This study is to identify the barriers to port operation and container movement at the port. A multi-criterion decision-making (MCDM) framework based on analytical hierarchy process (AHP) and fuzzy AHP is used to categorize and formulate the barriers, in a manner which effectively handles the subjectivity and complexity of the expert’s inputs. There were 12 main barriers identified in this study and analysed. This article uses structural analysis, which is based on a mix of academic and real-world applications. The barriers shown in a multi-level hierarchical model are a one-of-a-kind effort by the analyst in the ‘Port and Shipping’ domain. The key findings show that a lack of proper IT infrastructure in the port is a major impediment to container movement. Finally, a sensitivity analysis is used to confirm that the ranked barriers are suitable.
AhmedE., ZayedT., & AlkassS. (2014). Improving productivity of yard trucks in port container terminal using computer simulation. In ISARC. Proceedings of the International Symposium on Automation and Robotics in Construction (Vol. 31, p. 1). IAARC Publications.
2.
AngeloudisP., & BellM. G. (2011). A review of container terminal simulation models. Maritime Policy & Management, 38(5), 523–540.
3.
AshrafiM., AcciaroM., WalkerT. R., MagnanG. M., & AdamsM. (2019). Corporate sustainability in Canadian and US maritime ports. Journal of Cleaner Production, 220, 386–397.
4.
AyhanM. B. (2013). A fuzzy AHP approach for supplier selection problem: A case study in a Gear motor company. Preprint arXiv:1311.2886.
5.
BierwirthC., & MeiselF. (2015). A follow-up survey of berth allocation and quay crane scheduling problems in container terminals. European Journal of Operational Research, 244(3), 675–689.
6.
BilsteinN., VerleghP. W., KlostermannJ., & AkpinarE. (2022). Better together: Involving consumers in the ideation, creation and dissemination of transformative value. Journal of Service Management, 33, 520–530.
7.
BuckleyJ. J. (1985). Fuzzy hierarchical analysis. Fuzzy sets and systems, 17(3), 233–247.
8.
BurgessS. (2011). Port strike delivers costly blow to grain exporter. ABC News, May, 24.
9.
CarloH. J., VisI. F., & RoodbergenK. J. (2014a). Storage yard operations in container terminals: Literature overview, trends, and research directions. European Journal of Operational Research, 235(2), 412–430.
10.
CarloH. J., VisI. F., & RoodbergenK. J. (2014b). Transport operations in container terminals: Literature overview, trends, research directions and classification scheme. European Journal of Operational Research, 236(1), 1–13.
11.
CarloH. J., VisI. F., & RoodbergenK. J. (2015). Seaside operations in container terminals: Literature overview, trends, and research directions. Flexible Services and Manufacturing Journal, 27(2), 224–262.
12.
ChangD. Y. (1996). Applications of the extent analysis method on fuzzy AHP. European Journal of Operational Research, 95(3), 649–655.
13.
ChenY. M., & HuangP. N. (2007). Bi-negotiation integrated AHP in suppliers selection. Benchmarking: An International Journal, 14(3), 575–593.
14.
ChenY., WeiY., & PengL. (2018). Ecological technology model and path of seaport reclamation construction. Ocean & Coastal Management, 165, 244–257.
15.
ChinA., & TongzonJ. (1998). Maintaining Singapore as a major shipping and air transport hub. In Competitiveness of the Singapore economy (pp. 83–114). Singapore University Press.
16.
CrainicT. G., & KimK. H. (2007). Intermodal transportation. In Handbooks in operations research and management science, 14 (pp. 467–537). Elsevier B.V.
17.
De MartinoM., ErrichielloL., MarascoA., & MorvilloA. (2013). Logistics innovation in seaports: An inter-organizational perspective. Research in Transportation Business & Management, 8, 123–133.
18.
DePillisL. (2015). Labor flight at West Coast ports comes to an end—for now. The Washington Post.
19.
DubeyR., SinghT., AliS. S., & TiwariS. (2015). Contextual relationship among antecedents of truck freight using interpretive structural modelling and its validation using MICMAC analysis. International Journal of Logistics Systems and Management, 20(1), 42–58.
