sustainability

Article
Evaluation of Transshipment Container Terminals’
Service Quality in Vietnam: From the Shipping
Companies’ Perspective
Thi Yen Pham 1 and Gi-Tae Yeo 2, *
1 Division of Logistics, Faculty of Economics, Vietnam Maritime University, Hai Phong City 180000, Vietnam;
phamyen@vimaru.edu.vn
2 Graduate School of Logistics, Incheon National University, 119, Academy-Ro, Yeonsu-Gu,
Incheon 22012, Korea
* Correspondence: ktyeo@inu.ac.kr




Received: 26 February 2019; Accepted: 8 March 2019; Published: 12 March 2019


Abstract: Vietnam is a popular production base for multi-national companies and has become a hub
for the global supply chain. Accordingly, to facilitate the increased demands on transportation and to
satisfy customers’ complicated requirements, more attention has been paid to the service quality of
container terminals. Thus, the aim of this paper is to investigate the service quality of transshipment
container terminals in Vietnam from the perspective of shipping companies. The Consistent Fuzzy
Preference Relation (CFPR) method has been introduced to solve multi-criteria service quality
problems using both empirical data and expert knowledge. The results of this study illustrate
that terminal accessibility and the proximity to a main trunk route are most important among the
principal factors and sub-factors. Additionally, the TCIT terminal’s service quality ranks first among
the top five container terminals in Vietnam. This study provides stakeholders with insight into
competitive factors and risk factors for container terminals and their overall quality of service.

Keywords: transshipment; container terminal; service quality; shipping company; Vietnam;

Consistent Fuzzy Preference Relation (CFPR)

1. Introduction
Along with the development of global trade, liner container shipping is experiencing significant
growth [1]. Accordingly, fierce competition in the shipping industry has forced container shipping
companies to improve their service quality at minimal cost [2]. In particular, there is a trend toward
changing shipping operations from different point-to-point networks to the hub-and-spoke networks,
which are characterized by fewer port calls and larger vessels [3]. The hub-and-spoke system can
benefit from reduced haul lengths resulting in a lower carbon footprint, reduced cost by economies of
scale, and increased service provision. As a result, carriers will not only enhance the cost efficiencies
of providing environmentally friendly cargo movements and transport sustainability, but will also
strengthen the bargaining positions of terminal operators [4].
Choosing a hub or transshipment container terminal (TCT) has become increasingly important
to shipping companies [5], which are affected by many factors. Of those factors, service quality has
been emphasized as one of the primary determinants of a terminal’s competitiveness [6,7], especially
for trunk routes [8,9]. According to the functions of hub shipping, TCTs create a bottleneck in the
network; any delay or interruption might escalate the effects, not only on hub-spoke networks,
but also on supply chains [10]. Service quality constitutes hardware factors, such as accessibility,
equipment, and facilities, and software factors, such as management, information, and terminal

Sustainability 2019, 11, 1503; doi:10.3390/su11051503 www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

Sustainability 2019, 11, 1503 2 of 14

convenience [8,11]. Service quality measurement is required in order to simultaneously consider

quantitative and qualitative variables.
Vietnam has become one of the fastest growing nations in the world and has increased its
involvement in the global supply chain. Attributed to the favorable business environment, comparative
geographical location, political stability, and an integrated global economy, Vietnam has become one
of the most rewarded of the ASEAN countries, attracting foreign direct-investment and witnessing the
exponential growth of cargo importation and exportation. A master plan for the Vietnamese seaport
system was approved in 2014, acknowledging the crucial role the seaport plays in the national economy.
In this plan, the deep-sea terminals of the southeast terminals in Ba Ria-Vung Tau and the northern
terminals at Lach Huyen in Hai Phong have been designated to handle imported and exported
containers for long distance sea routes and function as a combined international transshipment.
The ports are able to accommodate larger vessels for transshipment cargoes directly to the European
Union and the United States instead of transiting through Hong Kong and Singapore. Despite the
aforementioned importance of service quality, there have been insufficient studies about terminal
service quality in Vietnam.
This paper aims to evaluate the service quality of the top five container terminals in Vietnam
from the perspective of the shipping line companies. The assessment is considered a multiple criteria
decision-making (MCDM) problem that deals with both qualitative and quantitative data. In evaluating
the logistics facilities of developing countries, qualitative knowledge obtained from experts is significant
because of the lack of available secondary data. However, the experts’ judgments may be uncertain and
imprecise [12], and the fuzzy theory, using linguistic variables, is useful to tackle these problems. This study
applies the Consistent Fuzzy Preference Relations (CFPR) method, which is a robust methodology that
combines fuzzy theory and MCDM [13], allowing the strengths and weaknesses of targeted container
terminals in Vietnam to become recognizable. Additionally, a sensitivity analysis is conducted to test
the changes and variations from the evaluation factors that are used. The implications of this study are
expected to enhance the understanding of service quality evaluation of transshipment terminals through
the case study of Vietnam, a developing country.
The paper is structured as follows: Section 2 reviews the literature on the evaluation of service
quality, Section 3 explains the CFPR methodology, followed by Section 4, which provides the empirical
analysis. Finally, Section 5 presents the results and implications, limitations, and possible future work
on the issue.

