Araştırma Makalesi
BibTex RIS Kaynak Göster

Limanlarda Verimlilik Ölçümünde Gemilerin Demirde Bekleme Zamanlarının Etkisi Üzerine Bir Araştırma

Yıl 2024, Cilt: 12 Sayı: 2, 185 - 195, 31.08.2024
https://doi.org/10.22139/jobs.1511719

Öz

Uluslararası ticarette denizyolu taşımacılığı önemli bir paya sahiptir. İletişimin ve teknolojinin ilerlemesi ile beraber müşteri talepleri içinde hız, oldukça önemli bir parametre haline gelmiştir. Gerek üretim gerekse lojistik sektörü, bu talebe istinaden tedarik sürelerini azaltmak hedefiyle iyileştirme çalışmaları yapmaktadır. Denizyolu ile yapılan ticarette önemli bir rol üstlenen limanlarda ilk yatırım maliyeti oldukça yüksektir. Ayrıca yatırımın geri dönüş süresi uzundur. Yatırımın geri dönüş süresinin kısaltılması ve limanın karlılığının arttırılması için limanın verimli ve etkin bir şekilde işletilmesi gerekmektedir. Diğer yandan limanlarda verilen hizmetler ülkelerin dış ticaret performansları ile doğrudan ilişkilidir. Limanlarda oluşacak ilave beklemeler ilave maliyetlere yol açacak, dolayısıyla ülkelerin rekabet gücü azalacaktır.Limanların karmaşık ve dinamik hizmet işletmeleri olması, verimlilik ölçümlerinin de çok değişkenli olmasına neden olmaktadır. Bu doğrultuda çalışma, son derece karmaşık olan liman performans ölçümü konusunun sadece özel bir alanına odaklanmaktadır. Bu kapsamda öncelikle çalışmada limanlarda verimlilik ölçümü hakkında temel literatür verilmiş, sonrasında çalışmanın kısıtları kapsamında sadece Torosport Ceyhan limanın iki yıllık süre içerisindeki gemi demirde bekleme zamanlarına odaklanılmış ve bu kapsamda bir araştırma süreci yürütülmüştür. Altı Sigma yaklaşımıda Pareto analizi ile elde edilen bulgulara göre, limana yanaşmak için bekleyen gemilerin demirde bekleme nedenleri arasından en önemi sebebin ‘‘iskele doluluğu (%56,8)’’ olduğu ortaya çıkmıştır.

