外文翻译--用港口物流及供应链管理方法来评价港口绩效

中文4400字

本科毕业论文外文翻译

外文题目：A logistics and supply chain management approach to port performance measurement

出处：MARIT. POL. MGMT

作者：Khalid Bichou and Richard Gray

原文：

A logistics and supply chain management approach to

port performance measurement

By Khalid Bichou and Richard Gray

MARIT. POL. MGMT

2004VOL. 31, NO. 1, 47–67

ABSTRACT

Although there is widespread recognition of the potential of ports as logistics centres, widely accepted performance measurements for such centres have yet to be developed. The essence of logistics and supply chain management is an integrative approach to the interaction of different processes and functions within a firm extended to a network of organizations for the purpose of cost reduction and customer satisfaction. The logistics approach often adopts a cost trade-off analysis between functions, processes and even supply chains. This approach could be beneficial to port efficiency by directing port strategy towards relevant value-added logistics activities. This paper seeks to show that through conceptualizing ports from a logistics and supply chain management approach, it is possible to suggest a relevant framework of port performance. A proposed framework is tested in a survey of port managers and other international experts.

Introduction

Measures of port efficiency or performance indicators use a diverse range of techniques for assessment and analysis, but although many analytical tools and instruments exist, a problem arises when one tries to apply them to a range of ports and terminals. Ports are very dissimilar and even within a single port the current or potential activities can be broad in scope and nature, so that the choice of an appropriate tool of analysis is difficult. Organizational dissimilarity constitutes a serious limitation to enquiry, not only concerning what to measure but also how to measure. Furthermore, the concept of efficiency is vague and proves difficult to apply in a typical port organization extending across production, trading and service industries.

Ports have an important role to play in the integration of all three types of channel. There are many organizations occupied (or potentially occupied) with logistics and supply chain integration within and around ports, mainly in the role of logistics channel facilitators (ocean carriers, land-based carriers, port operators, freight forwarders, port agents, etc.), but also as public institutions such as Customs authorities. This paper seeks to adopt an approach that incorporates within a valid framework of analysis existing measures of port performance and efficiency, the association of ports with logistics and supply chain management, and appropriate measures of logistics and supply chain management efficiency.

Background literature

Port performance and efficiency

UNCTAD suggests two categories of port performance indicators: macro performance indicators quantifying aggregate port impacts on economic activity,and micro performance indicators evaluating input/output ratio measurements of port operations. In this paper, we focus on the micro level. Various references, particularly UNCTAD monographs, provide a range of port indicators by ratio type and category of operation. There are many ways of measuring port efficiency or productivity, although reducible to three broad categories: physical indicators, factor productivity indicators, and economic and financial indicators. Physical indicators generally refer to time measures and are mainly concerned with the ship (e.g. ship turnaround time, ship waiting time, berth occupancy rate, working time at berth).

Sometimes, coordination with land modes of transport is measured, e.g. cargo dwell time or the time elapsed between cargo being unloaded from a ship until it leaves the port.Factor productivity indicators also tend to focus on the maritime side of the port,for example to measure both labour and capital required to load or unload goods from a ship. Similarly, economic and financial indicators are usually related to the sea access; for example, operating surplus or total income and expenditure related to gross registered tonnes (GRT) or net registered tonnes (NRT), or charge per twenty foot equivalent unit (TEU). Port impacts on the economy are sometimes measured to assess the economic and social impacts of a seaport on its respective hinterland or foreland. The results may be provided in port statistics, e.g. the port of Rotterdam or by research institutes such as ISEMAR in France.

Many ports, particularly those in urban areas, have inadequate land-side connections. Land-side efficiency also needs to be addressed when ways are sought to expand port capacity. Port capacity is difficult to measure or even to define. It is, nevertheless, likely to be easier for a port to make better use of existing capacity rather than subsidize new transport infrastructure. A logistics and supply chain approach may achieve better use of port capacity.

