CONTAINER TRAFFIC PROJECTIONS USING AHP MODEL IN SELECTING REGIONAL TRANSHIPMENT HUBS

Transcription

1 International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology (IJCIET) Volume 7, Issue 2, March-April 2016, pp , Article ID: IJCIET_07_02_016 Available online at Journal Impact Factor (2016): (Calculated by GISI) ISSN Print: and ISSN Online: IAEME Publication CONTAINER TRAFFIC PROJECTIONS USING AHP MODEL IN SELECTING REGIONAL TRANSHIPMENT HUBS M. Ravichandran Research Scholar, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Karpagam University Pollachi Main Road, Eachanari, Coimbatore, Tamilnadu, India Dr. D. Suji Professor and Head, Department of Civil Engineering Adithya Institute of Technology Sathy Road, Kurumbapalayam, Coimbatore, Tamilnadu, India ABSTRACT Shipping is a major link between the global economy and international trade. More than 90% of world merchandise trade is carried by sea and over 60% of that volume is containerized. The increasing number of container shipments causes higher demands on the seaport container terminals, container logistics and management as well as on technical equipment. In the Asian region, the existence of ports such as Singapore and trade evolving from developing countries makes it one of the busiest container sea routes in the world. The average vessel size registered in 2008 was approx 3400 TEU s as against 2500 TEU s in However, in line with the present global economic slowdown, Ocean carriers are carrying out a slew of cost-cutting measures by withdrawing services, reducing deployments, merging services, etc. In an effort to better understand the current container transshipment scenario in the study area, we undertook meetings with the major lines operating within the regions assessed in the study. Cite this Article: M. Ravichandran and Dr. D. Suji, Container Traffic Projections Using AHP Model In Selecting Regional Transhipment Hub, International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology, 7(2), 2016, pp editor@iaeme.com

2 M. Ravichandran and Dr. D. Suji INTRODUCTION In order to undertake a SWOT analysis of Nicobar as a prospective transshipment hub when compared to the 3 other major hubs in the region viz.; Singapore, Port Klang and Colombo one would need to understand the key criteria s involved in selecting a transshipment location from a shipping lines perspective. For this purpose the below overview provides a brief understanding of the article published by Palgrave Journals written by TC Lirn on An Application of AHP for Transshipment Port Selection. According to a survey conducted by Cardiff Business School, UK the research papers applies the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) to analyze transshipment port selection by global carriers. The survey was conducted on the basis of two rounds of Delphi survey. The results of the AHP analysis revealed that both global container carriers and port service providers had a similar perception of the most important service attributes for transshipment port selection. DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT OF ANALYTIC HIERARCHY PROCESS (AHP) MODEL The Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) is a structured technique for dealing with complex decisions. Rather than prescribing a "correct" decision, the AHP helps the decision makers find the one that best suits their needs and understanding of the problem. Based on mathematics and psychology, it was developed by Thomas L. Saaty in the 1970 s and has been extensively studied and refined since then. The AHP provides a comprehensive and rational framework for structuring a decision problem, for representing and quantifying its elements, for relating those elements to overall goals, and for evaluating alternative solutions. The AHP converts these evaluations to numerical values that can be processed and compared over the entire range of the problem. A numerical weight or priority is derived for each element of the hierarchy, allowing diverse and often incommensurable elements to be compared to one another in a rational and consistent way. This capability distinguishes the AHP from other decision making techniques. In the final step of the process, numerical priorities are calculated for each of the decision alternatives. These numbers represent the alternatives' relative ability to achieve the decision goal, so they allow a straightforward consideration of the various courses of action. Figure 1 shows the typical AHP Model. Figure 1 Typical AHP Model editor@iaeme.com

3 Container Traffic Projections Using AHP Model In Selecting Regional Transhipment Hub The hierarchy can be visualized as a diagram as shown above, with the goal at the top, the alternatives at the bottom, and the criteria in the middle. Each box is called a node. The boxes descending from any node are called its children. The node from which a child node descends is called its parent. Groups of related children are called comparison groups. The parents of an Alternative, which are often from different comparison groups, are called its covering criteria. As the AHP proceeds through its other steps, the hierarchy can be changed to accommodate newly thought of criteria or criteria not originally considered to be important; alternatives can also be added, deleted, or changed. Once the hierarchy has been constructed, the participants use AHP to establish priorities for all its nodes. In doing so, information is elicited from the participants and processed mathematically. Priorities are numbers associated with the nodes of an AHP hierarchy. They represent the relative weights of the nodes in any group. By definition, the priority of the Goal is DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS The priorities of the Criteria will always add up to The same is true with the Alternatives Pair wise comparisons to incorporate their judgments about the various elements in the hierarchy, decision makers compare the elements two by two. These are known as Pair wise Comparisons. The following pair wise comparisons were undertaken while conducting the survey shown in table 1 Table 1 Pair wise comparison Table 2 below suggests the rating scales provided to the respondents, basis which relative importance can be arrived at when comparing various pairs editor@iaeme.com