2. Literature Review
Due to the nature of the services, characterized by intangibility, heterogeneity,
and inseparability [14], measurement of service quality is difficult and complicated [15]. Efforts to
develop models and theories to measure service quality have been presented in previous studies,
and among them, multi-attribute and multi-dimensional constructs are common approaches to
review service quality [7,16]. In addition, the SERVQUAL model, which examines five dimensions
(tangibles, reliability, responsiveness, assurance, and empathy) and 22 items [17], has been widely
used to estimate service quality, though the model has recently been criticized as a universal tool for
specific measurement [18–21]. The model entails considerable limitations to the creation of various
modifications to applications. The indicated dimensions of SERVQUAL are either too many or too few
criteria, requiring the development of several different models to accommodate specific contexts [21],
such as the SERVPERE [22] and INTSERVQUAL models [23]; E-S-QUAL [24]; SITEQUAL [25]; and
ROPMIS, used in maritime transport [26], which is a modified SERVQUAL model that is used in
the banking industry [27], where the laboratory method of decision-making trial and evaluation is
combined with an analytical network process to evaluate the service quality of air cargo terminals [28].
Notwithstanding the fact that evaluation of service quality is conducted in various industries,
studies of container terminals are exceedingly limited [21]. Kolanovic et al. [11] investigate the
dimensions of port service quality using a factor analysis that includes, among a set of 25 attributes,
Sustainability 2019, 11, 1503 3 of 14

port accessibility, port reliability, port functionality, availability of port information, and port flexibility.
Ha [8] suggests a framework for evaluating terminal service quality that includes seven factor
groups: available information regarding port-related activities, port location, port turnaround time,
available facilities, port management, port costs, and convenience for customers. Lu et al. [12] present
seven dimensions for a factor analysis to evaluate container terminal service quality, including port
facilities and equipment, port cost, customer orientation, IT service, staff service, service efficiency,
and general service. Lee and Hu [29] apply an importance performance analysis (IPA) based on Kano’s
two-dimension quality model to investigate service quality factors, from the perspective of shipping
lines, at container ports in Singapore, Shanghai, Hong Kong, Busan, and Kaohsiung. Some studies
have applied the SERVQUAL model to measure the service quality of container terminals at Bandar
Abbas [7] and Nigerian ports [30]. Yeo et al. [21] apply the ROPMIS model to estimate service quality,
considering the social responsibility of Korean container ports, by reviewing resources, outcomes,
processes, management, image, and social responsibility. Hemalatha et al. [31] assess the service
quality and Indian ranking of container terminal operators using a hybrid of SERVQUAL, an attribute
hierarchy model, TOPSIS, and GRP methodologies. Based on the literature review, evaluation of
service quality is regarded as a multi-attribute hierarchy structure problem. To solve this problem,
MCDM techniques are suggested, such as using an analytical hierarchy process (AHP) and techniques
to order preferences, similar to the ideal solution (TOPSIS) methodology used to evaluate the service
quality of restaurants [32]; the Fuzzy AHP TOPSIS, used to estimate website service quality [33]; or the
Fuzzy TOPSIS used to evaluate intangible resources that affect port service quality [34].
Both quantitative and qualitative attributes contribute to the service quality of container terminals.
Using the knowledge and opinions of experts is a significant method of determining qualitative
factors and considering the lack of secondary data [35]. However, the preferential model can lead to
imprecise and vague expert opinions in the decision-making process due to the limited comparison
of numerical values [36]. The fuzzy theory, introduced by Zadeh [37], employs a linguistic scale
and has commonly been used to overcome the problems of uncertain and imprecise evaluations [38].
Despite the important role of container terminals in the supply chain, previous studies have primarily
investigated the service delivery process or the service outcome, while other determinants, such as
value-added services, inter-modal transport services, and coordination between authorities, have
not been considered. This study solves the MCDM problems of container terminal service quality
evaluation in Vietnam by combining fuzzy theory and MCDM techniques, while the CFPR method,
characterized by computational simplicity and consistency [39], is used to assess the performance of
the top five container terminals in Vietnam from the shipping companies’ perspective.

3. Methodology
This study applies the CFPR method developed by Herrera-Viedma et al. [40] to evaluate the
service quality of TCTs in Vietnam. The CFPR method establishes pairwise comparison preference
matrices using an additive transitivity property. Compared to the AHP or Fuzzy AHP methods, which
commonly use pairwise comparison preferences for evaluation, the CFPR method is advantageous in
that it shortens the number of questions from (n × (n−1))/2 to (n−1) for group (n) criteria, resulting
in an increased rate of received responses while eliminating inconsistent situations that have too many
questions, thereby saving time and increasing efficiency [41].
This study employs the key definitions and propositions as introduced by Chen and Chao [41].
The scale for comparison uses five levels (Table 1) and the hierarchy criteria for the evaluation involves
both quantitative and qualitative factors, resulting in the collection of real data and expert opinions.
Sustainability 2019, 11, 1503 4 of 14

Table 1. Linguistic terms and weight of each criteria’s importance.

Relative Importance Linguistic Terms

1 Equally important (EI)
2 Weakly more important (WI)
3 Strongly more important (SI)
4 Very strongly more important (VI)
5 Absolutely more important (AI)

3.1. Preference Relations

Experts have defined preference relations by scoring a set of criteria and terminals; the value
represents the preference rate for the two criteria or terminals. Two preference relations are applied:
(1) the multiplicative preference relation, and (2) the fuzzy preference relation.

(1) In multiplicative preference relation A, experts illustrate their preference for a set of alternatives


(X), denoted by a preference relation matrix A ⊂ X × X, A = aij , ∀i, j ∈ {1, . . . , n}, in which
h i
aij ∈ 15 , 5 indicates the ratio of the preference relative to the alternative, xi to xj .