Port activities are usually measured by cargo output or through production functions. In the first case, the assessment of efficiency is based either on the contribution of a single factor productivity to port throughput such as output per worker or output per wharf, or on the measurement of total cargo handling productivity, where performance evaluation equates port operations to the production function. Much empirical research falls under this category and seeks to compare actual output to optimum output using the frontier method.

Review of port literature relevant to logistics and supply chain management.

In the port and shipping literature, few authors have addressed the issue of logistics and supply chain management within ports and across their network of organizations, and many published works adopt a fragmented approach to port operations.Although current literature recognizes the role of ports as integral components of distribution systems, many studies disaggregate total port operations and focus on single or a few elements of port activity. Literature on port logistics has only developed over the last two decades or so, for example

by UNCTAD through a series of monographs on port management and operations, or the World Bank’s‘Port Reform Tool Kit’describing recent trends in port management and suggesting a framework for port reform and development. UNCTAD defines ‘third generation’ports as those offering value-added services (e.g. warehousing, packaging) in addition to cargo handling, and ‘fourth generation’ports as those that are separated geographically but with common operators or administration, such as by global multi-port companies [42]. In an effort to assess the logistics potential of ports, Harding and Juhel distinguish between general logistics services (GLS) and value-added activities or logistics (VAL), with the latter being a common feature of containerised and general cargo. They highlight the increasing role of ports as ‘distriparks’or dedicated areas for both GLS and VAL. They also point out the future of inland logistics centres or dry ports (e.g. inland container depots) for logistics operations that do not need to be carried out in the seaport area.

Much of the literature advocating the future of ports as logistics centres highlights their nodal role in the changing patterns of maritime and intermodal transport (e.g. hub and spoke systems), but overlooks logistics integration of the various activities performed within the port organization itself. Most published articles address separately different aspects of port management (cost-analysis, marketing, strategic planning, etc.) without incorporating them into an integrated logistics framework of customer service, total costs or trade-off analysis. For instance, the question of the total cost that a cargo bears throughout different port operations up to the final customer or user does not appear to have been discussed in the academic literature. The same applies to competitive benchmarking between the management of seaports and that of other entities with similar operational features, e.g. airports or regional distribution centres.

For some, this fragmented approach is mainly due to the complex organizational structure and management of ports, although recent port privatization schemes may have made it relatively easier to apply an integrative logistics approach to port operations. Fleming and Baird consider that the lack of a ‘competitive community spirit’among different port actors (e.g. customs authorities) is largely behind the difficulty of managing activities from a logistics perspective. The complex organizational structure of ports has always been a central issue in most aspects of port management, and probably constitutes the

major obstacle to the development of a comprehensive conceptual framework of port logistics management.

Supply chain management extends the principle of logistics integration to all companies in the supply chain through strategic partnerships and cooperation arrangements. Some regard the next challenge of supply chain management is to manage ‘pliant flows’so as to ensure that all parts of the chain ‘oscillate together’in an holistic fashion. In similar vein, others stress the need for ‘agile’supply chains in order to survive in a rapidly changing global environment. Paixao and Marlow advocate the application of ‘agility’to the port environment, proposing that ports should be proactive rather than reactive along supply chains in a modern globalized world economy.

Review of relevant logistics and supply chain measurements

Many techniques of logistics measurement adopt ratio instruments of financial reporting and productive efficiency. For instance, logistics performance is assessed through productivity and utilization measurement, or by applying the DEA model to international channel productivity. Most of the available logistics measurements correspond to a firm’s internal functions and processes. For example, a report by the European Logistics Association arranges logistics performance measurements into eight groups, but does not organize them into an integrative and comprehensive framework. Measurement techniques that have gained recognition from logistics professionals include activity-based costing (ABC) and total cost analysis (TCA). The former proposes an evaluation of the costs of a firm’s activities based on the actual resources and time consumed to perform them, whereas the latter proposes a trade-off analysis among different internal functions to minimize the total cost, while at the same time maintaining customer satisfaction.The use of TCA is extended to external logistics performance by integrating various flows and processes in the supply chain.

