Evaluation of Causes of Delay in Container Handling ... · Evaluation of Causes of Delay in Container Handling Operation at ... use of FMEA model added to which SIPOC model, Pareto

International Journal of Accounting and Financial Management (IJAFM) Universal Research Group ISSN: 2322-2107 Vol.5. December 2012

249

Evaluation of Causes of Delay in Container Handling Operation at

Lebanese Container Ports (Case Study Beirut Container Terminal)

Homayoun Yousefi, 1 Hassan Jafari

2, Kazem Rash

3, Behrouz Khosheghbal

4, Abolfazle Dadkhah

5

1 Master Assistant of faculty Economic and Management, Khoramshahr Marine Science and Technology

University (KMSU)

2 M.S Student of Marine Transport, Khoramshahr Marine Science and Technology University (KMSU)

MSc. in Business Management, Ports and Maritime Organization of Abadan. 4 M. S student in Marine Transportation, pardis of Khoramshahr marine science and Technology

University (KMSU) 5 M.S Student of Marine Transport, Khoramshahr Marine Science and Technology University (KMSU)

Abstract- The present research has been conducted to identify and prioritize the inveterate

Causes of delay creation in container loading/unloading operation in Beirut container terminal by

use of FMEA model added to which SIPOC model, Pareto analysis and cause and effect diagram

have been applied as well. For the purpose of this research, the daily census of Beirut container

terminal operations including halts and lags in loading/unloading operations and their relevant

causes as well as the census of vessels traffic to the port during 8 months commencing from 21st

March, 2011 has been used as the main resource of data gathering. The identified main factors

with their pertinent scores have been prioritized as technical malfunction and deficiency of

vertical quay transportation equipment (579), technical malfunction and deficiency of horizontal

quay transportation equipment (579), unpreparedness of port external factors including owners

(483), inelasticity of container yard (451), incompetency of equipments (435) and

incompleteness of documents (408), respectively. Based on the obtained results, technical

deficiency and malfunction of quay horizontal and vertical transportation equipments possess the

highest number of risk priority while document incompleteness has the least number.

Introduction

Expansion of transportation industry is one of the important indicators of economic development

of nations. Nowadays, the influence of transportation on sustainable development is pretty vivid

and undeniable [1].This sector includes economic activities which are widely effective in all

categories of production, distribution, consumption and services [2],[3],[4]. Through the

advantages such as low cost for high volume of cargo shipment, marine transportation as one of

the important bases of this industry plays an essential role in development of nations’ foreign

Corresponding author; Tel: +989365158409

E-mail address: [email protected]


250

trade[5],[6],[7] Because of special geographic location and accessibility to free waters, Iran has a

particular situation in marine transportation industry. Ports as a significant component of marine

transportation system [8],[9].are one of the rings of global supply chain [10][11],[12]. Since time

and cost are considered as the important factors of competition in the present world, service

complexes which are considered by economists, traders and producers as the infrastructures of

global trade, undertake a significant role in optimization of transportation costs and distribution

of goods [12],[13],[14] In other words, those companies are successful in their job who can

deliver their goods duly to their customers with a lower cost[15],[16]. Therefore owners wish to

expedite passing their goods from ports and decrease transportation tariffs and costs [18]. That’s

why the extent of ports efficiency has an effective role in realization of their wants. Efficiency of

ports can have a remarkable influence on decreasing the period of ships stay in ports, goods

sedimentation period and reduction of the freight taken by shipping companies. Therefore ports

efficiency can result in satisfaction of customers, increase of demand level and more

profitability. Therefore optimization of ports loading/unloading operation is considered as an

important approach to decrease the period of transmission of goods from producer to consumer.

Taking into consideration the importance of this approach for improvement of ports

performance, fulfillment of studies on ports performance - as the country’s main gates of

international trade - appears to be more important than before. The Port of Beirut is the main port

in Lebanon located on the eastern part of the Saint George Bay on Beirut's northern

Mediterranean coast, west of the Beirut River. It is one of the largest and busiest ports on the

Eastern Mediterranean. The port is operated and managed by the Gestion et exploitation du port

de Beyrouth (GEPB) which is French for Port Authority of Beirut. Container terminal operations

are subcontracted to a private consortium called the Beirut Container Terminal Consortium

(BCTC). Since the end of the Lebanese Civil War in 1990, the port has gone through a major

updating and expansion program with the rehabilitation of existing port facilities, the

construction of new administration buildings, and the construction of a new container terminal.

