2ND KUSTEM POSTGRADUATE SEMINAR

THE STUDY ON THE DELAY FACTOR OF

CONTAINER TRANSHIPMENT

K.B. Loke, A.H. Saharuddin, A.R. Ibrahim, I. Rizal

Faculty of Management and Economics
Kolej Universiti Sains dan Teknologi Malaysia (KUSTEM)

A study looks into delay factors of transhipment operations. Transhipment

operations are a complex process involves many coordination of operation systems;
such as ship operation, quay transfer operation, and container yard operation. The
success of each of the operation determine by several factors, such as vehicles,
human, shifting process, hatch closing, waiting game plan, and etc. Data for quay
transfer operation and container yard operation collects using questionnaires survey
method. While the data for ship operation analyses using secondary data that consists
of statistics report of several months. Result shows that the main cause of delay in
quay transfer operation is waiting for Rubber-Tyred Gantry cranes (RTG), which
shows the highest frequency of 17.4%. While in the container yard operation, the
delay factor of waiting for Prime Mover (PM) is the main cause of delay, 13.6%.
Finally in ship operation, statistical analysis shows that waiting for PM is the main
delay factor, which contributes to about 41.2%. Therefore, this study concludes that
the vehicles interference is the main cause of delay in entire container transhipment
operations.

1.0 Introduction
There are three main operation systems in container terminal transhipment; namely
ship operation, quay transfer operation, and container yard operation. The ship
operation consists of the movement of containers between quayside and vessel
(Thomas et. al., 1994). The quay transfer operation involves the transfer of
containers between quays and yards (Thomas et. al., 1994).The container yard
operation deals with the storage of containers in the yard (Thomas et. al., 1994).The
success of each of the process would be influences by several delay factors.
Therefore, this study looks into the container delay factors of transhipment
operations.

Even the best operation would need to improve because the competitors will be
improving. When an operation is designed, planned and controlled, the operation
manager’s tasks were not complete. All operations, no matter how well managed, are
capable to be improved. This paper initiates to find what sources of delays that affect
the overall transhipment operation. Firstly, to analyse the variables of breakdown
delays on the ship operation, that affect the efficiency of handling rates (berth
turnaround time). Secondly, to examine the delay factors of connecting processes,
such as quay transfer and container yard operations.

2.0 Literature Review

When a container vessel arrives at the container terminal, the containers on board
would be unloaded from the vessel. This task handles by quay cranes (QCs). After
that, the containers transfer from QC to prime movers (PMs), which carry the

1
 2ND KUSTEM POSTGRADUATE SEMINAR

containers from berth side to yard side. Next, the rubber tyred-gantry cranes (RTGs)
or straddle carriers (SCs) arranges the containers in the storage area. The containers
must be store in a manner that would minimize the time takes to retrieve the
containers by consider storage constraints. The import containers transport further by
rail or road, and the other vessel transfers tranship containers to other ports. In the
case of export, the problem would be to minimize the handling time of the containers
from the first arrival at the port until the vessel carrying the containers departs from
the port (Iris et al, 2002).

There are four main operation systems; such as ship operation, quay transfer
operation, container yard operation and receipt/delivery operation. In terminals that
have a Container Freight Station (CFS), there is a fifth system that is CFS operation
(Thomas et al, 1994). It indicates that the terminal operations involve many
interactions (Koh et al, 1994). In the real container terminal system the interactions
are the critical issues; some of the principal aspects involve with interference among
dock cranes, interference among yard cranes, interference among connections units,
interference among containers themselves, access problems and other interactions
and externality (Bruzzone et al, 1999).

Container terminal systems involve greater investments in cargo-handling equipment

which have capability to achieve faster handling rate. It associates with high handling
rate of TEUs throughput per crane which gives large savings in stevedoring costs.
Moreover, simplification of intermodal transfer which the large size of the unit helps
to reduce the costs of inland distribution. However, the container system also
incorporates new approach to ship stowage and port transit operations. Terminal
operator requires equipment that works continuously in return for moderate
maintenance effort and deploys in a variety of roles to suit changing traffic demands.
Container handling equipment can be classify in many different ways, including
capacity, speed, height of lift, type of suspension, and so on (Branch, 1986).

