See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/254192712

A Six Sigma framework for marine container terminals

Article in International Journal of Lean Six Sigma · August 2011

DOI: 10.1108/20401461111157196

CITATIONS READS
19 7,286

3 authors, including:

Jafar Sayareh
Chabahar Maritime University
53 PUBLICATIONS 202 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Jafar Sayareh on 19 August 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/2040-4166.htm

Six Sigma
A Six Sigma framework for framework
marine container terminals
Amir Saeed Nooramin
Faculty of Maritime Economics and Management, 241
Khoramshahr University of Marine Science and Technology,
Khoramshahr, Iran, and
Vahid Reza Ahouei and Jafar Sayareh
Faculty of Marine Engineering, Chabahar Maritime University, Chabahar, Iran

Abstract
Purpose – This research uses an optimisation model, based on the Six Sigma methodology, which
assists marine container terminal operators to minimize trucks’ congestions, as a defect in the global
containerisation and smoothing the gate activity to reduce trucks’ turn-around times. The main
purpose of this paper is implementing the Six Sigma in the landside of marine container terminals to
reduce the average number of trucks in queues and average trucks’ waiting times in both entrance and
exit gates.
Design/methodology/approach – This study examines the applicability of the DMAIC method
along with the SIPOC, cause and effect diagram, and failure mode and effect analysis (FMEA).
Findings – In this paper, Six Sigma methodology is found as an accurate optimisation tool in marine
container terminals. Risk Priority Numbers obtained from the FMEA analysis denote that additional
control procedures and associated inspections are needed as monitoring tools on the working time and
activity of weighbridge operators and truck’s drivers. In addition, serious consideration should be
given to operator’s performance appraisal and improving the administrative systems.
Research limitations/implications – This study was carried out with some boundaries; like the
complex operational system in marine container terminals, available data, time constraints, training
the team members and controlling the implemented obtained results.
Originality/value – To date, no study has adequately examined the Six Sigma methodology in
marine container terminals as an optimisation tool for reducing trucks’ congestion. The challenging
issues inherent this problem and the limitation of existing research, motivates this study.
Keywords Six Sigma, DMAIC, FMEA, Container terminal, Truck congestion, Turn time, Iran
Paper type Research paper

1. Introduction
In general, container terminals can be described as open systems of material flow with
two external interfaces. These interfaces are the quayside designed for loading and
unloading of ships and the landside where containers are loaded and unloaded on/off
the trucks (Steenken and Vob, 2004). Most terminals are taking measures to increase
their throughput and capacity by (Huynh and Walton, 2005):
.
introducing new technologies;
.
optimising equipment dwell-times; International Journal of Lean Six
Sigma
Vol. 2 No. 3, 2011
The authors would like to express their gratitude to Professor Antony, University of Strathclyde, pp. 241-253
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
Professor Gitlow, University of Miami, and Dr Banuelas, Rolls Royce plc., for their invaluable 2040-4166
comments, which improved the quality of the paper. DOI 10.1108/20401461111157196
IJLSS .
increasing storage density;
2,3 .
optimising ship turn-around times; and
.
optimising truck turn-around times.

In today’s global marketplace, container terminals are regarded as Server-Customer

(Queue) systems wherein servers and customers are variable based on the different
242 operational viewpoints. Figure 1 shows the Server-Queue system designed based on
the purpose of this study.
In this paper, Six Sigma methodology is used to find and reduce defects in the server
(gate area) and improve customer satisfaction via decreasing the turn-around time of
the trucks, truck’s queue and reduction of the overall transfer cost of containers in their
supply chain cycle.