As aij = 1 presents an equivalent between xi and xj ,

aij = 5 illustrates that xi is absolutely preferred over xj .
The preference relation (R) is proposed as a multiplicative reciprocal:

aij × aji = 1∀i.j ∈ {1, . . . , n} (1)

(2) In the fuzzy preference relation, the ratio of the preference intensity of terminal xi to that of
xj is indicated by expert assessments of a set of terminals, in which (X) indicates a positive
preference relation matrix P ⊂ X × X with membership function µp xi , xj = pij . When pij = 12 ,




no difference exists between xi and xj xi ∼ xj , whereas pij = 1 denotes that xi is absolutely
1
preferred over xj , pij = 0 denotes that xj is absolutely preferred over xi , and pij > 2 indicates that


xi is preferred over xj xi > xj . (P) is an additive reciprocal:

pij + pji = 1∀i.j ∈ {1, . . . , n} (2)

3.2. Propositions in CFPR

This method eliminates the problems of inconsistency by constructing decision matrices of
pairwise comparisons based on the following three propositions:

Proposition 1. Suppose the existence of a set of alternatives,

h i X = {x1 , x2 , . . . , xn }, is associated with a
1


multiplicative preference relation, A = aij , with aij ∈ 5 , 5 . The corresponding reciprocal additive preference


relation, P = pij , with pij ∈ [0, 1] to A = aij , is defined as

1

pij = g aij = 1 + log5 aij (3)
2
h i
1
where g is a transformation function, and log5 aij is used because aij ∈ 5, 5 .

Proposition 2. The reciprocal fuzzy preference relation is P = g (A), where P = (pij ), and the following
statements are equivalent:
3
pij + pjk + pki = ∀i, j, k (4)
2
Sustainability 2019, 11, 1503 5 of 14

3
pij + pjk + pki = ∀i < j < k (5)
2

Proposition 3. The reciprocal additive fuzzy preference relation is P = (pij ), and the following statements
are equivalent:
3
Sustainability 2019, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEWpij + pjk + pki = ∀i < j < k 5 of 14
2
j−i+1
pi(i+1) + p(i+1)(i+2) + · · · + pj(3i−1) + pji = ∀i < j (6)
pij + pjk + pki = ∀i < j < k 2
2
j−i+1
If the preference matrix pi(i+1) + p(i+1)(i+2)
contains values + that
⋯ + are
pj(i−1)
not+included
pji = (6)
∀i < j [0, 1], but are included
in the interval
2
in [−a, 1 + a], in order to preserve the reciprocity and additive transitivity, a linear transformation is
If the preference matrix contains values that are not included in the interval [0,1], but are
required: f : [−a, 1 + a] → [0, 1] . The transformation function is then defined as
included in [−a, 1 + a] , in order to preserve the reciprocity and additive transitivity, a linear
transformation is required: f: [−a, 1 + a]k → [0,1].kThe transformation function is then defined as
   
f pij = pij + a /(1 + 2a) (7)
f(pkij ) = (pkij + a)/(1 + 2a) (7)
where a is the absolute value of the minimum negative value in the preference matrix.
where 𝑎 is the absolute value of the minimum negative value in the preference matrix.
3.3. Process of Methodology
3.3. Process of Methodology
To achieve the objectives of the study, a two-step process of methodology was introduced,
To achieve the objectives of the study, a two-step process of methodology was introduced, as
as shown in Figure 1.
shown in Figure 1.

Step 1: Semi- Literature review Expert review

structured
interview
(identifying
criteria) Criteria affecting service quality of a transshipment container terminal

Establish a linguistic scale and calculate the weight of each criterion

Step 2: CFPR
method Establish a linguistic scale and evaluate the service quality of the targeted
(assessing container terminals
criteria and
terminals)

Sensitivity analysis to examine rank reversal of each terminal

Figure1.1.Schematic
Figure Schematic diagram
diagram of
ofthe
themethodology.
methodology.

Initially,
Initially, thethe process
process was
was to to identify
identify thethe criteria,
criteria, including
including factorsand
factors andsub-factors,
sub-factors,totoevaluate
evaluatethe
the service quality of transshipment container terminals in Vietnam, based on the factors
service quality of transshipment container terminals in Vietnam, based on the factors considered in the considered
in the literature
literature review and review and examined
examined by expertsby from
experts from shipping
shipping line companies
line companies calling Vietnamese
calling Vietnamese container
container terminals. The next step was completed by applying the CFPR
terminals. The next step was completed by applying the CFPR method to weigh the factors method to weigh the factors
and
and targeted terminals using a linguistic scale. Finally, the sensitivity analysis was
targeted terminals using a linguistic scale. Finally, the sensitivity analysis was conducted to examine conducted to
theexamine the rank
rank reversal of reversal of the by
the terminals terminals
adjustingby adjusting
the weight theofweight of each factor
each factor.
4. Case Study

4.1. Survey Design

For the first step of methodology, studies related to terminal service quality were circulated
among experts to gain insight into the objective. Three experts, each of whom were general or
operational managers with more than 15 years of shipping line experience, were interviewed to
identify the factors. Within 25 days, between October 3, 2018, and October 27, 2018, four principal
Sustainability 2019, 11, 1503 6 of 14

4. Case Study

4.1. Survey Design

For the first step of methodology, studies related to terminal service quality were circulated among
experts to gain insight into the objective. Three experts, each of whom were general or operational
managers with more than 15 years of shipping line experience, were interviewed to identify the factors.
Within 25 days, 2019,
Sustainability between October
11, x FOR PEER3, 2018, and October 27, 2018, four principal factors and 16 sub-factors
REVIEW 6 of 14
were identified. The experts were invited to participate in a brainstorming session with open-ended
session
questions to with
examineopen-ended
whetherquestions to examine
any factors whether
had not been any factors
mentioned, had not
whether anybeen mentioned,
factors whether
overlapped,
any factors
and whether any overlapped, and whetherFollowing
factors were unnecessary. any factorsthiswere unnecessary.
session, the expertsFollowing this session,
reached a consensus on the
expertsof
a hierarchy reached a consensus
four principal onand
factors a hierarchy of four as
16 sub-factors, principal
shown in factors
Tableand
3. 16 sub-factors, as shown in
Table 3.
The second step of the procedure was to analyze the weight of each factor and targeted terminal.
To evaluate Thethe second
servicestep of theof
quality procedure was to analyze
a representative samplethe weight of terminals
of container each factorinand targeted
Vietnam, terminal.
the top
To evaluate
five terminals the service
of 2017 quality ofbased
were identified a representative
on statistics sample
provided ofby
container terminals
the Vietnam in Vietnam,
Seaports the top
Association.
Among fivethe
terminals
68 terminalsof 2017 were in
included identified basedCMIT,
the statistics, on statistics provided
Tan Cang-Cat by the Vietnam
Lai (TCCL), Seaports
Tan Vu, TCIT,
Association.
and Nam Hai Dinh Among the 68 terminals
Vu (NHDV) included
were listed in the
as the top statistics,
five CMIT, Tan
and accounted for Cang-Cat Lai (TCCL),
approximately 70% ofTan
Vu, container
the total TCIT, and Nam Haiin Dinh
throughput Vu as
Vietnam, (NHDV)
shown inwereFigurelisted
2 andasTable
the 2.
top five and accounted for
approximately 70% of the total container throughput in Vietnam, as shown in Figure 2 and Table 2.