4 M. Ravichandran and Dr. D. Suji Table 2 Rating Scales The respondents were asked to circle their choice as per the following examples. If criterion A is 9 times more important than criterion B in attracting global container carriers to use the ports transshipment service. Table 3 Comparison of criterion option 1 Circling 9 means - From transshipment ports perspective, (A) factor (Physical and Technical Infrastructure) has extreme importance for attracting global container carriers to use the port when compared with (B) factor (Geographical Location). If criterion B is 9 times more important than criterion A in attracting global container Carriers to use the ports transshipment service. Table 4 Comparison of criterion option editor@iaeme.com

5 Container Traffic Projections Using AHP Model In Selecting Regional Transhipment Hub This means - According to the Scale of relative importance, from transshipment ports Perspective, (B) factor (Geographical Location) has extreme importance in attracting global Containers carriers to use the ports transshipment service when compared with (A) factor (Physical and Technical Infrastructure). If one happens to circle 1 as shown below - it would imply that both (A) factor (Physical and Technical Infrastructure) and (B) factor (Geographical Location) have equal importance in attracting global Containers carriers to use the ports transshipment service. Table 5 Comparison of criterion option 3 The Delphi approach has been used in the preliminary stages of criteria selection in an AHP context. More often, it has been used as a follow-up stage of an initial AHP survey with a view to increasing consensus on the importance of global weights of criteria. The four major criteria retained for the survey of global carriers were Port Physical and Technical Infrastructure Port Geographical Location Port Management and Administration Carriers Terminal Cost The 12 total 6 sub-criteria divided amongst the 4 major criteria mentioned are described in the below table under the head CAT II. CAT III and CAT IV are basically a list of aspects represented by each sub-criteria mentioned under CAT II. The aim of the survey conducted on the global carriers was to provide a rating to the sub-criteria listed under CAT II. However, these were further broken down into CAT III and CAT IV just in order to provide a thorough understanding of the sub- criteria in discussion editor@iaeme.com

6 M. Ravichandran and Dr. D. Suji Table 6 Main Criteria and Sub-criteria rating as per performance score From the above survey, the 5 main sub-criteria are involved in the process of selecting a transshipment hub from a carriers perspective (with the maximum weight age) have been tabulated below in table editor@iaeme.com

7 Container Traffic Projections Using AHP Model In Selecting Regional Transhipment Hub Table 7 Five Major Criteria of AHP Survey CONCLUSIONS The AHP results for the sub-criteria were consistent with the calculated importance of the major criteria. While three out of the top five sub-criteria figuring above were subcriteria of Geographical Location, the highest weight calculated was that of the Handling Cost of containers associated with the carriers port cost. Geographical Location attributes are beyond the control of terminal operators/port authorities and even in the case of expansion there is little margin to alter substantially the geographical location of port provision. Once the location of a port/terminal is determined, port operators can only compensate for unfavorable deviation costs that carriers might have to incur through either reducing Handling Costs or investing on Basic Port Infrastructure. By contrast, the Handling Cost of containers, which scored by far the highest in terms of sub-criteria weight, comes within the realm of managerial and marketing decisions. As Nicobar will be required to cater to transshipment cargo on the E-W route between Singapore and Colombo, the port should be designed to accommodate traffic on this route, which includes the largest vessel currently in operation. This would also increase Nicobar s competitive edge as a transshipment hub and will also provide shipping lines the required economies of scale. REFERENCES [1] G. Raghuram Rachna Gangwar (2007), Containerization Building Global Trade Competitiveness, Working Paper, Indian Institute of Management Ahmedabad, W.P. No October [2] Alen Jugovic (2011) Traffic Demand Forecasting for Port Services, PROMET- TRAFFIC & TRANSPORTATION, JANUARY. DOI: /ptt.v23i1.149 Sharmin Attaran and Bilge Gokhan Celik (2013), Analytic Hierarchy Process: An Application in Green Building Market Research, International Review of Management and Marketing Vol. 3, No. 3, pp [3] Ashish H. Makwana and Jayeshkumar Pitroda (2013), Ready Mixed Concrete Selection for Infrastructure Development through Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) In the New Millennium, International Journal of Management (IJM), Volume 4, Issue 5, pp editor@iaeme.com

8 M. Ravichandran and Dr. D. Suji [4] Ubaid Illahi, Burhan-Ul-Wafa, Danish Zaffar Wani and Raqeeb Nabi Khan, Traffic Flow Analysis & Efficiency of Geometric Design of A T- Intersection, A Case Study, International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology, 7(1), 2016, pp [5] T Subramani, P.K.Kumaresan, Traffic Study on Road Network To Identify The Short Term Road Improvement Projects In Major Urban Centre, International Journal of Advanced Research in Engineering and Technology, 3(1), 2012, pp [6] M Ravichandran, A G Sharanya, Dr.D.Suji "Geotechnical investigation of the proposed transhipment in the Great Nicobar Island", SSRG International Journal of Civil Engineering (SSRG - IJCE), V3 (1), January ISSN: Published by: Seventh Sense Research Group. [7] M. Ravichandran, G. Aswin Sriram and D. Suji, A SWOT analysis of the proposed transhipment port in Great Nicobar Island of Andaman Nicobar Islands, International Journal of Applied Environmental Sciences (IJAES), Volume 10 Number 3 (2015), pp editor@iaeme.com