2. Review of related literature

A great variety of container terminals exists, mainly depending on which type of
handling equipments combined to form a terminal system. Khoshnevis and Asef-Vaziri
(2000) defined three performance analysis variables including throughput, space
utilisation and equipment utilisation. Kozan (2000) discussed the major factors
influencing the transfer efficiency of seaport container terminals by developing a
network model. Nishimura et al. (2001) implemented Lagrange’s method for optimising
the container yard operation. Similar studies in this field have been carried out by Nam
and Ha (2001), Lie et al. (2002), Vis and De Koster (2003) and Murty et al. (2003).
Berth planning problems may be formulated as a different combination of optimisation
problems, depending on the specific objectives, and restrictions that have to be observed.
Legato and Mazza (2001), Nishimura et al. (2001), Imai et al. (2005) and Moorthy and Teo
(2006) have all carried out numerous studies on berth planning problems. Lee and Chen
(2009) have optimised the berth operation by evaluating different arrival patterns.
Nowadays, the logistics activities, especially at large container terminals, have
reached a degree of complexity that further improvements are required for the interaction
of scientific solutions. Simulation models have become the viable tools for decision
making in port activities. Kia et al. (2002) have investigated the role of computer
simulation in evaluating the performance of a container terminal in relation to its handling
techniques and the impact it makes on the capacity of terminal. Parola and Sciomachen
(2005) have presented a discrete event simulation modelling approach related

Queue
(waiting area)
Server
(gate) Lane change and
truck turning area

Figure 1.
Server-Queue system
in marine container
terminals
to the logistic chains of an intermodal network. Bielli et al. (2006) have provided a help-tool Six Sigma
in a port decision support system implementing simulation via Java environment. framework
Froyland et al. (2008) have presented an algorithm to manage the container exchange
facility, including the allocation of delivery locations for trucks and other container
carriers. Zeng and Yang (2009) have developed a simulation optimisation method for
scheduling the loading operations in container terminals.
The time trucks spend at a terminal for loading/unloading of cargo 243
(truck turn-around time) is a real cost scenario which affects the overall cost of the
container trade. Historically, truck turn-around times have received a very little attention
from terminal operators because landside congestions have never been a barrier to their
smooth operations. Truck turn-around times are the times that a truck takes to complete
an activity such as picking up an import container. As shown in the studies conducted by
Regan and Golob (2000), Klodzinski and Al-Deek (2002) and Huynh and Walton (2005), by
optimising the truck turn-around times and thereby the landside shipping cost, the
terminals would gain a competitive advantage in the industry. Murty et al. (2005) have
described a variety of inter-related decisions made during daily operations at a container
terminal. Their goal was to minimise the waiting time of customer trucks.
To date, no study has adequately examined the philosophy of Six Sigma in marine
container terminals as a managerial decision-making optimisation tool in
strategic/operational levels. The challenging issues inherent this problem, and the
limitation of existing research, robustly motivates this study.

3. Problem statement for the case study

The objective of this case study is to minimise trucks’ congestions at the main gates of
the container terminal of the Shahid Rajaee Port Complex (SRPC), the major Iranian
seaport, and hence to reduce the truck’s turn-around times.
Generally, weighbridges are regarded as one of the main hindered movement
stations in port operation, which cause long queues of trucks. The SRPC is equipped
with six main automatic weighbridges in following patterns:
.
two are located near the main entrance of the gate complex;
.
two are located near the exit gate; and
. two are located at the transit yard where only one of them is operational.

Even though the case study is unique and distinctive of its kind, the general processes
and characteristics are similar to a typical container terminal as shown in Figure 2.
Since there are usually long queues of trucks waiting in the container yard for
weighting operation, this case study develops a Six Sigma model to find problems,
defects and barriers in weighting operation, and proposes operational solutions
for reducing truck’s waiting times via smoothing the gate activities.

Gate Road/vessel crane

Quayside operation

Wieghbidges Delivering export Figure 2.

Enter Road trucks containers Process of
loading/discharging
Container operation in marine
Exit Road trucks Picking up import container terminals
containers
IJLSS 4. Case study
2,3 This case study examines bottlenecks in the loading and/or unloading process by
examining the following four main patterns with the objectives of reducing truck’s
turn-around times:
(1) arrival pattern of trucks at the main entrance of the gate complex;
(2) service pattern of weighbridges located at both the entrance and the transit
244 gates;
(3) departure patterns of trucks at main gate exit; and
(4) service patterns of weighbridges located at the main exit of the gate complex.

