Identifying solutions for adding service value to ... · Original Article Identifying solutions for adding service value to international port logistics centers in Taiwan Wen-Shyan

Original Article

Identifying solutions for adding servicevalue to international port logistics centersin Taiwan

Wen - S h y a n Y a n g a, G i n - S h u h L i a n g a a n d J i - F e n g D i n g b

aDepartment of Shipping and Transportation Management, National TaiwanOcean University, Keelung 20224, Taiwan, R.O.C.E-mails: [email protected]; [email protected] of Aviation and Maritime Transportation Management, ChangJung Christ ian University, Tainan 71101, Taiwan, R.O.C.E-mail: [email protected]

Abst rac t Ports play a vital role in international transport logistics systems, where they

serve as links between shipping and inland transport. With the growing development of the

logistics industry in the East Asian region, the role of international port logistics centers

(IPLCs) is becoming increasingly important. To improve customer satisfaction and service

value, emphasis is increasingly placed on providing feasible solutions for IPLCs. In this

article, this is done through the use of the fuzzy quality function deployment (FQFD) method.

First, 30 service value attributes, meeting customer needs, and 11 technical solutions

are measured using the FQFD method. An empirical study is then performed using

questionnaires in two stages. For IPLCs in Taiwan, our results reveal the top 10 key service

value attributes that meet customer needs and the top 5 feasible technical solutions for

increasing service value that also meet customer needs. The technical solutions consist of

‘advantageous port logistics operating costs’; ‘international port policy’; ‘port logistics

operational efficiency’; ‘high-quality logistics facilities’; and ‘professional logistics skills and

operational capabilities’.

Maritime Economics & Logistics (2013) 15, 395–415. doi:10.1057/mel.2013.15

Keywords: customer satisfaction; fuzzy quality function deployment; port logisticscenters; service value; triangular fuzzy numbers.

© 2013 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 1479-2931 Maritime Economics & Logistics Vol. 15, 4, 395–415www.palgrave-journals.com/mel/

Int roduct ion

Due to an extremely high level of competition in the port logistics industry, portfunctions have gradually expanded from the loading/unloading, storage opera-tions and delivery services of the past into regional warehousing, regionaldistribution, simple processing, multi-country consolidation (MCC), multi-coun-try distribution (MCD) and other value-added services (Alderton, 1999; Ding,2009a; Shiau et al, 2011). The roles of international ports have also shifted fromdeparture/arrival and container transshipment points into modern internationallogistics centers with integrated logistics services (Woo et al, 2011). The world’sleading ports, including the ports of Singapore, Shanghai, Hong Kong andRotterdam, are consequently moving toward the diversification of internationallogistics services and are gradually becoming international port logistics centers(IPLCs) (Nam and Song, 2011; Woo et al, 2011).

Yap et al (2006) noted that although the ports of Hong Kong, Shanghai,Shenzhen, Busan, Kaohsiung and Tokyo are currently the main cargo-handling,storage and transfer centers in the East Asia region, the ports of Gwangyang,Qingdao, Ningbo and Xiamen will be vying to join their ranks during thenext 10 years. In addition, the rise of Mainland China will continue to have amajor impact on regional development in East Asia and will cause even greatercompetition among international ports in the region (for example, the ports ofKaohsiung, Shanghai, Shenzhen, Ningbo, Qingdao, Xiamen, Hong Kong,Singapore and Busan). The rapid development of China’s ports will causevaluable sources of cargo to be lost by Taiwan’s ports. To ensure theircompetitive advantage, Taiwan’s ports must invest in service innovation andcreativity to generate service value, enhance competitiveness and avoid thecontinuous loss of sources of cargo. IPLC operators must provide timely, high-quality services to customers and encourage them to use a variety of interna-tional port logistics and related services (Nam and Song, 2011). To effectivelyinduce more end users (including carriers, shippers, logistics companies, oceanfreight forwarders and import/export traders) to use port logistics centers,creating cargo supply advantages, providing higher value services and increasinguser satisfaction are top priorities for Taiwan’s ports operations (Lu and Yang,2006a, b).

Heaver et al (2001) have noted that many changes in integrated businesslogistics services had to meet customer requirements in the most recent decade.The IPLCs must pay attention to providing total solution logistics services to theircustomers. As a result, port logistics operators have been striving to promotehigher customer satisfaction and customer value (Johansson et al, 1993;Lagoudis et al, 2006) and customers have been considering service value as animportant criterion in selecting the best IPLCs (Yang and Liang, 2011).

Yang et al

396 © 2013 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 1479-2931 Maritime Economics & Logistics Vol. 15, 4, 395–415

Experience has shown that promoting high customer value is beneficial toenhancing the competitive advantage of IPLCs. To strengthen the effectivenessof using high service value to improve sustainable competitive advantage, a well-provided service value must be able to be sustainably identified from theperspectives of customers (Heskett, 1986). Selecting IPLCs with high servicevalues would advance port operations for customers. Thus, the service valueamong different international port logistics markets has gradually become animportant issue for the customers of IPLCs.

To ensure customer satisfaction and improve service value, research onfeasible ways of incorporating service value into IPLCs is essential (Ding, 2009b,2012). The Quality Function Deployment (QFD) method is a systematic methodbased on the idea of adapting technology to people (Hauser and Clausing, 1988;Andersson, 1991 ). It offers an effective way of giving IPLC operators insights intoservice value solutions that meet customer requirements. Furthermore, in orderto effectively account for the inherent fuzziness of human judgments andpreferences (Zadeh, 1965, 1975, 1976), the FQFD approach can be employed toevaluate the relationship between customer needs and service value solutions forIPLCs in Taiwan. By using the FQFD method, service value needs of customerscan be transformed into technical solutions able to enhance service valueperformance.

In summary, the main purpose of this study is to apply the FQFD model toidentify solutions for incorporating greater service value into IPLCs fromcustomers’ viewpoints. The first section provides some background informationon this issue. The second section describes the research method and the thirdsection presents the systematic procedures used in the FQFD method. Anempirical study is described in the fourth section and some resulting conclusionsare presented in the last one.

Method

In this section, some basic concepts of the fuzzy set theory (Zadeh, 1965), whichare used to developed FQFD, are briefly introduced.

Triangular fuzzy numbers and their algebraic operations

In a universe of discourse X, a fuzzy subset M of X is defined by a membershipfunction fM(x), which maps each element x in X to a real number in the interval[0,1] (Zadeh, 1965; Dubois and Prade, 1978). The function value fM(x) representsthe grade of membership of x in M.

Identifying solutions for adding service value

397© 2013 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 1479-2931 Maritime Economics & Logistics Vol. 15, 4, 395–415

A fuzzy number M in real line < is a triangular fuzzy number if itsmembership function fM: < ! ½0; 1� is

fMðxÞ=ðx - cÞ=ða - cÞ; c≤ x≤ aðx - bÞ=ða - bÞ; a≤ x≤ b0; otherwise

8<:

with−∞< c≤a≤b<∞. The triangular fuzzy number can be denoted by (c,a,b).The parameter a gives the maximum grade of fM(x), that is, fM(a)= 1; it is the

most probable value of the evaluation data. In addition, c and b are the lower andupper bounds of the available area of the evaluation data. They are used to reflectthe fuzziness of the evaluation data. The narrower the interval [c, b], the lower isthe degree of fuzziness of the evaluation data.

