Optimization of Decision-Making in Port Logistics Terminals: Using Analytic Hierarchy Process for the Case of Port of Thessaloniki

Michael Gogas 1 , Konstantinos Papoutsis 2  and Eftihia Nathanail 3
  • 1 Centre for Research and Technology Hellas/Hellenic Institute of Transport 6 km. Charilaou-Thermi, Thessaloniki, 57001, Greece Phone: (+30) 2310498487
  • 2 Centre for Research and Technology Hellas/Hellenic Institute of Transport 6 km. Charilaou-Thermi, Thessaloniki, 57001, Greece Phone: (+30) 2310498439
  • 3 University of Thessaly, Pedion Areos, Volos, 38334, Greece, Phone: (+30) 2421074164

Abstract

The management models pursued in logistics terminals determine their performance to a great extent. Terminals managed by public actors usually incorporate more social criteria into their decision-making processes. In addition, private management focuses on economic viability of the initiative. Decision-making is a complex process regardless the structure of management or the decision models useddue to the fact that a wide range of diverse criteria are embedded into this process. The objective of this paper it to determine a prioritization of a set of alternative options for investment projects which were suggested by port executives taking into account criteria and evaluation that have already validated by them. In order to perform the analysis a multi-criteria decision-making model was used: the Analytic Hierachy Process. The outcomes support a low-biased and efficient strategic planning through a balanced decision-making framework.

If the inline PDF is not rendering correctly, you can download the PDF file here.

  • 1. Adamos, G., Nathanail, E. and Zacharaki, E. (2012). Developing Decision-Making framework for Collaborative Practices in Long-Short Distance Transport Interconnection. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 48, 2012, 2849-2859.

  • 2. Al-fatah A. and Karasneh A. (2012). Improving Decision Making: Route Optimization Techniques for Aqaba Sea Port in Jordan. International Journal of Business and Management, 7 (9).

  • 3. Arnold J. (2006). Best Practices in Management of International Trade Corridors. The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/ The World Bank.

  • 4. Charnes A. and Cooper W. (1961). Management models and industrial applications of linear programming, New York: Wiley.

  • 5. Chen M. K. and Wang S. (2010). The critical factors of success for information service industry in developing international market: Using analytic hierarchy process (AHP) approach. Expert Systems with Applications, 37, 694-704.

  • 6. Christiansen, P., Johansen, B.G., Andersen, J. and Eidhammer, O. (2012). Case studies: Results and synthesis. Deliverable 5.2. CLOSER project.

  • 7. De Brucker K, Verbeke A. and Macharis C. (2004). The applicability of Multi-Criteria Analysis to the evaluation of Intelligent Transport Systems (ITS). Economic Impacts of Intelligent Transportation Systems: Innovations and Case Studies: Research in Transportation Economics, 8, 151-179.

  • 8. Eckhardt, J., Hietajärvi, A-M., Rönty, J., Andersen, J. & Eidhammer, O. (2012). Guidance and recommendations for interconnection between long distance and local/regional freight transport. D6.2. CLOSER project.

  • 9. Eckhardt J. et al. (2013). Transport corridor management structure. Bothnian Green Logistic Corridor project.

  • 10. Gogas M. and Nathanail E. (2010). Multi-optimization techniques for the design of freight terminals network. In: the Proceedings of 5th International Congress on Transportation Research in Greece, Volos, September 2010.

  • 11. Gogas M., Papoutsis K. and Nathanail E. (2013). The impact of management structures and decision making models of “green” logistics terminals on their performance. In: the Proceedings of International Conference on Reliability and Statistics (RelStat), Riga, October, 2013.

  • 12. Huynh N. and Vidal J. M. (2012). A novel methodology for modelling yard cranes at seaport terminals to support planning and real-time decision making. Int. J. of Six Sigma and Competitive Advantage, 7 (1), 62 - 91.

  • 13. IMONODE consortium (2005)a. Development of nodal points and terminals: Efficient Integration of Cargo Transport Modes and Nodes in CADSES area. IMONODE project.

  • 14. IMONODE consortium (2005)b. Promoting intermodal freight transport in S.E. Europe - Analysis of the existing situation and first strategic results of the IMONODE project. IMONODE project.