The data gathered from the container terminal of the SRPC during January
2008-December 2009 and are used for evaluation of test cases.
This study examines the applicability of the DMAIC method using the following
tools:
.
supplier – input – process – output – customer (SIPOC) chart;
.
cause and effect diagram; and
. failure mode and effect analysis (FMEA).

Indeed, the objective of this research is to reduce the truck congestion in the transit,
exit and entrance gates of SRPC, using the DMAIC method.

4.1 Define phase

Marine container terminals can be adequately modeled as supplier-customer systems.
Within them, different service patterns exist; thus SIPOC charts can be used for
analysing their vast operations. Figure 3 shows the SIPOC chart of the case study.
Analysis of the SIPOC chart proves that the optimisation of weighing operation is
an important step for reducing congestion, achieving customer satisfaction and saving
times/costs at loading/unloading operation of trucks. So, Critical to Quality (CTQ) will
be the waiting time of trucks, which are weighed at both entrance and exit gates.

Supplier Input Process Output Customer

Port operators Operators Container Cargo owners

Cargo owners Container Truck Railway

Bill of Lading Transport
Transport Train
(B/L) companies
companies
B/L
Truck Freight
Shipping lines forwarders

Figure 3.
SIPOC chart
(loading/unloading Inspection
Weighting Weighting Administrative Loading Administrative
Inspection
(by security (by security
operation of trucks) reciept operation processing unloading processing guards)
guards)
With respect to the defined CTQ, data collection phase was planned aiming to gather Six Sigma
data on waiting time of the entrance and exit gates for weighing operation of trucks. framework
4.2 Measurement phase
According to the definition of CTQs at the previous section, data for waiting time of
trucks in weighing operation at entrance and exit gates have been collected and shown
in Figures 4 and 5, respectively, using the MINITAB software. 245
The mean and standard deviations (SD) at the entrance gate are equal to 274.5 and
218.9, respectively. Figure 6 shows the individuals and moving range (I-MR) chart for
the waiting time of entrance gate baseline.
Figure 6 shows that the process mean and variation of waiting time of entrance gate is
not stable. The points of 50, 86.108, 162 and 219 in MR chart and a few ranges in I chart
are out of control which do not reveal any obvious cause of variation and process mean.
Values of the mean and SD for waiting time of exit gate are 777.3 and 531.9,
respectively. Figure 7 shows the I-MR chart of waiting time of exit gate.

Histogram of waiting time of entrance gate

50

40
Frequency

30

20

10

Figure 4.
0 Waiting time histogram of
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
trucks at the entrance gate
Waiting time of entrance gate (second)

Histogram of waiting time of exit gate

18
16
14
12
Frequency

10
8
6
4
2
0
Figure 5.
0 400 800 1200 1600 Waiting time histogram of
trucks at the exit gate
Waiting time of exit gate (second)
IJLSS I-MR chart of waiting time of entrance gate
800
2,3

Individual value
600

400 UCL = 366.5

X = 274.5
200 LCL = 182.5
246
0
1 25 49 73 97 121 145 169 193 217
Observation
800
Moving range

600

400
UCL = 113.0
MR = 34.6
200 LCL = 0
Figure 6.
I-MR chart for baseline 0
waiting time of entrance
1 25 49 73 97 121 145 169 193 217
gate data
Observation

I-MR chart of waiting time of exit gate

11 1 1 1111
1,600 11 1 1
11 1
1
1 1
Individual value

1
1,200 11 1 111
1 1 11
5 1
UCL = 893
800
X = 777
2 22 1 2 2 LCL = 662
1
400 1 11 1 1 11
1 1 11 1
1 1 11 11 1 1
0 11 1 1111 11 1
11 1
1 9 17 25 33 41 49 57 65 73
Observation

200 1

150
Moving range

UCL = 142.2

100
Figure 7. 50 MR = 43.5
Individual and moving
range chart for baseline 22
0 222 LCL = 0
waiting time of exit gate
1 9 17 25 33 41 49 57 65 73
data
Observation