Hai Phong

Tan V u

N am H ai D inh V u

Ho Chi Minh city

Ba Ria Vung Tau

Tan C ang C at L ai

T C IT

C M IT

Figure 2. Targeted Vietnamese container terminal locations.

Figure 2. Targeted Vietnamese container terminal locations.
Sustainability 2019, 11, 1503 7 of 14

Table 2. The top five container terminals in Vietnam in 2017.

Terminal Location Percentage in Total Throughput Operators Year of Operation
TCCL Ho Chi Minh city 37.30 Saigon Newport Corporation 2007
TCIT Ba Ria Vung Tau 11.07 Saigon Newport Corporation, Wanhai, Mitsui OSK and Hanjin 2011
Tan Vu (Hai Phong) Hai Phong 9.28 Vinalines 2009
CMIT Ba Ria Vung Tau 6.06 Vinalines, Sai Gon port, APM terminals 2011
NHDV Hai Phong 5.34 Gemadept Corporation 2013
Total 69.05

Source: Vietnam Seaports Association.

For the second step, an evaluation was conducted by applying the CFPR method.
Seventeen experts, including three who participated in the first step, were invited to complete a
survey. To deal with MCDM problems, it is common to consult a panel of 15–20 experts to gain
adequate insight. A sample size of 15 experts was considered reasonable for the expert survey [42,43].
According to Kolios et al. [44], the survey should be completed by 20 experts with at least seven years’
experience to fulfil the requirements for qualitative validation. This study consulted 17 respondents,
each having more than seven years of professional experience with shipping line companies that have
called on Vietnamese container terminals. The second survey was conducted between October 29,
2018, and December 9, 2018. The experts were required to present their evaluations using linguistic
variables for the factors and sub-factors.
The weights and ranks of each factor were calculated, as shown in Table 3, and the results show
that, among the principal factors, terminal accessibility (C2 ) was ranked highest. According to the
shipping line companies, terminal accessibility is the most important factor when evaluating the
service quality of a transshipment terminal. The “terminal function (C1 )” factor is also crucial for
deciding the allowances of calling and a vessel’s turnaround time at the terminal, including crane
productivity per hour, required Under Keel Clearance (UKC) at berth, maximum Length Of All (LOA)
restriction at berth, and the number of berths. Terminal management is also considered an important
determinant when evaluating service quality in order to provide smooth services for shipping line
companies, including procedures and coordination among government agencies, application of IT
and EDI, qualifications and skills of port workers and staff, and the effectiveness of marketing and
sales departments.

Table 3. Importance and weight of the service quality factors for a transshipment container terminal.

Factor Weight Sub-Factor Weight Global Weight Rank

C11: Productivity at berth (move/crane/hour) 0.299 0.079 4

Function C12: Required UKC at berth (m) 0.249 0.066 6

0.266
(C1 ) C13: Max LOA restriction at berth (m) 0.235 0.062 8
C14: Number of berths 0.217 0.058 11
C21: Proximity to main trunk route 0.302 0.101 1

Accessibility C22: Perceived congestion time at terminal 0.252 0.084 3

0.335
(C2 ) C23: Perceived congestion time at terminal hinterland facilities 0.256 0.086 2
C24: Integration into intermodal transport system 0.190 0.064 7
C31: Procedures and coordination of government agencies
0.141 0.030 16
(customs, maritime administration, coast guard, etc.)
Management C32: Application of IT and EDI in management system 0.258 0.055 12
0.213
(C3 )
C33: Qualifications and skills of terminal workers and staff 0.282 0.060 9
C34: Effectiveness of marketing and sales departments 0.319 0.068 5
C41: Tracking and tracing services 0.314 0.059 10

Convenience C42: Repair and maintenance services 0.183 0.034 15

0.186
(C4 ) C43: Pilot and tug boat services 0.225 0.042 14
C44: Handling and storage of special containers 0.278 0.052 13
Sustainability 2019, 11, 1503 8 of 14

Among the sub-factors, C21 (proximity to main trunk route) is the most important factor
in sustaining the convenience of transshipment callings. Additionally, congestion time at port,
congestion time at hinterland facilities, and productivities are considered important criteria that
greatly effect a vessel’s turnaround time at a terminal, driving the ship’s operation performance [45].
Integration into intermodal transport is also an important sub-factor and was emphasized by the
shipping line companies as a method to optimize different modes of transportation and establish an
effective connecting network with hinterlands, potentially diminishing issues related to congestion.
Factors related to the required UKC and max LOA restrictions at berth are prioritized to accommodate
larger container ships [46]. The effectiveness of marketing and sales departments might strengthen the
relationship between terminals and customers and thus affect customers’ assessments of a container
terminal’s service quality.

4.2. Evaluation of Targeted Terminals’ Service Quality

The service quality of the top five container terminals in Vietnam were evaluated based on
16 sub-factors, including seven quantitative factors and nine qualitative factors. Real data was collected
to measure the quantitative factors, as shown in Table 4, while the qualitative factors were assessed by
linguistic scale, as expressed by the experts.

