Terminal Planning: The Selection of Relevant KPIs to Evaluate Operations

Ville Hinkka, Janne Porkka, Zarrin Fatima, Juha Hyvärinen, Aapo Huovila, Pau Morales-Fusco, Enrique Martin, Gisela Soley

Research output: Contribution to conferenceConference articleProfessional

Abstract

The European Union is highly dependent on seaports for trade with the rest of the world and within its Internal Market. Approximately, 75% of goods imported and exported and 37% of exchanges within the Union transited through seaports in 2013. To manage this amount of cargo in ports, smooth operations are required. The performance of ports is currently evaluated by using different types of Key Performance Indicators (KPIs). How the indicators are described is dependent on the stakeholders and their organizational interest. Ports, and the transport sector as a whole, are undergoing drastic changes. To cite a few, demand increases, ship capacity enlargements, shipping line mergers and alliances lead to more concentrated flows and increase of traffic in certain hub ports detrimental to medium size ones, other aspects such new requirements regarding environment protection and security are also relevant. At the same time, ports are usually located in the middle of existing neighborhoods, which limits possibilities to enlarge their area whilst stress is placed to improve the port-city interrelation. Therefore, there is a need to invest in port infrastructure, but expansion or renovation of a port is extremely difficult. The required investments are big and the planning horizon is long. Hence, if the designed structures turn out to be unsuitable due to changes in needs, it is rather expensive to make changes. Planning tools have developed remarkably during the past 10 years. Different types of planning tools are used in seaport and terminal design to model the completeness. Modelling generates digital representations of physical and functional characteristics of a terminal area, buildings and other infrastructures. With the help of model-based approaches and with suitable KPIs, it is easier to understand and evaluate the effects of certain design solutions for terminal operations in a larger context. By using modelling tools, it is also possible to compare different design options to outline how certain choices in terminal design influences on the completeness. There is a need to define the objectives of good terminal prior to plan the terminal and its operations. A good terminal would satisfy the stakeholders’ expectations in best possible ways in the given preconditions. The achievement of objectives can be evaluated by using suitable indicators. However, the indicators used to plan and model terminal operations may differ from indicators used to evaluate the performance of current ports and terminals. The purpose of this paper is to analyze the indicators required for terminal planning and compare them with existing KPIs used for measuring the performance of ports and terminals.
Original languageEnglish
Publication statusPublished - 16 Apr 2018
MoE publication typeNot Eligible
Event7th Transport Research Arena, TRA 2018 - Vienna, Austria
Duration: 16 Apr 201819 Apr 2018

Conference

Conference7th Transport Research Arena, TRA 2018
Abbreviated titleTRA2018
CountryAustria
CityVienna
Period16/04/1819/04/18

Fingerprint

Planning
Freight transportation
Ships
European Union

Keywords

  • 358-40-5893280
  • bim
  • building information management
  • corresponding author
  • intermodality
  • key performance indicators
  • kpi
  • tel
  • terminal