Let M1= (c1, a1, b1) and M2= (c2, a2, b2) be fuzzy numbers. According to theextension principle (Zadeh, 1965), the algebraic operations of any two fuzzynumbers M1 and M2 can be expressed as:

Fuzzy addition, ⊕:

M1 � M2 = ðc1 + c2; a1 + a2; b1 + b2ÞFuzzy multiplication, ⊗:

k � M2 = ðkc2; ka2; kb2Þ; k 2 <; k≥ 0

M1 � M2 ffi ðc1c2; a1a2; b1b2Þ; c1 ≥ 0; c2 ≥ 0

Linguistic values

In this study, linguistic values are characterized by triangular fuzzy numbers(Zadeh, 1975, 1976), which are used to evaluate the degree of fuzzy relationshipbetween technical solutions and attributes of service value. A fuzzy relationshipdegree set is defined as S= {High, Medium, Low, Non}, where the linguisticvalues can be defined as High= (0.5, 0.75, 1),Medium= (0.25, 0.5, 0.75), Low=(0, 0.25, 0.75) and Non= (0, 0, 0), respectively.

Defuzzifying fuzzy numbers

To maintain consistency with the FQFD method developed in this study, thegraded mean integration representation (GMIR) method proposed by Chen andHsieh (2000) was employed to defuzzify fuzzy numbers and then to determinethe priority order of implementation for all technical solutions.

Yang et al


Let Mj= (cj, aj, bj), j= 1,2,…,n, be n triangular fuzzy numbers. By the GMIRmethod, the GMIR value P(Mj) of Mj is

PðMjÞ= ðcj + 4aj + bjÞ=6Let P(Mi) and P(Mj) be the GMIR values of the triangular fuzzy numbers Mi

and Mj, respectively. We define the ranking rules as follows:

Mi <Mj , PðMiÞ< PðMjÞMi =Mj , PðMiÞ= PðMjÞ; andMi >Mj , PðMiÞ> PðMjÞ

The Proposed FQFD Method

In this section, the basics of the QFD model and the procedures of the FQFDmethod are briefly introduced.

Basics of the QFD model

The QFD model (Hauser and Clausing, 1988) can be used to translate customerrequirements into product specifications and is a tool that employs the voice ofthe customer (VOC) in a search for the best product development solutions. Inthis study, we used the QFD model to identify customer service value needs andtechnical service value solutions. A ‘House of Quality’ (HOQ) diagram (Hauserand Clausing, 1988) was used in conjunction with matrices to show multiplerelationships between customer service value needs (that is, the ‘what’ attributesof customer service value) and technical specifications (that is, the ‘how’ oftechnical service value solutions). We used HOQ matrices for organizing servicevalues meeting customer needs and establishing the priorities of technicalsolutions in order to meet customer service value needs.

A typical chart of an HOQ (American style) is shown and explained inFigure 1 and is created in six basic steps. The difference between American-styleand Japanese-style HOQ charts is that the latter lacks Area E in Figure 1. Becausethe Japanese-style HOQ is easy to use (Ding, 2009b), it was employed in thisstudy.

(1) Area A represents customer needs, which is the VOC to be identified. In thisstudy, those needs are the customers’ service value attributes. These weredetermined via a questionnaire survey.

(2) Area B represents the relative importance of customer service valueattributes, which were determined by means of a questionnaire surveyduring the same stage.



(3) Area C represents technical specifications, which are the technical servicevalue solutions.

(4) Area D represents the relationship matrix of customer needs and technicalspecifications, which is the core element of the HOQ. In this study, relation-ship strength is expressed by triangular fuzzy numbers.

(5) Area E represents the correction matrix of technical specifications, whichcharacterizes how the technical specifications affect each other.

(6) Area F represents the design requirement technical target values. In thisstudy, the priorities of technical service value solutions were calculated.

FQFD method procedures

In this section, FQFD method procedures are used to identify solutions for addingservice value to IPLCs in a fuzzy environment.

Step 1: Identify customer service value needsAfter integrating service value items reported in numerous academic publica-tions (Collison, 1984; Brooks, 1985; Slack 1985; Alderton, 1999; Kent and Parker,1999; Stock and Lambert, 2001; Lu, 2003; Tai and Hwang, 2005; Liang et al, 2006;Lu and Yang, 2006a, b; Chou, 2009; Ding, 2009a, b; 2010, 2012; Nam and Song,2011; Shiau et al, 2011; Woo et al, 2011), considering IPLC characteristics, andconsulting with professional scholars and industry experts, 30 attributes wereselected to measure the customer service value provided by the IPLCs in Taiwan.The descriptions of these 30 attributes are shown in Table 1.

Step 2: Calculate the importance and satisfaction levels of customer service valueattributesLet Xik and Yik, i= 1,2,…,m; k= 1,2,…,p denote the importance and satisfactionlevels of attribute Ai given by customer Ck, respectively. Then the means of

Technical specifications (C)

Correlationmatrix (E)

Customer needs (A) Relationship matrix (D)Relative importance of

customer needs (B)

Target values (F)

Figure 1: HOQ.

Yang et al


Table 1: Descriptions of customer service value attributes of IPLCs in Taiwan

Attribute Description

Port facilities and location (A1) The geographical location of the port logistics center, flightintensity, port number, port facilities and the match ofsoftware and hardware are key factors attracting carriers orshippers to the hub port

Cargo sources in port hinterland (A2) The relationship between cargo sources and the economichinterland of a hub port is one of the most important factorsthat customers considered

Linkage with external transportsystems (A3)

A comprehensive transportation system can ensure the fast andconvenient transit of cargo through a port

Overall image and reputation of port(A4)

Port logistic operations and customs clearance efficiency aretwo important factors that can be used to evaluate an IPLC’soperations performance. Important aspects of thedevelopment of international logistics services includeproviding effective 24-hour logistics service, enhancing thespeed and efficiency of port logistics operations andenhancing the port’s overall image and reputation

Customer relationship management(A5)

Attracting customers to purchase the services provided by a portis a key issue in port logistics management. A port shouldemphasize customer-oriented service. Only rapid andeffective responses to customer needs and resolution ofcustomer complaints can maintain good relationships withcustomers

Avoidance of overregulation of thelogistics industry (A6)

If the provisions of government laws are too complicated, thismay affect the timeliness of the flow of goods betweencountries. One of the chief obstacles to multinationalbusiness activity is the restrictions of trade laws

Relaxation of the Customs Act (A7) Relaxing custom clearance provisions and modifying relevantcustoms clearance regulations should help improve overallcustoms clearance efficiency

Political and economic stability (A8) A stable political environment, good administrative efficiency,economic development and financial liberalization arevaluable means by which the government can enhancenational competitiveness

Operating efficiency of port logisticscenter (A9)

Port logistics requires different types of machinery andequipment to meet the various needs of customers. Inaddition, effective professional skills are required to quicklydeal with large freight handling demands and to improve aport’s overall operating efficiency

Professional logistics personnel andskills (A10)