  • 15. Karel W. and Brauers M. (2013). Multi-objective seaport planning by MOORA decision making. Annals of Operations Research, 206 (1), 39-58.

  • 16. Li S. and Li J. Z. (2009). Hybridising human judgment, AHP, simulation and a fuzzy expert system for strategy formulation under uncertainty. Expert Systems with Applications, 36, 5557-5564.

  • 17. Nathanail, E., Adamos, G., Parra L., Ruiz-Ayucar, E., L’ Hostis, A., Blanquart, C., Olsen, S., Christiansen, P., Osland, O., Järvi, T., Svedova, Z. Zan, B., (2011). Deliverable D4.1. - Analysis of the Decision-Making Framework. CLOSER Project.

  • 18. Nathanail E. G., Gogas M. A. and Papoutsis K. N. (2014). Investigation of Stakeholders’ View towards the introduction of ICT in Supply Chain using Analytic Hierarchy Process. Journal of Traffic and Logistics Engineering, 2 (2), 113-119.

  • 19. Nijkamp P. (1986), Infrastructure and regional development: A multidimensional policy analysis. Empirical Economics, 11(1), 1.

  • 20. Nijkamp, P., Rietveld, P. and Voogd H. (1990). Multicriteria Evaluation in Physical Planning. North-Holland. Amsterdam.

  • 21. Önüt S., Efendigil T., Soner Kara S. (2010). A combined fuzzy MCDM approach for selecting shopping center site: An example from Istanbul, Turkey. Expert Systems with Applications, 37 (3), 1973-1980.

  • 22. Permala, A. &Rantasila, K. (2010) Best Practices Handbook. ENABLE Deliverable 2.1.

  • 23. Phuong T. and Chapman D. M. (2006). Seaport development in Vietnam: Evaluation using the AHP. In Using multi criteria decision analysis in natural resource management. Ashgate studies in environmental and natural resource economics.

  • 24. Saaty T. (1972). An eigenvalue allocation model for prioritization and planning in Working paper, Energy Management and Policy Center: University of Pennsylvania.

  • 25. Saaty T. (1977). A scaling method for priorities in hierarchical structures. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 15, 234-281.

  • 26. Saaty T. L. (1980). The analytic hierarchy process. McGraw-Hill International, New York, NY, USA.

  • 27. Saaty, T. L. (1988). The analytic hierarchy process (McGraw-Hil.). New York.

  • 28. Ssebuggwawo D., Hoppenbrouwers S. J. B. A., and Proper H. A. (2010) Group Decision Making in Collaborative Modeling: Aggregating Individual Preferences with AHP. In: Digital Proceedings of the 4th SIKS conference in Enterprise Information Systems (EIS 2009), Ravenstein, 2010.

  • 29. Stillwell W., Von Winterfeldt D. and John R. (1987). Comparing hierarchical and non-hierarchical weighting methods for eliciting multi-attribute value models. Management Science, 33, 442-450.

  • 30. STRAIGHTSOL Consortium (2012). Deliverable D3.2 Stakeholders, criteria and weights.

  • 31. Su S., Yu J. and Zhang J. (2010). Measurements study on sustainability of China's mining cities. Expert Systems with Applications, Volume 37 (8), 6028-6035.

  • 32. Transportation Research Board National Cooperative Highway Research Program (TRB/NCHRP) (2004). Cooperative Agreements on Corridor Management, Synthesis 337 - A synthesis of highway practice. Transport Research Board of National Academies.

  • 33. Triantaphyllou E. and Mann S. H. (1995). Using the Analytic Hierarchy Process for Decision Making in engineering applications: some challenges. International Journal of Industrial Engineering: Applications and Practice, 2 (1), 35-44.

  • 34. Weber M., Eisenführ F. and Von Winterfeldt D. (1988). The Effects of Spitting Attributes on Weights in Multiattribute Utility Measurement. Management Science, 34, 431-445.

  • 35. Williams, K.M. and Hopes, C. (2007). Guide for Analysis of Corridor Management Policies and Practices. Centre for Urban Transportation Research (CUTR).

  • 36. World Bank (2005). Best Practices in Corridor Management. International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (IBRD).

OPEN ACCESS

Journal + Issues

Search