modelling portferry choice in roro freight transportation (2002)

7/25/2019 Modelling Portferry Choice in RoRo Freight Transportation (2002)

1/14

Modelling port/ferry choice in RoRo freight transportation

John Mangan a,*, Chandra Lalwani b, Bernard Gardner b

a Irish Management Institute, Sandyford Road, Dublin 16, Irelandb Cardiff Business School, Cardiff University, Wales, UK

Abstract

Maritime transport choice is an often neglected area in the transport literature. This paper makes two contributions to that

literature: firstly, it brings together all of the major contributions to date to the port/ferry choice literature (and particularly those of

Brooks, DEste, Matear and Gray, and other authors); secondly, it employs an in-depth, triangulated research methodology which

incorporates both quantitative and qualitative methodologies for an investigation of port/ferry choice in the Ireland/UK and Ire-land/Continental Europe markets. The qualitative methodology employed, construct elicitation, has not previously been employed

in this context. In addition, determinants of choice and the role of other selection variables have been elucidated and two techniques

(input-oriented modelling based on the Aaker and Day model and process-oriented modelling) have been employed to model the

decision making process. 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: RoRo freight transport; Port/ferry choice; Transport modelling

1. Introduction

This paper reports the results of a study into Roll-On/

Roll-Off (hereafter referred to as RoRo) port/ferry route

choice in the Ireland/UK and Ireland/Continental Eu-rope markets. This market is first described and the

literature on decision variables in transport choice, and

on modelling transport choice, is then detailed. The

output of a triangulated, three-phase research study is

then reported.

1.1. Research context

The RoRo freight market is of central importance to

the Republic of Irelands Celtic Tiger economy, an

economy that has grown considerably in recent years.

The Republic of Ireland (hereafter referred to as Ire-

land) is an island country geographically located in theNorthwest of Europe with a population of some 3.75

million people. Irelands recent economic success has

resulted from growth in both the manufacturing and

service sectors and is a consequence of, inter alia, a

combination of careful economic planning, investment

in infrastructure, high standards of education and, not

least, EU grant aid. A member of the EEC/EC/EU

since 1973, Ireland was one of the first qualifiers for

European Monetary Union (EMU) and is now a

member of the single currency (Irish Pound IR Euro

1.27). GNP is substantially lower than Gross Domestic

Product (GDP) in Ireland due to the importance ofprofit repatriations by foreign firms and interest pay-

ments on the national debt. Forecast GDP for 1999 was

IR68,299m (GDP per capita was 23,125) and fore-

cast GNP was IR58,369m. In 1999 exports from Ire-

land were forecast at circa IR58.2 billion and imports

at circa IR49.5 billion yielding a balance of trade

surplus of circa IR8.7 billion. According to the

Economic and Social Research Institute (www.esri.le),

Irelands GDP was forecast to increase by 8.8% in

2000.

A feature of the whole island of Ireland is that, since

the opening of the channel tunnel linking Britain with

Continental Europe, Ireland is now the only EU mem-ber country without a landlink to the rest of the EU and

is thus totally dependent on both the air and maritime

transport modes for external access and egress. Ireland

has a large economic dependence on external trade

(which is the fastest growing sector of the economy) and

is in a peripheral location vis-aa-vis the economic centre

of gravity of the EU. Consequently, ports and ferry

services are of special importance to the Irish economy.

Fig. 1 illustrates both the growth and corridor shares

of RoRo freight in the Irish market while Fig. 2 illus-

trates the RoRo routes to and from Ireland. RoRo

International Journal of Transport Management 1 (2002) 1528

www.elsevier.com/locate/traman

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +353-1-2078574; fax: +353-1-2955150.

E-mail address: [email protected] (J. Mangan).

1471-4051/02/$ - see front matter 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

PII: S 1 4 7 1 - 4 0 5 1 ( 0 1 ) 0 0 0 0 3 - 9


2/14

freight comprises approximately 19% by volume of all

goods handled at Irish ports. The northern corridor

comprises the ports of Belfast, Larne and Warrenpointin Northern Ireland, the central corridor comprises

Dublin and Dun Laoghaire, both in the Republic of

Ireland, and the southern corridor comprises Cork and

Rosslare, both also in the Republic of Ireland.

It is apparent from Fig. 1 that the northern corridor

has the largest share of the market, albeit a share which

has been declining somewhat in more recent years.

Northern Ireland has a population of approximately 1.6

million and an economy which has not mirrored that of

the Celtic Tiger in terms of growth and prosperity.

Consequently its share of the whole islands RoRo

freight traffic is somewhat disproportionate. Assumingan origin/destination spread of RoRo freight traffic

broadly in proportion to economic output in the Re-

public of Ireland vis-aa-vis Northern Ireland, it is evident

that a significant share of the Republic of Ireland traffic

has been in the past, and to a lesser, but still significant,

extent is still availing of RoRo ferry services to and from

Northern Ireland ports. The usually cited reason for this

scenario is the higher frequency of cheaper sailings with

shorter sailing times from the Northern Ireland ports. It

needs to be stressed of course that there is nothing

wrong with Republic of Ireland shippers using Northern

Ireland ports they are merely making what they per-

ceive to be the optimum choice in a free market. It doeshowever raise the question of whether or not ineffi-

ciencies exist in the whole RoRo freight market as a

result of shippers having to route their traffic through

distant ports in order to avail of what they perceive to be

the best ferry route choice.

It is estimated that approximately 47% of the RoRo

freight traffic in the entire Irish market travels unac-

companied. Furthermore, it is estimated that approxi-

mately only 2% of RoRo freight traffic in the Irish

market travels on direct sailings to Continental Europe,

the remaining traffic (i.e. 98%) either terminating in the

UK or else landbridging the UK enroute to other

destinations.

