Key Performance Indicators for Intermodal Transportation
Martin Posset
(1), Hans Häuslmayer
(1), Prof. Dr. Manfred Gronalt
(2)(1)
h2 projekt.beratung KG, Obere Viaduktgasse 10/7, A-1030 Vienna, Austria.
(2)
University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences, Feistmantelstraße 4, A-1080 Vienna,
• consortium
|
WHO did it
• content & aim
|
WHY did we do it
• approach
|
HOW did we do it
• result
|
WHAT did we do
contact | result | ap p roach | co ntent & ai m | consor tium
agenda
• PARTNERS
– University of natural resources and life sciences, Vienna
– h2 projekt.beratung KG
(consulting company)
– vienna international airport
(air)
– OEBB Austrian railway company
(rail)
– Schachinger Logistik Holding GmbH (road)
– Viadoanu Österreichische Wasserstraßen-Gesellschaft mbH
(inland waterways)
| result | ap p roach | co ntent & ai m | consor tium consortiumCOCKPIIT: Clear, Operable and Comparable
Key
•
INTERMODAL TRANSPORT
– Multimodal Transport: “Carriage of goods by two or more modes of transport.” (UN/ECE 2001)
– Intermodal Transport: “The movement of goods in one and the same loading unit or road
vehicle, which uses successively two or more modes of transport without handling the goods themselves in changing modes.” (UN/ECE 2001)
– Combined Transport: “Intermodal transport where the major part of the European journey is by
rail, inland waterways or sea and any initial and/or final legs carried out by road are as short as possible.” (UN/ECE 2001)
•
INLAND TERMINALS
– Inland container terminals ensure efficient turnover (exchange between transport modes: rail |
road and inland navigation) of loading units (containers, swap bodies and semi trailers) in intermodal logistic networks.
•
PERFORMANCE INDICATORS
– quantifiable metrics that provide a method for measuring the quality of operation
– facilitate the understanding of strengths and support continuous improvement
– help in monitoring progress and assist active counteraction against undesirable developments
– method for working out the causes and effects that directly and indirectly influence the
achievement of goals and corresponding results.
contact | result | ap p roach | co ntent & ai m | consor tium content & aim
DOMAIN
1 2 A B Begleiteter Kombinierter Verkehr 1 2 A B Unbegleiteter Kombinierter Verkehrunaccompanied
accompanied
“Things you cannot
measure
, you cannot
control
.“
•
INTERMODAL TRANSPORT
– increasing overload of capacity at intermodal transhipment nodes and the concentration of
freight transport on fewer main hubs show the need to understand the cooperation requirements between all transportation modes
– intermodal services and the quality of existing intermodal transhipment nodes will not keep up
with capacity needs
– integration of more environmental friendly transport modes and the efficient combination of
transport modes
– the number of involved actors, the existing diversity and thus resulting complexity.
•
INLAND TERMINALS
– terminals have to be evaluated as part of the whole transport system because the effectiveness
and efficiency of these intermodal hubs contributes to the overall competitiveness and attractiveness of intermodal transports
•
PERFORMANCE INDICATORS
– performance indicators of hinterland | inland terminals are often defined on company or group level
which leads to different taxonomies and poor comparability between different locations and companies
– until today, no inter-sectorally (between rail, road, inland waterway and air transport) accepted
concept for measuring and evaluating the performance of the different transport modes is available
| result | ap p roach | co ntent & ai m | consor tium content & aim
PROBLEM DESCRIPTION
PERFORMANCE INDICATORS FOR INTERMODAL TRANSPORTATION
– outline the main components of the intermodal freight system
– highlight the factors that determine intermodal transport as a complex system
– provide a guideline for the definition of comparable performance indicators for
intermodal transport
– allow decision makers and interested parties in intermodal transport to analyze
and evaluate (understand) the strengths and weaknesses of the different modes
of transport
– make the specific strengths and weaknesses of different transport modes
comparable by providing a standardized and comprehensive integrated concept
contact | result | ap p roach | co ntent & ai m | consor tium content & aim
AIM
•
STANDARD PROCESSES of the intermodal transport chain and its
actors
•
INDICATOR FRAMEWORK which enables us to apply this set to
any of the selected sectors of the particular intermodal chain and
finally aggregate them for the whole chain
•
PERFORMANCE TABLES are structured in such a way that a user
may easily extend it and can further refine the intended indicator set
| result | ap p roach | co ntent & ai m | consor tium approach
cockpiit approach
(A ) s y s tem d im e n s io n roa d ra il in la n d nav ig ati o n (C) tr an sp or t m o de vi ewcontainer yard/carrier
placing the load unit
consignor terminal consignee vessel/open sea stripping M2 truck / road train / rail
light grey objects are not considered in detail truck/road
train/rail
inland ship/inland waterway
aircraft/air network M3 M4 P1 P2 1 E1 E2 P1 P2 E1 E2 M2 M3 M4
prehaulage truck/road endhaulage truck/roa
prehaulage train/rail mainhaulage train/rail endhaulage train/rail mainhaulage inland ship/inland waterway
mainhaulage inland aircraft/air network
port, airport vessel/open sea 2 3 4 aircraft/airway P3 shunting terminal shunting
Stuffing P: prehaulage T: transhipment M: mainhaulage T: transhipment E: endhaulage
M1 mainhaulage rolling road shunting shunting
M1
M3 mainhaulage floating road
M3 TN TN loading unit contact | result | ap p roach | co ntent & ai m | consor tium approach
standard process
stages
| result | ap p roach | co ntent & ai m | consor tium approach
framework
loading unit documents informationtranshipment mainhaulage end haulage pre haulage labour infrastructure equipment (1) chain (3) process (4) resource (2) entity financial performance service quality performance operational performance environmental performance order door-to-door (B) performance dimension
PERFORMANCE FRAMEWORK
contact | result | ap p roach | co ntent & ai m | consor tium approach
performance tables
Focus: the specific element the performance indicator focuses on
system dimension performance dimension
ID Indicator name CATEGORY: measurement unit hours kilograms liftings ...
