirut Container Terminal.
Cause and Effect Diagram
Cause and effect is the title of an expository diagram which displays the relationship among the
causes and corresponds them to their relevant effects. Since the diagram looks like fish bone, it is
known as fish bone diagram. Cause and effect diagram shows the relationship among qualitative
features and their relevant factor. In this research, fish bone diagram of cause and effect method
has been applied for determining, grouping and identifying the causes of failure modes.
Pareto Diagram
Pareto diagram based on the rule 80-20 is applied in such a way that apportions 80 percent of
problems to 20 percent of causes. It guides the users directly to their purposed qualitative
objectives. Pareto is a diagram to demonstrate and group the information in order to specify
which causes play the most roles in formation of effect. This diagram can be used as the first step
to create improvement in working environment. With a look at the diagram, it can be seen that
two or three factors cause most of the problems and many of factors have a very little role in
problems creation. It is experienced that making decisions based on the key causes compared to
less effective ones have more desirable influence on quality and improvement of process [27].
Hence, Pareto diagram has been applied in this research to analyze the extent of influence that
each factor of port, ship, goods owners and others have on creation of halt and lag in L/U
operation in Beirut Container Terminal.
Stage of Research Implementation
The present research has been implemented via FMEA in the following stages:
First stage
First stage refers to analysis of potential failure modes and effects plus definition of L/U process
via SIPOC model. Depicting SIPOC model makes it easy to identify the factors of L/U process
and the relationships among them. The beginning point of L/U process is the suppliers of process
which include owners of goods, transportation companies, owners of ships, shipping lines and
6 Risk Priority Number
International Journal of Accounting and Financial Management (IJAFM) Universal Research Group ISSN: 2322-2107 Vol.5. December 2012
254
L/U companies. And the final point is connected to the customers of port which include owners
of goods, transportation companies, owners of ships and shipping lines. Goods, containers,
equipments, labor and other ways of transportation constitute the inputs of the process while
transmission of goods and containers in sea between ships and other ways of transportation in
land form the outputs of the process. SIPOC model in Figure 4-1 shows L/U process in port. The
operational trend of this process has been presented in Process column.
Figure 1 – SIPOC diagram of container L/U process in Beirut Container Terminal [28]
Second Stage
In this stage identification of components of L/U process and their functions therein is practiced.
The components are as below:
Port: function of port in L/U process is to be fully prepared for the operation from ship berthing
to quay till the end of operation without any lack of labor or equipment and to perform the
operation without any halt or lag.
Ship: function of ship is to make all conditions ready for L/U operation. Documents, agreements,
labor and equipment must be without any defect and incompetence [8].
Owners of Goods: the task of owners is to deliver their goods readily to port and ship or clear
from port. Preparation of financial, customs and transportation documents as well as making
coordination with operation related organizations and contractors are of duties of owners [12].
Third Stage
In this stage identification of potential failure modes in implementation of process takes place.
Failure modes of L/U process are caused by unpreparedness of each one of the three components
of port, ship and owners which lead to the halt or lag in L/U operation.
International Journal of Accounting and Financial Management (IJAFM) Universal Research Group ISSN: 2322-2107 Vol.5. December 2012
255
Fourth Stage
This stage refers to determination of causes of failure modes. For grouping and introducing these
causes, fishbone diagram of cause and effect method is applied. Figure 2 displays cause and
effect diagram of halt and lag in L/U operation.
Table 2 – Fishbone diagram of causes of delay in L/U operation of containerized goods [28]
Fifth Stage
The fifth stage refers to analyzing potential modes and effects of deficiency and identification of
effects of each one of failure modes. Unpreparedness of each one of the components of L/U
operation leads to a lag in operation or halt in L/U trend. Depicting Pareto diagram provides a
proper analysis of the extent of effects of each one of the factors of port, ship, goods owners and
other factors on creation of lag or halt in operation. Figures 3, 4 display the Pareto diagram of
factors of lags and halt in operation.