2. Transport choice variables

Murphy and Hall (1995) reviewed a range of studies

from the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s that evaluated modal

or carrier selection decision making in transport. The

aggregate rankings across all of these studies of the

relevant variables which determined choice are shown in

Table 1. Murphy and Hall add that new variables are

emerging from studies of transport choice in the 1990s

such variables include rate negotiation, service nego-

tiation, carrier response in emergencies, willingness to

improve service quality, and quality of dispatch per-

sonnel. They add however that more definitive conclu-

sions will require further research. Cullinane and Toy

(2000) undertook a content analysis (a technique which

can measure the frequency of different words or morecomplex measures in a series of documents) of 75 articles

contained in a database of literature relevant to the

subject of freight route/mode choice decisions and ob-

tained (using the less abstract methods of content

analysis) the following hierarchy:

1. cost/price/rate;

2. speed;

3. transit time reliability;

4. characteristics of the goods;

5. service.

Cullinane and Toy stress the importance of accu-

rately identifying relevant factors in transport choice

studies. Factors so identified are often used as inputs to

predictive models. The output of these models some-

times differs to the actual practice of decision makers

and this may occur because the wrong input factors were

identified and used in the first instance, hence illustrating

the importance of correctly identifying the relevant

factors.

Hall and Wagner (1996) provided evidence to show

that the key selection criteria for one mode or modal

segment may not be applicable or critical for another

mode or modal segment, hence it is important to at-

tempt to distil the more critical factors for a specific

context. DEste and Meyrick (1992) distinguishedquantitative factors (e.g. frequency, cost), which could

potentially be measured and compared in an objective

manner, and qualitative factors (e.g. marketing, tradi-

tion, etc.) which were more subjective, in transport

choice. Given then the range of pertinent choice factors

it is important when studying transport choice to cap-

ture the impact of all of these factors, including those

qualitative factors which may be difficult to measure

and, as stated, to distil those critical factors which are

specific to the modal segment considered in a given re-

search effort.

Fig. 1. RoRo freight units (import and export) on the three corridors.

(Data from the Central Statistics Office Statistics of Port Traffic

published annually, and from Trade at the Principle Ports published

annually by the Department of Economic Development, Belfast.)

16 J. Mangan et al. / Transport Management 1 (2002) 1528


3/14

Fig. 2. RoRo routes to and from Ireland.

J. Mangan et al. / Transport Management 1 (2002) 1528 17


4/14

Table 2 lists, in descending order of importance,

factors considered important in port/shipping company

choice which were identified in three studies which

looked at port/shipping company selection in the mari-

time context.

Empirical evidence shows that differences in selection

criteria are often observed among decision makers in

transportation. Murphy et al. (1992) showed that portselection factors are evaluated differently by freight for-

warders, large shippers, small shippers, ferry operators

and port managers. Matear and Gray (1993) showed that

shippers and freight forwarders employ different criteria

in selecting transport services. DEste and Meyrick

(1992) observed differences between freight forwarders

and producers (i.e. consignors) in selection criteria and

they cited several other studies which found that differ-

ences exist between shipper and carrier perceptions of the

selection variables. Murphy et al. (1997) however noted

that while there may be differences between shippers and

carriers in terms of mean importance ratings for different

factors, the relative importance of the different factors

within both groups (which could be illustrated by cor-

relation) may be similar. DEste and Meyrick (1992), in

their study of the AustraliaTasmania RoRo market,

noted that predictably consignors were more inclined to

leave shipping decisions to an agent or haulier.

The context within which freight transport choice

decisions are made has changed considerably in recent

years. This has arisen as a result of improvements in

transport efficiency which have changed considerably

the operational effectiveness of the transport sector, the

evolution of logistics and supply chain management

within which transport services are key links, and in-

creased outsouring of the transport function by firms.

3. Modelling transport choice

Fortunately (or unfortunately!) there are copiousapproaches to modelling freight transport choice.

DEste (1992b) categorised the various modelling ap-

proaches into three broad categories, viz:

Input-oriented models.

Outcome-oriented models.

Process-oriented models.

This paper will follow this broad categorisation

(although it must be stressed that the classification in this

paper of the various reviewed techniques into these three

broad categories is the onus of these authors, not

DEste).

Table 1

Variables affecting freight transportation choice (Murphy and Hall,

1995)

1990s Rankings

1970s 1980s

Reliability 1 1 1

Freight rates 4.5 2 3.5

Transit time 2 3 5.5

Carrier considerations 6 5 2

Shipper market considerations 4.5 5 3.5

Over, short and damaged 3 5 5.5

Table 2

Factors important in port/shipping company choice

Matear and Gray (1993)

Irish sea: all maritime

traffic types

Spencer et al. (1992)

RoRo across the

English Channel

DEste and Meyrick (1992) RoRo

between Australia and Tasmania: ferry

factors

DEste and Meyrick (1992) RoRo

between Australia and Tasmania:

port factors

Punctuality of ferry Service frequency Frequency Proximity to origin

Space availability Convenient schedules Price Port turnaround time

Service frequency Delays, cancellations Transit time Record of strikes

Response to problems On fastest route to

destination

On-time Loading facilities

Value for money rate Space availability Damage Port marketing

Ferry arrival time Fast check-in /disem-

barkation

Commitment Port charges

Ferry departure time Speed of customs Problems Tradition

Sea crossing time On che ape st route t o

destination

Technology

Low freight rate Low tariffs Extra space

Carrier relationship Port vehicle congestion Door-to-door service

Proximity to freight

destination

Pre-booking facilities Flexible contracts

Proximity to freight

origin

Chance for driver break Long contracts

Special rates/discounts Ferry drivers facilities Promotion

Shipper preference Congested roads to port

Standard of these roads

Note: The factors are ranked in descending order of relative importance.