Table 4. Data for the objective factors.

NHDV Tan Vu TCCL TCIT CMIT

Factors
(A1 ) (A2 ) (A3 ) (A4 ) (A5 )
Productivity at berth (move/crane/hour) 30 40 40 31 40
Required UKC at berth (m) −9.0 −9.07 −8.5 −14 −14
Max LOA restriction at berth (m) 455 980.6 970 890 600
Number of berths 2 5 5 3 2
Proximity to main trunk routes (nautical miles) 22.7 23.2 43 18 15
Integration into intermodal transport system Two modes (road and inland waterway)
Handling and storage of special containers (number of reefer plugs) 600 800 1400 1080 840

To ensure compatibility between subjective and objective factors, the real data, with different
units, was transformed into dimensionless units. The terminal with the most benefits (or the lowest
cost) received the highest score.
Table 5 illustrates the evaluation of the top five container terminals in Vietnam, indicating that
TCIT maintains the highest service quality among transshipment container terminals, followed by
CMIT, TCCL, Tan Vu, and NHDV. TCIT and CMIT were the first deep-water terminals in Cai Mep,
along the Thi Vai River, and have an absolute advantage for large container vessels up to 18,000 TEUs,
conveniently allowing for direct shipment to the US or the EU without transshipping via Singapore
and Hong Kong. The service quality of these two terminals was ranked higher than the quality of other
terminals due to the minor congestion issues at each terminal and the available hinterland facilities.
Moreover, TCIT and CMIT are both modern terminals that are operated by corporations with global
partnerships, providing an international standard of operation. These terminals provide competitive
services for customers through an advanced technology system. In particular, TCIT has a comparative
advantage over CMIT regarding some typical subjective factors, such as the qualifications and skills of
staff and workers and the effectiveness of the marketing and sales departments. Along with the local
company, Sai Gon New Port Cooperation (SNP), which is the biggest and most experienced terminal
operator in Vietnam, TCIT has been served by three foreign partners: Hanjin Transportation, based
in Korea; Mitsui O.S.K Lines, based in Japan; and Wan Hai Lines, based in Taiwan. In addition to a
comprehensive connectivity of SNP’s regional network, the terminal provides preferential policies
and privileges for customers who use certain services, such as inbound laden cargos from TCIT to Cat
Lai, without applying additional charges. Although TCIT and CMIT have been designed to allow a
Sustainability 2019, 11, 1503 9 of 14

maximum LOA at berth of 890m and 600m respectively, CMIT is limited in its ability to simultaneously
accommodate two vessels over 300m LOA for shipping routes to the US or the EU.

Table 5. Score and rank of the targeted terminals with respect to each sub-factor.

Factor Sub-Factor A1 A2 A3 A4 A5
C11 0.004 0.022 0.022 0.006 0.026
C12 0.007 0.008 0.005 0.023 0.023
C1
C13 0.003 0.018 0.018 0.016 0.007
C14 0.004 0.019 0.019 0.011 0.004
C21 0.020 0.020 0.007 0.025 0.029
C22 0.020 0.019 0.004 0.020 0.021
C2
C23 0.021 0.019 0.004 0.021 0.021
C24 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.013
C31 0.006 0.005 0.008 0.006 0.004
C32 0.011 0.008 0.015 0.012 0.009
C3
C33 0.011 0.009 0.019 0.013 0.008
C34 0.018 0.010 0.018 0.013 0.008
C41 0.011 0.008 0.015 0.014 0.011
C42 0.007 0.007 0.009 0.007 0.005
C4
C43 0.007 0.008 0.011 0.009 0.007
C44 0.005 0.009 0.017 0.013 0.009
Total score 0.169 0.201 0.203 0.223 0.204
Ranking 5 4 3 1 2

Notwithstanding that TCCL is the busiest container terminal, accounting for 37.3% of the total
throughput in Vietnam, the terminal’s service quality was ranked third among the targeted terminals.
TCCL is operated by an experienced container terminal and is highly invested in its facilities, which
elevated the management and convenience factors of this terminal over the other terminals, as ranked
by the shipping line companies. Although the majority of terminals in Vietnam do not have sufficient
container storage or other value-added services within the terminal, the comprehensive inland
container depot system run by SNP, which is one of the operators of TCCL, works as an extension
to support the terminal operations. Accessibility factors, which are the most important criteria for
evaluating the service quality of a TCT, are the least competitive factors for TCCL. Located close to
the main industrial zones and demand markets, it would be favorable for TCCL to optimize logistics
costs for their customers, but the overload and backlog of containers has a substantial influence on the
terminal’s operation and the city’s transportation infrastructure. A large volume of cargo is transported
to and from the terminal by roadway, frequently causing heavy traffic congestion at critical junctions.
The two other container terminals in the north, Tan Vu and NHDV, were ranked fourth and fifth,
respectively. These two terminals are located close to each other, and there are almost no differences in
accessibility factors, including the issue of gate congestion at peak times. Nevertheless, Tan Vu has
a comparative advantage in its capacity to provide more diverse services for customers, such as the
number of berths, LOA at berth, and handling and storage of special containers. As an experienced
terminal operator in the north, the service quality of Tan Vu is better than the quality of its rival in
terms of the qualifications and skills of the staff and workers. In contrast, NHDV’s dynamic and
flexible marketing and sales departments have made a positive impression on customer satisfaction.
However, the service quality of both northern terminals is less competitive compared with their
counterparts in the south, considering the procedures and coordination of government agencies, such
as customs, maritime administration, and the coast guard. According to the shipping line companies,
policies for implementation and instruction and the regulations of the southern authorities is more
supportive and effective, especially for resolving entanglements with customs.
Sustainability 2019, 11, 1503 10 of 14

