mation, cargo handling, safety and security, and direct and
connecting services.
The researchers also asked respondents to rank a second
set of criteria that reflected their group’s specific concerns.
For cargo interests, these included:
▪ The effectiveness of ports’ decision-making process
(ability to make requested changes);
▪ Port authority’s responsiveness to requests;
▪ Terminal operator’s responsiveness to requests;
▪ On-schedule performance;
▪ Port employees’ capability to meet cargo interests’
needs;
▪ Ability to develop/offer tailored services to different
market segments;
▪ Cost of rail/truck/warehousing service;
▪ Availability of rail/truck/warehousing service;
▪ Overall cost of using the port.
Finally, respondents were asked to rate the performance
of ports they use against both sets of criteria.
WHAT REALLY MATTERS
The findings for the cargo interests—our primary concern
in this article—were revealing and, in some respects, a little
surprising. For one thing, the results indicated that respondents use different yardsticks when selecting a port and
when evaluating a port’s performance. For example, when
asked to rank the nine cargo interest-specific evaluation criteria by their importance in port selection decisions, cargo
interests put “effectiveness of decision-making process”
(which encompasses altering schedules, amending orders,
and changing processes to meet cargo interests’ demands)
in seventh place. Yet when asked to identify which of these
criteria had the greatest influence on their overall satisfaction with a port’s performance and their perception of its
service, they put “effectiveness of decision-making process”
at the top of the list.
One finding that may come as a surprise to anyone
who’s negotiated pricing with importers lately is that neither the overall cost of using a particular port nor the cost
of hiring local warehousing and transportation services
carried much weight with cargo interests. In fact, the cost
of using a port essentially had no influence on overall satisfaction, perceived competitiveness, or perceived service
quality. One possible reason why, Brooks says, is that cargo
interests often don’t see port-related expenses broken out
from their total transportation bills and may not be fully
aware of the cost of doing business with one port versus
another.
So, what does matter most to cargo interests? Importers,
exporters, and their agents zeroed in on what Brooks and
Schellinck categorize as “responsiveness” but could also be
termed “relationships.” As the accompanying table shows,
when it comes to overall satisfaction with a port’s performance, the most influential factors were the aforementioned
effectiveness of decision-making (making changes to
The Port Performance Research Network (PPRN) is
seeking volunteers to participate in a panel that will
evaluate ports on an annual basis. Eligible companies
include importers, exporters, forwarders, and third-party logistics service providers that directly purchase
ocean transportation services. Panel members will be
asked to complete a survey on port performance each
year. The data gathered will be used to help ports
worldwide improve the service they provide to customers like you.
If you’d like to participate, please contact Mary R.
Brooks, William A. Black Chair of Commerce,
Dalhousie University School of Business, via e-mail at
m.brooks@dal.ca.
accommodate cargo interests’ requirements) as well as the
responsiveness of the port authority and the terminal operator to requests.
What this indicates for ports is that the key to customer
retention is to work closely with cargo interests, accommodating special requirements and helping them solve problems. “If the focus is just on moving boxes and ports don’t
really care who owns them, what’s in them, or the impact of
their actions on them, then customers will go somewhere
where they get better care,” Brooks says.
This finding bucks conventional wisdom, suggesting that
cargo interests’ evaluation of port performance has more to
do with responsiveness and management style than with
investments in infrastructure. “The things that turn out to
have the greatest impact on perceived satisfaction by cargo
interests are also probably the easiest for ports to fix,”
Schellinck observes.
PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS
PPRN’s research is still in the early stages; researchers plan
to continue gathering data both within and outside of
North America. (For information on how you can participate, see the sidebar “Your opinion is needed!”) But they
are already seeing ways both ports and their customers
can benefit from practical applications of the survey
results.
PPRN plans to develop a global service benchmark that
ports can use to measure their performance against their
competitors’. And because respondents are evaluating specific ports, researchers will also be able to identify areas in
which a particular port may not be meeting customers’
expectations, Brooks says. The results will allow individual
ports to make targeted investments that will improve port
users’ satisfaction. “Ultimately, the survey results will help
port managers understand how to better meet their customers’ needs,” Brooks says. ;