5/14

3.1. Input-oriented models

These models relate to the range and relative impor-

tance of the various factors that influence carrier choice

(the decision making ingredients) but do not give an

insight into the actual decision making process. In the

view however of Pisharodi (1991) there is a need to shift

the focus of transport choice decision modelling from

the determination of factors which influence decisions

(as is the case with input-oriented modelling) to the

determination of the activities actually involved in de-

cision making. Examples of input-oriented modelling

include: calculating importance means (e.g. Hall and

Wagner, 1996), factor analysis (e.g. Stank et al., 1996),

and the Aaker and Day Model(e.g. Brooks, 1985, 1990,

1995, 2000). The latter technique is useful in that it

distinguishes attributes judged to be merely important

from actual determinants of choice: Brooks called the

latter factors salient factors (Fig. 3).

3.2. Outcome-oriented models

These models are concerned with predicting the

outcome of a particular decision situation and, ac-

cording to DEste (1992b), they tend to be broad-brush

and mechanistic in nature, with their success judged by

their predictive power rather than their explanatory

ability. In these models mathematical formulations are

developed which attempt to predict the decision out-

come, at least in an aggregated sense. Examples of

outcome-oriented models include logit modelling (e.g.

Spencer et al., 1992), decision trees (e.g. Coles and

Rowley, 1995), the Analytic Hierarchy Process (e.g.

Lehmusvaara et al., 1999) and Conjoint Analysis (e.g.

Aaker et al., 1995).

Outcome-oriented models are not however without

their critics. DEste (1992b) expressed the view that

outcome-oriented models have done little to improve the

level of understanding of ferry choice in the maritime

context, while Gray (1982) noted that better results

would be achieved if greater effort was devoted to un-

derstanding how shippers and other interested parties

behave, rather than developing more sophisticated

mathematical models.

3.3. Process-oriented models

These models attempt to explain how the various

pertinent factors interact (the decision making ingredi-

ents), and the nature of the environment within which

the interaction occurs, to produce the observed decision.

In essence then such models represent the carrier choice

paradigm, the recipe for decision making. A good ex-

ample of such a model is the process-oriented model

developed by DEste (1992a) to represent ferry choice in

the RoRo freight market between Australia and Tas-

mania; a similar such model was developed by Brooks

(1990) for a different market.

Central to any process-oriented decision model is an

understanding of how the various influences fit together

and interact. DEste (1992a) identified a strategic level of

interaction where there is an arrangement of the various

stages in the evaluation and choice process, and which

can be represented in flowchart form, and a lower level

of interaction of individual choice factors which can beeithercompensatoryornon-compensatory.Compensatory

interaction allows strong performance in one factor to

compensate for poor performance in other factors, thus

usually combining the effects of all decision factors into

a single decision variable (e.g. as is the case in regression

based modelling). Non-compensatory interaction how-

ever stipulates that there are minimum levels of perfor-

mance and that any given factor cannot necessarily be

traded-off against other factors (closely related to these

concepts of compensatory and non-compensatory in-

teraction is the shippers objective which can be either

one ofsatisfyingor maximising).

3.4. Modelling transport choice: the need to take a holistic

view

DEste (1992b) noted that carrier choice cannot be

understood as an isolated decision in time and space. It

encompasses past, current and future implications in

both the transport and wider organisational context.

He recommends that, in carrier choice research, there is

a need to take a much broader perspective that places

the decision in context in space and time, while carrier

choice factors should be understood and not just mea-

sured. In a similar vein, Pedersen and Gray (1998) argueagainst the assumption of context-free determinants of

choice in transport studies and they suggest that the

context within which the choice is made must be con-

sidered in such studies. Brooks (1995) concluded that a

market is not homogeneous in its requirements of car-

riers and that different elements surface as important

both in identifiable geographical markets and customer

groups, and that furthermore choice criteria are a

moving target over time and vary significantly between

segments of the market for a single mode. Brooks

(1995) further suggests that carrier choice decisionFig. 3. The Aaker and Day model (adapted from Brooks, 1985).



6/14

making has shifted from a process involving a short

timeframe, few decision makers, etc. to a process which

is more complex, has a longer timeframe, etc. which in

essence reflects the shift in interfirm relationships from

an adversarial or transaction basis to a more partnership

or relationship-driven basis.

It is evident from this discussion that transport

markets must not be viewed as homogeneous and that a

broader, holistic view needs to be taken of the transport

choice process. It is important to realise when consid-

ering transport choice that it is likely that an elaborate

decision making process isnotengaged upon each time a

consignor or haulier has a shipment to send. Brooks

(1984) showed that the Buygrid Framework, first put

forward in 1967 by Robinson, Faris and Wind in In-

dustrial Buying and Creative Marketing, can be applied

to the purchase of liner shipping services. The buygrid

framework identifies three classes of purchase:

New tasks appropriate for new purchasers in the

market. Modified rebuy when the purchaser is experienced

but not committed to a particular supplier.

Straight rebuy when the choice of supplier is auto-

matic.

DEste (1992a), in his study of the AustraliaTasmania

RoRo trade, observed that in most cases straight rebuys

were made and that only occasionally were shipping

options re-examined (modified rebuy); he found new

tasks to be a minor, but increasing, component of the

overall freight market, and the evidence suggested that

the most thorough comparisons were made for such new

tasks. Whyte (1992) also pointed to the prominence of

source loyalty (i.e. buying a product or service from the

same source from which it was obtained previously in

other words straight rebuys) in freight markets. This

tendency then to engage in objective assessment for only

a minor proportion of shipments is thus a key feature of

the transport choice process.

All of the foregoing discussion in this section points

to the necessity to take a holistic view of the transport

choice process rather than just looking at the actual

nature and structure of the transport choice decision per

se. Such a holistic view considers, inter alia, that trans-

port choice changes over time, is different for different

markets, involves multiple actors, is often encapsulatedwithin partnership based intercompany interaction,

rarely involves new tasks, is dependent upon the supply

chain and logistics strategies of shippers, etc.

