Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
Khalid Bichou
ABSTRACT
1. INTRODUCTION
Over the last three decades or so, there has been a growing amount of both
theoretical and practical work on port performance measurement and
Few efficiency studies have estimated or used a TFP index in the context of
port performance. Early attempts were undertaken by Kim and Sachish
(1986) and Bendall and Stent (1987). In Kim and Sachish, the composed TFP
index consisted of labour and capital expenditure as input and throughput in
metric tonnes as output. Later, Talley (1994) suggests a TFP index using a
shadow price variable, while Sachish (1996) refers to a weighting mechanism
of partial productivity measures. Lawrance and Richards (2004) developed a
decomposition method for the Törnqvist index to investigate the distribution
of benefits from productivity improvements in an Australian container
terminal.
The main advantage of MFP/TFP indices is that they reflect the joint
impacts of the changes in combined inputs on total output. Such a feature is
not accounted for when using single or partial productivity indicators. How-
ever, TFP results depend largely on the technique used and the definition of
weights, and thus different TFP indices may yield different efficiency results.
Port impact studies have emerged as an area of applied research that can
bridge trade with wider regional economic impacts, but have been criticised
because of the selection of limited industrial categories and the approach
undertaken to compare ‘ports as regions’ rather than ‘ports as firms’
(Bichou & Gray, 2005). The literature on port impact studies depicts two
separate lines of research: port economic impacts and port trade efficiency.
(A) The first category may be considered as a branch economic geogra-
phy, extended to the field of urban planning and environmental economics
due to the increasing importance of the port–city interface. Port impacts on
the economy are measured to assess the economic and social impacts (direct,
indirect and induced) of ports on their respective hinterlands or forelands.
In this approach, ports are seen as economic catalysts for the regions they
serve, where the aggregation of services and activities generates benefits and
socio-economic wealth. Here, the performance of a port is depicted in terms
of its ability to generate maximum or optimal output and economic wealth.
Relevant conceptual work in the field can be found in the AIPV (Interna-
tional Association of Ports and Cities, 2005; www.aipv.orgwww.aipv.org)
references as well in related academic literature (e.g., De Langen, 2002;
Rodrigue, Slack, & Comtois, 1997).
On the other hand, much of the applied research on the subject is based on
input–output models. An input–output model is a set of linear equations in
574 KHALID BICHOU
which the outputs of various branches in the economy are calculated based on
an empirical estimation of inter-sector transactions. The US MARAD’s Port
Economic Impact Kit (PortKit) is probably the most comprehensive and reg-
ularly updated input–output port model. Since its first publication in the mid-
1970s, it has become the standard model for assessing economic impacts of US
ports. The latest PortKit version was released in December 2000 in the form of
PC-based software comprising a 30-sector table. Hamilton, Ramsussen, and
Zeng (2000) developed similar software versions for US inland ports. Outside
the US, input–output port models have been used to assess the impacts of
existing port facilities (Moloney & Sjostrom, 2000) or to justify future port
investments (e.g., Le Havre Port, 2000).
An alternative method to assess port economic impacts is through the use
of computable equilibrium models. In a unique application in ports, Dio,
Tiwari, and Itoh (2001) use a computable general equilibrium (CGE) model
to analyse the impacts of port efficiency improvements on the Japanese
economy. The objective is to analyse the relationship between an assigned or
given size ‘shock’ to productivity growth on the GDP of a region, country or
group of countries. CGE models have gained more popularity in the last
decade or so, with applications across different sectors including for quan-
tifying the benefits of improved port efficiency on trade facilitation (APEC,
1999). A good reference to CGE models and their applications in trade
reform policies is provided by Devarajan and Rodrik (1991).
Gravity models analysing the relationship between geographical distance
and trade flows have also been used to investigate the impacts of selected
trade facilitation indicators including port efficiency (Wilson, Mann, &
Otsuki, 2003). CGE and gravity models are both separate branches of the-
oretical econometrics and deserve a thorough analysis beyond the scope of
this paper. What one needs to note, though, is that CGE data and model
equations are calibrated to national accounts and input–output table details.