The management of container terminal consists of berth allocation, yard planning,

stowage planning and logistics planning (Won et al, 1999). Berth allocation controls
the loading and unloading of the ship’s containers. Yard planning assigns optimal
allocation of storage areas for import, export and transhipment containers. Stowage
planning assigns storage locations to the containers in the vicinity of the ship.
Logistics planning assigns and coordinates the operations of the container handling
equipment such as gantry cranes, transfer cranes and yard tractors in the
transportation of containers between the ship’s bay and the container yard. The
objective of all container terminal management is to minimize the ship’s waiting
time and thereby maximizes the utilization of container terminal resources such as
berth, container handling equipment and personnel. Reduced ship waiting time
encourages trade and improves the competitiveness of the container terminal by
provides efficient and effective service at a minimum cost.

There are five factors that influence container port performance: port facilities,
inland transportation connections, shipping lines serving the ports, demand for
container shipping and diversion of containers between countries. Of the variables
that affect the container port’s future, the port controls only its own operations. It
must work closely with the other players to make certain interests to its users or
stakeholders (Robert, 1994).

2
 2ND KUSTEM POSTGRADUATE SEMINAR

All the activities that make up the various terminal operations are not independent to
each other. They are closely inter-relate, and must be carefully coordinate. If these
activities get out of step with each other, one operation can interface with and
possibly delay another. The operations will be out of balance, and container-handling
performance will be poor (Thomas et al, 1994). In the case of discharge operation, a
shortage of quay transfer equipment will mean that the cranes will unload containers
from the ship faster than they can be moved away from the quay. Very soon,
discharged containers will stack up on the quay, and the ship operation will have to
slow down or stop. Stacking of containers in the container yard carries out by
equipment separate from that used in quay transfer; the effect of insufficient yard
stacking equipment is to hold up quay transfer. Quay transfer equipment waits in
container yard for inbound containers or for outbound containers to be delivery from
it. Low transfer rate of quay transfer operation causes delay to the ship and container
yard operations. It also causes difficulty for receipt and delivery activities, as inland
transport vehicles wait for equipment to move outbound containers from.

Clearly, it’s vitally important for those planning and supervising terminal operations
to understand the inter-relationships of the various operations and to recognize the
dangers and symptoms of the component operations going out of balance. The
important thing to remember is that ‘demand’ (i.e. the quantity of work requires) for
a particular operation varies from hour to hour. So, continual adjustments have to be
made between those components, moving resources from one to another as demand
varies and as loading/discharging and receipt/delivery activities.

3.0 Methodology
An extensive secondary data collected from operation and statistic departments of
Malaysian Port. The secondary data used for ship operation delay analyses. An
extensive observation and pilot tests data have been done. After that, the
questionnaires data collected from Malaysian Port. Primary data obtained from
interviews with relevant groups from operation department, operation labour
management and prime mover contractors of Malaysian Port. The respondents are
managers, executives, QC crane operators, PM operators and RTG crane operators.
The questionnaires data are used for quay transfer and container yard operation delay
analyses. The survey includes 20% of members from each group (Sekaran, 2000). So,
this study fulfilled the minimum requirement. Statistical Package Social Science
(SPSS) used for statistical analyses. The analyses presented in the form of correction
and table.

4.0 Result and Discussion

4.1 Ship Operation

Table 1 shows the Spearman correlations analysis for stevedore delays on ship
operation. Result from table 1 indicates that shift change (SC), waiting for PM (WP)
and hatch closing (HC) show r-values of 0.828, 0.716 and 0.713 respectively. It is
significant at two-tailed p-value of 0.01, and can be concludes that the correlation
coefficient is significant beyond the 1 per cent level. Therefore, shift change, hatch
closing and waiting for PM have a strong correlation with berth turnaround times. On

3
 2ND KUSTEM POSTGRADUATE SEMINAR

the other hand, crane breaks down (CB), unlashing/lashing (UNLS) and waiting
discharge plan (WD) shows r-value of 0.534, 0.504 and 0.503 respectively. All are
moderately correlate with berth turnaround times. Out of gauge (OOG) and crane
booms up (CU) with r-value 0.374 and 0.281 respective are shown in table 3.8. Both
are weakly correlate with berth turnaround times. For system failures (SF), the r-
value is -0.012 though the significant value is 0.620 (above 0.05). It indicates that the
correlations between berth turnaround times and system failures are not significant,
and the two variables are not linearly related.