International Journal of Accounting and Financial Management (IJAFM) Universal Research Group ISSN: 2322-2107 Vol.5. December 2012
256
Figure 3 – Pareto diagram of lag creation factors in container L/U operation [21]
Other factors Ship Owners of Goods Port Factors
69619 26328 143498 163308 Extent of operation lag at min.
17/2 6/5 35/6 40/5 Percentage
100 82/7 76/1 40/5 Cumulated Percentage
Table 1 – Extent of operation lag at minute [21]
Figure 4 – Pareto diagram of halt creation factors in container L/U operation [21]
International Journal of Accounting and Financial Management (IJAFM) Universal Research Group ISSN: 2322-2107 Vol.5. December 2012
257
Other factors Ship Owners of Goods Port Factors
44386 51660 72265 81156 Extent of operation halt at min.
17/7 20/7 28/9 32/5 Percentage
100 82/2 61/4 32/5 Cumulated Percentage
Table 2 – Extent of operation halt at minute [21]
Figure 3 and table 1 show that two factors of goods owner and port form 76.1 percent of causes
leading to lag creation in L/U operation and ship factor form only 6.5 percent of causes. Other
factors cause creation of 17.2 percent of this error mode. Figure 4 and table 2 show that goods
owners solely constitute 28.9 percent of causes of halt creation in L/U operation of containerized
goods. The latest factor and the factor of port cause 61.4 percent of halts. Among these error
modes, other factors possess the least influence on creation of halt in L/U process. Both diagrams
indicate that owners of goods have the most influence on lag creation in the process.
Sixth Stage
In this stage the going controls for each one of the failure modes are identified. The obtained
results of this stage have been mentioned in table 6.
Seventh Stage
The last stage of the process is L/U risk analysis. The score of risk priority is obtained by
multiplication of three numbers belonging to severity, occurrence and identification of error
modes by which the analysis of process risks and prioritization of steps for efficiency promotion
can be practiced. The number of severity, occurrence and identification of error modes of L/U
process are estimated by use of tables 3, 4 and 5. Table 6 analyzes the failure modes and effects
of L/U process and determines risk priority number of this process.
The Results of Research
Aimed to identify and prioritize the causes of halt and lag in Beirut Container Terminal container
L/U operation, the present research has been conducted by use of Failure Mode and Effect
Analysis method. The research was accomplished in seven stage during which the main causes
of lag and halt creation in L/U operation were studied. The identified main factors of halt and lag
creation and their risk priority numbers are as follows respectively: deficiency and malfunction
of quay vertical transportation equipment (579), deficiency and malfunction of quay horizontal
transportation equipment (579), unpreparedness of the factors outside the port including owners
of goods, agents of shipping lines, cargo terminal and forwarders (483), inelasticity of container
yard (451), inefficiency of equipments (435) and incompleteness of documents (408). Thus
deficiency and malfunction of quay vertical and horizontal transportation equipments scored the
highest risk priority number while incompleteness of documents scored the least number.
According to inspections to identify the effects of each one of error modes, based on Beirut
International Journal of Accounting and Financial Management (IJAFM) Universal Research Group ISSN: 2322-2107 Vol.5. December 2012
258
Container Terminal official reports on causes of halt and lag in container L/U operation during 8
months starting from 21st March 2011, factors of port and owners of goods have the highest
influence on halt and lag creation in L/U operations while ship and other factors have the least
impact on halt and lag creation. As well, taking into consideration the number of occurrence of
causes of error modes, it can be a good scale for judging the current controls in L/U process. In
other words, the extent of error modes occurrence shows the important matter that the current
controls in domain of prevention of error modes have acted so weakly and in most of the cases
there had been no control.
