Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2022 Feb 25;17(2):e0264590.
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0264590. eCollection 2022.

Assessing port service quality: An application of the extension fuzzy AHP and importance-performance analysis

Thang Quyet Nguyen  1 , Lan Thi Tuyet Ngo  2 , Nguyen Tan Huynh  3   4 , Thanh Le Quoc  5   6 , Long Van Hoang  7
Affiliations

Assessing port service quality: An application of the extension fuzzy AHP and importance-performance analysis

Thang Quyet Nguyen et al. PLoS One. .

Abstract

It is argued that ports are playing a crucial role in developing nations' economy. Still, solutions to improving port service quality (PSQ) to boost ports' competitive capacity is questionable. Hence, this study aims to investigate port service quality (PSQ) by using integration of the extension Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process and Importance-Performance Analysis (IPA) from port users' perspectives. From the relevant literature and expert interview, the hierarchical structure of PSQ embracing six dimensions with 29 criteria was first established. To test the research model, the Dong Nai port joint stock company (DNPC) and their port-service users were empirically investigated. It is found that: (1) the importance degree of dimensions is ranked as follow: empathy (21.07%), tangibles (20.15%), assurance (15.97%), reliability (15.54%), responsiveness (12.53%), diversity (14.74%); (2) for criteria of PSQ, top five criteria concerned by shipping companies and ocean freight forwarders comprise: "proactive provision of vessel schedules", "cargo handling facilities and equipment", "detailed schedule", "accuracy and consistency of schedules", and "geographical location"; (3) there are four service attributes (SAs) needing to prioritize for improvement, including "perfect transportation of cargos", "ability in dealing with cargo damage", "willingness in helping customers", "provision of special cargo-related services". The practical policy is that port authorities should transfer the limited resources from SAs in Quadrant IV to Quadrant II to enhance the PSQ.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Figures

Fig 1
Fig 1. Importance-performance analysis grid.
Fig 2
Fig 2. The research framework.
Fig 3
Fig 3. A depiction of TFNs [71].
Fig 4
Fig 4. The direct-influential matrix for the RL construct.
Fig 5
Fig 5. The IPA results.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Pérez I, González MM, Trujillo L. Do specialisation and port size affect port efficiency? Evidence from cargo handling service in Spanish ports. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice. 2020;138:234–49.
    1. Schøyen H, Bjorbæk CT, Steger-Jensen K, Bouhmala N, Burki U, Jensen TE, et al.. Measuring the contribution of logistics service delivery performance outcomes and deep-sea container liner connectivity on port efficiency. Research in Transportation Business & Management. 2018;28:66–76.
    1. Bae S-J, Kim D-S, Kim S-J, Kim S-P, Lee Y-J, Kim Y-J, et al.. Demand Analysis of Services and Infrastructure for Rural Welfare and Culture by Importance-Performance Analysis (IPA). Journal of Korean Society of Rural Planning. 2019;25(1):113–25.
    1. Phadermrod B, Crowder RM, Wills GB. Importance-performance analysis based SWOT analysis. International Journal of Information Management. 2019;44:194–203.
    1. Hemalatha S, Dumpala L, Balakrishna B. Service quality evaluation and ranking of container terminal operators through hybrid multi-criteria decision making methods. The Asian Journal of Shipping and Logistics. 2018;34(2):137–44.