European Journal of Logistics, Purchasing and Supply Chain Management

Vol.6 No.4, pp.28-48, August 2018

___Published by European Centre for Research Training and Development UK (www.eajournals.org)
BENCHMARK AND COMPETITIVE ANALYSIS OF PORT PERFORMANCES
MODEL: ALGECIRAS BAY, ROTTERDAM, NEW YORK-NEW JERSEY AND
TANGIER MED
Ouail El Imran1* and Aziz Babounia2
1
Pursuing Ph.D. at the University Abdelmalek Essaadi of Tetouan - Morocco, Research
Laboratory: Management, Logistics, Governance and Applied Economics
2
Research Professor, National School of Commerce and Management - Kenitra, University
Ibn Tofail – Morocco

ABSTRACT: In this research paper four sea ports namely, Tanger Med, Algeciras Bay,
Rotterdam and New York-New Jersey has been taken into study to understand and evaluate
their efficiency of operations and benchmark them. Port efficiency is the measure of amount
of input and output and their ratio. Port efficiency is not solely dependent on port
performance. The port performance strategies of the case ports were studied and efficiency
variables were found through various literatures. To analyze input and output variables of
the ports, efficiency software named Data Envelopment Analysis Program was used to find
the most efficient ports. Then the variables for the most efficient ports were benchmarked and
ranked. A hypothetical port efficiency model has also been suggested for better efficiency of
the ports.
KEYWORDS: Ports, Efficiency, Benchmark, Performance, DEA

INTRODUCTION
Port Efficiency analysis
Port efficiency analysis is the methodology or the technique used to measure the ratio of
input and output of a port(Yang et al., 2011). Port plays a major role in a country’s economy
and development by providing international trade link, thus their efficiency is vital (Liu,
2010). Port efficiency is an important contributor to an international competitiveness and thus
is checked on key performance indicators (KPIs)(UNCAD, 2016). A port need not be
efficient alone, but also it needs to be effective in high and quality throughput given to
customers; shipper, ship-owners, and carriers.The relationship between demand of port’s
throughput services and the port process are known as the port’s throughput demand function
which also influence the port efficiency.There are various factors that affect the efficiency of
the ports(Nyema, 2014) like; capital investments, operational services (towing, pilotage,
mooring and others), customs clearing time, financial and other vessel operations (avg.
turnaround time, avg. vessel calls etc.). Analyzing these factors helps to evaluate the input-
output ratio of a particular port.
Container throughput and facility productivity is the main measure and indicator of port
performance for every Seaports (Babounia & EL Imrani., 2016). The selection andchoice of
the ports by freight carriers are usually based on the feasibility of the sea route, port rates,
hinterland connectivity, port infrastructure and port capacity(Ruto & Datche, 2015). Efficient
port governance is thereby very important in driving the decisions of the freight carriers
which in turn will help the ports to perform well. Physical quantities of items, scale or scope

28
ISSN 2054-0930 (Print), ISSN 2054-0949 (Online)
 European Journal of Logistics, Purchasing and Supply Chain Management
Vol.6 No.4, pp.28-48, August 2018
___Published by European Centre for Research Training and Development UK (www.eajournals.org)
of activities, levels of effort expended and the efficiency in converting resources into some
kind of product evaluates the efficiency of a Port. In most of the private corporations the
outcome measures are evaluated on finances and asset utilization(Mpogolo, 2013). Efficiency
focused ports measure their performance on the basis of financial statement, marketing
activities of comparison between years and competitors and other similar strategies with the
intentions of expanding gross margin (Bozuwa et al., 2012).

Overview of Case Ports

Port of Tanger Med is located in the African country of Morocco is the newest port which
opened in FY2007 and has a very strategic location at the slopes of Strait of Gibraltar and the
Moroccan coast is nearest to the Iberian Peninsula (Tanger Med Port Authority, 2014).
Average ports of call for Africa and Senator Lines are 51 counts(Tanger Med Port Authority,
2016a). The port is committed to quality and environmental approach in maintaining the
performance of the port.The port has been reported to handle containers of 0.6million TEU
and an operational income of $527,906 for the FY2015. For the FY2016 the total tonnage has
been reported to 4.4million TEU(Tanger Med Port Authority, 2016a). Recently, to improve
the efficiency of the port, the port authorities have agreed to installation of 68 new industrial
projects in Tanger Med complex, along with plans for private investments of $939 million
and create 6,547 new jobs(Tanger Med Port Authority, 2016b).These projects will include 13
new industrial units in the automotive sector, 11 units in textile, 2 units in aeronautics, 9
logistics projects and 24 SME (micro, small and medium-sized enterprises) projects.
Port of Algeciras Bay is the oldest and EU’s busiest port and is located at Algeciras Bay and
Tarifa, at the southernmost Spain. Port of Algeciras Bay is located between the Atlantic
Ocean and the Mediterranean Seais connected to West Africa, Asia, North Europe, and the
Americas. Thisport is known for its natural shelter and deep-draft conditions which attracts
seafarers (Port of Algeciras Bay, 2015). Average ports of call for APL, Msersk Line and Zim
are 160 counts. It was recorded that the total cargo handling for the year 2015 was
4.52million TEUs and a net profit of $941,905(Port of Algeciras Bay, 2016). Port of
Algeciras Bay is mainly a transport hub and industrial center along with fishing
industry.They have mainly strengthened the port’s logistics and operations by cost
reductions, increased port capacity, maritime services and most importantly hinterland
connectivity. Moreover, they plan to develop a rolling motorway project to develop a new
intermodal service across the Strait of Gibraltar and linking the EU with the North of
Africa(Goodwin, 2015). The port authorities plan to achieve and handle more than 5 million
TEUs by FY2020. In 2015, the Port of Algeciras received 28,446 ship calls with both the
terminals serving more than 3,000 containerships very efficiently(Port of Algeciras Bay,
2016).
Port of Rotterdam, is Europe’s largest sea port, which is located in Netherlands has daily
routes to both the TangerMed and Algeciras Bay. The Port of Rotterdam has a busy
petrochemical industry and several oil refineries with 209million tonnes of liquid bulk as
reported in the FY2015(Port of Rotterdam, 2016a). Crude oil arrives by sea to be processed
and delivered to areas in The Netherlands, Germany, and Belgium. The port has also been
reported to have handled 461.2 million tonnes in total for the FY2015(Port of Rotterdam,
2016c). The port also handles energy, bio-based, LNG, break bulk, refining and chemicals
related cargo. The average port of call for 33 carriers is 72 counts. It has been analyzed that,
every year almost 30,000 sea route carrier and 110,000 inland carriers(Port of Rotterdam,