It's an important gateway for transporting freight to Syria, Jordan, Iraq, and the Gulf States. The

Port of Beirut has a total area of 1,200,000m2 and has 4 basins, 16 quays, and a new container

terminal at quay 16 capable of handling 745,000 twenty-foot equivalent units (TEU1) per year. The objective of this paper is identification and prioritization of Causes of delay in container

L/U2 operation in Beirut Container Terminal. This research has been conducted by use of FMEA3

which is one of the most accurate and updated methods of studying performance and efficiency

of systems. Moreover, SIPOC4 model, Pareto analysis and cause and effect diagram have been

applied in this research.

1 Twenty-foot equivalent unit 2 loading/unloading operation 3 Failure Mode and Effect Analysis 4 Suppliers, Input, Process, Outputs and Customers


251

Research Record

Ports Performance Evaluation Methods

Researchers apply various methods to study and measure the performance of organizations in

view points of efficiency and productivity. DEA5 is one of the common methods which evaluate

the relation between inputs and outputs by use of production function. This method is based on a

series of optimization models of linear programming for measuring the relative efficiency in

similar units. In this method, the efficient frontier curve is arisen from a series of points

determined by linear programming model. After implementing optimization model, the linear

programming method specifies whether the intended decision making unit is located on the

efficiency border or outside. In this way the efficient and inefficient units become separated. For

example Cullinane and others [17] compared Data Envelopment Analysis and Stochastic

Frontier Analysis to estimate the technical efficiency of container ports. The objective of this

research is to study strength and weakness points of these two methods. The total length of quay,

terminal area, the number of Quayside cranes, the number of gantry cranes of port area, the

number of straddle carriers are regarded as the inputs of the research model. On the other hand,

container efficiency or operational power as a very important and peerless indicator has been

considered in the model output. The study has been accomplished on 57 numbers of container

ports or their existing terminals. Hung and others [18] conducted a comparative study on

evaluation of operational efficiency of Asian container ports by application of data envelopment

analysis. Al-Iraqi and others [19].evaluated the efficiency of 22 ports in Middle East and Eastern

Africa by use of data envelopment analysis. The case studies of their research includes ports

from Sudan, Eritrea, Djibouti, Kenya of Eastern Africa and ports from Saudi Arabia, Yemen,

Oman, UAE and Iran from Middle East. The statistical period under the study is from 2000 to

2005. Tongzon discusses the existence of errors in researches of some organizations on the

influence of portion of factors impacting on estimation of port efficiency and performance.[20]

To fill this gap he offers a model by the factors affecting port efficiency and performance. In this

model, he measures the performance of port based on the number of transferred containers

through the port (or operational power) provided that the operational power of port is maximum.

He believes factors such as geographic location, the number of ships’ recourses to the port, port

costs, level of economic activity and efficiency of terminal determine the port efficiency or port

operational power. He thinks that the efficiency of ports is under the influence of container size

(20 or 40 –foot size), working procedures, cranes efficiency and tonnage of entering ships.

Research Model and Methodology

The present case studies the causes of lag and halt in L/U operation in Beirut Container

Terminal. To achieve this objective, the daily censuses of Beirut Container Terminal including

the extent of halts and lags in L/U operation with their pertinent causes as well as the census of

Beirut Container Terminal incoming vessels in the period of 21st March, 2011 to 20th November

2011 have been applied [21]. Added to FMEA, in this research SIPOC, Pareto analysis and cause

5 Data Envelopment Analysis


252

and effect diagram have been used. The said methods have been explained within the following

lines.