However, since each port-country depicts a separate economic structure and
inter-sectoral configuration, both CGE and input–output models would
prove inadequate for international benchmarking of ports. Other limitations
of the general equilibrium theory include its reliance on many constraints,
some of which are inconsistent with the structure of the port industry, for
instance, the assumptions of perfect competition, constant returns to scale
and that both labour and capital move freely between sectors.
(B) The second category of economic impact analysis assesses port effi-
ciency in relation to transport and logistics costs. This part of the economic
impact literature is rapidly establishing itself as a ‘separate’ branch due
mainly to the recent emphasis on the role of ports in trade facilitation.
Port Performance and Benchmarking 575
Research on trade facilitation is, however, still at its infancy as the definition
of the concept and the approach to it have not stabilised yet. Relevant port
literature in the field includes the works of Sanchez et al. (2003) and De and
Ghosh (2003), both employing principal component analysis (PCA). Pre-
vious work on the relationship between port efficiency and waterborne
transport costs used proxies such as GDP per capita (Fink, Mattoo, &
Neagu, 2000), perception surveys (Hoffmann, 2001) and infrastructure in-
dicators (Micco & Perez, 2001). Beyond the limitations of applying PCA
and regression techniques to multi-input/multi-output port production sys-
tems, the existing literature on the relationship between port efficiency and
trade facilitation depicts inherent discrepancies at both conceptual and an-
alytical levels, including for using throughput, rather than traffic, indicators
to analyse trade-related issues!
outputs, and provides information about the sources of their relative (factor
specific) efficiency. Under DEA, there is no necessity to pre-define relative
weight relationships, which should free the analysis from subjective weight-
ing and randomness. Similarly, DEA neither imposes a specification of a
cost/production function nor requires an assumption about the technology.
Moreover, firms or DMUs are benchmarked against an actual ‘best’ firm
rather than against a statistical measure, an exogenous or average standard.
All such features and others make DEA particularly attractive for port-
related efficiency studies, which explain the increasing number of academic
publications on the subject.
On the other hand, one could argue that the same features that make DEA
a powerful tool also create major limitations. For instance, DEA does not
allow for stochastic factors and measurement errors and there is no infor-
mation on statistical significance or confidence intervals. Although a second-
stage regression analysis is sometimes used to solve this, regression assumes
data interdependency and requires the imposition of a functional form, which
deprives DEA of its major advantage. Another major drawback of DEA
stems from the sensitivity of efficiency scores to the choice and weights of
input–output variables. This is of major concern because a DMU can appear
efficient simply because of its patterns of inputs and outputs. In the port
literature most DEA applications assume constant efficiency over time, which
overlooks the incremental nature of port investment, and hence favours ports
that are not investing in new facilities or equipment at the time of the in-
vestigation. Moreover, input (output) saving (increase) potentials identified
under DEA are not always achievable in port operational settings, partic-
ularly if this involves small amounts of an indivisible input or output unit.
Other comments on the port frontier literature (both parametric and non-
parametric) are highlighted in the following:
(a) In none of the studies mentioned above were the determinants (inputs/
outputs) of port performance formally linked to or justified by a cor-
respondingly valid empirical analysis. Variables were selected either
subjectively or at best from previous literature, much of which was, in
fact, based on subjective and arbitrary appraisal.
(b) Many port researchers have each applied parametric and non-parametric
methods on different occasions, which implies that no consensus has
been reached on a single and consistent approach that best analyses port
performance.