Conclusion
Applying FMEA method, the present research studied the main causes of creation of halt and lag
in L/U operation. Based on the risk priority numbers, document incompleteness, incompetency
of equipment, inelasticity of container yard, unpreparedness of port external factors, technical
deficiency and malfunction of quay horizontal transportation equipments and technical
deficiency and malfunction of quay vertical transportation equipments have been identified as
important factors of creation of delay in L/U operation of containerized goods in Beirut
Container Terminal. Considering the current operational trend in Beirut Container Terminal, the
followings are suggested to reduce delays in container L/U operation:
Deficiency and malfunction of quay vertical and horizontal transportation equipments:
fulfillment of periodic inspections, repair and maintenance according to manufacturers’
standards, purchasing new equipments, making the depreciated and old equipments out of
service and providing spare equipments for emergency events can to a large extent remove
the existing problems.
Unpreparedness of factors outside the port including owners of goods and agents of shipping
lines: as these factors are not directly under the control of port, their control is very difficult
and complicated. Owners have to take all required measures to make their agents prepared
for implementation of L/U operation and start the operation upon ship berthing to jetty. In
those transportation contracts in which L/U is the duty of owner, he is bound to supply the
necessary equipments for the work. Obviously, if an incompetency happens in work, a halt
will rise in the L/U operation. To remove this deficiency, it is better Beirut Container
Terminal managers pay more attention to encourage and employ more qualified contractor
companies of L/U operation to offer proper equipment and workforce to the owners. Also,
they have to build an appropriate structure to make prompt and easy communication with
companies and owners.
Inelasticity of container yard: programming and making policies in order to develop port
equipment and infrastructure proportionately to port traffic volume can to a large extent
remove this defect.
Incapability of L/U equipments and infrastructures: considering the promotion of the
generation of container carrying ships, the equipments of ports have to be changed
proportionately to these evolutions. It is obvious that nonconformity of equipments with
ships generations can cause halt and lag in container L/U process. Promotion of equipment
International Journal of Accounting and Financial Management (IJAFM) Universal Research Group ISSN: 2322-2107 Vol.5. December 2012
259
generation proportionately to tonnage and generation of incoming ships is an appropriate way
to remove this problem.
Document incompleteness: this factor has caused halts and lags in a lot of cases. Application
of electronic services for implementing administrative procedures and obtaining the
permission of certificate issuance as well as establishment of an efficient communicative
system between port and owners can in to some extent remove this deficiency.
Reference [1] Castillo-Manzano J. I, Mercedes C. N, Gonzalez Laxe F, Lopez-Valpuesta L, and Arevalo-Quijada M.
T (2009). Low-Cost Port Competitiveness Index: Implementation in the Spanish Port System. Marine
Policy. (33): 591-598.
[2] Slack B (1985). Containerization int.er-port Competition and Port Selection. Maritime Policy and
Management. 12(4): 293-303.
[3] Malchow M, and Kanafani A (2001). A Disaggregate Analysis of Factors Influencing Port Selection.
Maritime Policy and Management. 28(3): 265-277.
[4] Malchow M. B. and Kanafan A. (2004). A Disaggregate Analysis of Port Selection. Transportation
Research Part E. 40: 317-337 .
[5] Bichou K, and Gray R (2005). A critical review of conventional terminology for classifying seaports.
Transportation Research A. 39(1): 75-92.24.
[6] Notteboom T. E, and Rodrigue J.P (2005). Port regionalization: towards a new phase in port
development. Maritime Policy and Management. 10(2): 297–313.
[7] Pallis A.A, and Vitsounis T.K (2009). Port performance: Measuring port users perspectives. Critical
Issues in the Port and Maritime Sector. University of Antwerp.
[8] Murphy P, Daley J, and Dalenberg D (1992). Port Selection Criteria: An Application of a
Transportation Research Framework. Logistics and Transportation Review. 28(3): 237-255.
[9] Brooks M.R, and Pallis A. A (2008). Assessing port governance models: Process and performance
components. Maritime Policy and Management. 35(4): 411-432.
[10] Brooks M.R, and Cullinane K (2007). Port Governance and Performance. Elsevier. London. UK.
[11] Pallis A. A, and Vitsounis T. K (2008). Towards an alternative measurement of port performance:
Externally generated information and Users satisfaction. International Forum on Shipping. Ports and
Airports (IFSPA) (proceedings: CD-Rom). Hong Kong.