29
ISSN 2054-0930 (Print), ISSN 2054-0949 (Online)
 European Journal of Logistics, Purchasing and Supply Chain Management
Vol.6 No.4, pp.28-48, August 2018
___Published by European Centre for Research Training and Development UK (www.eajournals.org)
2016a).The port also aims torise and handle over 15 million TEUs by FY2020 and also to
remain the leading port in Europe(Port of Rotterdam, 2016c).
Port of New York and New Jersey is a major port in the USA which is well connected
through major sea routes to the other three case ports.The combined port together covers an
area of 40,000 meters and consists of small hinterland ports; “Port Newark, the Howland
Hook Marine Terminal, the Red Hook Container Terminal, the Elizabeth Port Authority
Marine Terminal”. The port also has 3 cruise terminals for passengers. It was reported that
the port had handled 112million tonnes of dry bulk and annual container handled about
3.7million TEU for the FY2015(PONYNJ, 2016). The average port of call for 18 carriers is
62 counts. The Council on Port performance maintains and looks after the port performance
and manages them. The council mainly focuses on four main objectives of improvement;
equipment, rail, operations and customer care which is reversibly linked by outreaching the
government and the community (PONYNJ, 2014).

Table 1: Summary of Case Ports

Port of New
Port of Tanger Port of Algeciras Port of
Features York-New
Med Bay Rotterdam
Jersey
Opening
Date 2007 1906 1962 1921
Morocco
(Slopes of Strait
of Gibraltar and Netherlands,
Location the Moroccan near German
coast is nearest Algeciras Bay and Ruhr district,
to the Iberian Tarifa, at the Paris and New York and
Peninsula) southernmost Spain London New Jersey
Europe, the The Major sea routes
Trade Americas, Asia West Africa, Asia, Netherlands, and connectivity
Routes and rest of North Europe, and Germany, and with three case
Africa the Americas Belgium ports as well
Ports of Call 51 160 72 62
Container, Oil,
Break bulk,
Large Parking
Container terminals, Area for Passenger
Complex
Bulk and break bulk transport terminal, Cargo
Includes
Tangier Med 1, terminals, oil/liquid vehicles, Airport, Cargo
2, Passenger’s terminals, Ro/Ro Passenger Railway,
port and TMPC terminals and terminal, Cargo Container and oil
center passenger terminals Railway terminals
112 million
tonnes of dry
Handling bulk and annual
Capacity container
461.2 million handled about
4.4 million TEU 4.52million TEUs tonnes 3.7 million TEU

30
ISSN 2054-0930 (Print), ISSN 2054-0949 (Online)
 European Journal of Logistics, Purchasing and Supply Chain Management
Vol.6 No.4, pp.28-48, August 2018
___Published by European Centre for Research Training and Development UK (www.eajournals.org)
Objectives of the Study
The objectives of this research paper are;
a. To investigate the different key performance indicators of the 4 case ports and
conduct port efficiency analysis
b. To benchmark ports on different parameters and determine which port is efficient in
which area.

METHODOLOGY
Key Performance Indicators
The port’s performance is evaluated by checking if actual throughput overcomes optimum
throughput (Vitsounis, 2012). Port performance indicators are divided into four categories
namely; “Ship Operations, Cargo Handling, Warehousing, and Inland
Transportation”(Marine Department of Hong Kong, 2006). Port’s poor performance depends
on dwell time, delay surcharge and ignorance by bigger ships due to insufficient
infrastructure.
Container terminals are the main drivers in the operational performance of a port by
minimizing ships turnaround time and subsequently maximizing the terminal throughput
(Pallis & Syriopoulos, 2007). The yard operations in container terminals is the busiest of all
the activities in the terminal (PwC, 2013). Container yard operation’s main aim must be to
promptly accommodate ships with minimum waiting time in port and with maximum use of
berth facilities (Ruto & Datche, 2015).
Quay length is other effective parameters in efficiency of container which scale on the ability
to handle more containers per one ship within one quay (Yang et al., 2011). Equipment and
machines in quay also contribute to the performance of the ports as they carry out loading and
unloading a container from a truck to a vessel or unloading a container from a vessel to a
truck or the vice versa (Babounia et al., 2016).
Alongside quay, Berths too are involved in improving the efficiency of the port terminals.
Berth’s number and length at a container terminal is one of the most important factor the
influences the performance and efficiency of the port (Yang et al., 2011).
Efficient cargo handling operations and adequate infrastructure helps avoid congestion and
are the indicators of efficient Port Infrastructure which ultimately improves trades and
container connectivity of the international trade(Langen et al., 2007). Improved waterfront
system, an advancement of infrastructure, includes; reduced human intervention by
automatization, low documentation time, Reduced cargo dwell time, Reduced port clearance
time, Advanced planning technologies, Ease of statistical data calculations, Enhanced audit
trails etc. (Ducruet et al., 2014).
Port dwell time, another influential factor, refers to the time spend by carriers within the port
or its extension (Liu, 2010). Cargo dwell time another important influential factior, is defined
as the “time between vessel arrival and container exit from the port facilities and less the
average dwell time more efficient is the seaport”(Slack & Comtoise, 2015; Pg. 3). Speed of

31
ISSN 2054-0930 (Print), ISSN 2054-0949 (Online)
 European Journal of Logistics, Purchasing and Supply Chain Management
Vol.6 No.4, pp.28-48, August 2018
___Published by European Centre for Research Training and Development UK (www.eajournals.org)
cargo handling is also very critical as faster ship loading and unloading will raise the ship
calls number. Since, the number of terminals is fixed; slow speed will cause the ship to
occupy the berth longer, which will delay the next vessel calling and causes a negative
impression(Jafari et al., 2013).
Financial indicator is the most important indicator of port performance for most of the
ports(UNCAD, 2016). Finance indicators include value added, profit, revenues, return on
capital employed and others. Value-added indicators refer to expenses on labour, depreciation
and profit, but they are difficult to measure and compare because of the diversity of the
activities involved.

Bi-Directional

Output Input Values

Values

Figure 1: A hypothetical model for Port Efficiency

32
ISSN 2054-0930 (Print), ISSN 2054-0949 (Online)
 European Journal of Logistics, Purchasing and Supply Chain Management
Vol.6 No.4, pp.28-48, August 2018
___Published by European Centre for Research Training and Development UK (www.eajournals.org)
Port efficiency is bi-directional as the input and output values towards port performance are
equally influential. Input values are applied for high port performance, while the output
values show the port efficiency. Many port efficiency models are present according to the
literature review.

