EFFICIENCY INDICATORS TO EVALUATE SERVICES IN PORT SERVICES: A PROPOSAL USING FUZZY-AHP APPROACH

Longaray, André Andrade; Gomes, Carlos Francisco Simões; Elacoste, Ticiane; Machado, Catia Maria dos Santos

doi:10.1590/0101-7438.2019.039.03.0437

André Andrade Longaray ^**Corresponding author

Universidade Federal do Rio Grande - FURG E-mails: longaray@yahoo.com.br, ticiane_rg@hotmail.com, catiamachado.furg@gmail.com

http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2908-9390

Carlos Francisco Simões Gomes

Universidade Federal Fluminense - UFF E-mails: cfsg1@bol.com.br

Ticiane Elacoste

Universidade Federal do Rio Grande - FURG E-mails: longaray@yahoo.com.br, ticiane_rg@hotmail.com, catiamachado.furg@gmail.com

Catia Maria dos Santos Machado

Universidade Federal do Rio Grande - FURG E-mails: longaray@yahoo.com.br, ticiane_rg@hotmail.com, catiamachado.furg@gmail.com

*Corresponding author

Linguistic variable	Fuzzy Number	The reciprocal number of the Fuzzy Number
Equal	(1, 1, 3)	(0.3333; 1; 1)
Weak	(1, 3, 5)	(0.2; 0.3333; 1)
Strong	(3, 5, 7)	(0.1428; 0.2; 0.3333)
Very Strong	(5, 7, 9)	(0.1111; 0.1428; 0.2)
Absolute	(7, 9, 9)	(0.1111; 0.1111; 0.1428)

Authors	Fuzzy AHP Approach	Method
^{Ding and Tseng (2012}20 DING J & TSENG W. 2012. Applying fuzzy AHP approach to evaluate key operational safety elements for exclusive container terminals of Kaohsiung port in Taiwan. Wseas transactions on mathematics, 11(10): 855-865.)	It was applied to identify and assist port administration with respect to se- curity risks at the container terminal at Kaohsiung Port in Taiwan.	The authors use the triangular fuzzy num- ber and the ^{Chang (1981}15 CHANG W. 1981. Ranking of fuzzy utilities with triangular membership functions. In: Proceeding of International Conference on Policy Analysis and Information Systems. pp. 263-272.) method for defuzzification.
^{Chou and Yu (2013}17 CHOU CC & YU KW. 2013. Application of a new hybrid fuzzy AHP model to the location choice. Mathematical problems in engineering.)	It was applied to evaluate the competitive environmental relations among the sites of international distribution centers within the ports of the Asian region.	The authors adopt the triangular fuzzy number and the ^{Chang (1981}15 CHANG W. 1981. Ranking of fuzzy utilities with triangular membership functions. In: Proceeding of International Conference on Policy Analysis and Information Systems. pp. 263-272.) method for defuzzification.
^{Chiu et al (2014}16 CHIU RH, LIN LH & TING SC. 2014. Evaluation of green port factors and performance: a fuzzy AHP analysis. Mathematical problems in engineering.)	It was used to assist port organizations in choosing the priority attributes of the green port operation, that is, a sustainable port concept that minimizes environmen- tal pollution. The approach was applied to the ports of Kaohsiung, Taichung and Keelung in Taiwan.	The researchers use the triangular fuzzy number. However, they do not comment on the defuzzification method applied.
^{Hsuet al (2015}31 HSU WKK, YU HF & HUANG SHS. 2015. the service requirements of dedicated container terminals: a revised IPA model with fuzzy AHP. Maritime policy & management, 42(8): 789-805.)	It was used in the container terminal at Evergreen Marine Corp. (EMC), in the port of Kaohsiung, to measure the impor- tance, satisfaction, and dissatisfaction of users in relation to the services provided by EMC. In addition, it helps to identify problems and improve the quality of EMC services.	The researchers use the method of Kauf- mann and Grupta (1988) for defuzzifica- tion and the triangular number that were used in the present study.
^{Palacio et al (2015}44 PALACIO BAD & LOZANO S. 2015. A decision-making model to design a sustainable container depot logistic network: the case of the port of Valencia. Transport., pp. 1-12.)	It was used to determine the environmen- tal impacts of container deposits at the Port of Valencia in Spain.	The triangular fuzzy number and the method proposed by ^{Kwong and Bai (2003}35 KWONG CK & BAI H. 2003. Determining the importance weights for the customer requirements in QFD using fuzzy AHP with an extent analysis approach. IIE Transactions, 35(7): 619-626.) are the ones used by the authors.
^{Beșikçi et al (2016)}5 BESIKCI EB, KECECI T, ARSLAN O & TURAN O. 2016. An application of fuzzy AHP to ship operational energy efficiency measures. Ocean Engineering, 121: 392-402.	It was used to calculate the quantita- tive importance of each factor, prioritiz- ing the operational measures of energy ef- ficiency of ships, and thus, helping the decision-making in the shipping industry.	The triangular number is applied in this work, but the method used for the defuzzification is not mentioned.