Failure Mode and Effect Analysis

McDermott believes that by using such an efficient tool, the potential modes of failure in system,

process, product and services can be identified and prioritized, as well, the necessary measures to

remove or decrease the extent of potential modes of failure can be defined and determined. [22]

They introduce FMEA as a key tool for improvement of safety, promotion of quality and

attraction of customer satisfaction. FMEA has been defined in educational material of

automobile manufacturing companies as below:

FMEA is a series of systematic activities with the following objectives:

Identification and evaluation of potential failures existing in design of system, product and

process as well as estimation of occurrence of each one of them [23, 24]

- Identification of measures which can decrease or remove the probability of occurrence of

probable failures

- Identification and taking the measures by which the extent of consequent intensity and

tenseness of errors may be decreased as much as possible

- Identification and taking the measures by which the ability of recognition or probability

of unveiling the errors can be increased before reaching to the customers

- Documentation of the processes

The FMEA has two overall goals; one short term and one long term. The short term goal is to

reduce the failures as much as possible and the long term goal is to eliminate all failures. Having

that said the costs of reduction/elimination should of course also be considered. At one point in

time the cost of reducing a failure mode further will probably be higher than the benefit of doing

so. Beside that the rest of the organization should also be considered when evaluating what is

most important; to do a FMEA over again or maybe to do another risk assessment with a new

focus [25, 26]. One of the best features of FMEA is taking proactive instead of reactive measure

in facing the failures [27] In other word, the method focuses on taking proactive measure before

occurrence of the accidents. Because in case of occurrence of a burdensome accident, normally

enormous charges shall be spent to offset the created difficulties and failures while if, for any

reason, an error happens in designing stage, the extent of the coming damage will be maximized

because a variation in designing will cause variations in production tools, costs of product and

process redesigning. Features such as reduction of repeated works and corrective steps, quality

improvement, increase of assurance capability, increase of safety and reduction of the needed

time for deliverance of product to customer are the other features of FMEA [22]. Therefore

FMEA can be deemed as one of the tools of continuous quality improvement of goods and

services in companies. Risk analysis in FMEA table is done through determination of probability

of error modes occurrence (occurrence frequency), the extent of its effect on post occurrence

process (severity) and probability of its identification before influencing the process (detection).

Each one of these cases would be scored by some experts in a scale from 1 to 10. The number 10

shows the most unpleasant influence on the process. These three ranks are multiplied by each


253

other and constitute the number of risk priority presented in acronym form of RPN6 [27, 24].

Cases with higher extent of RPN attract higher priority in improvement process.

SIPOC Model

SIPOC model is a method for analyzing the working process of an organization. It uses simple

signs and terms. This model displays the existing activities, operations and decisions in a process

plus the relationship among them. Also it provides the possibility of understanding a process or

program with the relationships among its components in the simplest form. Having an immense

look at the process conducts us to the definition of project span and specifies the location of data

gathering [27, 24]. The present research has applied this model to define container L/U process

in Beirut Container Terminal.

Cause and Effect Diagram

Cause and effect is the title of an expository diagram which displays the relationship among the

causes and corresponds them to their relevant effects. Since the diagram looks like fish bone, it is

known as fish bone diagram. Cause and effect diagram shows the relationship among qualitative

features and their relevant factor. In this research, fish bone diagram of cause and effect method

has been applied for determining, grouping and identifying the causes of failure modes.

Pareto Diagram

Pareto diagram based on the rule 80-20 is applied in such a way that apportions 80 percent of

problems to 20 percent of causes. It guides the users directly to their purposed qualitative

objectives. Pareto is a diagram to demonstrate and group the information in order to specify

which causes play the most roles in formation of effect. This diagram can be used as the first step

to create improvement in working environment. With a look at the diagram, it can be seen that

two or three factors cause most of the problems and many of factors have a very little role in

problems creation. It is experienced that making decisions based on the key causes compared to

less effective ones have more desirable influence on quality and improvement of process [27].

Hence, Pareto diagram has been applied in this research to analyze the extent of influence that

each factor of port, ship, goods owners and others have on creation of halt and lag in L/U

operation in Beirut Container Terminal.

Stage of Research Implementation

The present research has been implemented via FMEA in the following stages:

First stage

First stage refers to analysis of potential failure modes and effects plus definition of L/U process

via SIPOC model. Depicting SIPOC model makes it easy to identify the factors of L/U process

and the relationships among them. The beginning point of L/U process is the suppliers of process

which include owners of goods, transportation companies, owners of ships, shipping lines and

6 Risk Priority Number


254

L/U companies. And the final point is connected to the customers of port which include owners

of goods, transportation companies, owners of ships and shipping lines. Goods, containers,

equipments, labor and other ways of transportation constitute the inputs of the process while

transmission of goods and containers in sea between ships and other ways of transportation in

land form the outputs of the process. SIPOC model in Figure 4-1 shows L/U process in port. The

operational trend of this process has been presented in Process column.