4. Methodology

On the basis of the preceding discussion it was

decided to discount output-oriented modelling and to

attempt both input-oriented modelling (calculating

importance means, factor analysis, and using the Aaker

and Day Model) and process-oriented modelling. In

order to generate the requisite data it was decided to

employ a combination of research methods structured

into a three phase, triangulated research effort as

follows:

Phase 1 involved an investigation of RoRo port/ferry

choice in the Irish market in an inductive (phenome-

nological) manner. This involved an analysis of the

Irish RoRo freight market and interviews with (24)

key actors in the Irish RoRo freight market (plus

245 short interviews with truck drivers). This pro-

vided the researchers with an in-depth insight into

various issues concerning the operation and structure

of the market.

Phase 2 investigated RoRo port/ferry choice in a de-

ductive (positivist) manner. This involved: (i) a rigor-

ous sampling exercise which involved eliciting a

representative sample of decision makers engaged in

the Irish RoRo freight trade from 14 separate sam-

pling frames, (ii) development and pilot testing of aquestionnaire (across nine interviews), (iii) personal

interviews (57) with decision makers using a struc-

tured questionnaire, and (iv) survey data analysis us-

ing various input-oriented modelling techniques

(including theAaker and Day model).

Phase 3 involved again investigating RoRo port/ferry

choice in an inductive (phenomenological) manner.

This involved taking the results obtained in Phase 2

and further investigating these (by way of some 19 in-

terviews) using construct elicitation, an interviewing

methodology based on Kellys theory of personal

constructs.

5. Results

5.1. Factor analysis

A principal components factor analysis was per-

formed on the importance ratings obtained from the

survey data in Phase 2 of the research. A VARIMAX

rotation converged in 10 iterations, producing six ag-

gregate factors (the term aggregate factor is used here

to identify factors generated by factor analysis so as to

avoid confusion with individual port/ferry factors). Itwas not possible however to identify or label these six

aggregate factors.

The procedure was repeated with the intention of

extracting three factors and in this instance VARIMAX

converged in six iterations. Table 3 illustrates the ro-

tated factor matrix scores obtained. The three aggre-

gated factors, based on the factor scores obtained have

been labelled:

Factor 1 speed/risk/convenience factor.

Factor 2 cost and convenience factor.

Factor 3 driver factor.



7/14

Factors with loadings in excess of 0.5 (shown in bold

in Table 3) were used to determine aggregate factorlabels McGinnis (1980) and Matear and Gray (1993)

adopted this approach in their factor analyses in freight

transport choice studies.

The first two factors are perhaps unsurprising, but the

third factor, the driver factor, is unique in that it has not

appeared previously in the literature in the context of

factor analysis and ferry choice.

5.2. Identifying salient factors

The 57 respondents in Phase 2 were asked to score

their choice of port/ferry route for a hypothetical ship-

ment. Respondents were then asked to score their nextchoice of port/ferry route in the event of their first choice

not being available. Table 4 illustrates:

(i) the mean importance rating which respondents

gave to different choice factors,(ii) the mean performance ratings given by respon-

dents to 14 pertinent choice factors in their first

choice of a port Performance 1,

(iii) the mean performance ratings given by respon-

dents to 14 pertinent choice factors in their second

choice of a port Performance 2,

(iv) indicates if the ratings are significantly statisti-

cally different, and

(v) indicates if the factors can be considered salient

factors.

The number of respondents who gave performance

ratings to individual choice factors for both first and

second choice ports ranged from a minimum of 16 re-spondents for the factor intermodal/connecting trans-

port links to a maximum of 31 respondents for the

Table 3

Factor analysis

Variable Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3

Facilities onboard for drivers ).08 ).16 +.79

Proximity of ports to freight origin/destination +.04 +.15 +.34

Port and ferry chosen is on fastest overall route +.37 ).12 +.42

Preference of consignor/consignee +.15 ).17 ).06

Spaces available on ferry when needed )

.09 )

.28 +.01Intermodal/transport links at ports +.65 ).09 ).34

Port and ferry chosen is on cheapest overall route ).04 +.68 ).14

Speed of getting to/through ports +.65 +.14 +.21

Ferry suitable for unaccompanied/special cargo ).03 +.54 ).12

Delays due to driving bans, tacho, weight, etc. +.39 ).16 +.31

Opportunity for driver rest break ).01 ).09 +.86

Cost of ferry service/discounts ).29 +.82 +.23

Sailing frequency/convenient sailing times +.32 +.50 ).07

Information on sailing options +.85 ).01 ).02

Risk of cancellation/delay +.58 +.38 +.17

Table 4

Mean importance ratings and identifying determinants of choice (the Aaker and Day model)

Factor Mean importance Performance 1 Performance 2 Different ? Salient ?

1. Space available when needed on ferry 4.578 4.4 3.9 Y1 S1

2. Sailing freq/convenient sailing times 4.408 4.1 3.9 N

3. Risk of cancellation/delay 4.340 3.9 3.7 N

4. Port and ferry on fastest overall route 4.160 3.9 3.6 N

5. Proximity of ports to origin/destination 4.083 4.2 3.9 Y2 S2

6. Cost of ferry service/discounts 4.000 3.9 3.4 Y1 S17. Speed of getting to/through ports 3.959 3.7 3.8 N

8. Port/ferry on cheapest overall route 3.776 3.7 3.5 N

9. Ferry suitable for unacc or special cargo 3.558 3.8 3.9 N

10. Delays due to driving bans, tacho, etc. 3.543 3.6 3.4 N

11. Availability of info on sailing options 3.314 3.8 4.0 N

12. Facilities for drivers 3.250 4.2 3.7 Y1 S2

13. Opportunity for driver rest break 3.118 4.0 3.4 Y2 S2

14. Intermodal/connecting transport links 2.093 3.3 3.0 N

Y1 indicates factors significantly different at the 95% confidence level, Y2 significantly different at the 90% confidence level, N no significant

difference. Salient factors, labelled S1, are those with mean importance ratings above 4 and significant performance differences at the 95% confidence

level. Other potentially salient factors, labelled S2, are those with an importance rating above 3 and significant performance differences at least at the

90% confidence level. Owing however to the relatively small sample size in the survey (57 respondents) and the resulting potential for error it is only

possible to accept the S1 factors as these meet the more stringent criteria for salience and are thus more statistically valid.