(c) The above partly explains why some of the findings of the port frontier
literature provide inconsistent results, for instance, when analysing the
578 KHALID BICHOU
S U P P LY CHAIN S y s t e m
External
Vessel trucks
Yard cranes, relay
Quay cranes vehicles, and Gate equipment
and rely vehicles storage facilities
Output
Site capacity:
Input
Quality
time in port), hence blurring the boundaries between the objectives of the
shipping line as a customer and those of the port as a service provider. On the
other hand, a port where job generation and environmental sustainability are
the primary missions may find its performance manifesto and objectives being
fundamentally different from those of a dedicated port or terminal. In this
respect, it is worth noting that many performance studies tend to overlook
this dimension when undertaking benchmarking exercises of ports with
different missions or functions. A thorough discussion of port attributes and
the relationship with operational and management decisions is provided by
Bichou and Gray (2005). The argument they advocate is particularly relevant
to port performance in that it acknowledges the role of a port’s major at-
tribute, or decisive factor, in shaping the approach to performance bench-
marking (see Table 24.1). In the next sections, I outline the benefits of supply
chain thinking in overcoming common obstacles of role, functional and op-
erational inadequacies within and among ports so as to ensure a compre-
hensive performance measurement system.
A second criterion is the consistency of the performance system. Con-
sistency implies coherence with other approaches and performance systems.
For instance, the results of frontier benchmarking exercises should be
broadly consistent with financial analysis and investor perceptions. Central
to consistency is the requirement for compatibility and that the performance
system must be designed in line with a firm’s objectives and future orientat-
ions. This is particularly relevant in the context of port performance bench-
marking as recent structural changes of the industry suggest a shift of
emphasis from measuring the internal efficiency of local stevedores to an-
alysing the supply chain efficiency of global operators.
Finally, a performance system should be designed to guide and influence
the decision-making process. To achieve this, performance models need be
useful and avoid over-complexity, otherwise they may end up being ignored
or discarded. The criterion of usefulness must not conflict with the validity
and robustness of the benchmarking process, but rather ensures that the
selected techniques can be implemented in practice while the results can still
demonstrate reasonable stability over time and space.
KHALID BICHOU
approaches (cargo–sea–land, frontier
supply–demand led) approaches
Logistics/production Major Major
systems (Tele-port, trade
port, etc.)
Business units (production, Minor Major
marketing, pricing, etc.)
Source: Extracted and adapted from Bichou and Gray (2005, p. 84).
Port Performance and Benchmarking 583
3.4. Multi-Dimensionality
Ports have an important role to play in the integration of all three types of
channels. Furthermore, they offer a unique location in which members of
different channels (trade, logistics and supply channels) can meet and interact:
From a logistics channel standpoint, the port is a very important node
since it serves as an intermodal/multimodal transport intersection and
operates as a logistics centre for the flows of goods (cargo) and people
(passengers).
From a trade channel perspective, the port is a key location whereby
channel control and ownership can be identified and/or traded.
From a supply channel approach, the port not only links outside flows
and processes but also creates patterns and processes of its own. Robinson
(2002) argues that ports should be seen as key elements in value-driven
chain systems. He claims that ports contribute to supply chains through
the creation of competitive advantage and value-added delivery. At the
supply chain level, ports are one of the very few networking sites that can
bring together various members in the supply channel.
Fig. 24.3 depicts the interactions between channels and flows in a typical
port supply chain network. Channel and flow configurations are portrayed
in terms of linear path combinations for the purpose of simplification,
although a better illustration would be in terms of web-type network re-
lationships. Note the fundamental distinction between institutions and
functions in international shipping and logistics. Often, a single institution
undertakes various functions and thus can be part of more than one chan-
nel, e.g., a manufacturer or shipper acting as an ocean carrier (e.g., indus-
trial shipping, bareboat chartering), or a carrier (e.g., shipping line) acting as
a port operator or as a logistics provider. The interaction between functions
and institutions is often overlooked in international shipping and logistics,
which may constitute a fundamental bias when designing supply chains or
locating decisions spots.
The conceptualisation of ports from a logistics and supply chain approach
has proven to be constructive on more than one level, including recog-
nising and integrating the multi-institutional and cross-functional dimen-
sions of ports. This is particularly the case for measuring port performance.