Measuring Port Efficiency

Commonly used approaches to measure/analyze the efficiency/productivity include,
stochastic 17 frontier analysis (SFA), Data Envelopment analysis (DEA), Vector error model
(VEM), Corrected original least squares (COLS), Original least squares (OLS)(Beasley,
2017).Stochastic Frontier Analysis is a “parametric and stochastic approach to estimate
productive efficiency of ports” which is based on the approach that a terminal is efficient if it
produces a maximum output variables for a given inputs variables(Dong et al.,
2014).Secondly,Corrected Original Least Squares (COLS)is also a method of evaluating
ports efficiency using the parametric approach. It uses regression methods by calculating an
average lineby enclosing the data and correction of the line position. The corrected line can
then be measured against this frontier (Bates & Bates, 2007).Original Least Squares (OLS)
Estimation methodbasically uses a regression model so that the average line of the data is
adjusted(Chun & Keleş, 2010).
However, in this study DEA program was used to estimate production efficiency(Beasley,
2017). In this approach, the program maps out a production frontier based on information on
inputs and outputs. The degree of efficiency is assessed by the distance between the
observation and the frontier (Anderson, 2017). The throughput variables are contrasted to
check the output performance of the case ports. DEA programs use input and output weights
by as the basis of the efficiency calculation and such units can be classified into efficient and
inefficient organizations. In inefficient units, the values inform about the amount of input or
output variables required to become efficient.

The input variables used in this are; Infrastructure, Quay, Berths, Financial expenses while,
the output variable were; Tonnage, Net Income, Ship Turnaround time, Waiting time and
Vessel Calls.The variables were taken from secondary sources like annual reports of case
ports and literatures by researchers and shipping companies. Benchmarking of the factors can
be done manually by applying graphs and comparing the best performance of the ports in
figures. However, benchmarking of the factors cannot be reliable just on figures because it
does not show the efficiency measurement. Thus, DEA program was used so that efficiency
of the case ports be found and then the factors influencing port efficiency could be
benchmarked for the inefficient ports.

33
ISSN 2054-0930 (Print), ISSN 2054-0949 (Online)
 European Journal of Logistics, Purchasing and Supply Chain Management
Vol.6 No.4, pp.28-48, August 2018
___Published by European Centre for Research Training and Development UK (www.eajournals.org)
Table 2: Table for the DEA of Input variables

Algeciras New York-New

DMU Name Tanger Med Rotterdam
Bay Jersey
Berth Length
632.4 2124 40000 15000
(meters)
Berth Nos. 4 8 23 3
Quay Length
1600 600 89000 30000
(meters)
Quay Nos. 2 2 12 4
Expenses ($) 433433 2909608 1946974 2900652
Channel (meters) 18 15.2 12.2 13.7
Cargo Pier (meters) 18 12.2 9.1 13.7
Anchorage (meters) 18 23.2 13.7 13.7
Oil Terminal
18 15.2 10 15.2
(meters)

Table 3: Table for DEA of output variables

Algeciras New York-New

DMU Name TangerMed Rotterdam
Bay Jersey
Income ($) 527906 941905 733035 737005
Average Turnaround time (Days) 2.5 1 0.5 1.5
Average Waiting time (Hours) 14 9 7 10
Average Vessel calls 51 160 72 62
Exports Tonnage (million TEU) 0.92 12.5 5.4 10.6
Import Tonnage (million TEU) 14 39.5 5.7 26.1
Container handled (million
3 4.52 12.23 3.7
Tonnes)
Liquid Bulk (million Tonnes) 15.5 25.32 209.4 5.05
Dry bulk (million Tonnes) 2.1 1.6 82.6 112.01
General Cargo (million Tonnes) 111 61.16 6.9 38
(Note: DMU stands for decision making units and the Efficient Input/output Targets are the
variables(Ray, 2008); The ship turnaround time of the ports were taken from Ducruet et al.,
2014)
After the analysis of the performance models of the case ports and subsequent literatures it
was found that the benchmarked values for the port’s operations are; average turnaround
time, average waiting time, tonnage handled and average vessel calls.However, there are
other important benchmarking values; dwell time, crane moves per hour, time spent at
anchorage and others could not be evaluated due to lack of data, hence, the above mentioned
factors in table 2 and 3 has been analyzed.

34
ISSN 2054-0930 (Print), ISSN 2054-0949 (Online)
 European Journal of Logistics, Purchasing and Supply Chain Management
Vol.6 No.4, pp.28-48, August 2018
___Published by European Centre for Research Training and Development UK (www.eajournals.org)
Operational Efficiency of the Case ports
In this section, the performance and the efficiency of the case ports will be interpreted and
analyzed. Each output variable was individually analyzed against similar set of input
variables. Firstly Ship turnaround time was evaluated against similar input variables; quay
and berth, infrastructure, similarly the other output variables were also evaluated accordingly
to their input variable.

Contrasting Port Attributes

Expenses and Income ratio of Port Finances
From Figure 2 it can be interpreted that Tanger Med Port is the only one that has surpassed
the expense-income ratio (El Imrani & Babounia, 2016). This might implicate that the Tanger
Med port has most efficiently used their resources. While others had low income, might be
because they did not focus on financial performance.

Figure 2: Contrasting the Expenses and Income ratio of Port Finances

Average Turn-around time of Ships

From the Figure 3 it can be seen that the Port of Rotterdam (0.5days) had the least average
ship turnaround time (Ducruet et al., 2014). The accepted benchmarked value for the average
turnaround time of the case ports was 1.5 days. This means that the Port of Rotterdam, Port of
Algeciras Bay and New York-New Jersey port efficiently maintains its terminal operations.

35
ISSN 2054-0930 (Print), ISSN 2054-0949 (Online)
 European Journal of Logistics, Purchasing and Supply Chain Management
Vol.6 No.4, pp.28-48, August 2018
___Published by European Centre for Research Training and Development UK (www.eajournals.org)
Figure 3: Benchmarking the Average Turnaround time of Ships

Average ship waiting time

From the Figure 4 it can be interpreted that the Ports of Rotterdam (7hrs), Algeciras Bay
(9hrs) and NY-NJ (10hrs) has low ship waiting time. The accepted benchmark for the
average ship waiting time from the time of call to exit port was 9,25 hours. Tanger Med has
high waiting time For two reasons, firstly might be because they have low efficient
infrastructure (Ducruet et al., 2014),or, to take advantage of the infrastructure, one of the
points that is gaining in quality in Morocco, it is necessary that the reforms of “soft”
components accompany (Babounia A., El Imrani O., 2017).