4.3. Sensitivity Analysis

A sensitivity analysis was applied to investigate the robustness of the targeted container
terminals’ rankings. The analysis examined the uncertainty of output as effected by the uncertainty
of input [47,48], resulting in reliable results for the MCDM problems [49]. A sensitivity analysis
was conducted by increasing and decreasing the weight of each criteria by equally decreasing and
increasing the weights of other criteria [50]. An adjustment of 10% on priority weights was deemed
adequate to examine how sensitive the findings were with respect to the changes [35,51].
Table 6 illustrates how the results correspond to each of the four principal factors after increasing
or decreasing each weight by 10%. Figure 3 provides insight into the sensitivity of each terminal’s
rank with respect to score changes, resulting in the comparative advantages and disadvantages of
each identified terminal. The ranking for TCIT and NHDV, ranked first and last, respectively, were
insensitive to the change in factor weights. However, other TCTs were sensitive to the change in factor
weights, and their rankings were adjusted slightly.

Table 6. Cases for ranking reversal when factors’ weights were changed.

Ranking
A1 A2 A3 A4 A5
Current 5 4 3 1 2
Case 1: Terminal accessibility increase 10% 5 3 4 1 2
Case 2: Terminal management increase 10% 5 4 2 1 3
Case11,3:xTerminal
Sustainability 2019, FOR PEERconvenience
REVIEW increase 10% 5 4 2 1 3 11 of 14
Case 4: Terminal function decrease 10% 5 4 2 1 3
each identified Caseterminal.
5: Terminal
Theaccessibility
ranking for decrease
TCIT 10% 5 ranked
and NHDV, 4 first2 and last,
1 respectively,
3 were
insensitive to the change in factor weights. However, other TCTs were sensitive to2the change in
Case 6: Terminal management decrease 10% 5 3 4 1
Case 7: Terminal convenience decrease 10% 5 3 4 1 2
factor weights, and their rankings were adjusted slightly.

0.23

0.22

0.21

0.20
A1
0.19 A2
A3
0.18
A4

A5
0.17

0.16

0.15
Current C1 C2 C3 C4 C1 C2 C3 C4
increase increase increase increase decrease decrease decrease decrease
10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 10%

Figure3.3.Rank
Figure Rank changes
changes with
with respect
respect to changes in priority weights.
weights.

Ranking reversal occurred among the remaining terminals as the weights changed. The service
quality of TCCL would increase significantly if the accessibility factors performed better [43]. Aside
from the drawback of its geographical location away from the main trunk route, more attention
should be paid to the issue of congestion. Limited connectivity with other modes of transportation is
Sustainability 2019, 11, 1503 11 of 14

Ranking reversal occurred among the remaining terminals as the weights changed. The service
quality of TCCL would increase significantly if the accessibility factors performed better [43].
Aside from the drawback of its geographical location away from the main trunk route, more attention
should be paid to the issue of congestion. Limited connectivity with other modes of transportation
is also an issue for TCCL. Reducing the burden on the roadway system by using other modes of
transportation, such as inland waterways and railways, would not only contribute to solving the
problem of congestion, but would diversify services for customers. Terminal management and
convenience, however, are competitive factors for TCCL, which might be emphasized to obtain a
higher ranking. Along with TCIT, CMIT is projected to develop deep-sea ports to improve its ability
to cater to modern maritime transportation. CMIT’s accessibility attributes are emphasized as its
competitive advantage in order to increase its service quality ranking [52], as this terminal is closest
to the trunk routes. However, the performance of management and the convenience factors should
be improved to secure a higher rank. Tan Vu’s rank was upgraded as accessibility factors were
emphasized and the weight of management and convenience decreased. Tan Vu is the busiest terminal
in the north seaport system, but its accessibility attributes are considerably more competitive than its
counterpart in the south, which serves over 60% of Vietnam’s container traffic while facing issues of
heavy congestion. Although the Tan Vu terminal is managed by an experienced terminal operator
and uses modern technologies, compared to other terminals, improvements are needed to increase its
service quality.

5. Conclusions
The service quality of transshipment container terminals is crucial not only to the supply chain but
also to the national economy. Evaluation of service quality by customers, such as shipping companies,
is critical to improve the quality of service. An integrated qualitative and quantitative analysis based on
CFPR methods was introduced in this study to evaluate the service quality of transshipment container
terminals in Vietnam by examining the country’s top five container terminals. The results illustrate that
terminal accessibility is the most important factor, and proximity to the main trunk route is the most
important sub-factor. Among the five terminals examined, TCIT ranked highest for service quality.
A sensitivity analysis was conducted to examine rank reversal of the five terminals and to provide
insight into each terminal’s competitive and risk factors, as these can affect service quality.
This study outlines both academic and industrial implications. Regarding academic contributions,
(1) the study solves the problems of service quality measurement by using the MCDM tool and by
considering both quantitative and qualitative factors; (2) the CFPR method, using both real data and
expert opinions, was employed to investigate the service quality of transshipment terminals; and
(3) to overcome the limitations of secondary data in evaluating developing countries, use of expert
knowledge is recommended to provide a reliable measurement. Regarding industrial contributions,
the findings of this study (1) support container terminal operators in better understanding their
customers’ requirements and provide an assessment to help operators with strategic developments
and improvements; (2) provide shipping companies with insight into the service quality of Vietnamese
container terminals, helping shipping companies to make critical decisions about choosing a
transshipment container terminal that will allow them to cut costs and provide better service for
their customers; (3) support port authorities in developing appropriate policies and strategies to boost
the shipping industry and aid in Vietnam’s development.
This study provides a stepping stone from which to explore a more suitable hierarchy of the
factors and sub-factors used to assess the service quality of transshipment container terminals in
Vietnam. There is a limitation to this study. Although there are benefits to evaluating the service
quality of shipping terminals through the perspective of shipping line companies, which are the
strategic customers of container terminals, examining the perspectives of other stakeholders, such as
shippers and logistics service providers, is equally important. To provide more insight into the service
quality of shipping terminals, future studies should include other customer groups.
Sustainability 2019, 11, 1503 12 of 14