The above I-MR chart indicates that the process mean and variation of waiting time of
entrance gate is not stable. The point of 40 in MR chart and the ranges between 1 and
41, also 49 and 78 in I chart are out of control which do not reveal any obvious cause of
variation and process mean.
Table I represents the DPMO before and after process improvement for main CTQs.
Project objective is to reduce the percentage of truck’s waiting time in the entrance
and exit gates, which are more than 330 and 990 seconds, respectively, to 0.62 per cent Six Sigma
for access to four sigma. framework
Cause and effect diagram is an analysis tool that provides a systematic way of
looking at the effects and at the causes that create or contribute to those effects (Kumar,
2006). Figure 8 shows the cause and effect diagram of the SRPC which is designed
based on the SIPOC chart.
As shown in the Figure 8, there are four main factors which cause the truck 247
congestion in the SRPC. These include:
(1) port operators which work on different parts of the SRPC;
(2) port equipments (including both the hardware and software);
(3) trucks and their drivers; and
(4) owners’ of import/export/transit containers.

4.3 FMEA
FMEA is a structured and qualitative analysis of a system or function which identifies
potential system failure modes, their causes and the effects on the system operation
associated with the failure mode’s accuracy (Gitlow and Levine, 2004; Kumar, 2006).
Table II tabulates the FMEA of the SRPC problem, obtained according to the results of
group brainstorming among the experts of the container terminal of the SRPC, based
on the cause and effect diagram.

Yield DPMO
CTQs Current (%) Desired (%) Current Desired
Table I.
Waiting time of entrance gate 60 99.38 400,000 6,210 Current and process
Waiting time of exit gate 65.6 99.38 344,000 6,210 performance for CTQs

Port equipment
Port operators
Equipment defects
Working hours
Hardware and software
Security guards
EDI implimentation
Accuracy Weighbridges
Crane operators Service patterns
Proficiency Landside cranes
Weighbridge operators Exhaustion

Truck congestion

Exit pattern of trucks

Port formalities
Drivers
Arrival pattern of trucks Bill of Lading

Custom formalities
Enter/exit processes Figure 8.
Traffic signs Cause and effect diagram
(loading/unloading
operation of trucks)
Trucks Cargo owners
IJLSS
Failure Current
2,3 mode Potential effect Severity Potential cause Occurrence control Detection RPN

Truck Dissatisfaction 10 Working time of 8 Indirect 8 640

congestion of customers weighbridge supervision
operators
248 Activity of 7 Indirect 7 490
weighbridge supervision
operators
Accident 9 Traffic signs 6 Video 3 162
supervision
Trucks’ drivers 5 No enough 9 405
supervision
Human error 8 Operators’ 6 Indirect 7 336
and fatigue accuracy supervision
Activity of 5 Indirect 6 240
weighbridge supervision
operators
Financial 7 Administrative 8 Indirect 8 448
penalties processing supervision
Increment of 6 Weighbridges 5 PM 5 150
trucks’ waiting malfunction
time Operators’ 2 Indirect 7 84
accuracy supervision
Table II. Container 5 Administrative 8 Indirect 6 240
FMEA for truck dwell time processing supervision
congestion at weighing Drivers 3 Traffic signs 4 Video 3 36
operation step confusion supervision