Common obstacles of role, functional and operational inadequacies are also
to be overcome as the segmentation of the port business in terms of the trade,
logistics and supply channels typology will greatly help in identifying which
institution is performing what function to achieve which ultimate mission.
Similarly, performance measurement and management will be analysed, val-
ued and assessed in terms of a port’s contribution to the overall combined
Port Performance and Benchmarking 587
Objectives
Trade Channel
International Maritime System Network
Information
flows
Supply Channel
Cargo-owners (suppliers, manucturers,
fa shippers/receivers) Overall cost reduction
and sub-contracting firms along the supply chain and ultimate customer
satisfaction
Payment
flows
Logistics Channel
Efficient physical movement
Non-cargo owning facilitators and intermediaries contracted by
(e.g. transport) and associated
supply chain members (ocean carriers, ports/terminal operations (e.g. warehousing)
operators, logistics providers, shipping agents, NVOCCs, etc.) of goods and people
Physical
flows
Fig. 24.3. Channel Typologies and Components of the Port Network System.
channel added-value, and thus port competition will shift from the institu-
tional, functional and/or spatial levels to the channel management level.
The logistics approach regularly adopts a cost trade-off analysis between
functions, processes and even supply chains (Rushton, Oxley, & Croucher,
2000). This could be beneficial to port efficiency by directing port operations
towards relevant value-added logistics activities, while overcoming bottle-
neck obstacles through process integration. Logistics performance is based
on the notion that sub-optimisation at one point is permitted as long as it
contributes to overall performance. In a supply chain context, this is ex-
panded across functional and organisational interfaces thanks to lean and
agile practices (Christopher & Towell, 2000; Paixao & Marlow, 2003).
First Resource
Stage
Drivers
Activity
Centres
Second
Stage Activity
Drivers
Cost pools
The initial model was the result of diagnostic work undertaken through an
online questionnaire designed exclusively for port managers (Panel 1) in
order to investigate both their perception of logistics concepts and the
methods used by them to measure port performance and efficiency. In some
cases, surveys were conducted through face-to-face interviews or adminis-
tered over the telephone. Tables 24.3 and 24.4 report on the performance
techniques used by the port participants, while Fig. 24.5 informs about their
perception and ranking of supply chain members.
Financial 44 38 35 25 79 31
indicators
Throughput 37 32 43 31 80 31
indicators
Productivity 24 21 35 25 59 23
indicators
Economic- 7 6 25 18 32 13
impact
indicators
Others 3 3 1 1 4 2
Total 115 100 139 100 254 100
Replies % Replies %
300
254
235 236
250
Cumulative score from ranking
198 202
200
150
100 83
52
50
0
Shipping lines Shippers FF Port Inland General Others (public
Operators transport Public authorities)
providers
Customers /suppliers
Fig. 24.5. A Rating Scale Analysis of Participants’ Main Customers and Suppliers
(Supply Chain Members). Note: FF, Freight Forwarders.
At the supply chain level, they also admit facing great difficulty in under-
standing and designing their respective channel typologies. Some ports at-
tribute these limitations to the lack of reliable information, while others
relate this to the complexity of channels and the confusion that surrounds
their categorisation. However, nearly all ports appreciated the concepts of
activity sequencing, channel integration and collaborative arrangements,
with as many as 90 per cent of participants (40 ports) intending to use
logistics costing techniques to improve performance and visibility.
Responses from other panels were even more supportive to the applica-
tion of a logistics and supply chain approach to port performance. They
particularly valued the association of internal process mapping with external
channel design. The remainder of the two panels’ comments and feedbacks
focused on the detailed aspects of the framework rather than its method-
ological or conceptual orientation. In particular, there has been a wide-
spread call for the quantification of the model.
5. CONCLUSION
The aim of this paper was to demonstrate that conceptualising the port
system from the perspective of logistics and SCM can be relevant to port
performance and benchmarking, where conventional approaches often pro-
vide a fragmented framework of analysis.