Author Contributions: G.-T.Y. designed the framework of the paper, reviewed, and edited the paper. T.Y.P.
conducted the survey and wrote the first draft of the paper.
Funding: This work was supported by Incheon National University International Cooperative Research Grant
in 2018.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Zheng, J.; Meng, Q.; Sun, Z. Liner hub-and-spoke shipping network design. Transp. Res. Part E: Logist.
Transp. Rev. 2015, 75, 32–48. [CrossRef]
2. Low, J.M.W.; Lam, S.W.; Tang, L.C. Assessment of hub status among Asian ports from a network perspective.
Transp. Res. Part A Policy Pract. 2009, 43, 593–606. [CrossRef]
3. Cullinane, K.; Khanna, M. Economies of scale in large container ships. J. Transp. Econ. Policy 1999, 33,
185–208.
4. Lun, Y.H.; Lai, K.H.; Cheng, T.C.E. Shipping and Logistics Management; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg,
Germany, 2010.
5. Chou, C.C. A fuzzy MCDM method for solving marine transshipment container port selection problems.
Appl. Math. Comput. 2007, 186, 435–444. [CrossRef]
6. Ng, K.Y.A. Assessing the Attrativeness of Port in the North European Container Transshipment Market:
An Agenda for Future Research in Port Competition. Marit. Econ. Logist. 2006, 8, 234–250.
7. Sayareh, J.; Iranshahi, S.; Golfakhrabadi, N. Service Quality Evaluation and Ranking of Container Terminal
Operators. Asian J. Shipp. Logist. 2016, 32, 203–212. [CrossRef]
8. Ha, M.S. A comparison of service quality at major container ports: Implications for Korean ports. J. Transp.
Geogr. 2003, 11, 131–137. [CrossRef]
9. Chang, Y.T.; Lee, S.J.; Tongzon, J.L. Port selection factors by shipping lines: Different perspectives between
trunk liners and feeder service providers. Mar. Policy 2008, 32, 877–885. [CrossRef]
10. Magala, M.; Sammons, A. A New Approach to Port Choice Modelling. Marit. Econ. Logist. 2008, 10, 9–34.
[CrossRef]
11. Lu, J.; Gong, X.; Wang, L. An Empirical Study of Container Terminal’s Service Attributes. J. Serv. Sci. Manag.
2011, 4, 487–495. [CrossRef]
12. Yeo, G.T.; Wang, Y.; Chou, C.C. Evaluating the competitiveness of the aerotropolises in East Asia. J. Air
Transp. Manag. 2013, 32, 24–31. [CrossRef]
13. Pham, T.Y.; Yeo, G.T. A Comparative Analysis Selecting the Transport Routes of Electronics Components
from China to Vietnam. Sustainability 2018, 10, 2444. [CrossRef]
14. Parasuraman, A.; Zeithaml, V.A.; Berry, L.L. A conceptual model of service quality and its implication for
future research. J. Mark. 1985, 49, 41–50. [CrossRef]
15. Yarimoglu, E.K. A Review on Dimensions of Service Quality Models. J. Mark. Manag. 2014, 2, 79–93.
16. Petrick, J.P. Development of a Multi-Dimensional Scale for Measuring the Perceived Value of a Service.
J. Leis. Res. 2002, 34, 119–134. [CrossRef]
17. Parasuraman, A.; Zeithaml, V.A.; Berry, L.L. SERQUAl: A multiple-item scale for measuring consumer
perceptions of service quality. J. Retail. 1988, 64, 12–40.
18. Seth, N.; Deshmukh, S.G.; Vrat, P. A conceptual model for quality of service in the supply chains. Int. J. Phys.
Distrib. Logist. Manag. 2006, 36, 547–575. [CrossRef]
19. Guo, X.; Duff, A.; Hair, M. Service quality measurement in the Chinese corporate banking market. Int. J.
Bank Mark. 2008, 26, 305–327. [CrossRef]
20. Benazic, D.; Dosen, D.O. Service quality concept and measurement in the business consulting market. Trziste
2012, 24, 47–66.
21. Yeo, G.T.; Thai, V.V.; Roh, S.Y. An Analysis of Port Service Quality and Customer Satisfaction: The Case of
Korean Container Ports. Asian J. Shipp. Logist. 2015, 31, 437–447. [CrossRef]
22. Brady, M.K.; Cronin, J.J., Jr.; Brand, R.R. Performance-only measurement of service quality: A replication
and extension. J. Bus. Res. 2002, 55, 17–31. [CrossRef]
23. Frost, F.A.; Kumar, M. INTSERVQUAL—An internal adaptation of the GAP model in a large service
organisation. J. Serv. Mark. 2000, 14, 358–377. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2019, 11, 1503 13 of 14

