Key Performance Indicators for Intermodal Transportation

Transcription

1 Key Performance Indicators for Intermodal Transportation Martin Posset (1), Hans Häuslmayer (1), Prof. Dr. Manfred Gronalt (2) (1) h2 projekt.beratung KG, Obere Viaduktgasse 10/7, A-1030 Vienna, Austria. (2) University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences, Feistmantelstraße 4, A-1080 Vienna, Austria.

2 agenda consortium WHO did it content & aim WHY did we do it approach HOW did we do it result WHAT did we do contact result approach content & aim consortium

3 COCKPIIT: Clear, Operable and Comparable Key Performance Indicators for Intermodal Transportation contact result approach content & aim consortium PARTNERS University of natural resources and life sciences, Vienna h2 projekt.beratung KG (consulting company) vienna international airport (air) OEBB Austrian railway company (rail) Schachinger Logistik Holding GmbH (road) Viadoanu Österreichische Wasserstraßen-Gesellschaft mbh (inland waterways)

4 DOMAIN 1 accompanied 2 A B Begleiteter Kombinierter Verkehr unaccompanied 1 2 A B Unbegleiteter Kombinierter Verkehr contact result approach content & aim consortium INTERMODAL TRANSPORT Multimodal Transport: Carriage of goods by two or more modes of transport. (UN/ECE 2001) Intermodal Transport: The movement of goods in one and the same loading unit or road vehicle, which uses successively two or more modes of transport without handling the goods themselves in changing modes. (UN/ECE 2001) Combined Transport: Intermodal transport where the major part of the European journey is by rail, inland waterways or sea and any initial and/or final legs carried out by road are as short as possible. (UN/ECE 2001) INLAND TERMINALS Inland container terminals ensure efficient turnover (exchange between transport modes: rail road and inland navigation) of loading units (containers, swap bodies and semi trailers) in intermodal logistic networks. PERFORMANCE INDICATORS quantifiable metrics that provide a method for measuring the quality of operation facilitate the understanding of strengths and support continuous improvement help in monitoring progress and assist active counteraction against undesirable developments method for working out the causes and effects that directly and indirectly influence the achievement of goals and corresponding results. Things you cannot measure, you cannot control. Tom DeMarco

5 PROBLEM DESCRIPTION contact result approach content & aim consortium INTERMODAL TRANSPORT increasing overload of capacity at intermodal transhipment nodes and the concentration of freight transport on fewer main hubs show the need to understand the cooperation requirements between all transportation modes intermodal services and the quality of existing intermodal transhipment nodes will not keep up with capacity needs integration of more environmental friendly transport modes and the efficient combination of transport modes the number of involved actors, the existing diversity and thus resulting complexity. INLAND TERMINALS terminals have to be evaluated as part of the whole transport system because the effectiveness and efficiency of these intermodal hubs contributes to the overall competitiveness and attractiveness of intermodal transports PERFORMANCE INDICATORS indicators of hinterland inland terminals are often defined on company or group level which leads to different taxonomies and poor comparability between different locations and companies until today, no inter-sectorally (between rail, road, inland waterway and air transport) accepted concept for measuring and evaluating the of the different transport modes is available

6 AIM PERFORMANCE INDICATORS FOR INTERMODAL TRANSPORTATION outline the main components of the intermodal freight system contact result approach content & aim consortium highlight the factors that determine intermodal transport as a complex system provide a guideline for the definition of comparable indicators for intermodal transport allow decision makers and interested parties in intermodal transport to analyze and evaluate (understand) the strengths and weaknesses of the different modes of transport make the specific strengths and weaknesses of different transport modes comparable by providing a standardized and comprehensive integrated concept

7 cockpiit approach STANDARD PROCESSES of the intermodal transport chain and its actors contact result approach content & aim consortium INDICATOR FRAMEWORK which enables us to apply this set to any of the selected sectors of the particular intermodal chain and finally aggregate them for the whole chain PERFORMANCE TABLES are structured in such a way that a user may easily extend it and can further refine the intended indicator set (A) system dimension (C) transport mode view inland road rail navigation