The analyse phase involves identifying the upstream variables (Xs) for each CTQ.
Upstream variables are the factors (Xs) that affect the performance of a CTQ (Gitlow,
2009). According to the results of the FMEA, followings are the main roots (Xs) of
congestion in the landside:
.
X1 ¼ Working time of weighbridge operators (Risk Priority Number
(RPN) ¼ 640): total working time of weighting operation during a working
day, X1 ¼ 0 when weighing operation time matches the working time of port.
.
X2 ¼ Activity of weighbridge operators (RPN ¼ 490): efficient work of
operators during a working day, X2 ¼ 0 when weighbridge operators have
done their job efficiently.
.
X3 ¼ Administrative processing (RPN ¼ 448): customs formalities for cargo
clearance and terminal formalities for transport documents such as bill of ladings
(B/Ls), X3 ¼ 0 when both, the customs and port formalities, are done
electronically based on the electronic commerce principles.
.
X4 ¼ Truck’s driver (RPN ¼ 405): familiarity of drivers with port environment,
X4 ¼ 0 when truck’s divers are familiar with port area and its formalities.
.
X5 ¼ Operator’s accuracy (RPN ¼ 336): accuracy of weighbridge operators in
doing their job with no error, X5 ¼ 0 when weighbridge operators are accurate
and there is no claim on their work.
Figure 9 shows the Pareto chart for the main Xs. Six Sigma
RPNs obtained from the FMEA table and Figure 9 denote that additional control framework
procedures and associated inspections are needed as monitoring tools on the working
time (X1) and activity of weighbridge operators (X2). Furthermore, administrative
systems (X3) and customs formalities should be under an accurate control system.
In addition, serious consideration should be given to truck’s drivers (X4) and operator’s
accuracy (X5). 249
4.4 Improvement phase
Improvement phase focuses on reducing the amount of variations found in the CTQ by
manipulating the five critical Xs; that is, X1 through X5. The main concept behind this
phase in the DMAIC method is that the suggestions are based on the analysis of the
cause and effect diagram and the FMEA table.
The results of the FMEA suggest that the most relevant potential causes to address
are operators’ working time (X1) and their activity (X2). The obtained results imply
that there should be changes made to the weighbridge operators process and weighting
process aiming to decrease variation in the CTQ.

4.5 Control phase

The purpose of the control phase is to make sure that improvements are sustained and
reinforced (Antony et al., 2006). In this phase, based on the FMEA, the following
necessary improvement and control actions are defined, as shown in Table III.
Control and improvement plans are defined based on the results of a workshop
among experts of SRPC. As shown in the Table III, suggested plans include operational

3,000
2,500 100

2,000 80
RPNs

(%)

1,500 60
1,000 40
500 20
0 0
rs

pe cks ing

ac rs

id raff cy

fu s

n
s

n
e o tor

tio
e p ato

s m sig
ra
to driv
s
ra

nc
Tr ces

cu
tiv per
dm br ope

ic
ro

'

al
'
rs
ei idge

T
in idg

u
ra

ge
r

ra
hb

h
ist
ity eig

br
gh
ct of w

ei
of

W
A
e
tim

iv
ng

A
ki
or

Main roots (Xs) of congestion

W

RPNs 640 490 448 405 336 162 150

Figure 9.
Percent 24.3 18.6 17.0 15.4 12.8 6.2 5.7
Pareto chart of main roots
Cum % 24.3 42.9 60.0 75.4 88.1 94.3 100.0 (Xs) of congestion
IJLSS
Item What is controlled? Requirements Improvement plan Control methods Frequency
2,3
X1 Working time of Three working Adjusting weighing Indirect Weekly
weighbridge shifts for operation with supervision by
operators operators working time of port employer
(24 hour)
250 X2 Activity of Good trained On the job training Direct Daily
weighbridge operators supervision by
operators employer
X3 Administrative Clear Using electronic B/Ls Direct Monthly
processing documentation/ and more coordination supervision by
Electronic between customs and middle and top
documentation port managers of port
X4 Truck’s driver Enough Install more direction Direct Daily
direction signs signs in port area supervision by
in port area port patrols
Table III. X5 Operator’s accuracy Good trained On the job training Direct Per
Control and improvement operators/ supervision by working
plans for the critical reports of employers shift (three
factors customers times/day)

solutions on direction sign installation, administrative solutions on training and

suggestions to improve cooperation among different authorities such as customs and
terminal.
Among all suggested plans for Xs, the X3 has long-term solution, i.e. its
improvement plan needs a long period of time for accomplishment, because it needs an
administrative cooperation between customs and terminal authorities. Thus, due to
lack of sufficient time, we have to only control X1, X2, X4 and X5.