Figure 4: Benchmarking the Average Ship waiting time

36
ISSN 2054-0930 (Print), ISSN 2054-0949 (Online)
 European Journal of Logistics, Purchasing and Supply Chain Management
Vol.6 No.4, pp.28-48, August 2018
___Published by European Centre for Research Training and Development UK (www.eajournals.org)
Average vessel call
The Figure 5 represents the average vessel calls by shippers and cargo carriers to the sample
ports. The accepted benchmark value for the case port vessel calls was 86. Thus from the
graph it can be seen that the Port of Algeciras Bay had the most number of vessel calls (160)
and also shows validity to the results from the fig.3 and fig.2 that low turnaround time and
low waiting time influences the number of vessel calls and carrier preferences (Ducruet et al.,
2014; Slack & Comtoise, 2015).

Figure 5: Benchmarking the Average Vessel calls

Tonnage handled
The figure 6 shows the representation of the tonnage handled in various sectors of the
terminal operations. Tanger Med port handled the most general cargo (111 m tonnes), while
the dry bulk was most handled by NY-NJ Port (112.01 m tonnes) and Liquid Bulk was most
handled by Port of Rotterdam (209.4 m tonnes). However, this tonnage cannot be suggested
for the most efficiently handled ports, but mainly because of the hinterland connectivity and
market demand. However, the export-import tonnage can be benchmarked for the most
efficient operational port, beacuase lesser the time for ship turnaround more the tonnage for
import and export loading and unloading. Port of Algeciras Bay had handled the most
amounts of imports (39.5 m TEU) and exports (12.5 m TEU). Thus, it again shows higher the
efficiency of port and ship operations, larger is the handling of export-import tonnage (Jafari
et al., 2013).

37
ISSN 2054-0930 (Print), ISSN 2054-0949 (Online)
 European Journal of Logistics, Purchasing and Supply Chain Management
Vol.6 No.4, pp.28-48, August 2018
___Published by European Centre for Research Training and Development UK (www.eajournals.org)

Figure 6: Graphical representation of tonnage handled

Port Efficiency Analysis

Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA) which shows either constant returns to scale (CRS) or
variable returns to scale (VRS) on the basis of the equality of the input-output bundleand
identical radial measures of technical efficiency (Proudlove, 2017). Using this tool the
variables were put in MS Excel and DOS command DEA software and the results were run
(Coelli, 2008). Below is the results table from the DEA tool of efficiency analysis of the
benchmark values of the case ports. This tool was used specifically to benchmark the port’s
efficiency by input oriented measures for every input and output variable (Mohammadi et al.,
2016). Radial models can be employed based on input or output discretionary or controllable
input-oriented or output-oriented. This is an input oriented data envelopment analysis. Radial
efficiency means “that a proportional input reduction or a proportional output augmentation
is the main concern in assessing the efficiency of the DMUs”(Fukuyama, 2014; Pg. 1968).

Input oriented efficiency value against Average Ship Turnaround time

This is the CRS DEA result for input oriented efficiency benchmarking. Here the input
variables were Berth Length, No. of Berths, Quay Length and No. of Quays and the output
variable was Ship’s turnaround time. From the Table 4 it can be seen that all the variables are
technically efficient for Tanger Med Port and Algeciras Bay Port, as the efficiency score is
equal to one. While for Rotterdam Port (0.035) and New York-New Jersey Port (0.800) there
was inefficiency of the input-output ratio. This means that for Port of Rotterdam have to do
additional improvement by decreasing inputs of 96.5% to become efficient (Port of
Rotterdam, 2016b). Again for NY-NJ Port they have to increase output and decrease input by
20% to become efficient (JOC, 2017).

38
ISSN 2054-0930 (Print), ISSN 2054-0949 (Online)
 European Journal of Logistics, Purchasing and Supply Chain Management
Vol.6 No.4, pp.28-48, August 2018
___Published by European Centre for Research Training and Development UK (www.eajournals.org)
Table 4: Table for Input oriented efficiency value against Average Ship Turnaround
time

Input Oriented CRS DEA

Case Ports or DMU Input Oriented Efficiency Value
Tanger Med 1.000
Algeciras Bay 1.000

Rotterdam 0.035
New York-New Jersey (NYNJ) 0.800
Mean 0.709

Input Slacks against Average Ship turnaround time

Table 5 shows the results of the Input Slacks. In Data Envelopment Analysis, slacks show a
unique value that can be explained on the basis of the excess input and minimal output even
after proportional slack change(Coelli, 2008). However, the role of slacks is in the context of
radial measures of efficiency. Tanger Med and Algeciras port had no slacks as they have an
input efficiency value of 1. While Rotterdam and NYNJ showed slack values for the input
variables berth length and quay length. The amount of the excess input that exists even after
the proportional change for Rotterdam Port were found to be 1264.824 (berth length) and
23040.000 (Quay length), while for NYNJ Port 11620.560 (berth length) and 6453.913 (Quay
length). Thus, the Rotterdam port can either lower their input or they can increase their output
by 1264.824 (berth length) and 23040.000 (Quay length), while the same can be performed
by New York-New Jersey Port by 11620.560 (berth length) and 6453.913 (Quay length).
Slack values lead to another assessment result that is the reference set. Reference set or also
known as peers are the set of efficient units from which an inefficient unit’s inefficiency can
be determined (Anderson, 2017). The peers or reference unit for Rotterdam and NYNJ Ports
is Tanger Med Port. This also means that the low efficiency ports, Rotterdam and NYNJ do
not have the best practice and their benchmark is Tanger Med port which has the best
efficiency in case of Berth and Quay operations.