This includes employee productivity, business handling andtraining of professional logistics personnel. Businessesshould train employees in professional warehouse or logisticsskills

Paperwork handling efficiency (A11) File handlers must ensure that information is on time andaccurate. Better file handling accuracy produces higheroperating efficiency in the organization

Convenience and speed of customsoperations (A12)

Customs operations are convenient and will not indirectly affectthe clearance time of goods, which should be helpful inimproving the efficiency of customs operations

Ability to handle special cargos (A13) Special cargo refers to oversized goods or dangerous items (suchas large parts, dangerous items and chemicals). These typesof cargoes require special machinery, equipment andprofessional skills to ensure smooth loading and unloading



Table 1: continued


Port logistics rates (A14) A port should adopt flexible mechanisms and competitive ratesto stabilize its customer base and reduce the operating costsof carriers and shippers

Tax reduction benefits and policies(A15)

In an era of low profits and strong competition between ports,the provision of preferential tax treatment is a necessity. Asthe market changes, if the taxes can be flexibly adjusted andpreferential tariff conditions provided, shipping companiesand cargo owners will be able to benefit through reducedoperating costs

Storage operation management (A16) Refers to cargo storage, picking, replenishment, warehouseaccess, stocktaking, packaging, handling, classification,incoming quality control, returns processing, inventorymanagement and other operating functions

Handling and storage equipmentcapacity (A17)

Refers to equipment capacity and general and special cargohandling equipment, such as providing warehouses, bondedwarehouses, stack yards, machinery, other cargo handlingequipment and facilities, and other processing capabilities

Safe storage of cargo and damageclaims (A18)

Business operators should ensure that safety is a priority andrisk prevention measures are taken, and when any goods aredamaged they should quickly respond to customers’ requestsand deal with claims matters as soon as possible

Import/export and multinationalcontainer consolidation (A19)

When handling various types of goods, port logistics operatorsmust provide multinational container consolidation andother business services to ensure that a variety of goods canbe quickly transported to customers, thereby creating addedvalue and meeting customer needs

Speed/convenience of cargotransshipment operations (A20)

The construction of port infrastructure and operatingperformance improvements will not only make a port moreefficient but also attract customers to select the hub port asa transshipment center

Integration of port logistics datainformation (A21)

The integration and convenience of a shipping and portinformation system can provide carriers and shippers withconvenient and efficient information transmission andprocessing, allowing them to improve their informationintegration and supply chain management. Access to andsharing of information and the use of informationtechnology are key methods of creating a competitiveadvantage

E-commerce functions (A22) The adoption of e-commerce has propelled the world economicsystem from the information and communication age intothe digital economy era and has also helped to promotegreater cooperation and closer working relationships withcustomers and industry partners

Goods tracking service (A23) Goods tracking involves the use of advanced technology(such as Global Positioning Systems) by a carrier to track andcontrol goods, allowing customers to keep abreast of themovement of their goods

Independent managementinformation of goods (A24)

Access to independent management information will allow theexpansion of logistics procedures and promote efficientmanagement, integration, planning and coordination, whilealso achieving cost reduction and the improvement of service

Yang et al


customers’ importance and satisfaction rating levels (Xi and Yi) of attribute Ai

can be calculated by

Xi =Xpk= 1

Xik=p

and

Yi =Xpk= 1

Yik=p

Table 1: continued


Provision of sales and marketinginformation (A25)

The use of two-dimensional bar codes to collect informationfrom the point of sale and the transmission of salesinformation to suppliers allows the latter to replenish theirinventory at any time and can increase competitiveness incommodities markets

Logistics manufacturing capabilities(A26)

This includes promoting the use of labels or codes on cargo, thepackaging, arrangement, splitting, returning, inspection andfacilitation of goods manufacturing, as well as simplemanufacturing services

Import/export and multinationallogistics distribution (A27)

Logistics distribution services include the arrangement ofsailing dates, import goods quotas, export goodsdistribution, cargo transshipment, regional transportationand distribution, multinational logistics distribution, andcooperation with international logistics firms to provideexternal international logistics distribution services

Speed/convenience of multimodaltransport services (A28)

In order to satisfy carrier/shipper needs, the scope of servicesshould be expanded to include more multimodal transportservices. Multimodal transport service project providers mustcooperate with business partners, inland merchants,shipping companies, warehouse operators, container freightstation firms and others. In addition, the provision ofconsistent and complete packaged transportation servicesshould be considered

Bank, insurance and application forcustoms services (A29)

This covers banking services, insurance services and theapplication for customs services

Professional consulting services (A30) This category includes warehouse and distribution processplanning, inventory management reporting and keyperformance index analyses, order and account handling,commodities exhibition and sale services, multifunctionalconference room operation, renting/leasing and repairing,parking lot operation, security, waste disposal, manpoweroutsourcing, and provision of customs clearance consultingservices



Step 3: Calculate the priorities of customer service value needsAfter obtaining the means of customers’ importance and satisfaction rating levelsfor customer service value attributes, the following method was used to calculatethe priorities of customer service value needs.

As the priority of a customer service value attribute has a direct relationshipwith the degree of importance and has an inverse relationship with the degree ofsatisfaction, the original priority rating wi of attribute Ai can be obtained by

wi =Xi ´ ðU + 1 -YiÞwhere U is the maximum value of the scale for evaluating the satisfaction ofcustomer service value attributes. For example, if a seven-point Likert-type scaleis used then U= 7.

The standardized weight vi can then be obtained as

vi =wi=Xmi= 1

wi

!

On the basis of this concept, the priority of each customer need attribute canbe found.

Step 4: Identify technical solutionsThis ‘how’ issue is considered from the perspective of technical specificationsinvolved in identifying solutions of service value; these technical specificationswere obtained from the academic literature (Collison, 1984; Brooks, 1985; Slack1985; Alderton, 1999; Fleming and Baird, 1999; Kent and Parker, 1999;Notteboom and Winkelmans, 2001; Stock and Lambert, 2001; Tai and Hwang,2005; Lu and Yang, 2006b; Ding, 2009a, 2011; Liu and Lyons, 2011; Woo et al,2011) and port experts. Eleven technical solutions were used to achieveenhanced customer satisfaction in view of customer requirements. Descriptionsof all technical solutions are shown in Table 2.

Step 5: Construct the central fuzzy relationship matrixThe purpose of constructing a central fuzzy relationship matrix is to linktechnical solutions (see Table 2) and attributes (see Table 1) in a fuzzy decisionenvironment. On the basis of the central fuzzy relationship matrix, eachtechnical solution is correlated individually with each customer need attributeby considering the contribution of each technical solution relative to eachcustomer need attribute.