Figure 1 – SIPOC diagram of container L/U process in Beirut Container Terminal [28]

Second Stage

In this stage identification of components of L/U process and their functions therein is practiced.

The components are as below:

Port: function of port in L/U process is to be fully prepared for the operation from ship berthing

to quay till the end of operation without any lack of labor or equipment and to perform the

operation without any halt or lag.

Ship: function of ship is to make all conditions ready for L/U operation. Documents, agreements,

labor and equipment must be without any defect and incompetence [8].

Owners of Goods: the task of owners is to deliver their goods readily to port and ship or clear

from port. Preparation of financial, customs and transportation documents as well as making

coordination with operation related organizations and contractors are of duties of owners [12].

Third Stage

In this stage identification of potential failure modes in implementation of process takes place.

Failure modes of L/U process are caused by unpreparedness of each one of the three components

of port, ship and owners which lead to the halt or lag in L/U operation.


255

Fourth Stage

This stage refers to determination of causes of failure modes. For grouping and introducing these

causes, fishbone diagram of cause and effect method is applied. Figure 2 displays cause and

effect diagram of halt and lag in L/U operation.

Table 2 – Fishbone diagram of causes of delay in L/U operation of containerized goods [28]

Fifth Stage

The fifth stage refers to analyzing potential modes and effects of deficiency and identification of

effects of each one of failure modes. Unpreparedness of each one of the components of L/U

operation leads to a lag in operation or halt in L/U trend. Depicting Pareto diagram provides a

proper analysis of the extent of effects of each one of the factors of port, ship, goods owners and

other factors on creation of lag or halt in operation. Figures 3, 4 display the Pareto diagram of

factors of lags and halt in operation.


256

Figure 3 – Pareto diagram of lag creation factors in container L/U operation [21]

Other factors Ship Owners of Goods Port Factors

69619 26328 143498 163308 Extent of operation lag at min.

17/2 6/5 35/6 40/5 Percentage

100 82/7 76/1 40/5 Cumulated Percentage

Table 1 – Extent of operation lag at minute [21]

Figure 4 – Pareto diagram of halt creation factors in container L/U operation [21]


257

Other factors Ship Owners of Goods Port Factors

44386 51660 72265 81156 Extent of operation halt at min.

17/7 20/7 28/9 32/5 Percentage

100 82/2 61/4 32/5 Cumulated Percentage

Table 2 – Extent of operation halt at minute [21]

Figure 3 and table 1 show that two factors of goods owner and port form 76.1 percent of causes

leading to lag creation in L/U operation and ship factor form only 6.5 percent of causes. Other

factors cause creation of 17.2 percent of this error mode. Figure 4 and table 2 show that goods

owners solely constitute 28.9 percent of causes of halt creation in L/U operation of containerized

goods. The latest factor and the factor of port cause 61.4 percent of halts. Among these error

modes, other factors possess the least influence on creation of halt in L/U process. Both diagrams

indicate that owners of goods have the most influence on lag creation in the process.

Sixth Stage

In this stage the going controls for each one of the failure modes are identified. The obtained

results of this stage have been mentioned in table 6.

Seventh Stage

The last stage of the process is L/U risk analysis. The score of risk priority is obtained by

multiplication of three numbers belonging to severity, occurrence and identification of error

modes by which the analysis of process risks and prioritization of steps for efficiency promotion

can be practiced. The number of severity, occurrence and identification of error modes of L/U

process are estimated by use of tables 3, 4 and 5. Table 6 analyzes the failure modes and effects

of L/U process and determines risk priority number of this process.

The Results of Research

Aimed to identify and prioritize the causes of halt and lag in Beirut Container Terminal container

L/U operation, the present research has been conducted by use of Failure Mode and Effect

Analysis method. The research was accomplished in seven stage during which the main causes

of lag and halt creation in L/U operation were studied. The identified main factors of halt and lag

creation and their risk priority numbers are as follows respectively: deficiency and malfunction

of quay vertical transportation equipment (579), deficiency and malfunction of quay horizontal

transportation equipment (579), unpreparedness of the factors outside the port including owners

of goods, agents of shipping lines, cargo terminal and forwarders (483), inelasticity of container

yard (451), inefficiency of equipments (435) and incompleteness of documents (408). Thus

deficiency and malfunction of quay vertical and horizontal transportation equipments scored the

highest risk priority number while incompleteness of documents scored the least number.