Table 5: Table for Input Slacks against Average Ship turnaround time

Summary of Input Slacks

Case Ports or DMU Berth Length No. of Berths Quay Length No. of Quays
Tanger Med 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
Algeciras Bay 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
Rotterdam 1264.824 0.000 2775.652 0.017
New York-New Jersey 11620.560 0.000 23040.000 2.000
(NYNJ)
Mean 3221.346 0.000 6453.913 0.504

Input oriented efficiency against Average Ship waiting time and Input Slacks
In this table 6 the input variables were again berth length, no. of berths, quay length and no.
of quays, while the output variable was ship’s waiting time. From the efficiency test it was
seen that Tanger med and Algeciras ports had high efficiency with value of 1. However,

39
ISSN 2054-0930 (Print), ISSN 2054-0949 (Online)
 European Journal of Logistics, Purchasing and Supply Chain Management
Vol.6 No.4, pp.28-48, August 2018
___Published by European Centre for Research Training and Development UK (www.eajournals.org)
Rotterdam (0.087) and NYNJ (0.952) had low efficiency of port performance. Thus,
Rotterdam and NYNJ has to either decrease the input or increase the output by 91.3% and 5%
respectively to become efficient (JOC, 2017; Port of Rotterdam, 2016b). Again, by the
evaluation of input slacks, Rotterdam port can either lower their input or they can increase
their output by 3162.061 (berth length) and 6939.130 (Quay length), while the same can be
performed by New York-New Jersey Port by 13834.000 (berth length) and 8591.925 (Quay
length) and 2.381 (No. of Quays). The peers or reference unit for Rotterdam and NYNJ Ports
is Tanger Med Port.

Table 6: Table for Input oriented efficiency against Average Ship waiting time and
Input Slacks

DMU Input Oriented Summary of Input Slacks

Efficiency Value
Berth No. of Quay No. of
Length Berths Length Quays
Tanger Med 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
Algeciras Bay 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
Rotterdam 0.087 3162.061 0.000 6939.130 0.000
New York-New 0.952 13834.000 0.000 8591.925 2.381
Jersey (NYNJ)
Mean 0.760 4249.015 0.000 8591.925 0.606

Input oriented efficiency against Average Vessel Calls and Input Slacks
The table 7 shows the efficiency for the input variables berth length, no. of berths, quay
length and no. of quays against output variable Vessel calls. Evaluation for the efficiency of
the ports showed that Tanger med, Algeciras and New York-New Jersey ports had high
efficiency with value of 1. The output variable was the average of calls from every permanent
and temporary cargo carriers. Rotterdam port although had more than a hundred carriers with
port of calls but the average vessel calls on monthly basis was low, thus showing an
inefficiency of 0.155. However, the inefficiency can be tackled by increasing their output by
85% (Port of Rotterdam, 2016b). By the evaluation of input slacks, Rotterdam port can either
lower their input or they can increase their output by 1021.230 (berth length) and 4659.104
(Quay length). In this case the reference unit for the Rotterdam port is Algeciras port and
NYNJ port.
Table 7: Table for Input oriented efficiency against Average Vessel Calls and Input
Slacks

DMU Input Oriented Summary of Input Slacks

Efficiency Value
Berth No. of Quay No. of
Length Berths Length Quays
Tanger Med 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
Algeciras Bay 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
Rotterdam 0.155 1021.230 0.000 4659.104 0.000
New York-New 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
Jersey (NYNJ)
Mean 0.789 255.307 0.000 1164.776 0.000
40
ISSN 2054-0930 (Print), ISSN 2054-0949 (Online)
 European Journal of Logistics, Purchasing and Supply Chain Management
Vol.6 No.4, pp.28-48, August 2018
___Published by European Centre for Research Training and Development UK (www.eajournals.org)
Input oriented efficiency against Import and Export Tonnage and Input slacks
Table 8 shows the results of efficiency test with input variables berth length andquay length,
no. of berthsand no. of quays where the Import and Export Tonneage were the output
variables. The berth and quay operations of a port influence the Import and export tonnage.
Again, Rotterdam port was found to be the only inefficient port with 0.114 inefficiency value.
However, the Rotterdam port can either decrease the input or increase the output by 89% to
become efficient (Port of Rotterdam, 2016b). Evaluation of slacks showed that, Rotterdam
port had an excess input even after the proportional change of 750.978 and 3426.146 for
berth and quay length respectively. Thus, Rotterdam does not have the best practice and its
benchmark ports are Algeciras and NYNJ port which has the best efficiency in case of Berth
and Quay operations against export-import tonnage.

Table 8: Table for input efficiency against Import and Export Tonnage and Input slacks

DMU Input Oriented Summary of Input Slacks

Efficiency
Value Berth No. of Quay No. of
Length Berths Length Quays
Tanger Med 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
Algeciras Bay 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
Rotterdam 0.114 750.978 0.000 3426.146 0.000
New York-New 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
Jersey (NYNJ)
Mean 0.779 187.744 0.000 856.537 0.000

Input oriented efficiency against Container tonnage and input slacks

The input variables were the input variables berth length and quay length, no. of berths and
no. of quays whereas the Container handled are the output variables.. Since the input
variables contribute to part of port infrastructure and port infrastructure influences container
handling. Only Tanger med had inefficiency of 0.105, but can improve it efficiency by
increasing their output or lowering input by 89.5% (Imrani & Babounia, 2016). Its reference
point or peer value is that of Port of Rotterdam and can benchmark its values for high
efficiency. However, according to slacks value, Tanger med can decrease input or increase
output by 0.157 (berth nos.) and 0.481 (quay length) to become efficient.

Table 9: Table for efficiency against Container tonnage and input slacks

DMU Input Oriented Summary of Input Slacks

Efficiency Value Berth No. of Quay No. of
Length Berths Length Quays
Tanger Med 0.105 0.000 0.157 0.481 0.000
Algeciras Bay 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
Rotterdam 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
New York-New 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
Jersey (NYNJ)
Mean 0.776 0.000 0.039 0.120 0.000

41
ISSN 2054-0930 (Print), ISSN 2054-0949 (Online)
 European Journal of Logistics, Purchasing and Supply Chain Management
Vol.6 No.4, pp.28-48, August 2018
___Published by European Centre for Research Training and Development UK (www.eajournals.org)
Input oriented efficiency against Container tonnage and input slacks
In this DEA evaluation the input variables were Channel depth, Cargo pier length, Anchorage
depth and Oil terminal length against the output variable of Container handled. Since the
input variables contribute to port infrastructure and port structure influences container
throughput. From the table it can be seen that only Rotterdam port shows efficiency in case of
container throughput, while Tanger med (0.187), Algeciras (0.297) and NYNJ (0.303) shows
inefficiency. Thus, Tanger med, Algeciras and NYNJ can become efficient by either
decreasing input or increasing output by 82%, 71% and 70% respectively (El Imrani &
Babounia, 2016; JOC, 2017; Parola et al., 2016). Moreover, the slacks value shows that the
ports Tanger med could either lower their input or they can increase their output by 0.368
(berth length), 1.128 (berth nos.) and 0.908 (quay nos.). Algeciras Bay can also improve their
slacks by 0.256 (berth nos.), 1.819 (quay length) and 0.813 (quay nos.) and for New York-
New Jersey port 0.454 (berth length), 1.392 (berth nos.) and 1.573 (quay nos.). The ports
have their peer as Port of Rotterdam and benchmark it for the best practices towards port
performance.