Kaynakça

  • Balci, G., Çetin, I. B., & Esmer, S. (2018). An evaluation of competition and selection criteria between dry bulk terminals in İzmir. Journal of Transport Geography, 69, 294-304.
  • Bichou, K. (2006), Review of port performance approaches and a supply chain framework to port performance benchmarking, Research in Transportation Economics, Vol. 17, pp. 567-598.
  • Bichou, K. and Gray, R. (2004), A logistics and supply chain management approach to port performance measurement, Maritime Policy & Management, 31(1), pp. 47-67.
  • Caldeirinha, V.R. and Felício, J.A. (2014), The relationship between ‘position-port’, ‘hard-port’ and ‘soft-port’ characteristics and port performance: conceptual models, Maritime Policy & Management, 41(6), pp. 528-559.
  • Chan, F.T., Kumar, N., Tiwari, M.K., Lau, H.C., Choy, K.L., (2008). Global supplier selection: a fuzzy-AHP approach. Int. J. Prod. Res. 46 (14), 3825–3857.
  • Coşkun, A. (2009). Mükemmellik tutkusu toplam kalite yönetimi ve altı sigma. Bilim ve Teknik. 70-75.
  • Esmer, S. (2019). Liman ve terminal yönetimi. TC Anadolu Üniversitesi Yayınları.
  • Fulser, B. (2015). Kombine taşımacılık ve Türkiye uygulamaları. [Yüksek Lisans Tezi, İstanbul Teknik Üniversitesi].
  • Garcia-Alonso, L., Sanchez-Soriano, J., (2009). Port selection from a hinterland perspective. Marit. Econ. Logist. 11 (3), 260–269.
  • Jones, J. H., & Blunden, W. R. (1968). Ship turn-around time at the Port of Bangkok. Journal of the Waterways and Harbors Division, 94(2), 135-148.
  • Jovanovi, S., Olivella, J., & Radmilovi, Z. (2005). Ship waiting time in a river port with priority servicing and limited anchorage area. WIT transactions on the built environment, 79.
  • Kumar, M., Antony, J., Antony, F. and Madu, C. (2007), Winning customer loyalty in an automotive company through six sigma: A case study, Quality and Reliability Engineering International, 23(7), 849-66.
  • Leclerc, F., Schmitt, B. H., & Dube, L. (1995). Waiting time and decision making: Is time like money?. Journal of consumer research, 22(1), 110-119.
  • Lirn, T.C., Thanopoulou, H.A., Beynon, M.J., Beresford, A.K.C., (2004). An application of AHP on transhipment port selection: A global perspective. Marit. Econ. Log. 6 (1), 70–91.
  • Murphy, P.R., Daley, J.M., Dalenberg, D.R., (1992). Port selection criteria: An application of a transportation. Log. Transport. Rev. 28 (3), 237–255.
  • Nir, A.S., Lin, K., Liang, G.S., (2003). Port choice behaviour–from the perspective of the shipper. Marit. Policy Manag. 30 (2), 165–173.
  • Onwuegbuchunam, D.E., (2013). Port selection criteria by shippers in Nigeria: A discrete choice analysis. Int. J. Shipp. Transp. Logist. 5 (4–5), 532–550.
  • Rezaei, J., van Wulfften Palthe, L., Tavasszy, L., Wiegmans, B. and van der Laan, F. (2019), Port performance measurement in the context of port choice: An MCDA approach, Management Decision, 57(2), pp. 396-417. https://doi.org/10.1108/MD-04-2018-0482
  • Shahpanah, A., Hashemi, A., Nouredin, G., Zahraee, S. M., & Helmi, S. A. (2014). Reduction of ship waiting time at port container terminal through enhancement of the tug/pilot machine operation. Jurnal Teknologi, 68(3), 63-66.
  • Sheikholeslami, A., Ilati, G., & Yeganeh, Y. E. (2013). Practical solutions for reducing container ships’ waiting times at ports using simulation model. Journal of Marine Science and Application, 12, 434-444.
  • Sobottka,S.B., Töpfer , A., Eberlein-Gonska, M., Schackert, G., Albrecht, D.M., (2010). Improvement of medical processes with six sigma – practicable zero-defect quality in preparation for surgery, Zeitschrift für Evidenz, Fortbildung und Qualität im Gesundheitswesen. 104(6), 480-488.
  • Tiwari, P., Itoh, H., Doi, M., (2003). Shippers' port and carrier selection behaviour in China: A discrete choice analysis. Marit. Econ. Log. 5(1), 23–39.
  • Tongzon, J.L. (1995), Determinants of port performance and efficiency, Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 29(3), 245-252.
  • Ugboma, C., Ugboma, O., Ogwude, I.C., (2006). An analytic hierarchy process (AHP) approach to port selection decisions – empirical evidence from Nigerian ports. Marit. Econ. Log. 8(3), 251–266
  • UNCTAD (2022). Review of Maritime Transport. United Nations Publications.
  • UNCTAD (2023). Review of Maritime Transport. United Nations Publications.
  • Wiegmans, B. and Dekker, S. (2016), Benchmarking deep-sea port performance in the Hamburg-Le Havre range, Benchmarking, an International Journal, 23(1), 96-112.
  • Yazıcı, K., Boran, S., & Gökler, S. H. (2019). Bir lojistik firmasında 6 sigma yöntemi uygulaması. Alphanumeric Journal, 7, 87-98.
  • Yeo, G.-T., Ng, A.K., Lee, P.T.W., Yang, Z., (2014). Modelling port choice in an uncertain environment. Marit. Policy Manag. 41(3), 251–267