In the area of supply chain management, the academic literature has been less successful in providing valid tools for performance measurement, and most performance measurements have been initiated by practitioners or consultants rather than through academic research. Exceptions include Kaplan and Norton who combine several dimensions of performance measurement. They provide a linear cause-and-effect model claimed to serve both measurement and management objectives. The Supply-Chain Operations Reference

(SCOR) initiative undertaken by the Supply-Chain Council (SCC) attempts to integrate process reengineering, benchmarking, and process measurements into a cross-functional framework. Holmberg’s model proposes a conceptual framework of performance analysis throughout a systems approach to supply chain measurement. Process benchmarking is a technique that proposes the collaboration of all members in the supply chain for the purpose of process comparison and performance analysis. Institutions at the trade channel level can play a valuable and neutral role in benchmarking. Any valid performance model, within a logistics and supply chain management context, should integrate different measures of internal activities and link them to measurement activities of other entities in the supply chain.

Towards a logistics and supply chain approach for ports

From the above discussion, it appears that there may be a methodological difficulty in linking supply chain performance measurements to ports. Traditional port management is often typified by institutional fragmentation and conflict with other members of the logistics channel, whereas the supply chain management philosophy advocates process integration and partnership. A systemic approach to port performance is required. The systems approach should allow a neutral and objective perception of a problem’s definition and investigation, and particularly helps in overcoming the obstacles of channel identification and conflicting standpoints. However, despite successive attempts to apply the systems approach to operational problems in shipping and ports, very few would claim to apply the concept of systems thinking to the whole port organization.

Methodology

Action research

The methodology adopted for this study works within the action research paradigm. Action research is a process suitable where change is the main research subject, and the researcher participates in the change process. It requires a close relationship and collaboration between practitioners and researchers, made possible in the research described in this paper when one of the authors undertook a short-term appointment with the World Bank. Action research is most suitable for technique development or theory building, but is

less suitable for hypothesis testing. Its advantage over traditional survey approaches is that the latter tend to be past-oriented or ‘snapshots’, whereas action research is a forward-looking process with implications beyond the immediate project. Action research is undertaken by using an appropriate intervention technique analogous to experimentation. The technique used in this approach is to present port managers and other experts with a model of port performance for examination and assessment by them, leading to an improved model. This technique is supported by a questionnaire of port managers focusing on performance indicators.

Exploratory investigation into feasibility of port performance model As an exploratory investigation, individuals with different types of expertise related to ports were approached to comment on the relevance and feasibility of the proposed model, shown in figure 3 with covering notes (see appendix). The participants consisted of three panels of experts, namely:

Analysis and results

Questionnaire responses and analysis

The questionnaire investigated current techniques of port performance measurement. The 45 respondent ports confirmed the regular use of combined indicators for both internal and external performance evaluation. As shown in table 2, financial measures are the most commonly used, closely followed by throughput measures for internal performance, whereas productivity and economic-impact indicators become more prominent for external comparison with other ports.

Most ports were not satisfied with the current indicators (see table 3).However, when asked about logistics techniques for performance measurement and management over half of the ports replied that they use them very seldom or never (see table 4).

Although responses may reflect a lack of interest in logistics operations and management, an alternative explanation may be the difficulty in understanding or applying logistics concepts and measurement techniques.

Comments by expert panels on model validity

Figure 3 and the appendix present a model applying logistics and supply chain

management concepts to port performance measurement. The model was sent to and discussed with different participants to assess its validity and feasibility within the context of port operations and management. Responses varied in many aspects, although all considered the model valid as a ‘first initiative’that looks at port efficiency from the perspective of logistics and supply chain management. The following sections present and analyse the responses by each of the three expert panels.

Conclusions

The research aims at conceptualizing the port system from the perspective of logistics and supply chain management, and suggesting a valid framework of efficiency measurement capable of reflecting the logistics scope of port operations and complementing, if not replacing, the conventional methods for port performance measurement and management biased towards sea access. By adopting a structured approach and methodology and involving a range of interest groups, the authors tried to ensure a valid and reliable inquiry given the time and cost constraints.