There are two preference ratings that can be used to evaluate the fuzzyrelationship between technical solutions and customer need attributes, namelytriangular fuzzy numbers and linguistic values characterized by triangular fuzzynumbers. Let Xijk= (cijk, aijk, bijk), i= 1, 2,…,m; j= 1, 2,…,n; k= 1, 2,…,p be the

Yang et al


Table 2: Descriptions of technical solutions for providing customer service value

Solution Description

Advantageous port logisticsoperating costs (B1)

This refers primarily to advantageous port loading/unloading,warehousing, processing and distribution costs. These costs arekey factors inducing shippers and cargo owners to invest at theport and allow customers to enjoy the maximum benefit

Port logistics operational efficiency(B2)

In order to provide efficient logistics handling that meets theneeds of carriers and shippers, it is necessary to have goodprofessional skills to quickly handle loading and unloadingrequests involving large quantities of goods and to be able toincrease overall loading and unloading efficiency

Professional logistics skills andoperational capabilities (B3)

This refers to the training of talented individuals to enhancebusiness-handling abilities in logistics as well as to theapplication of knowledge and technology to gain an advantagein a competitive market. It also involves cooperation betweenindustry and academia in order to co-develop new techniques,cultivate talented individuals and ensure there is a sufficientquantity of personnel with logistics skills in Taiwan

Superior geographical location (B4) An international port should be located in a suitable geographicallocation and have well-designed facilities, lower operatingcosts and up-to-date technologies. A superior geographicallocation will induce firms to establish international logisticscenters there and provide multifunctional services that satisfythe needs of carriers and shippers and create greater productadded value

Excellent speed/convenience ofcustoms clearance (B5)

Fast and convenient customs clearance is an important indicatorguiding firms’ investment decisions. Whether the customsoperating model is convenient or not will indirectly affect theworking efficiency of customs clearance. If customs clearance isfast and convenient, this will help to increase the customsoffice’s operating efficiency

Superior speed/convenience oftransportation (B6)

An effective transportation network to the port and from the portto its economic hinterlands, using such transportation systemsas rail, highway and water will help to transport incoming/outgoing goods to and from a port and provide well-organizedtransportation services

High-quality logistics facilities (B7) This refers to the handling equipment for general and specialgoods, such as warehouses, bonded warehouses, storage yards,machinery and equipment, and other loading/unloadingequipment and facilities that provide handling capabilities.Effective operations facilities must have the basic functions ofsuitable safekeeping and storage of general goods and specialgoods (such as refrigerated products, dangerous items andchemicals), as well as minimal damage and theft

Effective information systems (B8) Information technology can efficiently integrate internaloperations and expedite outside information production andcirculation, increasing the added value of goods, products, andrelated materials information services. Investments ininformation technology are an effective means of improvingoperating methods and reducing logistics operating costs

Maximum value added (B9) When a port logistics center provides carriers and shippers withexcellent service, this increases cargo added value and satisfiescustomers’ expectations



degree of fuzzy relationship between an attribute Ai and a technical solution Bjgiven by expert k. The fuzzy relationship strength Rij in the position (i, j) can becalculated by:

Rij =Xpk= 1

Xijk=p= ðcij; aij; bijÞ

where,

cij =Xpk= 1

cijk=p; aij =Xpk= 1

aijk=p; and bij =Xpk= 1

bijk=p

The central fuzzy relationship matrix R can then be obtained, and is

R= ½Rij�m ´n

Step 6: Calculate the fuzzy weights of technical solutionsLet Rij= (cij, aij, bij), i=1, 2,…,m; j=1, 2,…,n be the fuzzy relationship strengthbetween attributes Ai and technical solutions Bj. Then, the fuzzy weight FRSj of atechnical solution Bj versus all customer service value attributes can be obtained as:

FRSj =Xmi= 1

vi � Rij = ðdj; ej; fjÞ;

where,

dj =Xmi= 1

vicij; ej =Xmi= 1

viaij; and fj =Xmi= 1

vibij

Table 2: continued

Solution Description

International port policy (B10) The drafting and revision of logistics-related laws, such as byrelaxing land use restrictions, granting single licenses,promoting Free Trade Port Zones (for constructing theoperating environment of modern port, facilitating the flow ofgoods, promoting the development of logistics industry andimproving the competitiveness of country and ports) andsimplifying procedures to expedite customs clearance, canaggressively improve the current logistics operationsenvironment

Relaxation of laws and regulations(B11)

Excessively strict customs clearance procedures will inhibitinvestment by carriers and shippers. If customs clearanceprocedures can be deregulated and laws and regulations revisedto ensure flexibility and to meet current actual need, this canhelp to elevate the overall operating efficiency of customsclearance

Yang et al


Step 7: Defuzzify the fuzzy weights to rank the priority order of implementation ofall technical solutionsOn the basis of the GMIR method characterized by triangular fuzzy numbers(Chen and Hsieh, 2000), the ranking value P(FRSj) of the fuzzy weight FRSj of alltechnical solutions Bj can be calculated by:

PðFRSjÞ= dj + 4ej + fj� ��

6

This allows the ranking values of all technical solutions to be obtained. Onthe basis of these ranking values, a decision maker can determine the priorityorder of implementation of all technical solutions.

Empi r i ca l S tudy

In this section, an empirical study, evaluating solutions enhancing the customerservice value of an IPLC in Taiwan, is carried out to demonstrate the use of theFQFD method described above.

Questionnaire design and survey

Questionnaires for two different stages were designed to explore ‘what’ thecustomer needs and ‘how’ service values can be achieved. In the Stage 1 survey,the 30 service value attributes listed in Table 1 were used to design thequestionnaire. All responses were scored on a seven-point Likert-type scaleexpressing the level of importance (satisfaction), where 1= very unimportant(very dissatisfied) and 7= very important (very satisfied). After the first draft ofthe questionnaire was completed, two harbor bureau office personnel, twoprofessional managers from an ocean freight forwarder, two professionalmanagers from logistics companies, two scholars and two professional managersfrom ocean carriers were asked to give their opinions concerning the question-naire content, and the questionnaire was revised after receiving their comments.The survey was then distributed to 208 firms and 117 questionnaires werereturned, of which 12 contained invalid answers and 105 were usable. Theoverall valid response rate was 50.48 per cent.

The values of Cronbach’s α of all 30 attributes with respect to importanceand degrees of satisfaction were 0.935 and 0.932, respectively, showing that thesurvey results had a satisfactory level of reliability (Nunnally and Bernstein,1994). The content of this questionnaire was established through a literaturereview and interviews with professional academics and practical managers; inaddition, a pretest was carried out. The content validity of this questionnaire wasconsequently very good.



For the Stage 2 survey, which combined the 30 service value attributes andthe 11 technical solutions, a central fuzzy relationship matrix table wasconstructed to evaluate the fuzzy relationship strength. Five professionallogistics operators were asked to assign the degree of fuzzy relationship. Thisstudy defined the four grades of degree of fuzzy relationship as {Non, Low,Medium and High}. The membership functions of those linguistic values weredefined as High= (0.5, 0.75, 1), Medium= (0.25, 0.5, 0.75), Low= (0, 0.25, 0.5)and Non= (0, 0, 0).

Results

The authors used FQFD procedures to obtain the final results shown in Table 3.The detailed construction of the HOQ in Table 3 is described as follows.