Table 10: Table for efficiency test against container tonnage and input slacks

DMU Input Oriented Summary of Input Slacks

Efficiency Value
Channel Cargo Anchorage Oil
Depth Pier Terminal

Tanger Med 0.187 0.368 1.128 0.000 0.908

Algeciras Bay 0.297 0.000 0.256 1.819 0.813
Rotterdam 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
New York- 0.303 0.454 1.392 0.000 1.573
New Jersey
(NYNJ)
Mean 0.446 0.205 0.694 0.455 0.823

Input oriented efficiency against Container tonnage and input slacks

In this analysis the input variables were again Channel depth, Cargo pier length, Anchorage
depth and Oil terminal length against the output variable of dry, oil and general cargo bulks
handled by the port. From the table it can be seen that only Algeciras port has 0.866 of
inefficiency and can become efficient by increasing output by 14% (Parola et al., 2016). Its
reference port is Port of Rotterdam and can bench mark its values for best practices.
Moreover, slacks value shows that Algeciras Bay could increase their output by 2.347
(channel), 9.151 (anchorage) and 2.524 (oil terminal) to become efficient.

42
ISSN 2054-0930 (Print), ISSN 2054-0949 (Online)
 European Journal of Logistics, Purchasing and Supply Chain Management
Vol.6 No.4, pp.28-48, August 2018
___Published by European Centre for Research Training and Development UK (www.eajournals.org)
Table 11: Table for input efficiency against cargo bulks (General, dry and oil) and
Input slacks

DMU Input Oriented Summary of Input Slacks

Efficiency
Value Channel Cargo Anchorage Oil
depth Pier Terminal
Tanger Med 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
Algeciras Bay 0.866 2.347 0.000 9.151 2.524
Rotterdam 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
New York-New 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
Jersey (NYNJ)
Mean 0.966 0.587 0.000 2.288 0.631

Input oriented efficiency against Export-import tonnage and input slacks

In this analysis the input variable were Channel depth, Cargo pier length, Anchorage depth
and Oil terminal length against the output variable of Export and Import tonnage. Mooring is
very important in ports and is done on the berths of the ports. This means that port
infrastructure again influences the Export and Import tonnage.Tanger med and Rotterdam
ports showed low efficiency of 0.419 and 0.683 respectively, but can increase their efficiency
by increasing output by 59% and 32% respectively (El Imrani & Babounia, 2016; Port of
Rotterdam, 2016b). However, slacks value shows that Tanger med can decrease their excess
input or increase their minimal output by 0.627 (channel) and 0.862 (cargo pier), while
Rotterdam by 0.670 (channel) and 0.564 (cargo pier) to increase efficiency. Both the ports
can follow the peer or benchmark values of Algeciras port.

Table 12: Table for efficiency against Export-import tonnage and input slacks

DMU Input Oriented Summary of Input Slacks

Efficiency Value
Channel Cargo Anchorage Oil
depth Pier Terminal
Tanger Med 0.419 0.627 0.862 0.000 0.000
Algeciras Bay 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
Rotterdam 0.683 0.670 0.564 0.000 0.000
New York- 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
New Jersey
(NYNJ)
Mean 0.775 0.574 0.357 0.000 0.000
Input oriented efficiency against vessel calls and input slacks
Here the output variable was Average vessel calls and contrasted against Port infrastructure
because many time a vessel may or may not make port of call due to inefficient port
infrastructure. Thus, on evaluation it was seen that Tanger med (0.411), Rotterdam (0.762)
and NYNJ (0.656) were inefficient. However, the ports can either decrease the input or
increase the output by 59%, 24% and 35% respectively for Tanger med, Rotterdam and
NYNJ (Imrani & Babounia, 2016; JOC, 2017; Port of Rotterdam, 2016b). However, slacks

43
ISSN 2054-0930 (Print), ISSN 2054-0949 (Online)
 European Journal of Logistics, Purchasing and Supply Chain Management
Vol.6 No.4, pp.28-48, August 2018
___Published by European Centre for Research Training and Development UK (www.eajournals.org)
values show that Tanger med can decrease their excess input or increase their minimal output
by 2.550 (Channel), 3.506 (Cargo Pier) and 2.550 (Oil Terminal); for Rotterdam, 2.457
(Channel), 1.445 (Cargo Pier) and 0.780 (Oil Terminal) and for New York-New Jersey, 3.100
(Channel), 4.262 (Cargo Pier) and 4.084 (Oil Terminal). The peer or benchmark value for
best practice is Algeciras Bay Port.

Table 13: Table for efficiency against vessel calls and input slacks

DMU Input Oriented Summary of Input Slacks

Efficiency Value

Channel Cargo Anchorage Oil

depth Pier Terminal
Tanger Med 0.411 2.550 3.506 0.000 2.550
Algeciras Bay 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
Rotterdam 0.762 2.457 1.445 0.000 0.780
New York-New 0.656 3.100 4.262 0.000 4.084
Jersey (NYNJ)
Mean 0.707 2.027 2.303 0.000 1.854

Benchmarking Ports
Based on the data envelopment analysis (DEA) for benchmarking and efficiency of the case
ports a rank has been suggested on the basis of the most input oriented efficient Ports.