The results show a common interest in logistics and supply chain management concepts across the various panels of experts. Respondents from the port group showed a lack of familiarity with logistics and supply chain management concepts, especially those related to logistics integration, benchmarking and channel design, although there is common recognition of ports as key logistics and distribution centres.

译文：

用港口物流及供应链管理方法来评价港口绩效

Khalid Bichou and Richard Gray

摘要

尽管港口作为物流中心潜在能力已被广泛的认同，但还没有一个被大家广泛接受的性能测量标准出现。物流与供应链管理本质是通过一种综合性的方法使一个企业的网络组织在不同的流程和功能的相互作用下降低企业成本并且使客户得到满意。物流效率通常是在功能，流程甚至供应链之间采用成本权衡的分析方法计算得出。这种方法通过引导港区的物流发展使经济战略走向增值化，同时还利于提高港口的效率。本文旨在表明，通过把港口物流与供应链管理方法概念化，并提出一个有关港口性能的框架，拟议的框架对港口的管理人员和其他国际专家进行了问卷调查。

简介

港口效率或者性能是通过各种不同的指标来评估和分析的，不过尽管有许多分析工具和手段存在，但是有许多问题出现当人们试图将这种方法应用到一个港口或者码头的时候。因为每一个港口都是不一样的，甚至在一个单一的港口目前的和潜在的范围和性质都是可以发生变化的，所以选择一个适当的分析工具是相当困难的。组织上的相异性严重的限制了资料的查询，怎么来衡量，如何来衡量都是问题。此外，效率的概念是模糊的，难以证明一个典型的港口组织产业已延伸至生产，贸易和服务行业。

港口在参与的三种类型的渠道整合中扮演了一个重要的角色。有许多港口组织和周围机构被物流和供应链占领（或潜在的被占领），主要的物流通道调解者有海运承运人，陆上运输工具，港口经营人，货运代理，港口代理等，而且还有一些海关部门的公共机构。本文试图采用一种方法，通过对港口物流和供应链管理协会的调查，制定出一个能有效分析出现有港口的性能和效率或是物流与供应链管理效率的框架。

背景文献

（一）港口的性能和效率

贸发会议制定了港口的两类性能指标：一类是宏观性能指标评价聚合港口对经济活动的影响，还有一类是微观绩效指标测量港口业务的投入/产出比率。在本文中，我们着重于微观层面。本文将多次提到特别是贸发会议的报告，港口应提供一系列类型和分类经营的指标。虽然测量港口效率或生产率有许多方法，但是一般归结为三大类：物理指标，要素生产率指标，以及经济和金融指标。物理指标一般是指时间上的措施，主要关注的船舶时间（如船舶周转时间，船舶等候时间，泊位占用率，在码头工作时间）。有时，也要协调陆地运输时间来进行测量，比如货物停留时间或者从货物被卸离船舶到它离开港口相隔的时间。要素生产率指标往往把重点放在港口航运方面，例如衡量在船舶上装卸货物所需劳动力和资本的要求。同样，经济和金融指标通常与海洋有关;例如，经营盈余或总收入和毛重或净重相关开支用每20英尺标准集装箱单位（标准箱）手续费支出或20英尺标准集装箱单位（标准箱）收费。港口对经济的影响主要是测量及评估港口对其各自的腹地或者周边区域的经济和社会的影响。要得出结果就要某些相关组织提供港口统计资料，例如鹿特丹港或法国ISEMAR等研究机构。

许多港口特别是城市地区港口大多没有足够的地域连接。因此为扩大港口吞吐能力，土地方面利用效率也需要得到解决。所以港口吞吐能力是很难衡量甚至定义的。尽管如此，不过一个港口良好地利用现有资源比资助新的运输基础设施建设来的容易。物流及供应链的方式的改善可以更好地提升港口吞吐能力。

港口活动的衡量数据通常是指货物的输出量或者港口的生产函数。在第一种情况下，效率的评估要么是基于同一个生产率要素对港口吞吐量贡献值测量，如每个工人的产出或每个码头输出，要么就是计算总货物的装卸效率，因为港口的绩效评估值等同于港口业务的生产函数。许多实证研究属于这一类方法，旨在比较实际输出和最佳输出。