After reviewing the applications and limitations of the various approaches
to port efficiency, a supply chain framework was proposed through linking
internal processes with external channel orientations, analysing and inte-
grating different performance dimensions. A subsequent interim model was
designed and tested by adopting a structured approach involving a wide
range of participants and interest groups, including ports. The results show
a common interest in logistics and SCM across the various panels, although
port respondents have shown a lack of familiarity and understanding of the
techniques and concepts involved.
Finally, the framework and methods given in this chapter are primarily
illustrative and not intended to be conclusive. Both this chapter and the
reported inquiry stand as a first and modest initiative and more research is
needed particularly with regard to the quantification of the model and the
concepts associated with it. Further empirical and analytical investigations
are also required so as to allow a more comprehensive analysis and gen-
eralise the scope and scale of the study to a large sample of world ports and
terminals. The results of the present study could serve as a basis to point the
Port Performance and Benchmarking 595
way forward and highlight the potential for integrative and collaborative
logistics and SCM, with a view to designing and managing valid frameworks
for port performance measurement and benchmarking.
REFERENCES
Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC). (1999). Assessing APEC trade liberalisation and
facilitation: 1999 update. APEC Economic Committee Publication #99-EC-01.1. Online,
available at www.apec.org/content/apec/publications/all_publications/economic_
committee.html
Association Internationale des Ports et Villes (AIPV/IAVP). (2005). Online, available at
www.aivp.org/infos.html
Australian Productivity Commission. (1998). International benchmarking of the Australian wa-
terfront. Research Report. Canberra: Australian Government Productivity Commission.
Barros, C. P. (2003). Incentive regulation and efficiency of Portuguese port authorities. Mar-
itime Economics and Logistics, 5, 55–69.
Barros, C. P., & Athanassiou, M. (2004). Efficiency in European seaports with DEA: Evidence
from Greece and Portugal. Maritime Economics and Logistics, 6, 122–140.
Bendall, H., & Stent, A. (1987). On measuring cargo handling productivity. Maritime Policy
and Management, 14, 337–343.
Bichou, K., & Gray, R. (2004). A logistics and supply chain management approach to port
performance measurement. Maritime Policy and Management, 31(1), 47–67.
Bichou, K., & Gray, R. (2005). A critical review of conventional terminology for classifying
seaports. Transportation Research A, 39, 75–92.
Bonilla, M., Medal, A., Casaus, T., & Salas, R. (2002). The traffic in Spanish ports: An
efficiency analysis. International Journal of Transport Economics, 19(2), 237–253.
Bowersox, D. J., & Closs, D. J. (1996). Logistical management: The integrated supply chain
process. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Braeutigam, R., Daughety, A., & Turnquist, M. (1984). A firm specific analysis of economies of
density in the US railroad industry. Journal of Industrial Economics, 33, 3–20.
Christopher, M., & Towell, D. R. (2000). Supply chain migration from lean and functional to
agile and customised. Supply Chain Management, 5(4), 206–213.
Coto-Millan, P., Banos-Pino, J., & Rodriguez-Alvarez, A. (2000). Economic efficiency in Span-
ish ports: Some empirical evidence. Maritime Policy and Management, 27(2), 169–174.
Cullinane, K. P. B., Song, D. W., & Gray, R. (2002). A stochastic frontier model of the
efficiency of major container terminals in Asia: Assessing the influence of administrative
and ownership structures. Transportation Research Part A, 36, 743–762.
Cullinane, K. P. B., Song, D. W., & Wang, T. (2004). An application of DEA windows analysis
to container port production efficiency. Review of Network Economics, 3(2), 186–208.
De, P., & Ghosh, B. (2003). Causality between performance and traffic: An investigation with
Indian ports. Maritime Policy and Management, 30(1), 5–27.
De Langen, P. W. (2002). Clustering and performance: The case of maritime clustering in the
Netherlands. Maritime Policy and Management, 29(3), 209–221.