The right side of Table 3 shows the Xi, Yi, wi and νi of customer needsattribute Ai. In the Stage 1 survey, the responses on the 105 valid questionnaireswere used to calculate the means. A comparison between importance andsatisfaction rating levels shows that the means of overall satisfaction or single-attribute satisfaction levels (Yi) were smaller than the means of importance levels(Xi). This indicates that the attribute Ai is important for customers’ perceptionsbut actually results in dissatisfaction. IPLC operators should therefore try toreduce this gap. The top 10 key attributes were deemed to have priority inimproving the value of service of an IPLC. These attributes were ‘speed/convenience of cargo transshipment operations (A20)’; ‘logistics manufacturingcapabilities (A26)’; ‘operating efficiency of port logistics center (A9)’; ‘taxreduction benefits and policies (A15)’; ‘safe storage of cargo and damage claims(A18)’; ‘convenience and speed of customs operations (A12)’; ‘import/export andmultinational container consolidation (A19)’; ‘cargo sources in port hinterland(A2)’; ‘port logistics rates (A14)’; and ‘speed/convenience of multimodal trans-port services (A28)’.

The middle section of Table 3 shows the central fuzzy relationship matrix.Four linguistic values, characterized by triangular fuzzy numbers, wereemployed in the Stage 2 questionnaire to measure the strength of the fuzzyrelationship between technical solutions and customer needs. Five valid ques-tionnaires were obtained and used to calculate the central fuzzy relationshipmatrix (see Step 5 of the FQFD method). After obtaining a central fuzzyrelationship matrix, the authors used Step 6 of the FQFD method to calculatethe fuzzy weights of all technical solutions. The technical solutions were thenranked based on the ranking rules and these results are shown at the bottom ofTable 3.

The empirical results showed that the five best feasible solutions providingservice value that meet customer requirements consist of ‘advantageous port

Yang et al


Table 3: The results of solutions of the customers’ service value of the IPLC

B1 B2 B3 B4 B5 B6 B7

A1 (0.2, 0.4,0.6 )

(0.1, 0.3,0.5)

(0.1, 0.3,0.5)

(0.35, 0.6,0.85)

(0.15, 0.35,0.55)

(0.2, 0.45,0.7)

(0.15, 0.35,0.55)

A2 (0.3, 0.5,0.7)

(0.3, 0.55,0.8)

(0.25, 0.5,0.75)

(0.3, 0.5,0.7)

(0.2, 0.4,0.6)

(0.4, 0.65,0.9)

(0.25, 0.5,0.75)

A3 (0.4, 0.65,0.9)

(0.3, 0.55,0.8)

(0.35, 0.6,0.85)

(0.35, 0.6,0.85)

(0.3, 0.5,0.8)

(0.35, 0.6,0.85)

(0.25, 0.45,0.65)

A4 (0.05, 0.2,0.35)

(0, 0.2,0.4)

(0.05, 0.25,0.45)

(0.2, 0.4,0.6)

(0.2, 0.4,0.6)

(0.15, 0.35,0.55)

(0.15, 0.35,0.55)

A5 (0.25, 0.45,0.65)

(0.25, 0.5,0.75)

(0.3, 0.5,0.8)

(0.15, 0.3,0.45)

(0.2, 0.45,0.7)

(0.25, 0.5,0.75)

(0.3, 0.5,0.8)

A6 (0.45, 0.7,0.95)

(0.35, 0.6,0.85)

(0.25, 0.45,0.65)

(0.3, 0.5,0.7)

(0.5, 0.75,1)

(0.35, 0.5,0.75)

(0.3, 0.5,0.8)

A7 (0.45, 0.7,0.95)

(0.45, 0.7,0.95)

(0.3, 0.55,0.8)

(0.2, 0.4,0.6)

(0.45, 0.7,0.95)

(0.3, 0.5,0.7)

(0.3, 0.5,0.7)

A8 (0.35, 0.6,0.85)

(0.45, 0.7,0.95)

(0.3, 0.5,0.8)

(0.35, 0.6,0.85)

(0.45, 0.7,0.95)

(0.3, 0.5,0.8)

(0.4, 0.65,0.9)

A9 (0.45, 0.7,0.95)

(0.45, 0.7,0.95)

(0.45, 0.7,0.95)

(0.2, 0.35,0.5)

(0.4, 0.65,0.9)

(0.3, 0.55,0.8)

(0.4, 0.65,0.9)

A10 (0.35, 0.6,0.85)

(0.4, 0.65,0.9)

(0.45, 0.7,0.95)

(0.15, 0.3,0.45)

(0.3, 0.5,0.7)

(0.3, 0.5,0.7)

(0.4, 0.65,0.9)

A11 (0.4, 0.65,0.9)

(0.45, 0.7,0.95)

(0.3, 0.55,0.8)

(0.15, 0.3,0.45)

(0.35, 0.6,0.85)

(0.2, 0.4,0.6)

(0.25, 0.5,0.75)

A12 (0.45, 0.7,0.95)

(0.5, 0.75,1)

(0.5, 0.75,1)

(0.2, 0.35,0.5)

(0.45, 0.7,0.95)

(0.35, 0.5,0.75)

(0.3, 0.5,0.7)

A13 (0.35, 0.6,0.85)

(0.45, 0.7,0.95)

(0.45, 0.7,0.95)

(0.2, 0.35,0.5)

(0.3, 0.5,0.7)

(0.4, 0.65,0.9)

(0.4, 0.65,0.9)

A14 (0.45, 0.7,0.95)

(0.35, 0.55,0.75)

(0.35, 0.55,0.75)

(0.2, 0.35,0.5)

(0.3, 0.5,0.7)

(0.3, 0.5,0.7)

(0.3, 0.5,0.7)

A15 (0.45, 0.7,0.95)

(0.25, 0.45,0.65)

(0.25, 0.45,0.65)

(0.2, 0.4,0.6)

(0.3, 0.55,0.8)

(0.2, 0.4,0.6)

(0.2, 0.4,0.6)

A16 (0.35, 0.6,0.85)

(0.4, 0.65,0.9)

(0.35, 0.6,0.85)

(0.1, 0.25,0.4)

(0.2, 0.4,0.6)

(0.2, 0.4,0.6)

(0.4, 0.65,0.9)

A17 (0.25, 0.5,0.75)

(0.3, 0.55,0.8)

(0.3, 0.55,0.8)

(0.2, 0.45,0.7)

(0.1, 0.3,0.5)

(0.15, 0.35,0.5)

(0.2, 0.45,0.7)

A18 (0.4, 0.65,0.9)

(0.3, 0.55,0.8)

(0.4, 0.65,0.9)

(0.25, 0.45,0.65)

(0.2, 0.4,0.6)

(0.35, 0.6,0.85)

(0.35, 0.6,0.85)

A19 (0.3, 0.55,0.8)

(0.35, 0.6,0.85)

(0.3, 0.55,0.8)

(0.35, 0.6,0.85)

(0.3, 0.55,0.8)

(0.4, 0.65,0.9)

(0.35, 0.6,0.85)

A20 (0.3, 0.55,0.8)

(0.35, 0.6,0.85)

(0.3, 0.55,0.8)

(0.35, 0.6,0.85)

(0.3, 0.55,0.8)

(0.45, 0.7,0.95)

(0.4, 0.65,0.9)

A21 (0.25, 0.45,0.65)

(0.2, 0.4,0.6)

(0.25, 0.45,0.65)

(0.1, 0.25,0.4)

(0.2, 0.45,0.7)

(0.25, 0.5,0.75)

(0.35, 0.6,0.85)

A22 (0.25, 0.45,0.65)