Table 1 Spearman correlations analysis for stevedore delays on ship operation

Correlations a

Berth
Turnaround
Time
Spearman's rho Berth Turnaround Time Correlation Coefficient 1.000
Sig. (2-tailed) .
Out of Gauge (OOG) Correlation Coefficient .374**
Sig. (2-tailed) .000
Waiting Discharge Plan Correlation Coefficient .503**
Sig. (2-tailed) .000
Crane Breaks Down Correlation Coefficient .534**
Sig. (2-tailed) .000
Hatch Closing Correlation Coefficient .713**
Sig. (2-tailed) .000
Shift Change Correlation Coefficient .828**
Sig. (2-tailed) .000
Unlashing/Lashing Correlation Coefficient .504**
Sig. (2-tailed) .000
System Failures Correlation Coefficient -.012
Sig. (2-tailed) .620
Waiting for PM Correlation Coefficient .716**
Sig. (2-tailed) .000
Crane Booms Up Correlation Coefficient .281**
Sig. (2-tailed) .000
**. Correlation is significant at the .01 level (2-tailed).
a. Listwise N = 1606

For Spearman correlations test, the variables would be acceptable if the r-value is
equal or above 0.7. Therefore, shift change (SC), waiting for PM (WP), and hatch
closing (HC) are accept which show significant relationship with berth turnaround
times. Besides, crane breaks down (CB), unlashing/lashing (UNLS), waiting
discharge plan (WD), Out of gauge (OOG), crane booms up (CU) and system
failures (SF) are reject which shown no significant relationships between berth
turnaround times.

4
 2ND KUSTEM POSTGRADUATE SEMINAR

According to usual sequence, shift change, waiting for PM, hatch closing, crane
breaks down, unlashing/lashing, waiting discharge plan, out of gauge, and crane
booms up show a positive relationship, although some show a weak relationship.
However, system failure shows a very weak non-significant negative relationship, it
may be cause by a few cases happening during the operation.

4.2 Quay Transfer Operation

According to the Handbook for Total Quality Management (Sarkar, 2000), data from
questionnaires can be analyses in table format. For analysis purposes, frequency of
delay factor categories in such a way that 1 to 3 is ‘seldom’; 4 to 7 is ‘moderately’
and 8 to 10 is ‘often’ (many times) occurs on quay transfer operation.

Table 2 shows the percentage and frequency for quay transfer operation delays
analysis. Table 2 shows that 37.8% of respondents rate waiting game plan as 1
(seldom), but only 2.0% of respondents rate 10 (often). On the other hand, waiting
for incoming vessels, 21.4% of respondents rate 2, but only 4.1% of respondents rate
10. Then, 21.4% of respondents rate 4, but only 1.0% of respondents rate 9 waiting
for QC. Next, waiting for RTG have 29.6% of respondents rate 8, but only 2.0% of
respondents rate 5. For distant between yard and berth, 23.5% of respondents rate 5
and 6 but only 1.0% of respondents rate 1 and 9. For OOG, 22.5% of respondents
rate 3 but only 2.0% of respondents rate 9. For PM breaks down, 19.4% of
respondents rate 6 but only 2.0% of respondents rate 9 and 10. Then, shift change has
24.5% of respondents rate 3 but only 2.0% of respondents rate 5. Next, system
failure has 15.3% of respondents rate 1 and 2 but only 2.0% of respondents rate 9.
Finally, human factor has 14.3% of respondents rate 2 and 7 but only 2.0% of
respondents rate 10.

The summary result in table 2 shows the respondents rate waiting for RTG (29.6%)
‘often’ occur on quay transfer operation. Next, respondents rate distant between yard
and berth (23.5%) has ‘moderate’ delays for the quay transfer operation. Other
respondents rate waiting for QC and PM break down respectively to be a ‘moderate’
delays factor (21.4% and 19.4%). ‘Seldom’ delay factors rate by respondent are
waiting game plan (37.8%), shift change (24.5%), out of gauge (22.5%), waiting for
incoming vessels (21.4%) and system failure (15.3%). However as for human factors,
as a delay factor, respondents rate is at two tiers between ‘seldom’ and ‘moderate’. In
this case, it needs to be further study.