[12] Peters H (1990). Structural Changes in International Trade and Transport Markets: The Importance
of Markets. 2nd KMI International Symposium. Seoul: 58–75.
[13] Ha M.S (2003). A Comparison of Service Quality at Major Container Ports: Implications for Korean
Ports. Journal of Transport Geography. 11(5): 131-137.
[14] Jagerman D, and Altiok T (2003). Vessel Arrival Process and Queuing in Marine Ports Handling
Bulk Materials. Queuing Systems. 45: 223–243.
[15] Marianosi N.S, Lambrou M.A, and Spyrou D (2010). An integrated methodology for evaluating
electronic port services for container terminals: the OLP case. Department of Shipping Trade and
Transport. University of the Aegean.
[16] Robinson R (2002). Ports as elements in value-driven chain systems: the new paradigm. International
Journal of Maritime Policy and Management. 29(3): 241-255.
International Journal of Accounting and Financial Management (IJAFM) Universal Research Group ISSN: 2322-2107 Vol.5. December 2012
260
[17] Cullinane K, Wang T. F, and Song D. W, Ji. P (2006). The Technical Efficiency of Container Ports:
Comparing Data Envelopment Analysis and Stochastic Frontier Analysis. Transportation Research Part
A. 40: 354-374.
[18] Hung S. W, Lu W. M, and Wang T. P (2010). Benchmarking the Operating Efficiency of Asia
Container Ports. European Journal of Operational Research. (203): 706-713.
[19] Al-Eraqi A. S, Mustafa A, and Khader A. T (2010). An Extended DEA Windows Analysis: Middle
East and East African Seaports. Journal of Economic Studies. (37): 208-218.
[20] Tongzon J. L 1995. Determinants of Port Performance and Efficiency. Transportation Research Part
A. 29: 245-252.
[21] Operation Census Official Site. (2011). Census Administration of Beirut Container Terminal. http://www.bctc-lb.com/.
[22] McDermott R. E, Mikulak R. J, Beauregard M. R (2009). The Basics of FMEA CRC Press USA.
[23] Pearson R (1980). Container line Performance and Service Quality. University of Liverpool.
[24] Emami Meibodi A (2005). Principles of Efficiency and Productivity Evaluation. Commercial
Research and Studies Institute. Tehran.
[25] Branch A. E (2008). Elements of Shipping. London and New York. Routledge Taylor and Francis
Group. Pp: 123–155.
[26] Foster T. A (1979). What’s Important in a Port. Distribution World Wide. :32-36.
[27] Karbasian M, Aqadadi A (2006). Six Sigma and Quality Costs. ArkaneDanesh and
DaneshPazhoohaneBarin Press. Isfahan.
[28] Jafari H (2011). Increasing Efficiency rate of Container Loading/Unloading Operation in Bandar
Imam Khomeini port by Use of 6 Sigma Method, BSc Thesis. Sea Economics and Management.
Khoramshahr Maritime Sciences and Technologies.
Rank Effect and result of failure Criterion: Severity of Effect on Loading/Unloading Process
10 Very much delays Halt duration of operation is more than 24 hours.
9 much delays Halt duration of operation is more than 12 and less than 24 hours.
8
Average delays
Halt duration of operation is more than 12 and less than 6 hours.
7 Halt duration of operation is less than 6 or lag duration of operation is more than 18 hours.
6 Lag duration of operation is less than 18 and more than 12 hours.
5 Little delays
Lag duration of operation is less than 12 and more than 6 hours.
4 Lag duration of operation is less than 6 and more than 3 hours.
3 Very little delays
Lag duration of operation is less than 3 and more than 2 hours.