(0.25, 0.45,0.65)

(0.25, 0.5,0.75)

(0.1, 0.2,0.3)

(0.25, 0.5,0.75)

(0.2, 0.4,0.6)

(0.3, 0.5,0.7)

A23 (0.2, 0.4,0.6)

(0.25, 0.45,0.65)

(0.2, 0.4,0.6)

(0.15, 0.3,0.45)

(0.2, 0.4,0.6)

(0.2, 0.4,0.6)

(0.35, 0.6,0.85)

A24 (0.25, 0.5,0.75)

(0.2, 0.45,0.7)

(0.2, 0.45,0.7)

(0.1, 0.25,0.4)

(0.15, 0.35,0.55)

(0.1, 0.25,0.4)

(0.25, 0.45,0.65)

A25 (0.15, 0.35,0.55)

(0.15, 0.35,0.55)

(0.15, 0.35,0.55)

(0.05, 0.25,0.45)

(0.05, 0.25,0.45)

(0.1, 0.25,0.4)

(0.2, 0.4,0.6)

A26 (0.3, 0.55,0.8)

(0.3, 0.5,0.7)

(0.3, 0.5,0.7)

(0.4, 0.65,0.9)

(0.35, 0.6,0.85)

(0.35, 0.6,0.85)

(0.4, 0.65,0.9)



Table 3: continued

B1 B2 B3 B4 B5 B6 B7

A27 (0.4, 0.65,0.9)

(0.35, 0.6,0.85)

(0.3, 0.55,0.8)

(0.45, 0.7,0.95)

(0.45, 0.7,0.95)

(0.45, 0.7,0.95)

(0.4, 0.65,0.9)

A28 (0.4, 0.65,0.9)

(0.4, 0.65,0.9)

(0.4, 0.65,0.9)

(0.4, 0.65,0.9)

(0.35, 0.6,0.85)

(0.35, 0.6,0.85)

(0.35, 0.6,0.85)

A29 (0.2, 0.35,0.5)

(0.15, 0.3,0.45)

(0.2, 0.4,0.6)

(0.1, 0.2,0.3)

(0.3, 0.5,0.7)

(0.1, 0.2,0.3)

(0.2, 0.35,0.5)

A30 (0.15, 0.35,0.55)

(0.2, 0.4,0.6)

(0.25, 0.45,0.65)

(0.15, 0.3,0.45)

(0.15, 0.3,0.45)

(0.15, 0.3,0.45)

(0.2, 0.35,0.5)

Fuzzy weights (0.32, 0.56,0.79)

(0.31, 0.54,0.77)

(0.3, 0.53,0.76)

(0.23, 0.42,0.61)

(0.29, 0.51,0.74)

(0.28, 0.5,0.71)

(0.31, 0.53,0.76)

GMIR values 0.5583 0.5400 0.5300 0.4200 0.5117 0.4983 0.5317Ranking 1 3 5 9 6 7 4

B8 B9 B10 B11 Xi Yi wi vi

A1 (0.15, 0.35,0.55)

(0.2, 0.4,0.45)

(0.15, 0.3,0.45)

(0.15, 0.3,0.45)

5.6190 4.9523 17.1250 0.0299 (24)

A2 (0.2, 0.4,0.6)

(0.25, 0.4,0.35)

(0.15, 0.3,0.45)

(0.15, 0.3,0.45)

5.9523 4.419 21.3152 0.0372 (8)

A3 (0.25, 0.45,0.65)

(0.25, 0.45,0.5)

(0.2, 0.35,0.5)

(0.2, 0.35,0.5)

5.6952 4.6476 19.0926 0.0333 (16)

A4 (0.1, 0.3,0.5)

(0.05, 0.2,0.25)

(0.2, 0.4,0.6)

(0.15, 0.35,0.55)

5.7809 4.9047 17.8936 0.0312 (19)

A5 (0.3, 0.55,0.8)

(0.2, 0.35,0.35)

(0.2, 0.35,0.5)

(0.2, 0.35,0.5)

5.4952 4.7809 17.6896 0.0308 (21)

A6 (0.3, 0.5,0.7)

(0.25, 0.45,0.45)

(0.4, 0.65,0.9)

(0.4, 0.65,0.9)

5.2571 4.4952 18.4251 0.0321 (17)

A7 (0.3, 0.5,0.7)

(0.3, 0.5,0.5)

(0.45, 0.7,0.95)

(0.4, 0.65,0.9)

5.40 4.238 20.3148 0.0354 (13)

A8 (0.4, 0.65,0.9)

(0.2, 0.4,0.45)

(0.45, 0.7,0.95)

(0.5, 0.75, 1) 5.6476 4.3904 20.3856 0.0355 (12)

A9 (0.2, 0.4,0.6)

(0.15, 0.3,0.3)

(0.3, 0.5,0.7)

(0.2, 0.45,0.7)

5.7333 3.9428 23.2611 0.0405 (3)

A10 (0.35, 0.6,0.85)

(0.2, 0.35,0.35)

(0.3, 0.55,0.8)

(0.2, 0.4,0.6)

5.1714 4.1047 20.1442 0.0351 (14)

A11 (0.35, 0.6,0.85)

(0.15, 0.3,0.3)

(0.2, 0.4,0.55)

(0.2, 0.4,0.6)

5.1047 4.619 17.2590 0.0301 (23)

A12 (0.45, 0.7,0.95)

(0.25, 0.4,0.55)

(0.3, 0.55,0.8)

(0.25, 0.45,0.65)

5.3238 3.9142 21.7520 0.0379 (6)

A13 (0.25, 0.45,0.65)

(0.15, 0.35,0.45)

(0.2, 0.4,0.6)

(0.15, 0.3,0.45)

5.2857 5.0952 15.3539 0.0268 (26)

A14 (0.2, 0.4,0.6)

(0.25, 0.4,0.55)

(0.35, 0.6,0.85)

(0.3, 0.5,0.7)

5.1904 3.9333 21.1078 0.0368 (9)

A15 (0.25, 0.45,0.65)

(0.2, 0.4,0.5)

(0.2, 0.4,0.6)

(0.3, 0.5,0.7)

5.5142 3.9523 22.3198 0.0389 (4)

A16 (0.25, 0.5,0.75)

(0.2, 0.4,0.45)

(0.15, 0.4,0.65)

(0.1, 0.25,0.4)

5.9904 5.1809 16.8875 0.0294 (25)

A17 (0.1, 0.3,0.5)

(0.05, 0.2,0.2)

(0.05, 0.2,0.35)

(0.1, 0.3,0.5)

6.1238 5.038 18.1387 0.0316 (18)

A18 (0.25, 0.5,0.75)

(0.2, 0.4,0.45)

(0.2, 0.35,0.5)

(0.25, 0.4,0.55)

5.9619 4.2571 22.3148 0.0389 (5)

Yang et al


logistics operating costs (B1)’; ‘international port policy (B10)’; ‘port logisticsoperational efficiency (B2)’; ‘high-quality logistics facilities (B7)’; and ‘profes-sional logistics skills and operational capabilities (B3)’.