Table 14: Ranks on the basis of the No. of Input Oriented Efficiency counts

Rank Port No. of Input Oriented Efficiency counts

1 Port of Algeciras Bay, Spain 7
2 Port of Tanger Med, Morocco 5
Port of New York-New Jersey, USA
3 Port of Rotterdam 3

Further, the benchmarked values for each of the ports individually are presented in the table
below.
Table 15: Table for characterizing the benchmarked variables for very port and their
reference efficient port

Ports Benchmarked Variables Reference Port

Input Output
Port of Quay and Berth Container Tonnage Rotterdam
Tanger Med Infrastructure
Overall Port Infrastructure Container Tonnage Rotterdam
(Channel depth, Cargo pier Export-Import Algeciras Bay
length, Anchorage depth and Tonnage
Oil terminal length) Vessel calls Algeciras Bay

44
ISSN 2054-0930 (Print), ISSN 2054-0949 (Online)
 European Journal of Logistics, Purchasing and Supply Chain Management
Vol.6 No.4, pp.28-48, August 2018
___Published by European Centre for Research Training and Development UK (www.eajournals.org)
Port of Overall Port Infrastructure Bulk Tonnage Rotterdam
Algeciras (Channel depth, Cargo pier Container Tonnage Rotterdam
Bay length, Anchorage depth and
Oil terminal length)
Port of Quay and Berth Ship Turnaround Tanger med
Rotterdam Infrastructure time
Ship waiting time Tanger med
Vessel calls Algeciras and NYNJ
Import and Export Algeciras and NYNJ
Tonnage
Overall Port Infrastructure Export-Import Algeciras Bay
(Channel depth, Cargo pier Tonnage
length, Anchorage depth and Vessel calls Algeciras Bay
Oil terminal length)
Port of New Quay and Berth Ship Turnaround Tanger med
York-New Infrastructure time
Jersey Ship waiting time Tanger med
Overall Port Infrastructure Vessel calls Algeciras Bay
(Channel depth, Cargo pier Container Tonnage Rotterdam
length, Anchorage depth and
Oil terminal length)

From the above table 15, it can be interpreted that for Tanger med port, their inefficiency of
port lies in infrastructure against Container tonnage, Vessel calls and Import-Export tonnage,
but to improve efficiency can follow the benchmark variables of Port Rotterdam and
Algeciras Bay respectively. Similarly, for New York-New Jersey port, their inefficiency of
port lies in infrastructure against Ship turnaround time, Ship waiting time, vessel calls and
container tonnage, but can improve by benchmarking the input variables of Tanger med,
Algeciras and Rotterdam respectively.

DISCUSSIONS AND CONCLUSIONS

Port efficiency is the measure to check how efficient is the port’s operation and a ratio
between output and input variables of the ports performance. From the analysis of efficiency
analysis and benchmarking variables, it can be said that even if a port may invest in excess to
increase the performance and competitiveness with other ports of the country or the world
they may not equally be efficiently working. The case can be compared with Port of
Rotterdam that, even if from the current data collected showed manually that Port of
Rotterdam had the best performance compared to the other three ports but is not equally
efficient as the lowest performing port, Port of Tanger med. This shows relevance with the
reports from Port of Rotterdam where they mention a low port throughput. The ports of
NYNJ and Algeciras Bay too showed that even with low input for high performance, the
ports were working efficiently. From the analysis it can be said that the most important
factors that influence the port efficiency are port infrastructure and terminal operations. Other
than these factors, dwell time, crane moves per hour and time spent at anchorage, too
contribute to port efficiency. Thus, the benchmarked variables found are; Quay and Berth

45
ISSN 2054-0930 (Print), ISSN 2054-0949 (Online)
 European Journal of Logistics, Purchasing and Supply Chain Management
Vol.6 No.4, pp.28-48, August 2018
___Published by European Centre for Research Training and Development UK (www.eajournals.org)
Infrastructure, Port Operation and Port infrastructure. The benchmarking values of the
Rotterdam port is container and bulk tonnage which also means that it can follow or refer
Algeciras and Tanger med port to achieve achiement.. Algeciras port performance model
benchmarked for Vessel call and Export-Import Tonnage and can be followed by Rotterdam,
Tanger med and New York-New Jersey port. Tanger med port performance model
benchmarked for ship turnaround time and waiting time can be followed by Rotterdam and
New York-New Jersey port.
It is recommended that the case ports with inefficient values for respective input and output
variables can follow the reference benchmarked performance models of the case ports.
Tanger med port can follow the performance model of Rotterdam and Algeciras port for
Container, Bulk tonnage, Vessel call and Export-Import Tonnage. Likewise the other ports
should follow the benchmarked performance models for efficiency elevation.

REFERENCE
Anderson, T. (2017). A Data Envelopment Analysis. Retrieved from
http://www.emp.pdx.edu/dea/homedea.html#Returns_to_Scale
Babounia, A.,El Imrani, O. , & Azougagh, K. (2016). A study on improving of port
performance to minimize logistics costs of the grain transiting by the tangier med port
ISSN : 2278-6236. International Journal of Advanced Research in Management and
Social Sciences, 5(10), 17–32.
Babounia, A.,El Imrani, (2017). Le rôle de l’indice de performance logistique dans le
commerce international au Maroc: étude comparative, PROLOG 2017, LA
ROCHELLE, FRANCE.
Bates, D., & Bates, D. (2007). Comparing Least Squares Calculations. Most, 1–6.
Beasley, J. E. (2017). Data envelopment analysis. Retrieved from
http://people.brunel.ac.uk/~mastjjb/jeb/or/dea.html
Bozuwa, J., Jorna, R., Recagno, V., & Zografos, K. (2012). BE LOGIC: Benchmarking
Logistics Chains. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 48, 2422–2432.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.06.1213
Chin-Shan, Lu. Kuo-Chung, S. & Chi-Chang, L. (2016). Examining sustainability
performance at ports: port managers’ perspectives on developing sustainable supply
chains. Maritime Policy & Management, 43(08), 909-927.
Chun, H., & Keleş, S. (2010). Sparse partial least squares regression for simultaneous
dimension reduction and variable selection. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society.
Series B: Statistical Methodology, 72(1), 3–25. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-
9868.2009.00723.x
Coelli, T. J. (2008). A Guide to DEAP Version 2.1: A Data Envelopment Analysis
(Computer) Program. CEPA Working Papers, 1–50. Retrieved from
https://absalon.itslearning.com/data/ku/103018/publications/coelli96.pdf
Dong, Y., Hamilton, R., & Tippett, M. (2014). Cost efficiency of the Chinese banking sector:
A comparison of stochastic frontier analysis and data envelopment analysis. Economic
Modelling, 36, 298–308. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econmod.2013.09.042
Ducruet, C., Itoh, H., & Merk, O. (2014). Time Efficiency at World Container Ports.
International Transport Forum Discussion Papers, (2014–8). Retrieved from
www.internationaltransportforum.org/jtrc/DiscussionPapers/jtrcpapers.html%5Cnwww.
internationaltransportforum.org