According to inspections to identify the effects of each one of error modes, based on Beirut


258

Container Terminal official reports on causes of halt and lag in container L/U operation during 8

months starting from 21st March 2011, factors of port and owners of goods have the highest

influence on halt and lag creation in L/U operations while ship and other factors have the least

impact on halt and lag creation. As well, taking into consideration the number of occurrence of

causes of error modes, it can be a good scale for judging the current controls in L/U process. In

other words, the extent of error modes occurrence shows the important matter that the current

controls in domain of prevention of error modes have acted so weakly and in most of the cases

there had been no control.

Conclusion

Applying FMEA method, the present research studied the main causes of creation of halt and lag

in L/U operation. Based on the risk priority numbers, document incompleteness, incompetency

of equipment, inelasticity of container yard, unpreparedness of port external factors, technical

deficiency and malfunction of quay horizontal transportation equipments and technical

deficiency and malfunction of quay vertical transportation equipments have been identified as

important factors of creation of delay in L/U operation of containerized goods in Beirut

Container Terminal. Considering the current operational trend in Beirut Container Terminal, the

followings are suggested to reduce delays in container L/U operation:

Deficiency and malfunction of quay vertical and horizontal transportation equipments:

fulfillment of periodic inspections, repair and maintenance according to manufacturers’

standards, purchasing new equipments, making the depreciated and old equipments out of

service and providing spare equipments for emergency events can to a large extent remove

the existing problems.

Unpreparedness of factors outside the port including owners of goods and agents of shipping

lines: as these factors are not directly under the control of port, their control is very difficult

and complicated. Owners have to take all required measures to make their agents prepared

for implementation of L/U operation and start the operation upon ship berthing to jetty. In

those transportation contracts in which L/U is the duty of owner, he is bound to supply the

necessary equipments for the work. Obviously, if an incompetency happens in work, a halt

will rise in the L/U operation. To remove this deficiency, it is better Beirut Container

Terminal managers pay more attention to encourage and employ more qualified contractor

companies of L/U operation to offer proper equipment and workforce to the owners. Also,

they have to build an appropriate structure to make prompt and easy communication with

companies and owners.

Inelasticity of container yard: programming and making policies in order to develop port

equipment and infrastructure proportionately to port traffic volume can to a large extent

remove this defect.

Incapability of L/U equipments and infrastructures: considering the promotion of the

generation of container carrying ships, the equipments of ports have to be changed

proportionately to these evolutions. It is obvious that nonconformity of equipments with

ships generations can cause halt and lag in container L/U process. Promotion of equipment


259

generation proportionately to tonnage and generation of incoming ships is an appropriate way

to remove this problem.

Document incompleteness: this factor has caused halts and lags in a lot of cases. Application

of electronic services for implementing administrative procedures and obtaining the

permission of certificate issuance as well as establishment of an efficient communicative

system between port and owners can in to some extent remove this deficiency.

Reference [1] Castillo-Manzano J. I, Mercedes C. N, Gonzalez Laxe F, Lopez-Valpuesta L, and Arevalo-Quijada M.

T (2009). Low-Cost Port Competitiveness Index: Implementation in the Spanish Port System. Marine

Policy. (33): 591-598.

[2] Slack B (1985). Containerization int.er-port Competition and Port Selection. Maritime Policy and

Management. 12(4): 293-303.

[3] Malchow M, and Kanafani A (2001). A Disaggregate Analysis of Factors Influencing Port Selection.

Maritime Policy and Management. 28(3): 265-277.

[4] Malchow M. B. and Kanafan A. (2004). A Disaggregate Analysis of Port Selection. Transportation

Research Part E. 40: 317-337 .

[5] Bichou K, and Gray R (2005). A critical review of conventional terminology for classifying seaports.

Transportation Research A. 39(1): 75-92.24.

[6] Notteboom T. E, and Rodrigue J.P (2005). Port regionalization: towards a new phase in port

development. Maritime Policy and Management. 10(2): 297–313.

