2474单词，4400汉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 toport performance measurementBy Khalid Bichou and Richard GrayMARIT. POL. MGMT2004VOL. 31, NO. 1, 47–67ABSTRACTAlthough 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.IntroductionMeasures 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 literaturePort performance and efficiencyUNCTAD 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 exampleby 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 themajor 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 measurementsMany 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 portsFrom 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.MethodologyAction researchThe 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 isless 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 resultsQuestionnaire responses and analysisThe 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 validityFigure 3 and the appendix present a model applying logistics and supply chainmanagement 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.ConclusionsThe 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。