5
 2ND KUSTEM POSTGRADUATE SEMINAR

Table 2 Percentage and frequency for quay transfer operation delays analysis
Variables 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Total
Waiting
Game
Plan 37.8 15.3 12.3 8.2 12.2 7.1 5.1 0.0 0.0 2.0 100.0
37 15 12 8 12 7 5 0 0 2 98
Waiting
for
Incoming
Vessels 6.1 21.4 12.3 14.3 16.3 8.2 6.1 6.1 5.1 4.1 100.0
6 21 12 14 16 8 6 6 5 4 98
Waiting
for QC 11.2 18.4 19.4 21.4 9.2 12.2 4.1 3.1 1.0 0.0 100.0
11 18 19 21 9 12 4 3 1 0 98
Waiting
for RTG 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 4.1 20.4 29.6 24.5 19.4 100.0
0 0 0 0 2 4 20 29 24 19 98
Distant
between
Yard and
Berth 1.0 4.1 12.2 9.2 23.5 23.5 12.3 11.2 1.0 2.0 100.0
1 4 12 9 23 23 12 11 1 2 98
Out of
Gauge
(OOG) 11.2 21.4 22.5 10.2 12.3 6.1 10.2 4.1 2.0 0.0 100.0
11 21 22 10 12 6 10 4 2 0 98
PM
Breaks
Down 4.1 15.3 12.3 13.3 18.4 19.4 7.1 6.1 2.0 2.0 100.0
4 15 12 13 18 19 7 6 2 2 98
Shift
Change 3.1 14.3 24.5 13.3 2.0 9.2 14.3 7.1 5.1 7.1 100.0
3 14 24 13 2 9 14 7 5 7 98
System
Failures 15.3 15.3 11.2 9.2 14.3 12.3 14.3 6.1 2.0 0.0 100.0
15 15 11 9 14 12 14 6 2 0 98
Human
Factors 13.3 14.3 10.2 4.1 12.3 11.2 14.3 11.2 7.1 2.0 100.0
13 14 10 4 12 11 14 11 7 2 98

The two values for each of the variables refer to the (bold) percent and (underneath)
the frequency.

4.3 Container Yard Operation

Table 3 shows the percentage and frequency table for container yard operation delays
analysis. The method of categorizing the delay factor is similar to the quay transfer
operation. For waiting game plan, 24.1% of respondents rate 4 but only 4.4% of
respondents rate 8. As for waiting of PM, 24.1% of respondents rate 9 but only 1.1%
of respondents rate 2. Moreover, as for RTG break down, 33.0% of respondents rate
8 but only 1.1% of respondents rate 10. On the other hand, for shift change, 37.4% of
respondents rated 6 but only 4.4% of respondents rated 9. For system failures, 25.2%
of respondents rate 5 but only 4.4% of respondents rate 9. For RTG need for turning
900, 30.7% of respondents rate 8 but only 7.7% of respondents rate 2, 4 and 6. For
RTG needed shifting to other blocks, 38.4% of respondents rate 3 but only 2.2% of
respondents rate 10. For OOG, 43.9% of respondents rate 3 but only 5.5% of
respondents rate 1. For human factors, 26.3% of respondents rate 5 but only 1.1% of
respondents rate 1.

6
 2ND KUSTEM POSTGRADUATE SEMINAR

Table 3 Percentage and frequency for container yard operation delays analysis
Variables 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Total
Waiting Game
Plan 16.5 9.9 9.9 24.1 15.4 12.1 7.7 4.4 0.0 0.0 100.0
15 9 9 22 14 11 7 4 0 0 91
Waiting for
PM 0.0 1.1 2.2 4.4 12.1 9.9 18.7 22.0 24.1 5.5 100.0
0 1 2 4 11 9 17 20 22 5 91
RTG Breaks
Down 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.4 11.0 15.4 23.0 33.0 12.1 1.1 100.0
0 0 0 4 10 14 21 30 11 1 91
Shift Change 0.0 0.0 9.9 5.5 14.3 37.4 23.0 5.5 4.4 0.0 100.0
0 0 9 5 13 34 21 5 4 0 91
System
Failures 5.5 8.8 7.7 8.8 25.2 18.7 11.0 9.9 4.4 0.0 100.0
5 8 7 8 23 17 10 9 4 0 91
Need for
Turning 90
Degree 0.0 7.7 9.9 7.7 8.8 7.7 16.5 30.7 11.0 0.0 100.0
0 7 9 7 8 7 15 28 10 0 91
Need for
Shifting to
Other Blocks 0.0 16.5 38.4 6.6 6.6 5.5 12.1 6.6 5.5 2.2 100.0
0 15 35 6 6 5 11 6 5 2 91
Out of Gauge
(OOG) 5.5 25.3 43.9 18.7 6.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0
5 23 40 17 6 0 0 0 0 0 91
Human
Factors 1.1 3.3 12.1 17.6 26.3 12.1 8.8 8.8 6.6 3.3 100.0
1 3 11 16 24 11 8 8 6 3 91
The two values for each of the variables refer to the (bold) percent and (underneath)
the frequency.

