Formation of key perfomance indicators system for measuring the efficiency of port activities

published:
Number: Issue 23(2021)
Section: Economy. Management
The page spacing of the article: 43–52
Keywords: key perfomance indicators, KPI, criteria, seaport, transport infrastructure
How to quote an article: Volodymyr Shemayev, Polina Tolok Formation of key perfomance indicators system for measuring the efficiency of port activities. Dorogi і mosti [Roads and bridges]. 2021. Iss. 23. P. 43–52 [in Ukrainian].

Authors

Central Research Institute of Armaments and Military Equipment, Kyiv, Ukraine
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2481-8152
National Aviation University, Kyiv, Ukraine
http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5599-3941

Summary

Introduction. Recently, the role of ports in Ukraine has been transformed from a physically strategic gateway to a participant in integrated global supply chains, accompanied by competition in the quality of services. This requires a comprehensive improvement in the performance of the organizational system of ports, in particular, to assess the effectiveness of its activities.

Problem Statement. Key performance indicators (KPIs) in the port industry of Ukraine have been developed with changes in the paradigm of ports. The last transformation began with a fundamental transition of the cargo processing process from labor-intensive to capital-intensive, and the growth of world trade and increased inter-port competition have led to a reduction in port monopolies. Increased investment needs and competitive behavior have led to increased private sector participation in the provision of cargo handling services and the subsequent transition from purely state ports to lessor ports (landlord model). For landlord ports, the quality of services determines their competitive position vis-à-vis other ports and intermodal alternatives. Such ports contribute to the quality of services directly through land and water access infrastructure, as well as by providing land suitable for modern loading and unloading operations, regulating the movement of ships and land transport within the port; as well as due to charged port fees and tariffs, including private service providers. This necessitates the expansion of the system of key indicators for measuring port performance (KPI).

Purpose. Scientific and methodological substantiation of KPIs system of seaports and development of proposals for their monitoring and reporting (on the example of the Ukrainian Sea Ports Authority (hereinafter — SE «USPA»), taking into account international experience in this field.

Materials and methods. The theoretical and methodological basis of the work is a set of methods and techniques of scientific research: logical generalization — determining the content of the assessment of the effectiveness of ports; analysis and synthesis - to study the peculiarities of these enterprises, to identify trends in their development in the context of determining the criteria for forming a system of indicators for evaluation; system approach — in determining the elements of the KPI system; statistical methods – to analyze the financial and economic condition of economic entities.

Results. The study proposes scientific and methodological principles of forming a system of key indicators for measuring the efficiency of ports of Ukraine, which include: substantiation of criteria, definition of the list of KPIs; determining the stages of the process of their monitoring and reporting (on the example of the activities of USPA, taking into account international experience in this field.

Conclusions. The proposed scientific and methodological recommendations for assessing the efficiency of ports with the help of the developed KPI system and the procedure for their application at the enterprise can be applied at state enterprises of the transport and infrastructure sector. The development of communication tools between system developers and those responsible for their implementation in order to increase the efficiency of ports is the subject of further research.

References

  1. Vdoskonalennya upravlinnya portovoyu haluzzyu Ukrayiny. Konsolidatsiya kontrolyu za korystuvannyam portovymy terytoriyamy ta nablyzhennya do modeli upravlinnya «port-lendlord»: svitovyy dosvid i perspektyvy reformuvannya v ukrayins’komu konteksti. Svitovyy bank [Improving the management of the port industry of Ukraine. Consolidation of control over the use of port territories and approximation to the management model of “Port Landlord”: world experience and prospects for reform in the Ukrainian context]. 2020. URL: http://www.uspa.gov.ua/images/other_files/Port_galus_web_ukr.pdf (Last accessed: 13.01.2021) [in Ukrainian].
  2. Port performance indicators. UNCTAD. UNCTAD secretariat report. 1976. TD/B/C.4/131/Supp.1/Rev.1. 27 p. [in English].
  3. Linking Performance Indicators to Strategic Objectives, Port Performance. UNCTAD Port Management Series. Volume 4. 2016. URL: https://unctad.org/en/PublicationsLibrary/dtlkdb2016d1_en.pdf (Last accessed: 13.01.2021) [in English].
  4. Krenar Ibrahimi. Performance Indicators and Port Authority Management. 2009. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/283489805_Performance_Indicators_and_Port_Authority_Management (Last accessed: 13.01.2021) [in English].
  5. Brooks M.R. and Pallis AA, eds. Advances in port performance and strategy. Research in Transportation Business and Management. Vol. 8 (special issue). 2013. [in English].
  6. De Monie G. Measuring and Evaluating Port Performance and Productivity. UNCTAD and International Association of Ports and Harbours. Geneva, 1987. 59 р. [in English].
  7. Hummels D. Globalization and freight transport costs in maritime shipping and aviation. Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development and International Transport Forum. Paris.  2009. Forum Paper 2009-3. 62 р. [in English].
  8. Cheon S. World Port Institutions and Productivity: Roles of Ownership, Corporate Structure, and Inter-port Competition. UC Berkeley: University of California Transportation Center. 2007.                        URL: https://escholarship.org/uc/item/7t64h5wr (Last accessed: 06.01.2021) [in English].
  9. Marlow P.B. Paixão Casaca A.C. Measuring lean ports performance. International Journal of Transport Management. 2003. Vol. 1 (4). P. 189–202. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijtm.2003.12.002 (Last accessed: 06.01.2021) [in English].
  10. Dooms M. Port industry performance management. Port Technology International. 2014. Issue 61 [in English].
  11. González M.M., Trujillo L. Efficiency measurement in the port industry: A survey of the empirical evidence. Journal of Transport Economics and Policy. Vol. 2009. 43(2). P. 157–192 [in English].
  12. Brooks M.R., Schellinck T., Pallis A.A. A systematic approach for evaluating port effectiveness. Maritime Policy and Management. 2011. 38(3). P. 315–334 [in English].
  13. Hiney J. Politics, path dependence and public goods: The case of international container ports : PhD thesis. Dublin, 2014. [in English].
  14. Kaplan R., Norton D. The Balanced Scorecard: Translating Strategy into Action.  Boston, 1996. 336 p. [in English].
  15. Cruz R., Ferreira J., Azevedo S. A dynamic strategic portfolio analysis: Positioning Iberian seaports. South African Journal of Business Management. Boston, 2012. 43(1). P. 33–43. [in English].
  16. Castillo-Manzano J.I., López-Valpuesta L., Laxe F.G. Political coordination costs in the Spanish port devolution process: A note. Ocean & Coastal Management. 2010. 53(9). P. 577–580.                    DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2010.06.013 (Last accessed: 06.01.2021) [in English].
  17. Svystun I.I., Tulchynska S.O. Analiz rozvytku morskoho transportu v Ukrayini [Analysis of maritime transport development in Ukraine]. URL: http://probl-economy.kpi.ua/pdf/2012-39.pdf (Last accessed: 06.01.2021) [in Ukrainian].
  18. Stratehichnyy plani rozvytku DP «AMPU» na 2021-2025 roky [USPA Strategic Development Plan for 2021-2025] URL: http://www.uspa.gov.ua/pro-pidpriemstvo/strategichnij-plan-rozvitku (Last accessed: 06.01.2021) [in Ukrainian].