[7] Pallis A.A, and Vitsounis T.K (2009). Port performance: Measuring port users perspectives. Critical

Issues in the Port and Maritime Sector. University of Antwerp.

[8] Murphy P, Daley J, and Dalenberg D (1992). Port Selection Criteria: An Application of a

Transportation Research Framework. Logistics and Transportation Review. 28(3): 237-255.

[9] Brooks M.R, and Pallis A. A (2008). Assessing port governance models: Process and performance

components. Maritime Policy and Management. 35(4): 411-432.

[10] Brooks M.R, and Cullinane K (2007). Port Governance and Performance. Elsevier. London. UK.

[11] Pallis A. A, and Vitsounis T. K (2008). Towards an alternative measurement of port performance:

Externally generated information and Users satisfaction. International Forum on Shipping. Ports and

Airports (IFSPA) (proceedings: CD-Rom). Hong Kong.

[12] Peters H (1990). Structural Changes in International Trade and Transport Markets: The Importance

of Markets. 2nd KMI International Symposium. Seoul: 58–75.

[13] Ha M.S (2003). A Comparison of Service Quality at Major Container Ports: Implications for Korean

Ports. Journal of Transport Geography. 11(5): 131-137.

[14] Jagerman D, and Altiok T (2003). Vessel Arrival Process and Queuing in Marine Ports Handling

Bulk Materials. Queuing Systems. 45: 223–243.

[15] Marianosi N.S, Lambrou M.A, and Spyrou D (2010). An integrated methodology for evaluating

electronic port services for container terminals: the OLP case. Department of Shipping Trade and

Transport. University of the Aegean.

[16] Robinson R (2002). Ports as elements in value-driven chain systems: the new paradigm. International

Journal of Maritime Policy and Management. 29(3): 241-255.


260

[17] Cullinane K, Wang T. F, and Song D. W, Ji. P (2006). The Technical Efficiency of Container Ports:

Comparing Data Envelopment Analysis and Stochastic Frontier Analysis. Transportation Research Part

A. 40: 354-374.

[18] Hung S. W, Lu W. M, and Wang T. P (2010). Benchmarking the Operating Efficiency of Asia

Container Ports. European Journal of Operational Research. (203): 706-713.

[19] Al-Eraqi A. S, Mustafa A, and Khader A. T (2010). An Extended DEA Windows Analysis: Middle

East and East African Seaports. Journal of Economic Studies. (37): 208-218.

[20] Tongzon J. L 1995. Determinants of Port Performance and Efficiency. Transportation Research Part

A. 29: 245-252.

[21] Operation Census Official Site. (2011). Census Administration of Beirut Container Terminal. http://www.bctc-lb.com/.

[22] McDermott R. E, Mikulak R. J, Beauregard M. R (2009). The Basics of FMEA CRC Press USA.

[23] Pearson R (1980). Container line Performance and Service Quality. University of Liverpool.

[24] Emami Meibodi A (2005). Principles of Efficiency and Productivity Evaluation. Commercial

Research and Studies Institute. Tehran.

[25] Branch A. E (2008). Elements of Shipping. London and New York. Routledge Taylor and Francis

Group. Pp: 123–155.

[26] Foster T. A (1979). What’s Important in a Port. Distribution World Wide. :32-36.

[27] Karbasian M, Aqadadi A (2006). Six Sigma and Quality Costs. ArkaneDanesh and

DaneshPazhoohaneBarin Press. Isfahan.

[28] Jafari H (2011). Increasing Efficiency rate of Container Loading/Unloading Operation in Bandar

Imam Khomeini port by Use of 6 Sigma Method, BSc Thesis. Sea Economics and Management.

Khoramshahr Maritime Sciences and Technologies.

Rank Effect and result of failure Criterion: Severity of Effect on Loading/Unloading Process

10 Very much delays Halt duration of operation is more than 24 hours.

9 much delays Halt duration of operation is more than 12 and less than 24 hours.

8

Average delays

Halt duration of operation is more than 12 and less than 6 hours.

7 Halt duration of operation is less than 6 or lag duration of operation is more than 18 hours.

6 Lag duration of operation is less than 18 and more than 12 hours.

5 Little delays

Lag duration of operation is less than 12 and more than 6 hours.