8/14

factor port and ferry is on the fastest overall route to

destination.

It was obviously necessary to define the statistically

correct criteria for salience. To recap, salient factors are

those which both perform differently and are regarded

as important. The column headed Different? in Table 3

identifies those factors for which there is a difference in

indicated performance ratings between the chosen op-

tions. In this table, Y1 indicates those factors signifi-

cantly different at the 95% confidence level, while Y2

indicates those factors significantly different at the 90%

confidence level. It was decided that Y1 factors only

should be selected (i.e. those significantly different at the

95% confidence level) owing to the relatively small

sample size in this study and the resulting potential for

error. It was also decided that, for the same reason, for

any Y1 factors to be considered salient factors, they

should have a mean importance score greater than 4, or

at least greater than the mean of the sum of the mean

importance ratings (which in this case is 3.73). On thisbasis two salient factors (these are labelled S1 in the

table) are thus identified from the data, namely space

availability on ferries and cost of ferry service/discounts.

Other factors have also been identified as potentially

salient, although not with statistical accuracy from the

perspective of the above criteria. These are labelled S2 in

the table.

5.3. Construct elicitation

The interviews in Phase 3 employed a technique

known as construct elicitation (Note 1) to identify

factors considered important in port/ferry choice (see

Table 5):

(i) Outlines the ranking of mean factor importance

obtained in the Phase 2 research.

(ii) Identifies the two salient factors which emerged

from the Aaker and Day analysis in Phase 2.

(iii) Indicates if any of the Phase 2 factors listed were

also elicited during the Phase 3 construct elicitation

exercise (if the factors emerged in a slightly different

form and/or multiple forms, then these descriptions

are given in brackets).

Twelve of the 15 factors used in the Phase 2 research

were also elicited during construct elicitation in Phase 3.

Three factors, used in the Phase 2 research, were not

however elicited in Phase 3. The three factors were:

Port/ferry on the cheapest overall route (ranked eightmost important in Phase 2).

Availability of information on sailing options

(ranked 11th most important in Phase 2).

Preference of consignor/consignee (ranked 14th most

important in Phase 2).

Three issues are of note with regard to the absence of

these factors from Phase 3. Firstly, none of these three

Table 5

Comparison of port/ferry choice factors elicited during the Phase 2 research and during the Phase 3 research

Factor Mean importance in

Phase 2 research

Salient in Phase 2

research?

Elicited in Phase 3?

1. Space available when needed on ferry 4.578 Yes Yes

2. Sailing freq/convenient sailing times 4.408 Yes (frequency of ferry service; ferry arrival

and departure times; parallel sailing timings

reduce choice; convenient sailing times)

3. Risk of cancellation/delay 4.340 Yes

4. Port and ferry on fastest overall route 4.160 Yes (also : speed of ferry service)

5. Proximity of ports to origin/destination 4.083 Yes (location of traffic origin; location of

traffic destination)

6. Cost of ferry service/discounts 4.000 Yes Yes (bulk discounts from ferry companies;

cost of the ferry service)

7. Speed of getting to/through ports 3.959 Yes (delays at ports; potential for delays

on certain port access/egress routes;

port protests)

8. Port/ferry on cheapest overall route 3.776 No9. Ferry suitable for unacc or special cargo 3.558 Yes (ferry suitable for unacc cargo; ferry

suitable for haz cargo)

10. Delays due to driving bans, tacho etc. 3.543 Yes (tacho restrictions; driving bans; if load

overweight avoid routings over UK; Irish

trucks delayed by UK police)

11. Availability of info on sailing options 3.314 No

12. Facilities for drivers 3.250 Yes (catering; staff attitudes; incentives;

distractions from passengers)

13. Opportunity for driver rest break 3.118 Yes

14. Preference of consignor/consignee 2.413 No

15. Intermodal/connecting transport links 2.093 Yes (options to get units from UK ports to

other UK ports; partner ferry services on the

English Channel)



9/14

factors are determinants of choice as identified by the

Phase 2 Aaker and Day analysis. Secondly, none of the

factors were ranked as being of particular importance in

Phase 2 (the most important of the three was only

ranked eight). Thirdly, the Phase 2 factors were chosen

based on a review of the literature and subsequent pi-

loting of a draft survey instrument. In contrast, the

Phase 3 factors were actually elicited from the respon-

dents. Based on these three issues then it could therefore

be argued that the absence of the three factors from the

Phase 2 results is not a matter of particular concern.Four other factors, not specifically used in Phase 2, were

also elicited in the Phase 3 construct elicitation and these

are shown in Table 6.

5.4. Building a process-oriented model

The combined research results were used to build a

holistic, structural, process-oriented model, similar to

that of, for example, Brooks (1990) or DEste, but ob-

viously modified for the Irish RoRo freight market in

the context of the Phases 2 and 3 results obtained.

Furthermore, it was intended that the model would be

combined with the many qualitative findings which

emerged during the research to yield a rich overview of

RoRo port/ferry choice in the Irish context. The model

developed is shown in Fig. 4.