Cite this

Hinkka, V., Porkka, J., Fatima, Z., Hyvärinen, J., Huovila, A., Morales-Fusco, P., ... Soley, G. (2018). Terminal Planning: The Selection of Relevant KPIs to Evaluate Operations. Paper presented at 7th Transport Research Arena, TRA 2018, Vienna, Austria.
Hinkka, Ville ; Porkka, Janne ; Fatima, Zarrin ; Hyvärinen, Juha ; Huovila, Aapo ; Morales-Fusco, Pau ; Martin, Enrique ; Soley, Gisela. / Terminal Planning : The Selection of Relevant KPIs to Evaluate Operations. Paper presented at 7th Transport Research Arena, TRA 2018, Vienna, Austria.
@conference{c7db48c5c9b84c8a82bd368af4434cea,
title = "Terminal Planning: The Selection of Relevant KPIs to Evaluate Operations",
abstract = "The European Union is highly dependent on seaports for trade with the rest of the world and within its Internal Market. Approximately, 75{\%} of goods imported and exported and 37{\%} of exchanges within the Union transited through seaports in 2013. To manage this amount of cargo in ports, smooth operations are required. The performance of ports is currently evaluated by using different types of Key Performance Indicators (KPIs). How the indicators are described is dependent on the stakeholders and their organizational interest. Ports, and the transport sector as a whole, are undergoing drastic changes. To cite a few, demand increases, ship capacity enlargements, shipping line mergers and alliances lead to more concentrated flows and increase of traffic in certain hub ports detrimental to medium size ones, other aspects such new requirements regarding environment protection and security are also relevant. At the same time, ports are usually located in the middle of existing neighborhoods, which limits possibilities to enlarge their area whilst stress is placed to improve the port-city interrelation. Therefore, there is a need to invest in port infrastructure, but expansion or renovation of a port is extremely difficult. The required investments are big and the planning horizon is long. Hence, if the designed structures turn out to be unsuitable due to changes in needs, it is rather expensive to make changes. Planning tools have developed remarkably during the past 10 years. Different types of planning tools are used in seaport and terminal design to model the completeness. Modelling generates digital representations of physical and functional characteristics of a terminal area, buildings and other infrastructures. With the help of model-based approaches and with suitable KPIs, it is easier to understand and evaluate the effects of certain design solutions for terminal operations in a larger context. By using modelling tools, it is also possible to compare different design options to outline how certain choices in terminal design influences on the completeness. There is a need to define the objectives of good terminal prior to plan the terminal and its operations. A good terminal would satisfy the stakeholders’ expectations in best possible ways in the given preconditions. The achievement of objectives can be evaluated by using suitable indicators. However, the indicators used to plan and model terminal operations may differ from indicators used to evaluate the performance of current ports and terminals. The purpose of this paper is to analyze the indicators required for terminal planning and compare them with existing KPIs used for measuring the performance of ports and terminals.",
keywords = "358-40-5893280, bim, building information management, corresponding author, intermodality, key performance indicators, kpi, tel, terminal",
author = "Ville Hinkka and Janne Porkka and Zarrin Fatima and Juha Hyv{\"a}rinen and Aapo Huovila and Pau Morales-Fusco and Enrique Martin and Gisela Soley",
year = "2018",
month = "4",
day = "16",
language = "English",
note = "7th Transport Research Arena, TRA 2018, TRA2018 ; Conference date: 16-04-2018 Through 19-04-2018",

}

Hinkka, V, Porkka, J, Fatima, Z, Hyvärinen, J, Huovila, A, Morales-Fusco, P, Martin, E & Soley, G 2018, 'Terminal Planning: The Selection of Relevant KPIs to Evaluate Operations' Paper presented at 7th Transport Research Arena, TRA 2018, Vienna, Austria, 16/04/18 - 19/04/18, .

Terminal Planning : The Selection of Relevant KPIs to Evaluate Operations. / Hinkka, Ville; Porkka, Janne; Fatima, Zarrin; Hyvärinen, Juha; Huovila, Aapo; Morales-Fusco, Pau; Martin, Enrique; Soley, Gisela.