4.6 Achieved benefits

Number of queuing lines and average waiting time of trucks are regarded as the main
parameters of a queuing system. Table IV presents the results of implementing the
proposed plans and their effects on reducing truck congestion in the port area.
As stated in Section 4.5, due to time constraint, only improvement plans for X1, X2,
X4 and X5 are accomplished in SRPC. The control plan data in Table IV are gathered
one month after implementing the proposed solutions for Xs, by Six Sigma team
members. As shown in Table IV, accomplishing improvement plans, in the case study
and controlling them regularly, caused a sensible reductions in truck congestion in
both of the entrance and exit gates weighbridges.

5. Conclusion
Six Sigma is an accurate systematic framework for quality improvement and business
excellence, which has never been academically used in marine container terminals.
This paper proposed a Six Sigma methodology aiming to reduce truck congestion in
marine container terminals via smoothing the gate activities, in particular weighting
process of trucks carrying import/export/transit containers.
The DMAIC method along with the SIPOC chart, cause and effect diagram, and
FMEA are used as analyses tools in this research, focusing on managerial operations in
the entrance and exit gates of the SRPC as the case study.
 Six Sigma
Item Present model Proposed plan Congestions reduction (%)
framework
Weighbridges Queuing Max. 25 6 76
of entrance number (Que.)
gate Ave. 9.31 0.8 91
(Que.)
Waiting Max. 727.6 103.2 86 251
time (Sec.)
Ave. 274.5 20.21 93
(Sec.)
Weighbridges Queuing Max. 34 3.5 89
of exit gate number (Que.)
Ave. 15.56 0.6 96
(Que.)
Waiting Max. 1667.9 123.2 93 Table IV.
time (Sec.) Achieved benefits of
Ave. 777.3 29.01 97 control and improvement
(Sec.) plans

Working time, activity and accuracy of weighbridge operators, drivers of trucks and
administrative processing were the main causes of trucks’ congestion in the SRPC.
According to the obtained results, followings should be considered for reducing
trucks’ congestion:
.
There should be more control on the weighbridges’ working time.
.
The service pattern of weighting operation should be modified and changed to
the normal distribution.
.
The activity of weighbridge operators should be under an accurate control system.
.
There should be new traffic signs in the landside area, aiming to reduce drivers’
confusion with the processes.
.
EDI should be implemented in the administrative processing, especially customs
formalities and B/Ls.