20.
DwivediY. K., HughesL., IsmagilovaE., AartsG., CoombsC., CrickT., DuanY., DwivediR., EdwardsJ., EirugA., GalanosV., IlavarasanP. V., JanssenM., JonesP., KarA. K., KizginH., KronemannB., LalB., … WilliamsM. D. (2021). Artificial Intelligence (AI): Multidisciplinary perspectives on emerging challenges, opportunities, and agenda for research, practice and policy. International Journal of Information Management, 57, 101994.
21.
EuchiJ., MoussiR., NdiayeF., & YassineA. (2016). Ant colony optimization for solving the container stacking problem: Case of le Havre (France) seaport terminal. International Journal of Applied Logistics (IJAL), 6(2), 81–101.
22.
Expósito-IzquierdoC., Lalla-ruizE., De ArmasJ., Melián-batistaB., & Moreno-VegaJ. M. (2017). Maritime container terminal problems. In Handbook of Heuristics (pp. 1–27). Springer.
23.
GharehgozliA. H., RoyD., & De KosterR. (2016). Sea container terminals: New technologies and OR models. Maritime Economics & Logistics, 18(2), 103–140.
24.
GoodchildA. V., & DaganzoC. F. (2006). Double-cycling strategies for container ships and their effect on ship loading and unloading operations. Transportation Science, 40(4), 473–483.
25.
GoodchildA. V., & DaganzoC. F. (2007). Crane double cycling in container ports: Planning methods and evaluation. Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, 41(8), 875–891.
26.
GoodchildA., McCallJ. G., ZumerchikJ., & Lanigan SrJ. (2011). Reducing train turn times with double cycling in new terminal designs. Transportation research record, 2238(1), 8–14.
27.
GovindanK., & MurugesanP. (2011). Selection of third-party reverse logistics provider using fuzzy extent analysis. Benchmarking: An International Journal, 18(1), 149–167.
28.
GuptaS., KarA. K., BaabdullahA., & Al-KhowaiterW. A. (2018). Big data with cognitive computing: A review for the future. International Journal of Information Management, 42, 78–89.
29.
JafarzadehS., & UtneI. B. (2014). A framework to bridge the energy efficiency gap in shipping. Energy, 69, 603–612.
30.
KambleS. S., RaootA. D., & KhanapuriV. B. (2010). Improving port efficiency: A comparative study of selected ports in India. International Journal of Shipping and Transport Logistics, 2(4), 444–470.
31.
KashavV., GargC. P., KumarR., & SharmaA. (2022). Management and analysis of barriers in the maritime supply chains (MSCs) of containerized freight under fuzzy environment. Research in Transportation Business & Management, 43, 100793.
32.
KatiyarR., BaruaM. K., & MeenaP. L. (2018). Analysing the interactions among the barriers of supply chain performance measurement: An ISM with fuzzy MICMAC approach. Global Business Review, 19(1), 48–68.
33.
KhandelwalC., & BaruaM. K. (2020). Prioritizing circular supply chain management barriers using fuzzy AHP: Case of the Indian plastic industry. Global Business Review, 0972150920948818. https://doi.org/10.1177/0972150920948818
34.
KimK. H., & KimH. B. (1999). Segregating space allocation models for container inventories in port container terminals. International Journal of Production Economics, 59(1–3), 415–423.
35.
KimK. H., & LeeH. (2015). Container terminal operation: Current trends and future challenges. In Handbook of ocean container transport logistics (pp. 43–73). Springer.
36.
KumarR. (2020). E-applications for managing trans-logistics activities in sugar supply chain in North India. International Journal of Asian Business and Information Management (IJABIM), 11(1), 92–106. http://doi.org/10.4018/IJABIM.2020010106
37.
KumarR., & KansaraS. (2018). Information technology barriers in Indian sugar supply chain: An AHP and fuzzy AHP approach. Benchmarking: An International Journal. 25(7), 1978–1991
38.