24. Parasuraman, A.V.; Zeithaml, V.A.; Malhotra, A. E-S-QUAL: A multiple-item scale for assessing electronic
service quality. J. Serv. Res. 2005, 7, 213–233. [CrossRef]
25. Yoo, B.; Donthu, N. Developing a scale to measure the perceived quality of internet shopping sites
(SITEQUAL). Q. J. Electron. Commer. 2001, 2, 31–47.
26. Thai, V.V. Service quality in maritime transport: Conceptual model and empirical evidence. Asia Pac. J.
Mark. Logist. 2008, 20, 493–518. [CrossRef]
27. Ali, M.; Raza, S.A. Service quality perception and customer satisfaction in Islamic banks of Pakistan:
The modified SERVQUAL model. Total Qual. Manag. Bus. Excell. 2017, 28, 559–577. [CrossRef]
28. Hu, Y.-C.; Lee, P.-C.; Chuang, Y.-S.; Chiu, Y.-J. Improving the Sustainable Competitiveness of Service Quality
within Air Cargo Terminals. Sustainability 2018, 10, 2319. [CrossRef]
29. Lee, T.; Hu, K. Evaluation of the service quality of container ports by importance-performance analysis. Int. J.
Shipp. Transp. Logist. 2012, 4, 197–211. [CrossRef]
30. Ugboma, C.; Ogwude, I.C.; Ugboma, O.; Nnadi, K. Service quality and satisfaction measurements in Nigerian
ports: An exploration. Marit. Policy Manag. 2007, 34, 331–346. [CrossRef]
31. Hemalatha, S.; Dumpala, L.B.; Balakrishna, B. Service quality evaluation and ranking of container terminal
operators through hybrid multi-criteria decision making methods. Asian J. Shipp. Logist. 2018, 34, 137–144.
[CrossRef]
32. Yildiz, S.; Yildiz, E. Service Quality Evaluation of Restaurants Using the Ahp and Topsis Method. J. Soc.
Adm. Sci. 2015, 2, 53–61.
33. Lee, C.C.; Chiang, C.; Chen, C.T. An evaluation model of e-service quality by applying hierarchical fuzzy
TOPSIS method. Int. J. Electron. Bus. Manag. 2012, 10, 38–49.
34. Pak, J.Y.; Thai, V.V.; Yeo, G.T. Fuzzy MCDM Approach for Evaluating Intangible Resources Affecting Port
Service Quality. Asian J. Shipp. Logist. 2015, 31, 459–468. [CrossRef]
35. Wang, Y.; Yeo, G.T. Intermodal route selection for cargo transportation from Korea to Central Asia by
adopting Fuzzy Delphi and Fuzzy ELECTRE I methods. Marit. Policy Manag. 2018, 45, 3–18. [CrossRef]
36. Tsai, H.Y.; Chang, C.W.; Lin, H.L. Fuzzy hierarchy sensitive with Delphi method to evaluate hospital
organization performance. Expert Syst. Appl. 2010, 37, 5533–5541. [CrossRef]
37. Zadeh, L.A. Fuzzy sets. Inf. Control 1965, 8, 338–353. [CrossRef]
38. Akkaya, G.; Turanoglu, B.; Oztas, S. An integrated fuzzy AHP and fuzzy MOORA approach to the problem
of industry engineering sector choosing. Expert Syst. Appl. 2015, 42, 9565–9573. [CrossRef]
39. Chao, P. Exploring the nature of the relationships between service quality and customer loyalty: An attribute
level analysis. Serv. Ind. J. 2009, 28, 95–116. [CrossRef]
40. Herrera-Viedma, E.; Herrera, F.; Chiclana, F.; Luque, M. Some issues on consistency of fuzzy preference
relations. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 2004, 154, 98–109. [CrossRef]
41. Chen, Y.H.; Chao, R.J. Supplier selection using consistent fuzzy preference relations. Expert Syst. Appl. 2012,
39, 3233–3240. [CrossRef]
42. Wang, Y.; Yeo, G.T. A Study on International Multimodal Transport Networks from Korea to Central Asia:
Focus on Secondhand Vehicles. Asian J. Shipp. Logist. 2016, 32, 41–47. [CrossRef]
43. Chen, V.Y.C.; Lien, H.P.; Liu, C.H.; Liou, J.J.H.; Tzeng, G.H.; Yang, L.S. Fuzzy MCDM approach for selecting
the best environment-watershed plan. Appl. Soft Comput. 2011, 11, 265–275. [CrossRef]
44. Kolios, A.; Mytilinou, V.; Lozano-Minguez, E.; Salonitis, K. A Comparative Study of Multiple-Criteria
Decision-Making Methods under Stochastic Inputs. Energies 2016, 9, 566. [CrossRef]
45. Thai, V.V. Assessing the national port system—The case of Vietnam. In Port Management: Cases in Port
Geography, Operations and Policy; Pettit, A., Beresford, A., Eds.; KoganPage: London, UK, 2008; pp. 407–443.
46. Gelareh, S.; Pisinger, D. Fleet deployment, network design and hub location of liner shipping companies.
Transp. Res. Part E Logist. Transp. Rev. 2011, 47, 947–964. [CrossRef]
47. Saaty, T.L.; Ergu, D. When is a decision-making method trustworthy? Criteria for evaluating multi-criteria
Decision-making methods. Int. J. Inf. Technol. Decis. Mak. 2015, 14, 1171–1187. [CrossRef]
48. Wolters, W.T.M.; Mareschal, B. Novel types of sensitivity analysis for additive MCDM methods. Eur. J.
Oper. Res. 1995, 81, 281–290. [CrossRef]
49. Simanaviciene, R.; Ustinovichius, L. Sensitivity Analysis for Multiple Criteria Decision Making Methods:
TOPSIS and SAW. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 2010, 2, 7743–7744. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2019, 11, 1503 14 of 14

50. Haddad, M.; Sanders, D. Selection of discrete multiple criteria decision making methods in the presence of
risk and uncertainty. Oper. Res. Perspect. 2018, 5, 357–370. [CrossRef]
51. Leenders, B.P.J.; Velazquez-Martinez, J.C.; Jan, C.; Fransoo, J.C. Emissions allocation in transportation routes.
Transp. Res. Part D Transp. Environ. 2017, 57, 39–51. [CrossRef]
52. Banamyong, R. Vietnam in 2030 a Logistics and Infrastructure Perspective. In Vietnam at a Crossroads:
Engaging in the Next Generation of Global Value Chains; Hooweg, C., Smith, T., Taglioni, D., Eds.; World Bank
Group: Washington, DC, USA, 2017; pp. 69–78.

© 2019 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).