46
ISSN 2054-0930 (Print), ISSN 2054-0949 (Online)
 European Journal of Logistics, Purchasing and Supply Chain Management
Vol.6 No.4, pp.28-48, August 2018
___Published by European Centre for Research Training and Development UK (www.eajournals.org)
El Imrani, O., & Babounia, A. (2016). Tangier Med Port : What role for the Moroccan
Economy and the International Trade ? International Journal of Research in
Management, Economics and Commerce, (7), 73–81.
Fukuyama, H. (2014). Radial Efficiency Measures in Data Envelopment Analysis.
Encyclopedia of Business Analytics and Optimization, 1967–1976.
https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-4666-5202-6.ch177
Goodwin, E. (2015). Annual Report 2015. Eurokai, 147. https://doi.org/10.1108/eb055690
Jafari, H., Saeidi, N., Noshadi, E., & Hallafi, H. R. (2013). An Empirical Study of Factors
Affecting Reduction of Performance in Container Handling Operation. Journal of Asian
Business Strategy, 3(12), 330–339.
Jasmine Siu, L L. , Theo, N. ( 2014). The Greening of Ports: A Comparison of
Port Management Tools Used by Leading Ports in Asia and Europe. Transport Reviews,
32 (2), 169-189.
JOC. (2017). Port Authority Of New York & New Jersey. Retrieved from
http://www.joc.com/port?news/us?ports/port?authority?new?york?new?jersey
Langen, P. de, Michiel Nijdam, & Horst, M. van der. (2007). New indicators to measure port
performance. Journal of Maritime Research, IV(1), 23–36. Retrieved from
http://www.researchgate.net/publication/28199982_New_indicators_to_measure_port_
performance
Liu, Q. (2010). Efficiency Analysis of Container Ports and Terminals, 206. Retrieved from
http://eprints.ucl.ac.uk/19215/
Marine Department of Hong Kong. (2006). Port Bechmaking for Assesing Hong Kong’s
Maritime Service and Associated Cost With Other Major International Ports. Marine
Department: Planning, Development and Port Security Branch, (December), 1–51.
Michele, A. (2015). Corporate responsibility and value creation in the port sector.
International Journal of Logistics Research and Applications, 18(3), 291-311.
Mohammadi, S., Mirdehghan, S. M., & Jahanshahloo, G. (2016). Finding the Most Preferred
Decision-Making Unit in Data Envelopment Analysis, 2016.
Mpogolo, I. A. (2013). Efficiency analysis on operational performance of container terminals
for seaports: a case of dar es salaam port. Open University of Tanzania.
Nyema, S. M. (2014). Factors Influencing Container Terminals Efficiency: a Case Study of
Mombasa Entry Port. European Journal of Logistics Purchasing and Supply Chain
Management, 2(3), 39–78.
Pallis, A. A., & Syriopoulos, T. (2007). Port governance models: Financial evaluation of
Greek port restructuring. Transport Policy, 14(3), 232–246.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2007.03.002
Parola, F., Risitano, M., Ferretti, M., & Panetti, E. (2016). The drivers of port
competitiveness: a critical review. Transport Reviews, 1–23.
https://doi.org/10.1080/01441647.2016.1231232
PONYNJ. (2014). A Collaborative Effort for a Collective Change. The Port of New York and
New Jersey, (June).
PONYNJ. (2016). Financial Statements & Appended Notes. The Port of New York and New
Jersey.
Port of Algeciras Bay. (2015). Annual Report. Algeciras Port Authority, 25.
https://doi.org/1.1
Port of Algeciras Bay. (2016). Port of the Month : Port of Algeciras. Port of Algeciras Port
Authority, 1–8.
Port of Rotterdam. (2016). BUILDING A SUSTAINABLE FUTURE. Port of Rotterdam
Authority, 1–16.
47
ISSN 2054-0930 (Print), ISSN 2054-0949 (Online)
 European Journal of Logistics, Purchasing and Supply Chain Management
Vol.6 No.4, pp.28-48, August 2018
___Published by European Centre for Research Training and Development UK (www.eajournals.org)
Port of Rotterdam. (2016). Port of Rotterdam throughput decreased by 3 . 0 %. Retrieved
from
https://www.portofrotterdam.com/en/news?and?press?releases/port?of?rotterdam?throu
ghput?decreased?by?30
Port of Rotterdam. (2016). Port of the Month: Port of Rotterdam (The Netherlands). Port of
Rotterdam Authority, 1–13. Retrieved from https://www.portofrotterdam.com/en
Proudlove, N. (2017). Using Excel for Basic Data Envelopment Analysis. Retrieved from
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/255708004%0AUsing
PwC. (2013). Measures to enhance the efficiency and quality of port services in the EU.
European Commission Directorate-General for Mobility and Transport Unit B3 Ports
& Inland Navigation, 1–186.
Ray, S. C. (2008). Comparing Input- and Output-Oriented Measures of Technical Efficiency
to Determine Local Returns to Scale in DEA Models. Economics Working Papers,
(September), Paper 200837. Retrieved from http://ideas.repec.org/p/uct/uconnp/2008-
37.html
Ruto, W. K., & Datche, E. (2015). Logistical factors influencing port performance a case of
kenya ports authority ( KPA ). IJCRR, 7(12), 52–59.
Slack, B., & Comtoise, C. (2015). Ships Time in Port, an international comparison , 1–23.
Tanger Med Port Authority. (2014). Port of Tanger Med. Tanger Med Port Authority.
Tanger Med Port Authority. (2016a). ACTIVITE PORTUAIRE GLOBALE 2016. Tanger
Med Port Authority.
Tanger Med Port Authority. (2016b). APM Terminals invests 8.5 bMAD in a new terminal in
TangerMed II. Tanger Med Group News APM. Retrieved from www.tmsa.ma
UNCAD. (2016). Port Management: Linking Performance Indicators to Strategic Objectives.
United Nations Conference On Trade And Development, 15(9), 46.
https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137475770
Vitsounis, T. (2012). Port Performance Measurement in Practice. Port Economics. Retrieved
from http://www.scribd.com/doc/95506907/Port-Performance-Measurement-in-
Practice-Vitsounis-Belgrade-1#page=1
Yang, H., Lin, K., Kennedy, O. R., & Ruth, B. (2011). Sea-Port Operational Efficiency: An
Evaluation of Five Asian Ports Using Stochastic Frontier Production Function Model.
Journal of Service Science and Management, 4(3), 391–399.
https://doi.org/10.4236/jssm.2011.43045

48
ISSN 2054-0930 (Print), ISSN 2054-0949 (Online)