PARAMETER FOR CALCULATION
detailed specification of parameters
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION | FURTHER CALCULATIONS
ADVICE | REFERENCE | SEE ALSO
operator
PARAMETER FOR CALCULATION
detailed specification of parameter
Description
Indicator category: The name of the performance indicator / indicator group
Influencing PI IN: Other performance indicators which influence this Influenced PI performance indicator
Specification Calculation
COCKPIIT Dimension
Recording
the collection regularity of the performance indicator
OUT: Performance indicators which are influenced by this
performance indicator entitiy
process resource
chain operational performance service quality performance financial performance environmental performance
the detailed description of the performance indicator
12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 1 2 3 4 1 2 1 1 - 52 1 - 365 monthly quarterly six-monthly yearly weekly daily
infrastructure equipment labour prehaulage transhipment mainhaulage endhaulage
information loading untis documents order door-to-door / + -: * divide add minus compare multiply 1 2 3 TIME QUANTITY MONEY PI
INDICATOR TABLES
| result | ap p roach | co ntent & ai m | consor tium approach
performance tables
example: chain system dimension
Total order lead time | cycle time
On-time service
Order completeness
Transport lead time
Overall damages | losses | thefts
Delays (arrvials | departures)
Noise
Total transport greenhouse gas emissions (CO2)
Transport and economic development
Total transport cost
1.1.1 1.1.2 1.1.3 1.2.1 1.2.2 1.2.3 1.2.4 1.2.5 1.2.6 1.2.7
- Average order to invoice time - Order to invoice time development - Percentage of transports on-time
- Percentage of consignments received as contracted - Percentage of loading units received as contracted - Physical accounting correspondence
- Percentage of delays - Percentage of critical delays - Total origin-destination lead time - Average origin-destination lead time
- Percentage of transports with damages | losses | theft - Percentage of damaged loading units
- Damages | losses | thefts per ton-kilometer
- Development of damages | losses | thefts | over time
- Percentage of people exposed to noise class 1 - Status | expansion of noise barriers
- Percentage of vehicles equipped with noise reduction - Average diesel consumption
- Diesel Co2 per transport
- Equipment electricity Co2 per transport - Infrastructure electricity Co2 per transport - Ton-kilometers GDP ratio
- Total origin-destination transport cost | price | proceed - Development of transport cost | price | proceeds over Performance Indicator operational service quality financial environmental (B) performance dimension financial environmental service quality service quality service quality operational loading unit documents information
transhipment mainhaulage endhaulage pre haulage labour infrastructure equipment (1) chain (3) process (4) resource (2) entity financial performance service quality performance operational performance environmental performance order door-to-door (B) performance dimension
PERFORMANCE INDICATORS
• 3 standard processes and 1 framework covering :
– 3 transport modes:
• rail | road | inland waterways + rolling and floating/swimming road
– 4 system dimensions:
• chain | entity | process | resource
– 4 performance dimensions:
• operational | service quality | environmental | financal
– 36 Performance Tables including
• 96 Performance Indicators
– 24 chain PIs
– 13 entiy PIs
– 14 process PIs
– 45 resource PIs
contact | result | ap p roach | co ntent & ai m | consor tium re sultcockpiit concept
consignor terminal consignee vessel/open sea stripping M2re not considered in detail
M3 M4 P1 P2 E1 E2 port, airport aircraft/airway P3 shunting terminal shunting
Stuffing P: prehaulage T: transhipment M: mainhaulage T: transhipment E: endhaulage
shunting shunting M1 M3 TN TN loading unit (4.1) infrastructu re (4 .2) equip ment (4.3) labour (4 ) re sourc e (A ) syst em dim ens ion fo cus
INDICATOR TABLES
DOOR-TO-DOOR TRANSPORT
PERFORMANCE FRAMEWORK
University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences, Vienna
Department of Economics and Social SciencesInstitute of Production and Logistics Feistmantelstraße 4, 1180 Vienna
http://www.wiso.boku.ac.at/pwl.html
Univ. Prof. Manfred Gronalt |
[email protected]
h2 projekt.beratung KG
Obere Viaduktgasse 10/7, 1030 Vienna http://www.h2pro.atMartin Posset |
[email protected]
Hans Häuslmayer |
[email protected]
contact | result | result ap pro ach | co ntent & aim | co nsortiu m