A Study on the Effect of Waiting Time of Ships at Anchor on Efficiency Measurement in Ports

Yıl 2024, Cilt: 12 Sayı: 2, 185 - 195, 31.08.2024
https://doi.org/10.22139/jobs.1511719

Öz

Maritime transportation has an important share in international trade. With the advancement of communication and technology, speed has become a very important parameter in customer demands. Both the production and logistics sectors are making improvements to reduce lead times in response to this demand. The initial investment cost is quite high in ports, which play an important role in maritime trade. In addition, the return on investment is long. In order to shorten the return on investment and increase the profitability of the port, the port should be operated efficiently and effectively. On the other hand, the services provided at ports are directly related to the foreign trade performance of countries. Additional ship waits at ports will lead to additional costs, thus reducing the competitiveness of countries. The fact that ports are complex and dynamic service businesses causes efficiency measurements to be multivariate. Accordingly, this study focuses on only one specific area of the highly complex issue of port performance measurement. In this context, firstly, the basic literature on efficiency measurement in ports is given in the study, then, within the scope of the constraints of the study, Torosport Ceyhan's ship anchorage waiting times over a two-year period are focused and a research process is carried out in this context. According to the findings obtained by Pareto analysis in the Six Sigma approach, it was revealed that the most important reason for the ships waiting to dock at the port was "pier occupancy (56.8%)".