Conc lus ion

The main purpose of this study is to apply the FQFDmethod to assign priorities totechnical solutions that provide service value meeting customers’ needs at IPLCsin Taiwan. With this approach, HOQ matrices were first used to show themultiple relationships between the ‘what’ and ‘how’ aspects of the QFD problem.Due to the fuzzy, ambiguous and incomplete or imprecise decision-makingenvironment, a fuzzy QFD method was employed to improve the quality of thedecision-making problem. A systematic FQFD method was then proposed to

Table 3: continued

B8 B9 B10 B11 Xi Yi wi vi

A19 (0.2, 0.4,0.6)

(0.15, 0.3,0.3)

(0.25, 0.45,0.65)

(0.3, 0.5,0.7)

5.8666 4.3333 21.5111 0.0375 (7)

A20 (0.25, 0.5,0.75)

(0.2, 0.4,0.45)

(0.3, 0.55,0.8)

(0.3, 0.55,0.8)

6.4095 4.2095 24.2952 0.0423 (1)

A21 (0.4, 0.65,0.9)

(0.2, 0.35,0.35)

(0.15, 0.35,0.55)

(0.05, 0.15,0.25)

5.2285 4.1809 19.9682 0.0348 (15)

A22 (0.35, 0.6,0.85)

(0.25, 0.4,0.4)

(0.15, 0.35,0.5)

(0.05, 0.15,0.25)

4.9142 4.8857 15.3043 0.0267 (27)

A23 (0.4, 0.65,0.9)

(0.2, 0.35,0.35)

(0.05, 0.2,0.35)

(0.05, 0.2,0.35)

4.9428 4.9714 14.9698 0.0261 (28)

A24 (0.3, 0.5,0.8)

(0.15, 0.35,0.45)

(0, 0.15, 0.3) (0, 0.1, 0.2) 4.9523 5.1333 14.1968 0.0247 (29)

A25 (0.25, 0.5,0.75)

(0.15, 0.35,0.45)

(0.1, 0.25,0.4)

(0.1, 0.25,0.4)

4.9333 5.3428 13.1088 0.0228 (30)

A26 (0.2, 0.45,0.7)

(0.25, 0.5,0.6)

(0.3, 0.5,0.7)

(0.3, 0.5,0.7)

6.1809 4.2857 22.9577 0.0400 (2)

A27 (0.2, 0.45,0.7)

(0.25, 0.5,0.6)

(0.25, 0.45,0.65)

(0.25, 0.45,0.65)

5.4190 4.7333 17.7022 0.0309 (20)

A28 (0.2, 0.4,0.6)

(0.25, 0.45,0.5)

(0.25, 0.5,0.75)

(0.25, 0.5,0.75)

6.0761 4.5333 21.0640 0.0367 (10)

A29 (0.25, 0.45,0.65)

(0.25, 0.5,0.6)

(0.25, 0.45,0.75)

(0.15, 0.3,0.45)

6.1904 4.6857 20.5168 0.0358 (11)

A30 (0.3, 0.55,0.8)

(0.3, 0.55,0.65)

(0.2, 0.4,0.6)

(0.15, 0.3,0.45)

6.3142 5.2571 17.3192 0.0302 (22)

Fuzzyweight

(0.26, 0.49,0.72)

(0.21, 0.39,0.42)

(0.23, 0.61,0.64)

(0.21, 0.4,0.59)

GMIRvalues

0.4900 0.3650 0.5517 0.4000

Ranking 8 11 2 10

Note: The full names of all attributes and solutions can be found in Table 1 and Table 2.



evaluate technical solutions for increasing the service value of IPLCs in Taiwan.Finally, an empirical study was conducted to demonstrate a systematic appraisalprocess for assigning priorities to technical solutions that provide service valuemeeting customers’ needs. In this article, this is done through the use of two-stage questionnaires. They were designed to help illustrate the operationalprocess of the proposed model.

After analyzing the first stage questionnaire, we obtain the top 10 key servicevalue attributes that meet customer needs of IPLCs in Taiwan as ‘speed/convenience of cargo transshipment operations’; ‘logistics manufacturing cap-abilities’; ‘operating efficiency of port logistics centers’; ‘tax reduction benefitsand policies’; ‘safe storage of cargo and damage claims’; ‘convenience and speedof customs operations’; ‘import/export and multinational container consolida-tion’; ‘cargo sources in port hinterland’; ‘port logistics rates’; and ‘speed/convenience of multimodal transport services’. It shows that the logisticsoperations efficiency and quality are important customer needs of IPLCs inTaiwan. Therefore, the design of simple and standard service processes, toshorten service times and reduce errors, will efficiently improve customersatisfaction. Logistics manufacturing is an integral part of the services providedby IPLCs; thus, using information science and technology to improve logisticsmanufacturing capabilities (for example, sorting, processing, splitting, packa-ging, labeling and simple manufacturing) is a good idea. In addition, tax ratesand competitive service prices are important indices in customer relationships.Hence, providing preferential and flexible tax rates and service prices to benefitend users (including carriers, shippers, logistics companies, ocean freightforwarders and import/export traders) will become an important strategic issuefor IPLCs in Taiwan. Moreover, ensuring the security of cargoes stored in thewarehouses and tackling damage claims as soon as possible should be the focusof attention during warehousing or transport operations. Strengthening of ware-housing security management, enhancing professional ability of operators to dealwith cargo damage and creating a sound claim settlement system to follow forrelated compensations are therefore extremely important.

Using FQFD, the top five feasible technical solutions that provide servicevalue meeting customer needs are obtained. The first priority is ‘advantageousport logistics operating costs’. The other priorities are ‘international portpolicies’; ‘optimized port logistics operational efficiency’; ‘high-quality logisticsfacilities’; and ‘professional logistics skills and operational capabilities’.

From the analysis of feasible technical solutions, some findings can beconsidered as the key points of strategic planning. First, cost leadership is animportant business strategy. Its focus is to obtain or maintain costs lower thancompetitors. Offering advantageous port logistics operating costs can induceshippers and cargo owners to invest in the port. Second, facing the intense

Yang et al


competition of port logistics industry in East Asia, and the loss of valuablesources of cargo, having excellent international port policies to expand thesources of cargo and to ensure the competitive advantage of Taiwan’s ports is amust. Taiwan’s ports have excellent location and perfect shipping servicecapabilities. Moreover, they can rapidly integrate with Mainland China andinternational markets, in production and marketing. These are best bases ofattracting investment and expanding the sources of cargo. Therefore, the toppriorities are attracting investment and promoting high value-added services ofMCC as well as MCD. The other appropriate policies include ‘improving theinvestment environment’; ‘reducing various barriers to business, logistics andfinance, and crowd flows in cross-border port operations’; ‘strengthening thefunction of existing Free Trade Port Zones’; ‘attracting Taiwanese businessmento return to Taiwan’; ‘attracting investments from overseas corporations’; and‘simplifying procedures to expedite customs clearance’. Excellent internationalport policies can protect investor confidence in the IPLCs and ensure theirattractiveness. Third, the efficiency of port logistics operations and customsclearance have become important assessment factors guiding the trade andinvestment decisions of transnational corporations. As a consequence, develop-ing the international logistics services, providing effective service to logisticsoperations, boosting port logistics efficiency, and enhancing the overall imageand reputation of a port are urgent priorities in port operations. Forth, the qualityof service has become one of the key factors influencing the selection of IPLCs forcustomers. The international port logistics service providers should focus onproviding the highest quality handling equipment and facilities for ensuringsecurity and reducing the damage of cargoes, including warehouses, large-capacity-bonded warehouses, storage yards, equipment and all of the loading/unloading machinery that are needed to meet the needs of dock operations. Fifth,businesses should commit to investing in service innovation and to the trainingof the service personnel in those professional logistics skills and operationalcapabilities necessary in solving customer problems. Taking these actions willadd greater service value to port logistics operations and increase customersatisfaction with the service quality. This refers to the training of talentedindividuals to enhance business handling abilities in logistics as well as theapplication of knowledge and technology to gain an advantage in a competitivemarket.