KumarR., AgrawalR., & SharmaV. (2013). e-Applications in Indian agri-food supply chain: Relationship among enablers. Global Business Review, 14(4), 711–727.
39.
KumarR., NathV., AgrawalR., & SharmaV (2012). Green supply chain management: A case of sugar industry in India. Proceedings of National Conference on Emerging Challenges for Sustainable Business. Organized by I.I.T. Roorkee (pp. 1697–1708).
40.
KumarR., OrganeroM. M., & AgrawalR. (2010). XML secure documents for a secure E-commerce architecture. Global Journal of Enterprise Information System, 2(1), 35–45. https://gjeis.com/index.php/GJEIS/article/view/162
41.
KumarR., TiwariS., & KansaraS. (2021). Barriers prioritization of the Indian Steel Industry supply chain: Applying AHP and fuzzy AHP method. Vision, 09722629211065687. https://doi.org/10.1177/09722629211065687
42.
LamJ. S. L., & BaiX. (2016). A quality function deployment approach to improve maritime supply chain resilience. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, 92, 16–27.
43.
LeavittH. J. (1965). Applied Organizational Change in Industry, I. InMarchJ. G.(ed.), Handbook of organizations (pp. 1144–1170). Rand McNally.
44.
MaldonadoS., González-RamírezR. G., QuijadaF., & Ramírez-NafarrateA. (2019). Analytics meets port logistics: A decision support system for container stacking operations. Decision Support Systems, 121, 84–93.
45.
MongelluzzoB. (2005). LA won’t see peak repeat. The Journal of Commerce, 6(24), 12.
46.
NathV., KumarR., AgrawalR., GautamA., & SharmaV. (2013). Consumer adoption of green products: Modeling the enablers. Global Business Review, 14(3), 453–470.
47.
NguyenV. D., & KimK. H. (2010). Dispatching vehicles considering uncertain handling times at port container terminals, progress in material handling research. Proceedings of the 11th International Material Handling Research Colloquium, Milwaukee, WI (pp. 210–226).
48.
NotteboomT. E. (2004). Container shipping and ports: Overview. Review of Network Economics, 3(2), 86–106.
49.
PanayidesP. M., & SongD. W. (2009). Port integration in global supply chains: Measures and implications for maritime logistics. International Journal of Logistics: Research and Applications, 12(2), 133–145.
50.
Port Technology. (2013). The challenges facing the global container terminal sector. https://www.porttechnology.org/technicalpapers/the_challenges_facing_the_global_container_terminal_sector/
51.
ProgoulakiM., & TheotokasI. (2010). Human resource management and competitive advantage: An application of resource-based view in the shipping industry. Marine Policy, 34(3), 575–582.
52.
SaatyT. (1980). The analytic hierarchy process (AHP) for decision making. In Kobe, Japan (pp. 1–69).
53.
SaatyT. L. (1994). How to make a decision: The analytic hierarchy process. Interfaces, 24(6), 19–43.
54.
SaatyT. L., & VargasL. G. (1987). Uncertainty and rank order in the analytic hierarchy process. European Journal of Operational Research, 32(1), 107–117.
55.
StahlbockR., & VoβS. (2008). Vehicle routing problems and container terminal operations–an update of research. In The vehicle routing problem: Latest advances and new challenges (pp. 551–589). Springer.
56.
TongzonJ. L. (1989). The impact of wharfage costs on Victoria’s export-oriented industries. Maritime Studies, 1989(46), 14–19.
57.
TrujilloL. (2008). Reforms and infrastructure efficiency in Spain’s container ports. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 42(1), 243–257.
58.
VenkateshV. G., ZhangA., LuthraS., DubeyR., SubramanianN., & ManglaS. (2017). Barriers to coastal shipping development: An Indian perspective. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 52, 362–378.
WangD., GoodchildA., LiX., & WangZ. (2014). Double girder bridge crane with double cycling: Scheduling strategy and performance evaluation. Journal of Applied Mathematics, 2014, 1–12.
61.
ZhangH., & KimK. H. (2009). Maximizing the number of dual-cycle operations of quay cranes in container terminals. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 56(3), 979–992.