（二）回顾相关港口物流与供应链管理的文献

在港口和航运文学，一些作者已经解决了物流和港口供应链管理的问题，并在他们的组织网络上发表许多作品并且这些作品是适用于那些分散的港口业务。虽然目前的文献承认港口的作用犹如组成部分中的配电系统，但是许多研究大多是专注于港口的分类与业务总量，或是单个或几个港口活动因素。港口物流文学发展了近二十年左右，例如，贸发会议通过了相关港口管理和运营的条例，或是世界银行的港口改革工具包描述了港口管理的最新趋势并提出了对港口改革和发展的框架。根据贸发会议的定义，第三代港口是那些提供增值服务（如仓储，包装）除了货物装卸功能的港口，而第四代港口是那些被分隔两地但是共同经营或管理的港口，如全球性的港口公司。为了评估在物流港口的潜力，Harding和Juhel区分了一般物流服务（GLS）和物流增值服务（VAL），而后者是集装箱和普通货物的共同特点。他们还强调GLS和VAL对分布区或是专用区的港口作用越来越大。他们也指出，在未来的内陆物流中心港（例如内陆集装箱中转站）的物流业务将不需要经

过海港区域。

大部分的文学都认为未来的港口将作为物流中心，并重点讲述了他们在海运和多式联运（如枢纽和发言系统）的变化规律节点上的作用，但是他们忽略了在港口物流中组织本身的各项活动整合。大多数单独发表的文章在不同方面的方面指出港口的管理（成本分析，市场营销，战略规划等）没有纳入客户服务、总成本或权衡分析的综合物流框架之中。例如，关于总成本的问题，一批货物通过不同的港口运输到最后的客户或者是用户自己手上似乎没有在一个学术文献讨论过。这同样适用于竞争性的机构如港口管理和那些具有类似功能的其他经营实体，例如机场或区域配送中心。

一些人片面的认识主要是由于港口复杂的组织结构和管理的原因，虽然最近私有化的港口可能已变得相对容易在申请一个综合性物流港口运作方式上面。弗莱明和贝尔德认为，在不同的港口管理活动（例如海关当局）中缺乏一种竞技的精神是不行的，从物流的角度上看。港口复杂的组织结构一直在港口管理方面是最核心的问题，同时它也有可能是构成一项全面的港口物流管理概念框架发展的最主要障碍。供应链管理延伸至物流一体化的原则是通过密切的战略伙伴关系和合作安排来完成所有公司的供应链流程。有些方面供应链管理的下一个挑战是 '软物流'的管理并且还要确保物流链的所有部分在整体振荡方式中联合。还有其他人强调类似的观点，在一个迅速变化的全球环境中生存，敏捷的供应链是必需的。Paixao和Marlow倡导的敏捷型物流在港口环境中应用，并提议港口应未雨绸缪，而不是在一个全球化的世界经济现代化的环境中随着供应链反应而变化。

（三）物流及供应链的测量

许多物流技术测量采用的是财务报告和生产效率。例如，物流绩效是通过生产力和利用率的测量来进行评估的或是通过应用DEA模型对国际生产力进行评估。大多数现有的物流量测方式是对应于企业的内部的功能和流程的。例如，一个欧洲物流协会要求报告的物流内容分为八个性能组测试，而不组织成一个综合和全面的框架来评估。测量技术已经获得了物流专业人士承认，包括作业成本法（ABC）和总成本分析（TCA）。前者提出了一个公司的活动成本评估应根据其实际消耗的资源和执行的时间测量而后者则根据一个不同的内部功能中权衡分析出最小总成本，同时保持客户满意时间来评估。TCA的使用已扩展到通过整合外部物流供应链中的各种流量和进程中去。