2 Lag duration of operation is less than 2 hours.
1 No delay There is no halt or lag in operation.
Table 3 – Ranking the extent of error severity in L/U operation [28]
Ranking Failure occurrence probability Criterion: Extent of error occurrence
10 Very high
And
High
More than 36 percent
9 30 – 36 percent
8 24 – 30 percent
7 18 – 24 percent
6
Average
12 – 18 percent
5 6 – 12 percent
4 3 – 6 percent
3 Low
1.5 – 3 percent
2 Less than 1.5 percent
1 Very low Error mode has been controlled via predictive measures.
Table 4 – Ranking the extent of error occurrence in L/U operation [28]
Rank Probability of Identification Criterion of Error Identification Probability
10 Very improbable Controls cannot certainly identify error.
9 Very tiny probability Deficiency is identifiable after operation but process factors cannot correct it.
International Journal of Accounting and Financial Management (IJAFM) Universal Research Group ISSN: 2322-2107 Vol.5. December 2012
261
8 Very low probability Process factors can limitedly do corrections after error occurrence.
7 Low probability Process factors can correct errors after operation.
6 Below average probability Process factors can correct errors while operation.
5 Average probability Controls have average effectiveness for error identification.
4 Above average probability Error is identifiable before operation.
3 High probability Controls have high effectiveness for error identification before operation.
2 Very high probability Controls are very highly probable for errors identification before operation.
1 Almost probable Controls can identify and correct errors with a high confidence.
Table 5 – Ranking the extent of error identification probability in L/U operation [28]
Risk
Priority
Number
Iden
tifi
cati
on
Current
Controls for
Identification
Occ
urren
ce
Error Cause
Severit
y
Error effects Error modes Components
and function
Nu
mb
er
123 6 There is no
specific control 5
Financial and
administrative matters 4
Halt of L/U operation
of goods
Unpreparedness of
factors outside the port
for receiving or
delivering goods
Goods owner,
receiving from
and delivering
goods to port
1
483 10 There is no
specific control 6 Unpreparedness 6 2
363 10 There is no
specific control 6
Financial and
administrative matters 6 Lag of L/U operation 3
408 9 There is no
specific control 9
Document
incompleteness 5 4
363 10 There is no
specific control 6 Shortage of trucks 6 5
283 7
Coordination
among relevant
organizations by
Port
administration
8
Ship container pass
and quarantine
formalities
5 Halt of L/U operation
Unpreparedness of
port for L/U operation
of goods
Port, goods
transmission
between ship
and coast vice
versa
6
579 8
Implementation
of repair
programs and
accomplishment
of predictive
repairs
9
Deficiency of vertical
transportation
equipment
8 Lag of L/U operation 7
579 8
Implementation
of repair
programs and
accomplishment
of predictive
repairs
9 Deficiency of L/U
horizontal equipment 8 8
435 9
Variation of
equipment
generation
8 Incompetency of
unloading equipment 6 9
283 8
Modification and
improvement of
input/out put
models
7 Quay traffic 5 10
451 8 Control by port 7 Inelasticity of
container yard 8 11
101 7
Control by port
operation
department
7 Delay in start and
early finish 2 12
123 5
Control by port
operation and
statistical
processes
6 Unpreparedness of
relevant contractor 4 13
183 6
Supervision by
the heads of
workgroups
10 Labor matters 3 14
323 8 Coordination
among relevant 10
Pass and quarantine
formalities 4 15
International Journal of Accounting and Financial Management (IJAFM) Universal Research Group ISSN: 2322-2107 Vol.5. December 2012
262
organizations by
Port
administration
111 3 PSC and Port
administration 4 Confiscation by PSC 9 Halt in L/U operation
Unpreparedness of
ship
Ship,
transporting
goods to port
and
transmission of
goods from port
16
147 6 There is no
specific control 6
Deficiency of ship
equipments 4 Lag of L/U operation 17
99 6 There is no
specific control 4
Adjusting the balance
of Ship 4 18
93 3
Application of
weather forecast
reports to take
preventive
measures
3 Foul weather and tide
prediction 10 Halt of L/U operation
Creation of turbulence
in L/U work Other factors 19
108 3
Application of
weather forecast
reports to take
preventive
measures
7 Foul weather and tide
prediction 5 Lag of L/U operation 20
Table 6 – Analysis of error modes and effects and risk priority number