1. Monica Grosso Feliciana Monteiro SIET 15-18 June 2009 WHICH ARE THE RELEVANT STRATEGIC CRITERIA WHEN CHOOSING A CONTAINER PORT ? ANALYSIS OF TWO EUROPEAN PORTS: ANTWERP and GENOA

2. 1 Outline of the presentation 1.Setting the scene 2.Methodology 3.Literature Review on Port Choice 4.Survey 5.Analysis of the Results 6.Conclusions RTRAL 12-14 February 2009 SIET 15-18 June 2009

3. 2 Setting the scene  Ports – interfaces between road, rail, inland waterway, maritime transport, logistic operators  Determine key factors for users when choosing a port  Awareness of these factors: Ports improve its market share and growth Efficiency gains in the port have impact on performance of its users RTRAL 12-14 February 2009 SIET 15-18 June 2009

4. 3 Purpose Identify the main factors and criteria influencing the freight forwarders decision of choosing a port, namely the Ports of Genoa and Antwerp  Container port  Freight Forwarders  Case study – Ports of Genoa and Antwerp RTRAL 12-14 February 2009 SIET 15-18 June 2009

5. 4 Methodology 1.Literature Review on port choice and outline the major findings 2.Survey to sample of freight forwarders operating in the ports of Genoa and Antwerp, 5 point Likert scale questionnaire, ranging from 1 (not relevant) to 5 (very relevant) 3.Data analysis - FA method 4.Validate findings of this case study against previous academic research RTRAL 12-14 February 2009 SIET 15-18 June 2009

6. 5 Literature Review on Port Choice Considerable research has been conducted on this topic:  Surveys of port users: E.g. Slack (1985), D’Este and Meyric (1992), Dalenberg, Daley and Murphy (1988, 1989, 1991, 1992a, 1992b, 1994).  Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) to prioritize survey responses in a determined way by giving weights to various factors e.g. Lirn et al. (2004), Song and Yeo (2004).  Observed port decisions e.g. Malchow and Kanifani, 2001 and 2004, & Tiwari et al., 2003. RTRAL 12-14 February 2009 SIET 15-18 June 2009

7. 6 Literature Review - Surveys RTRAL 12-14 February 2009 SIET 15-18 June 2009

8. 7 Literature Review – using AHP method RTRAL 12-14 February 2009 SIET 15-18 June 2009

9. 8 Literature Review – using trade data RTRAL 12-14 February 2009 SIET 15-18 June 2009

10. 9 Port of Genoa  In 2008: 15th Port in Europe 2nd Italian port after the transshipment port of Gioia Tauro 1767 Mln teus  Strategic node for freight flows towards Central Europe  Rotterdam-Genoa rail freight corridor (TEN-T project) RTRAL 12-14 February 2009 SIET 15-18 June 2009

11. 10 Port of Genoa  Port location - problem for hinterland connections  Lack of space for the port’s expansion  Potential growth in port throughput related to: improvements in infrastructure for logistics activities accessibility to port area administrative procedures and port operations efficiency (Midoro, Ferrari and Parola,2007) RTRAL 12-14 February 2009 SIET 15-18 June 2009

12. 11 Port of Antwerp  In 2008: 2nd Port in Europe for overall traffic 3rd Port in Europe for container traffic 8663 Mln teus  Strategic node for freight flows towards Central Europe  Port location - problem for hinterland accessibility SIET 15-18 June 2009

13. Field Survey (1) RTRAL 12-14 February 2009 SIET 15-18 June 2009 2 Phases: I: telephone contacts, March-April- September 2008 II: Face to Face interviews, May-October-November 2008 Respondent: general manager of the company Location: Genoa and Antwerp, head offices of the companies

14. 13 Field Survey (2) annual sales number of employees legal company form 46 companies contacted 41 companies declared their willingness to participate 2 companies withdrew 39 companies Final Sample (85% response rate) Genoese Freight Forwarders Association Belfirst DataBase RTRAL 12-14 February 2009 SIET 15-18 June 2009

15. 14 Questionnaire (1) Dual Questionnaire Structure : I. General information about the company II. Elements that influence the choice of the Ports of Genoa and Antwerp (Likert scale 1-5) RTRAL 12-14 February 2009 SIET 15-18 June 2009