Finally, although other solutions are not as urgent as these five, many areclosely associated with the improvement of customer service value and shouldtherefore not be ignored. To maintain the correctness and timeliness of customerservice improvement work, it will be necessary to continuously collect custo-mers’ opinions, including their demands and areas of satisfaction, to serve as abasis for regular evaluation of the QFD problem in the future.



References

Alderton, P.M. (1999) Port Management and Operations. London: LLP.Andersson, R. (1991) QFD-ett system for effektivare product framtagning. Lund, Sverige: Studentlitteratur,

(In Swedish).Brooks, M. (1985) Ocean carrier selection criteria in a new environment. Logistics and Transportation

Review 26(4): 339–355.Chen, S.H. and Hsieh, C.H. (2000) Representation, ranking, distance, and similarity of L-R type

fuzzy number and application. Australian Journal of Intelligent Information Processing Systems6(4): 217–229.

Chou, C.C. (2009) An empirical study on port choice behaviors of shippers in a multiple-port region.Marine Technology Society Journal 43(3): 71–77.

Collison, F.M. (1984) Market segments for marine liner service. Transportation Journal 24(2): 40–54.Ding, J.F. (2009a) Evaluating key capabilities and core competence for port of Keelung. International

Journal of Information and Management Sciences 20(2): 269–290.Ding, J.F. (2009b) Applying fuzzy quality function deployment (QFD) to identify solutions of service

delivery system for port of Kaohsiung. Quality & Quantity 43(4): 553–570.Ding, J.F. (2010) Critical factors influencing customer value for global shipping carrier-based

logistics service providers using fuzzy AHP approach. African Journal of Business Management4(7): 1299–1307.

Ding, J.F. (2011) Fuzzy MCDM approach to evaluate service strategies of customer value for globalshipping carrier-based logistics service providers. African Journal of Business Management 5(14):5460–5467.

Ding, J.F. (2012) An evaluation model of customer value activities for global shipping carrier-basedlogistics service providers. ICIC Express Letters, Part B: Applications 3(1): 113–118.

Dubois, D. and Prade, H. (1978) Operation on fuzzy numbers. The International Journal of SystemsSciences 9(6): 613–626.

Fleming, D.K. and Baird, A.J. (1999) Comment: Some reflections on port competition in the UnitedStates and Western Europe. Maritime Policy & Management 26(4): 383–394.

Hauser, J.R. and Clausing, D. (1988) The house of quality. Harvard Business Review 66(3): 63–73.Heaver, T., Meersman, H. and Van de Voorde, E. (2001) Co-operation and competition in international

container transport: Strategies for ports.Maritime Policy & Management 28(3): 293–305.Heskett, J.L. (1986) Managing in the Service Economy. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.Johansson, H.J., McHugh, P., Pendlebury, A.J. and Wheeler, III W.A. (1993) Business Process

Reengineering: Breakpoint Strategies for Market Dominance. New York: John Wiley & Sons.Kent, J.L. and Parker, R.S. (1999) International containership carrier selection criteria: Shippers/

carriers differences. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management29(6): 398–408.

Lagoudis, I.N., Lalwani, C.S. and Naim, M.M. (2006) Ranking of factors contributing to higherperformance in the ocean transportation industry: A multi-attribute utility theory approach.Maritime Policy & Management 33(4): 345–369.

Liang, G.S., Chou, T.Y. and Kan, S.F. (2006) Applying fuzzy quality function deployment to identifyservice management requirements for an ocean freight forwarder. Total Quality Management &Business Excellence 17(5): 539–554.

Liu, C.L. and Lyons, A.C. (2011) An analysis of third-party logistics performance and serviceprovision. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review 47(4): 547–570.

Lu, C.S. (2003) Market segment evaluation and international distribution centers. TransportationResearch Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review 39(1): 49–60.

Lu, C.S. and Yang, C.C. (2006a) Comparison of investment preferences for internationallogistics zones in Kaohsiung, Hong Kong, and Shanghai ports from a Taiwanese manufacturer’sperspective. Transportation Journal 45(1): 30–51.

Yang et al


Lu, C.S. and Yang, C.C. (2006b) Evaluating key logistics capabilities for international distributioncenter in Taiwan. Transportation Journal 45(4): 9–27.

Nam, H.S. and Song, D.W. (2011) Defining maritime logistics hub and its implication for containerport. Maritime Policy & Management 38(3): 269–292.

Notteboom, T.E. and Winkelmans, W. (2001) Structural changes in logistics: How will portauthorities face the challenge? Maritime Policy & Management 28(1): 71–89.

Nunnally, J.C. and Bernstein, I.H. (1994) Psychometric Theory. New York: McGraw-Hill Publications.Shiau, T.A., Lin, L.M., Ding, J.F. and Chou, C.C. (2011) Hub location selection of third-party logistics

service on multiple countries consolidations for ocean freight forwarders by using fuzzy multiplecriteria decision-making (MCDM) approach. International Journal of the Physical Sciences6(19): 4548–4557.

Slack, B. (1985) Containerization, inter-port competition, and port selection. Maritime Policy &Management 12(4): 293–303.

Stock, J.R. and Lambert, D.M. (2001) Strategic Logistics Management. New York: McGraw-HillCompanies.

Tai, H.H. and Hwang, C.C. (2005) Analysis of hub port choice for container trunk liners in East Asia.Journal of the Eastern Asia Society for Transportation Studies 6: 907–919.

Woo, S.H., Pettit, S. and Beresford, A.K.C. (2011) Port evolution and performance in changinglogistics environments. Maritime Economics & Logistics 13(3): 250–277.

Yang, W.S. and Liang, G.S. (2011) Evaluating the service value of international port logistics centersin Taiwan: An application of importance-performance analysis. Maritime Quarterly 20(4): 25–61.

Yap, W.Y., Lam, J.S. and Notteboom, T. (2006) Developments in container port competition in EastAsia. Transport Reviews 26(2): 167–188.

Zadeh, L.A. (1965) Fuzzy sets. Information & Control 8(3): 338–353.Zadeh, L.A. (1975, 1976) The concept of a linguistic variable and its application to approximate

reasoning, Part 1, 2 and 3. Information Sciences 8(3): 199–249, 8(4): 301–357; 9(1): 143–180.



Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited withoutpermission.

Documents

Identifying solutions for adding service value to ... · Original Article Identifying solutions for adding service value to international port logistics centers in Taiwan Wen-Shyan