6. Discussion

The triangulated research methodology which was

selected, developed and employed allowed for the

fullest possible exploration of RoRo port/ferry choice.

Perhaps the greatest affirmation of this approach can

be seen from the presentation of the Phases 2 and 3research results shown in Table 5. The Phase 3 research

results have in a broad sense affirmed the various re-

sults obtained during the Phase 2 research. In addition,

they have also added extra richness to the whole

research effort by giving extra detail to many of the

Phase 2 factors, as well as generating a number of

other factors which did not arise during the Phase 2

research. A good example is the Phase 2 factor delays

due to driving bans, etc. which was subsequently use-

fully disaggregated into a myriad of relevant factors in

Phase 3.

6.1. Implications for the Irish RoRo freight market

During the course of this research it was apparent

that the Irish RoRo freight market is quite sophisticated

from both logistical and operational perspectives. Many

hauliers are providing value adding, total logistics so-

lutions for their clients. Vertical integration, where a

service provider controls more than one element in the

transport chain, is evident in some instances. Indeed this

is an issue of particular note for many of the RoRo ferry

companies should they just operate RoRo ferry ser-

vices or should they provide a door to door integrated

transport solution for their clients? Furthermore, what is

their strategic role in the evolving logistical strategies of

their customers (both hauliers and manufacturers)? In

terms of service provision there appears to be some

demand for new service offerings, particularly more high

speed ferry services, more direct sailings to Continental

Europe, and more sailings scheduled to depart Ireland

later in the evening/night. There was much discussionamong those hauliers and manufacturers who were in-

terviewed during the course of this research concerning

the latter issue of later sailings. Obviously the com-

mercial viability of this and the other demands would

have to be assessed. One issue which was apparent

during the research was that there appears to be widely

fluctuating demand for space on RoRo ferries, largely

driven by the production schedules of manufacturers.

6.2. Implications for transport/logistics theory

The emergent themes running through the literature

review in this research were that:

For proper research into transport choice the re-

searcher should not assume that the market is homo-

geneous and should note that selection criteria vary

according to mode, time, market segment, etc.

That the context within which the decision is made is

of importance and that furthermore, in order to mod-

el decision making, it is often more beneficial to

adopt a broad, holistic view of the port/ferry choice

process rather than look at the nature and structure

of the port/ferry decision per se.

This research undertaking exposed a variety of per-

tinent selection criteria. These were usefully disaggre-gated to ferry issues and overall route issues. The actual

determinants of choice, or as termed by Brooks the

salient factors, in the Irish RoRo freight market were

space availability on ferries and cost of ferry services/

availability of discounts. Legion other factors emerged,

many important for different contexts in the heteroge-

neous Irish RoRo freight market. This should also allow

the definition from the model (and more specifically

from the data behind the model illustrated as the Phases

2 and 3 research results) of benefit segments for the Irish

RoRo freight market.

Table 6

Other factors elicited during the Phase 3 research

1. Ferry company marketing (sales reps visits, etc.)

2. Depends on when are the goods due

3. Dictated by the location of the hauliers depot/configuration of

the hauliers network

4. Security (security of units onboard from competitors and

passengers; risk of hijacking)



10/14

New variables identified in this research include issues

such as security of units onboard ferries from competi-

tors and passengers, a much wider definition of facilities

for drivers, and some quasi-ethical issues such as the risk

of being caught if outside regulatory limits, etc. The

decision model shown in Fig. 4 indicated the following

hierarchy of importance: overall route, followed by the

ferry service, followed by the port. There are obvious

implications in this for port marketing. This also con-

curs with the views of Fleming (1997), Slack (1985) and

DEste and Meyrick (1992) that the port is of lesser

importance in the transport chain. Some differences in

factor importance between hauliers and manufacturers

were observed. What is particularly of note however in

the context of this research is the significant degree to

which the routing decision is delegated by manufactur-

(a)

(b)

Fig. 4. (a) A model of RoRo port/ferry choice in the Irish market. (b) The decision making process. (c) Ferry issues. (d) Overall route issues.



11/14

ers to hauliers, and consequently the reduced relevance

of the formers role with regard to choosing routes.Risk played a significant role in the routing decisions

of hauliers. The many baskets approach, illustrated by

DEste (1992b) who showed that hauliers reduce risk by

spreading their traffic over a number of carriers, was

also evidenced in the Irish context. What is perhaps

notable however is that many hauliers have moved to a

more partnership, as opposed to adversarial, relation-

ship with the ferry companies, and consequently are

more inclined to only consider the port/ferry options

which they are familiar with and to reduce their pa-

tronage to selected, key service providers.

Fig. 4 also shows decision makers only occasionally

revising their choices, on the basis that they are nowmore in partnership with the ferry companies, and are

generally more content with their routing decisions. One

of the few instances where many of the considerations in

the port/ferry choice process were pushed to one side

was with urgent shipments whereby it was revealed that

there is a tendency in the Irish market for these to be

rushed onto the next available ferry from any port. On a

final point, it is important to highlight the central role

played by both drivers and tacit knowledge in the port/

ferry choice decision. Tacit information as opposed to

information sourced through marketing or electronic

(c)

(d)

Fig. 4. (Continued).



12/14

channels played a central role in port/ferry choice.

Drivers were usually the essential conduit of this infor-

mation. Indeed the role of drivers in port/ferry choice

must not be underestimated their legal driving limits

combined with their impressions of onboard service

seem to be given significant weight during the port/ferry

choice process (except in instances where the same ferry

is used all of the time, in which the case the driver does

not obviously have much of a say).