4 Lag duration of operation is less than 6 and more than 3 hours.

3 Very little delays

Lag duration of operation is less than 3 and more than 2 hours.

2 Lag duration of operation is less than 2 hours.

1 No delay There is no halt or lag in operation.

Table 3 – Ranking the extent of error severity in L/U operation [28]

Ranking Failure occurrence probability Criterion: Extent of error occurrence

10 Very high

And

High

More than 36 percent

9 30 – 36 percent

8 24 – 30 percent

7 18 – 24 percent

6

Average

12 – 18 percent

5 6 – 12 percent

4 3 – 6 percent

3 Low

1.5 – 3 percent

2 Less than 1.5 percent

1 Very low Error mode has been controlled via predictive measures.

Table 4 – Ranking the extent of error occurrence in L/U operation [28]

Rank Probability of Identification Criterion of Error Identification Probability

10 Very improbable Controls cannot certainly identify error.

9 Very tiny probability Deficiency is identifiable after operation but process factors cannot correct it.

http://www.bctc-lb.com/


261

8 Very low probability Process factors can limitedly do corrections after error occurrence.

7 Low probability Process factors can correct errors after operation.

6 Below average probability Process factors can correct errors while operation.

5 Average probability Controls have average effectiveness for error identification.

4 Above average probability Error is identifiable before operation.

3 High probability Controls have high effectiveness for error identification before operation.

2 Very high probability Controls are very highly probable for errors identification before operation.

1 Almost probable Controls can identify and correct errors with a high confidence.

Table 5 – Ranking the extent of error identification probability in L/U operation [28]

Risk

Priority

Number

Iden

tifi

cati

on

Current

Controls for

Identification

Occ

urren

ce

Error Cause

Severit

y

Error effects Error modes Components

and function

Nu

mb

er

123 6 There is no

specific control 5

Financial and

administrative matters 4

Halt of L/U operation

of goods

Unpreparedness of

factors outside the port

for receiving or

delivering goods

Goods owner,

receiving from

and delivering

goods to port

1

483 10 There is no

specific control 6 Unpreparedness 6 2

363 10 There is no

specific control 6

Financial and

administrative matters 6 Lag of L/U operation 3

408 9 There is no

specific control 9

Document

incompleteness 5 4

363 10 There is no

specific control 6 Shortage of trucks 6 5

283 7

Coordination

among relevant

organizations by

Port

administration

8

Ship container pass

and quarantine

formalities

5 Halt of L/U operation

Unpreparedness of

port for L/U operation

of goods

Port, goods

transmission

between ship

and coast vice

versa

6

579 8

Implementation

of repair

programs and

accomplishment

of predictive

repairs

9

Deficiency of vertical

transportation

equipment

8 Lag of L/U operation 7

579 8

Implementation

of repair

programs and

accomplishment

of predictive

repairs

9 Deficiency of L/U

horizontal equipment 8 8

435 9

Variation of

equipment

generation

8 Incompetency of

unloading equipment 6 9

283 8

Modification and

improvement of

input/out put

models

7 Quay traffic 5 10

451 8 Control by port 7 Inelasticity of

container yard 8 11

101 7

Control by port

operation

department

7 Delay in start and

early finish 2 12

123 5

Control by port

operation and

statistical

processes

6 Unpreparedness of

relevant contractor 4 13

183 6

Supervision by

the heads of

workgroups

10 Labor matters 3 14

323 8 Coordination

among relevant 10

Pass and quarantine

formalities 4 15


262

organizations by

Port

administration

111 3 PSC and Port

administration 4 Confiscation by PSC 9 Halt in L/U operation

Unpreparedness of

ship

Ship,

transporting

goods to port

and

transmission of

goods from port

16

147 6 There is no

specific control 6

Deficiency of ship

equipments 4 Lag of L/U operation 17

99 6 There is no

specific control 4

Adjusting the balance

of Ship 4 18

93 3

Application of

weather forecast

reports to take

preventive

measures

3 Foul weather and tide

prediction 10 Halt of L/U operation

Creation of turbulence

in L/U work Other factors 19

108 3

Application of

weather forecast

reports to take

preventive

measures

7 Foul weather and tide

prediction 5 Lag of L/U operation 20

Table 6 – Analysis of error modes and effects and risk priority number