在供应链管理方面，学术文献一直不太成功在提供有效的业绩衡量工具上面，大多数性能测试已开始由从业员或顾问来指导，而不是通过学术研究。在结合绩效评估研究方面卡普兰和诺顿是个例外。它们提供了线性因果关系效应模型并且称其可以同时测量和管理目标。SCOR的倡议是让供应链委员会（SCC）尝试整合流程和基准再造，处理和测量一个多职能框架。霍姆伯格模型的概念框架提出了进行整个供应链系统方法测量的性能分析。流程基准是一种通过在供应链上所有成员的合作，以比较过程和分析性能为目的的技术。在贸易通道上的机构可以在基准测试中发挥宝贵的中立的角色。任何有效的性能模型，在物流与供应链管理方面，应先整合内部活动不同的措施，并将

其链接到在供应链上的其他实体的测量活动中去。

建立一个港口物流与供应链

从上面的讨论看来，把供应链绩效测量联系到港口上去这是困难的。传统的港口管理往往是典型的体制分割型，它与物流渠道的其他成员是冲突的，而供应链管理理念的倡导者应倡导流程的整合和伙伴关系。有系统的测量港口性能方法是必需的。该系统的方法必须允许中立和客观的看法来定义和调查问题，特别是有助于克服道信徒说和相互冲突上的障碍。然而，尽管多次尝试在航运和港口业务问题上运用多种系统方法，但是很少有适用港口组织系统概念思维的出现。

方法论

（一）行动研究法

本文研究工程所采用的方法是行动研究法的范例。行动研究法是一个适合那些主要研究课题多变和那些研究者参与了改革进程的研究方法。它需要从业人员和研究人员之间的密切交流与合作，而本文的作者在世界银行短期工作让其研究成为了可能。行动研究是最适合技术开发或理论建设的，但不适合假设检验。它相比传统的调查方法优点在于后者往往是面向过去的或者短暂时间段的研究，而行动研究是一个对那些前瞻性的过程产生影响的项目。行动研究的开展要使用那些类似实验的干预技术。在这种方法下目前使用的技术是通过港口管理人员和其他专家用港口的性能模型来检查和评估港口效率，并改进模型。港口管理者的那些关注于性能指标的问卷调查使这种技术的实施得到了支持。

（二）探索性调查港口性能模型的可行性

作为一个探索性的调查，个人要与不同类型的相关港口的专业知识进行接触，并提出的相关性和可行性的意见模型，参与者包括三个专家小组。

分析和结果

（一）调查表的答复和分析

问卷调查了当前港口的性能测量技术。参与调查的45个港口证实了要把经常使用的指标相结

合或者把内部和外部的绩效进行评估。如表2所示，财政措施是最常用的，紧随其后的是内部性能吞吐量的措施，而生产力和经济影响指标与其他港口外部相比变得更加突出。

大多数港口均不满意目前的指标。不过，当被问及对物流绩效衡量和管理技术要求时一半以上的口岸管理者回答说，他们很少或从未使用它们。

（二）专家小组评价模型的有效性

图3和附录提出的这种模型适用于港口物流与供应链管理的性能测量。该模型被送往不同的参与者并被他们讨论评估出范围内使用，港口业务和管理方面的具有有效性和可行性。虽然在很多方面有许多不同的反应，但是都认为该模型是一项有效举措，从港口物流与供应链管理运作效率的角度来看。以下各节介绍并分析由三个专家小组各自的反应。

结论

本研究旨在从物流与供应链管理这个角度使港口体系概念化，并提出一个有效的框架能够测量或者反映港口物流业务和港口效率的系统，如果还是应用老系统，那些常规的对港口的性能和管理测量的方法是有偏颇的。作者通过采用结构化方法和方法论，收集了很大范围的利益群体的问卷调查，并试图突破时间和成本的限制以确保调查有效性和可靠性。

结果表明各个小组的专家在物流与供应链管理概念方面都有着共同的兴趣。从港口受访者问卷调查中显示尽管港口作为物流配送中心被共同认可，但是他们对物流及供应链管理的概念不熟悉，特别是那些关于物流的相关整合，基准和通道设计方面。