De Monie, G. (1987). Measuring and evaluating port performance and productivity. In: UN-
CTAD Monographs on Port Management, No. 6, International Association of Ports and
Harbours (pp. 2–11). Geneva: UNCTAD.
596 KHALID BICHOU
Devarajan, S., & Rodrik, D. (1991). Pro-competitive effects of trade reform: Results from CGE
model of Cameroon. European Economic Review, 35, 1157–1184.
Dio, M., Tiwari, P., & Itoh, H. (2001). A computable general equilibrium analysis of efficiency
improvements at Japanese ports. Review of Urban & Regional Development Studies,
13(3), 187–206.
Drewry Shipping Consultants. (1997). World container terminals 1997. London: Drewry Market
Report.
Edwards, J. B. (1986). The use of performance measures. Montvale, NJ: National Association of
Accounts.
Estache, A., González, M., & Trujillo, L. (2002). Efficiency gains from port reform and the
potential for yardstick competition: Lessons from México. World Development, 30(4),
545–560.
Fink, C., Mattoo, A., & Neagu, I. C. (2000). Trade in international maritime services: How much
does policy matter? Washington, DC: The World Bank.
Fourgeaud, F. (2000). Measuring port performance. Washington, DC: The World Bank.
Frankel, E. G. (1991). Port performance and productivity measurement. Ports and Harbours,
36(8), 11–13.
Ghobadian, A., & Husband, T. (1990). Measuring total productivity using production func-
tions. International Journal of Production Research, 28(8), 1435–1436.
Gonzales, M. M., & Trujillo, L. (2005). Reforms and infrastructure efficiency in Spain’s con-
tainer ports. World Bank Research Policy Paper No. 351. Washington, DC: The World
Bank.
Hamilton, G. L., Ramsussen, D., & Zeng, X. (2000). Rural inland waterways economic impact
kit: User guide. Institute for Economic Advancement, University of Arkansas at Little
Rock. Online, available at www.ntl.bts.gov/data/user-guide1.pdf
Hoffmann, J. (2001). Latin American ports: Results and determinants of private sector par-
ticipation. International Journal of Maritime Economics, 3, 221–230.
Holmberg, S. (2000). A systems perspective on supply chain measurements. International Jour-
nal of Physical Distribution and Logistics Management, 30(10), 47–68.
Jara Dı́az, S., Martinez-Budrı́a, E., Cortes, C., & Basso, L. (2002). A multi-output cost function
for the services of Spanish ports’ infrastructure. Transportation, 29(4), 419–437.
Kaplan, R. S. (1984). Yesterday’s accounting undermines production. Harvard Business Review,
62(4), 95–101.
Kaplan, R. S., & Norton, D. P. (1992). The balanced scorecard: Measures that drive perform-
ance. Harvard Business Review, 70(1), 71–79.
Kim, M., & Sachish, A. (1986). The structure of production, technical change and productivity
in a port. Journal of Industrial Economics, 35(2), 209–223.
Lawrance, D., & Richards, A. (2004). Distributing the gains from waterfront productivity
improvements. Economic Record, 80, 43–52.
Le Havre Port. (2000). Impact socio-economique du port 2000. Online, available at www.
havre-port.net/pahweb.html
Liberatore, M. J., & Miller, T. (1998). A framework for integrating activity-based costing and
the balanced scorecard into the logistics strategy development and monitoring process.
Journal of Business Logistics, 19(2), 131–154.
Liu, Z. (1995). The comparative performance of public and private enterprises: The case of
British ports. Journal of Transport Economics and Policy, 29(3), 263–274.
Port Performance and Benchmarking 597
MARAD. (2003). Public port finance survey for the financial year 2001. Washington, DC: US
Maritime Administration.
Martı́nez-Budrı́a, E., Dı́az-Armas, R., Navarro-Ibañez, M., & Ravelo-Mesa, T. (1999). A study
of the efficiency of Spanish port authorities using data envelopment analysis. International
Journal of Transport Economics, 26(2), 237–253.