2018. Paper presented at 7th Transport Research Arena, TRA 2018, Vienna, Austria.

Research output: Contribution to conferenceConference articleProfessional

TY - CONF

T1 - Terminal Planning

T2 - The Selection of Relevant KPIs to Evaluate Operations

AU - Hinkka, Ville

AU - Porkka, Janne

AU - Fatima, Zarrin

AU - Hyvärinen, Juha

AU - Huovila, Aapo

AU - Morales-Fusco, Pau

AU - Martin, Enrique

AU - Soley, Gisela

PY - 2018/4/16

Y1 - 2018/4/16

N2 - The European Union is highly dependent on seaports for trade with the rest of the world and within its Internal Market. Approximately, 75% of goods imported and exported and 37% of exchanges within the Union transited through seaports in 2013. To manage this amount of cargo in ports, smooth operations are required. The performance of ports is currently evaluated by using different types of Key Performance Indicators (KPIs). How the indicators are described is dependent on the stakeholders and their organizational interest. Ports, and the transport sector as a whole, are undergoing drastic changes. To cite a few, demand increases, ship capacity enlargements, shipping line mergers and alliances lead to more concentrated flows and increase of traffic in certain hub ports detrimental to medium size ones, other aspects such new requirements regarding environment protection and security are also relevant. At the same time, ports are usually located in the middle of existing neighborhoods, which limits possibilities to enlarge their area whilst stress is placed to improve the port-city interrelation. Therefore, there is a need to invest in port infrastructure, but expansion or renovation of a port is extremely difficult. The required investments are big and the planning horizon is long. Hence, if the designed structures turn out to be unsuitable due to changes in needs, it is rather expensive to make changes. Planning tools have developed remarkably during the past 10 years. Different types of planning tools are used in seaport and terminal design to model the completeness. Modelling generates digital representations of physical and functional characteristics of a terminal area, buildings and other infrastructures. With the help of model-based approaches and with suitable KPIs, it is easier to understand and evaluate the effects of certain design solutions for terminal operations in a larger context. By using modelling tools, it is also possible to compare different design options to outline how certain choices in terminal design influences on the completeness. There is a need to define the objectives of good terminal prior to plan the terminal and its operations. A good terminal would satisfy the stakeholders’ expectations in best possible ways in the given preconditions. The achievement of objectives can be evaluated by using suitable indicators. However, the indicators used to plan and model terminal operations may differ from indicators used to evaluate the performance of current ports and terminals. The purpose of this paper is to analyze the indicators required for terminal planning and compare them with existing KPIs used for measuring the performance of ports and terminals.

AB - The European Union is highly dependent on seaports for trade with the rest of the world and within its Internal Market. Approximately, 75% of goods imported and exported and 37% of exchanges within the Union transited through seaports in 2013. To manage this amount of cargo in ports, smooth operations are required. The performance of ports is currently evaluated by using different types of Key Performance Indicators (KPIs). How the indicators are described is dependent on the stakeholders and their organizational interest. Ports, and the transport sector as a whole, are undergoing drastic changes. To cite a few, demand increases, ship capacity enlargements, shipping line mergers and alliances lead to more concentrated flows and increase of traffic in certain hub ports detrimental to medium size ones, other aspects such new requirements regarding environment protection and security are also relevant. At the same time, ports are usually located in the middle of existing neighborhoods, which limits possibilities to enlarge their area whilst stress is placed to improve the port-city interrelation. Therefore, there is a need to invest in port infrastructure, but expansion or renovation of a port is extremely difficult. The required investments are big and the planning horizon is long. Hence, if the designed structures turn out to be unsuitable due to changes in needs, it is rather expensive to make changes. Planning tools have developed remarkably during the past 10 years. Different types of planning tools are used in seaport and terminal design to model the completeness. Modelling generates digital representations of physical and functional characteristics of a terminal area, buildings and other infrastructures. With the help of model-based approaches and with suitable KPIs, it is easier to understand and evaluate the effects of certain design solutions for terminal operations in a larger context. By using modelling tools, it is also possible to compare different design options to outline how certain choices in terminal design influences on the completeness. There is a need to define the objectives of good terminal prior to plan the terminal and its operations. A good terminal would satisfy the stakeholders’ expectations in best possible ways in the given preconditions. The achievement of objectives can be evaluated by using suitable indicators. However, the indicators used to plan and model terminal operations may differ from indicators used to evaluate the performance of current ports and terminals. The purpose of this paper is to analyze the indicators required for terminal planning and compare them with existing KPIs used for measuring the performance of ports and terminals.

KW - 358-40-5893280

KW - bim

KW - building information management

KW - corresponding author

KW - intermodality

KW - key performance indicators

KW - kpi

KW - tel

KW - terminal

M3 - Conference article

ER -

Hinkka V, Porkka J, Fatima Z, Hyvärinen J, Huovila A, Morales-Fusco P et al. Terminal Planning: The Selection of Relevant KPIs to Evaluate Operations. 2018. Paper presented at 7th Transport Research Arena, TRA 2018, Vienna, Austria.