6.3. Implications for research methodology

It was already pointed out above that the triangu-

lated research methodology which was selected, devel-

oped and employed allowed for the fullest possible

exploration of RoRo port/ferry choice. The Phase 3

research added to and enhanced the Phase 2 research

output. As regards choice modelling, and in the context

of the various approaches considered in this research,

certain approaches were usefully applied, particularlytheAaker and Day(input-oriented) modelling approach,

so usefully applied by Brooks, and also process-oriented

modelling, again usefully applied by Brooks and also by

DEste. Various qualitative methodologies were con-

sidered for the Phase 3 research and ultimately construct

elicitation was employed. This inductive methodology

added significant value to the information which was

already gleaned from the Phase 2 research, and was

both enjoyable and rewarding to employ as a research

technique.

7. Conclusion

This paper has made two significant contributions.

Firstly, it has brought together into one study all of the

major contributions to the port/ferry choice literature,

and particularly those of Brooks, DEste, Matear and

Gray, and other authors to date. Secondly, it has em-

ployed an in-depth, triangulated research methodology

which incorporated both quantitative and qualitative

methodologies for the investigation of port/ferry choice.

The qualitative methodology that employed construct

elicitation had never previously been employed in this

context.The output of the combined, three phase research

effort comprised a synthesis and model of RoRo port/

ferry choice in the Irish market. The research has pro-

vided a valuable insight into the operating dynamics of

the Irish RoRo freight market which will be of partic-

ular use to all stakeholders in the sector. Various issues

have been identified and clarified such as required im-

provements in ferry services, the reasons for the fluctu-

ating demand for space on ferries and, not least, the

insignificant impact of port, as opposed to ferry com-

pany, marketing on route choice. The research has made

specific contributions to the transport choice literature.

The actual determinants of port/ferry choice have been

identified (space availability on ferries and cost of ferry

services/availability of discounts) as have some new, or

seldom noted, selection criteria such as security of

freight units, a wider consideration of facilities for

drivers, and the risk of being caught if outside regula-

tory driving limits. Other issues illustrated include the

high degree of delegation of the routing decision by

consignors, the significance of risk, the infrequency of

revision of routing decisions, and the surprisingly cen-

tral role of drivers and tacit knowledge in the port/ferry

choice decision.

As regards research methodology, this research effort

has highlighted the significant benefits which can accrue

from employing a triangulated research methodology.

One particular methodology, construct elicitation, was

employed as an interview technique in the third phase of

the research and was shown to be a particularly re-

vealing interview technique. From the raft of many andvaried techniques which can be used to model transport

choice two techniques, namely the Aaker and Day (in-

put-oriented) modelling approach and process-oriented

modelling, were shown to be particularly illustrative and

effective.

Based on the research described in this paper, a

number of recommendations are suggested for further

research. The role of RoRo ferry companies in the lo-

gistics chain is worthy of further investigation. Should

such ferry companies just operate RoRo ferry services or

should they provide a door to door integrated transport

solution for their customers? Furthermore, what is their

strategic role in the evolving logistical strategies of their

customers? A second area for further research concerns

taking the holistic model developed in this research and

testing it in other markets (e.g. the geographically re-

verse markets of UK/Ireland and Continental Europe/

Ireland). A third area for further research might be to

attempt to explore the link between routing decisions

and manufacturing schedules. From a total costs anal-

ysis perspective it would be useful to explore if sub-op-

timum routing decisions are made in order to comply

with manufacturing schedules.

8. Notes

(1) Construct elicitation is an interviewing method-

ology based on Kellys theory of personal constructs

and was first put forward in his seminal work A theory

of personality: the psychology of personal constructs

(Kelly, 1955). The basis of Kellys technique was for the

researcher to identify and gain a wider knowledge of

what he termed the interviewees personal constructs.

Kelly defines constructs as the way in which some

things are construed as being alike and yet different from



13/14

others. Hussey and Hussey (1997) define constructs as

the qualities which an individual uses to describe and

differentiate between the elements, and they describe

elements as the objects of the interviewees perceptions.

Kelly (1955) defines elements as the things or events

which are abstracted by a construct.

In the context of this study then, the elements would

be the various ports and ferries which the decision ma-

ker could possibly use, while the constructs are the

various qualities which the decision maker uses to de-

scribe and differentiate between these various ports and

ferries in order to make their decision. According to

Stewart and Stewart (1997) the essence of Kellys tech-

nique is that it puts the rigour where it needs to be, that

is, in the methodology rather in the model of personality

(or behaviour) it propounds. In their view Kellys writ-

ings and his techniques were years ahead of their time

when they first emerged. Kellys (1955) emphasis then

was on anticipation rather than on reaction to help the

practicing psychologist who is attempting to gain abetter understanding of a patient and their problems.

Kellys approach suggests that instead of asking the

patient prescribed questions and attempting to slot pa-

tients into boxes, the interviewer should instead allow

the patient to identify their own constructs, what Kelly

refers to as the creative capacity of the living thing to

represent the environment, not merely to respond to it.

This effectively then alters the usual interviewerinter-

viewee balance with the interviewer adopting an ap-

parently less domineering role in the interaction.

Bannister and Fransella (1989) noted that one of the

overriding questions in the field of personality has

concerned the question of what to measure. They note

however that such a difficulty does not arise with Kellys

personal construct theory the unit is clearly stated, it is

the construct. Personal construct theory has, since

Kellys original seminal work in 1955, caught on quite

significantly in the field of psychology. Stewart and

Stewart (1997) detail the application of the technique to

the management field and point out that, especially in

the first few decades after the publication of Kellys

seminal work in 1955, it was confined to use within

psychotherapy and related areas. Personal construct

psychology was first used in a business context in

market research and then in the personnel area. Ex-amples of applications of the technique include: Moy-

nihan (1998) who used it to identify the factors (i.e. the

constructs) which software project managers take into

account when planning new projects; Hisrich and Jan-

kowicz (1990) who used the technique for examining

intuition in venture capital decisions; and Anderson

(1990) who suggested use of the technique for employee

selection.