Micco, A., & Perez, N. (2001). Maritime transport costs and ports efficiency. Santiago: Inter-
American Development Bank.
Moloney, R., & Sjostrom, W. (2000). The economic value of the Port of Cork to Ireland in 1999:
An input–output study. Report to the Irish government. Cork: National University of
Ireland.
Notteboom, T., Coeck, C., & Van-Den Broeck, J. (2000). Measuring and explaining the rela-
tive efficiency of container terminals by means of Bayesian stochastic frontier models.
International Journal of Maritime Economics, 2(2), 83–106.
Paixao, A. C., & Marlow, P. B. (2003). Fourth generation ports – a question of agility.
International Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics Management, 33(4), 355–376.
Robinson, R. (2002). Ports as elements in value-driven chain systems: The new paradigm.
Maritime Policy and Management, 29(3), 241–255.
Rodrigue, J. P., Slack, B., & Comtois, C. (1997). Transportation and spatial cycles: Evidence
from maritime systems. Journal of Transport Geography, 5(2), 87–98.
Roll, Y., & Hayuth, Y. (1993). Port performance comparison applying data envelopment
analysis (DEA). Maritime Policy and Management, 20(2), 153–161.
Rushton, A., Oxley, J., & Croucher, P. (2000). The handbook of logistics and distribution man-
agement. London: Institute of Logistics and Transport.
Sachish, A. (1996). Productivity functions as a managerial tool in Israeli ports. Maritime Policy
and Management, 23(4), 341–369.
Sanchez, R. D., Hoffmann, J., Micco, A., Pizzolitto, G. V., Sgut, M., & Wilsmeier, G. (2003).
Port efficiency and international trade: Port efficiency as a determinant of maritime
transport costs. Maritime Economics and Logistics, 5, 199–218.
Stank, T. P., Keller, S. B., & Daugherty, P. J. (2001). Supply chain collaboration and logistics
service performance. Journal of Business Logistics, 22(1), 29–47.
Supply Chain Council Website. (2002). Online, available at www.supply-chain.org/
Talley, W. K. (1988). Optimum throughput and performance evaluation of marine terminals.
Maritime Policy and Management, 15(4), 327–331.
Talley, W. K. (1994). Performance indicators and port performance evaluation. Logistics and
Transportation Review, 30(4), 339–352.
Tongzon, J. L. (2001). Efficiency measurement of selected Australian and other international
ports using data envelopment analysis. Transportation Research A, 35(2), 113–128.
Tovar, B., Jara-Diaz, S., & Trujillo, L. (2003). Production and cost functions and their appli-
cations to the port sector: A literature survey. World Bank Policy Research Working
Paper 3123, pp. 1–31. Washington, DC: The World Bank.
Turner, H., Windle, R., & Dresner, M. (2004). North American container-port productivity:
1984–1997. Transport Research E, 40, 339–356.
United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD). (1976). Port performance
indicators. Geneva: UNCTAD.
Valentine, V. F., & Gray, R. (2001). The measurement of port efficiency using data envelop-
ment analysis. Proceedings of the 9th world conference on transport research, Seoul.
598 KHALID BICHOU
Vitale, M. R., & Mavrinac, S. C. (1995). How effective is your performance measurement
system? Management Accounting, 77(2), 43–47.
Wang, T. F., & Cullinane, K. B. P. (2005). Measuring the economic efficiency of Europe’s
container terminals. In: Proceedings of the international association of maritime econo-
mists annual conference, Cyprus, 30 June–2 July.
Wheelwright, S. C. (1978). Reflecting corporate strategy in manufacturing decisions. Business
Horizons, 21(1), 57–66.
Wilson, J., Mann, C., & Otsuki, T. (2003). Trade facilitation and economic development: Meas-
uring the impact. Washington, DC: The World Bank Research Group.