16. 15 Questionnaire (2) PART 1 – GENERAL INFORMATION 1GENERAL INFORMATION ON THE RESPONDENT 1.1Name of the company: 1.2Address: 1.3Country 1.4Nature of activity / Sector:  Manufacturer  Freight forwarder  MTO (global operator)  Maritime Agency  NVOCC  Logistic company 1.5 Size: Number of employees______________________________________ Annual sales:____________________________________________ _ 1.6 Website: 1.7Name of the interviewee: 1.8Position / Department: 1.9Telephone: 1.10E-mail address: PART 2 – ELEMENTS INFLUENCING THE PORT CHOICE 2.2 Elements affecting port choice Availability of empty container at inland terminal 12345 Availability of empty container at the port 12345 Location of taking/delivering container 12345 Physical condition of the container 12345 Total time of the container in the port 12345 Tracking and tracing12345 Electronic exchange of information 12345 E-commerce12345 Booking and documentation reliability 12345 Warehouses12345 Presence of maritime agents 12345 Presence of forwarders 12345 Customer procedures12345 RTRAL 12-14 February 2009

17. 16 Results: Descriptive Location: 1 km from Sech Container Terminal 15 km from Voltri Container Terminal 5 km from Antwerp Port Average number of employees: 58 Average annual sales 2007: 27,8 Mln euro Legal company form: 64% Public Limited Company 33,3% Limited Liability Company 2,5% Commercial Partnership RTRAL 12-14 February 2009 SIET 15-18 June 2009

18. 17 Results: Descriptive Who decides which port to call? RTRAL 12-14 February 2009 SIET 15-18 June 2009

19. 18 Analysis Method: Factor Analysis Exploratory form Varimax orthogonal rotation Iterated principal component form SPSS program 4 Factors RTRAL 12-14 February 2009 SIET 15-18 June 2009

20. 19 Results of Factor Analysis I Factor: Connectivity of the Port II Factor: Electronic Information III Factor: Cost and Port Productivity IV Factor: Logistics and administration of the Container 57,91 % of total variance 4 Factors Factor I explains 31,5% of total variance RTRAL 12-14 February 2009 SIET 15-18 June 2009

21. 20 Results of Factor Analysis: I Factor Crucial role of customs Handling Facilities Hinterland connections Forwarders and Maritime services Connectivity of the Port RTRAL 12-14 February 2009 SIET 15-18 June 2009 VariablesFactors Factor 1Factor 2Factor 3Factor 4 Customs hours,712,363,225 Customs efficiency,711,457,121 Rail connections,672,198 Rail cost,656,116,118,128 Handling facilities,639,360 Customs procedures,606,404-,123,346 Hinterland connections,550,483-,238 Road connections,530-,266,161 Forwarders presence,509,135-,413 Frequency maritime service,325,229,291 Road cost,321,288,219-,214

22. 21 Results of Factor Analysis: II Factor VariablesFactors Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 4 Variables related to IT Added value services Total time Transit time Electronic Information RTRAL 12-14 February 2009 SIET 15-18 June 2009 Track/trace-,132,835,144 E-commerce,791,118 Electronic information,772,184 Added value service,209,736,239 Electronic customs procedures,554,623,314 Total time container in port,200,510,230,166 Transit time,210,365

23. 22 Results of Factor Analysis: III Factor VariablesFactors Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 4 Cost elements: port charges Port characteristics Cost and Port Productivity RTRAL 12-14 February 2009 SIET 15-18 June 2009 Terminal productivity,169,301,825,183 Strikes,215,738,277 Terminal competition,347,113,695,216 Port charge,356,668 Working port hours,533,640 Working relation with port workers,111,629 Maritime companies competition,423,148,552,341

24. 23 Results of Factor Analysis: IV Factor VariablesFactors Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 4 Logistics and administration of the Container Variables related to the location of the container Variables related to the administrative procedures of the container RTRAL 12-14 February 2009 SIET 15-18 June 2009 Availability empty container at inland port,112,328,808 Availability empty container at port,344,806 Location taking/delivering container,312-,284,138,595 Fill/clear out procedures,409,430,221,565 Booking documentation reliability,393,560

25. 24 Conclusions Case Study: - I Factor: Connectivity of the Port - II Factor: Electronic Information - III Factor: Cost and Port Productivity - IV Factor: Logistics and administration of the Container - geographical location - port fees - port characteristics Literature Review: - Port Survey - Analytic Hierarchy Process - Analysis on observed port decisions RTRAL 12-14 February 2009 SIET 15-18 June 2009

26. 25 Conclusions Statistical approach can support literature findings and knowledge of the operators Problems: - hinterland connections - administrative procedures - port efficiency - accessibility Important criteria: - Connectivity of the Port - Cost and Port Productivity RTRAL 12-14 February 2009 SIET 15-18 June 2009 Genoa and Antwerp

27. 26 Further research Analysis of other operators behavior (e.g. shippers) Enlarge the number of ports involved in the study Develop the study for different typology of ports RTRAL 12-14 February 2009 SIET 15-18 June 2009

28. 27 Thank you for your attention RTRAL 12-14 February 2009 SIET 15-18 June 2009