Accomplishing the improvement plans in the case study have caused sensible
reductions in transit, entrance gate and exit gate weighbridges.
Six Sigma is a statistic based analysis tool, which was imposed following
limitations on this study:
.
With respect to the complex operational pattern of marine container terminals,
a vast range of data is necessary for an accurate Six Sigma analysis.
.
Six Sigma requires massive training among team members, in particular in
implementation and control phases, which was imposed some delays during
research.
.
Control phase is the main limitation of this research, wherein it demands a long
period for implementing the obtained results of the study.
With regards to the mentioned limitations, it might be a good idea to model the control
phase with simulation software packages, such as Arena and Flexsim, and analyse the
simulated results with Six Sigma.
IJLSS References
2,3 Antony, J., Banuelas, R. and Kumar, A. (2006), World Class Application of Six Sigma, Elsevier,
London.
Bielli, M., Boulmakoul, A. and Rida, M. (2006), “Object oriented model for container terminal
distributed simulation”, European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 171, pp. 1731-51.
Froyland, G., Koch, T., Megow, N., Duane, E. and Wren, H. (2008), “Optimizing the landside
252 operation of a container terminal”, OR Spectrum, Vol. 30, pp. 53-75.
Gitlow, H. (2009), A Guide to Lean Six Sigma Management Skills, Taylor & Francis Group,
Boca Raton, FL.
Gitlow, H. and Levine, D. (2004), Six Sigma for Green Belts and Champions: Foundations, DMAIC,
Tools and Methods, Cases and Certification, Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Huynh, N. and Walton, M. (2005), “Methodologies for reducing truck turn time at marine
container terminals”, MS thesis, The University of Texas, Austin, TX.
Imai, A., Sun, X., Nishimura, E. and Papadimitriou, S. (2005), “Berth allocation in a container
port: using a continuous location space approach”, Transportation Research: Part B,
Vol. 39, pp. 199-221.
Khoshnevis, B. and Asef-Vaziri, A. (2000), 3D Virtual and Physical Simulation of Automated
Container Terminal and Analysis of Impact on In-Land Transportation, METRANS
Transportation Center, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA.
Kia, M., Shayan, E. and Ghotb, F. (2002), “Investigation of port capacity under a new approach by
computer simulation”, Computer and Industrial Engineering, Vol. 42, pp. 533-40.
Klodzinski, J. and Al-Deek, H. (2002), “Using seaport freight transportation data to distribute
heavy truck trips on adjacent highways”, Proceedings of the 82nd Transportation
Research Board Annual Meeting, 11 January, Washington, DC.
Kozan, E. (2000), “Optimizing container transfer at multimodal terminals”, Mathematical and
Computer Modeling, Vol. 31, pp. 235-43.
Kumar, D. (2006), Six Sigma Best Practices, J. Ross Publishing, Fort Lauderdale, FL.
Lee, Y. and Chen, C. (2009), “An optimization heuristic for the berth scheduling problem”,
European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 196, pp. 500-8.
Legato, P. and Mazza, R. (2001), “Berth planning and resources optimization at a container
terminal via discrete event simulation”, European Journal of Operational Research,
Vol. 133, pp. 537-47.
Lie, C., Jula, H. and Ioannou, P. (2002), “Design, simulation, and evaluation of automated container
terminals”, IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 12-26.
Moorthy, R. and Teo, C. (2006), “Berth management in container terminal; the template design
problem”, OR Spectrum, Vol. 28, pp. 495-518.
Murty, K., Liu, J., Wan, Y. and Linn, R. (2003), “A DSS (decision-support system) for operations in
a container terminal”, working paper, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI.
Murty, K., Liu, J., Wan, Y. and Linn, R. (2005), “A decision support system for operations in a
container terminal”, Decision Support Systems, Vol. 39, pp. 309-32.
Nam, K. and Ha, W. (2001), “Evaluation of handling systems for container terminals”, Journal of
Waterway, Port, Coastal and Ocean Engineering, Vol. 127 No. 3, pp. 171-5.
Nishimura, E., Imai, A. and Papadimitriou, S. (2001), “Berth allocation planning in the public
berth system by genetic algorithms”, European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 131,
pp. 282-92.
Parola, F. and Sciomachen, A. (2005), “Intermodal container flows in a port system network: Six Sigma
analysis of possible growth via simulation models”, International Journal of Production
Economics, Vol. 97, pp. 75-88. framework
Regan, A. and Golob, T. (2000), “Trucking industry perceptions of congestion problems and
potential solutions in maritime intermodal operations in California”, Transportation
Research: Part A, Vol. 34, pp. 587-605.
Steenken, A., Vob, S. and Stahlbock, R (2004), “Container terminal operation and operations 253
research – a classification and literature review”, OR Spectrum, Vol. 26, pp. 3-49.
Vis, I. and De Koster, R. (2003), “Transshipment of containers at a container terminal:
an overview”, European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 147, pp. 1-16.
Zeng, Q. and Yang, Z. (2009), “Integrating simulation and optimization to schedule loading
operations in container terminals”, Computers & Operations Research, Vol. 39, pp. 1935-44.

Further reading
Goh, T.N. (2002), “A strategic assessment for Six Sigma”, Quality and Reliability Engineering
International, Vol. 18, pp. 403-10.
Nishimura, E., Imai, A., Janssens, G. and Papadimitriou, S. (2009), “Container storage and
transshipment marine terminals”, Transportation Research: Part E, Vol. 45 No. 5,
pp. 771-86.
Schroeder, R.G., Linderman, K., Liedtke, C. and Cheo, A.S. (2008), “Six Sigma: definition and
underlying theory”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 26, pp. 536-56.
Tkac, M. and Lyocsa, S. (2009), “On the evaluation of Six Sigma projects”, Quality & Reliability
Engineering International, Vol. 26, pp. 115-24.

Corresponding author
Amir Saeed Nooramin can be contacted at: [email protected]

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: [email protected]

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

View publication stats