Kelly went further than just a consideration of the

elicitation of personal constructs. Drawing upon his

training in mathematics, Kelly designed a technique

whereby the mathematical relationships between con-

structs could be obtained this is called the repertory

grid technique. Indeed Kelly, a keen geometer with ex-

perience in navigation and an interest in multi-dimen-

sional geometry, very ably applied mathematics to his

theories not alone did he develop the repertory grid

technique but, according to Bannister and Fransella

(1989), he also went so far as to provide the future user

of the technique with his own method of non-parametric

factor analysis. In addition, Kelly presented his theory

as a geometry of psychological space (see, for example,

Shaw and Gaines, 1992).

References

Aaker, D., Kumar, V., Day, G., 1995. Marketing Research, fifth ed.

Wiley, New York.

Anderson, N., 1990. Repertory grid technique in employee selection.

Personnel Review 19 (3), 916.Bannister, D., Fransella, F., 1989. Inquiring Man: The Psychology of

Personal Constructs, third ed. Routledge, London.

Brooks, M.R., 1984. An alternative theoretical approach to the

evaluation of liner shipping. Part l: Situational factors. Maritime

Policy and Management 11 (1), 3543.

Brooks, M.R., 1985. An alternative theoretical approach to the

evaluation of liner shipping. Part II: Choice criteria. Maritime

Policy and Management 12 (2), 145155.

Brooks, M.R., 1990. Ocean carrier selection criteria in a new

environment. Logistics and Transportation Review 26 (4), 339355.

Brooks, M.R., 1995. Understanding the ocean container market a

seven country study. Maritime Policy and Management 22 (1), 39

49.

Brooks, M.R., 2000. Performance evaluation of carriers by North

American companies. Transport Reviews 20 (2), 205218.

Coles, S., Rowley, J., 1995. Revisiting decision trees. Management

Decision 33 (8), 4650.

Cullinane, K., Toy, N., 2000. Identifying influential attributes in

freight route/mode choice decisions: a content analysis. Transpor-

tation Research E 36, 4153.

DEste, G., 1992a. Carrier selection in a Ro/Ro ferry trade Part 2.

Conceptual framework for the decision process. Maritime Policy

and Management 19 (2), 127138.

DEste, G., 1992b. Frameworks for understanding the behaviour of

purchasers of general cargo shipping services. In: 1992 World

Conference on Transport Research, Lyons, France.

DEste, G., Meyrick, S., 1992. Carrier selection in a Ro/Ro ferry trade

Part 2. Decision factors and attitudes. Maritime Policy and

Management 19 (2), 115126.

Fleming, D., 1997. The meaning of port competition. In: Conference

of the International Association of Maritime Economists (IAME),

City University, London.

Gray, G., 1982. Behavioural approaches to freight transport modal

choice. Transport Reviews 2 (2), 161184.

Hisrich, R., Jankowicz, A., 1990. Intuition in venture capital decisions:

an exploratory study using a new technique. Journal of Business

Venturing 5 (1), 4963.

Hussey, J., Hussey, R., 1997. Business Research: A Practical Guide for

Undergraduate and Postgraduate Students. MacMillan Press,

London.

Lehmusvaara, A., Tuominen, M., Korpela, J., 1999. An integrated

approach to truck carrier selection. International Journal of

Logistics: Research and Applications 2 (1), 520.



14/14

Matear, S., Gray, R., 1993. Factors influencing freight service choice

for shippers and freight suppliers. International Journal of Physical

Distribution and Logistics Management 23 (2), 2535.

McGinnis, M., 1980. Shipper attitudes toward freight transport choice:

a factor analytic study. International Journal of Physical Distri-

bution and Materials Management 10 (1), 2534.

Moynihan, T., 1998. How Software Project Managers Characterise

New Projects and Their Settings. Available at http://www.com-

papp.dcu.ie/-tonym/tonym.Murphy, P., Daley, J., Dalenberg, D., 1992. Port selection criteria: an

application of a transportation research framework. Logistics and

Transportation Review 28 (3), 237255.

Murphy, P., Hall, P., 1995. The relative importance of cost and service

in freight transportation choice before and after deregulation: an

update. Transportation Journal Fall 1995, 3038.

Murphy, P., Daley, J., Hall, P., 1997. Carrier selection: do shippers and

carriers agree, or not? Transportation Research E 33 (1), 6772.

Pedersen, E., Gray, R., 1998. The transport selection criteria of

Norwegian exporters. The International Journal of Physical

Distribution and Logistics Management 28 (2), 108120.

Pisharodi, R., 1991. The transport choice decision process, the

potential, methodology and applications of script-theoretic mod-

elling. The International Journal of Physical Distribution and

Logistics Management 21 (5).

Shaw, M., Gaines, B., 1992. Kellys geometry of psychological space

and its significance for cognitive modelling. The New Psychologist

(October), 2331.

Slack, B., 1985. Containerization, inter-port competition, and port

selection. Maritime Policy and Management 12 (4), 293303.

Spencer, A., Anderson, S., Whitcombe, M., 1992. Channel choices: a

study of options, timings and costs of international roadhauliers. Transport Studies Group, University of Westminster,

London.

Stank, T., Daugherty, P., Ellinger, A., 1996. Information exchange,

responsiveness and logistics provider performance. The Interna-

tional Journal of Logistics Management 7 (2), 4357.

Stewart, V., Stewart, A., 1997. Business Applications of Repertory

Grid, originally published in 1981 by McGraw-Hill; the authors

have published an updated electronic copy of the first seven

chapters of the original text on the world wide web at the following

website: http://www.enquirewithin.co.nz/businappof.

Whyte, J., 1992. Characteristics of transport managers which influence

haulier selection. International Journal of Physical Distribution

and Logistics Management 22 (5), 1424.


modelling portferry choice in roro freight transportation (2002)

Documents