For delay factors, respondents rate as ‘often’ are RTG break down (33.0%), needed
for turning 900 (30.7%) and waiting for PM (24.1%). Delay factors that rate as
‘moderate’ are shift change (37.4%), human factors (26.3%), system failures (25.2%)
and waiting game plan (24.1%). Finally, factors that rate as ‘seldom’ are out of gauge
(43.9%) and need for shifting to other blocks (38.4%).

5.0 Conculsion
The initial results show that three of nine sub-items of stevedore delays namely
waiting for PM (0.716), hatch closing (0.713) and shift change (0.828) have
significant relationship with berth turnaround times. However, waiting for PM is the
main delay factor. For quay transfer operation, the problem that ‘often’ affects the
operation causes by waiting for RTG. For container yard operation, the problem that
‘often’ affects the operation causes by RTG breaks down, RTG needs for turning 900
and waiting for PM. The results show waiting for vehicles as the main delay factor
on these three operations. Therefore, attention might be paid to vehicles and
machinery co-ordination. So, adjustments must be made from time to time based on
demand. For example, by increasing or decreasing the vehicles and machinery from
one site to another as demand varies according to time and space. The performances

7
 2ND KUSTEM POSTGRADUATE SEMINAR

of the terminal operation determines by a combination of vehicles and machinery

components.

Acknowledgement
We extend our sincere appreciation and indebtedness to Malaysian port operation
department, statistics department, human resource department, and technical
department for the guidance, support and encouragement. We extend our sincere
appreciation and indebtedness to KUSTEM and their funder for the guidance,
support and encouragement. We would also like to thank the reviewers of this paper
for they helpful suggestion.

Reference

Branch, A.E. 1986. Elements of Port Operation and Management. Chapmen and Hall
Ltd., New York. 240 Pages.

Bruzzone, A.G., Giribone, P., and Revetria, R. 1999. Operative Requirements and
Advances for the New Generation Simulators in Multimodal Container Terminals.
Proceedings of the 1999 Winter Simulation Conference. Pages 1243-1252.

Iris, F.A.V. and Rene, D.K. 2002. Transhipment of Containers at a Container

Terminal: An Overview. European Journal of Operational Research, Volume 147,
Issue 1, 16 May 2003. Pages 1-16.

Koh, P.H., Goh, J.L.K., Ng, H.S. and Ng, H.C., 1994. Using Simulation to Preview
Plans of a Container Port Operation. Proceedings of the 1994 Winter Simulation
Conference, Orlando, Florida, December.

Robert, J.M. 1994. Canadian Container Ports: How Have They Fared? How Will
They Do? Maritime Policy and Management, Volume 21, Number 3. Pages 207-217.

Sarkar, D. 2000. Handbook for Total Quality Management. Published by Infinity

Books, New Delhi. 197 Pages.

Thomas, B.J., Roach, D.K., Interface4 Ltd, and International Labour Office, 1994. A
Project by the International Labour Office (ILO). Financed by the Royal Government
of The Kingdom of The Netherlands. Port Development Programme. C.1.1 Container
Terminal Operations. 56 Pages.

Sekaran, U. 2000. Research Methods for Business: A Skill-Building Approach. John

Wiley & Sons, Inc, New York. 463 Pages.

Won, Y.Y. and Yong, S.C. 1999. A Simulation Model for Container-Terminal
Operation Analysis Using an Object-Oriented Approach. International Journal of
Production Economics, Volume 59, Issues 1-3, March 1999. Pages 221-230.