Kaynakça

  • Balci, G., Çetin, I. B., & Esmer, S. (2018). An evaluation of competition and selection criteria between dry bulk terminals in İzmir. Journal of Transport Geography, 69, 294-304.
  • Bichou, K. (2006), Review of port performance approaches and a supply chain framework to port performance benchmarking, Research in Transportation Economics, Vol. 17, pp. 567-598.
  • Bichou, K. and Gray, R. (2004), A logistics and supply chain management approach to port performance measurement, Maritime Policy & Management, 31(1), pp. 47-67.
  • Caldeirinha, V.R. and Felício, J.A. (2014), The relationship between ‘position-port’, ‘hard-port’ and ‘soft-port’ characteristics and port performance: conceptual models, Maritime Policy & Management, 41(6), pp. 528-559.
  • Chan, F.T., Kumar, N., Tiwari, M.K., Lau, H.C., Choy, K.L., (2008). Global supplier selection: a fuzzy-AHP approach. Int. J. Prod. Res. 46 (14), 3825–3857.
  • Coşkun, A. (2009). Mükemmellik tutkusu toplam kalite yönetimi ve altı sigma. Bilim ve Teknik. 70-75.
  • Esmer, S. (2019). Liman ve terminal yönetimi. TC Anadolu Üniversitesi Yayınları.
  • Fulser, B. (2015). Kombine taşımacılık ve Türkiye uygulamaları. [Yüksek Lisans Tezi, İstanbul Teknik Üniversitesi].
  • Garcia-Alonso, L., Sanchez-Soriano, J., (2009). Port selection from a hinterland perspective. Marit. Econ. Logist. 11 (3), 260–269.
  • Jones, J. H., & Blunden, W. R. (1968). Ship turn-around time at the Port of Bangkok. Journal of the Waterways and Harbors Division, 94(2), 135-148.
  • Jovanovi, S., Olivella, J., & Radmilovi, Z. (2005). Ship waiting time in a river port with priority servicing and limited anchorage area. WIT transactions on the built environment, 79.
  • Kumar, M., Antony, J., Antony, F. and Madu, C. (2007), Winning customer loyalty in an automotive company through six sigma: A case study, Quality and Reliability Engineering International, 23(7), 849-66.
  • Leclerc, F., Schmitt, B. H., & Dube, L. (1995). Waiting time and decision making: Is time like money?. Journal of consumer research, 22(1), 110-119.
  • Lirn, T.C., Thanopoulou, H.A., Beynon, M.J., Beresford, A.K.C., (2004). An application of AHP on transhipment port selection: A global perspective. Marit. Econ. Log. 6 (1), 70–91.
  • Murphy, P.R., Daley, J.M., Dalenberg, D.R., (1992). Port selection criteria: An application of a transportation. Log. Transport. Rev. 28 (3), 237–255.
  • Nir, A.S., Lin, K., Liang, G.S., (2003). Port choice behaviour–from the perspective of the shipper. Marit. Policy Manag. 30 (2), 165–173.
  • Onwuegbuchunam, D.E., (2013). Port selection criteria by shippers in Nigeria: A discrete choice analysis. Int. J. Shipp. Transp. Logist. 5 (4–5), 532–550.
  • Rezaei, J., van Wulfften Palthe, L., Tavasszy, L., Wiegmans, B. and van der Laan, F. (2019), Port performance measurement in the context of port choice: An MCDA approach, Management Decision, 57(2), pp. 396-417. https://doi.org/10.1108/MD-04-2018-0482
  • Shahpanah, A., Hashemi, A., Nouredin, G., Zahraee, S. M., & Helmi, S. A. (2014). Reduction of ship waiting time at port container terminal through enhancement of the tug/pilot machine operation. Jurnal Teknologi, 68(3), 63-66.
  • Sheikholeslami, A., Ilati, G., & Yeganeh, Y. E. (2013). Practical solutions for reducing container ships’ waiting times at ports using simulation model. Journal of Marine Science and Application, 12, 434-444.
  • Sobottka,S.B., Töpfer , A., Eberlein-Gonska, M., Schackert, G., Albrecht, D.M., (2010). Improvement of medical processes with six sigma – practicable zero-defect quality in preparation for surgery, Zeitschrift für Evidenz, Fortbildung und Qualität im Gesundheitswesen. 104(6), 480-488.
  • Tiwari, P., Itoh, H., Doi, M., (2003). Shippers' port and carrier selection behaviour in China: A discrete choice analysis. Marit. Econ. Log. 5(1), 23–39.
  • Tongzon, J.L. (1995), Determinants of port performance and efficiency, Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 29(3), 245-252.
  • Ugboma, C., Ugboma, O., Ogwude, I.C., (2006). An analytic hierarchy process (AHP) approach to port selection decisions – empirical evidence from Nigerian ports. Marit. Econ. Log. 8(3), 251–266
  • UNCTAD (2022). Review of Maritime Transport. United Nations Publications.
  • UNCTAD (2023). Review of Maritime Transport. United Nations Publications.
  • Wiegmans, B. and Dekker, S. (2016), Benchmarking deep-sea port performance in the Hamburg-Le Havre range, Benchmarking, an International Journal, 23(1), 96-112.
  • Yazıcı, K., Boran, S., & Gökler, S. H. (2019). Bir lojistik firmasında 6 sigma yöntemi uygulaması. Alphanumeric Journal, 7, 87-98.
  • Yeo, G.-T., Ng, A.K., Lee, P.T.W., Yang, Z., (2014). Modelling port choice in an uncertain environment. Marit. Policy Manag. 41(3), 251–267
Toplam 29 adet kaynakça vardır.

Ayrıntılar

Birincil Dil İngilizce
Konular İşletme
Bölüm Araştırma Makalesi
Yazarlar

Saip Onurhan Kadıoğlu 0009-0004-0880-0616

Soner Esmer 0000-0002-0614-7818

Murat Yorulmaz 0000-0002-5736-9146

Erken Görünüm Tarihi 22 Ağustos 2024
Yayımlanma Tarihi 31 Ağustos 2024
Gönderilme Tarihi 6 Temmuz 2024
Kabul Tarihi 19 Ağustos 2024
Yayımlandığı Sayı Yıl 2024 Cilt: 12 Sayı: 2

Kaynak Göster

APA Kadıoğlu, S. O., Esmer, S., & Yorulmaz, M. (2024). A Study on the Effect of Waiting Time of Ships at Anchor on Efficiency Measurement in Ports. İşletme Bilimi Dergisi, 12(2), 185-195. https://doi.org/10.22139/jobs.1511719