Indicators of economicity	C ₁	Average port charges for ships	Indicates the port taxes paid by the ship-owners or owners of goods, by the movement of cargoes in the port area.
	C ₂	Average price of terminal use by ships	Indicates the average price of the amounts paid by the port operator or owner of mer- chandise to the lessees for the use of the terminal.
	C ₃	Average labor price	Indicates the average value of the single labor employed in the loading / unload- ing operations, for each terminal or set of cribs.
	C ₄	Average price of handling equip- ment use	Indicates the average value of the rental of equipment used in the loading / unloading operations, in each terminal or set of cribs.
	C ₅	Average cost of entry and exit of ships	Indicates the average cost of the ship for each terminal or set of berths.
	C ₆	Average handling cost	Indicates the difference between the prices charged by the operator or lessee and the costs incurred in supplementary operations.
Quality indicators - service	C ₁	Average waiting time of ships	Indicates the quality of service, in terms of time spent waiting for mooring ships to each terminal or set of berths.
	C ₂	Average service index	It reports the relationship between the time the terminal or set of cribs was occupied and the total time of availability.
	C ₃	Average level of service	Indicator of promptness of the attendance to the ships, correlated the waiting time with the mooring time or service.
Quality indicators - reliability	C ₁	Responsible practices for the consumption of natural resources: qualification, environmental training, education, and environmental awareness.
	C ₂	Use of equipment and products with low energy consumption, reducing environmental impact (efficient consumption, rational use of energy, and others)
	C ₃	Prevention and control of environmental impacts: fines due to environmental accidents.

	C ₁	C ₂	C ₃	C ₄	C ₅	C ₆
C ₁	(1, 1, 1)	(0.72; 0.99; 1.45)	(0.66; 1.04; 1.93)	(0.89; 1.45; 2.59)	(1.05; 1.89; 2.85)	(1.30; 2.19; 3.50)
C ₂	(0.80; 1.04; 1.61)	(1, 1, 1)	(0, 62; 0, 99; 1, 87)	(0.96; 1.58; 2.89)	(0.70; 1.27; 2.50)	(0.55; 0.99; 2.08)
C ₃	(0.59; 0.94; 1.74)	(0.62; 0.99; 1.87)	(1, 1, 1)	(0.62; 0.99; 2.01)	(1.60; 2.96; 5.36)	(1.48; 2.50; 4.47)
C ₄	(0.38; 0.68; 1.10)	(0.40; 0.63; 1.20)	(0.49; 0.85; 1.59)	(1, 1, 1)	(1.08; 2.53; 4.37)	(1.18; 1.82; 3.55)
C ₅	(0.34; 0.52; 0.93)	(0.35; 0.62; 1.41)	(0.21; 0.31; 0.72)	(0.22; 0.39; 0.91)	(1, 1, 1)	(0.79; 1.29; 2.76)
C ₆	(0.28; 0.59; 0.7643)	(0.55; 0.99; 2.08)	(0.25; 0.38; 0.78)	(0.32; 0.54; 0.98)	(0.36; 0.60; 1.25)	(1, 1, 1)

	C ₁	C ₂	C ₃
C ₁	(1, 1, 1)	(2.9671; 5.7755; 6.6636)	(0.8395; 1.1825; 2.1084)
C ₂	(0.1678; 0.216; 0.3649)	(1, 1, 1)	(0.5893; 0.8955; 1.4839)
C ₃	(0.5515; 0.8395; 1.3835)	(0.667; 1.1118; 1.6773)	(1, 1, 1)

	C ₁	C ₂	C ₃
C ₁	(1, 1, 1)	(0.8546; 1.5217; 2.8625)	(0.7304; 1.4146; 2.7282)
C ₂	(0.4767; 0.6524; 1.599)	(1, 1, 1)	(1.8529; 2.5672; 4.9854)
C ₃	(0.5016; 0.7007; 1.8734)	(0.3201; 0.3867; 0.8629)	(1, 1, 1)

Criterion	Indicator	Weight
C ₃	Average labor price	20.43%
C ₁	Average price of port charges to the ships	19.47%
C ₄	Average price of handling equipment use	18.30%
C ₂	Average price of terminal use by ships	17.47%
C ₅	Average cost of entry and exit of ships	12.58%
C ₆	Average handling cost	11.71%

Criterion	Indicator	Weight
C ₁	Average waiting time of ships	72.12%
C ₃	Average level of service	22.49%
C ₂	Average cradle occupancy rate	5.38%

Criterion	Indicator	Weight
C ₂	Use of equipment and products with low energy consumption, reducing en- vironmental impact (efficient consump- tion, rational use of energy, and others)	39.24%
C ₁	Responsible practices for the consump- tion of natural resources: qualification, environmental training, education, and environmental awareness	37.67%
C ₃	Prevention and control of environmen- tal impacts: fines due to environmental accidents	23.07%

\begin{matrix} C_{1} \\ C_{2} \\ ⋮ \\ C_{n} \end{matrix} [\begin{matrix} (1, 1, 1) & \dots & (l_{1 n}, m_{1 n}, u_{1 n}) \\ (l_{21}, m_{21}, u_{21}) & \dots & (l_{2 n}, m_{2 n}, u_{2 n}) \\ ⋮ & ⋮ & ⋮ \\ (l_{n 1}, m_{n 1}, u_{n 1}) & ⋱ & (1, 1, 1) \end{matrix}]

[1] *Corresponding author

Brasil

Brasil

EFFICIENCY INDICATORS TO EVALUATE SERVICES IN PORT SERVICES: A PROPOSAL USING FUZZY-AHP APPROACH

ABSTRACT