8 standard process stages placing the load unit Stuffing P: prehaulage T: transhipment M: mainhaulage T: transhipment E: endhaulage stripping loading unit contact result approach content & aim consortium container yard/carrier flows truck / road train / rail vessel/open sea consignor M3 M3 DOOR-TO-DOOR TRANSPORT P1 M1 P2 shunting TN TN shunting M4 P3 shunting shunting terminal terminal port, M2 airport light grey objects are not considered in detail 1 truck/road 2 train/rail 3 inland ship/inland waterway 4 aircraft/air network P1 P2 E1 E2 vessel/open sea aircraft/airway consignee prehaulage truck/road M1 mainhaulage rolling road E1 endhaulage truck/roa prehaulage train/rail M2 mainhaulage train/rail E2 endhaulage train/rail M3 M3 mainhaulage inland ship/inland waterway mainhaulage floating road M4 mainhaulage inland aircraft/air network

9 framework (B) dimension contact result approach content & aim consortium (1) chain (2) entity (3) process (4) resource operational pre haulage infrastructure service quality information transhipment order door-to-door loading unit equipment financial documents mainhaulage end haulage environmental PERFORMANCE FRAMEWORK labour

10 tables ID Indicator category: The name of the indicator / indicator group system dimension Focus: the specific element the indicator focuses on dimension contact result approach content & aim consortium COCKPIIT Dimension Description Recording IN: Other indicators which influence this Influencing PI Influenced PI indicator Specification Indicator name CATEGORY: 1 TIME 2 QUANTITY 3 MONEY measurement unit hours kilograms liftings... chain entitiy process resource INDICATOR the detailed description of the indicator TABLES the collection regularity of the indicator Calculation PI PARAMETER FOR CALCULATION detailed specification of parameters ADDITIONAL INFORMATION FURTHER CALCULATIONS ADVICE REFERENCE SEE ALSO door-to-door order information loading untis documents prehaulage transhipment mainhaulage endhaulage infrastructure equipment labour 12 / + - : * daily weekly monthly quarterly six-monthly yearly operator divide add minus compare multiply operational service quality environmental financial OUT: Performance indicators which are influenced by this indicator PARAMETER FOR CALCULATION detailed specification of parameter

11 tables example: chain system dimension (1) chain (2) entity (3) process operational pre haulage (B) dimension service quality information transhipment order door-to-door loading unit financial documents mainhaulage end haulage environmental (4) resource infrastructure equipment labour contact result approach content & aim consortium (B) dimension operational service quality service quality operational service quality service quality environmental environmental financial financial Performance Indicator Total order lead time cycle time On-time service Order completeness PERFORMANCE Transport lead time INDICATORS - Total origin-destination lead time - Average origin-destination lead time Overall damages losses thefts Delays (arrvials departures) Noise Total transport greenhouse gas emissions (CO2) Transport and economic development Total transport cost - Average order to invoice time - Order to invoice time development - Percentage of transports on-time - Percentage of consignments received as contracted - Percentage of loading units received as contracted - Physical accounting correspondence - Percentage of transports with damages losses theft - Percentage of damaged loading units - Damages losses thefts per ton-kilometer - Development of damages losses thefts over time - Percentage of delays - Percentage of critical delays - Percentage of people exposed to noise class 1 - Status expansion of noise barriers - Percentage of vehicles equipped with noise reduction - Average diesel consumption - Diesel Co2 per transport - Equipment electricity Co2 per transport - Infrastructure electricity Co2 per transport - Ton-kilometers GDP ratio - Total origin-destination transport cost price proceed - Development of transport cost price proceeds over

12 cockpiit concept 3 standard processes and 1 framework covering : Stuffing P: prehaulage T: transhipment M: mainhaulage T: transhipment E: endhaulage stripping DOOR-TO-DOOR TRANSPORT loading unit consignor consignee M3 E1 M3 E2 P1 M1 P2 shunting TN TN shunting M4 P3 shunting shunting terminal terminal vessel/open sea port, M2 airport aircraft/airway re not considered in detail PERFORMANCE FRAMEWORK contact result approach content & aim consortium 3 transport modes: rail road inland waterways + rolling and floating/swimming road 4 system dimensions: chain entity process resource 4 dimensions: operational service quality environmental financal 36 Performance Tables including 96 Performance Indicators 24 chain PIs 13 entiy PIs INDICATOR TABLES 14 process PIs 45 resource PIs PERFORMANCE INDICATORS (A) system dimension focus (4) resource (4.1) infrastructure (4.2) equipment (4.3) labour

13 h2 projekt.beratung KG Obere Viaduktgasse 10/7, 1030 Vienna contact result result approach content & aim consortium contact Martin Posset Hans Häuslmayer University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences, Vienna Department of Economics and Social Sciences Institute of Production and Logistics Feistmantelstraße 4, 1180 Vienna Univ. Prof. Manfred Gronalt